Stonewater Limited (202012420)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012420

Stonewater Limited

31 October 2023

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

This is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in his new build home.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy which says that it will:
1. Acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days.
2. Respond with the details of its stage 1 investigation within 10 working days from the date the complaint is received.
3. If a resident is unhappy with the stage 1 response a stage 2 review would be carried out with a response provided within 10 working days.
To ensure affective handling of complaints the Ombudsman has produced a complaint handling code (the code). The code says:
1. Section 5.8 that landlords must confirm in writing the completion of each stage including:
  1. The complaint stage.
  2. The decision on the complaint.
  3. Reasons for the decisions.
  4. Details of any remedies.
  5. Details of any outstanding actions.
  6. Details of how to escalate to either stage 2 or if at stage 2, to the Ombudsman.
2. Section 5.2 of the code says that if an extension beyond 20 working days is required this should be agreed by both parties.
The landlord did not have a damp and mould policy between 2017 and 2021 at a key time during the events contained within this report. It is noted that since then, the landlord has introduced a damp, mould, and condensation policy, the most recent version of which was approved by its board on 24 April 2023.
The landlord has a compensation policy which sets out the grounds and basis upon which compensation may be awarded. It says:
1. Discretionary payments of compensation will be dependent upon the severity of any service failure and the associated impact on the resident. The landlord says it follows this Service’s guidance on remedies as a guide to calculate the compensation payable.
2. When determining the level of compensation payable or action to remedy the complaint, the landlord says it will consider whether the failure is minor, moderate, or severe. To decide upon this category, it will consider the duration of the problem, the extent or severity of the service failure and the impact on the customer. When considering impact on the customer, it will consider vulnerabilities and identify whether the impact is worsened through disability, old age, or the presence of young children.
The resident has an assured tenancy agreement which began on 13 December 2017. The weekly rent for this 2 bedroom property was £159.14.
The resident lives in the property with his partner and his son.
The property was a new build property. In this report the builder of the property is referred to as the ‘developer.’
Contracts between a developer and a landlord for new buildings have defect liability periods within which the landlord can ask developers to repair any inherent defects that are discovered.
The way in which the landlord handles repairs in new build homes is outlined on its website. This includes:
1. Repairs during the first 12 months are the responsibility of the developer.
2. An inspection will be completed after the first 12 months to identify defects before the period expires.
As a new build property, the property was also protected by the National Home Builders Council (NHBC) warranty. These warranties typically cover both the defect period and what is called the ‘structural insurance period’ which makes the developer responsible for major structural problems of the property, such as walls, foundations, roofs, and ceilings. This Service understands that for this property the structural insurance period would be for 6 years post the completion of the defects period.
The landlord has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy.
The resident reported that he experienced issues with damp and mould soon after moving into the property. This was evidenced within 9 separate reports made about disrepair related to moisture or damp in the property during 2018.
The resident explained in his complaint to the landlord how between February 2018 and February 2020 his young son ‘was in and out of hospital with numerous chest issues’. The resident has said that doctors specified that this would likely be due to damp and mould exposure near to his cot. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts as the courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, while this investigation will not make determinations on any damage to the resident or his family members’ health, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the substance of his complaints may have caused him.

Summary of events

In summary evidence provided to this Service by the landlord, the resident made a complaint to the developer in November 2018, although is not clear what the outcome or content of the complaint was.
On 11 January 2019 following an inspection of the property a report was produced by the developer which said:
1. Work had been undertaken as required, however mould had returned.
2. An area of mould in bedroom 1 was raised again for repair by treatment and decoration.
3. In the bathroom a rusted wall bead was noted and assigned to be replaced.
4. ‘Condensation’ was observed pooling on a windowsill and travelling up the plasterboard. The window reveals were to be siliconed all around due to gaps.
5. Mould builds up in the bathroom were to be treated and redecorated.
The developer produced a report on 31 January 2020 regarding an inspection that had taken place between the developer and the landlord to ascertain whether there were further issues with the property. It confirmed previous work undertaken such as:
1. Installing extra loft insulation.
2. Increasing the fan size in the bathroom.
3. Treating and painting where required with anti mould paint.
Additional works agreed by the developer included:
1. Ensuring that the rear door was sealed fully below the sill.
2. Ensuring the front door was sealed fully below the sill.
3. Ensuring all windowsills were sealed fully.
4. Ensuring loft insulation was installed correctly to the rear right hand corner of the property.
5. Repointing some brickwork.
6. Making good of any door and window damage.
On 21 November 2020 a further inspection was completed by the developer, who produced a report in respect to ongoing issues with damp and mould at the property. The report said that the developer had identified:
1. a lack of insultation towards the eaves at the front and rear elevation of the property above a bedroom.
2. that bathroom walls were to be treated and painted.
3. That all of the property windows required adjusting to reduce draught.
4. The need for a further inspection to check cavity wall insulation.
5. That it would upgrade the bathroom extractor fan and set it to run for its longest setting.
On 3 February 2021 the resident raised a complaint with a visiting landlord operative. The issues reported by the resident to be addressed by the complaint were that:
1. There had been damp and mould in the property since the beginning of the tenancy.
2. There had been no progress on repair work.
3. The landlord had visited in February 2020 with a builder, however there had been no update.
4. A blind in the living room had snapped due to damp.
The complaint was recorded by the landlord and the resident received an acknowledgement on 8 February 2021 in which the landlord said it would provide a complaint response by 17 February 2021.
