Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Vico Homes Limited (202327370)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327370

Wakefield And District Housing Limited

21 January 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. The complaint, including the level of compensation offered.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since July 2011. The resident has a joint tenancy with her husband. The property is a 2 bedroom bungalow. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident and her husband have a range of health issues. These include mobility issues, heart, and respiratory problems. The resident has said that her husband has had a pacemaker fitted and that she is concerned that the issues with their home are affecting their health. The resident and her daughter, who also lives at the property, have asthma.
  3. The resident first contacted the landlord on 15 September 2022 to report that water was getting into the property when it rained. She further reported that her bedroom and living room carpets were wet. The landlord completed a damp and mould questionnaire with the resident on 12 October 2022. This was in response to her reports of black mould and damp affecting the living room, bedroom, and bathroom of her property. It arranged for an inspection of the exterior brickwork. It recorded the resident’s concern that the external ramp, needed to enable her husband to access the property, was breaching the damp proof course.
  4. The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection on 8 November 2022. This recorded the internal temperature within the property together with the relative humidity, which was noted to be high. It found no internal issues such as mould growth. It noted that the central heating in the property was not on and that the windows and trickle vents were closed. It further noted that the extractor fan in the kitchen was off. The landlord’s report said that there was a light damp aroma in the living room but that there was no evidence of damp or mould. It gave advice to the resident on the efficient use of heating and ventilation within the property. Further, it noted externally that the concrete access ramp to the side of the property was breaching the damp proof course. Works were recommended to the ramp and to repoint an area of brickwork. The landlord followed up its inspection with a letter to the resident on 11 November 2022. The landlord raised a works order for the recommended repairs on 16 February 2023. The works were carried out in March 2023.
  5. The landlord carried out a further damp and mould inspection on 31 August 2023. In response to reports from the resident, this focused on the living room and hallway of the property. It recorded the temperature and level of humidity in these rooms. It found no signs of damp or surface mould. It recorded that the walls and floors were dry to the touch. The resident agreed that there were no issues at the time of the inspection. However, she was concerned that the issues would return in the winter months. The landlord arranged for a further inspection under the floor area, to rule out any underfloor problems. It also found further external repairs to the property. These were to the guttering and to an area of paving which the resident said was retaining water. The landlord gave the resident further advice around adequate ventilation and heating, along with a printed advice leaflet. It wrote to the resident on 5 September 2023 as follow up to its inspection. This set out the repair works identified by its inspection. It also said that it would arrange for the extractor fan within the property to be serviced and to treat and clean areas of mould growth. On the same date, it raised works orders to inspect the underfloor area and to realign the guttering to the front of the property. These were recorded as complete on 19 September 2023.
  6. The resident sent letters to the Service on 5 and 15 November 2023. These set out the details of her complaint about damp within her home. The resident called her landlord on 15 November 2023 to complain about the repairs to her property. Its records show that she said that she had raised the complaint before but had received no response. It told her that she could write in with her complaint. It then transferred her call to the landlord’s insurers as she had an open insurance claim. The Service spoke with the resident on 4 December 2023. She said that she had raised a complaint with her landlord in mid November, but it had not responded. The Service wrote to the landlord on 16 January 2024 asking it to respond to the resident by 6 February 2024.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 18 January 2024, noting that it had received her complaint on 15 January 2024. It carried out a damp and mould inspection on 23 January 2024. This recorded the temperature and relative humidity throughout the property. It noted that the heating was on and that the vents were open. It noted a concern that the resident may not be adequately heating or ventilating the property. Further works were raised following this inspection. These were for the removal of an external vent to the living room and associated remedial works, together with the replacement of a section of skirting board in the bathroom. These orders are shown to have been completed on 8 April 2024.
  8. The landlord’s solicitors wrote to the resident on 30 January 2024. This was in response to her claim for damage caused by the damp to her sofa and carpet. This set out the actions taken by the landlord to deal with the damp. It made an offer of £1000 which it described as a gesture of goodwill, in full and final settlement of her claim.
