Together Housing Association Limited (202226532)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226532

Together Housing Association Limited

20 March 2024

(Updated 6 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the property.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident occupies the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom mid-terrace house and she lives there with her partner and their child. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for both her partner and child, including asthma.
  2. The resident first reported mould on window seals and damp due to the back door allowing water underneath it in May 2021, when work was carried out by the landlord to put things right. In June 2022 the resident reported that the problem with the back door had recurred and the landlord carried out a further repair.
  3. On 16 August 2022 the resident reported a problem with the bathroom wall due to damp. On 29 November 2022 the resident then told the landlord that the windows were wet through with condensation, the loft insulation was wet through and there was damp on the bedroom and bathroom ceilings.
  4. The landlord carried out an inspection on 21 January 2023 and raised a job to repair the roof, which was booked in for 1 June 2023. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord about the damp conditions on 7 March 2023. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 28 March 2023, in which it apologised for the delay and said it would try to bring the roof repair forward.
  5. The resident responded on 29 March 2023 to say she was not happy with this response. The landlord acknowledged the escalation to stage 2 on 6 April 2023. The resident contacted this Service on 10 May 2023 as she had not received a stage 2 response and it was overdue. This Service contacted the landlord the same day and asked it to provide its response.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 15 May 2023. It agreed to carry out surveys and complete any necessary remedial work. It offered £150 as a fuel cost contribution, £360 compensation for the delays to repairs and impact of this, and £150 compensation for its complaint handling failure. The resident remained unhappy with this response and on 17 May 2023 asked this Service to look into the complaint.
  7. Since the landlord’s internal complaints process was completed, the roof repair was completed. The landlord has since carried out a survey of the property, which concluded that the problems with damp were due to inadequate heating and ventilation of the property. The resident told this service in January 2024 that damp and mould had returned.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident raised concerns about wanting to move properties as a result of the condition of the property. This investigation will consider the landlord’s responsibilities in relation to the repairs issues, including whether it considered, or should have considered a discretionary management transfer. However, this investigation will not consider the resident’s housing banding for the purposes of her re-housing request.
  2. Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body”. Any concerns the resident has about her banding for applying for a new property would fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). If the resident would like to take this matter further, it is recommended that she contacts the LGSCO. Before doing this, she would need to exhaust the relevant complaints process in relation to this matter.
  3. The resident has also raised concerns about her family’s health and the impact on this by the issues raised. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Repairs to the property

