The Industrial Dwellings Society (1885) Limited (202344796)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344796

The Industrial Dwellings Society (1885) Limited

27 November 2024

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 resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and of a leak flooding the basement below the property.

Background

The resident occupied a 2-bedroom flat on the ground floor under an assured tenancy agreement. The tenancy had begun in 2015. The landlord did not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident informed us that he had been diagnosed with a brain tumour in 2022. He referred to his health issues in his correspondence with the landlord.
The resident’s flat was situated in a block of flats. The landlord was the leaseholder of the flat and 3 other neighbouring flats. The block belonged to the superior landlord of the resident’s landlord and was managed on behalf of that superior landlord by a managing agent. In or around early 2024, there was a change of managing agent.

The legal and policy framework

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord had an obligation to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. The landlord must also keep the installations for space heating, sanitation (including baths), and hot water in good repair and proper working order. This reflects the landlord’s statutory obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”).
Under Section 9a of the Act, the landlord has an obligation that the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy in relation to freedom from damp.
The contractual obligations between the landlord and its superior landlord are not known but it is assumed that there would have been obligations regarding the common parts of the block.
The landlord is expected to meet the home standard set by the Regulator of Social Housing, including that it meets the current statutory minimum standard for housing and provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS introduced by the Housing Act 2004 is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards, including damp.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) sets out our expectations and provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and an effective resolution.
3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.

The complaint

On 23 October 2023, the resident made a complaint that he had reported flooding in the building for “many years” as well as the possibility of damp developing. There was “rising damp with high humidity levels” and black mould that “formed constantly” in his flat. The landlord’s repairs had not resolved the issues.
On 9 November 2023, the landlord wrote with its Stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint of 26 October 2023 as follows:
1. The complaint was about “flooding” in the car park.
2. It noted that the resident had contacted the landlord in December 2021 with videos about the issues. It apologised for the delay in addressing this.
3. It was investigating the issues with the managing agent of the block. It had noted some mould growth to the bathroom ceiling. There were several issues at the block that could be contributing to this, namely flooding to the basement area below, dampness coming from a neighbouring block and/or a leak into the basement area. The source of the leak was yet to be identified. The landlord and the management agent would be organising further investigations into the cause of this dampness. The Managing Agent had responsibility for the communal and external repairs to both blocks.
4. Once causation had been established, repairs could be ordered for the issues raised.
5. The landlord would endeavour to keep the resident updated at every stage of the investigation in order to assure him that progress was being made in addressing these issues.
6. The complaint was upheld.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on the same day because of the “high humidity” in his property which he had reported 2 years previously. The landlord had carried out an extensive survey in December 2022 but the landlord’s “limited actions (had) failed”. Moreover, the landlord did not provide any timescales.
On 7 December 2023, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. It referred to the resident’s email of 9 November 2023 and conversation on 15 November 2023 requesting to escalate the complaint.
2. There had been issues for a prolonged period which had not been resolved in a reasonable timeframe. Its communication had not been “good enough”.
3. It had had issues with working with the block’s managing agent (“MA”) that had caused delays with the investigations into the repair issues. It could have done more to progress the matter and keep the resident up to date
4. It had made progress over the previous couple of weeks. On 2 November 2023, it visited the property with the MA to investigate the cause of damp and mould affecting the resident’s property. On 21 November 2023, its contractors attended the block and pumped water out of the basement area. It had sent the resident the MA’s report on 28 November 2023.
5. Next steps included:
  1. Tracing the leak into the basement area. An appointment had been made for 12 December 2023.
  2. Ensuring the MA completed their schedule of works. The MA was currently tendering for these works.
  3. Inspecting the resident’s property once the leak to the basement was resolved and carrying out any required remedial works.
  4. An inspection had also been booked for 12 December 2023 to draw up a scope of works to be completed following all other works.
  5. It had “taken far too long for (the landlord) to resolve the repair issues”. It apologised that it had not kept the resident up to date.
  6. The complaint was upheld. It offered £200 in compensation including for the delays to repairs and the poor communication.
In April 2024, following the conclusion of the complaint, the landlord reported to the resident that the leak to the basement had been located and resolved and would be carrying out an inspection of the resident’s flat. However, it transpired that the leaks had not, in fact, been resolved. The landlord contacted the managing agent. In June 2024, there were discussions between the landlord and the superior landlord about further investigations. The landlord stated it had investigated all 4 flats in the block for leaks. In July 2024, the MA was to carry out investigations of the drainage. The landlord continued to chase the MA and in September 2024 referred to an investigation by the local authority. In September 2024, the MA requested copies of the landlord’s investigations into the leak in one of the flats.
On 26 November 2024, the resident informed us that the outstanding works including a mould wash, decorating with anti-mould paint and replacing the shower screen had been carried out within the previous month. He did not know whether the leak in the basement had been resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

We do not generally investigate events after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints process unless the events are linked to the original complaint. We will consider whether the landlord followed up on its assurances it made to resolve the complaint.

