The Housing Plus Group Limited (202126872)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126872

The Housing Plus Group Limited

24 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
Handling of repairs to a toilet leak in the property.
Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She has resided at the property, a one-bedroom bungalow, since 2018. Around a year after the start of her tenancy, her landlord merged with another. In correspondence with this Service, the landlord reported its records did not list any known vulnerabilities for the resident.
In February 2020, the resident reported that following adaptation works to turn her bathroom into a wet room in 2019, she began to experience damp and mould in the property. The landlord advised that this was not a repair issue, and the resident should deal with the issue herself. After the damp and mould reportedly worsened, the resident reported it again in August 2020. Contractors from the landlord attended in November 2020 and advised there could be a potential leak behind the toilet. Another inspection was carried out on 21 December 2020 which confirmed that there was damp and mould present, in addition to a leak behind the toilet. The repair works regarding the identified leak were referred to the landlord but not carried out. Records indicate several more inspections took place in January and June 2021, but no follow-up repairs were completed.
On 11 November 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint regarding damp and mould within the property. She advised she had been calling the landlord for the previous two years regarding the issue but had not heard back, despite the completion of surveys and visits.
In its stage one complaint response, sent on 25 November 2021, the landlord acknowledge that its service had not been up to the “expected standard” and arranged to visit the property the following week. An operative attended on 8 February 2022 and identified a leak behind the toilet, plus damp to the side and behind the toilet, that had permeated through the dividing wall. A repair order was raised to resolve the leak to the side of the toilet, and this was subsequently carried out on 15 February 2022. However, the repair required tiles and boxing to be removed at the back and side of the toilet. This had not been replaced due to the need for the area to be dry. The landlord returned on 4 March 2022 to assess the works that had been completed and found that the area was still damp. During the inspection, the resident advised that she sat on the toilet seat to shower. The landlord’s operative advised that this would exacerbate the damp and advised the resident to use the purpose-built shower seat instead.
The landlord advised it could not replace the tiles and boxing until the area was dry and it proposed to call two weeks later to arrange a follow-up appointment, when it would return and check the dryness of the area. However, the resident advised she did not want anybody to re-visit and preferred to receive the final outcome to her complaint before moving forward.
The landlord’s final complaint response, sent on 26 April 2022, acknowledged there had been service failure with regard to delays in completing the agreed repairs to the leak and also regarding its communication with the resident. However, it advised that it did not see any evidence of damp in the kitchen and hallway during the previous inspection, as had been suggested by the resident, and noted that a further inspection would need to be carried out to determine if further repairs needed to be raised for possible damp. It also reiterated that it could not repair the tiles and plaster behind the toilet until it had inspected and determined that the area was dry. The resident advised that she would refuse access for any surveys or visits and that she would also refuse phone calls from the landlord as she wanted them to be recorded.
The resident was dissatisfied that the damp and mould issue had remained outstanding since 2019, and that she felt that the landlord had suggested she was at fault for the damp due to showering on the toilet. She was also unhappy with the time it had taken to complete the leak repair to the toilet and she additionally believed that damage to her wall and wet-room flooring had been caused by the toilet leak and the fact that it had remained outstanding for so long.
Following a meeting between the landlord and the resident, it was agreed that the landlord would attempt to find a property and assist the resident in moving out of her current home as she felt that this was the best option. It noted that if it were unable to find a suitable property, it would then attempt to negotiate access to the property in order to complete the repairs, something that the resident was reluctant to do.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

Section 5.5 of the tenancy agreement states that the resident must allow employees, contractors, and agents to access the property to “inspect the condition and use” of the property, and to “carry out repairs, service or improvement work” to the property.
The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance handbook advises that in regard to damp and mould, residents should “treat it straight away to stop it from spreading and causing damage”.
Section 2.8 of the landlord’s Compensation Policy states that “[The landlord] may consider a discretionary payment of compensation… in the following circumstances: … If repair or improvement work undertaken by [the landlord] has not met [its] published standards”, or there had been “Inconvenience/distress caused due to an unacceptable delay in resolving a reported repair”.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

The landlord’s policies and procedures do not set out its obligations regarding damp and mould, nor are the timeframes for responses to such repairs given. The landlord has provided a Repairs and Maintenance handbook which gives residents advice on what to do if damp/mould/condensation is discovered. However, the handbook revolves around what the resident should do rather than the landlord’s responsibilities.
