Torus62 Limited (202212668)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212668

Torus62 Limited

12 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 the landlord’s response to:
1. the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property;
2. the resident’s reports about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord under an assured shorthold or non-shorthold tenancy, which began in January 2021. He lives in a one-bedroom ground floor flat. Before he entered the tenancy, the landlord was aware the resident suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
As all employees who work for the landlord represent the landlord, for readability, this report will refer to them as ‘the landlord’.

Policy framework

In October 2021, this Service issued a report entitled, “Spotlight on damp and mould: It’s not lifestyle” (“the Spotlight Report”). The findings of the Spotlight Report provide a useful framework, setting out how this Service expects landlords to respond to reports of damp and mould.
The landlord’s complaints procedure adopts the Ombudsman’s definition of a complaint as being “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”.
The landlord says it operates a two-stage complaints process. However, it says that occasionally, if a resident does not want to engage in a formal investigation or require a response in writing, it uses an ‘informal’ process. It says it only uses this informal stage when dealing with straightforward problems and where it has the express consent of the resident. However, where this is not appropriate or where the resident would prefer, it will register a formal complaint.
At this stage, the procedure says the landlord should aim to respond to complaints within ten working days. If the resident is unhappy with the outcome at stage one, without the need for any extra evidence, the landlord says it will progress the complaint to stage two. At stage two, it aims to respond within 20 working days. At both stages, if the resident agrees, an extension of 10 days can be agreed. At both stages, the landlord says it will keep the resident updated. If the resident is vulnerable, or unable to put forward a coherent case, the procedure says they will be directed towards local advocacy services, for example Citizens Advice.
The landlord is, as a social landlord, a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, (“the Scheme”). Section 9(b) of the Scheme says that members must establish and maintain a complaints procedure which is in line with the good practice recommended by the Ombudsman, including its Complaint’s Handling Code, (“the Code”).
Section 4.1 of the Code says that “there may be times appropriate action can be agreed immediately. Any decision to try and resolve a concern must be taken in agreement with the resident and a landlord’s audit trail/records should be able to demonstrate this. Landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay. It is not appropriate to have extra named stages (such as ‘stage 0’ or ‘pre-complaint stage’) as this causes unnecessary confusion for residents. When a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage one of the complaints procedure within five days of receipt.”
The landlord’s repairs policy says the landlord will confirm the exact nature and extent of the repairs to the resident. It says all repairs will be prioritized under one of three headings. These are “emergency repairs” which should be undertaken within 24 hours, “by arrangement repairs”, which it aims to complete in 20 calendar days and “programmed repairs”. These are considered non-urgent and the landlord should aim to complete these within 60 days of reporting. It says residents will be kept updated if there are any delays and where appropriate, temporary measures will be put in place to mitigate a situation. It says timescales are closely monitored. It says if the landlord does not complete a repair within the target time, nor complete the repair, residents may be entitled to compensation.
The landlord’s compensation policy is discretionary. It says calculations will be based upon what is considered fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

