Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Wandle Housing Association Limited (201916149)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201916149

Wandle Housing Association Limited

25 November 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 complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in her bathroom, in relation to its offer of compensation.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident occupied her home with her daughter under an assured tenancy with the landlord. The tenancy began on 6 July 2009. The property was a two-bedroom house. The resident suffered both serious physical and mental health issues. The resident was deemed by the landlord to be vulnerable.

Legal and policy framework

  1. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord had an obligation to maintain the structure of the property.
  2. Under Section 9a of the Housing Act 1985, the landlord had an obligation to keep the property fit for habitation in relation to damp and mould.
  3. Under the landlord’s repair policy, it set out that an appointed repair was one that was not an emergency and should be dealt with within 28 days of it being reported. It included repairing guttering, broken extractor fans, minor roof repairs and containable water leaks.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy set out a 2–stage procedure.
  5. The compensation policy set out that the landlord would offer compensation and in doing so would consider the extent of any service failures and the impact of these on the customer. In deciding the amount of compensation, it would consider factors such as the duration of the service failure, the severity of the situation, whether there were multiple service failures, the cumulative impact on the customer, and the customer’s particular circumstances. It either did not have or did not provide to the Housing Ombudsman any scales of compensation it would use to decide on appropriate compensation.

Chronology

  1. The facts are not in dispute in this case. What is in dispute is the level of compensation that the landlord has offered the resident. In the circumstances, this report will not recite the events in detail but will focus on the areas which had particular impact on the resident and would have a particular bearing on the level of compensation.
  2. The resident first reported mould and damp in her bathroom in April 2019. The report itself has not been provided to this service but according to the landlord it was made on 17 April 2019. The landlord identified that a growth of ivy from a neighbouring property onto the roof was the cause. The ivy was the responsibility of the neighbour whose ivy was overgrowing and who delayed cutting it back or removing it. However, the damp and mould returned weeks later, even once the ivy had been removed.
  3. The resident chased this several times. Despite the landlord attending the property on 17 July 2019, the repairs team did not re-attend until 5 September 2019, when it mould–washed and decorated the bathroom. A roofing contractor attended on 9 September to trim an overhanging tree and cleared the gutters from debris from the tree. Most of the ivy had been cleared in the meantime.
  4. In response to a further report by the resident on 5 November 2019, the landlord attended with its contractor on 21 November 2019 and cleared the gutters. The landlord reported that the loft space should be checked. On inspecting the property on 27 November 2019, the landlord found that damp had damaged the tiles and bathroom decoration. An electrician checked the extractor fan, which was found to be functional, but identified mould in the bathroom.
  5. On 16 and 17 December 2019, repairs were carried out together, including a further mould wash and painting of the walls, and were completed two days later. This did not rectify the issues.
  6. On 17 January 2020, the loft was inspected. The landlord noted there had bene some mould growth from photographs, but the contractor had not report this at the time. On 30 January 2020, an electrician cleaned and overhauled the bathroom extractor as requested by the resident.
  7. On 4 February 2020, the resident’s family liaison officer wrote to the landlord noting the damp in the property was affecting the resident’s physical and mental health.
  8. The resident reported a further leak on 10 February 2020. According to the landlord, it inspected the same day and arranged a further inspection of the guttering and roof, and for further works, which were carried out on 1 March 2020. The works consisted of treating the mould and painting the walls, renewing the bath, and removing the damp loft insulation with a view to replacing it.
  9. On 16 March 2020, the resident’s occupational therapist wrote to the landlord and reported that the housing conditions posed a serious risk to the resident’s health and quality of life. She also reported that the damp and mould were damaging the bathroom, bedrooms and living room. One leak was identified from under the bath, which meant that there was a drop sheet cover over the bath for months. The resident had been told to put a bucket under the ceiling in her living room. Throughout the process, the resident reported impact of the mould and damp on her mental health.
  10. According to the landlord, an inspection of the guttering and parapet wall took place on 1 April 2020. It referred to damp and water penetration into the top–floor rooms and hallway.
  11. On a date in April 2020, works to clear the gutters and remove foliage were carried out. Again, the issue had persisted. At this point time, the repairs team believed there was no leak from the roof. On 14 April 2020, the landlord informed the resident that works were affected by the lockdown.
  12. The landlord inspected the loft on 9 July 2020. Some water penetration was identified in an area which had been previously inspected. Mould treatment was carried out in the bathroom and new rolls of loft insulation were supplied in anticipation of roof works being carried out. It was reported there was no leak in the roof but that there was residual damp.
  13. On 21 July 2020, the landlord upgraded the extractor fan in the bathroom.
  14. On 4 August 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident stating that the previously significant water ingress from the roof had been rectified. It had inspected a number of times but identified no actual water penetration. However, it would inspect in any event as the loft area was unsightly and the bathroom was still being effected by moisture.
  15. The landlord carried out another mould wash and painted the bathroom ceiling on 19 August 2020. It inspected the loft space again on 10 September 2020. There was very little damp but it would re-inspect.
  16. The landlord re-attended on 27 October 2020, after a spell of heavy rain. It identified a leak to the roof and as a result of this a “small amount” of water was penetrating the loft, causing the damp and mould in the bathroom. Remedial works were completed on 9 December 2020. It required a specialist liquid coating to address the water penetration in the box guttering and parapet wall. There was a visit on 12 January 2021 to carry out a final inspection of the loft space and to arrange replacement of the loft space’s insulation and carry out any further decoration to the bathroom.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident’s report on 17 April 2019 that ivy from the property next door had not been cut down and was causing her issues in the bathroom was escalated to a complaint. On or around 11 July 2019, the resident was informed the landlord had arranged repairs and the complaint was closed without having provided a formal response to the complaint.
  2. The resident made a fresh complaint on 17 January 2020. The landlord replied on 13 February 2020 and, by way of resolution, set out what actions it would take by 13 March 2020.
  3. On a date in May 2020, the landlord closed the resident’s complaint. On 6 May 2020, the resident objected and the complaint was re-opened. It does not seem that the closure letter, which appeared to have been a closure survey, was provided to this service. However, the landlord accepted this was an error and the letter was not clear. According to the landlord’s internal email, the survey was generated because the case had been escalated as a priority list.
  4. The landlord wrote on 16 September 2020 with its second stage response. It set out a chronology and stated it had undertaken all appointed repairs to a competent standard within a reasonable timeframe and therefore had met its repair obligations. It also stated that the leak was resolved. It would undertake a further damp survey in order to reassure the resident
  5. According to the landlord’s records, it made offers of compensation to the resident on the telephone, initially for £250 and then for £500, which the resident declined.
  6. At the resident’s request, the landlord reviewed the complaint on 18 December 2020.
    1. It recognised that if it had carried out the tests of 27 October 2020 sooner, it would have been able to resolve the issue sooner. It did not identify the root cause of the problem until months after the resident had reported the issue. It recognised that the correct level of investigation needed to be carried out to prevent reoccurring issues.
    2. It recognised several incidents where it had failed to provide the level of service that it aimed to deliver and had caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
    3. In relation to the complaint handling, the landlord explained that progress of the January 2020 complaint was affected by staffing issues and the ensuing lockdown. It was then put on hold pending works being carried out. It accepted its communication in May 2020 was confusing. It did not effectively investigate the issues at the first stage of the complaints process.
    4. It recognised it had provided a sub-standard service by way of poor communication and internal administrative failings.
    5. It made an offer of £1,000 broken down as follows:
      1. £500 for the delays in rectifying the repairs issues including for the distress and inconvenience caused.
      2. £250 for the multiple service failures found in relation to the numerous opportunities it had to rectify this issue sooner.
      3. £250 for the administrative errors in its responses which were a poor level of communication when handling the complaint in the initial stages.

