Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202122191)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122191

Sovereign Housing Group

15 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 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 the level of compensation offered by the landlord for its response to the resident’s reports of mould, damp and condensation from the windows of his former property.

Background

2. The resident is a former tenant of the landlord of the property.
3. On 23 November 2020, the resident raised concerns with the landlord regarding the condition of the windows in his then property. An engineer inspected the windows at that time and advised that these needed to be replaced due to the mould, damp and condensation caused from them, but that the engineer was unable to do so without approval from the landlord.
4. The resident stated that he had informed the landlord of the condition of his windows since he had moved to the property in 2018, and that he had unsuccessfully chased a response from it for several years. He also noted that he had spoken to his GP who had advised that his health had been affected due to the mould, for which he had sought to move home. As a resolution, the resident wanted compensation for his distress and inconvenience in the form of his rent to be refunded to him, and to be reimbursed for his mould-damaged belongings.
5. Throughout 27 November and 4 December 2020,and 10 May, 20 June and 2 and 18 August 2021, the resident continued to raise concerns with the landlord regarding his then property’s windows, and he reported that he was dissatisfied with the “lack of replies” from it. He also explained that the mould had worsened and was further affecting him and his family. In November 2021, the local authority moved the resident out of the property, as this was considered “unsuitable” for him. The landlord’s repair records from 10 September 2021 showed that void works were being done at the property when the resident moved out that were due to be completed by 9 December 2021,including cleaning the areas affected by the mould, disinfecting all of the rooms, installing a humidity fan, and redecorating the property.
6. The resident then raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 2 November 2021, stating that the property’s windows were not fitted properly, which had caused the mould, damp and condensation to appear there. He was also unhappy with the lack of contact from it and, as a resolution, he wanted compensation for the physical, mental and financial stress that he had experienced, and for his rent of four years to be refunded.
7. The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 19 January 2022 stated that it would offer the resident £100 as a gesture of goodwill, as it was unable to compensate him for distress under its policy. He then escalated his complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure on the same date because he found the offer of £100 to be “unacceptable” and felt that the compensation should be higher, as he believed that his complaint “fell on deaf ears” and that it took no action to resolve his issues.
8. The landlord also issued a final stage complaint response to the resident on the same day, and it increased the compensation that it offered him to £250 to reflect the distress that he had experienced. It further explained that it was unable to agree to refund his rent. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, however, and he brought his complaint to this Service to investigate because he disputed the level of compensation that had been offered to him as not reflecting his distress for four years.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

9. While the resident reports that he previously raised the issue of mould, damp and condensation from the windows of his former property with the landlord from June 2018, the scope of this investigation is limited to considering its handling of his reports about this from November 2020 onwards. This is because, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service cannot investigate complaints about issues that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within six months of the matters arising, and his complaint about this was made in November 2021. It is also not practical for us to investigate events in the resident’s case prior to November 2020 due to the difficulty in obtaining records and evidence from before then as a result of the length of time that has passed in the interim.
10. The resident has additionally reported that he and his family experienced ill-health, and had their belongings damaged due to the mould in his former property. He has also requested that four years’ worth of rent be refunded to him. Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, however, this is an outcome that is not within this Service’s authority to provide because we do not have the authority or expertise to determine liability or award damages for ill-health or belongings in the way that a court or insurer might, o the authority to refund rent in the way that a court or tribunal might.

The level of compensation offered by the landlord for its response to the resident’s reports of mould, damp and condensation from the windows of his former property