Summary of events

On 24 January 2022, the resident reported “…a lot of damp [in] bathroom leading into bedroom.” The landlord’s records show it intended to respond by 7 March 2022. On 1 February 2022, the resident called the landlord to try and arrange an appointment to assess the extent of the issue. He followed this up with further calls in which he said the bathroom tiles had started to come away from the wall. A survey appointment was made for 23 March 2022.
The survey said the following work was necessary to address rising damp at the property, with a planned completion date of 12 April 2022:
1. Tank wall in bathroom and bedroom
2. Renew skirting
3. Remove and refit bath and wall tiles
4. Overhaul fan.
Later, the landlord said it had also raised a job to apply a fungicidal wash to the affected walls.
The resident was not provided with a copy of the survey or informed what works were necessary or given information about when they might be undertaken.
A month later, the resident contacted the landlord to say he had received a letter saying his repairs were not urgent and were delayed. This Service has seen a copy of a general letter sent out to some residents at, or around, that time. It apologised for the delay and said that because of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was experiencing difficulties with a nationwide shortage of tradespeople and materials. It said repairs had been prioritised in order of seriousness and the date they were reported.
The letter said routine repairs had been grouped together and the landlord would try to get repairs done when possible. Internal records show these types of complaints were called “ZZZ” complaints.
The resident complained about this delay on 22 April 2022 and said he wanted to take legal action. The landlord recorded that the resident was ‘really unhappy’ with the delay. It treated this contact as an ‘informal complaint’.
Three days after the resident’s initial ‘informal complaint’, the landlord had a conversation with the resident and recorded that he agreed to a five day “complaint extension”. However, it was noted that the resident was unhappy with the time he had to wait as he said he could not use his bathroom because of the damp.
On 29 April 2022, the resident called to say the damp had become worse. The records show the landlord said it would try and arrange an appointment to complete the necessary works and would call the resident the following week. The records do not show that either happened.
Two weeks later, the resident called the landlord to say his mental health was suffering. He asked for a call back. There is no record to show this happened.
On 23 May 2022, the resident called the landlord to say the damp had spread to the communal areas of the block he lived in.
He asked the landlord to move him to another property and asked for someone to visit to look at the problem again. He said it was unhealthy for him to continue living in the property until the work was done. The records show the landlord made enquiries about the outstanding work. A call operative recorded her request for a surveyor to inspect as the “…previous work arranged had not been done.” The call operative recorded that she “…arranged for another survey to return and reinspect the damp…and we are attending on 17 June 2022.”
Responding to this Service’s enquiries about this planned survey, the landlord said it did not go ahead because the works had already been arranged on 23 March 2022. Elsewhere in a further response it said that 17 June 2022 was the date the resident called to ask when there would be a survey and that this was arranged for 29 June 2022.
When the resident called for a further update on 24 May 2022, the records show he was told the target date for the works to be completed was now 1 July 2022.
The resident did not receive a response regarding his request to move. This Service asked the landlord to provide evidence showing any consideration given to “decanting” the resident. The landlord did not provide evidence but said it did not consider decanting was necessary. It said the resident had the “use of his wash hand basin for bathing purposes, his WC and for the most part his bath.” It said the resident was without the use of his bath for a short time while it was being replaced. It said that at one point, there was a minor leak to the bath waste, but this would not have prevented him from using the bath, and not doing so was his choice. It said it was its practice to often carry out full bathroom replacements without the need to decant residents and it could be argued that the level of disruption experienced by this resident was no greater than in those cases.
On 17 June 2022, the resident complained again to the landlord. The records show he called because he was concerned that no one came to carry out the survey he understood was planned for that day. An internal note says that, at this point, his informal complaint was escalated to the formal complaint stage. As the complaint was being escalated, an internal note recorded there had been a “big lapse” between the works being raised and being booked. It said this would need to be explained as part of any response to the resident.
The resident called the landlord three times over the next ten days, complaining about a lack of communication. A survey was arranged for 29 June 2022. As a result of that survey, an order was raised to:
1. Replace the bathroom flooring at the same time as the tiling and tanking that had already been requested was being actioned.
