Westward Housing Group Limited (202117711)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117711

Westward Housing Group Limited

06 May 2022

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident occupies the property, a 2-bedroom house, under an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord that began on 6 April 2018.
The resident states that since moving into the property she has experienced issues with damp and mould each Winter. Following a survey and inspection of the property, works were completed in January 2019 to investigate and treat the mould. In November 2019, the resident reported that the mould and damp had re–occurred and a further inspection took place. The resident states that at that time she was advised that she would need to manage the damp and mould going forward, as the landlord had completed all recommended repairs and there were no further steps it was required to take to address the issue.
The resident reported a further re-occurrence of the damp and mould in January 2021 and an inspection took place in February 2021, which recommended additional works. The resident then made a formal complaint to the landlord, stating that these issues should have been identified in the original inspection in January 2019. She complained that she had been wrongly informed that she was to blame for the ongoing issues and had incurred additional expense in trying to manage the mould when the landlord had failed to identify the underlying cause.
The landlord apologised that the resident had felt unable to report the reoccurrence of the mould sooner because of the advice it had provided about how to manage damp and mould with lifestyle changes. The landlord initially suggested that there had been no further reports of damp and mould from the resident until January 2021, although it later acknowledged that the resident had reported a re-occurrence in November 2019 and a further inspection had taken place. The landlord did not accept that it had failed to identify the underlying cause of the damp in 2019, noting that it was not possible to compare the observations of 2 surveyors 14 months apart, as the conditions and recommendations may have changed during that period.
The resident requested compensation and the landlord initially offered £150 to reflect the stress and inconvenience the resident had experienced and its failure to respond to some of her complaint communications. This figure was later increased to £250. The landlord made a final offer of £400 compensation, having considered the resident’s submissions of her quantifiable losses. The resident rejected this offer, and the complaint was referred to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Handling of reports of damp and mould

The landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the resident’s property, which includes addressing damp and mould issues caused by structural or external defects. The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that tenants are responsible for ‘monitoring the internal environment of the home to ensure that conditions do not arise which cause instances of condensation leading to mould growth’.
In October 2021, the Ombudsman published a report titled ‘Spotlight on: Damp and Mould – It’s not lifestyle’ (the Report). The Report acknowledged the ‘many and varying root causes that lead to damp and mould’ and the challenges landlord’s face in providing a long-term solution. It highlighted the need for landlords to take a proactive and zero-tolerance approach, focussing on effective diagnosis, clear timescales, good communication with residents and after care. Although the report was produced after the events of the present complaint, it provides a useful framework for assessing whether the action taken by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident first reported mould issues to the landlord on 11 December 2018. An inspection took place in January 2019 and works were carried out to remove the mould and apply a stain block. The landlord also investigated the roof line of the property to ensure there were no further defects responsible for damp penetration. The initial action taken by the landlord to deal with the damp and mould was appropriate, as it sought the advice of a professional and carried out their recommendations. As no further issues were identified at a second survey in November 2019, it was reasonable for the landlord to recommend lifestyle changes as a first line attempt to manage the ongoing problem, although the resident should have been encouraged to report back if this was unsuccessful, or if the problem worsened.
The resident has suggested that she felt unable to contact the landlord about the ongoing issues following the inspection in November 2019, as she had been told that she was responsible for managing the damp and mould with lifestyle changes and that all properties contained damp. The landlord maintains that it informed the resident that she should get in touch if the problem worsened, and it would revisit.
No documentary evidence has been provided to this investigation showing what was discussed at the inspection on 12 November 2019. It is noted that the landlord has stated that its surveyors do not produce a report following their visits and no contemporaneous notes were made on its systems. This raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord’s failure to record the surveyor’s comments and the advice given to the resident on 12 November 2019 means that the Ombudsman is unable to conclusively determine whether the landlord followed the surveyor’s recommendations, met its repairs responsibilities, and provided reasonable advice to the resident.
The landlord has apologised if the resident felt discouraged from reporting further issues and has accepted that the comments of its staff member, as reported by the resident, were unhelpful. This was an appropriate and proportionate means of addressing this aspect of the complaint, in the absence of evidence of what was discussed at the time.
At an inspection on 11 February 2021, a different surveyor identified additional measures that could be taken to improve the property’s insulation and ventilation, which he felt may resolve the issue with damp and mould. The resident believes that these works should have been identified at the inspection in January 2019 and states that she was wrongly informed that the damp and mould was due to her lifestyle.
As stated in the Report, the Ombudsman discourages the use of the term ‘lifestyle’ to describe the cause of damp and mould, as it is rarely the only reason for the problem. The landlord ‘should avoid taking actions that solely place the onus [of management] on the resident’ and should instead share responsibility for dealing with the issue.
The landlord’s willingness to revisit the issue when it was next reported in January 2021, and to complete further works on the surveyor’s recommendation does, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, demonstrate a willingness to work alongside the resident to resolve the problem. Whilst the Ombudsman accepts the resident’s statement that she felt unable to approach the landlord between November 2019 and January 2021, both because she had been encouraged to attempt to manage the problem alone and due to the pandemic, the landlord was not given an opportunity to take further action before that time. A landlord can only take action to address a resident’s concerns once it is made aware that an issue in ongoing.
The landlord was entitled to rely on the professional advice given by its surveyor in January 2019 and it is agreed by the resident that all recommended works were completed at that time. The Ombudsman cannot make a finding of service failure on the basis that a second opinion, received 14 months later, identified additional issues, in the absence of documentary evidence that the landlord had been made aware of the need for additional works at an earlier stage and had failed to take action.
It is noted that there was some delay in the landlord completing the recommended works following the inspection in February 2021. It appears from the landlord’s repairs log that the landlord failed to raise a job to lag the pipework until 21 April 2021, following receipt of the formal complaint. The landlord has provided no explanation for the delay, although it did acknowledge in its complaint response of 25 May 2021 that there had been a delay in completing some works. Furthermore, a job was not raised to replace the bathroom extractor fan until 9 January 2022. This could be a further result of its inadequate record-keeping processes.
The resident has listed the additional expenses she has incurred in trying to manage the mould, including the purchase of mould removing solutions and paints, dehumidifiers and chests of drawers to rehouse her belongings as the wardrobe was damp. The resident also requested compensation for damage to her clothing, stress and inconvenience and additional electricity costs. Furthermore, a job was not raised to replace the bathroom extractor fan until 9 January 2022. The landlord made a final offer of compensation in the sum of £400, acknowledging the losses that the resident was able to quantify.
The landlord has not admitted liability for the damage to the resident’s belongings or additional costs, nor did it uphold her complaint about the alleged failure to identify additional works at an earlier stage. On the basis of the information provided, the Ombudsman considers that there was no service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould prior to January 2021, and so the landlord was not obliged to offer compensation for additional costs incurred, or stress and inconvenience caused, before this time.
It is, however, recommended that the landlord review its record keeping practices to ensure that full and accurate notes are made on its systems following all inspection visits. The landlord may also wish to consider re-offering the £400 it previously offered to the resident in the final complaint response, as a gesture of good will and in recognition of the impact that the ongoing issue of damp and mould has had on the resident. Overall, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer of compensation, as well its apologies for its failings in this case, is appropriate in recognition of the unreasonable delay, which is in line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance.
The resident has informed this Service that her son has developed asthma as a result of the damp conditions within the property. The Ombudsman is unable to assess liability for damage to a person’s health due to the landlord’s actions or inaction, and so the resident would need to seek independent legal advice on this aspect of her complaint and consider bringing a claim for personal injury via the courts.

