The Guinness Partnership Limited (202400039)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat with his partner, they both have asthma. The resident reported issues with damp and mould in the property. The landlord carried out repairs to address the issues. The resident raised a complaint due to the length of time it was taking to resolve the issue.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp and mould.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
4. There was no maladministration in the handling of the complaint.

Reasons

5. The landlord acknowledged the length of time taken to resolve the damp and mould issues and identified its service failures in the complaint responses. It apologised for these and took actions to put things right, but it did not fully consider the impact of the delays or the distress and inconvenience caused by multiple visits to the property.
6. Regarding its complaint handling, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 escalation within timescale. However, it addressed this in the complaint response and provided compensation for the service failure.

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.

Our investigation

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 informed the landlord that both members of the household had asthma and may have been impacted by the damp and mould. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for possible health issues caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

8. The resident reported issues with damp and mould on 24 October 2022. The landlord assessed the issues on 17 November 2022 and arranged to replace the ceiling extractor fan and carry out a mould wash. It completed this work on 2 December 2022. The landlord’s repair policy states repairs are categorised as emergencies that will be completed within 24 hours or routine repairs that will be carried out within 28 calendar days. While the landlord initially attended within 28 days, it did not complete the work within this timescale. This is a failing to comply with the repairs policy.
9. The resident contacted the landlord again on 14 December 2022 to report there was “damp and mould in every room”. Between the 3 January 2023 and 19 May 2023, the landlord visited the property multiple timesto carry out works.
10. It was not until 24 August 2023, that a damp inspection was carried out. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says, “when a particularly severe or recurring damp or mould issue is identified we will undertake a comprehensive risk assessment.” It is not clear whether the landlord carried out a risk assessment at the time of the inspection. The resident reported a recurring damp issue, but the inspection was 8-months later – which was a significant failure. This resulted in delays resolving the issue and caused more inconvenience to the resident. This does not appear consistent with the landlord’s policy.
11. Following the damp inspection, the landlord arranged further repairs to take place on 19 September 2023, however these did not go ahead. The resident called the landlord twice in October 2023 to chase this however due to the lack of communication he raised a complaint. This was a failing.
12. The resident made a further report that the previous repairs had not worked. Due to the lack of response from the landlord, he asked to escalate his complaint. The landlord contacted the resident to discuss the issues in more detail and updated the vulnerabilities in the household following the call. It would have been reasonable for this to have happened sooner so it could consider the impact of the mould.
13. The landlord explained as it needed to carry out further work, it would keep the complaint open until it completed this. The landlord kept the resident informed of further work identified, when this was to take place and when this had been completed. The landlord’s actions were reasonable.
14. The landlord emailed the resident to confirm it had completed some repairs, but further work was needed to lower the ceiling above the stairs. It arranged for this to take place on 11 and 12 April 2024. The resident asked for an update concerning compensation for damage and was advised a manager would contact him on 13 March 2024. On 16 April 2024, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm the work at the property was complete.
15. When investigating complaints, we look at all the evidence to decide if the landlord followed our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The parties accept that the resident has lived with damp and mould in his home from October 2022 and 16 April 2024. It is clear the landlord did undertake some works, but the matter remained outstanding and a survey was delayed by 8 months. Had a complete survey been done sooner, together with consideration of the impact on the resident and his household – the matter should have been resolved sooner. The landlord’s communication was also poor and the resident needed to chase call back requests.
16. During the complaint procedure the landlord offered £75 (£50 for the time and trouble and £25 for communication failures) at stage 1 and a further £500 (£425 for the time and trouble, £50 for communication failures and £25 for complaint handling delays) at stage 2 totalling £575. This is not fair in all the circumstances taking into account the likely impact on the resident between October 2022 and 16 April 2024.
17. When the resident requested further compensation for the damage caused to his property, the landlord initially advised him to escalate his complaint to us. It then agreed to consider the resident’s request and offered him £200 for the damage to his property. We cannot say the offer was unreasonable. We’ve not seen evidence (a) that the landlord’s failures were the cause of the damage or (b) what it would cost to replace the items in the condition they were in right before they were damaged.
18. Having carefully considered the time taken to resolve the issues and the likely impact on the resident, we have decided a fairer level of compensation would be £950 compensation, made up as follows:
    1. £750 (as opposed to £550) for the distress and inconvenience caused by the handling of the damp and mould
    2. £200 contribution to the damaged belongings.

19. The landlord’s policy in place at the time stated it should acknowledge complaints within 2 working days, and at stage 2 confirmed it would provide a response within 20 working days of the escalation. The landlord has since updated its complaint policy to follow the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
20. The landlord provided the stage 1 response within its complaint policy timescales.
21. The resident escalated his complaint on 22 December 2023. The landlord called him on 27 December 2023 and left a voicemail to acknowledge this. The landlord issued the acknowledgement letter 9 working days outside of the timescale in its complaint policy. The final response was issued on 26 January 2024, this was 2 working days outside of the timescale in its policy, however it is not likely a short delay would have caused any adverse effect to the resident.
22. The landlord demonstrated good practice by identifying its service failures, including learnings in each complaint response and by discussing the complaint with the resident prior to its investigations and at the end of each investigation. There has been no maladministration in the handling of the complaint.

Learning

23. The landlord should have considered requesting details of household vulnerabilities earlier in the damp and mould process.

Communication

24. The communication following call back requests was poor however the landlord identified this and demonstrated that it had learnt from this.