The Riverside Group Limited (202115265)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115265

The Riverside Group Limited

22 May 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of a leak in the bathroom.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.
4. The resident’s request for compensation for damaged items.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s request for compensation for damaged items.
Paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
The Ombudsman as an alternative dispute resolution service does not operate in the same way a court does and we cannot make the same decisions. We do not make binding decisions on matters such as negligence, liability or discrimination and we do not make orders of compensation in the way that a court may order a payment of damages. The Ombudsman is not able to make a legally binding determination on the landlord’s liability for the resident’s damaged items as this would be a matter for the courts. Therefore, the resident’s request for compensation for damaged items is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme. The resident may wish to consider legal advice in respect of the damaged items.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which started on 17 January 2003. The property is a two-bedroom bungalow.
The resident has advised the landlord in her complaint, and this Service that both herself and her husband have health issues including lung diseases. The landlord has a vulnerability indicator in their records which states “allow extra time for access”.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Section 11 requires that landlords “keep in repair and proper working order the structure and exterior of the dwelling house”. It requires landlords to “keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling house for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation”.
The tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s responsibilities to:
1. Repair the structure and external areas of the property.
2. Repair the internal walls, floors and ceilings, doors and door frames, door hinges and skirting boards. This does not include internal painting and decorating.
3. Maintain fittings that it has installed including basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes.
The tenancy agreement sets out the tenant’s responsibilities to allow access to carry out necessary works and to report disrepair.
The landlord has a two stage complaints policy and will aim to respond to complaints at stage one within five working days and stage two within ten working days.
The landlord’s financial redress and compensation procedure sets out its procedure for compensation and/or financial redress. It details:
1. That it gives the same rights to those given to secure tenants under the Right to Repair (The Secure Tenants of Local Housing Authorities (Right to Repair) Regulations) 1994 in respect of qualifying repairs covered by this legislation.
2. It may compensate in a number of situations:
  1. “When Riverside has failed to provide a service or meet its service standards;
  2. Failure to carry out qualifying repairs within the Right to Repair timescales;
  3. For improvements that customers have carried out themselves, with permission;
  4. When Riverside is legally liable (at fault in law) for bodily injury or for damage to property (including a tenant’s property).”
3. If part of a home is “uninhabitable due to delays to repairs which Riverside are responsible for carrying out, financial redress may be payable”. This is calculated as “a reduction in the rent payable, based on the number of rooms that are unavailable for use as a percentage of the number of habitable rooms (excluding the bathroom)”. This would be payable from the date the repair was due until work is completed.
4. Any claim for property damage under £2,000 is determined by the landlord. Any claim over £2,000 is referred to the landlord’s insurer.
The resident has stated that there is a long history of damp and mould in the property. The landlord’s records show some prior reports from 2019 regarding damp in the bathroom for which the landlord installed a new bathroom fan and carried out a mould wash. There were no further reports until 14 July 2021. Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the “Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matter arising”. This report therefore focusses on the period from 7 July 2021 when a report of damp issues was made and prior to the resident’s formal complaint of 11 October 2021.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred and to effect a remedy in a timely manner. As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
The investigation has considered some relevant recent events and evidence following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and referral to this Service on 17 December 2021.
The resident has said that the damp and mould has adversely impacted upon her and her husband’s health. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident and her husband both have health issues described above. Unlike a court however we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. However, this Service can take into account avoidable distress, inconvenience and time and trouble resulting from a landlord’s service failure.
The landlord’s repairs policy was updated in September 2021. For the purpose of this investigation the previous policy operated by the landlord is mainly considered as this was the version in place at the time the damp and mould and leak were being investigated. This policy did not contain timescales, so this report considered a reasonable timescale for responsive repairs of 28 days which is consistent with the landlord’s updated policy.
The landlord’s revised responsive repairs policy states emergency repairs are to be completed within 12 hours, urgent gas repairs within three days, or 24 hours from Oct-March. Urgent repairs are to be completed within five days and routine repairs within 28 days. For extreme events such as Covid there is a 56-day period. The updated policy states that small leaks are dealt with as an “emergency” repair within 12 hours.