  9. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 31 January 2024. This said that the resident’s complaint was about damp and mould in her property and that she felt that the landlord was not dealing with the issue. It noted that she felt that the landlord was blaming her and her family for the issues in the property. Furthermore, she had said that she had raised an earlier complaint. She had spoken with the landlord’s staff and told that her complaint “was in a draw”, suggesting that the landlord did not intend to reply to her complaint. In its response the landlord said:
    1. It had inspected the property and found the damp proof course to be in place and functioning correctly. It had found no evidence of penetrating or rising damp.
    2. It had taken damp meter readings at the property and had shared these with the resident. It had found the areas pointed out by the resident to be dry.
    3. It had found surface mould.
    4. As an outcome to the survey the resident had been provided with advice and information as to the formation and prevention of mould.
    5. As a gesture of goodwill, it had agreed to remove a low level vent in the lounge. This was to be filled in, insulated and replastered internally. It had raised orders to replace the skirting in the bathroom which had been damaged by an overspill of water and to rectify plastering in the kitchen.
    6. It could find no evidence of the resident’s earlier complaint.
    7. It noted that the resident had an outstanding claim with its insurers. She was recommended to contact them directly.
    8. It did not uphold her complaint. It said that “there is no fabric breakdown to either external/internal fabric or any component which is the responsibility of [the landlord] which either causing or contributing to the mould formation in your home and we can find no evidence of any complaint not being dealt with”.
  10. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She wrote to it on 1 and 26 February 2024. In her correspondence she said that she did not believe that the landlord was addressing the issues of rising water on the walls at the front and back of the property. Its response had been to tell her to “put money on her gas and electric meters and to open the windows”, even though the windows and doors were draughty. She said that the external guttering was not straight and that there was water on the living room floor. She had to wipe mould off the walls in the living room, bedroom, and bathroom. The landlord had not dealt with the issues at her property and she and her family were “breathing in damp and mould”. Furthermore, she said that her clothes and furniture had a damp smell. The occupational therapist had noted this on a recent visit. The landlord acknowledged her request to escalate her complaint on 26 February 2024. It apologised that it had not responded to her letter of 1 February 2024, saying that it had been sent to the wrong department.
  11. The landlord provided it stage 2 complaint response on 4 April 2024. This recorded its contact with the resident about her concerns of damp and mould from September 2022. Within the letter it:
    1. apologised for a delay in completing the works ordered following its survey in November 2022.
    2. said that a roofing contractor had attended in March 2023 following a report from its electrician that there was water in the loft.
    3. had ordered works further external works in May 2023. The scope of these works was in response to a report from the local council. This said that the works the landlord had previously carried out would only alleviate part of the penetrating damp. The letter included the detail of these works.
    4. recorded that the resident had contacted it again in July 2023 to report that water was still getting into the property. This was only followed up in August 2023 with a survey and further works. It apologised that this had not been followed up sooner.
    5. said that it had considered her complaint at stage 1 in January 2024. Its assets team had completed a survey, recommending further works. These had been completed on 7 March 2024.
    6. concluded that it had partially upheld her complaint.
    7. said that it was satisfied that it had taken “appropriate and proportionate action” in response to her concerns of damp and mould in the property.
    8. said its surveys had found no structural issues with the property and it believed that the works it had carried out had “contributed to making improvements in your home”.
    9. said that it had identified several customer service and record keeping issues, including areas where it had not followed its complaint procedure. It offered the resident £485 compensation “to reflect these errors and the delays you have experienced…”.
    10. uses every complaint to help it learn and improve. It said that it had scrutinised its processes in relation to the reporting of damp, mould, and condensation over the preceding 6 months.
  12. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 April 2024 to raise her dissatisfaction with the outcome of its stage 2 response. She said that water was still entering her property, and she was unable to redecorate or fit new carpets as a result. The landlord said that she could take her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service. The resident emailed the landlord on the same day to accept the offered compensation.