2. Reposition and renew the fan.
3. Enquire about funding for a replacement bed for the resident.
The resident was told to move the shower hose away from the wall when showering.
The landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 25 July 2022. The key points were:
1. It was understood that the resident was complaining about the works (raised on 23 March 2022) not being completed and that he had been given the date of 1 July 2022 for completion. The landlord said the work had been subcontracted but had not been arranged yet. It said it would chase this to make an appointment.
2. It was accepted that water had seeped through defective tiles on the resident’s bathroom wall where grout was missing. This had “over-time” seeped into the resident’s bedroom and through the wall into the communal area. It said, “this will dry once the repairs are completed.”
3. The landlord acknowledged the resident had been concerned the required works had been described as non-urgent. The response said following the visit in June 2022, it considered the damp and mould were ‘minor’.
4. It was acknowledged that damp had caused “some disturbance to [the resident’s] decoration.” He was given a decoration voucher.
5. It apologised if the resident had been unhappy with the service provision.
6. The resident was told he could take his complaint to the Ombudsman.
Works did not go ahead on 1 July 2022 and on 11 July 2022 the resident asked when the works would commence, complaining that he had been waiting for the works to begin since December 2021.
The landlord said contractors attended the property on 18 July 2022. In response to this Service’s enquiries, it said they were unable to replace the resident’s vinyl flooring because the floor was not dry. The record of that visit says the flooring could not be replaced as the damp needed remedying first.
On 19 July 2022, the records show the resident sent an email to the landlord saying he was going to the doctor as the damp and mould were affecting his breathing. It is unclear from his email whether he was saying his bed, mattress and other furniture had to be taken away because of the damp or whether he was saying this had already happened. Nevertheless, he said he had had to sleep on the floor for four months and described severe back pain.
On 27 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again to seek an update about the outstanding repairs. He said he was being ignored. The call was terminated because the operator considered the resident’s language abusive. There is also an entry in the records around this time where the resident is reported as saying he did not refuse to have works done. It appears he considered a call operative said he had refused to have a fan fitted and flooring renewed, and he claimed this was not the case. A note on the file reads, “[the resident] would like to state that he has not refused any work by any contractors…”.
The landlord said a ventilator fan was replaced on 1 August 2022. This needed moving again in late August 2022 as it was put in the wrong position.
The landlord says that, after three failed attempts to gain access to the property, on 8 August 2022, the works were cancelled. This service has seen a screenshot of a note on the landlord’s system saying, in relation to the works raised on 23 March 2022, ‘No Access – 3 attempts to contact’.
On 17 August 2022, the resident called the landlord again. He complained that he had been told he would be given a new bed and mattress. This had not happened. He said his bathroom and bedroom were unusable and he repeated his concerns about his physical health. A note was made saying that a vent repair had been logged but no other works had been raised.
The landlord said it reopened the resident’s complaint as a result of this contact and raised the works again.
On 24 August 2022, the records show workmen attended to attempt some of the works necessary to address the damp.
On 6 September 2022, the resident provided photographs which he said showed the damp and mould in his bathroom and on an outside wall. He also provided a photograph which he said showed damage to flooring caused by the workmen. He asked for £140 compensation for damage to some items. There is no record of the landlord having offered to pay this.
It is not clear how the landlord verified that the works had been faulty (or whether it was because of the photographs or not) but following this communication, the landlord’s surveyor recorded that the bath panel had fallen off, the sealant needed to be replaced, there had been a leak under the bath after it had been installed and new lino was needed for the bathroom and to repair damage caused to other lino in the property.
On 9 September 2022, the records show the landlord was making efforts to arrange payment for a new bed and mattress but by 12 September 2022, this payment had not been made and the resident complained again. His complaint was escalated to stage two of the landlord’s process. The resident continued to phone repeatedly. He said he felt nothing was being done in response to his complaint.
On 20 September 2022, the resident spoke with the surveyor again. Following that call, the surveyor sent an email to the contractors asking, “…get someone there as a matter of urgency, tenant has been without adequate facilities for a long period now.”
The landlord says this comment was made to encourage a sense of urgency. It says that the resident had adequate bathing facilities throughout.