The landlord’s former responsive repairs policy sets out that “mould caused by condensation” is the tenant’s responsibility. This reflects a common approach by landlords pre-dating the spotlight report of 2021. The revised responsive repairs policy and damp and mould policy sets out that mould caused by condensation that reoccurs should be reported to the landlord so that it can inspect and assess the underlying cause.

Summary of events

A report of damp issues was made by the resident on 7 July 2021 and the landlord attended the property on 14 July 2021. The resident was advised to remove some plants off the wall as it was getting wet on watering. The repair log does not identify which wall this referred to. Black spot mould was found in the front bedroom and the insulation was checked in the loft at the time and found to be inadequate. However, there was no access to the loft at that time to undertake the work to install further insulation as the tenant had some belongings that needed to be moved from there.
Two jobs were raised on 14 July 2021:
1. To renew the insulation which was completed on 6 August 2021.
2. To check the roof and repoint the roof valley. The roof valley was checked and cleaned the same day on 14 July 2021. It is not clear from the records whether any repointing work was carried out.
A works order was raised on 5 August 2021 in response to a “suspected damp and mould” inside and outside of the property. Records do not show whether this was initiated by the landlord or the resident. Two surveys were instructed to inspect the drains and to inspect for damp and mould.
On 6 August 2021 works orders were raised to apply an antibacterial wash in the bathroom and front bedroom, and to renew soffit vents. This work was completed on 17 August 2021. Also on the 6 August 2021 the work to put further insulation in the loft was completed.
On 9 August 2021 a survey was instructed for the drainage which was completed on 18 August 2021. The drainage was found to be clear.
On 20 August 2021 a works order was raised for no heating or hot water “medical needs” and a new thermostat was fitted the same day. It was during this appointment that the contractor suspected a leak and asked for a follow-on work to check the waste pipe under the bath as there was a “bad smell”.
In response a works order was raised on 24 August 2021 for a follow up appointment The contractor attended on 3 September 2021, and carried out investigative work in the bathroom. The pipework was checked for leaks; however, no leaks were found.
On 3 September 2021 a further works order was raised to investigate a possible unknown leak from “heating pipes under flooring”. On the same day leak sealer was added to the water system. However, the contractor felt that as the customer’s decoration was damaged, and there was a “strong damp/foul water smell” any leak was not likely to be from the heating system.
On 14 September 2021 a damp survey was completed which detailed the following findings:
1. The presence of black spot fungi indicating condensation.
2. The central heating boiler was not working correctly.
3. The radiator in the front bedroom was too small for the size of room.
4. High moisture readings were recorded from the skirting to the bathroom and rear right bedroom.
5. Erosion by weathering of the brickwork to the rear causing the masonry to become porous.
6. The report states that “in addition to damaging internal decorations, dampness will cause the walls to be colder and increase heat loss from the property”.
The resident was given advice regarding heating and ventilation. The survey recommended a full inspection and repairs to be undertaken including the installation of a ventilation system and the application of masonry protection to prevent any penetrating damp.
The landlord raised a works order on 17 September 2021 to remove the hallway ceramic tiles. On 22 September 2021 a leak was then found after removing the tiles close to the toilet. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether the leak was fixed at that point as this detail is not provided.
The landlord then carried out work on the property between 22 September 2021 to 1 October 2021. This included:
1. Removal of the laminate flooring,
2. Removal of the bathroom suite.
3. Hacking off plaster on the bedroom wall.
4. Removing kitchen floor tiles and plastering.
5. Removing the plinths in the kitchen and applying self-levelling.
6. Rerouting and re-piping bathroom and bedroom radiators.
Works were completed by 1 October 2021 and photographs supplied by the landlord show the completed work. This was 12 weeks after the resident’s initial report of damp on 7 July 2021.
