Together Housing Association Limited (202327540)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327540

Together Housing Association Limited

23 August 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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
2. Handling of the request for the heating system to be replaced.
3. Handling of the associated complaint including the level of compensation offered.

Background

The resident has lived in the property, a 2-bed flat, with her 2 children since November 2019. The flat is on the first floor of a 3-storey block of similar properties. The landlord’s records state the permitted occupancy for the property is 3 people.
The landlord’s system does not record any vulnerabilities for the household. The resident has however stated to the landlord and to this Service that she has asthma.
In February 2022 the resident reported black mould in one of the bedrooms in the property. The landlord raised a repair and the mould was treated in March 2022. The landlord also raised an order for a damp survey, while the repair log shows this as ‘complete’ on 20 March 2022 we have not been provided with a copy of this report.
On 25 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and said that she had reported issues with the storage heaters in the property which were not working properly. She said an operative had attended and had implied that she did not know how to use the system and had “tried to fob [her] off…and was very condescending”. She advised that the issue had not been resolved and the heaters still required repair. The landlord logged this as an informal complaint (Complaint 1).
The landlord’s complaint records show that it spoke with the operative who had attended. He had said that he had tried to explain that the fault was with the heater’s time clock and that this had now been reset. He also said that the heater itself had been turned off and the resident said this was because “it costs too much money to operate”.
On 1 April 2022 the landlord spoke with the resident and explained that the previous operative had not intended to sound condescending and had been trying to explain the cause of the issue without being too technical. It said that an operative who was due to attend the property regarding a different repair would look again at the storage heater for her.
In August 2022 the resident reported that her property had severe damp and mould. She sent the landlord photographs which showed large amounts of widespread black mould on the walls, skirting and furniture in one of the bedrooms. It is unclear from the records what, if anything, happened in the following months but she reported the issue again in December 2022 and the landlord raised a repair to treat the mould.
On 23 January 2023 the resident raised a further complaint which was logged by the landlord as a stage 1 complaint (Complaint 2). She said:
1. The landlord had still not resolved the mould issue.
2. She had resorted to cleaning the mould herself but it returned within a week. She had also purchased dehumidifiers but this had not helped.
3. The extractor fan in the bathroom was ineffective.
4. The storage heater in her bedroom had not been replaced and so this room was without heating.
5. The issue was affecting her physical and mental health and she had 2 young children in the property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 2 on 21 February 2023. It said:
1. It had investigated the resident’s complaint about mould in her bathroom.
2. It had booked an appointment to renew the bathroom extractor fan on 27 February 2023.
3. There had “clearly been a service failure in responding to the repairs in a timely manner” and it apologised for this.
4. If she wanted to escalate her complaint, she must do so within 15 working days.
On 10 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and said:
1. She had emailed the landlord on 22 February 2023 but had not received a response.
2. The mould was not only in the bathroom. It was also in her bedroom and her children’s bedroom.
3. She had to clean the walls every week.
4. The mould had damaged her furniture and she had had to buy mould treatment and dehumidifiers.
5. The paintwork was all “bubbling” due to humidity.
6. The issue was impacting the family’s health. She had asthma and the mould was worsening this.
The landlord replied to the resident on 12 May 2023 and offered her £100 decorating voucher to “help with any potential cost of redecorating [the] bedroom and bathroom”. It said it wished to visit to inspect the mould issue and the damage that she had reported, it would then discuss “potential compensation”.
On 3 October 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate Complaint 2 to stage 2 of its complaint process. She said the mould issue had not been resolved and she had not received “proper compensation”. The landlord telephoned the resident and advised it would log a further stage 1 complaint. She repeated that she wanted her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 however the landlord wrote to her on 6 October 2023 and confirmed it had raised a new stage 1 complaint (Complaint 3).
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 3 on 16 October 2023. It said:
1. It had asked its contractor to return as soon as possible to treat the mould.
2. This concluded stage 1 of the complaints process.
The resident responded on the same day and said she was “annoyed” that no one was listening to her. She said that cleaning the mould was not resolving the issue and the treatment was impacting her asthma. She told the landlord that neighbouring properties were experiencing the same issues and that it was not investigating the underlying cause of the mould. The resident said that her furniture and other belongings were “rotting and that her health was being impacted. She said that the landlord had suggested that it rehouse her but that this would cause further upheaval for her children.
