Town and Country Housing (202231302)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202231302
Town and Country Housing
14 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 response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
Background
- The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a two bedroom semi-detached house which the resident resides in with her husband and young children. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the household, but the resident has advised she was diagnosed with asthma during the timeline of her complaint.
- On 15 August 2022 the landlord attended the property to complete an inspection following reports of damp and mould. It noted that there was evidence of mould throughout, and that a mould wash was required. It also said that insulation needed to be installed in the loft. An order to treat the mould was raised on 26 August 2022.
- On 15 February 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said that:
- she had experienced damp and mould for approximately 3 years. She was suffering from pleurisy and regular chest infections. Despite cleaning the mould herself, it kept returning.
- operatives would attend the property to inspect it, but she would hear nothing further. When she chased the issue, she was told there was no record of her previous contact.
- she had lost money as a result of staying in for missed appointments and was “extremely frustrated” that she kept having to chase the landlord for updates.
- The landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 response on 5 March 2023. It said that:
- its service had fallen short of expectations, and it was sorry. It recognised she had experienced extensive delays and a lack of communication.
- the delays were as a result of it changing to a new repairs provider. There had also been an administrative error whereby the job to remedy the damp and mould was changed on the system but not communicated to the contractor, which caused additional delays.
- it wanted to offer her £600 for the distress and inconvenience she had experienced.
- repairs orders had been raised to refit the gutters and fascia boards, and were booked for 21 June 2023.
- as a result of her complaint, it would monitor how it supervised subcontracted work and had already put new supervisors in place.
- The resident said that she was happy with the outcome of the complaint, so long as the works were completed as it had agreed. However on 11 September 2023 she requested an escalation to her complaint. She said the works remained outstanding, and she had been left to redecorate her upstairs rooms herself.
- The landlord provided the resident with a final stage 2 response on 24 November 2023. It said that it was upholding her complaint:
- It was sorry for her experience and acknowledged that there had been further delays and a lack of communication.
- A survey of the roof would be undertaken and it would raise a job to do a further mould wash and repaint. Works to the fascias would be completed once the other works had been done.
- It wanted to offer her a further £550 in compensation comprised of:
- £100 per month for each month repairs were outstanding, a total of £500.
- £50 for its lack of communication with regards to redecorating upstairs, as it had not made it clear that it would be her responsibility.
- On 5 April 2024 the landlord noted that all repairs had been completed, but it was awaiting a quote for a positive input ventilation (PIV) system. In recent contact with the Ombudsman, the resident reported that repairs are outstanding after the conclusion of the complaint. She said that she has not been kept informed of the outcome of a recent survey and feels that the landlord’s offer of compensation was not reflective of her experience.
Assessment and findings
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould
- Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact her living conditions have had on her health. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim.
- Landlords are expected to keep contemporaneous repair records to track and monitor interventions over time. This is important, as the landlord has an obligation to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). In this case, the landlord’s repair records leading up to the resident’s complaint were inadequate and contained limited information as to what repairs, if any, had taken place when. For example, there are no details recorded about what prompted it to conduct a property inspection on 15 August 2022, or when it had raised an order to install loft insulation.
- The distress that the resident felt is highlighted in her initial complaint to the landlord on 15 February 2023, when she informed it that she was concerned she had contracted pleurisy and was experiencing regular chest infections. The landlord did not respond to these specific concerns in a timely manner. There is no evidence that it adopted a risk based approach or considered what measures it could put in place to safeguard the resident. Furthermore, its vulnerability records were not updated to reflect the additional needs within the household which was unreasonable.
- It is not disputed by the landlord that there were failures in its record keeping, which it attributed to a changeover of repairs provider in November 2022. However the changeover occurred 3 months after the resident had reported the issue, and did not excuse that the landlord had fallen short of its expected service standards in accordance with its responsive repairs policy. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have conducted a stress test on its systems in advance of the change in repair provider. This could have assisted the landlord in being confident that the systems ‘spoke’ to each other to ensure that key information relating to unresolved repairs was not lost.
- In responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 on 5 March 2023, the landlord acknowledged that its service had fallen short of expectations and apologised which was appropriate. It made a reasonable offer of £600 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience it had caused. The offer was made in accordance with its compensation policy for a “moderate” failure which was fair and proportionate to its failings at the time.