On 3 March 2021 a contractor instructed by the landlord inspected the property and found 41 issues. The contractor’s report showed in detail the use of thermal imaging to identify cold spots on the wall. Some additional observations also included mould around the bathroom ceiling fan and on the loft hatch. It also stated that additional intrusive surveys would be required.
On 5 March 2021 the landlord sent a letter entitled ‘complaint commitment’ to the resident. It said the letter was about the resident’s concern that work had not been carried out due to damp and mould in the property. It said:
1. An independent contractor had completed an inspection and taken thermal images to identify the issue.
2. Further inspections were required before the report could be completed and appropriate action could be taken.
3. A single point of contact was given who would monitor the ongoing works until completion.
4. £300 compensation was offered in recognition of the delays experienced.
5. Pending the outcome of the further inspections further compensation might be offered.
On 14 March 2021, following contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord to ask it to complete its complaints process.
On 1 April 2021 a contractor inspected the property. Following the inspection, it found that moisture was penetrating the internal side of the property and advised the application of an external sealing cream to the external face of the property. In addition, installing temporary dehumidifiers to extract as much moisture as possible for a minimum of 4-5 weeks was recommended.
On 7 May 2021 the resident contacted this Service as he had not received updates from the landlord in relation to the repair work being progressed. He did say that he had been told that the developer wanted to inspect although he had doubts about the purpose of this, as it had already inspected in 2018 and another inspection had been done independently in 2019. The resident said that on all of these occasions the landlord did not communicate its plans to him.
On 25 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that after 4 years of numerous failures, missed issues and poorly completed jobs by the developer his frustration ‘could not begin to be understood’ and he explained:
1. His frustration that the developer would ‘not consider the contractors reports’ and felt this was a delaying tactic on their part.
2. He understood that the damp issue had been highlighted during the defect period and it was therefore the legal liability of the developer to resolve.
3. That his relationship was with the landlord who he felt needed to have supported him further in dealing with the developer.
4. He would allow the developer to undertake another survey.
5. Any work identified in the contractor’s report that the developer would not complete he would require to be completed.
On 2 July 2021 an inspection took place at the property between the landlord, developer, and contractor. The purpose of the inspection was to ascertain whether the property had been built to the standards set out by the NHBC. The following work was agreed to be undertaken by the developer:
1. Install additional quilted cavity batts at the head of the masonry cavity (packing) to ensure that there were no voids, reducing the potential for any cold spots.
2. Re-install the quilted loft insulation at the eaves to remove any potential cold spots/weakness.
3. Upgrade the existing bathroom fan to a humidistat fan. Extractors fans with a humidity sensor would assist with the exact ventilation requirements of a room.
On 12 July 2021 the resident sent a list of concerns to the landlord summarised as:
1. Discrepancies in the reports produced by the developer and the contractor. In particular a previous confirmation that the loft insulation had been installed to a high standard when there was a later finding that it did not adequately cover bedroom 1.
2. Concerns about the length of time the developer’s survey had taken, in comparison to the contractor appointed by the landlord.
3. No investigation having been undertaken into the loft space.
4. Pointing works identified had never taken place.
5. Thermal imaging had proved issues with cold spots due to cavity wall voids and following work to remove rubble from the cavities the property had become colder.
6. The landlord had not challenged the developer in a robust manner.
On 19 July 2021, the landlord decided to ask its contractor to propose an additional schedule of works to cover everything detailed on the previously prepared report.
On 2 August 2021 a schedule of works was prepared by the contractor for the landlord. This schedule confirmed the following work:
1. Remove and renew plaster board on rear window wall of the bathroom. Plaster and make good with a final finish of anti mould paint.
2. Remove ceiling duct fan and install a new humidistat fan directly venting outside.
3. Removed any redundant duct in the loft.
4. Apply a chemical treatment to affected areas and apply damp resistant paint to the ceiling.
5. Apply mould resistant paint to the ceiling and walls.
6. Remove redundant air vent.
7. Reseal and decorate corner beads in the bathroom.
On 16 August 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident ‘a response to the formal complaint’ raised by the resident about damp and mould in the property. In this email the landlord:
1. Apologised that the matter had been ongoing since Spring 2018 despite ‘various remedial repairs.’
2. Said that it appreciated the lack of a lasting solution would have had an impact on the resident and his family’s enjoyment of his home.
3. Said it was unable to comment on the developer’s and the contractor’s reports and how they contradicted each other.
4. Said it would instruct the developer to carry out works proposed in the survey that took place on 2 July 2021. In addition, it would instruct it to:
  1. Remove plaster board on the rear wall of the bathroom and renew with a plaster finish.
  2. Apply a chemical clean to the affected areas and use mould resistant paint on the affected areas.
  3. Check, adjust and seal around the loft hatch.
5. Acknowledging issues were first reported in 2018 the landlord said:
  1. The developer had attended the property a number of times and completed works.
  2. It is not usual for the landlord to be further involved whilst the developer resolved matters, however it should have received updates on work being completed which had not happened.
6. Said it was currently receiving quotes from contractors to carry out the list of work recommended.
In a response to this email on 19 August 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to report:
1. He had been contacted by the developer about proposed work prior to the landlord’s email confirming the repair schedule.
