Sanctuary Housing Association (202016320)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016320

Sanctuary Housing Association

29 June 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 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 response to the resident’s reports of mould in her property.

Background and summary of events

Agreement, policies and procedures

In respect to the effects of condensation and mould, the landlord’s website offers a number of solutions which the resident should try, including adjusting heating to keep all rooms and walls warm, reducing air moisture, increasing ventilation, and cleaning away any signs of mould immediately. If an issue remained after these had been attempted, the resident could request an inspection of the property.
As per the tenancy agreement between the landlord and the resident, it was obliged to maintain the property’s structure, including the walls and floors, and she agreed to ensure that all rooms were properly ventilated to help prevent condensation. If there was any condensation, she was “to wipe it down and clean any surfaces when necessary”.
The tenancy agreement also advises the resident to take out insurance for personal possessions, as these will not be insured by the landlord.
As per the landlord’s complaints procedure, complaints including significant loss or damage to property or allegations of mental or physical injury to a person must be passed to its insurance team.

Background

The resident was a tenant of the landlord at the property from 30 September 2019 to 13 December 2020, which was a two-bedroom first floor flat.
The resident had raised a previous report in January 2020 regarding mould in her property. In response, the landlord carried out an inspection there in February 2020 and found no evidence of damp from its meter readings.
The landlord did find that the extractor fans in the property were being turned off by the resident. It therefore arranged for the fans to be reconfigured to stay on for a set time and allow for better air circulation in the property, and provided her with further information on managing mould in the home.
The resident disputed the findings of the inspection and escalated the matter in a stage one complaint to the landlord in July 2020, with a further inspection to be completed at the property. This was delayed due to the restrictions imposed following the corona virus pandemic. The resident requested the closure of her complaint in August 2020, pending a further inspection, which was to be scheduled once the restrictions allowed the landlord to do so.

Summary of events

On 5 November 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to submit a fresh stage one complaint to it, stating the following:
1. She felt that she and her family had been “neglected” by it, in respect to her reports of mould in her property.
2. Following her previous complaint regarding the same issue, it had attended and found no signs of damp in her property, despite her reporting that the issue must have been coming from somewhere and it agreeing to see what other inspections could be done, before failing to contact her about this again.
3. She understood that the impact of the corona virus pandemic meant that a further inspection that had been subsequently agreed with it was delayed. However, the landlord’s visit to the resident’s property on 5 November 2020 was its first visit since the restrictions were lifted. She felt that she had not been taken seriously.
4. She had to throw away clothes, shoes, a wardrobe, and a one-year-old carpet due to mould, despite her receiving welfare benefits, which was also present in the corner of one of the rooms. Therefore, the resident disputed the findings of the landlord’s operative that there was not a mould issue at the property.
5. She wanted compensation for the damage to her belongings, for her and her family’s “suffering”, and for her time and trouble in progressing the complaint.
On 2 November 2020, the landlord had recorded that it had carried out an inspection of the resident’s property on that date, which is summarised as follows:
1. It had previously attended the property in February 2020, following her earlier reports of mould in her property. To address the mould issue, the landlord had arranged for extractor fans to be fitted to the kitchen and bathroom. Mould was no longer present in the kitchen and bathroom.
2. It had found no evidence of damp in the property; therefore, “any mould was being caused by condensation”. Lifestyle was also stated to be a cause of the mould; this was later explained by the landlord, on 10 November 2020, to be due to ventilation and air circulation, as windows needed to be opened and furniture moved away from the external wall.
On 9 November 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s latest stage one complaint, and referred this to its insurance team due to her mention of ill-health, in line with its complaints procedure, as detailed in paragraph 4 above.
The landlord’s records confirmed that, on 11 November 2020, it had spoken to the resident to explain the above findings of the latest inspection of her property. She remained dissatisfied, and so it escalated her complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure.
The resident submitted a termination notice to the landlord to end the tenancy of her property, signed 19 November 2020, due to the unresolved issues of mould in the property. The date of termination of her tenancy was 13 December 2020.
On 23 November 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord again, which is summarised as follows:
1. She disagreed that her lifestyle had caused the mould issues at her property, as her window vents were constantly open, and she could not turn off the extractor fans.
2. A bed and bed frame had been damaged by mould and had been disposed of, resulting in unaffordable costs and difficult sleeping arrangements for the family.
3. The downstairs neighbour had also mentioned having concerns with damp and mould in the same areas of their property. The resident suggested that the issues with both properties could be linked.
On 8 December 2020, the landlord provided its final stage complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
1. Following the resident’s reports of mould in her property, the landlord inspected the property, as detailed in paragraph 11 above.
2. It had found no evidence of damp, and it therefore assessed the mould to be caused by condensation and lifestyle. No further work was proposed.
On 14 December 2020, the resident responded to the landlord. She remained dissatisfied with the outcome of its investigation, as she had tried to ventilate and create airflow at the property while she had lived there. She had now moved out of the property, and she provided it with evidence in the form of photographs of mould on the floorboards in one of the bedrooms.
On 4 January 2021, the landlord’s records confirmed that it had completed a void inspection of the resident’s property, as this was now empty, which is summarised as follows:
1. It found there to be no mould present. The marks on the floorboards were caused by glue, which was used to secure the carpet, and not damp as the resident had believed.
2. It had taken damp meter readings, with the only high reading being in the porch on the ground floor. This was assessed to be due to the area being cold; therefore, it raised work orders to fit a radiator there, as well as fitting guttering to the porch.
3. As these work orders were for the ground floor, it confirmed that they would not have caused any damp to her property on the first floor.
On 8 January 2021, the landlord provided a further final stage complaint response to the resident. It confirmed that it had completed a full inspection of the empty property, and that it had found no evidence of mould or damp within the property. The landlord was, therefore, unable to consider the resident’s claim for compensation.
On 18 March 2021, the resident referred her complaint to this Service, which is summarised as follows:
1. Personal possessions, including furniture, tools and clothes, had been damaged and thrown away due to mould.
2. She felt that she was entitled to compensation due to the distress and inconvenience of her case, and for the damage to her personal possessions.
3. Despite two mould inspections of her property, no damp was found there by the landlord, and she believed this to be due to a lack of further investigation by it, for which it also did not offer her a solution.

