Town and Country Housing (202305926)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305926

Town and Country Housing

19 July 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 handling of:
1. Repairs to:
  1. Doors.
  2. A leak under the kitchen sink.
  3. A gap in a kitchen wall.
  4. A crack in the external wall next to the french doors.
  5. A damaged glass panel in the bedroom.
  6. Three airbrick vents with green discharge.
  7. A hollow wall by the bi-fold door.
  8. A watermark on the living room carpet.
  9. Scuffed bi-fold doors.
2. A fence replacement.
3. Damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a weekly assured tenancy of a 2-bedroom ground-floor flat. The resident’s property was a new build that was completed in July 2021.
On 12 July 2021, the resident reported the repairs in paragraph 1 above. Specifically, she explained that there was a lot of mould in the property and damp on the skirting boards. She reported that an area of flooring was bubbling due to dampness behind the fridge. The resident also reported issues with a broken fence in July 2021, although the exact date is unknown.
On 28 August 2021, the resident reported the mould in the property had become worse.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 21 January 2022, and it said the resident’s property was affected by condensation. The landlord’s building surveyor suggested there was latent moisture in the building from when the property was built. The landlord arranged mould washes for the resident’s property as the building surveyor said that the resident’s property could take up to 24 months to dry out.
The resident’s mother complained on 2 March 2022 that the mould washes had not addressed the underlying cause of the mould. The resident’s mother complained that the mould was causing ill health to her grandchild.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 13 April 2022 and said:
1. it had surveyed the resident’s property
2. it had raised the resident’s concerns with the building developer, but it agreed the service delivery could have been better
3. it had asked its agent to visit the property to determine if any work was required
4. it would determine what work was required after this visit.
The landlord’s agent visited the resident’s property on 19 April 2022. The agent managed the building project on behalf of the landlord. The agent concluded the mould was caused by plaster drying out and a lack of natural light. On 17 May 2022 the landlord gave the resident a 3-stage plan to deal with the damp and mould. This involved the installation of a dehumidifier, mould treatment (washes), stain blocking and redecoration.
On 16 October 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that the property was “covered in black mould”. The landlord completed a 12-month defect inspection of the property on 24 October 2022. This was to note any defects a year after the property was built.
The resident escalated her complaint on 4 November 2022 and re-requested this again on 15 November 2022, she complained about the level of communication and the lack of progress on her complaint.
On 9 November 2022 the resident reported to the landlord:
1. that there was mould on the ceiling by her front door
2. that the mould in the second front bedroom was worse
3. that there was a “thick” orange coloured mould and that the carpets had been affected by black mould.
On 11 November 2022 the resident’s mother reported that “bugs” were coming through the walls that were affected by mould.
On 25 November 2022, the landlord sent the resident a holding response to her escalation request. The landlord completed a damp survey of the resident’s property on 9 December 2022. It also sent a ventilation specialist to the resident’s property on 19 January 2023.
The landlord did work to the resident’s property between 8 February and 23 March 2023, it offered the resident a hotel between 6 to 10 February 2023 to allow intrusive work to be done. The details of the work completed are outlined in the assessment and findings.
The resident requested compensation for the damaged items outlined in the assessment and for the cost of running a dehumidifier.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 February 2023 and said:
1. its stage 1 response had not sufficiently recognised or apologised for the poor service or impact on the resident
2. it accepted that the 11 calls it noted the resident made between 5 July 2021 and 28 November 2022 were likely to be inaccurate
3. it raised the resident’s concerns with the developer but should have done more to decide on a course of action
4. because of miscommunication from its contractors the resident had to stay in a hotel room which was extremely challenging
5. it accepted its communication was poor and it could have explained its actions better
6. it conducted mould washes while it considered the cause of the mould
7. these investigations took multiple visits which although they caused frustration, were unavoidable
8. it employed different experts to establish the cause of the mould but failed to manage these experts causing the resident unnecessary disturbance
9. it apologised that work and visits had impacted on the health of the resident’s daughter
10. it offered £750 in compensation in addition to any compensation for damaged items, and it would cover the cost of a dehumidifier once the cost was known
11. it agreed to improve its communication whilst investigatory work was being done
12. it was coming to the end of extensive works to reduce the damp that it believed was linked to moisture being locked into the property during its construction
13. it had enclosed an action plan to help reduce the impact, in this plan the landlord agreed:
  1. to replace the bedroom door and window by the end of March 2023
  2. to install a ventilation unit by 15 February 2023
  3. to remove the wall in the bathroom, rebuild and retile it by 24 February 2023
  4. to lay new carpet in the bedrooms, hallway, and lounge by 11 February 2023
  5. to replace the fence by the end of March 2023
  6. to service the ventilation in May 2023 and November 2023
  7. to monitor the property monthly from 10 March 2023
  8. to offer compensation for the dehumidifier and damaged items by 9 March 2023 on production of the evidence of loss.
The landlord reported that the resident’s property was free from mould on 25 May 2023. Following the complaint determination the landlord discussed with the resident a temporary move to allow it to address any structural causes of damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and the scope of the investigation

Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaint’s procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”

In this case, the resident has asked the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of the repairs specified in paragraph 1(a)(i)-(ix). While the Ombudsman has seen the resident reported the issues with the landlord there is no evidence the resident made a formal complaint about the handling of those repairs. Consequently, there is no evidence that the landlord’s handling of those repairs have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. That means the Ombudsman has no power to investigate the way the landlord handled the repairs specified at paragraph 1(a)(i)-(ix) of this determination specified above.
The resident told the landlord that the mould had impacted on the health of her and her daughter. The Housing Ombudsman Service was set up to investigate complaints about landlords on the basis of documentary evidence. Often when a claim is made for personal injury, the parties will often seek an independent medically qualified expert to write a ‘medico-legal report’ which sets out the nature and extent of any injuries, as well as the diagnosis and prognosis. The Ombudsman does not have the benefit of this evidence in this case and it would be difficult to provide an assessment. This is why this type of complaint is better dealt with by the courts.

The replacement fence

The landlord stated that the resident reported a broken fence in July 2021. On 9 November 2022 the resident complained about an ongoing delay with the fence replacement. The landlord told the resident on 25 November 2022 that it had agreed to replace her fence. It offered her £50 for the delay. On 8 February 2023 the landlord agreed to replace the resident’s fence by the end of March 2023. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord replaced the fence. The landlord acknowledged the delay at stage 2 but did not offer additional compensation.
Although the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that this delay had a significant detriment to the resident it caused her distress. Given the failure this service considers it appropriate to make two orders in respect of the fence.