On 8 November 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate Complaint 3 to stage 2 of its complaint process. She said while it had made an appointment to spray the mould it had not suggested a permanent solution to address the cause of the issue. She explained that every time it sprayed the mould she had to dismantle and move her furniture. This was “taking its toll” on her and causing damage to the furniture. She asked the landlord to permanently resolve the issue and pay her compensation for the damage caused to her furniture and decoration.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 13 November 2023. It provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 November 2023 which said:
1. It had attended the property on 20 November 2023 to inspect the issue and found:
  1. The windows (which may need renewing with trickle vents) had condensation “due to poor ventilation and lack of heating”.
  2. There were no vents in the bedrooms.
  3. The electric storage heaters were “old” and the resident had advised they did not “work correctly”.
  4. The walls and ceilings were “marked due to mould”.
  5. There were no signs of penetrating damp.
  6. The flat was too small for the resident and her 2 children “plus any other people that stop over” which was contributing to the high humidity in the property.
  7. The outside walls had been cavity filled but the inside wall which backed onto the communal staircase was cold.
2. It had arranged for a damp and mould specialist to attend to carry out a survey.
3. It had also arranged for a mould clean but the resident did not give access.
4. It was looking into heating upgrades for the block.
5. It could “only offer [her] advice on condensation at this point” as no water was getting in from outside the property. It had treated the mould but it would “keep returning if nothing changes inside the house, i.e. ventilation and heating”.
6. It accepted that the time taken to resolve the issues had caused “frustration, upset and inconvenience and [had] had a detrimental impact on [her] family health and wellbeing”.
7. It offered her £100 in recognition of this and a further £100 to “help with…paint costs”.
8. It advised the resident to “open the windows… wipe off the water on the glass” and that this and the heating upgrade, would help to control the condensation.
The landlord provided a “further response” to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 27 November 2023. It said:
1. Although it did not believe there was evidence of penetrative damp, given the resident’s concerns, it would arrange a full independent damp survey. Once it received the contractor’s report it would comply with any findings and recommendations.
2. Its contractor would arrange a mutually convenient appointment to treat the mould. It would confirm whether additional precautions were required due to her health concerns.
3. There were plans to upgrade the heating system for the block. In the meantime it would carry out repairs as necessary to the existing system.
4. While it accepted there was reoccurring mould in the bedrooms it did not “believe this to be as a result of a damp issue”.
5. It had provided advice regarding ventilation and managing moisture in the property.
6. It requested photographs of the damaged items but noted it could not “compensate for anything that [had] been disposed of or cleaned”.
7. It was unable to compensate for ill-health but the resident could submit a personal injury claim to its insurance team.
On 22 April 2024 the landlord provided another “further response” to the stage 2 complaint. It said:
1. The damp survey completed in January 2024 “identified 3 potential minor issues” and so works were raised to:
  1. Check for any leaks from the bath.
  2. Remove an area of plaster in the bedroom and replaster.
  3. Inspection to the guttering and roof.
2. Works were being delayed by the resident’s “reluctance to engage…in allowing remedial appointments to go ahead”.
3. She had stated that she was only available for appointments on Mondays and Tuesdays avoiding school-run times. This had meant that it had had to reschedule appointments.
4. While it would try to accommodate her requests for specific days and times this would potentially delay resolving the issue.
5. An appointment had been booked for 3 June 2024 and 4 June 2024 to complete the plastering.
6. Damage to personal items would usually need to be claimed through the resident’s own insurance. It had however asked her to provide photographs of the damaged items so it could consider compensation.
7. She had previously stated that there was £2,000 worth of damage. She had provided photographs showing mould on a bedframe, bedside cabinet, and on the edge of the bedroom carpet.
8. It could not take responsibility for damage caused to the bed due to dismantling. The bed was “considered large for the size of the room” and “it may be worth considering a smaller bed going forward to allow for better air circulation and reducing the risk of further issues”.
9. In the interest of resolution it offered £100 towards the cost of a new bed frame and £30 towards the cost of a new bedside table. It would also arrange for its contractor to treat the bedroom carpet.
10. In total it offered £430 compensation comprising:
  1. £150 for “inconvenience and upset”.
  2. £150 for “assistance with decorating”.