Complaints Handling

The landlord’s Complaints and Compliments Policy states that there are ‘two internal stages and an independent review stage’ to its formal complaints process. The landlord aims to offer a response within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. If the complaint cannot be resolved at stage 2, the policy states that the customer can take their complaint to an independent panel arranged by the landlord or refer the complaint to this Service.
The landlord failed to follow its 2 stage internal complaints process, which created confusion and unnecessary delay. In total, the resident received 4 written responses to her complaint. Responses were sent on 26 April 2021 and 25 May 2021, stated to be at stage 1 of the complaints process. Further responses were sent on 18 June 2021 and 5 August 2021, stated to be at stage 2. This means that in total it took over 3 months for the complaint to complete the landlord’s internal complaints process, which meant a delay in seeking external intervention on the issue.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation could also have been better. It was unclear whether the compensation claim was being considered as part of the overall complaint response or under a separate process. The landlord contradicted its initial position on compensation for stress and inconvenience, first offering £100 and later informing the resident that her request would not be considered as stress and inconvenience was unquantifiable. The landlord informed the resident that she would need to claim for damage to her personal belongings via her contents insurance but later agreed to compensate her for some items, without clearly stating whether it considered it was liable for these costs. The landlord also offered £50 for poor communication but this was absent from the final compensation offer.
Whilst it is evident that the landlord was proactively working to resolve the complaint, by discussing the resident’s concerns with her and seeking to negotiate an acceptable offer of compensation, its approach was unclear, inconsistent and it did not follow its published policies. The landlord should in the future be clear with residents about how their request for compensation is being considered, state whether it accepts liability or has identified any service failure and ensure consistency in its approach.
It is also noted that the Ombudsman issued a Complaints Handling Failure Order (CFHO) to the landlord on 1 March 2022, as it failed to provide the requested information to this investigation within the timeframe set out at paragraph 3.20 of the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code, breaching its obligations at paragraph 10 of the Scheme. The landlord is reminded of the importance of responding to requests for information from this Service, as failure to do so delays the progress of complaints and worsens the impact on residents.
In light of the above findings of service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling, the Ombudsman considers that an award of £100 compensation is appropriate, to reflect the time and trouble taken by the resident to pursue her complaint. This is in line with the suggested amounts set out in this Service’s Remedies Guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the matter of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this investigation report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £100 in recognition of the failures identified in its complaints handling.
2. Provide this Service with evidence of its compliance with the orders.

Recommendations

It is recommended that:
1. The landlord re-offers the £400 previously offered to the resident in recognition of the additional costs she incurred in trying to manage the damp and mould within her property.
2. Review its process and provide training to staff on calculating compensation, where a request for compensation has been made as part of a formal complaint.
3. Review its processes and provide training to relevant staff on responding to requests for information received by this Service under paragraph 10 of the Scheme, in accordance with the timescales set out at paragraph 3.20 of the Complaints Handling Code.
4. Review its record keeping processes to ensure that full and accurate notes and recorded on its systems following all inspection visits.
5. Contact this Service to confirm its intentions with respect to the recommendations made in this report.