The resident raised a stage one complaint on 11 October 2021. This detailed:
1. An allegation that the landlord had told her that the kitchen was to be replaced and then was subsequently advised that it would be repaired instead.
2. Concerns that the property had not been properly dried out and that she and her husband “were finding it difficult to breathe in the property due to the severity of the damp and had to all sleep in the living room for 13 weeks”. The resident advised of her “breathing problems” and a “heart condition”. The dehumidifier provided by the landlord “was not on” and that she mentioned this to the landlord on 1 October 2021.
3. In order to resolve the complaint, the resident requested:
  1. New ceramic tiles to be laid to the hallway, bathroom and kitchen of the resident’s choice due to the existing flooring being taken up by the landlord’s contractor.
  2. A replacement boiler as the surveyor advised that this was needed and it “has been faulty for quite some time”.
  3. The removal of “most skirting boards, i.e. bathroom, bedroom and kitchen”.
  4. Redecoration of the back bedroom “as paper has to be removed and plastered”.
  5. The landlord to check for any further leaks by removing laminate flooring.
  6. “Put new laminate flooring in back bedroom as parts were removed”.
4. “The damp has been going on from start to finish for three years”. The resident expressed concern that the problem may not have been fully resolved and requested the landlord to check for any other leaks.
The landlord logged the complaint on 11 October 2021 and phoned the resident on 19 October 2021. The landlord’s call log detailed the issues that the resident raised in her complaint concerning the new kitchen and flooring. The resident disputed a previous conversation that suggested she had agreed with the landlord for the tiles to come up and for polysafe flooring to be put down.
The resident phoned the Ombudsman on 20 October 2021 and advised that the landlord had submitted a stage one response on 19 October 2021. This Service therefore advised the resident that the complaint should now be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
On 20 October 2021 the landlord agreed internally to replace the laminate flooring as a piece had been cut out in the bedroom instead of being lifted. The landlord also agreed to decorate the bedroom.
The landlord phoned the resident on 22 October 2021 to discuss her complaint. In addition to the concerns raised in her complaint, the resident advised that the boiler was losing pressure, and this could indicate a further leak and that the fridge and cooker were rusty. The resident felt that this was caused by damp. The landlord notes in the call record that “customer and husband have breathing conditions and this damp is affecting her health”.
The landlord phoned the resident again on 26 October 2021. The landlord’s call record details a request from the resident to claim off the landlord for the cooker and fridge. The resident stated that this was due to the fact that she was not covered for water damage through her insurance. She advised that the cooker worked and that the damage was not visible when the cooker was in place but wanted it fixed.
The landlord phoned the resident on 29 October 2021 to advise that it would not be replacing the kitchen. The landlord phoned the resident again on 2 November 2021 to advise that it could not offer anything for the fridge or cooker as there was no evidence that the damage was caused by the landlord. The landlord agreed to provide a copy of the survey report on the resident’s request.
The landlord sent its stage two response on 4 November 2021. This detailed:
1. The complaint had been escalated to stage two on the resident’s request before the resolution of stage one. As a result, the landlord stated, “there is not a Stage 1 letter associated with this case”.
2. The resident had confirmed that the only outstanding issues were the “failure to replace the ceramic tiles like for like” and the damage to the cooker and fridge.
3. The kitchen was inspected and as it could be “repaired rather than replaced” the appropriate work had been carried out. It apologised if the resident was led to believe that the kitchen would be replaced. This had been “fed back to the relevant teams so that we learn from it and minimise the risk of it happening again”.
4. The ceramic flooring could not be replaced on a like for like basis, however, the offer of the polysafe floor remained. “the team has advised that they feel you agreed to have it replaced with polysafe before it was lifted”. The flooring would have had to be lifted “in order to address the issue and could only ever replace with polysafe flooring”.
5. In respect of the fridge and cooker the resident had “arranged for it to be moved out of its place” and “then discovered the marks”. As both items were in full working order and there was no evidence that damage had been caused by the landlord it could not agree to replace or repair these items.