Post internal complaint process

  1. On 16 May 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and the service to report issues of wetness and rising damp within the property. She said that the issues remained, despite several visits by the landlord’s surveyors and contractors. She requested a move as she believed that the damp was affecting her family’s health. The local authority’s housing enforcement team contacted the landlord on 28 May 2024 following reports of damp and mould it had received from the resident.
  2. On 7 June 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord and the Service to say that a contractor had visited her home. The contractor had sprayed a mould spray in the kitchen and bathroom and told her to keep using it. Further, she said that they had looked in the loft but said they could do nothing with the insulation as the area was boarded.
  3. The resident contacted the Service on 25 September 2024. She said that there was a smell of damp and mould in the property and the living room wall got wet. She said that the landlord had suggested further works to the ramp. She was concerned that it was planning to remove part of the ramp. She said that her husband needed the ramp as he was unable to manage steps. She asked the Service to investigate her complaint on 24 October 2024 that.
  4. She provided photographs of the property on 17 November 2024. These showed a slug in a kitchen cupboard and mould growth on the windowsill in one of the bedrooms. She said that the issues of damp and mould persisted and had not been addressed by the landlord’s actions.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The Ombudsman recognises that the presence of damp and mould at the property has caused distress to the resident. She has expressed her concerns about the potential impact on her and her family’s physical health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments and understands that this situation may have had a detrimental impact on her wellbeing. However, unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on what caused a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether the resident has been caused distress and inconvenience because of any failings on behalf of the landlord.
  2. The resident has expressed her wish to move to alternative accommodation and has an active rehousing application with the landlord. It is noted that the resident is currently in band A for a move to more suitable accommodation. The Service is unable to make decisions that cover the allocation of a landlord’s properties or determine that an offer of accommodation should be made as an outcome to the investigation of a complaint. The landlord’s properties can only be allocated through the application of the relevant policy and procedure.

Legal and policy framework

  1. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord must consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. The landlord has a damp, mould, and condensation (DMC) policy that sets out its intention to minimise the likelihood of damp and mould affecting its properties. Where damp, mould or condensation is found the policy sets out how it will remedy the cause. Furthermore, it is to ensure that the steps it has taken have worked to resolve the problem.
  3. The landlord’s DMC procedure provides guidance to its staff on how it should respond to a report of damp, mould, or condensation. It says that it will complete a questionnaire with the resident at first point of contact and arrange for a survey to be caried out. It is noted that the landlord may consider appointing a surveyor who is a member of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) to undertake the survey and provide it with a report. The outcome of the survey and any photographs are to be saved within the landlord’s systems. A letter is to be sent to the resident following the survey providing the detail of its findings.
  4. The procedure includes a priority matrix around response times dependant on the severity of the appearance of any mould and the possible cause of the damp. It says that, in certain circumstances, the landlord may consider carrying out a mould wash within the property or the installation of ventilation to help reduce the relative humidity within a property. With the resident’s consent, the landlord may also consider monitoring the temperature, humidity, and energy usage over a fixed period of time. It may make referrals to its estate management or financial inclusion team to provide further support to the resident. These actions are to be followed up within 30 working days. It is to review cases monthly to ensure that the necessary remedial works have been completed.
  5. The landlord has a 2 stage complaint procedure. This says that all complaints should be logged within 5 working days of them being received by the landlord. It must respond at stage 1 within 10 working days from the complaint being logged. If necessary, it may extend its response time by a further 10 working days. Following a resident’s request to escalate their complaint, the landlord will provide a response within 20 working days.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy gives guidance on compensation in relation to complaints. This says that where the landlord has done something wrong, it should apologise and put things right for the resident. The level of compensation it may offer is included within the policy and is reflective of the Service’s guidance on remedies. It says that an offer of compensation should be proportionate and reflect the individual circumstances of each complaint. Reports of damp and mould in the property.