2. Inspections and work were being organised without his prior notice and without explanations.
After being chased by the resident, the landlord responded next on 13 September 2021 explaining that a third party contractor had been trying to arrange work in the property and asking the resident for his availability. In addition, the landlord said:
1. It had provided a full schedule of works required.
2. It would not provide evidence from the developer that it had carried out work previously. The landlord explained that it had a contract in place, and it would be satisfied that the developer had fulfilled their obligations ‘when they return and complete the work in the previous email.’
3. Additional work recommended by the contractor had been agreed because the disrepair had been going on for some time.
4. Damp and mould in downstairs cupboards had not been previously reported although would be added to the contractor’s schedule of works.
On 2 November 2021 the developer completed works at the property. The landlord’s records says the job ‘took longer than expected and ran into the following day.’ The developer then advised the landlord that any further issues would need to be directed to the NHBC under the Buildmark choice warranty.
During November 2021 the resident in a series of emails asked the landlord whether he would need to be decanted for the additional work but received no firm confirmation. The additional work to be completed by the contractor was initially scheduled to be completed without a decant for 15 November 2021.
Between 10 and 11 November 2021 the landlord asked the resident, on behalf of its contractor to sign a waiver form to enable the contractor’s staff to move furniture in the property. The email chain says that this was in line with the contractor’s policies and procedures. The resident declined to sign the waiver, on the grounds that it was the responsibility of the contractor and the landlord to ensure no damage came to his property. The contractor’s job was then cancelled whilst negotiations and arrangements took place.
On 25 November 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to say that as his complaint remained outstanding it had been escalated to stage 2 in its complaints process. It said it would now aim to respond by 9 December 2021.
On 29 November 2023 the landlord and resident exchanged emails. The landlord said:
1. Work would continue without the signing of a waiver. It explained that it had accepted liability for potential damage caused by the contractors and would need to take a full inventory on the day work started and at completion.
2. It had asked the contractor to bring an appointment forward.
3. It had also asked the contractor to inspect the work that the developer had recently completed.
4. A second contractor had been instructed to ‘apply specialist paint’ to alleviate issues arising from cold spots.
5. A specialised monitoring system would be installed after the completion of the schedule of works so that damp issues could then be ‘proactively managed’.
6. It advised that the works ‘may be’ intrusive and therefore it would be best to move to a temporary property over the period of works. As part of this offer the landlord said it would:
  1. Find suitable alternative accommodation.
  2. Would not expect the resident’s belongings to be placed in storage but would store items at the resident’s request.
7. In recognition of the damage done to possessions that the resident reported and the impact that the situation had had on the resident, it would offer a payment of £2000.
The resident responded:
1. The inspection of the developer’s work was not necessary at this stage as work should be inspected as part of the final inspection plans.
2. Asking whether the second contractor who would be painting affected areas would use the same type of paint (anti-fungal paint) that had been used previously by the developer as this had not been affective.
3. He felt frustrated about the decant offer at this late stage, as he had queried it previously and been told it was not necessary. This felt like a further contradiction by the landlord. The reason for the resident’s concern was that Christmas was a busy time of year for him.
4. The £2000 was appreciated but not accepted at this point, as all of the work was yet to be completed. The resident also raised that as the damage was due to the landlord not completing repairs asking him to claim on his content’s insurance was unreasonable.
The landlord responded further on 30 November 2021 and said:
1. It wanted to ensure that the developers work required any follow up to completely resolve the disrepair.
2. The type of paint used would be ‘dryzone’ which had been used successfully in other properties.
3. It recognised the time of the year for work would make a temporary move difficult and was sorry this new position contradicted the former. The landlord explained that on considering the residents new photographs it wanted to make sure all problems were addressed and that as work was throughout the property it would likely be of great inconvenience. A plan was outlined as follows:
  1. The second contractor would attend and clean and paint areas showing mould as a short term solution prior to Christmas.
  2. In January a temporary property would be found for the resident and his family to move into whilst work was completed.
  3. It would offer to find temporary accommodation sooner but appreciated the impact this would have for the resident.
On 1 December 2021 the resident said:
1. He had expected the contractor to be inspecting the developer’s work on 3 December 2021 but this ‘won’t be the case now due to a contractual breach’ that had meant work had not gone ahead as it was supposed to.
2. The resident proposed that the contractor inspected all work on its final completion rather than in stages over the next weeks and months.
3. The resident doubted the impact of painting over the walls as they had already been identified as being full of moisture and condensation which had led to the rusting of window surrounds and the bathtub.
4. When he had been cleaning the walls recently, he had opened the window to allow air circulation which had resulted in the rusted window hinge snapping. An emergency repair had managed to get the window shut but a full repair was yet to occur, meaning the room could not be ventilated in the event of it being painted.
5. Regarding a temporary move the resident explained he had family and work commitments, including school, and that his mother in law had recently had cancer surgery and required support. The resident said that he would consider the offer.
6. He asked the landlord to clarify the context of the £2000 offer.
7. The painting was agreed on the proviso the issue with the window could be resolved.
On 6 December 2021 the landlord responded to say:
1. It understood the resident’s concern about moisture in the wall and dehumidifiers were to be installed.
2. A repair had been booked for the window for 8 December 2021 which included an inspection for the rusted bathtub.
3. A contractor would attend on 15 December 2021 to paint areas affected by mould.
4. The £2000 offer was made to recognise the delays and inconvenience in getting the outstanding matters resolved.
The resident responded on the same day:
1. He had recently cleaned the wall and already there were ‘vast areas of black mould and huge droplets of water from the wall and window surround in the bathroom.’