11. Under the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, it has a responsibility to ensure that appointments for responsive repairs are booked, and that details of such appointments are provided to the resident. It also has a duty to complete responsive repairs within 28 calendar days, and to maintain contact and provide him with frequent updates on the progress of its repairs. The landlord is permitted to pre-inspect issues including structural and condensation problems and specialist works, for which it can arrange major works such as to failed windows with specific completion target timescales to be agreed with and communicated to the resident.
12. The landlord’s quick guide – compensation states that it must consider a gesture of goodwill or compensation when there has been a failure in a delivery of its service, or when it has done something to cause distress and inconvenience to the resident. It is to submit claims from him for ill-health and damage to his belongings to its public liability insurer.
13. The resident had a reasonable expectation, under the repairs and maintenance policy, of being contacted by the landlord regarding the condition of his windows, and for it to arrange works for these within a specific completion target timescale agreed with and communicated to him. However, throughout the period of his six reports to it about this from November 2020 to August 2021, it failed to do so after initially inspecting and recommending works for the windows in November 2020. This is because he had to repeatedly chase it for updates, and it did not arrange for works to be completed for the mould, damp and condensation at the property until after he had moved out in December 2021, with there being no evidence that it agreed and communicated these to him.
14. The length of the landlord’s delays was unreasonable, as it far exceeded its repairs and maintenance policy’s 28-calendar day timescale by almost a year for works for mould, damp and condensation at the resident’s then property, without offering him any other solutions to deal with this in the meantime. It also has a duty under its complaints policy to resolve issues “as quickly as possible” and it failed to do so, as well as to refer him to its public liability insurer for his reports of ill-health and damage to his belongings from this, which was contrary to its quick guide – compensation and so it has been ordered to do so and recommended to review its staff’s training needs in relation to this below.
15. The landlord should have considered this when offering £250 compensation to the resident, which was proportionate to recognise its repeated failures to reply to him under this Service’s remedies guidance. It also ought to have considered the extent of the impact that the delays that it was responsible for in his case had on him, as he stated that he felt that his complaint “fell on deaf ears” and he reported that his health was being affected by this. It is concerning that the local authority deemed the resident’s former property to be so “unsuitable” for him to live in that they moved him, as this demonstrated the severity of the delays in resolving conditions there and their effect on him. The landlord has therefore been recommended below to review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation to responsive repairs and major works in light of the resident’s case.
16. Furthermore, the landlord’s complaints policy states that it aims to respond to stage one complaints within ten working days, and to final stage complaints within 20 working days. It did not follow this in respect of the resident’s stage one complaint on 2 November 2021, however, as its stage one response on 19 January 2022 exceeded the policy’s timeframe by over one-and-a-half months. This would have caused him to incur unnecessary time, trouble, distress and inconvenience as a result.
17. It would have been appropriate for the landlord, as per this Service’s remedies guidance, to apologise to the resident for the delay in its stage one complaint response, explain the reasons for this, and put measures in place to prevent this from happening again in the future, but it failed to do so. It has therefore been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy to seek to prevent its complaint handling delay from occurring again.
18. Moreover, there were lengthy delays in the landlord in responding to the resident about the condition of his former property, it failed to act on his reports about this following its inspections there, and the works for these were not completed before he was moved out by the local authority. This meant that its compensation award of £250 to him was not proportionate to remedy the detriment caused to him by these failings. This is because these factors caused the resident to experience so much distress, inconvenience and negative impact that he had to move out of the property.
19. Therefore, the amount of compensation that the landlord awarded the resident should have instead been in line with amount recommended by this Service’s remedies guidance for its failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy to address repairs, and for him repeatedly to chase it for responses. This is to recognise the distress, inconvenience and delays in getting matters resolved that he experienced, and their effect on him. Therefore, to reflect the impact that these factors had on the resident, the landlord has been ordered below to increase the compensation awarded to him to a total of £700, including the £250 that it previously awarded him, if he has not received this already.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the level of compensation offered by it for its response to the resident’s reports of mould, damp and condensation from the windows of his former property.

Orders and recommendations

21. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £700 total compensation within four weeks in recognition of any detriment, distress and inconvenience caused to him by its handling of his reports of mould, damp and condensation from the windows of his former property, which includes the £250 that it previously awarded him, if he has not received this already.
    2. Provide the resident within four weeks with details as to how to submit a public liability insurance claim to it or its insurers for damages for his and his family’s ill-health and belongings.
22. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation to responsive repair and major works timescales, agreements and communications, and to consider and implement additional training and improvements for them on these in light of the resident’s case.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy and compensation – quick guide to seek to prevent its complaint handling delay and failure to refer the resident to its public liability insurer from occurring again.
23. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.