On 21 September 2022, the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated. He was told this could not happen until a return visit had been made to look at the issues. The resident contacted his MP.
The next day, representatives of the landlord visited the property. The outcome of the visit was that the landlord arranged to pay the resident £500 which was described as “…damage compensation to furniture due to damp after leak.” The landlord’s internal records note that the only furniture in the flat was a blanket on the floor and a sofa. The payment was processed on 26 September 2022 although it appears it did not reach the resident until later. The landlord said it made a referral to its Tenancy Sustain team on 22 September 2022 because of a concern about the lack of furniture in the resident’s flat. However, it says he refused all offers of support.
The records say the works were completed by 23 September 2022, although in other correspondence with this Service, the landlord says some of the works, such as replacing the bathroom lino and treating the mould in the bathroom, were instead completed by 25 October 2022.
The resident’s MP was updated that, following the visit of 22 September 2022, “various remedial and decorating works” had been agreed and that “some work” had been delayed due to the ongoing impact of COVID-19 which it said had created a backlog.
On 26 September 2022, the resident called the landlord to chase up the promise of payment and to complain again that he had no access to running water. A request was made for payment to be arranged urgently.
On 27 and 28 September 2022, the resident sent the landlord emails saying, among other things, that:
1. He felt the landlord was trying to prevent the progress of his complaints.
2. He considered the landlord had been aware he had been in unsuitable accommodation for ten months.
3. Repairs had left him with no bathroom for the past two months and nowhere to wash because of leaks and it not being safe.
4. He said he could not wash himself fully just using a sink.
5. He said the landlord had failed to provide any information on where he could go for support.
6. Because of the damp and mould, the landlord had disposed of his bed and mattress six months ago but despite saying it would compensate him, this had not happened, and he had been sleeping on the floor for six months.
7. He had no friends or family to support him.
8. He said his health had suffered. He said he had rashes and black mould poisoning. He said he felt he had been living in “3rd world poverty conditions.”
On the same day, a note on the landlord’s system said that the outstanding works on the resident’s flat had to be a priority due to it going to an MP Enquiry. The surveyor reminded the contractors that the works had been recalled on 6 September 2022.
The landlord’s records show efforts were made to try and find out why the resident’s payment had not been processed.
On 30 September 2022, the resident was provided with a schedule of works setting out the outstanding works.
The landlord paid the resident £500 to replace his furniture some time before 11 October 2022. The exact date is unclear. This Service understands from receipts provided by the resident to the landlord, setting out how much he had originally paid for his bed and mattress, that the payment was to replace his bed and mattress.
After this Service’s involvement, the landlord also offered to pay a further £500 to acknowledge the impact upon the resident in terms of inconvenience and distress.
On 12 October 2022, the landlord wrote with its stage two complaint response. The key points were, among other things:
1. It was sorry the resident had “felt the need” to draw his concerns about its previous response to its attention.
2. The resident had raised the issue of the works completed to his bathroom.
3. It set out that the landlord had visited on 22 September 2022 and had found a “minor leak from bath waste”.
4. It set out the work recommended to rectify that issue.
5. That the resident had told the landlord he was now satisfied the works were progressing well and the only outstanding issue was the laying down of vinyl flooring, which had been arranged for 25 October 2022.
6. It apologised that the issues the resident had encountered left him disappointed with the way the landlord had responded.
7. That ‘some’ works had been delayed because of the impact of Covid.
8. The resident had been paid £500 in recognition of the issues he faced and the delays in completing works.
9. It told the resident that, if he wanted to complain to this Service, he would have to wait eight weeks until after this final response.
On 20 October 2022, the resident responded that the works the landlord said had been completed were not. He said they had been booked in for 19 to 21 October 2022 but, although he waited in on 19 October 2022, no one attended. He said he still had to go elsewhere to shower as the bathroom tiles had not been regrouted or cleaned and he had been told that the works had been delayed again until 24 November 2022.
The resident continued to complain to the landlord about delays in completing works and related issues. For instance, on 2 November 2022, it was recorded that the resident called chasing the floor repair. A survey completed by the landlord on 11 November 2022 showed that the flooring had still not been laid down but that the resident was communicating with the landlord’s contractors to arrange this.
On 3 January 2023, the landlord says it confirmed that all the works were completed satisfactorily.