6. The damp specialist’s report would be sent out along with an emailed summary by another technical inspector.
7. That the landlord felt “that the communication side of the complaint has been handled well”.
On 16 December 2021 a dry air whole house ventilation system was fitted by the contractor who carried out the survey on 14 September 2021, being one of the recommendations arising from this survey. This was three months after this damp survey was carried out.
The resident contacted this Service with her complaint on 17 December 2021. This detailed the issues raised in her complaint to the landlord, the resident’s belief that “the water is still under the floors”. In her complaint she mentioned that the dehumidifier had not been used in the property and that there was still water under the floor.
After the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman there have been some further works orders and reports made by the resident relating to damp. The landlord issued a works order to fit laminate flooring and complete the decorating in the bedroom on 23 December 2021.
A report of “water under flooring causing damp” was made on 10 January 2022. The landlord agreed on 13 January 2022 not to offer the resident a dehumidifier “as property is drying out naturally following a leak”. However, no damp was found by the landlord.
The resident reported “stagnant water underneath flooring” on 26 May 2022 and the landlord visited 27 May 2022. The landlord agreed for the contractor fit flooring and reattend. A works order from 26 May 2022 detailed that the resident had fitted their own flooring in the bathroom, kitchen and hallway and as it was found to be level, there was no follow up work required.
The resident reported damp in the kitchen cupboard on 12 January 2023. This was attended to on 19 January 2023, and it was found that the damp readings were ok. However, a works order was raised to check for damp on 19 January 2023. The landlord’s contractor visited on 13 February 2023 and found no leaks. It found some discolouration from the self-levelling to the wall.
The resident has since been in touch with this Service to advise that damp and mould issues are not resolved. The resident has provided photographs to this Service showing a small amount of black mould growth around a window frame, and minor stains and peeling of some wallpaper. However, the photographs are not dated so it is not clear when they were taken. The resident has advised this Service that a further damp survey was carried out on 9 February 2023 by DampUK.
The landlord has provided a copy of this latest damp survey that detailed:
1. Damp levels were within an acceptable range within the property. Insulated deep probes were used in the bedroom which was found to be dry to a depth of 50 mm. It confirmed that “moisture was present at that depth” but that there were no other “defects normally associated with damp in floors present”. The surveyor found that the walls, door frames and skirting were dry with “no mould or staining evident”.
2. The floor in the bathroom was dry to a depth of 10 mm. “Although not too excessive it does confirm moisture present at that depth.” There were “no other defects normally associated with damp in floors present”.
3. The “tenant has turned the loft mounted PIV off as it was making the property cold”. This was referring to the ventilation system that had been installed by the landlord in December 2021.
4. Recommendations for the landlord to install automated extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom, assess the condition of the loft which could not be accessed and refix several occurrences of detached wallpaper. The landlord could also agree to “lift vinyl flooring and set aside to give concrete floor additional team to dry further using dehumidifier then refit upon completion of drying period”.
Photographs are included in the survey that do not show mould in the property at that time.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in the Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a resident and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.

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

The landlord acted in response to the resident’s initial report of damp and mould within a reasonable timescale of 28 days. Work was completed the same day 14 July 2021 and then follow up work to install loft insulation took place 6 August 2021. There was a small delay in installing the insulation as the resident had some belongings in the loft to remove.
Following the second report of damp and mould on 5 August 2021 the landlord’s response to replace vents and apply mould treatment was undertaken again within a reasonable 28-day timescale.
It was appropriate for the landlord to further investigate damp and mould by arranging for a specialist survey to be carried out on 14 September. The recommendation to install the ventilation system took three months and the reason why it took this length of time is not known. It would be expected that the landlord should have written to the resident to advise of the recommendations that would be undertaken, and the timescale and no evidence has been seen that this happened. This would have helped to manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord confirmed to this Service that it had not instructed the surveyor to undertake work to the masonry as it felt the issue was condensation. As a damp specialist had advised that the masonry was porous it would be reasonable for the landlord to follow this expert advice. This may avoid issues with penetrating damp that could further damage the property and potentially cause mould growth.
