Yorkshire Housing Limited (202311594)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311594

Yorkshire Housing Limited

29 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

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

Background

  1. The resident had an assured tenancy with the landlord which began on 5 July 2017. The property was a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident said he has asthma and suffers with breathing difficulties. The landlord said it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. On 19 April 2022 the resident reported that he had found damp and mould behind a chest of drawers in his bedroom. He said he had been unable to work since December 2021 due to breathing difficulties. The resident believed the damp and mould was the cause of his breathing difficulties.
  3. The landlord inspected the property on 26 April 2022. The landlord arranged for a damp survey which it completed on 22 June 2022. The resident contacted the landlord in November 2022 as he had not heard from the landlord following the survey.
  4. The landlord inspected the property again on 14 December 2022. The landlord found the cause of the damp to be a blocked overflow pipe on the outside wall. The landlord completed a mould wash and a deep clean of the property on 23 December 2022. It arranged another damp survey which it completed on 2 February 2023.
  5. During this time, the resident complained on 11 January 2023. He said:
    1. he was concerned about the impact the damp and mould were having upon his health, he said he was struggling to breathe and unable to carry out day-to-day tasks
    2. there was still damp and mould visible in the property after the deep clean had been completed
    3. the damp and mould had caused damage to his furniture and belongings
    4. he had been advised to have all his clothes dry-cleaned but he could not afford this
    5. as an outcome, the resident wanted the landlord to:
      1. resolve the damp and mould at his property
      2. compensate him for the damages to his furniture and belongings
      3. consider moving him to another property
  6. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 13 February 2023 in which it said:
    1. the contractor had sent the damp survey report from 27 April 2022 to an employee who had later left the organisation, which caused a delay
    2. the survey recommended the landlord fit an extractor fan to the kitchen
    3. the survey identified that condensation was an issue due to the resident not opening the trickle vents
    4. the landlord conducted a further inspection on 5 December 2022
    5. the landlord identified a leak in an external downpipe which may have caused the damp and mould
    6. the landlord had attended on 19 December 2022 with CCTV equipment
    7. it had found and repaired the leak on 19 December 2022
    8. it had arranged for another clean down of the mould in the resident’s home
    9. a surveyor would attend the property on 2 March 2023 to check that the humidity levels were reducing
    10. it had arranged a further survey for 31 March 2023 to check if any further works were required
    11. it had arranged to fit a fan in the resident’s kitchen to help reduce moisture in the resident’s home
    12. it apologised to the resident and offered compensation of £360
      1. £150 for the delays
      2. £210 towards the cost of dry cleaning
    13. it said it had learnt from its mistake and was working to improve the handover process when an employee leaves the organisation
    14. it did not feel the resident needed to move as the leak had been identified and repaired but would offer support if the resident wanted to move in future
    15. it enclosed an insurance claim form with the letter so that the resident could submit a claim for the damage caused to his furniture and belongings
  7. On 14 February 2023 the resident informed the landlord that he was not happy with the stage 1 response. He said that he wanted to move, and he did not feel the amount of compensation sufficiently acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused. He told the landlord that his health was getting worse.
  8. On 18 April 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 response in which it said:
    1. it had found alternative accommodation for the resident to stay in whilst it carried out the works to his property
    2. it would pay him £20 per day decant allowance
    3. it had organised storage for the resident’s belongings whilst it carried out the works
    4. it had disposed of the resident’s bed, at his request, and offered £150 for a new one
    5. it would remove the radiator in the resident’s bedroom as well as the plaster at low level
    6. it would renew the plaster backing/top coats to eliminate any trace of damp and mould or condensation
    7. it would let the plaster dry thoroughly before refitting the radiator
    8. it would remove the resident’s fitted wardrobes to check for damp and mould
    9. it would carry out any necessary work to the wall behind the wardrobes and then refit them
    10. upon completion of the works, the landlord would machine clean the soft furnishings (carpets/underlays) and all hard surfaces throughout the property
    11. it would carry out a further inspection before confirming when the resident could return home
    12. it estimated the works to take 4 weeks, which was by 4 May 2023
    13. it expected the resident to be able to move back into his property on 5 May 2023 but it would let the resident know if this date changed
    14. the resident should ensure that he washed or dry cleaned all his clothing before they were taken back to the property
    15. the resident should clean all items of furniture before he took them back to the property
    16. it increased its offer of compensation to £660 which it broke down as follows:
      1. £150 towards a new bed
      2. £210 towards the cost of dry cleaning
      3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident
  9. The resident returned to the property on 5 May 2023. The resident moved from the property in April 2024.
  10. On 8 August 2024 the landlord contacted the resident and increased its compensation offer for distress and inconvenience to £850 (£1210 in total).
