Homes Plus Limited (previously ,South Staffordshire Housing Association) (202008274)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008274

South Staffordshire Housing Association Limited

7 April 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.
Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of mould in the property.
The complaint is also about the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

The resident was an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 27 June 2016 to when she left the property in June 2020.
The landlord’s repairs policy does not specify a target timeframe for carrying out routine repairs.
The landlord’s website states that it has a two-stage complaints procedure, although at the time of the complaint it was operating a three-stage process. The landlord aims to respond to a complaint at stage one within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage two.
The landlord has not provided its repair records or contact records to this Service, however, it has stated that its records show that on 21 February 2017 the resident reported an issue with mould and/or damp in the property and that the landlord should take action by way of issuing a condensation leaflet. There is no further detail as to what was reported or whether the leaflet was sent.
The landlord has also stated that there is no further record of the resident having notified it of an issue thereafter, until 12 December 2017. It has said that it is documented that the resident reported mould being around the bedroom window on this date and that she highlighted her concerns regarding her daughter’s health because of the mould. In response, the landlord has said that its records indicate that it advised the resident to send photographs and to buy mould killer spray and to update it as to whether the situation had improved within 3-4 weeks.
The landlord has stated that there is no evidence of the resident having contacted it again or sending in any photographs until the events directly preceding the formal complaint.

Summary of events

The landlord has stated that its records indicate that the resident contacted it on 25 and 26 February 2020, reporting that the bedroom walls were “soaking wet” and that in response, on 27 February 2020, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend and inspect the property.
On 28 February 2020 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its response to her reports of mould and damp at the property. The resident stated that her guttering was blocked, making her and her daughter’s bedroom, bed and bedding “soaking wet” and the “walls sodden”. She added that the cavity wall was coming apart with “white balls” escaping, leaving the property “constantly cold” and that her windows had “dropped”. She did not believe this was an acceptable way to be living in a property with her young daughter and said that despite having contacted the landlord about the issue she was “getting nowhere”.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same date and said it would investigate the complaint by 13 March 2020 and provide a response shortly thereafter.
On an unknown date the surveyor’s inspection went ahead and the landlord has stated that the following actions and works were identified in relation to the damp and mould:
1. Provide dehumidifier to help dry out the property;
2. Fix the window in the lounge which had dropped, and;
3. Remedy cavity wall insulation in the kitchen.
Following discussion with the resident about her complaint, on 9 March 2020, the landlord issued its stage one response. The complaint was not upheld. The landlord explained that as a result of its visit to the property, the following actions and works had been identified:
1. A dehumidifier was required for two weeks to address the wet bedroom walls (which it said was due to extreme weather, leading rain water to bridge the ashfelt flashing attached to the side elevation of the block). The landlord said it currently had none in stock but it would call the resident when it did;
2. The guttering was leaking on the rear elevation, causing the external wall to be wet, causing damp in the kitchen. The landlord said it had requested these works to be carried out;
3. The window in the lounge had dropped causing a draught. The landlord said works had been raised to carry out the repair on 17th March;
4. The cavity wall insulation was escaping both on internal wall in the kitchen and external walls. The landlord said this would be checked on 17 March 2020, and;
5. The landlord found no evidence of wet bed linen that the resident had referred to but apologised for any inconvenience that the resident experienced in regards to this.
The landlord also apologised that the damp, which it said had been caused by “freak weather”, had made the resident’s daughter unwell and also for the resident having to make numerous calls which received no response. It explained that it had passed on the resident’s feedback to the relevant department.
On an unknown date thereafter, repairs to the window were completed. The landlord has stated that it did not provide a dehumidifier because of lack of availability and the national lockdown came into place shortly after this time, which meant that its suppliers were on hold and non-urgent repairs were suspended.
In June 2020, the resident left the property, finding alternative accommodation.
On 10 August 2020 the resident contacted the landlord about the complaint she had raised about the mould at her former property. On 10 and 19 August 2020 the resident reiterated her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the problem, stating that she reported a long list of issues in February 2020 which were not addressed; she said that she was told to strip her wallpaper which she did but then heard nothing and having chased up the matter and being told someone would get back to her, she again did not hear.
The resident explained the severity of the problem with damp and mould, particularly in her daughter’s room, which led to her bed, bedding, toys and clothes wet and how the situation had impacted on her and her child’s health. The resident said that as a result of the problem, she had to move her daughter into her room for five months and that the way the landlord had left them to live was unacceptable.
The resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure, requesting compensation as the resolution of her complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request, on 25 August 2020, advising that the complaint was now being reviewed at stage two of its complaints procedure. It stated that it would ordinarily carry out a review within 10 working days and that it would issue a response thereafter.
On 14 September 2020 the landlord emailed the resident apologising that it had not contacted her about her complaint, for which it apologised, stating that there was “no excuse”, explaining that this service failure was due to it “forgetting” to contact her after annual leave.
On 17 September 2020 the landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint. The landlord apologised that its stage one response did not suitably address all of the issues the resident raised but did not uphold the complaint, setting out the chronology of the situation and its records and finding that there had been no service failure on its part.
Around 23 September 2020 the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage three of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord acknowledged the request the following day and advised that it would aim to review the case within 10 working days and provide a response shortly thereafter.
On 8 October 2020 the landlord emailed the resident advising that it would need further time to review her complaint and that it hoped to be able to provide a response by 22 October 2020.
On 22 October 2020 the landlord sent its response to the resident’s request for her complaint to be escalated to stage three of its complaints procedure. The landlord declined her request. It explained that found the matter to have been fully investigated previously.
The landlord said that it would arrange an inspection of the property, however, to identify whether there remains an issue with damp. The landlord said it would also be arranging a meeting to discuss with the resident the issues with communication that she had raised and to identify a suitable resolution.