Assessment and findings

In its response to this Service’s enquiries, the landlord said the service the resident received was below the standard he should have expected. It accepted there were mistakes and delays which were frustrating. It said it has already paid the resident £500 to replace damaged furniture. Following this Service’s enquiries, it further reflected and said it would be offering the resident an additional £500 to acknowledge the impact upon him in terms of inconvenience and distress. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This report will also assess whether the landlord offered sufficient redress.
In the landlord’s response to this Service, it says the resident made several other complaints. This report addresses all those complaints that relate to the original report of damp and mould. That is because it appears that the other complaints the resident made all relate to the landlord’s response to the initial report about damp and mould. This is with the exception of a complaint the resident made about being allegedly assaulted by an operative that attended the property in October 2022. This incident had not fully been responded to by the landlord before this investigation began.

Scope

The resident has expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation has caused to his health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing as claims of personal injury must, ultimately, be decided by courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

As expressed in the Spotlight Report, landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. When there is a problem, effective diagnosis is critical. The response to reports of damp and mould should be timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
The earliest record of the resident reporting damp and mould at the property is in late January 2022. (The resident says it was on 27 December 2021, but this is unsupported by the records.) The landlord did not act in a timely manner. It took three months to investigate the resident’s reports. This was outside of its own target by 16 days. It then took around a further five months to take any action to remedy the issue. The landlord said it cancelled the order for repair works on 8 August 2022, after three failed attempts to gain access to the property. There is not enough evidence to satisfactorily support this claim.
In the stage one response to the resident on 25 July 2022, the landlord did not refer to any access issues. Instead, it said it still had not arranged for the works to be completed. The works had already been raised twice by this stage, (at the March and June 2022 surveys). The resident contacted the landlord on 27 July 2022 complaining about outstanding works. He wanted to make it clear that he had not refused any works and it is likely this was the case given that only two days before, the landlord had plainly stated in its stage one complaint response that it had not made appointments for repair work yet. No record was made asking the resident to ensure access. Neither is there any record of the landlord writing to the resident to say access had been denied and was necessary. Notably, when the landlord was explaining to the resident’s MP why there had been a delay to works being completed in September 2022, there was no mention of difficulties caused by access problems. Instead, the delay was attributed to the impact of COVID-19. It also said there had been delays to ‘some works’. In fact, all the works had been delayed.
With regards to the landlord’s repeated insistence that delays were caused by the impact of the COVID pandemic, this is not a satisfactory explanation for repair works that were reported in January 2022, accepted as necessary in March 2022 and were still not completed by October 2022.
Further, on the landlord’s evidence, access was gained on 18 July 2022 to replace flooring (which was a wasted appointment as the damp had not been remedied) and again attended on 1 August 2022 to replace a fan (which later turned out to have been put in the wrong place).
There is only one note on the system saying the works had been cancelled and there is no detail accompanying that note. If access was denied, it must have been between 1 August 2022 (after the fan installation) and 8 August 2022 (the date the works were cancelled) and there are no notes or records to say why. If a landlord decides to cancel works to correct rising damp that had already been reported eight months prior and raised twice, it is reasonable to expect it to keep transparent records about its reasons and to inform the resident in writing with a reasonable explanation before cancelling. There is no evidence that it did either.
The landlord’s repair policy says it will aim to complete all works within 60 days of reporting. It actually completed most of the works, reported on 27 January 2022, by 25 October 2022. That is around 150 days – this was 90 days past the deadline set in the policy. Further, this Service is not clear that all the works were completed by that date as the resident continued to complain about outstanding repairs (and the landlord’s own post-works survey reported that the flooring had not been completed by mid-November 2022).
These were excessive delays that meant the landlord did not act in accordance with its own policies. The Spotlight Report stresses that residents should not be left with damp and mould for an extended period. This is important because not only does a long wait for repairs lead to frustration for the resident, it can also lead to problems becoming worse and harder to resolve. In this case, even after the resident reported, in May 2022, that damp had spread to communal areas, the landlord did not take steps to further investigate until the resident escalated his complaint at the end of June 2022. It then failed to address the problem until the end of August 2022. A survey had been arranged for 17 June 2022 but was missed. The evidence, particularly the call operative’s note, shows the survey had been arranged.
It is notable that the landlord’s records show it was aware that the ‘big lapse’ between raising the works and booking them (two months), was problematic. That was why it said it considered the gap should be addressed in the complaint response, although it failed to do this. It is reasonable to conclude that such a delayed approach allowed the spread of damp into the resident’s bedroom and into the communal area. The landlord accepted this damp “had been caused by seeping “over time” into those areas.” It was likely that the spread of damp was linked to the landlord’s failure to take temporary measures to stop the damp spreading, contrary to its own policy.
In this case, damp caused damage to soft furnishings and or wood/plaster fittings. This, and the spread to other rooms, indicates a severe case of damp. It apparently resulted in the resident sleeping on the floor for a long period. It is unclear from the records how long exactly but, by June 2022, the landlord was aware that the resident did not have a bed. The resident said he was told at, or around, this stage that the landlord would pay for a new bed and mattress for him. There is no record of this agreement. However, it was noted in June 2022, that funding was needed for a new bed. This Service considers the lack of a bed would have stopped the resident having the enjoyment of his bedroom and that the landlord should pay a proportion of the rent back to the resident to reflect that. This should either be from June 2022 to October 2022 (when payment for a new bed and mattress was received) or from the point at which the landlord, according to the resident, disposed of his bed for him, which would be two months earlier. The landlord should have records of any disposals arranged at the property.
It is also relevant that while the landlord was waiting to complete works, it did not undertake basic steps to try and alleviate the problem. The Spotlight Report says that, where significant works are required, smaller remedial works such as mould washes/anti-mould paint that will improve a resident’s living environment, should still be completed. There is no record of a mould wash being arranged until 5 October 2022 and it is unclear from the records that this happened on that day either. The landlord’s repair policy says it will apply temporary measures to mitigate a situation – its failure to do so was inappropriate.