The landlord’s records do not show that the dehumidifier, mentioned by the resident, was provided at the time of her reports of damp and mould so this could indicate some record keeping issues. If one had been provided, then instructions would have needed to be given to the resident on its use and again there are no records of this happening. The landlord stated it had agreed with the resident not to use one in January 2022 as the property was “drying out naturally”. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to use a dehumidifier to dry out the property as early as possible given the resident’s vulnerability due to their health issues that could be made worse through exposure to damp. It would take considerably longer for a property to dry out naturally, especially over winter, exposing the residents to damp as well as the possibility of causing secondary damage to skirtings for example. The landlord was aware of the resident’s health issues at this time and had a vulnerability flag on their system. This was remiss of the landlord, and it failed to take these vulnerabilities into account.
As no dehumidifier had been provided from the outset this means that from the initial damp reports in July 2021 onwards the property was affected by damp that could have caused detriment to the resident and her husband.
The surveyor who carried the damp survey of 9 February 2023 advised that the resident had turned off the ventilation system installed by the landlord as it was making the property cold. It is not clear, however, whether the landlord provided any advice or guidance on the operation of this system as no records have been seen by this Service to suggest that this happened.
The automated extraction recommended in the latest damp survey would help to ensure that moisture is removed that could cause further damp issues. The landlord should ensure it follows the recommendations arising from this survey.
It was the resident that advised this Service that a further damp survey had been carried out in February 2023. This Service requested a copy of this recent survey from the landlord as it appeared that the recent survey was omitted from the information provided by the landlord. The landlord has an obligation under paragraph 10 of the Scheme to “provide copies of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint”. It is not known why the landlord did not provide the most recent survey, or whether it was available at the time. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the details that it had instructed a further damp survey, even if a copy of the actual survey was not available at the time of the information request.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (It’s not lifestyle) published October 2021 and follow up report published 2 February 2023 sets out some good practice and a number of recommendations that could be reviewed by the landlord to ensure it takes reasonable steps in diagnosing and remedying damp and mould. It states a landlord should identify where a suitably qualified surveyor should be used and then act on the survey recommendations. The landlord in this case acted appropriately in arranging a survey with a suitably qualified surveyor, though did not act on all of the recommendations from the survey. As it later transpired, the most recent damp survey stated that the resident had turned off the ventilation system provided by the landlord as described above. It is known whether at the time of the ventilation system’s installation that any advice or instructions were provided to the resident on the use of the system. This may have assisted the resident in making an informed decision on its use. Again no records detail that this happened.
It is good to see that the landlord now has a separate damp and mould policy (undated) on its website being one of the recommendations of the 2021 spotlight report above. The landlord should date its policies rather than just having the review date listed so it is clear when the policy came into effect.
In summary, the landlord has taken some action to remedy damp and mould by instructing a surveyor in 2021, installing the ventilation system and arranging a further survey in 2023. However, it could have taken further action to alleviate the damp in the property earlier through the provision of dehumidifiers and by acting on all of the recommendations in the survey. It did not take the resident and her husband’s known vulnerability to damp conditions into account. Relevant information was missing from the information the landlord provided this Service. The cumulative factors mean that there has been maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord should pay £350 compensation to the resident in response to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.

The landlord’s handling of a leak in the bathroom

The issue of a potential leak arose from a contractor who had attended the property to fit a new thermostat on 20 August 2021 and felt there was a “bad smell” under the bath. This showed a proactive approach taken by the contractor in identifying a possible leak during this particular appointment. However, the resident’s reported damp issues that could have indicated a leak arose from 7 July 2021. Records have not been seen that the landlord did any investigations at this earlier point to identify whether the source of the damp following from the resident’s initial report was due to a leak. An effective early investigation could have identified the leak that was discovered 22 September 2021, eleven weeks later.