2. A fundamental issue over the years beside the disrepair itself was that there had been ‘too many conflicting and contradictory messages’ from the landlord.
3. He would accept the offer of £2000 in recognition of delays and inconvenience and asked this to be included in the complaint response.
On 8 December 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that the second contractor had not turned up to complete the work proposed. The follow day the landlord apologised for this and sought to organise a further appointment.
On 9 December 2021 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. It was sorry for the service received to date and the inconvenience and distress this had caused.
2. The matter had gone on for ‘far too long’ and that it had not ‘acted quickly enough to progress the matter for a resolution.’
3. It recognised that its communication had not been consistent.
4. It confirmed the following actions:
  1. Repairs to the toilet and window in the bathroom to be completed in December 2021.
  2. Anti mould paint to be applied to affected areas in December 2021 as a temporary measure over the Christmas period.
  3. Alternative accommodation would be sought for the family whilst extensive works took place.
5. A without prejudice offer of £2000 payment was offered to recognise the impact, inconvenience and frustration caused.
6. A further payment of £150 was offered for a missed appointment.
7. If the resident would like a permanent move the landlord would explore facilitating this and offered to pay removal costs.
8. The landlord explained that it had implemented a new procedure and approach to damp and mould and whilst this had not helped the resident it was confident its new approach would avoid similar situations in the future.
The second contractor attended the property on 15 December 2021. The resident reported issues with this appointment in an email to the landlord which said:
1. The second contractor had turned up to fix the window but had not been able because it was a 2 man job.
2. The operative then also could not paint as the walls were too wet.
3. Dehumidifiers would be needed to dry the walls and were not available until at least 20 December 2021.
4. The bath inspection found a significant amount of rust in the bath, something the resident pointed out had been identified in a previous inspection at least 2 years ago.
5. The resident no longer felt inclined to accept the £2000 offer of compensation as issues had continued and were not even close to being resolved.
The landlord responded and made a further apology for what had taken place, accepting that the events would have been frustrating for the resident. A virtual meeting was offered and arranged for January 2021.
On 20 December 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to report that the second contractor had now attended on this date, despite being informed it would not be convenient, and repaired the window. The dehumidifier had also been provided. Regarding the dehumidifier the resident said:
1. It was industrial sized taking up half of the bathroom space.
2. No offer had been made about the running cost and it needed to be run 24 hours a day with all the internal doors left open to maximise the moisture extraction, leaving the property colder.
3. He had been told it needed to be run constantly for the next 11 days.
4. Neither of the above points had been communicated to him by the second contractor or the landlord.
The landlord responded on the same day and said:
1. It apologised for inconvenience caused with dates and appointments.
2. It would feed back to the contractor regarding the second contractor only sending 1 operative for a 2 man job.
3. It had intended to install the dehumidifier when the resident had moved out temporarily and had not anticipated needing to dry out the walls to paint them.
4. It was a standard type of dehumidifier which was used in other properties and the landlord could offer £7.50 electricity reimbursement per day. A total of £82.50 would be paid to the resident.
5. A new bathtub would be added to the contractor’s schedule for when works were done on the property after the resident had moved out.
Between 1 and 7 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say:
1. He had repeatedly questioned works and been told that works could be progressed, but his comments had then turned out to be correct.
2. Workmen had told him that the dehumidifier was the biggest one they had used for such issues. It had been on for 7 days longer than initially agreed and at £7.50 a day the total reimbursement would need amending to be £135.
3. The dehumidifier had not been collected as agreed.
On 11 January 2022 the landlord emailed the resident that:
1. It was sorry the dehumidifier had impacted the resident’s lifestyle; however, it was the size required to complete the task.
2. It noted the resident’s comments about the second contractor’s inability to paint the wall until the wall had dried out.
3. Further issues would be addressed in the complaints process.
On 13 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report:
1. The dehumidifier was yet to be collected and there had been no further contact regarding it.
2. It had now been used over a 25 day period totalling £187.50 at the offered £7.50 a day.
3. He wanted to be contacted about its collection as it had been an inconvenience from the start and now had become a nuisance.
The resident raised to this Service that he was unhappy with the landlord’s response and its offer of £2150 when he had been living with damp and mould for 4 years due to the landlord’s negligence.
On 17 January 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord to advise that the local authority’s environmental health department had undertaken an inspection of the property and would soon provide a report. The resident said that in the past 4 years his son had been very ill with bad chest infections and the evidence pointed towards conditions of damp and mould in the property. The resident provided pictures of damp and mould on the bedroom walls. He also raised that he had been required to purchase new furniture, as previous items had been contaminated by damp and mould and been thrown away and that his contents insurance would not cover this.
A meeting took place between the resident, staff from the landlord including a director and senior managers along with the contractor on 21 January 2022. No contemporaneous notes have been provided of the detail of this meeting.
On 24 January 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord with information for the landlord to consider as part of his stage 2 escalation:
1. For the bathroom he asked whether:
  1. All areas of rusting in the bathroom would be addressed.
  2. The walls would be repainted like for like.
  3. The bath would be replaced with all sealants redone.
  4. The window surround would be redone as it had rotted due to moisture.
  5. He could have confirmation on the extent of the plastering.
  6. The rotten skirting boards would be replaced.
2. For both bedrooms:
  1. He asked if more work could be done than ‘just painting’ as the damp and mould was just as bad as in the bathroom.
  2. He said that there was a damp patch on the ceiling near the loft fan duct, which would require inspection.
  3. He said that he would like confirmation the window surrounds would be inspected, and appropriate work taken due to pools of water gathering in these areas.
