Cottsway Housing Association Limited (202002051)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002051

Cottsway Housing Association Limited

23 August 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mould growth in his property.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident was an assured shorthold tenant of the property. The tenancy agreement began on 16 January 2018 and describes the property as a two-bedroom first floor flat. The resident is no longer the tenant of the property.
  2. The tenancy agreement obliged the landlord to keep the exterior and structure of the property in good repair (including external pipes, external walls and internal walls) and keep any installations for supply of water or sanitation in proper working order. The resident was required to inform the landlord ‘as soon as practicable of anything… that needs to be repaired, replaced or put right in your home or the common parts’.
  3. The landlord’s website sets out that residents are responsible for damp and mould treatment but that the landlord will attend if the problem continues.
  4. The landlord’s website shows it has three levels of repairs priorities as follows:
    1. emergency repairs to be completed within 24 hours – an example of this is given as a leak affecting an electrical fitting
    2. urgent repairs to be completed within 5 working days – an example of this is a minor water leak
    3. routine repairs to be completed within 20 working days – an example of this is plasterwork repairs.
  5. The landlord has a complaints and feedback leaflet that sets out it has a ‘feedback with investigation’ stage where it attempts to offer a resolution within 48 hours followed by a formal two stage complaints process with resolutions required within 10 working days (at stage one) and 5 working days (at stage two).
  6. The landlord has a compensation policy that allows for discretionary payments to be made where it has failed to provide a service.

Summary of Events

  1. The landlord’s customer service records show that a damp report was first received from the resident on 25 December 2019. He told the landlord that black mould had ‘rapidly grown’ in the bathroom which he was concerned about as he and his partner had asthma and they had a toddler in the flat.
  2. The resident sent another email to the landlord on 29 December 2019. The resident said that he had seen black mould growth ‘over the last few weeks’ and that this was a health and safety concern for his family. The resident said they had left the flat to stay with relatives because of the damp.
  3. The landlord noted on 30 December 2019 that it spoke to the resident and had advised him that it would inspect the property. It acknowledged his reports by email and confirmed receipt of some photographs he had provided.
  4. The landlord’s records show that the resident made a telephone call on 31 December 2019. He reported that there was a leak coming through the bathroom light fitting. He also sent an email with photographs and a video of the leak coming through the light fitting and said he and his family could not live in the property.
  5. The landlord’s repairs records show that a works order was raised on 31 December 2019 to address the leak coming from a neighbouring property through the resident’s bathroom light. The job was noted to be an inspection and the order recorded as complete on 1 January 2020 although it is not clear from the evidence seen by this Service exactly what works were carried out.
  6. The landlord also recorded that it inspected the property and a neighbouring flat on 2 January 2020.
  7. The landlord’s internal records show that it considered the case on 3 January 2020 and noted that the resident had left the property rather than being advised to do so and determined that the resident was still responsible for rent payments.
  8. The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 January 2020. He provided additional photographs and sought a rent reimbursement from 30 December 2019 on the grounds the property was uninhabitable due to black mould in the bathroom and lack of water for the shower and bath that meant they could not use washing facilities. He added that they were due to view a property for a potential move (to a new landlord) due to anti-social behaviour issues they had experienced at the property.
  9. The landlord’s internal records show that the surveyor confirmed to colleagues on 7 January 2020 that the bath waste pipe of a flat above was leaking so contractors were due to resolve this as an emergency before re-attending all affected properties on 16 January 2020.
  10. The landlord sent a ‘feedback’ response to the resident on 10 January 2020. It concluded that:
    1. although the mould was unsightly, it did not agree that the bathroom was uninhabitable over the New Year period so it would not offer a rent reimbursement
    2. mould had likely developed over several months but had only been reported on 25 December 2019
    3. it became aware of a problem with water not being hot enough in the bathroom when it attended on 2 January 2020 but it had not been made aware of this before
    4. works were underway to resolve the leak and a repair order had been raised for the hot water issue.
  11. The resident responded to the landlord on 10 January 2020. He queried how the landlord could have decided the bathroom was usable for a two-year old child and that the landlord’s surveyor and contractors had agreed with his decision to vacate the property given the potential health implications. He added that works were not due to start until 17 January 2020 and would not be a quick fix so they had been forced to find alternative accommodation. He added in a further email that there had been mould in the property when he first moved in.
  12. A contractor report from the visit on 17 January 2020 showed that mouldy plasterboard had been removed from the inside of the bathroom airing cupboard and recommended further bathroom works, including:
    1. removal of sections of plasterboard walls, the ceiling and a light fitting
    2. checking of pipework above the ceiling to ensure no further leaks and pipework in the flooring to consider a suspected leak into the flat below
    3. drying out of walls
    4. replacement of the mixer tap
    5. installation of new moisture resistant plasterboard to ceiling, walls and airing cupboard.
  13. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 21 January 2020 that again refused the resident’s request for a rent reimbursement given the property had been habitable in its view and that the mould had not been reported promptly.
  14. The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 January 2020. He advised that the mould had been present in the property from the start of the tenancy (albeit it had been painted over) and would approach environmental health for an independent survey. He added that his request was for the landlord to not charge rent for the period when his family had vacated the property due to hygiene and safety concerns caused by the damp.
  15. The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 January 2020. It asked for him to advise if he intended to quit the property and provide some dates when it would be able to access his property to continue works. The resident replied the same day – he advised that he did not know about dates for access until his new landlord offered a date for moving.
  16. The landlord recorded notes of a telephone conversation on 24 January 2020 that indicated that the resident’s main concerns were for his young daughter and pregnant partner and that they had not been offered alternative accommodation. It added that the resident thought the leak was ongoing and that it had been a problem since October 2019 albeit he had only reported it at Christmas.
  17. The landlord’s internal records show that it reviewed the case on 30 January 2020. It noted that a leak had been found on a cold-water feed pipe behind a wall in the bathroom of a flat above the resident’s (that was likely to have caused damp to the resident’s bathroom cupboard and window area). It added that contractors had attended on 17 January 2020 to cut away the wall to gain access to the pipework and locate the leaks and that the appointment on 7 February 2020 was to make good these areas.
  18. The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 30 January 2020. It said that it could only consider matters that had been subject of the original complaint which it defined as being its handling of the resident’s reports that his property had been uninhabitable due to damp and mould. It concluded that:
    1. it had received a report of damp to the resident’s bathroom on 30 December 2019 and attended on 2 January 2020
    2. it had remedied leaks from another flat on 17 January 2020 and intended to visit on 7 February 2020 to check there were no other leaks and confirm what other works needed completion
    3. the resident had acknowledged that he had not reported the damp straightaway and the surveyor had confirmed the property was habitable
    4. as a gesture of goodwill, it would credit the resident’s rent account with an amount (£268.14) equivalent for the rent between 30 December 2019 and 17 January 2020.