The damp and mould.

It was not disputed that the resident reported flooding from the basement on 2 December 2021. In that report, the resident stated that he had previously reported “flooding” and there was a smell of damp and mould present in this flat. There was evidence in the repairs log of repairs related to damp and mould having been carried out in 2020. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that the repairs had been outstanding for an unreasonable length of time. The landlord acknowledged the lack of communication, and that it did not update the resident in accordance with its assurances in its Stage 1 response of November 2023. Following the Stage 2 response, it is noted that communication appeared to improve. The landlord’s senior staff was in direct contact with the resident in order to update him and to respond to his questions.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman assesses 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 landlord logged the 2 December 2021 report as a leak on 7 December 2021 but there was no evidence the landlord took any action until it arranged an inspection in December 2022. That is a significant delay for which the landlord did not provide an explanation.
It was reasonable that the landlord raised remedial works on 13 January 2023 comprising of external works to the drainage and waterproofing, replacing the kitchen and bathroom fans, sealing window joints and mould washing the lounge and bathroom. The repair log indicated the works included renewing floor insulation. It was also to repair a leak in the bath. The repairs fell within the landlord’s legal obligations to repair, while works such as replacing fans fell into works the landlord should carry out to prevent damp and mould.
According to the repairs log and email exchange of 30 April 2024, the stain blocking, redecoration and upgrade of the fans were still outstanding at that time. There was no evidence that the landlord carried out the painting and sealing of the living room ceiling raised in October 2021, which work was referred to as outstanding as at August 2023.According to the resident, the repairs to the bath and basin, regrouting and replastering of the cupboard were also outstanding. The landlord informed us in October 2024 that works including painting of areas, a “minor” mould wash, grouting to tiles and renewal of a shower screen were still outstanding. While some of the later works were decorative, and some of the delays were due to delays to works to the adjacent flat, this was a further significant unreasonable delay after the works had been raised in January 2023. This delay was particularly unreasonable given that the resident had raised these reports as long ago as December 2021, if not sooner. It was not reasonable, in any event, to wait for the works in the adjacent flat to be completed before, for example, installing the higher spec fans and applying anti-mould paint.
The resident’s complaint in October 2023 was that while the landlord had undertaken some works, the works had not resolved the issues. The issues arising from the block, rather than the interior of the resident’s flat, were a matter for the landlord’s superior landlord and managed by the superior landlord’s MA. Our report on the relationships between landlords, its superior landlord and their management agents Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on managing agents March 2022 sets out the potential challenges of those relationships and the difficulties that they can present for the resident.
However, while some of the works were outside the landlord’s control, we would expect the landlord to take such steps as it was able to and to consider its obligations towards the resident. There would have been enforceable contractual agreements between the landlord and its superior landlord. The landlord should consider the superior landlord’s obligations towards it, to make reasonable efforts to liaise with the MA and carry out as many works as it was authorised to. The landlord did not provide evidence to us of its communication with the original MA but referred to difficulties it had with them. While there was some evidence it liaised with the second MA later on, we are not satisfied that the landlord did all it could to progress matters with the respective MAs and/or the superior landlord.
It was reasonable, however, that, according to the landlord’s email of 21 November 2023, it had pumped water out of the basement area and it instructed leak detection contractors to trace the leak. It was also carrying out repairs in an adjacent property that had caused issues with leaks.
It was reasonable to commission a leak detection report which took place on 12 December 2023. However, this was only after an unreasonable delay. The leak detection report showed that there were issues within the resident’s flat causing damp and mould. It also showed that the resident’s flat was not the source of the leak into the basement. It is noted that, according to the landlord’s surveyor, the dye test into the basement leak was not conclusive at that stage. On 21 December 2023, the landlord considered that the mould in the resident’s cupboard was due to disrepair in the adjacent flat, for which it was responsible.
The leak specialist’s assessment underlined that it was difficult to trace the cause of the leak into the basement. The landlord’s surveyor suggested exploring the carpark which had not yet been investigated, as well as the original installations. This also demonstrates that it was not straightforward to address the leaks from the basement and that the issues may have been due to structural or building defects as well as to disrepair. The evidence indicated that, at that stage, (December 2023) the landlord was looking at being thorough and systematic. However, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have looked at carrying out these investigations sooner, given its obligations to minimise the risk of damp and mould in properties, as part of its duties under section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and according to good practice, as set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report.
According to the landlord’s email to the resident of 19 April 2024 and an internal email of 24 April 2024, the basement leak appeared to have been resolved and the landlord was “confident” that was the cause of the leak into the resident’s flat.
On 23 April 2024, the resident reported above normal humidity levels. It is not known how this was measured. However, the evidence showed that it was not disputed that there were still issues with damp in the property which affected the building and his home. According to an email of 26 June 2024 from the landlord to the second MA, it transpired the leak had not, infact, been resolved. We do not attribute fault to the landlord for not foreseeing this.