Whilst it is reasonable to ensure the resident is aware of how to, as far as possible, prevent damp and mould, it is important for the landlord to treat damp and mould as a significant hazard and to take a proactive approach when it receives reports of this nature. As such, as well as the Repairs and Maintenance handbook, this Service has considered resources such as the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (“Its not lifestyle”, published in October 2021 and available on this Service’s website) in determining whether the landlord’s actions were appropriate.
In an email to this Service on 25 March 2022, the resident advised that she had reported the presence of damp and mould to the landlord in February 2020 following adaptation works to her wet room in 2019. Although the landlord has noted it did not carry out the adaptation works itself (this was completed by the local authority’s contractors), it has not provided any evidence or correspondence regarding repairs prior to 21 December 2020, so it remains unclear if it has a record of being contacted regarding any damp and mould issues before this date.
While it is noted that the works carried out by the local authority may have taken place prior to the merger between the resident’s old landlord and the new entity, it is vital for landlords to retain information and to provide an appropriate audit trail. That said, whilst the Ombudsman considers that the evidence provided is lacking in certain areas, this Service has been able to continue with the investigation as much of the details and claims made by the resident have not been disputed by the landlord. Additionally, the landlord has explained that it would be implementing a new system that would track repairs and allow for this type of evidence to be provided in the future. This will help to provide clarity for all parties involved in repairs, but especially residents, in future cases.
The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance handbook advises that if mould is discovered, residents should “treat it straight away” to stop it from spreading and causing damage. However, whilst it would not be unreasonable to advise the resident to clear any mould that she could, this Service would have expected the landlord to take a more involved approach to investigating the issue and determining why mould is present. Following reports of damp and mould, it is the landlord’s responsibility to inspect with urgency and resolve the issue within a reasonable period of time. It is generally accepted that a timeframe of 20 working days would be an appropriate length of time to identify and resolve the issue.
The resident advised in her stage two escalation request that when she initially reported the damp and mould to the landlord, she was told that it was not a repair issue and that she should treat it herself. This was not disputed by the landlord. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould advises landlords to take a proactive stance and to retain a degree of responsibility that does not place the onus on the resident. The landlord’s immediate reaction should have been to assess the severity of the damp and mould and to attempt to find the root cause, rather than placing responsibility for resolving the matter back onto the resident.
The resident said that after she had reported the issue again in August 2020, the landlord advised that it would visit within 28 days. However, an inspection was not carried out until 21 December 2020, well outside this timeframe.
This was roughly ten months after the resident’s advised she initially reported the damp and mould in February 2020. This is not a reasonable time for the resident to wait. As noted, the potential health risks from damp and mould are significant enough that the landlord should treat it with a matter of urgency. The landlord’s initial advice that the resident should treat the issue herself, followed by its failure to carry out an inspection within a reasonable timeframe after her further report in August 2020, was a service failure. It did not response appropriately to the resident’s or treat her fairly. Additionally, although the property was inspected and damp and mould was identified, the landlord did not follow-up with any communication with the resident, and there is no evidence of the landlord taking action to minimise the damp or carry out repairs to any areas damaged by damp were made. Evidence also suggests that there were other inspections carried out at the property (on 11 January 2021 and 9 July 2021) that do not appear to have been followed up by the landlord. This raises concerns over how the landlord managed its repair processes.
The resident advised that, between February and July 2021, she had continuously chased the landlord for updates regarding the progress of its investigations and any repairs or other steps it would take to address the damp and mould. From the evidence provided to this Service, it is clear that her correspondence was often not responded to. This was not appropriate and was further evidence of poor communication by the landlord, although it is noted that this was acknowledged by the landlord in its complaint responses.
The resident has advised that the landlord’s communication with her, during the repairs process and the complaints procedure, left her feeling upset and frustrated. In an email to the landlord on 25 Mach 2022, she advised that she felt “disgusted” by the lack of communication. As well as causing frustration, the communication problems caused further delay in the issue being addressed. It is vital for landlords to keep residents informed regarding the progress of repairs, particularly when delays may arise. That the landlord did not do so in this case was a service failure and evidence that it also failed to meet the resident’s expectations, which is a key part of a landlord’s service delivery.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage one response, sent on 25 November 2021, that its service had not been to the “required standard”. It also acknowledged the resident had cause to chase it for updates regarding repairs without being provided a response on multiple occasions.