  11. In communication with this service, the resident has said that he would like the landlord to increase its offer of compensation. He would also like the landlord to pay for the damages to his furniture, belongings and the full cost of drycleaning his clothes together with a payment for loss of earnings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In the interest of fairness, the Ombudsman has limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s complaint dated 11 January 2023, which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 18 April 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this service. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident continued to report the damp and mould and dissatisfaction with works conducted at his property after the stage 2 response. These issues have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process and, therefore, will not form part of this investigation. The resident can address these issues directly with the landlord. The Ombudsman may refer to issues which pre and post date the resident’s complaint for contextual purposes within this report.
  2. The resident said the issues of damp and mould have had a significant impact on his physical and mental well-being. When there is an injury or a pre-existing medical condition has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of a medicolegal report. This will often set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial.
  3. In this case, while the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident, it would be difficult for us to arrive at firm conclusions on the cause of the resident’s health conditions, based on a review of the documentary evidence available in this case. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court as personal injury claim or to legal liability insurers. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the condition of the property.

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of damp and mould

  1. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. A landlord is obliged, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from category 1 hazards. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Landlords are also expected to conduct additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are found.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy says it will log a responsive repair as either an emergency, non-emergency or a programmed repair. The policy sets out the following timescales:
    1. emergency repairs – the landlord will aim to make safe within 4 hours and complete the emergency repair within 24 hours
    2. non-emergency repairs – the landlord will book a scheduled appointment and will aim to complete in no later than 28 days
    3. programmed repairs – more complex, larger scale non-urgent repairs that can be delivered more efficiently if they are batched together with other similar repairs. The landlord will aim to complete them within 90 days
  3. The resident has been supported by his daughter and his support worker in bringing these matters to the attention of the landlord and the Ombudsman. However, for the purpose of this report we shall refer to any communication between the landlord and the resident’s representatives as communication with the resident.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 April 2022 to report that he had found damp and mould behind his bedroom drawers. The resident told the landlord that he had been in hospital with chest problems which he said were linked to the damp and mould. The landlord made an appointment for an inspection for 10 May 2022. The resident asked the landlord to bring the appointment forward because of his health conditions. The landlord agreed and brought the appointment forward to 26 April 2022. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its inspection report from 26 April 2022. However, the landlord’s notes show that the tenant’s daughter had cleaned the area before the visit and no damp was detected. The resident does not dispute this. However, the landlord noted there was evidence of mould on the resident’s furniture and inside his wardrobe. The resident said the landlord told him there was no sign of damp and mould and that he should open his windows more.
  6. As stated above, a landlord is obliged, in accordance with s.9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from category 1 hazards. Once the landlord was on notice that there was damp and mould affecting the property, and the resident had raised concerns about his health, it should have decided whether it needed to conduct a health and safety assessment. The landlord should have also considered whether it should have offered dehumidifiers to address the moisture and humidity levels in the property. The landlord did not do this in this case, which was a failure.
  7. Following its inspection, the landlord arranged for a damp survey of the resident’s property. This was completed on 22 June 2022 which was 39 working days after the landlord’s inspection. The landlord’s repair policy does not give a timescale for when it will complete an inspection. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to complete such an inspection within a reasonable time.
  8. The law does not specifically define what is considered a reasonable time, but this should depend on how serious or urgent the problem is and how vulnerable the people living in the property are. In this case, the resident had informed the landlord that the damp and mould had severely affected his health and the mould was present in his bedroom. The Ombudsman understands that some delays may be out of the landlord’s control. In this case, the Ombudsman has not seen reasons why it should have taken 39 days for an inspection to take place.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 November 2022 to request an update as he had not received any contact from the landlord following its inspection in June 2022. On checking with its contractor, the landlord found that the damp survey had been sent to the landlord in June 2022. However, the employee the report was sent to had left the organisation which meant that the landlord had not actioned the recommendations from the report. This was not appropriate and a significant failure by the landlord. The landlord has acknowledged this failure in its complaint response and said that it is working to improve the handover process when an employee leaves the organisation to ensure similar delays do not occur in the future.