The landlord’s response to the damp and mould

The resident reported the damp and mould in the property on 12 July 2021. The resident reported that the mould had become worse on 23 August 2021.
In our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould, we explained that landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to mould. They should inspect it promptly, assess the risk and decide on an action plan.
The landlord failed to contact the resident about this until 11 January 2022, this was six months after the initial report. This email only offered the resident an inspection by one of its inhouse surveyors. This should have been offered much sooner than it was.
While it was reasonable of the landlord to raise the damp and mould with the developer, it was unreasonable that it took no action at all. The landlord ought to have inspected the property within a reasonable time to diagnose the problem and consider mitigations or solutions if it was responsible. It could have agreed to do this with a representative of the developer. Importantly, the landlord was still under the obligation to ensure the property was fit for human habitation from the start of the tenancy and throughout. This would include ensuring it was free from hazards including damp and mould.
When the landlord inspected the property on 21 January 2022, its building surveyor found latent moisture in the building from its construction. The surveyor recommended that the landlord do mould washes while the property dried out. The surveyor also recommended that the landlord check the door vents.
The evidence is that the resident refused these recommendations on 2 March 2022 and so the landlord cancelled the actions. The Ombudsman considers that it was reasonable of the landlord to follow the surveyor’s advice. The Ombudsman cannot find fault with the landlord not doing the mould wash and checking the door vents as the resident refused to allow them to do this.
However, the landlord failed to communicate to the resident the outcome of the surveyor’s inspection. This caused the resident frustration and meant she was unaware of the reasons for the surveyor’s findings. There was also a failure in communication on 2 March 2022 when the landlord told the resident’s mother it was “dealing with the developers, regarding the big picture.” This is because the landlord did not explain to the resident what it meant by this or what outcome it was seeking to achieve. This was a service failure.
The landlord also failed to take any action until the end of March 2022 when it agreed to make a referral to its agent to inspect the resident’s property. The agent managed the development on behalf of the landlord.
The agent inspected the resident’s property on 19 April 2022. The agent recommended the use of a dehumidifier and mould treatment. The agent also concluded that the mould was the likely cause of condensation and that there was no construction defect. It was reasonable of the landlord to arrange this inspection however the Ombudsman is of the opinion that this should have been organised much sooner.
On 28 April 2022 the landlord told the resident it would provide details of the work it proposed by the end of the week. It was not until 17 May 2022 that the landlord gave the resident a 3-staged action plan. While there was a delay in the landlord providing the plan there was no evidence of any detriment caused to the resident.
The landlord provided the resident with a dehumidifier on 31 May 2022 and did a mould wash on 13 June 2022. The Ombudsman considers that it was reasonable for the landlord to follow the advice of its agent. The evidence also shows that the resident was satisfied with the 3-stage plan initially. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord monitored the effectiveness of the plan. This was a failure as the landlord ought to have monitored the plan to see if it was working.
After the resident raised concerns and asked to escalate her complaint on 16 October 2022 the landlord acted promptly and inspected the property on 24 October 2022. It confirmed the presence of mould in the main bedroom and patio doors. The landlord recommended improved ventilation and that the property be painted with anti-mould paint.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord took the following actions between 8 November 2022 to 19 January 2023:
1. it updated the resident on 8 November 2022 on what action it had taken since April 2022
2. it provided the resident with an update on 23 November 2022 and offered to visit her property to see the extent of the mould
3. it completed a mould wash of the resident’s ceilings and all the rooms in her property on 2 December 2022
4. it completed pest control work on 5 December 2022, after the resident’s mother reported “bugs” coming from within the mould affected walls within the property on 11 November 2022
5. it arranged for a damp survey to be completed on 9 December 2022
6. it updated the resident on 16 December 2022 with the results of the damp survey which recommended improvements in the ventilation and insulation at the property
7. it attempted to call the resident on 12 January 2023
8. it arranged for a ventilation specialist to inspect the property on 19 January 2023 to recommend improvements that could be made to the ventilation
The Ombudsman is of the opinion that the landlord’s actions were reasonable, albeit delayed. This is because the specialist survey allowed the landlord to understand how to improve the ventilation within the property. The mould wash was also in line with the landlord’s recommendations. It was a practical way for the landlord to control the mould until it could find a longer-term solution.
The landlord also completed the pest control work within a reasonable time of the report of the bug intrusion. The Ombudsman also considers that these actions show the landlord made reasonable efforts to keep the resident updated between 8 November 2022 to 12 January 2023.
After the ventilation specialist completed the second survey on 19 January 2023 the landlord agreed to install a positive input ventilation (PIV). The landlord installed this on 31 January 2023. This was reasonable as this action was in line with the specialist report. The landlord also agreed to continue to treat the property for mould and it updated the resident on 26 January 2023.
The landlord agreed to do another mould wash on the request of the resident’s mother on 26 January 2023. There was confusion over the timings of the mould wash. The resident’s mother reported that a contractor first told her on 31 January 2023 it would take two hours but then changed this to 3 days when it attended on 1 February 2023. This was a failure of communication which the landlord apologised for.
The landlord arranged for hotel accommodation for the resident between 6 to10 February 2023. While this temporary move inconvenienced the resident, the evidence shows the landlord booked the hotel on the request of the resident’s mother. The Ombudsman considers that this was appropriate to allow the landlord to do disruptive work in the resident’s property during this time. During 6 February 2023 to 23 March 2023 the landlord:
1. completed a mould wash
2. replaced the skirting board by the patio door
3. painted the property with anti-mould paint
4. installed a ‘cyfan’ (humidistat) fan in the bathroom and three ‘passifyer’ vents in the property to help with ventilation
5. installed new bedroom patio doors with openers to improve the ventilation
6. removed the tiles in the bathroom and rebuilt the wall before tiling.
The Ombudsman is of the opinion that these actions were reasonable as they were all in line with the recommendations within the two specialist reports or the landlord’s stage 2 response. The landlord also completed the work within the targets it set out in its stage 2 response.
Between 8 February 2023 to 17 March 2023, the landlord sent the resident around nine emails and updates. Therefore, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord made reasonable efforts to communicate with the resident about the work during this time.

The resident’s compensation request

The resident asked the landlord to compensate her for mould damage to:
1. her curtains
2. ugg boots and another pair of black boots
3. her living room carpet
4. two jackets
5. a pink ottoman
6. wall stickers
7. a mattress and duvet cover
8. a child’s ballet outfit, children’s glitter shoes, a toddler bed, a children’s game, a children’s storage unit and a pushchair.
The resident also asked for compensation for running a dehumidifier. The evidence shows that the landlord paid, and the resident accepted, compensation for the above items of £2,152.62. The landlord also re-laid the resident’s living room carpet on 11 February 2023 with remedial work done on 22 March 2023.
In terms of a compensation breakdown, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord paid compensation of £616.95 during the complaint process for a jacket, two curtains and two boots as the resident provided evidence during the process. The landlord agreed a further £1,105.11 for all the other damaged items. This second payment was after the landlord’s final complaint response. However, the Ombudsman finds no fault as the resident had not provided the landlord with evidence of her loss for these until after its response.
The evidence shows that the landlord agreed an initial £200 payment towards the cost of the dehumidifier on 8 November 2022. The landlord offered the resident a further £230.56 (£430.56 in total) for the cost of running a dehumidifier between 13 June 2022 to 15 March 2023. The landlord calculated and made this second payment after its final response. The Ombudsman finds no fault in this as the resident provided her energy bill, needed to calculate this, after the response. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord had requested this on 8 November 2022 and 26 January 2023.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord explained to the resident how it calculated the compensation for the damaged items and dehumidifier. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord adequately compensated the resident for these based on the evidence available. This is because the landlord calculated the payments to reflect the loss to the resident based on the evidence the resident provided.
The landlord initially offered the resident £750 compensation for the loss and enjoyment of her property. The landlord increased this offer twice to £2,300 after its final response. The Ombudsman considers that this was reasonable as work was outstanding at the time of its final response. It therefore made sense to revise the offer in response to the resident’s post complaint requests. This showed the landlord was willing to take account of the resident’s concerns and act on them to put things right.