The follow-on work to inspect pipework and then apply leak sealer was carried out within a 28-day window considered reasonable for responsive repairs. However, the landlord failed to identify any leak until 22 September 2021. The “bad smell” indicates that damp must have been present for some time. If a leak is suspected the landlord’s revised policy suggests this should be dealt with on an emergency basis but this has not happened in this case. The landlord was slow in detecting and remedying the leak and this may have caused more damage to the property. The landlord could have used other leak detection tools and damp meters to identify the leak earlier.
It is also not clear at what point the leak was fixed as this is not noted in the landlord’s records. The landlord’s record keeping could be improved to note when the repairs are completed. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents.
It is recognised that the resident was understandably reluctant to have the ceramic tiles taken up as she states she paid a lot of money for them. To remove them would cause a quantifiable loss to the resident. However, it was on the removal of the hallway ceramic tiles that the leak was discovered on 22 September 2021. The tenancy agreement requires the resident to allow contractors access to carry out repairs work in the property. It would be irresponsible for the landlord not to carry out this work after the resident had reported issues of damp and mould given its repair obligations above.
The landlord’s phone call to the resident of 22 October 2021 details the resident’s belief that the tiles would be replaced on a like for like basis. The landlord’s repairs policy does not confirm its practice to replace flooring with polysafe flooring and if this is normal practice the policy should reflect this.
The resident stated in her complaint that she and her husband had to sleep in the living room for 13 weeks due to their health issues. This Service does not doubt the resident has experienced distress and inconvenience whilst the landlord has undertaken repairs to deal with the leak. The type of work undertaken – removing flooring and applying self-levelling, removing and renewing skirting boards, and taking out the bathroom suite would no doubt cause dust, debris and disruption.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould 2021 recommends that where extensive work is required, landlords should consider the individual circumstances of the household, including any vulnerabilities, and whether or not it is appropriate to move resident(s) out of their home at an early stage.
The landlord advised this Service that temporary accommodation was deemed not necessary as there was no loss of facilities. Given the nature of work carried out along with the vulnerability of the residents, the landlord should have given full consideration to the duration of the works and any loss of amenities such as the use of the bathroom and kitchen. This should be documented in its records and reflected in its policy and procedure.
It is concerning that works have been carried out of this nature with the residents in situ and temporary accommodation such as serviced accommodation or a hotel was deemed to be unnecessary. This is especially important given the health issues described earlier that the landlord was aware of.
There were differing accounts from the landlord and resident in connection with the repairs to the kitchen and the flooring. The resident expected a new kitchen, however, the landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that kitchen replacements are carried as part of a planned maintenance programme unless it is not possible to repair. In this case the landlord had inspected and undertaken repairs to the kitchen in line with reports from its qualified operatives. This approach was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s policies.
The landlord made a number of phone calls to the resident; however, this Service has not seen evidence that these phone calls were confirmed in writing. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to detail any discussions or agreements in writing. This could have managed the resident’s expectations and allowed the resident the opportunity to challenge any inaccuracies.
Whilst the landlord considered the resident’s claim for damage to the cooker and fridge, this Service has not seen evidence that any advice was given to the resident regarding the possibility of claiming for the ceramic tiles through its insurance. This would have been an appropriate step to take given the resident had purchased the tiles and this may have helped to put the resident back in the position they were in before the leak occurred.
The landlord’s responsibilities set out in the tenancy agreement do not extend to decoration such as wallpaper and floor tiles. However, the landlord exercised its discretion to replace the laminate flooring and decorate the bedroom which was appropriate to do. The responsive repairs policy September 2021 that had by then replaced the previous policy, states that the landlord will make good an area that is damaged as a result of repair work being carried out and decorate it at its discretion. It was entitled to make that decision under the policy and did so to the benefit of the resident.