  3. £130 for “recognition of damage”.
The resident replied on 24 April 2024 and refused the landlord’s offer of compensation. She said she was happy for its contractor to treat the mould on the walls and carpet. She asked if the landlord could arrange this for a Monday if possible. The landlord replied and said it would arrange for the mould treatment to be done at the same time as the plastering to reduce inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

It is accepted that the resident has stated that she has experienced damp and mould in the property for years prior to making her complaint to the landlord.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from March 2022 onwards. This is where records indicate the beginning of events leading up to the resident’s complaints. Reference to events that occurred prior to that date is made in this report to provide context.
There are aspects of the complaint that relate to the impact of the resident’s living conditions on the physical and mental health of herself and her children. We wish to acknowledge that this situation has caused the resident severe distress as she has experienced damp and mould to the property over a prolonged period. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, unlike a court or an insurer, we cannot establish liability or calculate/award damages. Though the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, it will be taken into account when considering the resident’s circumstances.
The resident may wish to consider making a claim via the landlord’s insurer, if it has public liability insurance in place; or taking legal advice if she wishes to pursue a claim for personal injury and/or damage to her belongings.

Response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould.

The landlord’s repairs policy does not provide timeframes for the completion of repairs. Its website however states that it will attend:
1. Priority 1 repairs (eg severe leaks) within 24 hours to make safe.
2. Priority 2 repairs (where there is no immediate risk to persons or property) within 28 days.
3. Priority 3 repairs (which usually take more than a day to complete and often involve several trades) within 63 days.
The landlord’s website provides guidance on treating damp, mould and condensation. It states that if a resident does not wish to clean the mould themselves, they can report the issue and it will respond within 3 working days.
The landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the property and for ensuring a property is fit for human habitation, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Decent Homes Standard, the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, and the terms of the tenancy agreement.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to identify potential risks and hazards to health and safety in dwellings. The Decent Homes Standard is a standard for social housing introduced by the UK government, which advises that properties should be free from hazards assessed to be category one under the HHSRS; be in reasonable state of repair; have reasonably modern facilities; and provide reasonable thermal comfort. The HHSRS specifically recognises that damp and mould growth can pose a threat to physical and mental health.
The photographs provided by both the resident and the landlord show large amounts of widespread black mould on the walls, skirting and furniture in the property. This included the bedframe and mattress which the resident, who has asthma, has been sleeping in. We would therefore have reasonably expected the landlord to consider whether a hazard existed under the HHSRS.
The resident reported black mould in February 2022. The records show that the landlord treated the mould the following month and raised an order for a damp survey. The landlord has not provided the report or any evidence of the findings from this survey. It is not clear if this is because the survey was not carried out and it has been incorrectly recorded as completed. Or that the landlord has not kept a record of the survey, or that it has a copy of the report but did not provide it to this Service. Regardless, this indicates issues with the landlord’s knowledge and information management.
The resident reported severe damp and mould to the landlord in August 2022 providing photographs of the issue. The records do not clearly show that the landlord took any action or indeed responded to the resident following this report. This was inappropriate.
The resident reported the issue again in December 2022 and the landlord raised a repair to treat the mould.
Internal landlord emails sent in December 2022 refer to the property as “overcrowded”. The landlord stated that the property was “suffering from condensation issues and mould” which was caused by the property being “[too small for a family”. The emails show that the landlord was treating the mould and was servicing the storage heaters which were “a contributory factor” as “[the resident] fails to keep the flat warm enough”.
The property is a 2-bed flat and the landlord’s own records state that the maximum occupancy is 3 people. It is noted that the landlord alluded to the size of the property not being sufficient for the family. However, it is unclear whether any action was taken to measure the size of the rooms. Nevertheless, if the landlord did consider that the property was too small for the resident and her family it would have been reasonable for it to take steps to advise the resident accordingly about the options that were available to her.
In October 2021 the Ombudsman published the Spotlight Report on damp and mould. A key recommendation from the report was that landlords stop automatically blaming resident’s and their lifestyles for causing damp and mould and using language that leaves residents feeling blamed. The language used in the landlord’s internal communications in this case can be perceived as inferring blame on the resident for having too many people in the property and ‘failing’ to heat it properly. The evidence suggests that these attitudes delayed the landlord’s response in this case and delayed resolution of the issue. An order has been made for the landlord to ensure that relevant repairs staff are reminded of the guidance set out in the spotlight report.