3. For the upstairs landing he asked whether work would need to be completed on the loft hatch area as it dripped water and had become mouldy.
4. For the downstairs he said:
  1. The cupboards were not listed on the schedule of work, but both contained damp and mould within.
  2. He would like specifics for which walls would be cleaned and painted.
  3. There were rusted beads around windows which also had pools of water which caused an issue with the sealant.
  4. The rear door had a hole ‘on the floor’ which had been present since he moved in.
5. Regarding the property cavity he said.
  1. Previous work had removed rubble from the cavity which blocked weep holes. After this the property temperature had dropped.
  2. Since this work was done, the mould had also got worse.
  3. He wondered whether more cavity insulation was required.
6. In addition:
  1. He queried having to be decanted out of the house.
  2. He referred to the landlord having offered him a figure of 20% of rent as a reasonable offer in consideration that he had lived at the property for 4 years with this issue being present the whole time.
  3. The resident’s solicitor had suggested 25 to 30% as being a reasonable offer with part of the payment being redress for time, trouble, and distress.
  4. The resident said that with all the work done previously and the effort taken by him and his partner in chasing and reporting issues it ‘easily equated to around 25%’ of their time.
7. Related to his family’s health the resident said:
  1. His son had been sleeping next to a damp wall and had had health issues during the time he had lived in the property.
  2. The landlord had a duty of care which had fallen below the standard expected.
  3. The landlord had breached its contract by not addressing disrepair in a ‘reasonable period of time.’
On 31 January 2022 the landlord sent what it described as an updated stage 2 review response to the resident. It said that:
1. It had met with the resident to express its sincere apologies.
2. It would complete work set out in previous reports.
3. It would complete any additional work highlighted by the resident.
4. It would arrange for alternative accommodation, removals and storage for the resident and his family whilst work was completed.
5. It would complete a thorough inspection of the property prior to the resident returning to the property.
6. It would offer 25% of the residents rent from April 2018, a total of £8200.
7. It would write a further apology in recognition of the issues that had occurred in its handling of matters.
8. Any acceptance of the compensation payment would be processed and issued within 10 to 15 working days.

After the final response letter

On 25 February 2022 the landlord sent the resident a formal apology letter from the customer relations team. It said:
1. It was sorry its service had not been at the standard expected for customers.
2. His complaint had been used for learning and it would be undertaking a ‘reflective session’ to avoid the repeat of his experience for customers in the future.
The resident was decanted to a hotel between 7 March 2022 and 28 March 2022 to allow for work to take place.
Following the work, a handover inspection was completed between the resident, contractor, and landlord on 25 March 2022.
On 8 March 2022 an email was sent from the Director of Housing Operations to reassure the resident that there had been a contact change.
On 26 April 2022 an internal email confirmed what work had been undertaken by the landlord’s contractor. This email confirmed the following works’ completion:
1. Removal and renewal of plaster board on rear window wall of the bathroom. Plaster and make good with a final finish of anti mould paint.
2. Removal of ceiling duct fan and install a new humidistat fan directly venting outside.
3. Removal of any redundant duct in the loft.
4. Application of a chemical treatment to affected areas and apply damp resistant paint to the ceiling.
5. Application of mould resistant paint to the ceiling and walls.
6. Removal of redundant air vent.
7. Reseal and decoration of corner beads in the bathroom.
In addition, at the request of the resident the following work had been completed:
1. Replaced bath.
2. Installed French drain to rear and side to remove storm water and connect into main storm drain.
3. Removed plaster board from the bathroom wall and installed a new moisture resistant plaster board.
4. Replaced bathroom wall tiling.
5. Replaced contaminated loft insultation and dressed insultation correctly.
6. Applied anti-condensation paint in additional areas to match existing decoration. Removed seals around windows and doors and installed expanding foam correctly to fill voids.
On 5 May 2022 the resident contacted this Service saying that the complaint remained unresolved because:
1. The repair had taken 4 years to complete.
2. The regular need for him to have to chase up repairs had caused him distress, including detriment to his mental health.
3. He had been asked to sign a waiver by the contractor regarding undertaking work in his home. Not signing this document had resulted in a further 4 month delay for work to commence.
4. He had accepted the £8200 but felt that the landlord had got off ‘extremely lightly.’
The landlord in its evidence submission to this Service has said that it had reflected on the resident’s complaint and acknowledged that it took too long to resolve the concerns. In its reflections it had made ‘significant changes’ to make sure this would not happen again. It said that:
1. In order to resolve the outstanding issue as quickly as possible it had waived the developer’s responsibility to rectify the situation. This meant that the landlord had also accepted that any future claims on the property would not be valid via the NHBC warranties that had been in place from when the property was built.
2. In the future, it might now make different decisions relating to its contractual relationships within its development programme and had recently increased its focus on customer support and a more proactive approach to the resolution of defects.
3. The developer had undertaken surveys and follow on remedial work, yet this had been slowed down due to the COVID-19 pandemic, staff furloughs and absence which had resulted in difficulties providing usual services.
4. When it had instructed its contractor to make repair recommendations, it had decided to employ it to undertake the work and when an issue evolved over the signing of a waiver about potential damage to the resident’s property it had intervened and committed to cover any costs of possible damage to allow for the works to move forward.
