Croydon Churches Housing Association Limited (202309423)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309423

Croydon Churches Housing Association Limited

23 September 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 level of compensation offered by the landlord for the time it took to resolve damp and mould on a bedroom wall in the resident’s property.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord of a 2 bedroom first floor flat in an apartment building. She owns 25% of the property and pays it rent for the remaining 75%. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s household, but she has explained she has asthma and her and her then 4-year-old child’s health and safety were put at risk by the damp and mould previously in her property.
  2. After the developer completed construction of the resident’s property in July 2022, she moved there in August 2022 and described finding damp patches on her child’s bedroom wall at the time. She subsequently reported this to the developer in September 2022, as the damp on the wall had since progressed and mould spores were also growing there. The developer advised the resident to ventilate the affected area, clean this with bleach, and monitor and report back to them accordingly, so she explained that she did so and reported increased damp and mould to them in October 2022. However, she told the landlord in November 2022 that the developer had not yet responded to her latest report, and she was concerned at the risk to her and her child’s health.
  3. The resident explained her child’s bedroom now had a strong damp smell, was uninhabitable, and could not wait a year to be resolved at the end of her property’s defect period, as suggested by the developer. The landlord therefore agreed to inspect this itself and liaise with the developer in November 2022, which advised her to continue to bleach the affected area while they arranged for the source to be investigated and the wall to be treated with anti-mould paint and redecorated in the coming weeks. The resident nevertheless described the damp as continuing to worsen in November 2022, and the mould as returning after being wiped by bleach, which she asked the landlord to escalate and resolve via a specialist due her urgent health and safety concerns.
  4. The resident then chased and made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord in January 2023, explaining the damp and mould on the bedroom wall had vastly increased and the root cause needed to be identified and resolved. She described its surveyor’s inspection as reporting water leaking from outside in November 2022, but it not responding to her after agreeing to investigate her upstairs neighbour’s flat and her chasing it in December 2022. The resident therefore requested compensation for losing a bedroom since September 2022, and for her increased electricity costs from the dehumidifier the developer gave her after visiting in January 2023, when they agreed to repair the neighbour’s balcony and stain block and redecorate the bedroom walls when dry.
  5. The landlord’s subsequent stage 1 complaint response in January 2023 apologised for the resident’s inconvenience from the leak and the time taken to repair this. It agreed to resolve this by ensuring works were completed as soon as possible and she was compensated in line with its policy, which it would calculate when the repairs were finished. The landlord said the developer was responsible for this while the resident’s property was still in the defect period. It had therefore forwarded her reports to them to carry out the works, which they found to be due to rainwater penetrating the wall through her upstairs neighbour’s balcony. The landlord said it was chasing the developer for a date for balcony repairs and agreed to update the resident on this.
  6. The resident then arranged works to remedy and redecorate the bedroom wall via the landlord when she was available in March 2023, which she confirmed to it in April 2023 had resolved the damp and mould. She explained this was because there had been no recurrence since the repairs, so her child’s bedroom was now habitable again after 7 months, asking it to calculate her compensation including to reimburse her rent for being without a bedroom during that period. The landlord subsequently calculated the compensation in May 2023 as £927.46 for the resident losing the bedroom for 186 calendar days, less its 28-calendar-day repair timescale, which it awarded her 20% of the £205.40 per week rent for, in line with its guidance.
  7. However, the resident then made a final stage complaint to the landlord in June 2023 about the level of compensation offered. She described this as being due to her living conditions for 7 months, the risk to her and her child’s health, the developer asking her to regularly clean the mould that was a hazard to her asthma, her resulting anxiety, distress and inconvenience, and her numerous unanswered messages to it. The resident added she had increased electricity costs from using the dehumidifier all day for 6 weeks, the landlord and developer had not proactively investigated or resolved the matter after her reports, they took 4 months to investigate this until she complained, and they took from January to March 2023 to complete repairs.