Whilst it was positive that the landlord acknowledged its failures and identified ways in which it could improve, it does not help if the assurances were not followed through. This was the case in the next phase of managing the repairs. As noted above, the landlord had arranged to inspect the property on the week commencing 29 November 2021. However, evidence indicates this did not happen and that there was no further correspondence with the resident until she chased up the issue on 16 December 2021. The landlord said that it had given its operative the wrong number for the resident and therefore the work was not arranged. While instances of human error will inevitably occur from time to time, the landlord should have made further efforts to contact the resident, such as by email or letter, particularly considering the resident had already had cause to complain. That the landlord continued to demonstrate poor communication following its complaint response is of concern.
The landlord ultimately carried out the inspection on 8 February 2022, when it identified the presence of damp to the side and behind the toilet. It advised that this had permeated through the dividing wall. At this point, a leak was identified and was believed to be the source of the damp. Following the repair of the leak on 15 February 2022, the landlord conducted a follow-up inspection on 4 March 2022 and during this appointment was advised by the resident that she was sitting on the toilet seat to shower rather than use the designated shower area. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely upon the resident’s admission to determine that this had contributed to the damp. However, while the landlord was apparently satisfied that this was the cause of the damp, there is a lack of evidence that other possible causes had been ruled out, particularly given that a leak had been identified in the same area which had been ongoing for a significant amount of time.
Following the visit on 4 March 2022, and the resident’s stage two complaint escalation, the landlord made several attempts to book an appointment to attend the property to inspect the damp and to repair the area behind the toilet. However, records show the resident refused access. She maintained that she wanted to know the full extent of repairs the landlord planned to make before allowing access, but the landlord said that it needed to attend first, so that it could ensure that relevant repairs would be arranged.
This was further reiterated in its final complaint response sent on 26 April 2022, in which it emphasised to the resident that it wanted to replace the plaster and tiling behind the toilet, but that it needed to carry out an inspection prior to doing so. It is understandable that the landlord did not want to carry out certain repairs until it was satisfied the source of the damp had been identified and the issue resolved. Additionally, as part of the final response, it made clear that it had not seen any evidence of damp in the kitchen and hallway during the inspection on 4 March 2022. As the resident stated that further repairs were needed, it was therefore reasonable that the landlord would wish to inspect the property again and it was appropriate that it sought to do so.
Section 5.5 of the resident’s tenancy agreement states that the resident must allow employees, contractors, and agents to access the property to “inspect the condition” of the property, and to “carry out repairs, service or improvement work” to the property. Whilst the evidence indicates that there were unreasonable delays in the landlord’s initial response to the reports of damp and mould, the resident’s refusal to allow operatives access to the property at this time also contributed to further delays in repairing the damaged areas and the landlord, which the evidence indicates was attempting to proactively resolve the issue, cannot be held responsible for these.
The resident informed this Service that a meeting was scheduled to take place on 6 September 2022 between herself and the landlord. During the meeting, it was concluded that the landlord would attempt to find a new property for the resident. In doing so, the landlord has exercised its discretionary powers by agreeing to satisfy the resident’s wishes of moving into a new property. This is above and beyond the landlord’s obligations and has potentially gone a long way in improving the landlord/tenant relationship that had been damaged over the course of the complaint.
Whilst it is positive that the landlord has taken steps to find the resident a new property, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, given that the landlord had acknowledged several service failures regarding repairs and communication, the landlord should have considered whether any further form of remedy would be appropriate, in order to “put things right”.
Section 2.8 of the landlord’s Compensation Policy states that “[The landlord] may consider a discretionary payment of compensation… in the following circumstances: … If repair or improvement work undertaken by [the landlord] has not met [its] published standards”, or there had been “Inconvenience/distress caused due to an unacceptable delay in resolving a reported repair”.