This Service has not seen evidence that a post inspection, had taken place to ensure that the leak was fully resolved. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out this inspection and to conduct a damp test to confirm that damp had reduced, and the leak remedied. It could have then advised the resident and provided reassurance that the leak was fixed. However, the resident has experienced distress, inconvenience and detriment before the works, during the works and afterwards. She was unsure whether the water ingress was continuing and causing damp that could affect her and her husband’s health. She felt the need to sleep in the living room due to the damp issues in the bedroom for a number of weeks and it took twelve weeks from the initial damp report to the landlord’s remedy of the leak. Taking into account the loss of amenities, distress and detriment to the resident and length of time taken to remedy the leak, the landlord should pay the resident £1268 compensation comprising:
1. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in the landlord’s handling of a leak, as well as the lack of consideration of the resident’s known vulnerabilities.
2. £518 for the loss of amenities in the property arising due to the leak and works carried out to remedy this (calculated based on the average social rent for a two bedroom of £71.89/5 x 3 x 12. Source: Regulator of Social Housing).
The landlord’s main failings in the handling of the leak are the length of time taken to identify the source of the water ingress and the lack of consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities known to the landlord in the type and extent of work needed in the property. This along with the limited use of amenities during the repairs caused distress and detriment to the resident. In addition, there was a lack of written follow up and a lack of advice on making an insurance claim for the ceramic floor tiles which were a quantifiable loss to the resident. These issues combined amount to maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord received the resident’s stage one complaint on 11 October 2021. This Service has not seen any acknowledgement being sent to the resident within two working days as per the landlord’s policy and no stage one response was provided within five working days as per its policy.
The landlord’s timescale for a stage one response is five working days which is a notably shorter timescale than the ten working days set out in the Ombudsman’s Code. The landlord’s policy for a stage two response is within ten working days. This again is a shorter timescale than the 20 working days set out in the Ombudsman’s Code. It should ensure that it has adequate resources to deal with complaints within its published timeframes. Alternatively, the landlord could review its policy to avoid any inconvenience to complainants.
After the resident contacted the Ombudsman advising that a stage one response had been given, this Service advised that the complaint should then proceed to stage two. This was correct provided the stage one response had been provided. However, the landlord confirmed in its stage two response, that no stage one response had been provided.
The landlord escalated the complaint to stage two after the resident mentioned the advice given from this Service.The landlord should have advised the resident that it would issue a formal stage one response and then consider if the resident wished to pursue an escalation to stage two. This would have given the opportunity for the resident to have her complaint considered at both stages of the complaints procedure rather than just at one stage.It would also ensure that the resident had the opportunity to challenge any decision by correcting errors or sharing concerns via an appeal process.
The stage two response was sent on 4 November 2021 which was 18 working days after the resident submitted her complaint. This was not within the landlord’s stage two response timescale of ten working days. As phone was the resident’s preferred method of communication at the time it was appropriate for the landlord to phone the resident, however the volume of calls and lack of any written confirmation of those calls as mentioned above, would undoubtedly cause the resident some confusion and misunderstanding. Evidence of misunderstanding was apparent. For example, the resident was under the impression that the landlord had promised a new kitchen rather than repairs to be undertaken. The resident was also under the impression that the landlord had agreed for the ceramic tiles to be replaced on a like for like basis.
Turning to the landlord’s complaint response itself, this did not provide any assurance that the damp was remedied which was of great concern to the resident in her complaint. The landlord missed the opportunity to outline what it had done, or would do to allay these fears. Referring to the issue of the leak, the landlord could have set out steps such as putting in dehumidifiers, carrying out a further damp test or other actions. This could have reassured the resident that it took her concerns seriously. It could have also prevented the resident from suffering avoidable distress. The complaint response did not consider offering any compensation in line with the landlord’s financial redress and compensation policy with regard to the partial loss of “facilities”. It is not clear why the policy deems the bathroom to be excluded. For meeting the needs of any customer and particularly for vulnerable customers it is an essential facility. This policy references the Right to Repair (The Secure Tenants of Local Housing Authorities (Right to Repair) Regulations) 1994 which applies to secure tenants of local authorities. In this case the resident is an assured tenant of a housing association, though it is considered reasonable to apply these rights to assured tenants to put them on the same footing as secure tenants.