  8. The resident therefore asked to receive at least 7 months’ rent and her dehumidifier costs, but the landlord’s July 2023 final stage complaint response only increased its compensation offer to £1,001.36 for the latter. This was due to it considering the offer to be in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The resident therefore complained to us about the level of compensation not taking into account the time taken, the impact on her, the risk to her and her child’s health, and her distress. She instead requested £10,048.91 to cover her rent from September 2022 to March 2023, plus her undue stress and inconvenience, including for a period when she completely vacated her property due to the risk to their health as vulnerable people.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s lease obliges the landlord to maintain, repair, redecorate, and renew the load bearing framework, structure, and external walls of her building. Its development process confirms developers repair defects during new build properties’ one-year defect periods and the landlord arranges repairs if developers do not do so in a reasonable time. Its repairs and maintenance standards state it will liaise with developers to action defect period repairs appropriately and monitor that defects are attended in normal response times. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds recommends landlords effectively pursue developers in defect periods, communicate with all parties, and be clear how they will respond from the start.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and planned maintenance service standards oblige it to respond to routine repairs in 28 calendar days. Its damp and mould policy requires it to investigate and remedy the causes of damp and mould, update residents on its findings and completion timescales throughout, and make good internal surfaces after repairs. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould recommends landlords avoid taking actions solely placing the onus on residents, evaluate what mitigations can be put in place to support them, take a risk-based approach, and consider individual household circumstances and vulnerabilities. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management recommends landlords recognise and record residents’ vulnerabilities.
  3. It is of concern that the onus was initially solely placed on the resident after she found damp patches on her child’s bedroom wall when she moved in to her property on 30 August 2022 and reported to the developer this had progressed to mould spore growth on 18 September 2022. This is because they only advised her to ventilate, clean with bleach, monitor, and report this herself instead of evaluating what mitigations could be put in place to support her or offering any other assistance, contrary to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. It is especially concerning that the resident subsequently told the developer on 31 October 2022 the damp and mould had increased, but that they did not attend this after telling her they would do so.
  4. The resident therefore contacted the landlord about the damp and mould on 2 November 2022, which agreed on the next day to liaise with the developer about this and to attend to investigate this itself on 9 November 2022. This was in line with its development process and repairs and maintenance standards, which required it to liaise with the developer to action defect period repairs at that time, as well as monitor that they did so in its repairs and planned maintenance service standards’ 28-calendar-day routine repair timescale. The landlord also agreed to investigate the causes of the damp and mould after its above attendance by getting its surveyor’s opinion on this and updating her, as it was obliged to by its damp and mould policy.
  5. It is nevertheless of concern that, from the resident’s first reports to the landlord onwards, she described the damp and mould as being a particular risk to her and her child’s health. She explained this was because she had asthma and her child was 4 years old at the time. However, the landlord did not recognise or record these vulnerabilities either at that time or subsequently, contrary to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, which was extremely unsuitable. There is also no evidence that it took a risk-based approach to the resident’s damp and mould case, or considered her individual household circumstances and vulnerabilities, as recommended by our spotlight report on damp and mould, which was very inappropriate.
  6. It is therefore especially concerning the resident reported to the landlord and the developer on 15 and 16 November 2022 that the damp was worsening and mould kept returning after being cleaned with bleach. They nevertheless did not take further action for this, contrary to the repairs and planned maintenance service standards requiring them to in 28 calendar days. This was especially unsuitable because the resident explained the damp and mould needed to be resolved urgently due to her concerns for her and her child’s health and safety from their vulnerability to this. This meant she considered her child’s bedroom uninhabitable, but only a surveyor’s visit took place on 18 November 2022, finding an external water leak causing damp and mould without further action.
  7. The leak and the recurring damp and mould on the bedroom wall meant that it was understandable that the resident also told the landlord and the developer that the latter’s proposed anti-mould paint and redecorating for the damp and mould needed to be resolved by a specialist instead. The developer explained that their contractors’ earliest availability for their proposed works was in January 2023, so they tried to carry these out sooner themselves while investigating the source of the damp and mould, but were unable to do so. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not follow its development process and repairs and maintenance standards at that time by monitoring that the developer was not taking action within 28 calendar days and doing so itself.
