Croydon Churches Housing Association Limited (202007420)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007420

Croydon Churches Housing Association Limited

12 May 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

1. The resident complained:

1. About repairs to resolve damp and mould in her property;
2. That she should be allowed to move property.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a compla­­­int is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 20 June 2019. The complaint detailed how the resident had been experiencing issues with damp and mould for almost 6 months.  On 5 July 2019, the landlord provided a stage one response to the resident. The landlord confirmed that following an inspection there was “no evidence of rising or penetrating damp” and confirmed that the “mould growth was due to condensation”. The landlord arranged for various different repairs including replacing fans with Envirovent condensation control fan and renewing several passive vents to the windows. Following this complaint response, the resident did not escalate the complaint further.
4. The stage one complaint response was provided to the resident on 5 July 2019. There has been no evidence to suggest that the resident requested the complaint to be escalated following the stage one response. The resident brought a subsequent complaint to the landlord on 20 July 2020 which was over 12 months later.
5. Paragraph 39a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman “will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.”  As such, the Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint brought in June 2019.

Background and summary of events

6. The resident signed a tenancy agreement with the landlord in October 2018 and has an assured tenancy with the landlord. It is evident that within several months of moving into the property she noticed damp and mould in the property. She made a complaint to the landlord on 20 June 2019 which will not be considered as part of this investigation as set out in paragraph 2 above.
7. On 20 July 2020, the resident sent a second formal complaint to the landlord. The resident was unhappy that she had not received a call back from a member of the landlord’s staff from a call she had made three weeks prior. She also raised the issue that the mould in her property had recurred after it had been cleaned multiple times. She noted that it was affecting her health both mentally and physically by impacting her breathing. The resident stated she was seeking a solution such as a transfer to a suitable alternate property.
8. On 22 July 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident and acknowledged their stage 1 complaint.
9. On 5 August 2020, the landlord provided its stage one response. The landlord set out that the subject of the complaint was the:

1. Lack of communication it provided on the status of repairs;
2. Health and wellbeing of the resident due to mould and damp conditions;
3. Ongoing issues regarding repairs in July 2019.

The complaint was partially upheld by the landlord. The landlord apologised for not providing a call back from the staff member.

10. The landlord confirmed that the surveyor had inspected the property on 30 July 2020 and discovered that a re-occurrence of the mould growth in the property had taken place. The landlord acknowledged that the condensation control units which it had fitted in the kitchen and bathroom were not fully effective. The landlord set out repairs that it would undertake which included removal of mould growth from various items in the bathroom, removal of mould to corner of ceiling area in bedroom, supplying a condensation control fan in the kitchen, and renewing a double-glazed unit in the living room.
11. The landlord noted that the resident raised concerns in line with the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) – it noted that a recent survey of the property had detailed a HHSRS rating at level 4, which it noted was typical of most homes and could be controlled by the measures put in by place by its surveyor and lifestyle. It noted that it had discussed with the resident that a shower curtain needed to be purchased for the shower as there was not one there. It offered the resident £25.00 compensation as a goodwill gesture.
12. On 19 August 2020, the resident responded to the landlord’s response and requested that the complaint was escalated to stage two of the complaints process. The resident felt that it was unjust for the landlord to blame the build-up of damp on their “lifestyle” due to the missing curtain. The resident noted that the curtain was only missing for a couple of days and had since been replaced. The resident also provided evidence that the damp was negatively affecting their health. This was in the form of notes from a consultation with their doctor consultation dated 1 August 2020.
13. On 4 September 2020, the landlord provided its stage two response to the resident. The landlord partially upheld the complaint and offered the resident £125.00 in compensation as a goodwill gesture. The landlord noted that it was offering a further £100 as a goodwill gesture on top of the £25.00 already offered.
14. The landlord acknowledged that the wrong fans had been fitted the previous year in 2019 but it was unable to establish why this had been done as it had since changed contractors. The landlord noted that at the time that the property was let, it met its Lettable Standard and the resident did not start to experience issues until 2 or 3 months into the tenancy.
15. The landlord also noted that it would be in touch to discuss her transfer application. The landlord noted that it had asked its Senior Property Services Officer to monitor the outstanding repairs to ensure that they are completed and arrange for its surveyor to carry out inspections following the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Repairs and Maintenance Standards