5. It recognised that it had not escalated the reports quickly enough and did not communicate effectively. It said that it had recognised this as a service failure and had sought to compensate the resident for this.
6. In this, it had offered the resident £8,200 which was 25% of the rent from April 2018 and had now completed the repairs to the resident’s home. Further surveys would take place in the autumn to ensure work had been completed to a high standard.
In addition, as part of wider learning, the landlord said it had:
1. From May 2021 rolled out a new damp and mould approach in response to this Service’s recent spotlight report recommendations.
2. Provided ongoing ‘Customer Promise’ training, based on excellent customer service and communication, to all customer facing staff and its contractor partners.
3. Recruited additional highly skilled customer service professionals into its homes team.
4. Introduced a new Aftercare procedure to deal with onboarding of new customers and resolution of defects for customers living in new builds.
5. Started a process review into latent defects to cover aspects such as when to take responsibility away from developers and resolve inhouse, how to identify reoccurring or longer standing defects and how staff across directorates could share information and proactively resolve cases.
6. Put in place dedicated points of contact in complex complaint cases.
7. Instigated improvements to its contract negotiations to ensure defect rectification was in-line with day to day repairs whenever possible. This included detailed reviews of completed projects to ensure developers that have quality issues or poor approach to customers do not secure repeat business.
8. Introduced a weekly review meeting, made up of senior leaders from each team, to agree action plans for complex complaint cases.
When this investigation began in October 2023, the resident advised this Service that there was still outstanding work on the property. This work is set out in a quotation provided to the landlord by a separate contractor dated 21 September 2023 and includes:
1. The front bedroom walls were showing moisture through the plaster boards.
2. The PVC windows to the front external wall appeared to be leaking.
3. Air brick to the rear had not been sealed correctly.
4. Front gable wall was losing brick mortar.
5. The rear garden alongside the neighbouring garage had sunk.

Assessment and findings

Within the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, it sets out what can and cannot be considered during this Service’s investigations. The Ombudsman cannot consider the actions of a non-member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, as such, the actions of the developer are not considered in this report. Consideration is given to the actions of the landlord and how it managed its relationship with both the resident and the developer.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on new build complaints confirms that a landlord should be clear how it will respond to residents during and after defects periods, and that it should effectively pursue developers on a resident’s behalf. The property 12 month defect period expired in December 2018. At this point the resident had made at least 9 separate reports of disrepair issues related to damp across the property which had been attended by the developer. There is no evidence that the landlord inspected the property at the time of the defect period expiry to ensure disrepair had been addressed as appropriate. Whilst the developer did produce a report on 11 January 2019 listing work that it would undertake, there is no evidence that this work was followed up and confirmed as completed as would be reasonable to expect the landlord to do.
The first evidenced point that the landlord became involved was when it completed a joint inspection on 20 January 2020, a full 12 months after the defect period’s expiry. This is a failing by the landlord to manage defects in its new build properties robustly and effectively. By delaying this inspection, the landlord failed to ensure that disrepair had been addressed by the developer within an appropriate timeframe and to take appropriate action in the case of the developer not complying with its obligations.
There is no available evidence for the period between January 2020 and when the resident raised his complaint in February 2021 that indicates any work being carried out by the developer to resolve the issues. It would be reasonable to expect sight of records that demonstrated that work was being completed and that outstanding defects from the defect period were being remedied at the property.
Whilst failings have been identified, the landlord was reasonable in its expectation that the developer would fulfil its obligation and complete all identified defect works to a high standard. From February 2021 when the resident raised concerns with the landlord about the ongoing failure of the developer to resolve the disrepair the landlord did not act swiftly to investigate the damp and mould and the actions of the developer. Whilst it did complete an inspection on 3 March 2021 using its own contractor instead of the developer, there continued to be a prolonged wait for the resident for any decisions to be made or for work to progress. No further action took place until a further inspection occurred on 2 July 2021, 6 months after the resident’s February complaint and the full schedule of work itself was not completed until March 2022.
Damp and mould growth is listed as a hazard in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). As set out in this Service’s Spotlight report on the issue, landlords should be on the front foot when identifying potential issues and effective diagnosis is critical. A timely response is imperative to ensure residents do not live with the issues for an extended period of time.

The landlord acted reasonably in September 2021 when, after meetings with the developer it decided to take responsibility for all works so that it could exercise greater control over the fulfilment of the required disrepair work. It took this step despite there being evidence additional work could have been undertaken by the developer as part of its obligation to rectify new build defects. The landlord took ownership of costs associated with putting repair issues right for the resident from this point. The landlord demonstrated learning from this experience in its post complaint review which it has provided to this Service. The post complaint review stated there had been changes to procedures, recruitment, and in-house training to improve the landlord’s ability to intervene with developers at a much earlier point if defects are not put right to a satisfactory standard. It is not clear how much, when, or how these decisions and changes were communicated with the resident, as would have been appropriate, and due to this a finding has been made below about this within consideration of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
The landlord acted reasonably and demonstrated a resolution focused approach when in November 2021 it discovered the contractor required the resident to sign a waiver for work to commence at his property. It did this by negotiating with the contractor and offering to cover any reported damages to ensure that work could proceed. It is reasonable for a resident to expect their items to be treated in a professional and respectful manner and to be able to bring complaints or requests for costs if damage occurs. A recommendation has been made concerning this below.
