Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202114767)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114767

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

6 July 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp in the property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident moved to the property – a two bedroomed house – in February 2020 following a mutual exchange. She discovered what she considered to be numerous issues which needed attending to. This included damp penetrating the property, broken locks on doors and windows, concerns about the fuse box and other miscellaneous matters.
  2. The landlord started to address some of the issues but the resident, who has mentioned that she has vulnerabilities, reported concerns with the landlord’s handling of the works. This included uncertainty about whether issues had been scheduled for repair or not. She considered the landlord’s communication with her was inadequate. She therefore sought assistance from Citizens Advice (CA), who contacted the landlord, set out what was outstanding, and aimed to get confirmation of when all remaining jobs would be completed.
  3. The resident had previously complained about the situation and once the landlord had scheduled the works, it wrote to her, confirming a timetable and closing that earlier complaint.  When the work did not go according to plan, the resident raised a new complaint (6 May 2021) and it is this second complaint that has been referred to the Ombudsman for investigation. The earlier complaint was not referred and will not be considered further as a result.
  4. The resident complained that the property was subject to damp and mould and the landlord had agreed to carry out repointing to the brickwork in response to that. Its contractor had turned up at the property that day (6 May 2021) to carry it out but had then driven off again without speaking with her. She now understood this was because scaffolding was required for the job, and it had not been erected. The resident complained about the number of repairs generally since she had moved into the property and about the quality of the communication she was receiving from the landlord about the position. She reported that the situation was having an adverse impact on her physical and mental health, and she no longer wanted to live there as a result.
  5. The landlord has not provided evidence of any ‘stage one’ complaint response. However, on 14 May 2021 it escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaint procedure based on the following issues:
    1. Poor communication over remaining works.
    2. Water ingress through walls resulting in damp.
    3. Incomplete pointing works which were identified by contractors.
    4. Windows not properly installed.
  6. The landlord provided is stage two response on 16 June 2021, which was brief and stated that whilst the resident thought that carrying out repointing to the side of the property would stop damp penetration, it did not share that view. It stated that the problem which had caused the dampness had emanated from the roof and that that had already been repaired. The landlord stated that it could not take the matter further and was closing the complaint. Regarding the repairs generally, the landlord’s position was that all necessary repairs were concluded by mid-June 2021.
  7. The resident disputes that everything has been resolved in a satisfactory way, as she continues to experience problems with damp and mould. She has therefore referred the matter to the Ombudsman. The resident wants the landlord to resolve the problem and requests compensation for all the inconvenience, distress, and disruption she has experienced. She also reports damage to her belongings which she seeks recompense for.

