Sovereign Network Group (202404522)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom first floor flat, with her children. The landlord is aware that 1 of the children has asthma. She complained about damp and mould in the children’s bedroom.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of damp and mould in a bedroom.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in a bedroom.
4. There was service failure for the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord conducted surveys that revealed mould concerns, but it delayed taking timely action and failed to find a lasting solution. It apologised for its failings and offered compensation.
6. The landlord did not apologise for delays, providing conflicting information, or mistakes in its complaint response. It offered no redress or indication of learning.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

The complaint procedure

 What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident told us that she was concerned the damp and mould was affecting her family’s health and causing her stress. It would be more reasonable and more effective for her to make a claim for this through the courts. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

8. The resident reported “rapidly spreading damp and mould” in a bedroom on 13 October 2023. She expressed concern for her family’s health and said she had to discard clothing. She suspected a leak in the downstairs flat might be the cause.
9. The landlord conducted a damp and mould survey on 23 October 2023 but took no action. The resident chased on 13 December 2023, reporting worsening conditions. On 21 December 2023, the landlord said a job was raised to trace and fix a leak in the flat below and that the damp and mould team would contact her within a week. While it promptly completed a survey, it failed to complete repairs within 1 calendar month in line with its repairs policy.
10. No further communication is recorded until 21 January 2024, when the resident submitted her complaint. She said she never received the survey report, no work had been done, and the issue remained unresolved.
11. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged its failings, apologised and outlined an action plan. It offered £430 compensation for the time taken and inconvenience caused. However, it did not demonstrate that it advised the resident to claim on contents insurance, provide liability insurer details, or respond to her concerns about damaged belongings. Its response also failed to provide dates for completing the works.
12. The landlord installed a kitchen extractor fan to improve ventilation. While the contractor missed the initial appointment on 14 February 2024, the job was completed on 16 February, causing a brief delay.
13. A damp and mould specialist inspected the property on 12 February 2024, identified condensation related issues, and produced a scope of works. We have seen no evidence that the landlord acted on this. On 19 February 2024, the resident requested repair dates to arrange time off work, but there is no evidence it provided any. She escalated her complaint on 23 February 2024. The landlord failed to raise the works order until 26 March 2024, 31 working days after the inspection. Completion of the work took a further 25 working days.
14. A mould wash took place on 1 May 2024, and a bonding solution was applied. The landlord noted the walls were stained and issued a decorating voucher for repainting. This was over six months from initial contact and was not in line with its policy.
15. In its stage 2 response on 3April 2024, the landlord invited the resident to submit a SAR. However, it could have shared the inspection report upon completion. It confirmed the works were scheduled and the mould wash was complete. It acknowledged the delays and increased its compensation offer to £675 for the impact of the delay, distress, time, and trouble.
16. Following its final response, the resident challenged its compensation offer. The landlord admitted it had miscalculated its offer and increased it to £1,080. Its offer was in line with our remedies guidance for when there has been a significant impact.
17. In summary, while the landlord delayed in completing the required repairs, its apology, completion of the work, and compensation offer demonstrated its commitment to putting things right. This was reasonable in the circumstances.

18. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
19. The landlord sent its stage 1 response in line with the timescales set out in its policy. While the resident disputed receiving it on time, the evidence shows it was sent on four separate occasions.
20. The landlord sent 2 acknowledgements of the resident’s escalation request, 3 days apart. Each gave a different response deadline, a month apart. This indicates poor record keeping and likely caused confusion.
21. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response 27 working days after the resident escalated it. Given we have seen no evidence to suggest it discussed an extension with the resident, this exceeded its timescale set out in its policy.
22. The stage 2 response included a miscalculation of the compensation offer. Landlords should ensure accuracy in complaint responses. The resident also challenged the calculation at stage 1, but there is no evidence the landlord acknowledged this error.
23. The landlord failed to apologise for any delays or offer any redress for its complaint handling failures. We have made an order to reflect this.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. Landlords must keep clear records and share these during investigations. In this case poor record-keeping led to avoidable delays, highlighting the need for more effective systems.

Communication

25. Landlords must maintain clear communication with residents, so they are aware of actions taken, timescales, and the progression of queries or complaints.