Reports of damp and mould in the property

  1. Over the past few years, there has been an increased awareness of the risks to health from damp and mould. It is understandable that residents would be concerned if damp and mould were present in their property. The issue can cause considerable distress to residents, especially residents with certain health conditions and vulnerabilities.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are prompt and reflect the urgency of the issue. The resident first raised a concern that water was getting into her home in September 2022. According to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it initially arranged for a bricklayer to inspect the exterior of the property and later sent a plumber to check for leaks within the property. No evidence of these repair orders has been provided to the Service by the landlord. It completed a damp, mould, and condensation questionnaire with the resident on 12 October 2022 and its surveyor attended on 8 November 2022. While its response in arranging for contractors to attend was not unreasonable, it could have been timelier in arranging for its surveyor to inspect the property.
  3. Its surveyor recorded no evidence of mould in the property but did note high humidity levels and a damp aroma in the living room. It appropriately gave advice to the resident about the prevention of condensation and raised works to the exterior of the property to address a breach in the damp proof course. It did not arrange for the ventilation systems in the property to be checked despite recording that the ventilation in the kitchen was off. It would have been appropriate for it to have done so. The external works identified were not raised for 3 months, with a further month delay before the works were completed. It is unclear why this delay occurred. Given the resident’s expressed concerns about possible rising damp and water ingress, the landlord should have ensured that the proposed works were progressed within a reasonable timeframe. This would have reassured the resident of its intentions to remedy the problem. That it did not do so was a failure.
  4. The landlord carried out further external works to the property in May and June 2023. These were to address areas where the damp proof course to the property had been breached and to relay paving to prevent sitting water. The landlord’s records show that these works were raised in response to a survey completed by the local authority. A copy of this report has not been seen by the Service. An order for an inspection of the roof was raised on 21 August 2023, following reports from the resident of damp patches appearing on the ceiling. The outcome of this inspection is not recorded within the records provided.
  5. When the landlord inspected the property again in August 2023 its focus was on the living room and hallway. Its records show it did not inspect the kitchen or bathroom at that time or record the level of humidity to these rooms. Given its earlier findings of high humidity levels throughout the property, it would have been reasonable for it to have completed a wider inspection. This would have allowed it to ensure that the resident had followed the advice it had given. It was also an opportunity to check the effectiveness of the earlier works it had carried out. Neither of these elements were explicitly captured within its report. The inspection found no evidence of damp within the property. It noted the resident’s concerns that the damp would return in the winter months. The landlord raised a works order on 5 September 2023 for an inspection of the underfloor area. This inspection found the area to be dry. In its follow up communication to the resident the landlord said that, in addition to the external works, it would arrange for the extractor fan within the property to be serviced. It was also to treat and clean areas of mould growth, although none had been recorded in its inspection. The landlord has presented no evidence that these works either raised to its contractors or completed.
  6. The landlord’s surveys carried out in November 2022 and August 2023 found several issues that may have been contributing to damp in the property. The landlord appropriately arranged for the external works to be carried out, although there was a noted delay. It did not however go beyond this. It recorded that the resident had been given advice about the causes of condensation within a property and how to tackle this. Following the inspection in August 2023, it was to arrange for the ventilation to be serviced and for the areas of mould growth to be cleaned. As highlighted above no evidence has been provided that these works were done. The surveys completed appear to have been done in isolation without reference to other inspections or the works completed. Furthermore, the landlord did not capture the resident’s vulnerabilities within its surveyor’s reports. This was inappropriate in the circumstances and a service failure.
  7. The landlord carried out a further survey of the property on 23 January 2024 as part of its investigation of the resident’s complaint. This survey noted that there was evidence of mould growth and condensation within the property. It showed that the heating was on, and the window vents were open at the time of the inspection. However, it recorded high levels of humidity within the property. While further repair works were recommended, these did not include servicing the ventilation system or treating the areas of mould growth. It would have been appropriate for it to have done so. Furthermore, in line with its DMC procedure, it could have considered monitoring the humidity and temperature over a fixed period. While it did make a referral to its internal support team, it has provided no evidence that this referral was followed up with the resident.
  8. The landlord has completed 3 surveys of the resident’s property and arranged for a range of works to be completed externally, all to address potential sources of water ingress into the property. It responded positively to a report from the local council, raising further repair works to be carried out. These interventions have however been unsuccessful in resolving the issue for the resident. The landlord’s surveys seem to have been completed in isolation of each other. Furthermore, it has presented no evidence that it put in place follow up inspections or monitoring of the effectiveness of the interventions carried out. It would have been appropriate for it to have done so, and in line with the commitments within its DMC procedure. This would also have reassured the resident of its positive intentions to find a resolution. That it did not do so was a failure. The resident was left having to pursue the landlord and regularly reraise her concerns that damp conditions remained in her property.
  9. The landlord should have followed through the recommendation from its surveys to ensure that all ventilation systems within the property were suitable and working effectively. Furthermore, it would have been appropriate for it to have arranged for the areas of mould growth to be cleaned and treated. That it did not do so was a failure. A recommendation has been made for follow up action by the landlord.
  10. The resident has provided the service with photographs which show that the issues within her home continue. It is of particular concern that slugs have been found within the kitchen area which may suggest the presence of damp. The Service is aware that the resident has recently declined to allow any further works to be carried out to her property. She has expressed her frustration at the length of time the issue has been ongoing. She wishes now to be rehoused rather than deal with the disruption of further repairs. While the Service recognises the frustration felt by the resident, it would encourage her to continue to engage with her landlord to enable it to carry out the necessary remedial works. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to carry out a further detailed survey of the resident’s home.
  11. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It did not follow through all the recommendations made by the surveys completed and was not proactive in undertaking follow up inspections to ensure that the works it had done had been effective. An order for additional compensation has been made in consideration of the service failure. This recognises both the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her time and trouble in pursuing the issue with the landlord.