16. In the landlord’s stage 1 response dated 5 August 2020 it set out several repairs it would undertake in the bathroom, kitchen and living room relating to the damp and mould. Whilst it was not required to give a timescale for the completion of these repairs, it would have been helpful for the resident’s clarity if it had done so. The Housing Ombudsman has seen the communication between the surveyor and repairs contractor that some of the repairs were scheduled and completed appropriately.
17. Following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the landlord noted that it had asked the surveyor to carry out inspections of the last few outstanding repairs and that it would follow up in a few months’ time to monitor the progress. This was appropriate for the landlord to do this, to ensure that the final repairs were completed satisfactorily.
18. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that if “a repair or works are to be completed as part of the complaint outcome but will take longer than 10 working days, the complaint response letter should still be sent…advising when the works are due for completion and the final outcome of the complaint investigation.”
19. The landlord acknowledged that it had fitted the incorrect fans previously. The landlord acknowledged its mistake, partially upheld the complaint, offered compensation as a goodwill gesture and scheduled the further repairs which included fitting the correct fans. It stated that the new fans would decrease the moisture levels in her home and that it would continue to monitor this and asked the resident to follow the guidance it gave her to reduce levels of condensation. The fans were fitted on 8 September 2020. It was appropriate for the landlord to take these actions to rectify its previous failings. 
20. It is evident that the resident is unhappy with how the repairs were completed following the stage two response and that a subsequent leak arose which delayed the completion of the repairs. As a result, the landlord agreed to complete further repairs which included:

1. A repair to a leak under the bath;
2. The renewal of the shower hose and spray head;
3. The removal of the adjacent wash hand basin;
4. The installation of an acrylic bath panel.

21. Due to the fact that there were new repairs to be completed including a leak, this led to a delay in the completion of repairs promised under the complaints procedure as the new repairs needed to be remedied first.
22. It must be noted that the Ombudsman’s report has investigated matters that were addressed in the landlord’s final response of 4 September 2020. As subsequent or new issues have arisen that postdate this response, these would have to be brought to the landlord as a new complaint. It should be noted that the stage 2 response addressed the relevant repairs and communicated appropriately to the resident.
23. The landlord has advised this service that the delay in completing the repairs was caused by a combination of factors including the resident being unable to provide access to the property, issues with Covid-19 and the repairs contractor. The landlord has provided evidence to the Housing Ombudsman Service that all repairs were completed on 5 May 2021.

Transfer and Mutual Exchange Policy

24. In the landlord’s stage 2 response to the resident, it discussed the transfer that she was seeking. The resident did not have an existing transfer application at the time. The landlord told the resident that the Housing Management Team would be in contact with her to discuss her options. The landlord also relayed the difficulties that the resident would face in obtaining a transfer by virtue of the fact that there were already a number of residents seeking a move and there were very few properties which they can use for transfers. It was reasonable for the landlord to relay the difficulties that the resident may face and manage her expectations that it may take a long time to happen.
25. The landlords transfer policy states “applicants applying for medical priority points will only be considered where moving would significantly improve their physical and or mental health or would limit hardship resulting from any physical disability”. This service has seen evidence that the landlord sent medical information provided by the complainant to an independent medical officer for assessment and it was determined that no medical priority applied. It was appropriate for the landlord to get a third-party opinion. However, the transfer policy does not provide information on how medical information provided by a resident should be assessed. It would be helpful if this was detailed within the transfer policy.
26. The landlord has advised this Service that it wrote to the resident in April 2021 confirming that she was on the Transfer list for the previous 6 months and in that time one offer was made to her, but the property did not meet the resident’s requirements. The landlord has also advised the resident that any further medical evidence can be submitted to it for a further independent assessment. 
27. It is apparent that the landlord has taken appropriate steps by considering whether the resident would be eligible for a transfer on medical grounds within the criteria as set out in its Transfer Policy and has also made efforts to assist the resident via the alternative option of a mutual exchange.  

Determination (decision)

28. I find that in accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme that there was no maladministration by the landlord with regard to;

a.     Repairs to damp and mould in the property;

b.     the resident’s wish to move property.

Reasons

29. The landlord attended to the repairs appropriately and in accordance with its repairs procedure. Whilst there were issues with repairs being completed after the stage 2 response, this does not form part of this investigation.
30. The landlord took steps to assist the resident in their wish to move property. The landlord acted reasonably by managing her expectations of the possibility of a move and ensuring her application was assessed to see whether it met the criteria within the transfer policy.

Orders and recommendations

31. I recommend that the landlord provide the £125.00 compensation offered to the resident if this has not been done already and consider where it still wants to provide further compensation for further issues that the resident experienced following the end of the complaints process. I also recommend that the landlord continues to assist the resident with their search for suitable alternative accommodation.
32. I recommend that the landlord review its transfer policy and look at the criteria for assessing medical priority and whether it can provide further clarification on this procedure by way of revised wording.