Assessment and findings

Damp in the Property

  1. Prior to the tenancy being assigned to the resident on 13 February 2020, the landlord’s records show that it was already aware of a damp patch on the upstairs “children’s bedroom” ceiling following an inspection on or around 6 January 2020. The landlord’s internal repairs log notes that in the first six months of the tenancy, the resident reported issues with: Leaks to the roof, boiler, over flow pipe, bathroom sink and toilet, and blocked guttering over the front door; draughts through the bedroom windows, even when shut; the utility room door and external gate could not be secured shut, the side door had a gap at the bottom and attention was needed to the locks on windows/handles; the ceiling in the main bedroom was cracked and possibly unsafe; birds were nesting in the loft – gaining access through faults in the guttering; there were cracks to the exterior of the building, rear and side; and the loft insulation needed checking.
  2. The CA contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf in September 2020, listing a number of outstanding issues and stating that she had several vulnerabilities which were making it hard for her to cope with the situation and with accommodating repeat visits from tradespeople. The issues included most of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
  3. This contact by the CA was at least seven months after the property had been inspected by the landlord and most of the issues identified. Although, the CA indicates that the landlord had undertaken works to the boiler, in July, it also stated that there were outstanding works.
  4. In response, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming dates for these repairs and in respect of the question of damp and the brickwork, flashing and guttering, indicated this was due to be attended to on 25 November 2020 once scaffolding had been erected. However, there is no evidence that this went ahead even though the landlord had agreed to carry out the work.
  5. The landlord further reported, on 1 December 2020, that there were some repairs outstanding, but they were neither urgent nor dangerous and were all “in the pipeline”.  With regard to the damp issue, it noted that by this stage the chimney had been removed and an inspection was due to check water ingress in the valley towards the door. The bedroom ceiling had been removed and reinstated and waterproofing of the back wall had taken place. Scaffolding was still required to repair an external crack to the brickwork. In addition, asbestos had been noted in the ceiling to the second bedroom and it needed to be removed, there was a decorative crack in the kitchen to be resolved and the landlord acknowledged the bathroom ceiling needed painting. It can be seen at this point, that the landlord was still intending to proceed with further “damp works” and the resident was having to accommodate further and additional identified issues.
  6. In January and March 2021, the landlord inspected the property and noted the promised repointing was still outstanding, as well as a repair to the valley roof and guttering. It also noted that there was slight damp in the corner of the “sitting room”, and that there were cracks to the bedroom ceiling.  The repairs were once again scheduled for attention.
  7. However, on 6 May 2021 in the resident’s complaint as set out at paragraph 5 above she pointed out that she had now been waiting a year for the repointing work and it had still not been done. According to the landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy such a task might reasonably be categorised as “major works”, being external and requiring scaffolding. In that case, the landlord commits to agreeing a completion date with the resident, rather than setting out a specific time limit to resolution. It is noted that the date provided to the resident was six months prior to this – a significant delay. However, it is also recognised that there is some disagreement as to what was necessary – see below. Further, account is taken of the fact the COVID-19 pandemic and restrictions associated with it did create difficulties for landlords in complying with their repair obligations and some leeway needs to be applied.
  8. The day after the complaint was made (7 May 2021), the landlord’s contractor attended the property again, an internal email noting that, “they are replastering the walls and then they are going to mist coat and paint because the plastering that has been done is extremely uneven”. The resident was being asked to support remedial work to repairs she had already had to accommodate.  Also, on that day the landlord’s internal records noted that the repointing repairs from the previous day were not cancelled but it had been decided they were not necessary after all. The landlord has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the resident was advised of this decision, and it might reasonably have been expected to explain to her what had been decided and why.
  9. As set out above, on 16 June 2021 the landlord provided its stage two complaint response.  At that point it had actually arranged for some repointing work to be carried out to the rear of the property after all, but the resident had questioned why it was still not dealing with the side and front of the property where, she stated, the rainwater was getting in and affecting the dining room and kitchen. The landlord maintained its position that this was not causing a problem – the issue had been with the roof which had been repaired and it had no plans to undertake any further works. 
  10. In November 2021 the resident reported to this Service that damp problems remained at the property and the landlord had now agreed to undertake the additional repointing at the end of November after all, although the resident was not confident that this would finally resolve the issue. The landlord had also agreed to wash down and treat damp inside the property once the repointing work had concluded. In the Ombudsman’s view this demonstrates both an open approach from the landlord to suggested solutions, but also an inconsistency in its communications/decision making, having previously agreed to, and then refused to carry out the work. 
  11. On 6 December 2021 the CA reported to this Service that the reinstated repointing work had been cancelled again with no rescheduled date yet set and the resident was trying to find an alternative property to move to. Having now agreed to do the work, the landlord might reasonably have been expected to keep to that plan.
  12. Finally, on 29 March 2022 Citizens Advice reported to this Service that the resident was having mould washes applied to her walls every two weeks and was having to regularly deep clean her furnishings/furniture. The resident was reported to be “depressed and despondent”. The landlord’s surveyor had told her it might take eight months “before the work to rectify the mould could be completed”.
  13. Whilst the landlord has referred to various of the issues raised by the resident as “minor”, “not urgent” and “not dangerous”, it is significant to note that it was aware of a leak to the fabric of the building before the resident moved in, as set out in paragraph 10 above. Its internal spreadsheet marked this as “complete”. Despite this, the evidence demonstrates that further works were in fact needed to the roof – the chimney was removed – and both bedroom ceilings had to be removed and replaced, one due to the leak, the other because of asbestos. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord might reasonably have been expected to identify these issues during a pre-tenancy inspection and to have dealt with them prior to the resident moving into the property.
  14. Further, as set out in paragraph 17 the evidence shows that one of the bedrooms had to be replastered/mist coated due to poor workmanship. The evidence also demonstrates that the landlord agreed to carry out the repointing work, then decided it was not necessary (without telling the resident), then agreed to go ahead after all, and then cancelled it again. The resident has had to accommodate all these works and shifts in position, and it is noted she has found this challenging.
  15. The quick proximity between these significant works being required, and the resident’s moving in date make it reasonable to conclude that they could and should have been apparent to the landlord prior to the time of the letting. In the Ombudsman’s view the resident was reasonably entitled to have the landlord bring these matters to her attention so that she could make an informed decision as to whether she still wished to proceed with the exchange. The fact the resident was required to view the property prior to her move, as part of the MEX process, does not detract from this finding. This is because the resident does not have the expertise required of the landlord, and the Ombudsman’s view is that she could not have been expected to identify the issues which came to light.
  16. The landlord has then offered contradictory information as to what work it will and will not carry out with regard to the repointing/damp works and this whole situation has been taking place for more than two years without it being properly resolved. In the Ombudsman’s view, the resident reasonably reports her frustration.
  17. Under the circumstances of this complaint, the landlord might reasonably have been expected to offer the resident some compensation as part of a fair dispute resolution process. No evidence has been provided relating to damage to belongings as asserted by the resident. An order has been made below based upon the inconvenience, distress, and disruption to the resident only. With regard to any damage to belongings, the resident may wish to look into whether she is able to make an insurance claim – either against any insurance she may hold or by making enquiries as to whether the situation is/was covered by the landlord’s insurance.
  18. When determining the level of compensation ordered below, reference has been made to this Service’s Remedies Guidance which provides for an award to be made where the resident has suffered distress and inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s actions/inaction and to reflect the time and trouble they have been put to, to resolve the problem(s) that has arisen. In the Ombudsman’s view there was a considerable impact on the resident in this case, in part due to the vulnerabilities she has, although it is hoped there will be no permanent consequences. The Remedies Guidance provides that an award in the region of £250 – £700 as appropriate in such circumstances and an order for compensation of £400 is being made.
  19. The Resident has reported that this situation has had an adverse impact on her mental and physical health. However, the Ombudsman does not have the expertise to assess and award compensation for such claims.
  20. The landlord states that the work it has done to the roof has resolved the issue of dampness, but this is wholly contradicted by the information provided to the Ombudsman by the CA. The Ombudsman cannot offer an expert opinion as to what defects the property is or is not suffering from, what is causing them and how they can be resolved.
  21. Given the impasse that exists between the parties, a recommendation has been made that an expert, independent of both parties, be appointed by the landlord upon agreement from the resident, to inspect the property and comment upon the question of dampness and its cause and remedy if appropriate.