  10. On 6 December 2022, the landlord obtained a copy of the damp survey from its contractor. The Ombudsman will not relay the entirety of the survey, but a summary of the findings and recommendations were as follows:
    1. there was evidence that the resident dried clothing indoors
    2. there was no existing mechanical ventilation provision
    3. there was a working bathroom extractor fan
    4. there was no kitchen extractor fan and no wall space to fit one
    5. the resident had said there had been mould behind his bedroom furniture a few months before but he had cleaned it off and it had not returned
    6. the landlord should install a windowmounted kitchen fan
  11. The landlord arranged to inspect the property again on 4 January 2023. However, the resident contacted the landlord on 14 December 2022 to ask that it brought the inspection forward. The resident also asked the landlord if it would consider moving him to temporary accommodation until the damp was rectified. He informed the landlord he was suffering from an undiagnosed respiratory disorder which he believed was linked to the damp and mould. He said he was sleeping in his lounge as he did not want to go into his bedroom in case it made his breathing worse. The resident said the situation was also affecting his mental health. He told the landlord that the damp had damaged his furniture, belongings and carpets, and he would like to claim against the landlord for this.
  12. The landlord appropriately brought the inspection forward to 14 December 2023. It found there was damp and mould in the resident’s bedroom which the landlord said could be as a result of damage to a drainage pipe situated on the outside wall of the property. The landlord updated the resident on 16 December 2022 and confirmed it had raised the following works:
    1. CCTV scan of the drains to the front wall of the resident’s bedroom
    2. fungicidal wash to the internal bedroom wall
    3. damp survey of the resident’s property be completed
  13. The resident requested the landlord move him to temporary accommodation whilst it conducted the works to his property. The landlord’s decant policy says that it will consider a temporary decant when it needs to carry out repairs or major works which cannot be carried out safely around the customer or may make the property inhabitable for any period of time. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that, considering what the resident had told the landlord about his health, the landlord should have considered whether it was appropriate to temporarily decant the resident at this stage. There is no evidence to show that the landlord considered this at this time. This was not appropriate and a failure by the landlord.
  14. The CCTV scan of the drains was completed on 19 December 2022. This identified a blocked communal downpipe on the outside wall of the resident’s bedroom. The landlord repaired this on the same date. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the landlord’s repair policy.
  15. The resident said the landlord had told him it would ‘fog’ the dampness and mould to eradicate it. This is where the property is sprayed with an antimicrobial spray to eliminate airborne mould spores. The resident explained to the landlord that the whole property would need ‘fogging’ as he was concerned that mould spores had travelled into other rooms. This work was completed on 23 December 2022. The resident said he had to leave the property whilst the work was carried out because of his breathing. The contractor’s certificate of works says that it completed a mould clean in the bedroom and all items in the room were deep cleaned. It also says that the whole flat was ‘fogged’ with a sanitizing chemical.
  16. The resident contacted the landlord at the beginning of January 2023 to report that he was not happy with the standard of cleaning by the contractor in December 2022. The resident said it was his understanding that a deep clean of the flat, furniture and soft furnishings would be completed. He did not believe this had been done properly because there were still signs of mould on his furniture and belongings. He said there was also evidence that the contractor had not cleaned all the surfaces, for example the drawers in the resident’s bedroom still had mould on them. He also said that there had been a regrowth of the mould at the original site and that mould was still visible on another wall in his bedroom.
  17. On 5 January 2023 the resident sent the landlord a copy of a letter from his GP. The letter outlined that the resident had been struggling with his breathing for around a year for which he was being seen by a specialist and undergoing lung investigation. The GP said it was suspected that the damp and mould in the resident’s property could be a significant contributor to his symptoms. The GP requested the landlord clean all furniture, bedding and soft furnishings, as well as walls and ceilings in the resident’s property.