  1. The tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s obligations. This shows it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep the outside of the property and its structure in good repair, including the roof, windows and doors. The landlord has provided a copy of its responsive repairs policy, however this policy does not set out any categories of repairs or expected timescales in which repairs should be carried out. This Service expects a landlord to have clear timescales for repairs, however the Ombudsman will always consider the circumstances of a complaint in line with what it thinks is reasonable.
  2. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) sets out guidance for landlords on identifying hazards in a home. This explains that mould is a threat to physical and mental health, which can lead to breathing difficulties and asthma, among other things.
  3. The resident first reported a problem with mould on 18 May 2021. She told the landlord the bathroom and hallway window seals were black and mouldy, despite her attempts to clean them. She also reported that the floor by the back door was sloping which allowed rain water in. On 11 June 2021 the landlord resealed the windows and carried out repairs to the kitchen floor. These repairs were carried out within a reasonable amount of time and no further issues were reported for over a year after this, so there is no evidence these repairs were not carried out to a reasonable standard.
  4. On 30 June 2022 the resident reported the problem with the kitchen floor and back door again. She said rain was getting in and there was mould on the bottom of the door, door seal, and the floor. The landlord carried out repairs on 5 July 2022, which was within a reasonable timeframe.
  5. On 16 August 2022 the resident told the landlord that the bathroom wall was bowing. The landlord’s records show that the resident said that she and her family would be moving out of the property due to damp. It does not say where they would be going or how long for, however the landlord cancelled the job because of this and there is no evidence it tried to book a follow up appointment to investigate the cause of the damp. The resident taking the step to vacate her family indicates a serious problem. Given the history of damp and mould issues at the property, the landlord should have acted proactively.
  6. The resident then contacted the landlord again on 29 November 2022 and said that the windows were wet and there was damp on the bedroom and bathroom ceilings. She also said that the insulation in the loft was wet through. The landlord’s records show that a survey was carried out on 21 January 2023, however it has failed to provided a copy of this report. This suggests that it did not obtain or keep this document, which highlights an issue with the landlord’s record keeping. There was also a delay of two months in the survey being carried out which was unreasonable considering the time of year and the property history.
  7. The landlord’s internal email records of 12 January 2023 show that it was aware there was a problem with the roof, with damp coming from the roof space, which was causing mould in the daughter’s bedroom. The resident provided the landlord with a letter dated 24 January 2023 from her daughter’s nurse, saying that damp and mould in the property were contributing to her asthma. It is not clear when the landlord received this letter, however its records from around this time show that it was made aware of this.
  8. On 31 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord via its online form, saying that the roof inspector had said that emergency work was needed but she had not heard anything. The landlord sent a roofer to inspect on 7 March 2023, who identified the work required. This work was booked in for 1 June 2023. The landlord’s records show that it did not consider a decant was required as this was just “normal work”. As the landlord’s repairs policy does not set out categories of repairs, it is not clear what constitutes “normal work”.
  9. Whilst this Service cannot decide if there was a link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s daughter’s health, it is expected that the landlord would consider any vulnerabilities and act appropriately. The evidence shows there were problems with the roof which were leading to a damp and mould problem inside the property. This would not be considered to be “normal work”.
  10. The resident provided the landlord with information about her daughter’s health in January 2023, so it was aware of the possible impact these issues were having. Its failure to respond to this whilst the issue was ongoing, or during its internal complaints process, indicates that it failed to take this aspect of the case seriously. The landlord has a responsibility under the HHSRS to ensure that the property is free of category 1 hazards, such as mould, and it failed to take this responsibility seriously.
  11. This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould said that “where extensive works may be 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”. There is no evidence that the landlord has given this matter due consideration. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it sufficiently took the household’s personal circumstances into consideration and failed to evidence that it communicated its position to the resident.
  12. It is not reasonable that it took more than 3 months from when the resident reported the wet insulation and subsequent damp problem for a roofer to identify the work required. The landlord then booked the repair work in for a further 3 months later, leaving the resident living in damp conditions for more than 6 months.
  13. As a result of the resident’s stage 1 complaint, the landlord did arrange to bring the repairs forward. On 9 May 2023 it spoke to the resident and said the work would be carried out the next day. The resident said she was not sure if this would be suitable for her partner, who is autistic and struggles with a change of routine, but she said she would contact the landlord back if it was a problem.
  14. There is no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord back, so the roofer arrived at the property the following morning. The resident’s partner would not allow the contractor to carry out the work, and they had to leave. The resident contacted the landlord to say that the contractor arrived without warning, however the evidence shows that the appointment was pre-arranged the previous day, so it was reasonable for the landlord’s contractor to attend. This appointment would have enabled the repairs to have been brought forward by 3 weeks.
  15. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 10 May 2023, it accepted that it had failed to repair the property in a reasonable amount of time. It said it would arrange a full inspection of the performance of the heating system, however no evidence has been provided that this inspection has been carried out.
  16. All work on the roof was completed on 5 June 2023. The landlord arranged for a survey to be completed by an expert on 29 September 2023. This report said that the property was not unfit for human habitation and that all external roof work had been completed, with no further roof defects seen. Whilst it noted an internal relative humidity of 72%, it said that mould was likely a result of condensation due to the resident failing to adequately heat and ventilate the property, despite adequate provisions to do so.
  17. However, as explained above, the landlord has not provided evidence to show the heating system was performing reasonably. It is also important to note that whilst this report claims that the resident was not adequately heating the property, the landlord offered her £150 in its stage 2 response to support her with fuel costs, which is contradictory.
  18. The landlord has not provided a copy of a specific damp and mould policy, or shown that it has self-assessed in line with this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould. This report says that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions.
  19. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it carried out a full damp survey early on in the repairs process, in order to get to the bottom of the damp issue at an early stage. It only carried out a survey 3 months after the repairs had been completed and after the completion of its internal complaints process. In all the circumstances, the landlord did not demonstrate a proactive and resolution focussed approach to the damp and mould issues reported.
  20. Whilst the expert’s report indicates that the resident has not adequately heated and ventilated the property, the resident has told this service that she has run up a large debt with her energy supplier, due to having the heating on constantly to try and keep the mould away. Whilst the landlord itself has not said that the ventilation issues at the property are lifestyle issues, there is no evidence that it has taken any follow-up steps to investigate the reason for the ventilation problems. This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould moves landlords away from the approach that residents are at fault for condensation, which can have many causes. The landlord has not demonstrated that it has ruled out the need for ventilation works. The resident told this Service in January 2024 that the mould and damp had returned. 
  21. Whilst the issues were ongoing the resident asked to be moved from this property to one that was more suitable. The landlord’s allocations policy says under “ direct management lets” that there may be times that it does not advertise properties and makes a direct allocation. It gives an example of when it may do that is “if the tenant risk of serious harm if they remain in the current home”.
  22. The landlord’s records show that a member of staff thought that a management move could be warranted, but another staff member’s response was that issuing a management move would “open the floodgates and [it] would not be able to cope with the possible influx of management moves due to the mould and damp across the company”.
  23. This response indicates that the landlord did not give serious consideration to the need for a management move, given the resident’s circumstances, and only considered what this might mean for its wider housing stock. The landlord should have considered whether the property was suitably poor that it should have exercised its discretion in relation to a management move. This decision should not have been influenced by the landlord’s fear of an increase in such requests. This also brings into question whether the landlord is aware of a much wider and substantial problem with damp and mould across its properties.
  24. The Ombudsman considers there to have been severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the property. It took too long to inspect the property and then failed to prioritise the required repairs, considering the circumstances. It did not reasonably consider the resident and her family’s vulnerabilities and the risk presented by them remaining in a damp and mouldy property. It has not acted in accordance with the HHSRS or with the recommendations set out in this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould.
  25. The landlord has paid the resident £150 as a contribution towards her energy costs, and compensation of £360 to recognise the delays to repairs and the impact on the resident and her family. However, this amount does not fairly recognise the impact of the landlord’s failings, or the fact that the landlord has not done enough to demonstrate it has investigated and put right the damp problem.
  26. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £600 for cases where “there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £1,000 to reflect the impact on her and her family as a result of the delays and failure to get to the root cause of the damp problem. This award takes into consideration both the distress and inconvenience caused, and the additional costs incurred by the resident to heat the property.
  27. Following the initial decision above, the landlord provided evidence that this aspect of the complaint is under court proceedings as an ongoing disrepair claim therefore is outside of jurisdiction (OSJ) for this Service to determine. Paragraph (41c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states “the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings…”. The landlord has provided the letter of claim, claim form and an expert eyewitness report as evidence that this complaint is under court proceedings and therefore should not be determined by this Service. It is noted that this evidence was not provided during our investigation hence why this investigation report has been updated since.