Assessment and findings

It is noted that the resident has raised concerns over her and her children’s health and wellbeing, and that she has also asked for compensation for damage to her belongings. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her family’s health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for damages, impacts on health and wellbeing. This because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so in the way that a court or insurer might. We are also unable to determine liability for damages for the resident’s belongings for the same reasons. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused her.
Upon receipt of the resident’s reports of mould in the property, the landlord was obliged to inspect the nature of the issue, as per its website’s guidance detailed in paragraph 2 above, and to maintain the structure of her property, including the walls and floors, in accordance with her tenancy agreement with it, as outlined in paragraph 3 above.
The landlord evidenced that it did this following the resident’s report of mould to it in January 2020. This is because it inspected her property in February 2020, and then arranged for the installation of extractor fans to both the kitchen and the bathroom to improve the air flow and ventilation, as well as providing her with further information on how to manage condensation and mould. This was reasonable action for the landlord to take to support the resident with the issue of mould in the property, which was in line with its above obligations to do so from its website and her tenancy agreement.
The landlord also evidenced that it investigated the nature of the resident’s issue with mould appropriately, including after she reported to it that this remained outstanding from July 2020 onwards, having conducted a total of three separate inspections of the property. The first of these was in February 2020 during the resident’s earlier report of mould, the second was on 2 November 2020 as per paragraph 11 above, and the final void inspection was carried out by it on 4 January 2021 as per paragraph 18 above.
The landlord used a damp monitor during these inspections, and found no evidence of damp in the resident’s property, with no evidence of mould being seen there either once the property was empty. As a result, it assessed that the cause of the mould to be due to poor ventilation and air circulation, which was reasonable for it to conclude in light of the expert evidence of this gathered by its inspections and in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary, despite her disputing this. The action taken by the landlord to understand the cause of the mould was therefore fair, and demonstrated its desire to support the resident, as it repeatedly attended her property to investigate her mould reports.
In respect to the resident’s request for compensation for the loss of personal belongings, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline to offer to compensate her for this under its complaints procedure on 8 January 2021. This was on the basis of both the fact that it had not found evidence of damp contributing to the mould in the property, which it would have been responsible for remedying under her tenancy agreement, and its complaints procedure above at paragraph 5 requiring it to pass claims for significant loss or damage to property or allegations of physical or mental injury to a person to its insurance team.
As the resident’s mention of ill-health had therefore been passed to the landlord’s insurance team on 9 November 2020, in accordance with the complaints procedure, it would also have been reasonable for her claim for her damaged personal belongings to be dealt with in this way. This is particularly in light of the tenancy agreement, as detailed in paragraph 4 above advising to take out home contents insurance for her personal possessions for such events, and the fact that the purpose of compensation is not necessarily to award damages for belongings in the way that a court or insurer might. Compensation is instead offered in recognition of acknowledged service failures by landlords in line with their policies, procedures and other obligations.
In summary, the landlord evidenced that it acted reasonably in response to the resident’s reports of mould in her property. Its investigation into her complaint about this was fair, and in accordance with her tenancy agreement and its policies and procedures. Although the landlord has been recommended below to review the resident’s above damages claim to its insurance team, and update her on this or provide her with details to enable her to make such a claim, if this is not already in progress. This is in light of her continuing to report ill-health and damage to her belongings that she attributed to its handling of her reports of ongoing mould issues at the property.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of mould in her property.

Reasons

The landlord has evidenced three separate inspections of the property, and it found no evidence of damp. Following its final void inspection, it found no evidence of damp or mould; therefore, it was reasonable for it to conclude that there were no outstanding issues it needed to address.
Following the landlord’s initial inspection, it had arranged for extractor fans to be installed as well as providing the resident with further information on managing the issues.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord review the status of the resident’s damages claim to its insurance team, and update her on this or provide her with details to enable her to make such a claim, if it is not already in progress.
The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendation.
The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the time of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in light of Government guidance, regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.