  18. The landlord visited the resident on 11 January 2023 with its contractor to speak to him about the issues he had raised. The resident said the landlord told him that it felt the contractor had completed the work to an acceptable standard and no further work was needed. The resident disagreed with this and told the landlord that he would like to submit a formal complaint. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the inspection report from this date. However, we have seen an internal email in which the landlord says it had not seen any physical signs of mould in the property on the date of the site visit.
  19. The landlord conducted a follow up visit to the property on 25 January 2023. The landlord noted that damp was still showing on the outside wall around the same area where the resident’s radiator was positioned. Another inspection was arranged for 1 March 2023 to check if the damp levels were reducing. It is good practice for landlords to complete monitoring visits following works in damp and mould cases. This enables landlords to assess how effective mould washes have been and ensures landlords are working correctly to minimize the level of mould in a property.
  20. On 6 February 2023 the landlord’s contractor carried out a damp survey of the property. The Ombudsman will not relay the entirety of the report, but a summary of the findings are as follows:
    1. there was a perished mortar joint pointing to the rear elevation which may have allowed moisture into the building
    2. there were visible signs of dampness, supported by moisture readings, to the rear kitchen door which was likely down to the poor pointing
    3. condensation was located on the wall surfaces within the property
    4. there was no extractor fan in the kitchen
    5. mould was present throughout the property
  21. The following recommendations were made:
    1. spray mould control surface disinfectant directly onto the affected surface areas and clean as necessary to remove the mould growth
    2. humidity sensor fan to be fitted in the kitchen area
    3. constant heating and ventilation were required throughout the property
  22. On 17 March 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the works which were required to his property. The landlord told the resident that, due to his health condition, it would like to decant him from the property for around 3 weeks so that it could complete the works recommended in the damp survey from 6 February 2023. The landlord confirmed it would complete the following works:
    1. a deep clean of the property, including carpets
    2. removal of fitted wardrobes to access the wall
    3. removal of the plaster, treatment of the walls and thereafter replaster the walls
    4. re-fitting of the wardrobes
  23. The resident told the landlord he would not keep his bed and a chest of drawers from his bedroom. The landlord offered to dispose of these and any other items which the resident did not want. It said that everything in the bedroom would need washing or dry cleaning and that it would reimburse the resident for any costs incurred with this. The landlord arranged for a storage unit for the resident’s furniture to be stored, where it would also be cleaned and then returned to the property after the works were completed. This was appropriate.
  24. The resident was decanted to a local hotel on 30 March 2023 and provided with £20 per day decant allowance. This was appropriate and consistent with the landlord’s decant policy.
  25. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 April 2023 in which it set out what works it had completed to rectify the damp and mould at the resident’s property. It said the resident should be able to move back into his property on 5 May 2023.
  26. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 April 2023 to say he was not happy with the level of compensation offered. He said that his bedroom furniture were expensive antiques. He felt the amount of compensation offered was insulting and the landlord had not considered the ordeal he had suffered. He said that he wanted the landlord to compensate him for the damage to his furniture and belongings. He also said that he wanted compensating for his loss of earnings since he had to give up work due to ill health in December 2021, which he blamed on the condition of his flat.
  27. The resident moved back to the property on 5 May 2023, which meant the works had taken 5 weeks to complete. Although the Ombudsman understands that complex works may require additional time for the landlord to complete, there is an expectation that the landlord communicates with residents to keep them updated. There is no evidence that the landlord proactively communicated the delay to the resident. This was a failure by the landlord.
  28. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 2 February 2024 to fit a blank panel to the kitchen window and to fit a window mounted fan. This was work which was recommended in the survey from 6 February 2023 and had also been recommended in the earlier survey from 22 June 2022. This was a delay of almost 2 years from the first survey and 1 year from the second. This was not appropriate.
  29. The Ombudsman understands that the resident moved out of the property in April 2024 but has remained with the same landlord.
  30. The resident raised concerns about damage to his furniture and belongings in December 2022 which he said was a result of damp and mould in the property. He also told the landlord that he had been unable to work because of his health since December 2021, which he said was caused by the damp and mould. He said he wanted the landlord to compensate him for loss of earnings. The landlord addressed some of the damage to belongings in its complaint responses. It offered £150 to replace the resident’s bed and £210 towards drycleaning his suits. The landlord also enclosed a claim form in its stage 1 response and explained that the resident could submit an insurance claim for the other items.