Consideration of decanting

On 23 May 2022, the resident asked the landlord to consider moving him to another property. The landlord says it did not consider this necessary. However, there is no record that it considered this issue at the time and no record of any response to the resident’s request. The Spotlight Report says that, where appropriate, landlords should consider decanting at an early stage. This is to ensure residents are not left living in unsatisfactory conditions for months before a decant is considered.
It is particularly important with respect to vulnerable residents. The landlord was aware that the resident had PTSD and he frequently reminded it of how the circumstances he was living in were affecting his mental and physical wellbeing. The landlord should have communicated with him about his request for a decant and set out why it did not consider it was necessary. Its failure to do so was unreasonable and will inevitably have increased the resident’s feeling that he was being ignored and furthered his frustration.

General communication

Communication was poor throughout the period. This Service’s Spotlight Report sets out that landlords should clearly and regularly communicate about the actions they have decided to take, sharing surveys obtained with the resident, acting in a timely fashion on findings made and ensuring they follow up the works taken. In most instances, this did not happen in this case. The landlord, contrary to its repairs policy, frequently failed to communicate its plans with the resident and left him to call to obtain updates.
In its response to this investigation, the landlord noted that the resident’s behaviour was, at times, challenging. There are records of the resident using abusive language and at one stage a telephone operative considered it necessary to terminate a call. However, there are no records showing that it was explained to the resident that this behaviour was not appropriate. The resident had informed the landlord he was suffering from PTSD. The landlord, therefore, should have, in line with its policy, signposted him to other agencies that might be able to support him. It says it referred him to its Tenancy Support Team on 22 September 2022, but this was three months after it had become aware he had no bed and four months after he had contacted the landlord to tell it that his mental and physical health were being impacted – this delay was unreasonable.
The records show a number of occasions where the resident asked for and did not receive a call back. After his initial call in January 2022 to report the damp, the resident had to chase twice before an appointment was set up. After he reported that he could no longer use his bathroom in April 2022, he was promised a call back. This did not happen. After he reported, in May 2022, that his mental health was suffering, no one communicated with him until two weeks later, after he reported that damp had spread to communal areas. The first time he was provided with a schedule of works was in September 2022, six months after the initial survey. All these instances will have served to further the resident’s frustration and left him uncertain as to how, or if, the landlord intended to resolve the damp in his property.