Complaints Handling

  1. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 6 May 2021.  Its Complaints Policy provides for a two-stage process. It commits to providing an initial response within ten working days and refers to this as “Stage 1”. If the customer remains dissatisfied, they then have a right to ask for a review and this is referred to as “Stage 2”. The landlord aims to provide its review response within 20 working days although extra time might be required (up to a further 30 days). In this case, the landlord escalated the complaint to Stage 2 on 14 May 2021, eight days after it was made. The Ombudsman has not had sight of any Stage 1 response being given.
  2. The landlord escalated the new complaint to stage two but did not then clarify its reasons for doing so in its stage two decision. This Service supposes that this was due to a previous decision having been made on her earlier complaint, but a more thorough complaint decision should have provided a comprehensive response clarifying that this is the case. Since the landlord only issued one response to the complaint and then directed the resident to an ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied, there was no option for an appeal process within the landlord’s complaints procedure. The issue here is that according to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (para 3.6), a landlord’s complaints procedure shall comprise of two stages. This ensures that a resident has the opportunity to challenge any decision by correcting errors or sharing concerns via an appeal process. 
  3. The Stage 2 review was dated 16 June 2021 and did not comply with the landlord’s timescale. There is no evidence that the resident was advised that more time was required, as is required by its policy. Further, whilst the landlord noted a list of issues to be covered in the Stage 2 review process, its final response did not address them all. Neither did the landlord discuss the matter the resident’s assertions about her vulnerabilities, whether it had sufficient evidence about this and how it may have been considered in its handling of the matter. The landlord failed to follow its complaints procedure which was inappropriate and represented a failing in the service offered to the resident. An order for compensation of £100 will be made below to reflect the additional impact on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay compensation to the resident of £500 in recognition of the impact upon her of its maladministration.
  2. The landlord to confirm within 28 days that it will comply with this order.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider engaging an expert, independent of both parties, to be appointed by the landlord upon agreement from the resident, to inspect the property and comment upon the question of dampness and its cause and remedy if appropriate.