On the basis the basement leaked when it rained, the landlord considered this was a structural issue, which would be a matter for the superior landlord, through its MA. The MA suggested a full drainage survey. At this time, the evidence showed that the landlord was pressing the MA to carry out investigations. We find it reasonable that the landlord, in more recent months, chased the second MA and advocated that investigations should be carried out and was taking a more proactive stance toward the MA.
The evidence showed that the resident had had a serious health condition for some time. The Ombudsman cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s service failure or maladministration has contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and/or mental health. We cannot assess medical evidence and do not make findings on matters such as negligence. However, the Ombudsman does carefully consider what a resident tells us about how they have been affected by the issues in their complaint, including the overall impact on them, and may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by a particular service failure by a landlord.
A letter from the resident’s GP of April 2024 outlined that the condition of the flat had exacerbated the resident’s stress. The resident informed us in February 2024 that the condition of his home had impacted on him, in particular as he had undergone a number of hospital visits due to his medical condition. It is not known when the resident reported his condition to the landlord in detail although there were references to his ill health when asking for emails rather than phone calls. The resident estimated that there had been over 10 inspections over the course of almost 4 years which was disruptive. We saw no evidence that the landlord considered the particular impact on the resident, given his health condition, either within its records or in its responses to the resident.
The exact extent of the damp and mould was not clear but its presence was not disputed. It is noted that there was a contradiction between the contractor report indicating “high readings of moisture” and the landlord’s own surveyor assessment of 12 December 2023 of “small signs of moisture”. The resident reported that the condition of the property was having a significant impact on him due to the smell and presence of mould that he had to wash off.
It was positive that the landlord acknowledged its failings in relation to the delays and its poor communication. The landlord raised repairs and communication appeared to improve. The landlord’s senior staff appeared to be in direct contact with the resident in order to update him and to respond to his questions. However, the Ombudsman does not consider that £200 was sufficient compensation for the poor communication and significant delays or adequately reflected the particular impact on the resident and will make an order for further compensation. This is because there were significant delays from December 2021 to the date of the offer, in December 2023, a period of 2 years. The Ombudsman takes into account the distress and inconvenience caused by the condition of the property on the resident who was in poor health.
The issues in the complaint were not resolved within a reasonable period of time of the Stage 2 response. While we note the further complexities of the repairs to the basement, we would expect the landlord to continue to monitor resolution, assess its own performance and consider offering further compensation, if there were further unreasonable delays. An effective complaints process should monitor the relevant departments in order to ensure that the landlord’s assurances are followed through and to update the resident proactively.
In November 2022, the Ombudsman asked landlords to assess themselves against the 26 recommendations made in the Spotlight report. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not entirely in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We could not identify any self-assessment on the landlord’s website. We encourage the landlord to consider, or, if it has done so, to reassess, the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report. The Ombudsman will also make a recommendation the self-assessment is published, should it not have been.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and of a leak flooding the basement below the property.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 2 weeks of this report, the landlord should write to the resident, with a copy to the Ombudsman, with the most recent update regarding the basement leaks and agree a frequency of updates, say every month.
2. Within 6 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £1,000 including the £200 offered on 7 December 2023 at Stage 2 of its complaints process and consisting as follows:
  1. £200 offered at Stage 2, if it has not been paid already.
  2. £800 in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and of a leak flooding the basement below the property.
3. Within 3 weeks, the landlord should speak to the resident to discuss his household circumstances, consider how its service should take account of those circumstances, whether to make any reasonable adjustments, including in its delivery of repairs and record this centrally accordingly. The landlord should provide a copy or screen shot of that record to the resident and the Ombudsman within 6 weeks.
4. Within 8 weeks, a RICS surveyor or damp and mould specialist, either independent or of the landlord, should inspect the resident’s flat for damp and mould, take humidity readings and make recommendations if further works or investigations, whether in the flat or externally, are required.. A copy of the report, together with an action plan with reasonable timescales should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman within 10 weeks.
The landlord should evidence compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 6 and 8 weeks of this report.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. Within 12 weeks, the landlord should review or complete, as appropriate, a self-assessment as recommended in our Spotlight report on damp and mould and publish this on its website.
2. Within 12 weeks, the landlord should complete a self-assessment as suggested in our Spotlight Report on landlord’s engagement with private freeholders and managing agents. Self-assessment guide for managing agents spotlight report.
3. It is noted that the issues in the building have not been resolved and that the landlord continues to have discussions with the managing agent. The landlord should continue to update the resident proactively and consider how to minimise the impact on his home, including with further mould washes.
The landlord should feedback to the Ombudsman its intentions regarding these recommendations within 6 weeks of this report.