The landlord did not manage the resident’s complaint in line with its own policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The lack of a formal stage one response in the complaints process was a significant failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s complaint response also did not consider all the issues raised in the resident’s complaint such as the fear that the water ingress was still continuing. Phone calls were not backed up in writing and contrary to the landlord’s assertion that it felt that its communication was handled well, the management of the complaints process does not lead to this conclusion. There was therefore maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord should pay the resident £250 compensation in respect of its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of a leak in the bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord took some appropriate action in the first instance to investigate reports of damp and mould and instructed a surveyor to undertake a survey of the external and internal areas. It installed a ventilation system, though this took three months to install.However, in responding to the damp and mould, it failed to recognise the resident and her husband’s particular vulnerability to damp and mould. Relevant information was missing following an information requestfrom this Service. Whilst the information was subsequently provided after a further request, the reason for the omission is not clear.
The landlord’s response and investigation that led to the discovery and remedy of a leak was slow and it took twelve weeks from the resident’s initial report of damp on 7 July 2021 to the completion of works on 1 October 2021 to rectify it and the damage that it caused. Due to the disruptive nature of the works and the dust and debris that could have a detrimental impact on the resident and her husband, the landlord should have considered what support or temporary accommodation could be provided. In addition, whilst phone calls were made, they were not followed up in writing. This would have managed the resident’s expectations and allowed her the opportunity to challenge any inaccuracies made at the time.
The landlord did not follow its own complaints policy and procedures, nor the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It failed to acknowledge the complaint at stage one or issue a stage one response. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage two when it should have advised the resident that it was still being dealt with at stage one. This did not give the resident the opportunity for the complaint to be considered at both stages of the complaints procedure.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a written apology to the resident for the failings outlined in this report. A copy should be sent to this Service.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,868 compensation comprising:
  1. £350 in recognition of the time and trouble taken by the resident in her ongoing reports of damp and mould at the property to the landlord.
  2. £750 for distress caused to the resident in the landlord’s handling of a leak at the property and lack of consideration of the resident and her household’s vulnerabilities in carrying out works to the property.
  3. £518 for the partial loss of amenities in the property (based on three affected rooms out of five – the bedroom, bathroom and kitchen) during the course of the twelve weeks it took the landlord to source and carry out works to remedy the leak.
  4. £250 in recognition of its complaint handling failures.
Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord must provide a plan of how it intends to implement the remaining recommendations made in the damp survey of 14 September 2021. This should outline the actions that the landlord will take and a timescale to ensure that the works are completed within eight weeks of the date of this report. It should be sent to the resident and this Service. Notification must be provided to this Service following effective completion of the works.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this Service and the landlord’s Board and Resident’s Panel outlining at minimum:
1. Its intention and a timescale to review its policy and procedures for dealing with repairs and services where vulnerable residents are involved. This should pay particular consideration of the type of repairs being undertaken, the potential disruption and needs of its residents. This should set out a clear timescale for actions to be undertaken to expedite works relative to the vulnerability and potential impact and detriment to its vulnerable residents. It should demonstrate ownership by named individuals and a monitoring process to ensure it records and reviews cases involving vulnerable residents. It should also set out its training programme for its employees in dealing with vulnerable residents.
2. Its intention and a timescale to review and refresh its policy on damp and mould using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould (It’s not lifestyle) published October 2021 and follow up report published February 2023.
3. Its intention and a timescale to refresh its self-assessment of its complaints policy using the Ombudsman’s self-assessment toolkit (available on our website). It should pay particular attention to Section 5 – Complaint Stages concerning complaint handling at each stage and timescales. It should then use this to review its complaints policy to bring this in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord updates and publishes its repairs policy within six months of the date of this report to confirm its practice of installing polysafe flooring in the event of damage due to repair work being carried out. The updated policy should be dated.
It is recommended that the landlord expedites and completes the work arising from the recent survey within eight weeks of the date of this report.