In January 2022 the resident again reported severe damp and mould and made a formal complaint. She clearly stated that she had attempted to control the issue herself by cleaning the mould and buying dehumidifiers. The mould had persisted though and was affecting the physical and mental health of herself and her children.
Following this complaint the landlord carried out a mould wash and renewed the extractor in the bathroom. We have not seen evidence that any further investigations into the cause of the damp and mould were considered at this time. This was a failing, particularly as the landlord was aware of children in the property and because the resident had reported adverse health impacts.
On 20 March 2023 the landlord raised an order for mould treatment at the property. The records show this was completed on 9 May 2023. It would be reasonable to expect the landlord to carry out mould treatment sooner than 50 working days after raising a report. It is, however, acknowledged that the resident’s availability due to work and childcare commitments was a contributing factor for this delay.
In May 2023 the resident made a further complaint regarding the damp and mould. She made clear that the mould was in the bathroom and both bedrooms and that this was impacting the family’s health. Apart from the mould treatment which had already been carried out the day before, we have seen no evidence that any further works or investigations into the source of the issue were carried out following this report.
The landlord contacted its contractor on 10 May 2023 to confirm whether it had carried out mould treatment to the property as requested. The contractor advised it had initially had difficulties in arranging access as the resident was only able to provide access on a Tuesday. It had however completed the treatment on 9 May 2023. The operative noted that the bathroom did not have a window and this impacted ventilation.
Internal landlord emails on 4 September 2023 stated that “the problem with the mould is overcrowding” and that the property was a “small two bed flat with three people living in it and…creating [too] much moisture”. The landlord stated within these emails that the resident’s heating system was due to be upgraded that year and that this would help “deter” the mould.
Again the language used by the landlord here placed blame on the resident for “creating [too] much moisture”. There was no indication that the family were acting in a way that created more moisture than would be considered ‘normal’. Further investigations had not been carried out and it was noted that there was a potential issue with ventilation in the bathroom. Taking those factors into account, it was unfair and unreasonable for the landlord to conclude that there was a lifestyle issue.
On 3 October 2023 the resident made a third complaint and stated that the damp and mould was still present. Around 2 weeks later the landlord responded and said it would carry out a further mould wash. Again, we have seen no evidence that any other actions or further investigations were considered despite the repeated reports of severe mould from the resident. This was unreasonable.
On 20 October 2023 the landlord raised an urgent repair to the guttering on the building. The repair log stated that water was entering the resident’s flat along with another. The records show this repair as completed on 31 October 2023. This timeframe was not unreasonable as it was likely that specialist equipment would have been required to access the guttering at height.
The landlord attended the property on 21 November 2023 to carry out a mould clean. The operative stated that the resident refused to provide access as she was not “ready for him” and she was also not “happy with the prescribed treatment”.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord informed the resident of the appointment in advance. She has stated on several occasions that prior to the mould cleans and due to the size of the rooms she had to disassemble her furniture to allow the treatment to take place. It was therefore not unreasonable that she was unable to provide access if she was given no notice of the appointment.
Throughout October and November 2023 the resident requested on several occasions that the landlord take action to identify the cause of the damp and mould rather than continuing to treat the mould itself. On 24 November 2023 the landlord raised an order for its contractor to carry out a damp survey. landlord emails from early December 2023 demonstrate that its contractor had contacted the resident to arrange the damp survey for before the Christmas period but that she had said it would need to be in the new year.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to commission a survey, it is not clear why it took it over 2 and a half years between February 2022 and November 2024 to order a specialist damp survey considering the repeated reports of damp and mould within that period. This was an unacceptable delay.
The contractor carried out a damp survey on 8 January 2024. The report noted:
1. It had carried out an external inspection for defects that would allow water ingress. This was however carried out from ground level so the inspection was “limited”.
2. There was penetrating damp in the lounge. The gutters should be inspected for water escape.
3. The bedrooms had mould at the lower levels of the plastered walls. It recommended that passive vents be fitted and consideration given to fitting an “iso-therm system” to the walls.
4. The hallway backing onto the bathroom had penetrating damp to the plaster. It recommended checking for leaks under the bath.