Post complaint

On 29 October 2020, in an internal email, the landlord acknowledged the following:
1. There were cracks around the windows and some missing sealant identified when it inspected the property after the resident reported issues with mould and the resident’s unsuccessful attempt to treat the mould was “probably” due to this. There was reference to work to remedy this having been completed on an unknown date but this “didn’t seem to be a very good job”;
2. The air ventilation system in the bathroom did not work;
3. The issues “are to do with” the broken guttering and overgrown bushes underneath the rear bedroom window.
4. That there were repairs missed as part of the stage one investigation (ventilation unit in the bathroom, crack around the additional windows, mould wash and stain block).
On 30 October 2020 the landlord met with the resident to discuss the situation. During this meeting the landlord recognised that there was a failure with regards to the dehumidifiers and that more effort should have been made to follow up on the repairs and offered to reimburse the cost of the bedding that was affected due to the damp and mould.
On the same date, the landlord attended the property to carry out an inspection, following which, works were raised as follows:
1. Lounge – replaster under the reveal and renew the window trims.
2. Double bedroom – renew the window trims.
3. Kitchen – reseal the window, and;
4. Bathroom – wash down mould from window and reseal the window.
By 21 December 2020 all repairs identified at the 30 October 2020 inspection had been completed.

Assessment and findings

Once on notice, the landlord was required to carry out the repairs it was responsible for, within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable period of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
In this case, although the landlord has accepted that the resident first reported issued with damp and mould in 2017, it does not accept that she continued to contact it thereafter about the issue and neither has the resident evidenced this to the Ombudsman. This is not to say that the resident did not contact the landlord, however, as an evidenced based service, in the absence of evidence of contact, a finding of failure for this cannot be made.
The Ombudsman notes, however, that the landlord has not provided its contact or repairs records to this Service. The landlord is expected to create and maintain full and accurate records; doing so enables it to effectively manage its repairs responsibilities and customer contact and relationships. It also means there is an audit trail of events and an objective history and chronology of repairs and/or contact is readily available and can be assessed in cases of complaint and investigation. It is not enough for the landlord to provide the Ombudsman with its summary of events without providing the evidence to support this.
In any event, the historic reports from 2017 cannot be considered by this Service. This is because making a report is different to making a formal complaint. There is a reasonable expectation that a resident will raise a matter as a formal complaint within six months of an issue occurring. This is supported by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states at paragraph 39(e) that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”. It follows that it is the events from February 2020 that will be considered.
The landlord should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond to and address issues of repair, once reported. The resident did not allow this opportunity, complaining just a few days after having reported the matter – although she says she had been reporting and chasing throughout her tenancy.
Upon reporting the issues on 25 February 2020, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging an inspection, although there is no information as to when this inspection was carried out. The inspection must have been carried out quickly, however, because it had been done by the time the stage one complaint response was issued on 9 March 2020.
Three of the four identified resolutions to the problem of damp and mould were not carried out, however, with only the window being repaired within a reasonable period of time. While the country did enter a national lockdown and routine repairs were put on hold, the national lockdown did not commence until later in March 2020 and routine repairs were not suspended up until the time the resident left the property in June 2020.
The landlord’s attendance at the property to repair the window was made possible and it is not known why the repairs to the guttering and cavity wall could also not be carried out on the same date; no explanation has been provided to this Service, nor to the resident in its communications to her or in its responses to her complaint.
In terms of the dehumidifier, the landlord’s explanation that it did not have enough and also that its suppliers were closed is insufficient. The need for a dehumidifier cannot wait; the purpose of these is to remove excess humidity from the air which is present at that moment in time. Failing to act on excessively humidity can lead to damp and mould and it is unacceptable for this to be identified as a requirement at the property and then not provided for the reasons given.
Even in circumstances were the landlord’s preferred supplier was closed, it remained possible for the landlord to source a dehumidifier from elsewhere and/or to provide the resident with the funds to purchase an approved dehumidifier herself, were this was a repair need, as was identified.
Further, while true that non-urgent repairs were put on hold, the issues identified were arguably urgent issues; the resident was living in a property with active water ingress, with a young child. This is aggravated further by the complete lack of update from the landlord as to when issues would be resolved, leaving the resident uninformed and understandably feeling that her concerns were not being taken seriously and nothing was being done.
The landlord ultimately did not carry out the repairs, which included additionally identified repairs, until the end of the year and six months after the resident vacated the property which is an inappropriately length of time for it to take overall. Although the resident was not living in the property from June 2020, the lack of repairs and contact between March and June 2020 was also unacceptable.