- The stage 1 response was an opportunity for the landlord to put things right for the resident and learn from outcomes. In this case the landlord raised new repairs for the resident which was appropriate, and it also took sufficient learning from her complaint. It identified that it needed to better monitor its contractors and was transparent in admitting its administrative failures, which demonstrated openness with the resident and a commitment to improve its service.
- The landlord had an opportunity to rebuild the resident’s trust by ensuring it delivered on its promises. However despite the resident initially stating that she was “happy with the outcome”, the landlord continued to make the same mistakes. The resident had to chase it for further updates on what steps it was taking to address the damp and mould on a number of occasions causing her additional time, trouble and inconvenience.
- The delayed repairs related specifically to the guttering, fascias and roof vent tiles, which were identified as requiring attention early in the landlord’s investigations into the damp and mould. However it continued to be significantly delayed in completing the works in accordance with its repairs and maintenance policy. For example, works to the guttering were not completed until September 2023. The delay was outside of the 28 day time scale expected in accordance with its policy and caused the resident avoidable distress. To date, it remains unclear whether repairs to the fascias have been completed which is unreasonable.
- The landlords damp and mould policy states that it adopts a coordinated approach to ensure that all of its teams and departments are working together effectively. This was not the resident’s experience. It is not disputed that the resident had a positive working relationship with the complaints officer, however the officer had to chase the repairs department on approximately 6 occasions for an update. The lack of communication between the departments directly impacted the resident who reported feeling “very stressed” that the situation was deteriorating, and on 11 November 2023 reported that water was beginning to seep through her daughter’s bedroom.
- It is unclear from the landlord’s internal correspondence how it came to the conclusion of what works were needed to remedy the damp, as no records of a survey between August 2022 and December 2023 were seen. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged for a specialist survey at an earlier opportunity to establish the root cause of the problem and to be confident that its interventions would resolve the issue.
- The landlord’s final response on 24 November 2023 was an opportunity for it to reflect on the service it had provided the resident and consider how it could put matters right. Although it offered the resident reasonable compensation of £550 in line with its compensation policy and agreed to undertake a roof survey, it gave no assurances of when the survey would take place causing the resident additional distress. It also acknowledged that repairs to the fascia remained outstanding and therefore had not concluded all of her concerns. The landlord demonstrated a lack of learning from her complaint and did not explain what measures it would put in place to improve its service in the future.
- As a result, it is evident that after the stage 2 response, the complaints officer continued to experience difficulties in liaising with the repairs team for updates and a further survey was not undertaken until 27 December 2023. The delay was inappropriate and undermined the professional relationship the complaints officer had built with the resident.
- On 24 February 2024 the landlord noted that works were completed with “no further reports of issues”. Conversely, the resident reports to the Ombudsman that her belongings are damaged from ongoing mould and feels as though the situation is “never ending”. She states she remains unclear as to the plan of works following a more recent survey. An order has been made for the landlord to provide the resident and the Ombudsman with an update.
- Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It was slow to instruct a specialist survey to identify the root cause of the damp and there were delays in concluding remedial repairs after the stage 2 response. The landlord’s communication between its internal teams have been inadequate and it has been unable to demonstrate learning from the resident’s complaint to improve its future service.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures noted within this report, within 4 weeks.
- The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1,550 in compensation. The amount is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears, within 4 weeks. The amount is made up of:
- £600 it offered at stage 1 of its complaint process, if not already paid.
- £550 it offered at stage 2 of its complaint process, if not already paid.
- A further £400 for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould.
- The landlord is ordered to contact the resident and update her of the outcome of its damp and mould investigations, within 4 weeks. In doing so, it should explain:
- what it established the root cause of the damp and mould to be, and what specialist information it has relied upon to make this conclusion.
- when it will complete any outstanding recommendations made within the most recent report, including the installation of a PIV, in accordance with its repair and maintenance policy.
- whether it considers that there has been any evidence that it has been at fault for any damage to her belongings, and signpost her to its insurance team as appropriate.
- what further steps the landlord will take to monitor the property in line with its HHSRS obligations
- what steps it has taken to ensure effective communication between its repairs and complaints teams.
Recommendations
- It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss the vulnerabilities within her household, and update its records accordingly.