Although compensation will be paid in large part because of the delay in repairs, it is accounted for that the resident has refused access following the identification of required repairs, which has added to the delay in the repairs being resolved. This Service acknowledges and understands the frustration experienced by the resident, and her reasoning for refusing access, however, the resident does have a legal obligation to allow access as stated in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord did also acknowledge its service failures and demonstrated its intention to learn and improve from its mistakes. This Service’s dispute resolution principles encourage landlords to not just resolve the immediate complaint, but to learn from outcomes in order to improve its wider service delivery. It demonstrated this by explaining that the resident’s complaint would be used to remind its staff of the importance of good communication. The landlord also advised this Service that it introduced a new system to improve its record keeping. Additionally, it confirmed that it had amended its damp and mould policy so that all reports of damp and mould are inspected immediately, surveyed, and required repairs raised. It is also noted that, following the conclusion of the complaint procedure, the landlord has gone above and beyond its obligations and used its discretionary powers to attempt to find a new property for the resident.
The collective service failures amount to maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould, and it is the opinion of this Service that an award of compensation proportionate to the landlord’s failures would be appropriate. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that for instances in which there was no offer of compensation for maladministration that “adversely affected the resident”, but the landlord did “acknowledged failings”, a payment of £100 to £600 would be reasonable. It is the opinion of this Service that it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £400, in line with this guidance.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a toilet leak in the property

The landlord advised that the resident had reported a leak on 5 August 2020, and it attempted to visit the property on 3 September 2020. Whilst this was not an exceptionally long time, it would be expected that the landlord treated a leak with urgency due to the nature of these sorts of repairs. Leaks can cause both seen and unseen damage to the property, and can cause further hazards such as damp and mould. As such, leaks should be treated with a degree of urgency and inspected within a period of days rather than weeks. Additionally, the landlord did not manage to gain access to the property and it was eventually attended on 21 December 2020.
Having not gained access on the first occasion, the landlord should have proactively maintained contact to attend at the next earliest convenience. It noted in its final response (26 April 2022) that it expected repairs to be completed within 17 to 60 days, depending on the nature of the repair. However, it is unclear whether the landlord made reasonable attempts to re-visit the property within this timeframe. It is important to know whether the landlord actively made contact to re-organise the appointment, as a further delay of over three and a half months to inspect the leak was not justified.
The inspection on 21 December 2020 determined that the leak was “very minor but consistent”. It required work to be done to repair the leak, and the operative who attended made recommendations to the landlord for certain repairs to be carried out. However, the landlord advised this Service that the recommendation was not followed up on and that a work order was not raised. This was not appropriate and was a service failure. Additionally, the resident advised that a further visit in January 2021 also identified that work was needed, but this was again not followed up.
The landlord advised this Service that it attempted to attend again in May 2021 to address the leak from the toilet, although it was again unable to gain access. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord made proactive attempts to follow-up and re-attend. While being unable to gain access is not the landlord’s fault, it was not reasonable that the landlord did not follow this up in a timely manner, knowing as it did that there was an unresolved leak. Its failure to make further attempts to address the leak and raise work caused unnecessary delays.
The landlord should ensure that any works identified are completed within a reasonable time and keep accurate records about works so that it knows which jobs to follow-up and complete. It should have maintained regular communication with the resident throughout, to provide updates and keep the resident informed. By inspecting and identifying a needed repair, the landlord set an expectation with the resident to have the repair completed within a reasonable time (17 to 60 days according to the landlord). However, it failed to raise the work and therefore failed to uphold its obligations. This potentially had a detrimental effect on the landlord/tenant relationship.
If the landlord makes a commitment to the resident, it should ensure that it ensures the completion of all work/visits/repairs that were part of that commitment. Failure to follow through with work that it had informed the resident it would undertake is a service failure. Additionally, if unable to undertake work within the timeframe it had given, it should keep the resident informed and manage expectations by providing a new timeframe for the resident to expect the repairs. Failure to do this potentially conveyed the feeling that to the resident her concerns were not being taken seriously, especially given that the landlord had given assurances that it would improve its communication with her.
An appointment to inspect the property was booked for 8 February 2022. The landlord attended and found a leak behind toilet. This was the same leak that had originally been identified in December 2020 during a previous inspection. The inspection also found that the damp and mould came from behind and to the side of the toilet and had permeated through the dividing wall and into the kitchen and that the leak was potentially a cause.