Complaint handling including the level of compensation offered

  1. It is unclear if the letters detailing her complaint, sent by the resident to the Service in November 2023, were also sent to her landlord. Having spoken with the landlord on 15 November 2023, she was told to put her complaint in writing. This is contrary to the landlord’s complaint procedure and the Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Landlord’s must make it easy for residents to complain and be able to raise a complaint with any member of staff. The landlord should have recorded the resident’s complaint as an outcome to her call on 15 November 2023 and ensured that this was responded to at that time. That it did not do so was a failure.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 31 January 2024. This said that it had received the resident’s complaint on 15 January 2024. It did not refer to the correspondence from the Service. The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s complaint letter dated 15 January 2024. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 31 January 2024. This met its published response time. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It set out the steps that it had taken to respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and concluded that it had completed the works that were its responsibility. It confirmed that it would carry out further works to the property as “a gesture of goodwill”. It is unclear why the works to remove a low level vent and other internal works were described in this way. It was inappropriate to use this term in the circumstances as these works had been recommended by its own surveyor. This was a failure by the landlord.
  3. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 1 February 2024. This was overlooked by the landlord. It appropriately apologised for this error in its acknowledgment of the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 26 February 2024. It said that this had been sent to the wrong department. It is unclear why this correspondence was not redirected or responded to directly by the department who received it. It is important that all employees of the landlord are aware of its complaints policy and the need to ensure that complaints are responded to promptly. Having recorded her complaint on 26 February 2024 the landlord provided its formal response on 4 April 2024. This was 8 working days outside its published response time of 20 working days. A failure to follow its complaints procedure was acknowledged within the complaint response.
  4. The landlord’s response provided a detailed review of its contact with the resident and the issues she had raised. It acknowledged that it had carried out a range of works to the property and said that these had improved the resident’s home. It said that it had found no structural issues with the property. It did not acknowledge that the issues continued for the resident or make further recommendations to support the resident in managing condensation in her home. In this it did not address the substantive issue of the resident’s complaint. Further remedial works and follow up visits were made to the resident’s home following the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints procedure. These were not done as an outcome to the complaint, but because of further communication from the resident.
  5. There was maladministration in the landlord handling of the resident’s complaint. It did not appropriately accept, record, and respond to the resident’s original complaint. Its stage 1 complaint response references a complaint from the resident that has not been provided. There were then delays in its handling of the resident’s complaint, with its final response completed outside its published timeframe.
  6. Within its stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered the resident compensation of £485 as an apology for the level of service that she had received. It did not, however, set out what figure of the total was in respect of its failures in handling her complaint, or for its handling of the damp and mould. It is noted that the resident accepted the compensation offered. The Ombudsman finds that the total amount of compensation awarded in its stage 2 complaint response was not reasonable given the circumstances in this case. The landlord has not shown that it considered more widely the impact of the ongoing issues within the resident’s home. As outlined in the section above, an order for further compensation has been made in respect to the issues raised in the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint more generally, including the level of compensation offered with its final response.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology, acknowledging the identified failings. This should be in line with the Service’s Guidance on Remedies.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £550 compensation calculated as follows:
      1. £400 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident by the ongoing issues of damp within her property. This recognises the landlord’s failure to monitor the effectiveness of the remedial works carried out or to complete all the interventions available to it.
      2. £150 in recognition of the landlord’s complaint handling failings.
      3. This is in addition to the compensation paid to the resident through the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord should provide evidence that it has paid the amount of £485 offered as an outcome to its stage 2 complaint response.
    3. Arrange with the resident to carry out a detailed survey of her home. It is intended that this should capture the current condition of the property, together with undertaking investigations into the source of slugs within the kitchen area. The landlord should confirm to the Service within 4 weeks that it has made an appointment with the resident to complete this survey. Once complete a copy of the resulting report should be provided to the Service as evidence of compliance. This should be produced within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord arrange to service all ventilation systems within the property, and as needed, install additional ventilation. Furthermore, it should arrange for all areas of black mould to be cleaned, treated, and redecorated with anti-fungal paint. This should include grouting and silicone to the bath and wash hand basin.