Washing facilities

This Service is also concerned that the landlord considered that the resident had adequate bathing facilities because he could use his wash basin. This was not adequate and indicated the landlord did not take a sympathetic approach. Furthermore, the resident was paying rent for the use of a full working bathroom.
The landlord also said that, for most of the relevant period, the resident could have used his bath but chose not to. It said the leak was only minor and would not have prevented him using it. This was not a short period as the landlord claimed but from around the end of August to October 2022. During that period, the resident had limited use of his bathroom.
In March 2022, the surveyor recommended that the bath should be refitted. It is unlikely they would have done so if the bath was usable. The same recommendation was made in June 2022. The resident was advised to point the shower away from the wall. This was because damp coming through the poorly grouted tiles had seeped through into the bedroom. The resident provided photographs (in September 2022) of the bathroom which appear to indicate that the spread of damp around the bathroom was significant.
The fact that the landlord authorised a payment of £500 to replace furniture and also recommended replacing flooring in the bathroom in June 2022 supports the evidence of the photographs. It is understandable that the resident was already concerned about using the shower or bath area. The resident did not have the enjoyment one would expect from the use of his bathroom for around eight months with up to two months having limited access to adequate washing facilities. He may have been able to use his bath at times but not without being concerned that this would cause the further spread of damp and additional damage.
This Service has considered that the landlord said its surveyor’s comment that the resident was without adequate facilities for a long period was only meant to convey a sense of urgency to contractors. However, this Service considers it is likely, given the records seen, and the words used, that what the surveyor said accurately reflected the situation at the property, which likely explains the need for urgency with the contractors.
This Service has therefore awarded compensation which reflects that the resident was without the full use of his bathroom for a long period.

Complaint handling

Contrary to the Code and to the landlord’s own policy, there is no record of the resident giving his express consent to treat his complaint as informal. When he called to complain about the decision to delay repair works in April 2022, his complaint firmly fell within the definition of “an expression of dissatisfaction with the service provided”. It should have been treated as a formal complaint from the outset. While the Code anticipates there might be times when action can be agreed immediately, it specifically says that it is not appropriate to have extra named stages. In this case, the landlord’s use of an ‘informal stage’ is an extra named stage. This is contrary to the Code.
Its informal stage process meant that rather than being a way to resolve complaints quickly, it actually acted as a gatekeeping stage which delayed the process of addressing the resident’s concerns. It was not until his complaint was escalated to the formal stage on 17 June 2022 that a visit was arranged to investigate the spread of damp to communal areas. It also delayed referral to this Service.
Further, even if it were reasonable to view the escalated complaint on 17 June 2022 as being the first time the resident formally complained – and this Service considers it was not – the landlord’s response was delayed: it was 16 days past the timeline set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
The first stage complaint response in July 2022 had a number of failings:
1. It took its starting point as the 17 June 2022 complaint, but the resident had made his initial report about damp in late January 2022 and been complaining since late April 2022 about the landlord’s failure to act.
2. It failed to acknowledge the ‘big lapse’ (two months) in time between the raising of repair works and the booking of those works.
3. It did not apologise for the above delay or for the fact that the works had still not being arranged, four months after the original complaint.
4. It noted that the resident had been given a deadline of 1 July 2022 for completion but failed to apologise that this deadline had already been missed by over three weeks.
5. It failed to acknowledge that the resident had no bed, and that the landlord was required to replace it.
6. It used unsympathetic language to refer to the resident’s circumstances, simply saying that the damp, which it accepted had got worse over time (while the landlord delayed), would “dry-out” when the repairs were completed. This failed to acknowledge that, until then, the resident had to live in damp conditions and as yet, appointments had not been made for repairs.
The resident indicated he was unhappy with the stage one response within days. It was recorded as a further complaint about the works that had been undertaken but, in reality, this complaint was linked to his original complaint because it was about outstanding works. The notes indicate that he expressed his dissatisfaction in abrasive terms. But even so, his complaint should have been escalated to stage two. He was told, however, that he had to wait until after a further survey. This was contrary to the landlord’s policy and to this Service’s Complaint’s Handling Code.
The landlord’s stage two response in October 2022 was also unreasonably delayed and failed to acknowledge the numerous complaint points raised by the resident. It said the landlord was sorry the resident had ‘felt the need’ to continue with his complaint. This language was unsympathetic. It effectively attributed blame on the resident for complaining and failed to acknowledge that the reason the resident had escalated his complaint was because repairs had still not been completed.
The response downplayed the situation, saying that a minor water leak had been identified, and failed to mention that poor workmanship had been noted and that the resident’s bed had rotted due to damp. It said the resident had informed it that he was “…satisfied the works are progressing well” when the works had not started. This showed a lack of attention to the detail of his complaint. It failed to show that it had thoroughly understood or even acknowledged the numerous issues the resident had asked to be addressed.
It noted that the landlord had provided the resident with £500 compensation without acknowledging that that payment was to replace his bed and mattress. Instead, it referred to the payment as being for not completing works in a timely manner. It said that some of the works had been delayed because of the impact of COVID. Again, the landlord did not say it had been unable to gain access, which undermines any suggestion that this was the reason for the excessive delay in this case.
Further, it told him that, if he wished to take his complaint to this Service, he would have to wait eight weeks to do so. This was incorrect. From 1 October 2022, residents no longer had to wait or contact a designated person before referring their complaint to this Service.