On 9 February 2024 the landlord raised repair works to the roof to investigate possible leaks. This was a month after the potential roof leaks were identified. It is unclear why the landlord delayed for a month in raising the work but that it did so was a further failing.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 February 2024 as she had received no updates following the damp survey at the beginning of January 2024. Internal landlord emails on the same date stated that:
1. “The issue was condensation, not penetrating damp”.
2. The damp survey had identified 2 possible roof leaks to the lounge and the internal wall which backed onto the communal stairwell.
3. The heating required replacement but air and ground source heating was not possible for the block.
The independent survey instructed by the landlord clearly stated that there was penetrating damp within the property. Indeed the internal emails themselves state that there were potential roof leaks. It is therefore inappropriate that the landlord persisted in maintaining that the issue was condensation and not penetrating damp.
The landlord replied to the resident on 19 February 2024 and said following the damp survey it had raised the following works:
1. A roofer to attend to 2 areas of concern to the living room and bedroom wall. This had been booked and “might even be done now”.
2. The bottom half of the plaster would be removed from the bedroom wall where it backed on to the communal staircase.
3. A plumber would check the bath for any leaks.
4. The heating upgrade was an ongoing issue and was being investigated by its energy team.
The landlord undertook in its stage 2 complaint response to address any damp “in line with [the contractor’s] findings/recommendations”. While there was no obligation on the landlord to act on every recommendation, we would have reasonably expected the landlord to demonstrate that it had considered the following recommendations:
1. Passive vents to be fitted to the bedrooms.
2. Consideration given to an “iso-therm” system to the bedroom walls.

That we have not seen evidence that the landlord considered the recommendations of the specialist that it instructed is unreasonable.

The resident replied on the same day and asked whether ventilation would be installed as this had been mentioned by the surveyor who carried out the damp survey. She also asked whether she would receive compensation for damage to her furnishings and decoration, and for the “stress and inconvenience” it had caused. She emailed the landlord again on 1 March 2024 and 6 March 2024 as she had not received a response.
The landlord replied on 7 March 2024 and said that it would not be installing any additional ventilation as the extractor fans in the property were “fully functioning”. It said that if these were “used correctly”, the property “regularly ventilated”, and “action taken to help in the control of moisture” (e.g. not drying clothes on radiators) this should provide adequate ventilation. It stated that it had asked the relevant team to update her on the heating upgrade and that cavity wall insulation was part of a larger project for the whole block and this would be looked at when it surveyed the area “at some point”. The landlord asked the resident to send photographs of her damaged items and reminded her it would not provide compensation for items that had been cleaned or thrown away. The landlord said that it would increase its offer of compensation to £300.
The landlord failed to acknowledge that the independent contractor had recommended passive vents in the bedrooms. We also consider that its justification for not installing the vents was inadequate. Even if the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen were working efficiently, it does not necessarily follow that this would negate the need for ventilation in other parts of the property. As such, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide further explanation around its decision-making.
On 14 March 2024 the resident requested a full copy of the damp survey completed in January 2024.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 April 2024 asking why she had cancelled a plastering appointment. It said that the time taken to resolve her complaint was too long “and the reason for this [was] down to [the resident] cancelling appointments”. It stated that it “would not be moving [her] out to undertake this small repair work” as this was not standard practice.
The resident replied on the same day and said that she had asked several times for the appointment to be rearranged as it had been booked for an unsuitable time. She also said that while the work would only take a short time to do, she was concerned about risk to the family’s health of sleeping in the room with plaster dust and mould spores immediately after the affected plaster was removed. The resident said that she was not being “difficult” and reminded the landlord that it had not provided the damp report she had requested. The landlord emailed the resident back and said that she should have told it if the appointment was inconvenient. It also said that the damp report was for the landlord and not for residents.
While we acknowledge that the landlord may have been frustrated at the delay and keen to resolve the issue the tone of these emails was curt and unprofessional.
The landlord booked a further appointment to carry out the plastering to the bedroom on 3 June 2024. The resident telephoned the landlord on 31 May 2024 to cancel the appointment as she had to attend a funeral abroad. While this delayed the completion of the works this was unfortunate and not within the control of either party.