However, despite the landlord reasonably negotiating to take responsibility for any damages to enable the contractor to proceed with work, this Service has seen no records of the negotiations from the time. This unforeseen delay then added an addition 4 months on to the repair time and, considering the nature of the work and the resident’s complaint it is unclear why the matter of the waiver was not resolved rapidly to enable the work to progress as planned on the agreed date of the 15 November 2021. This is a failing of the landlord to act swiftly and decisively to problem solve matters arising to ensure the resolution of the issues as quickly as possible.
Further delays were experienced through December 2021 when the landlord sought to undertake temporary repairs using a second contractor to keep the damp and mould under control until the agreed work could take place. The following issues arose:
1. A missed appointment on 8 December 2021.
2. Inability to complete the job to the window hinge due to 1 member of staff being sent rather than 2.
3. Inability to paint the walls with damp sealant due to the levels of moisture on them, despite the resident reporting this issue to the landlord.
In addition, a dehumidifier was agreed on and the second contractor delivered this equipment on 20 December 2021. Whilst the equipment was required, it is of concern that the dehumidifier had not been provided at an earlier point. The result of the belated provision of the dehumidifier was that the resident and his family were impacted by the noise of the machine 24 hours a day, causing distress and inconvenience for the family through the Christmas period.
In the same period, the landlord decided, reasonably, that the work would best take place with the resident in temporary accommodation to enable complete repair to all arising issues. The result of which was the appearance to the resident of contradictory positions being taken by the landlord and further eroding his trust in it. It was appropriate for the landlord to make this decision on considering the extent of the work required, although this decision would have been more suitably considered at a much earlier point so to have avoided further delays in completing the repair.
The identified failings are:
1. Not overseeing the defect period appropriately by completing a timely inspection of the property on the 12 month anniversary of the property completion.
2. Not ensuring appropriate oversight of repairs being carried out by the developer by ensuring works were completed in a timely manner.
3. Not liaising with the developer and taking a proactive approach to completing its own surveys and ensuring work was completed to a high standard when disrepair of a repeated nature occurred.
4. On upholding the resident’s complaint and that delays had occurred, the landlord failed to ensure work progressed in a timely manner, without delays. Whilst some delays were due to the resident’s choices such as discussions over allowing access to the developer and whether work could progress during the Christmas period, communication to progress matters was slow.
5. Repeated failings in communication when organising temporary repair work via a second contractor.
6. Not offering reasonable redress for the extent of the property that was impacted by repeated disrepair. This is assessed below.
7. Not offering reasonable redress for the impact on the resident in terms of the distress and inconvenience he had incurred as a result of the landlord’s failings.,
8. Not communicating effectively its decision making, intentions and subsequent post complaint learning to the resident during and after the complaint.
The landlord recognised the length of time issues had occurred in its complaint response by offering compensation of 25% of the property’s weekly rent, a total of £8200 for a period of 206 weeks between April 2018 and April 2022 when the repair work was completed. This Service welcomes compensation offers based on a proportion of rent as a way of remedying complaints where disrepair has caused the loss of enjoyment of the property by the resident, however, this amount is not considered proportionate by this investigation. The resident had for 4 years lost his enjoyment of his new home into which he had moved with his partner and child under the age of 5. Whilst predominantly affecting the family bathroom the disrepair impacted windows throughout, both bedrooms and hallway and living room. Based on this an Order will be made for loss of enjoyment of the property at a more suitable amount of 30% of the rent for this period.
A further £150 was offered for a missed repair appointment on 8 December 2021. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that payments of £150 are within a range of appropriate awards for where there has been failure that has adversely impacted the resident but with no permanent impact. Considered alongside the resident’s circumstances this failing compounded other failings occurring at the same time causing distress for the resident and the amount offered is reasonable taking these factors into account.
In addition to the 25% of rent, the landlord did make an additional offer of compensation in its stage 2 response on 3 December 2021 and offered £2000 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the prolonged disrepair issue. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether any redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress, was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The sum of £2000 is within the range of amounts set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been a severe and long term impact caused by a series of failures that have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. This amount is proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred to the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings set out above.
The landlord set out a comprehensive 7 point plan provided to this Service after the stage 2 response letter demonstrating learning taken from the resident’s case.
However, as some of the works required at the property are still outstanding it does not appear that the landlord had entirely put matters right.
In conclusion, the resident experienced prolonged disrepair in his property which the landlord failed to appropriately manage by ensuring the developer undertook all works required to a high standard during and soon after the 12 month defect period. This exposure to disrepair would have had a significant impact on the resident and his family, causing loss of enjoyment of their new home, time, and trouble. When notified of the continued problem via the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord did act but communication failings and unreasonable stretches of time between events continued to prolong the disrepair with the landlord failing to take well-coordinated, decisive action to resolve the issue once it became fully aware of the extent of the problem in March 2021. While the landlord did make some reasonable offers of compensation and has demonstrated comprehensive learning from the case which has avoided a severe maladministration finding, it failed to make a reasonable offer for the loss of enjoyment of the property or complete all the required works and as such a finding of maladministration has been made.

The associated complaint

In relation to its complaints policy, the landlord failed to keep to its complaints policy’s published timescales during its complaint handling as follows:
1. Sending its complaint acknowledgment 3 working days later than its 2 day timeframe.
2. Sending its stage 1 response 15 working days later than its 10 day timeframe.
3. Not acknowledging the resident’s stage 2 escalation request which can be considered to be his email dated 25 June 2021.