Determinations

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

There were excessive delays in the landlord progressing the works to remedy damp and mould reported in January 2022 and confirmed in March 2022. Works did not begin until late August 2022.This cannot be justified by the impact of Covid on services or the claims that there were access issues. When damp progressed through the property, the landlord failed to act quickly to replace the resident’s bed, which had been destroyed by damp, leaving the resident to sleep on the floor for at least three months. The landlord failed to record any consideration of decanting the resident and failed to respond to the resident’s reports that his mental and physical health was suffering.
The landlord did not apply its complaints process in line with its policy or the Code, treating his initial complaint as being at an informal stage and thus delaying a formal response to his complaint for around two months. There were also delays in responding to his stage one and two complaints and those responses did not fully acknowledge the landlord’s failings in addressing the issues raised repeatedly by the resident. The response to enquiries made by the resident’s MP also failed to fully acknowledge the seriousness of the situation and the landlord further wrongly instructed the resident that he would have to wait for eight weeks before he could take his complaint to this Service when that restriction no longer applied.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £2900 in compensation within four weeks, comprising:
1. £1000 to acknowledge that, because of unattended damp and mould and poor repair work, the resident did not have full use of his bathroom for around seven months, with a period of up to two months with only the use of his basin for washing.
2. £500 to acknowledge that, because of unattended damp and mould, the resident did not have the full use of his bedroom between June 2022 and mid-October 2022. The landlord should produce any records it has of disposing of the bed and/or mattress. If this happened before June 2022, it should increase this payment by £100 per extra month the resident can be shown to have been without a bed.
3. £400 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified failures in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. £1000 to acknowledge the impact upon the resident in terms of inconvenience and distress caused by its response to his reports of damp and mould at the property. (This includes the £500 the landlord referred to at para 60, if not already paid.)
The landlord is ordered to provide an apology to the resident from its Chief Executive Officer. The apology should acknowledge the maladministration, accept responsibility for it, explain clearly why it happened, and express sincere regret.
Within eight weeks of this report, the landlord must undertake a senior management review of the case to help prevent failures reoccurring. The review is to address four specific issues of concern:
1. Its communication with residents, to include how it responds when a resident uses challenging language.
2. Its response to requests for decants, setting out the situations where it would be appropriate and how all requests should be considered and recorded.
3. To consider what interim measures it could take when resolving damp and mould problems in future and what steps the landlord can take to address these issues for vulnerable residents.
4. How it records any consideration given to the issues set out in a-c.
The outcome of this review is to be reported to both this Service and the landlord’s governing body. The senior managers carrying out the review must have had no previous involvement with this case.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with an action plan setting out how it intends to implement any findings or considerations made in the above review.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to review the complaint handling failures identified in this report. The landlord should review its complaint handling and ensure that, in line with the Code, it does not have a pre-complaint stage that causes delay or unnecessary confusion.
The landlord is then to confirm to this Service what steps it has taken to ensure that similar failings do not happen in future, such as staff training and reviewing processes in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.