The records show the repairs were completed on the following dates:
1. Plumber inspected for leaks to the bath – completed 4 April 2024.
2. Roofing repairs – completed 25 April 2024.
3. Bedroom replastered – completed 30 July 2024.
Overall, the landlord unreasonably delayed in carrying out investigations to identify the underlying causes of the damp and mould in the property. Instead, it repeatedly used language which blamed the resident and stated that the property was “overcrowded” despite only the permitted number of people occupying it. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had adequately considered all the recommendations made by the specialist and did not disclose to the resident all the findings of the report. Its response in this case was particularly concerning because the resident repeatedly reported that the issue was impacting on the health of herself and her 2 young children. That the household were sleeping in bedrooms severely affected by mould for over 2 and a half years is concerning. Therefore there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.

Handling of the request for the heating system to be replaced.

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair and proper working order installations for space heating in the property.
The resident first reported issues with the storage heaters in the property in March 2022 when she said they were not working properly. The landlord attended 8 days after the report. This was a reasonable timeframe.
The resident made a complaint following the operative’s attendance at the property and the records relating to this show that the heater’s time clock was not set properly. The notes also showed that the resident had turned the heater off because it was too expensive to run.
In January 2023 the resident told the landlord that the storage heater in her bedroom had not been replaced and so this room was without heating.
In February 2023 the landlord’s records shows it was aware that “both bedroom heaters needed updating as they [were] old, and not functioning properly”. In September 2023 it stated that the heating system was due to be upgraded that year and that this would help with the mould issue.
The landlord wrote to the resident following her stage 2 complaint in November 2023. It acknowledged that the electric storage heaters in the property were “old” and the resident had advised they did not “work correctly”. It said it was looking into heating upgrades for the block and that this, along with lifestyle changes, would help to control the condensation in the property.
The resident advised the landlord on 8 April 2024 that she kept her property well-ventilated and heated. She said as a result her energy bills were over £300 per month which she said was a lot for a 2-bed flat.
Considering the concerns expressed by the resident on more than one occasion it would have been reasonable for the landlord to signpost her for support either from its own energy team or from an external support provider.
The landlord has advised this Service in an update in August 2024 that it is still looking into options for renewing the heating system for the block. The options it has looked at so far (air source heat pumps and ground source heat pumps) are not feasible and so it is looking into newer technologies. It has not provided any indication of when it expects to carry out the upgrades.
The Ombudsman appreciates that it is not always straightforward for landlords to implement the most efficient heating systems. It is also noted that in this case there appears to be aspects of the design of the block which are making this more difficult.
While we empathise with the landlord’s position, we do not consider that it is reasonable that the resident is not living in reasonable thermal comfort as required by the Decent Homes Standard. It is of concern that the inefficient and ineffective heating system is also increasing condensation within the property and therefore promoting the formation of mould.
That the landlord has so far been “looking into” options for the heating upgrade for at least 18 months with no feasible system yet identified is a concern.
Overall, we accept that there may be features of the block of flats which limits the heating options available. We consider however that the length of time it has taken the landlord to investigate upgrade options with no demonstrable progress is unreasonable. The evidence shows that the landlord has noted that the heating system has contributed to the issues of damp and mould in the property and that the property was cold. We consider that it was unreasonable for the resident and her children to remain in such conditions for this period. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the heating system to be replaced.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In October 2021 we published our Spotlight on damp and mould. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Handling of the associated complaint including the level of compensation offered.

At the time of the events considered in this report the landlord operated a 3-stage complaints process. The first was an informal stage during which the landlord had 5 working days to resolve the issue. It then had 10 working days to respond to stage 1 complaints and 15 working days to respond to stage 2 complaints.
In October 2022 the landlord reviewed its complaints process and now operates a 2-stage complaints process with timeframes in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
Its compensation policy states that while residents are responsible for arranging their own contents insurance, it will review any claims to “assess if service failure had a direct impact on any subsequent damage”.
The landlord has advised this Service that it handled Complaint 1 regarding the operative’s attendance to resolve an issue with the storage heater as an informal complaint. While it is acknowledged that this was in line with the landlord’s policy at the time, it was not in line with the Code in place at the time and was therefore a failing.
Following the resident’s report the landlord appropriately spoke with the operative who had attended. It explained to the resident that he had not intended to be condescending and arranged for another operative to attend. This was reasonable.
In January 2023 the resident raised Complaint 2 in relation to the damp and mould in the property.