4. Sending a stage 2 complaint response on 9 December 2021, 157 working days after the resident’s escalation email dated 25 June 2021.
Between the stage 1 complaint response and the stage 2 response on 9 December 2021 there was also a ‘formal complaint response’ dated 16 August 2021. This response was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy or the code and caused confusion in terms of how the landlord was handling the complaint. There was a significant delay identified between its stage 1 and 2 responses and whilst this response on 16 August 2021 was sent in the interim, it was not a stage 2 response and as such prolonged the resident’s wait for his complaint to be considered at an escalated stage.
The impact of not escalating the complaint in accordance with its policy prolonged the resident’s wait for an agreeable plan of action inappropriately.
Considering the complexity of the case, the landlord failed to adequately manage this complaint because:
1. In its stage 1 and first stage 2 letter, there was limited detail given to the delays experienced in having the developer complete works beyond an apology that the circumstances had ‘gone on for too long’. Whilst there may have been mitigating circumstances during periods of national lockdowns and workforce shortages, no explanation was provided to the resident within the complaints process.
2. Whilst at stage 1 in March 2021 an action plan was set out in regard to progressing further inspections and there is no evidence that this occurred in a reasonable timeframe, with no updates being provided to the resident despite inspections taking place on 1 April and 2 July 2021.
At stage 2 there is no evidence that the landlord provided firm and committed steps for how the substantive disrepair issue would be resolved. A series of temporary repairs and solutions were reasonably and proactively organised over the Christmas period when the resident was unable to have work take place, however the substantive issue, including whether or not the resident would need to be decanted and when the repair work would take place was left with no further explanation. This lack of clarity and commitment at stage 2 is a further failing by the landlord.
In the stage 2 review letter, the landlord stated it would provide a further written apology. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that an apology can be made in writing. It also says that the responsibility for making an apology is a corporate one and is made by the landlord as a body although the Ombudsman may order that the apology is given by a senior member of staff on behalf of the landlord. An apology should:
1. Acknowledge the maladministration or service failure.
2. Accept responsibility for it.
3. Explain clearly why it happened.
4. Express sincere regret.
5. Where appropriate, include assurances that the same maladministration should not occur again and set out what steps have been taken to ensure this.
The apology falls short of its intention, it does not clearly set out the landlord’s stance on the above points. While the letter does express regret, it holds no personal touch. For example, it does not offer any update on the lessons the landlord had learnt from the resident’s experience or refer to his prolonged experience of disrepair or other circumstances such as the intrusion into the Christmas period by the dehumidifier and missed appointments. In addition, considering the nature of this complaint and the significance of the issues that the landlord had itself recognised, the decision to sign it from the ‘customer services team,’ gives the impression of a generic response and it is this Service’s view that such an apology needed to be made by a senior member of staff.
In conclusion, the landlord’s complaint handling prolonged the resident’s experience by not being escalated in line with its complaints policy. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses did not clearly set out what the landlord would do or had done to resolve the subject matter of the complaint, nor did it offer reasonable redress whilst it upheld the resident’s complaint that repairs had taken too long. The landlord did provide a suitable stage 2 update reply and evidenced learning; however, this did not touch upon failings in the complaints process itself, in particular the delays. As such this Service finds maladministration on the landlord’s complaint handling and an appropriate order shall be made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in his new build home.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not follow its own stated procedure and complete a defects inspection, it did not follow up on defects to ensure they were resolved or identified a pattern of repeated issues. It failed to communicate adequately with the resident about outstanding issues or create plans with its contractors in a timely way to seek to resolve the outstanding disrepair. The landlord then failed to provide reasonable redress during the complaints process by not adequately compensating the resident for his loss of enjoyment of the property.
The landlord failed to address issues within its complaints handling within its complaints process despite the complaints process being extended to a second stage 2 review which acted as a third stage, outside of its complaints process. Whilst at this point it dealt with the substantive issue well, it did not recognise that how it had handled the resident’s complaint had a part to play in both the protracted length of time it took for a resolution of the substantive issue and in causing the resident additional time, trouble, and distress in how it had responded to his concerns.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of the date of this report to arrange for a senior member of its staff to apologise to the resident in writing or, if the resident prefers in person, for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord is ordered to make a payment of 30% of the weekly rent between April 2018 and April 2022. This is calculated as £9840. This payment should be made to the resident within 4 weeks of receipt of this order, less the £8200 already offered within its complaints process if it has already been paid.
From offers already made within the complaints process, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident if it has not done so already within 4 weeks of receipt of this order:
1. £2000 for the handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. £150 for the missed appointment.
In addition, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident within 4 weeks of receipt of this order £300 for how it handled the associated complaint.
The payments ordered above should be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any monies that the resident might owe the landlord.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to inspect the property to identify if there are any outstanding works required. The landlord is to forward a copy of its inspection report to the resident and this Service. If any outstanding works are identified, then within a further 2 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide the resident and this Service with a copy of a timetable for the works to be addressed.
It is ordered that the landlord completes a review of the case to consider any lessons in regard to how it responds to complaints in line with the findings of this investigation. This review should be provided to this service within 8 weeks of receipt of this order.
It is recommended that the landlord considers its contractors use of waivers for liability and their suitability in the provision of a respectful, customer focused service.