The landlord was obliged to raise a repair to fix the leak, which was completed on 15 February 2022. This was confirmed by the resident. Given that the leak was not an emergency, the period of one week to make the repair was not unreasonable. However, as the leak had already been reported in August 2020, the repair had actually remained outstanding for a significant amount of time.
There was maladministration by the landlord in the significant delay in addressing and repairing the leak. The landlord and its contractors were aware of the leak from August 2020 yet repairs were not completed until 15 February 2022, a year and a half later. It is also of concern that, while the landlord advised its records did not contain any information regarding the resident’s vulnerability, in her correspondence with the landlord, she advised how the situation was impacting on her mental and physical health. Having been advised of this, the landlord does not appear to have given further consideration to this information. The Ombudsman would have expected to see the landlord consider whether it could have treated the matter with greater urgency, or whether it could have discussed with the resident whether she required any further support or for any reasonable adjustments to be made. That it did not do so was not appropriate and this meant the landlord did not treat the resident fairly.
Due to the maladministration in addressing the leak, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation to the resident in recognition of this. This service’s remedies guidance states that where there was “a failure which adversely affected the resident”, a payment of £100 to £600 would be reasonable. It is the opinion of this Service that in recognition of the year and a half without the leak being addressed, a further payment of £400 is appropriate.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident remained unsatisfied with the landlord’s complaint handling as she felt that not all of the subjects raised in her complaint had been addressed. The resident, in her stage two escalation, listed several aggrievances, including the fact that she had been living with her daughter, the stress caused to her, her frustration that she had not been given reports from contractor visits, concerns with the layout/structure of the wet room itself, and she also listed several resolutions and repairs that she was seeking.
The landlord is required to respond to each aspect of the resident’s complaint in full, in order to provide a clear and definitive stance to the resident. Should the landlord omit significant aspects of the resident’s complaint from its response without good reason, this would constitute a complaint handling failure.
In its final response, the landlord apologised for the delay and for not meeting the standard it required in meeting its service delivery. It addressed the repairs that the resident sought and advised that it needed it to conduct an inspection in order to determine what repairs were necessary. It also acknowledged that the resident wanted her calls to be recorded and explained why this was difficult to always provide.
However, it did not acknowledge the fact that she had not been living at the property, and it also did not acknowledge her request for inspection reports. The resident was entitled to know what had been determined during visits to her property, as she had been waiting for repairs to take place for a significant amount of time. If the landlord was unable to provide the reports, it should have notified the resident, or offered to provide reports on further visits.
Additionally, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to address the fact that the resident did not feel she could stay in the property due to its condition. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain why it believed the property was in reasonable condition. However, whilst it did not explain this in the final complaint response, it did make this clear to the resident at other points during the handling of the complaint.
The resident also advised this Service that the landlord had claimed in its final response, that she had spoken to a particular operative when in fact she had not. Although the resident’s position and her concerns are acknowledged, this Service does not have the evidence to verify either way whether she spoke to a particular operative and as such, would not be able to draw a conclusion on this concern.
In regard to the resident’s concerns of the ground in the room being uneven, and therefore unsafe, the landlord should have signposted her to the appropriate service, such as an occupational therapist (OT). An OT would have been able to assess the resident’s needs and whether or not the layout/flooring could have been changed. The landlord did eventually advise the resident of this, but it would have been more appropriate to address this as part of its final response.
While the landlord’s final complaint response was detailed and demonstrated that it had carried out a proper investigation of many of the concerns the resident raised, it did not address all of the issues she raised, which was a service failure and evidently caused the resident further, and unnecessary, frustration. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests that for minimal failures that have a detrimental effect on the resident, a payment of £50 to £100 would be appropriate. As such, an order is made for the landlord to pay the resident £75 to reflect failings in its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property, including related repairs.
2. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to a toilet leak in the property.
3. service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £875 within four weeks of this investigation, consisting of:

£400 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property, including related repairs.
£400 for the landlord’s handling of repairs to a toilet leak in the property.
£75 for the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord is also ordered to provide a letter of apology to the resident, acknowledging its failures in handling the repairs appropriately.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this determination.