Turning to the landlord’s response to the complaint, it responded within a reasonable timeframe at stage one and within the timescale set out in its complaints policy. In this complaint response, however, the landlord seems to have acknowledged the resident had to chase the issue; it is unclear whether it apologised for this without evidence that this was the case because it later did not accept that the resident had chased the issue and it had not acted.
There are certainly gaps in this case, with reference too, to the landlord visiting and taking photographs of the property, including damaged items from the damp and mould and the resident being asked to strip her wallpaper, no records of which have been provided.
Furthermore, the landlord’s reference to “freak weather” causing the issue of damp and mould was inappropriate. It is not acceptable to attribute the cause of damp and mould to freak weather; freak weather, although arguably could cause a leak, was not the situation here. Instead, there were repairs issues to guttering, the cavity wall and the window – at least – that were not caused by the freak weather the landlord referred to. It was instead the outstanding repairs which caused problems with water ingress, damp and mould.
Part of responding to a complaint is to explain to a resident, where appropriate, what lessons have been learned and what actions will be taken to help prevent a recurrence. The landlord’s reference to providing “feedback” to the relevant team with regards to the issue the resident raised regarding poor communication was insufficient. Referring to issues complained of as “feedback” is inappropriate – providing feedback and making a formal complaint are completely different processes – and does not demonstrate that the matter has been taken sufficiently seriously. The comment does not let the reader know what team and what actions it will take on the basis of this.
Besides the lack of completion of repair works, communication and expectation management, the landlord’s stage two response was inappropriately delayed for reasons of annual leave and the landlord “forgetting”. The landlord did not do enough to acknowledge this and put it right and forgetting to respond to a complaint indicates a lack of system or checks and balances.
Given the gap in time between the resident receiving the landlord’s stage one response and requesting for the complaint to be escalated, however, the landlord acted reasonably in agreeing to do this. This is because, similarly to initially bringing a complaint to the landlord or indeed, to this Service, there is an expectation that this will be done within a reasonable period of time, for the reasons set out above and this remains the case with escalation requests.
The landlord was entitled to decline the resident’s request for the complaint to be escalated to stage three of the complaints process. While the landlord’s complaint policy has not been provided to the Ombudsman, it is ordinarily the case that a landlord will not escalate a complaint unless there is new information provided; a request for escalation is normally a request and not an automatic right.
In meeting the resident after the completion of the complaint through the process and after the resident had left the property, the landlord demonstrated an intent to satisfactorily resolve the issue, although this was done following contact from this Service. The information pertaining to this later action is concerning, however, indicating further issues which were not discussed earlier; mould wash and stain block for example and acceptance that the resident could not resolve the issues herself because there were outstanding repairs which were causing the issue.
The landlord accepted that there was poor workmanship, also and that it could have done more to resolve issues. It is appropriate that the landlord acknowledged this, albeit late, however, it raises questions around fullness of investigation and transparency earlier on. The landlord’s offer to replace bedding the resident said was damaged was insufficient in resolving the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint about its response to the reported mould and damp at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

There was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the issues of damp and mould at the property insofar as it did not carry out the repairs – including providing a dehumidifier – within a reasonable period of time. Nor did the landlord keep the resident updated, communicate effectively or manage her expectations.
There was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the complaint insofar as its complaint response at stage one accepted the resident had to chase the issue when it later disputed this and the reason given for the damp and mould was inappropriate and failed to recognise the contribution of the repair issues to the problem.
There were gaps in the investigation, with reference to stripping wallpaper and mould wash, for instance, which are not referred to in either complaint response.
The landlord did not demonstrate that it had learned from the complaint; the reference to “providing feedback” was insufficient and nor did it explain how it would prevent a recurrence of a complaint being forgotten about in future.
The resolution to the complaint – reimbursing the resident for damaged bedding – which post-dated the complaint procedure, was insufficient and not proportionate to the issues and failings identified.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation, comprised of;
1. £150 for the service failure found in its handling of the mould and damp issues at the property;
2. £100 for the service failure found in the landlord’s complaints handling, and;
3. £50 for stress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord to carry out a lessons-learned exercise and to identify changes it has or will implement to help prevent a recurrence of the issues identified in this case. The landlord to provide a copy of the action plan deriving from this to this Service.