Summary and conclusions

In summary:
1. the landlord has failed to show it replaced the fence as it promised it would. The compensation offered would no longer be reasonable for this if the matter is still outstanding
2. the landlord unreasonably delayed inspecting the property when the damp and mould was initially reported in July 2021
3. the landlord failed to assess the cause and extent of the damp and mould
4. there were failures in the landlord’s communications after the building surveyor visited on 21 January 2022 and on 2 March 2022
5. when the landlord’s agent inspected, it made recommendations that the landlord committed to. It set out its plan of action on 17 May 2022
6. the landlord also failed to monitor the effectiveness of its initial plan between 17 May 2023 and 16 October 2023
7. the works were completed by 23 March 2023.
These were unreasonable delays by the landlord that would have impacted upon the resident and her household. The Ombudsman is of the opinion that the amount of compensation the landlord offered was reflective of the amount that this service would award.
The resident has stated some decorations remain outstanding. The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to inspect the outstanding works, as it does not appear there has been a final inspection.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Under the landlord’s complaint policy, it must respond at stage 1 and stage 2 within 10 working days. The landlord’s policy allowed it to agree extensions at stage 1.
The resident’s mother complained on the resident’s behalf on 2 March 2022. The landlord was right to treat this as a complaint in line with its policy. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 13 April 2022. It took the landlord 30 working days to provide its stage 1, against a target of 10 working days. This was 20 working days outside of its target. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord failed to comment on the report that the mould was making the resident’s child unwell. This was a failure that caused the resident distress as she felt the landlord was not listening.
The landlord did not comment on the resident’s concerns raised on 16 October 2022 about the dehumidifier costs until 8 November 2022. The landlord offered appropriate initial support for the dehumidifier. The Ombudsman considers the landlord ought to have offered support earlier as the landlord promised support on 17 May 2022.
When the resident’s mother requested the escalation of the complaint on 4 November 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 on 8 February 2023. This was 65 working days after the request. The landlord agreed with the resident an extension to respond on 20 January 2023 until after the ventilation survey. It said it would respond by 9 February 2023. While the Ombudsman notes the landlord was applying its complaint procedures these were not in line with its policy. This is because the policy did not allow for an extension at stage 2.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns at stage 2 about its approach impacting on her work and its poor communication. The landlord acknowledged its communication was poor and it apologised for the disturbance caused to the resident by multiple visits by experts. The Ombudsman is of the opinion that the landlord should pay additional compensation. This is to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) the complaint about the repairs specified at paragraph 1(a)(i)-(ix) of this report have not been investigated by the Ombudsman because there is no evidence they were raised as a complaint and exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a fence replacement.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must pay the resident directly £250 made up of:
1. An additional £100 for the distress caused by the landlord’s handling of the replacement fence.
2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling
The landlord must complete a post inspection of the property to ensure that all damp and mould related works have been completed and that all decorations affected have been reinstated. The landlord must ensure this post inspection is completed within 28 days of the date of this determination. The landlord must provide a copy of its post inspection to the Ombudsman, which must include photographs of the areas affected to demonstrate all works have been completed. This must be provided to the Ombudsman within 28 days of the date of this determination.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the compensation payment within 28 days of the date of this determination.
Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must contact the resident to agree a date to replace her fence if the replacement is outstanding. The landlord must use its reasonable endeavours to complete this work within the next 3 months. The landlord must provide evidence to this service that it has given the resident a date for the replacement within 28 days of the date of this determination or confirm when it replaced the fence.

Recommendation

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord should pay the resident the £2,300 offered for its failures in dealing with the damp and mould, to address the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced. This is unless the landlord has already paid this to the resident.