  31. The Ombudsman understands that the resident submitted an insurance claim to the landlord’s insurers on 18 August 2023. The Ombudsman understands that the claim is currently with the landlord’s insurers. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as it can only consider the actions of the landlord. It is appropriate that the landlord has sent the matter to the insurer to consider for liability for damage to goods and personal injury.
  32. In summary, the Ombudsman is of the opinion that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, in that it:
    1. failed to identify the cause of the damp and mould at the earliest opportunity
    2. delayed completing a damp survey at the property
    3. delayed updating the resident following the damp survey in June 2022
    4. delayed completing recommended works from the damp surveys dated 22 June 2022 and 6 February 2023
    5. did not consider carrying out a health and safety assessment to consider the impact on the resident’s health
    6. did not consider offering dehumidifiers to the resident
    7. should have considered decanting the resident sooner
  33. The landlord offered £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This does not, in the Ombudsman’s view, recognise the impact to the resident. As set out, the matter is likely to have been highly stressful and the damp and mould remained unresolved from at least 19 April 2022 to at least May 2023. The resident’s enjoyment of their home was also likely affected. Based on the period this remained outstanding and the likely impact, and in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, a fairer level of compensation would be £1,300 compensation to recognise the distress.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (2022) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should manage complaints. This includes an expectation that landlords will:
    1. respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days
    2. respond to escalations at stage 2 within 20 working days
  2. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. At stage 1, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days of being made and will provide its response within 10 working days of logging. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge escalation of the complaint within 5 working days and provide its response within 20 working days of being acknowledged. The landlord’s policy says it can extend both stages of the complaint process, with the agreement of the resident. It says it will provide a clear explanation and inform residents when they would receive a response. The extension will not exceed 10 days without good reason.
  3. The resident made his initial complaint to the landlord on 11 January 2023 which the landlord acknowledged the following day. On 25 January 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to request an extension to the stage 1 response date. It explained that it was waiting for the results of an inspection to the resident’s property on 25 January 2023 and also it was due to speak to the resident on 26 January 2023 and therefore it had paused the resident’s complaint. The landlord said it would let the resident know when it restarted his complaint.
  4. It was appropriate that the landlord informed the resident that it required additional time to complete its investigations. However, there is no evidence to show when the landlord restarted the resident’s complaint or that it communicated this to the resident and let him know when he would receive the landlord’s response. This was not appropriate and a failure by the landlord.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 13 February 2023. This was 23 working days after the landlord had logged the complaint. Considering the extension of 10 days, this was a delay of 3 days. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 14 February 2023 which the landlord acknowledged on the same date. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 18 April 2023. This was 45 working days after the escalation was logged. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
  7. The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. The delay in responding to the resident’s complaint would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process. It would have also made him feel frustrated and that he was not being taken seriously and would have prevented him from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that he could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation.
  8. The landlord did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures in its complaint responses which is another failure by the landlord.
  9. The landlord offered the resident £660 compensation for its handling of the damp and mould. The landlord broke this down as £150 for a new bed, £210 towards the drycleaning of the resident’s suits and £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord contacted the resident on 8 August 2024 with an increased offer for the distress and inconvenience caused of £850 (£1210 in total). This was well over 2 years after it was on notice about the damp and mould, and well over a year after the resident exhausted its complaint procedure on the issue. While this service welcomes the fact the landlord looked to revisit the issue to try and put things right, the landlord’s compensation offer was well over a year after the resident exhausted its complaints procedure. This means that this service does not consider it an offer of compensation made as part of the complaint. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord has made a later offer of compensation. However, considering the time which has passed this has affected the degree to which the offer puts right the clear failings.
  10. In summary, the Ombudsman is of the opinion that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint in that it:
    1. failed to inform the resident when to expect his stage 1 response following the landlord’s extension
    2. delayed in providing its stage 2 response
    3. failed to acknowledge its complaint handling failures in its complaint responses

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. pay the resident £1,550 compensation in addition to that offered via the complaint procedure (£660) (£2,210 in total). The additional compensation is broken down as follows:
      1. £1300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failures identified in its handling of the damp and mould
      2. £250 for the failures identified in its handling of the complaint
  2. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.