It took the landlord 21 working days to provide its stage 1 response. This is more than double the timeframe outlined in the landlord’s own policy and the Code which was unreasonable. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delayed response and this was a further failing.
It is clear from the landlord’s stage 1 response to Complaint 2 that it failed to fully grasp the issues that the resident was reporting. It incorrectly stated that the mould was in the bathroom when in fact there was also mould in both bedrooms. The Code states that landlords should confirm their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes being sought with the resident and should seek clarification if the complaint is not clear. Had the landlord communicated more effectively with the resident during its investigation it could have gained a better understanding of what the resident was complaining about.
The response to Complaint 2 appropriately acknowledged that there had been a failing in the service provided and apologised for this. However, it merely advised that an appointment had been raised to replace the extractor fan and that the complaint had been closed. The response did not contain all the components identified by the Code as essential elements in a complaint response:
1. The outcome of the complaint.
2. The reasons for any decisions made.
3. The details of any remedy offered to put things right.
4. Details of any outstanding actions.
The response did not address all the aspects of the complaint. It failed to address the resident’s concern regarding the storage heater which she said was not working, the mould which she said she was having to clean herself, or the reported negative health impacts on the resident or her children. The overall response to the complaint was therefore inappropriate and the landlord missed an opportunity to try to understand the resident’s concerns and to put things right.
In May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and said that she had replied to the landlord’s stage 1 response but had received no answer. She said that the landlord had failed to understand the extent of the mould and again stressed the health impact of the issue. We consider that, particularly as the resident stated she had raised this matter immediately after the stage 1 response, the landlord should have considered this a stage 2 escalation request and logged and responded to it accordingly. That it did not do so was a failing.
Instead, the landlord replied to the resident 2 days later and offered her £100 decorating voucher to “help with any potential cost of redecorating [the] bedroom and bathroom”. It said it wished to visit to inspect the mould issue and the damage that she had reported, it would then discuss “potential compensation”. It therefore failed to administer the complaint in line with its policy and the Code.
The resident replied to the landlord on 15 May 2023 and advised that £100 decorating vouchers would not cover the amount of paint needed. She also said that unless the landlord resolved the underlying issue the mould would continue to return so “painting over the top…would be fruitless”. She agreed that someone could inspect the issue but said a similar inspection had been completed the year before and “nothing was done”. The resident emailed the landlord again 2 weeks later as she had not received a response.
The resident raised concerns regarding the damp and mould again in early September 2023. The landlord telephoned her and said it would arrange a full damp survey of the property. The complaint log stated that the resident was “happy” with this resolution. The log also stated that it warned the resident that as this would be a “lengthy” process and because this was an “issue of overcrowding” she may need to move to another property if the mould kept returning. The resident said she did not want to move.
It is clear from later communications that the resident’s report in September 2023 was dealt with as an informal complaint. In October 2023 she emailed the landlord and said she had not yet received a response to her complaint. The landlord replied on the same day and said that it had advised her that the complaint would be dealt with at stage 1 as the previous stage 1 complaint was “resolved” as she had been happy with the landlord agreeing to arrange a damp survey. It is clear from the communications that it was not made clear to the resident that her complaint was not being dealt with formally or why. This was a further failing.
On 16 October 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and said that its early resolution team had “worked tirelessly…to try and reach an early resolution”. It had listened to a call recording from 5 September 2023 and the resident had said on more than one occasion she was happy with the resolution. Unfortunately the agreed survey had not been completed and therefore a new stage 1 complaint had been raised.
The resident replied to the landlord and explicitly asked the landlord to escalate Complaint 2 to stage 2 of its complaint process as the mould issue was ongoing. Instead, the landlord logged a new stage 1 complaint. We do not consider that this was reasonable. The Code states that landlords should not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action. We have seen no evidence that the landlord provided any justification for its decision not to escalate the complaint. This decision unreasonably delayed the complaints process and the resident’s access to this Service.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 3 within the timeframe outlined in its policy and by the Code. The response however was unsatisfactory. The response simply stated that it had asked its contractor to treat the mould. This, as with the response to Complaint 2, did not contain the essential elements of a complaint response.
The resident responded to the landlord and clearly expressed her frustration that she was not being listened to and that the landlord was not investigating the underlying cause of the damp and mould.