  8. It is also of concern that the resident had to chase and complain to the landlord on 10 to 12 January 2023 for the developer to visit her property on the latter date, agreeing to deliver a dehumidifier on the next day, repair the leak from her upstairs neighbour’s balcony, and redecorate the bedroom wall once dry. It should have arranged this within 28 calendar days of her initial report to it on 2 November 2022 rather than beginning to do so from 71 calendar days later in January 2023. This is particularly concerning because the resident explained at that time that there were now large areas of mould spores on the bedroom wall that were a health and safety risk to her and her child’s vulnerabilities, as well as numerous unanswered messages from her to the landlord.
  9. However, the landlord only arranged with the resident on 17 February 2023 for the developer to repair and paint the affected bedroom wall on 6 and 7 March 2023, after this had dried and they repaired her upstairs neighbour’s balcony to stop rainwater penetrating the external wall and causing damp and mould. It therefore only organised for repairs to be completed at her property for this 125 calendar days after her initial report to it in November 2022 and 170 calendar days after she first reported this to the developer in September 2022, which was an inappropriately excessive delay. This meant it was suitable that the landlord’s complaint responses apologised for this and the resident’s inconvenience, as well as that it offered her compensation.
  10. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right made it reasonable for the landlord to offer to reimburse the resident’s £73.90 increased electricity bills for running the dehumidifier for 6 weeks in January to February 2023, after she gave it her bills covering this period. It was also appropriate that it followed its and our remedies guidance to recognise her loss of enjoyment of the bedroom for 186 calendar days from September 2022 to March 2023, less its 28-calendar-day repair timescale, by offering to reimburse 20% of her £205.40 per week rent for the remaining 158 calendar days. This is because, while the resident sought 100% of her rent, she was without a bedroom at that time and not her entire property that would have justified this.
  11. Moreover, while the resident requested another £4,100 compensation for stress and inconvenience, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends up to £1,000 for failures such as repair delays having a significant emotional impact on the resident. It was therefore proportionate under the landlord’s and our guidance for it to offer £1,001.36 total compensation for loss of enjoyment of her bedroom from the delays and increased dehumidifier electricity costs, which it is recommended to re-offer below. It is nevertheless of concern the onus was placed solely on the resident to clean mould, her and her child’s vulnerabilities were not recorded or considered, there was no risk-based approach or mitigations until repairs concluded, and she was not updated throughout.
  12. There is also no indication that the landlord followed the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution to learn from the outcome of the resident’s case by outlining how it would prevent the above failures, as well as the repair delay she experienced, from occurring again in the future, which was unreasonable. It has therefore been ordered below to pay her £1,000 additional compensation in recognition of her distress and inconvenience from the above further failings identified by this investigation, in line with our above remedies guidance, as well as to write to her to apologise for these. The landlord shall acknowledge and accept responsibility for its additional failures and their impact on the resident.
  13. Moreover, the landlord has been ordered below to carry out a senior management review of its handling of the resident’s damp and mould case to identify exactly why its failings in handling her reports happened and outline exactly how it will prevent these from occurring again in future. It shall present the review to its senior leadership team and provide her and the Ombudsman with a copy of its review. This review should include self-assessments of its compliance against the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds, damp and mould, and knowledge and information management. This is to ensure the onus is not solely placed on residents, vulnerabilities are recorded and considered, there are risk-based approaches and mitigations, and updates throughout every damp and mould case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the level of compensation offered by it for the time it took to resolve damp and mould on a bedroom wall in the resident’s property.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £1,000 additional compensation within 4 weeks in recognition of her distress and inconvenience from the further failures by it identified by this investigation.
    2. Write to the resident within 4 weeks to apologise for the further failings identified by this investigation, accept responsibility for these, and acknowledge their impact on her.
    3. In accordance with paragraph 54g of the Scheme, carry out a senior management review within 8 weeks of its handling of the resident’s damp and mould case to identify exactly why its failings in handling her reports happened and outline exactly how it will prevent these from occurring again in future. It shall present the review to its senior leadership team and provide her and the Ombudsman with a copy of its review. This review should include:
      1. Self-assessments of its compliance against the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds, damp and mould, and knowledge and information management.

This is to ensure the onus is not solely placed on residents, vulnerabilities are recorded and considered, there are risk-based approaches and mitigations, and updates throughout every damp and mould case.

  1. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 and 8 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the below recommendation.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the resident the £1,001.36 it previously offered her.