The resident’s complaint

  1. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process took too long, and intervention from this Service was needed for the landlord to respond at both stages.
  2. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 7 March 2023. She said that she had been complaining about these issues for most of the four years she had lived in the property, however this Service has seen no evidence of any previous complaints.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and sets out a timeframe to respond to stage 1 complaints of 10 working days. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 8 March 2023, the day after it was raised and in line with its policy.
  4. The resident contacted this Service as she had not received a response and we forwarded the complaint to the landlord on 14 March 2023. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 28 March 2023, 15 working days after the resident raised it. In this response it said the complaint was raised on 14 March 2023, despite it having acknowledged her complaint earlier than this. It did not respond within the timeframe set out in its policy and it is unclear whether it would have responded if this Service had not intervened, as it appeared not to have formally raised the complaint on 7 March 2023.
  5. The resident responded to the landlord on 29 March 2023, unhappy with its stage 1 response. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge escalation requests within 5 working days and will send its stage 2 response within 20 working days. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for escalation on 6 April 2023, slightly outside the timeframe set out in its policy. It said it would provide its stage 2 response by 2 May 2023, which would have been 22 working days after the escalation request.
  6. The resident contacted this Service on 10 May 2023 as she had not yet received a response from the landlord. We contacted the landlord and asked it to provide its stage 2 response within 5 working days. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 15 May 2023, 30 working days after the resident had requested the escalation. In this response, the landlord recognised the delay in responding. It apologised for this delay and offered the resident compensation of £150 to acknowledge its service failure.
  7. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved this issue satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress, which included an apology, and an offer of compensation was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
  8. The Ombudsman is of the view that the compensation offered by the landlord for delays during its internal complaints process was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused, and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance and was therefore reasonable.
  9. Taking all matters into account the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 41(c) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property is a matter that is outside jurisdiction (OSJ).
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £300 of compensation, less anything it has already paid during its internal complaints process, broken down as follows:
    1. £150 offered during the landlord’s complaint handling process to support the resident with fuel costs.
    2. £150 to recognise the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. A senior manager at the landlord to provide the resident with a written apology for the impact these issues had on her.
  3. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of this report.