On 30 October 2023 the resident contacted this Service and said that she had raised several complaints with the landlord. She said in response to each it would attend to spray the mould and then close her complaint. The resident said she was “exhausted” at having to “battle” with her landlord to find a proper resolution to the mould in her home. It is clear that the landlord’s poor handling of the complaint was causing the resident distress over and above that caused by its handling of the substantive issue.
In early November 2023 the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the request within 5 working days in line with its policy and the Code. Its formal response was also provided within the appropriate timeframes.
While the landlord’s stage 2 response was more thorough that its previous responses it did use language which, as identified earlier in this report, placed blame on the resident for the damp and mould in the property. This is contrary to the recommendation in our damp and mould spotlight report.
The resolution offered by the resident at this time was an offer of £100 compensation and advice to “open the windows… wipe off the water on the glass”.
It is noted that within its stage 2 response that the landlord accepted that the time it had taken to resolve the issues had “had a detrimental impact on [her] family health and wellbeing”.
This Service considers that, as the landlord formally accepted that there had been some impact on health and wellbeing, we would reasonably expect that at a minimum it would refer her to its insurance provider. That it did not do so at this stage was a missed opportunity to put matters right.
The resident replied to the landlord the day after it’s stage 2 response to Complaint 3. She disputed some elements of the response and rejected the offer of compensation.
The landlord provided a further stage 2 response around a week after its formal response and said that it would arrange an independent damp survey. At that time it also addressed the resident’s reports of damage to her belongings and to her health. It requested photographs of the damaged items and directed her to its insurance team if she wished to submit a personal injury claim. This was appropriate.
Almost 5 months later the landlord provided a further stage 2 response outlining the outcome of the damp survey. That the update was not provided until 3 months after the damp survey was carried out was an undue delay.
It is noted that the landlord did not provide all findings and recommendations of the survey to the resident. While it is accepted that it was not obliged to do so or to execute all of the recommendations, it would have been transparent to share this information with the resident.
In its final ‘further’ stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it would arrange for its contractor to treat the bedroom carpet. It also offered £430 compensation comprising:
1. £150 for “inconvenience and upset”.
2. £150 for “assistance with decorating”.
3. £130 for “recognition of damage”.
This Service does not consider that the compensation offered by the landlord provides reasonable redress for the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the issues in this case.
The resident has paid approximately £488 per month (taking account some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period of the landlord’s maladministration, which the Ombudsman reasonably considers to have started in August 2022. The Ombudsman considers that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition for the amount of time that the resident’s enjoyment of the bathroom and 2 bedrooms has been affected by outstanding repairs (24 months). Taking into account the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £2,928 compensation. This figure has been calculated as approximately 25% of the total rent during the period in question. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.
In addition to the compensation for loss of enjoyment we consider that the landlord should pay further compensation of:
1. £400 for distress and inconvenience caused by delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. £200 for distress and inconvenience caused by delays in the landlord’s handling of the heating system upgrade.
3. £700 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failings.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling has been unduly slow and ineffective. The landlord unreasonably refused to escalate the complaint when requested instead raising several stage 1 complaints about the same issue within a relatively short timeframe. This delayed the resident’s access to this Service. The landlord failed to ensure that it fully understood the complaint and its responses did not contain all essential elements as outlined in the Code. The landlord’s complaint handling failed to resolve the resident’s issues within a timely manner or provide reasonable redress. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the request for the heating system to be replaced.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint including the level of compensation offered.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 2 weeks of the date of this report a senior officer of the landlord at director level or above should apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this report in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £4,228 comprising:
1. £2,928 in relation to reduced enjoyment of the property due to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
2. £400 for distress and inconvenience caused by delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. £200 for distress and inconvenience caused by delays in the landlord’s handling of the heating system upgrade.
4. £700 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failings.
5. If the landlord has already paid the resident the compensation offered in its stage 2 complaint response the amount paid should be deducted from the compensation ordered.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord to carry out a review of its approach to replacing the heating in the resident’s block. The review should:
1. Identify whether its investigations so far into new systems has been timely and reasonable.
2. Consider whether reasonable support has been offered to the resident and others in the block while the heating replacement is unresolved.
3. Implement a regular method of updating the resident regarding the progress of the project.
4. Outline a timescale in which it intends to complete the heating upgrade.

The landlord should provide a copy of this report to this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.