The landlord noted on the same day that it had told the resident that he would need to provide signed confirmation that he was vacating the property.

  1. The landlord sent an acknowledgement on 31 January 2020 that it had received a notice to quit from the resident. It added that £268.14 would be credited to the rent account.
  2. The landlord sent internal emails on 3 February 2020 that show that it received the keys for the property back from the resident on this date.

Assessment and findings

  1. In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The resident has suggested during the complaints process that there was mould present in the property from the beginning of his tenancy. However, this Service has not seen any evidence to indicate that this issue was reported until late December 2019 and, given no complaint was made until January 2020, it would be out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider matters dating back to January 2018.
  3. The resident made initial reports of mould growth in his bathroom on 25 December 2019 and 29 December 2019. The landlord’s website sets out that tenants are responsible for addressing mould growth unless this becomes a consistent issue. Nevertheless, the landlord advised the resident on 30 December 2019 that it would inspect the property – this approach was reasonable and resolution-focused as the landlord demonstrated it was willing to consider addressing the mould growth even though it had not been reported by the resident before and so had not been determined as a long-standing problem.
  4. Before the landlord conducted the mould growth inspection, the resident reported a leak through the bathroom light fitting on 31 December 2019. According to its repairs priorities, the landlord was required to class this as an emergency repair and complete works within 24 hours. It is unclear exactly when the landlord attended to stop the leak through the light fitting but it did record the job as complete the following day and inspected the property on 2 January 2020, which was the following working day – these actions were therefore appropriate.
  5. The landlord inspected the resident’s property and a neighbouring property on 2 January 2020. It subsequently noted that it had diagnosed a leak from a neighbouring property bath waste pipe (it is unclear if this was the same leak that had impacted the bathroom light fitting). The landlord is obliged to remedy leaks as an urgent repair within 5 working days under its repairs priorities. Evidence seen by this Service indicates that the landlord was aware that leaks were ongoing at least as late as 17 January 2020 (in its final complaint response, it advised that two leaks were resolved on this date). This was almost three weeks after the initial leak report so the landlord did not remedy the leak within the 5 working day period its policy required – this was therefore inappropriate.
  6. The resident advised the landlord on 29 December 2019 that he had vacated the property due to health and safety concerns. This was four days after he initially reported the mould growth. Given mould treatment was the responsibility of the resident, it was not unreasonable that the landlord did not organise alternative accommodation for the resident.
  7. It is of concern that no inspection report has been provided for the visit on 2 January 2020. However, the landlord advised the resident on 10 January 2020 that it did not agree the property had been uninhabitable due to the condition of the bathroom and it confirmed this decision following its inspection on 17 January 2020. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider the habitability of the property during its inspections and to base its conclusions on these visits and no evidence has been seen by this Service to demonstrate that the landlord was obliged to move the resident to alternative accommodation.
  8. Following its inspection on 17 January 2020, the landlord set out a schedule of remedial works to the bathroom. These included plastering works that it would have been required to complete within 20 working days. However, shortly after this, the resident advised the landlord that he was awaiting a move date from a new landlord and so could not confirm dates for access and he returned the keys for the property on 3 February 2020 – the landlord was therefore not given the opportunity to complete follow-on works within the 20 working days and there was no service failure on its part in this regard.
  9. The landlord reviewed its actions through the complaints process and decided to credit the rent account to the value of £268.14 (equivalent to the rent charge for the period 30 December 2019 to 17 January 2020). It was not obliged to waive rent given it had determined on a couple of occasions within this period that the property was habitable. Nevertheless, the level of the credit applied to the rent account was in line with the compensation that this Service would expect to be awarded where there has been service failure over a considerable period of time, including in addressing repairs. The compensation awarded was therefore proportionate given the circumstances of the case.
  10. In summary, the landlord’s initial response to the mould growth reports was reasonable and it took appropriate steps to consider the resident’s concerns about the condition of the bathroom. There was a delay in it remedying leaks from above that had contributed to the mould growth but its financial award represented reasonable redress for this service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress for the service failure in its handling of the reports of mould growth in his property.

Reasons

  1. The landlord delayed in resolving a leak into the resident’s bathroom but its decision to reimburse the resident £268.14 was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.