Assessment and findings

  1. There was a significant and inappropriate delay in the landlord’s response to the resident’s initial report of damp and mould in her bathroom, from 17 April 2019 to 5 September 2019, given the response time of 28 days in the landlord’s repair policy. However, the landlord’s responses after the resident’s report in November 2019 in terms of timescales and whether it took action was reasonable. The landlord was proactive in that it cleared the gutters, it cleaned and painted the bathroom a number of times and it attended to the extractor on several occasions.
  2. While the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and took action each time, as it itself acknowledged, it, or its contractors, missed the root cause or one of the causes of the mould and damp. The reasons for the landlord having missed the leak in the roof are not entirely clear, or whether it was entirely at fault. The causes of the damp and mould appeared to have been due to a number of different causes, including the tree shedding debris into the gutter, and a leak under the bath.
  3. Moreover, the landlord inspected the loft on a number of occasions, including on 17 January 2020, on a date in April 2020 and 4 August 2020. Each time it concluded that it did not find evidence of water penetration. However, the evidence also showed that there were a number of occasions when the issue was missed (for example 17 January 2020). The evidence also showed that the landlord did not follow its own or the contractor’s advice (for example after the inspection on 21 November 2019) either as thoroughly as it could have done or at all. Moreover, given the issue persisted, the landlord should have comprehensively reviewed the recent history of reports and works at the property and taken this into account when deciding what further investigation was needed to identify and address the root cause, or causes, of the damp and mould.
  4. It was appropriate of the landlord to pursue the inspection of the roof on 27 October 2020 when it identified there was a leak in the roof. It was right to have expectations of itself to be thorough in its investigations and to persevere despite the belief the evidence did not show there was water ingress. It was reasonable of the landlord to accept responsibility for missing the leak in the roof.
  5. The Ombudsman has noted the letters of support referring to the effect on the resident’s heath and quality of life. The Ombudsman cannot assess the extent to which a landlord’s service failure or maladministration has contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and /or mental health. It cannot assess medical evidence and does not make findings on matters such as negligence. However, the Ombudsman may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by a particular service failure by a landlord.
  6. The impact on the resident was evidenced by her own reports and by the evidence of her family support worker, and that of her occupational therapist. The extent of the impact on the resident was also evidenced by the number of occasions that the landlord redecorated the bathroom. The evidence showed that the damp and mould spread beyond the bathroom, given the reference to damp to the top floor rooms. The matter went unresolved from April 2019 to January 2021, a period of over 20 months. There were a number of repeat visits resulting in inconvenience and upheaval for the resident.
  7. The landlord did not set out its rationale for the offer made or provide its compensation tariff, if it has one. However, the Housing Ombudsman can and does make its own awards. Its principles are set out in in Remedies Guidance. Guidance on remedies (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
  8. In all of the circumstances, the landlord’s offer of compensation  of £750, which equated to approximately £37.50 a month, did not properly reflect the impact of the mould and damp on the resident, in particular given her vulnerabilities. Given the impact on the resident in these particular circumstances, an offer of £1,000 would be more appropriate.
  9. It is recognised that after the initial delays in 2019, the landlord was proactive. It is also recognised that, while it should have been more thorough, it may not have been self-evident throughout that the issues lay with the roof. It is further recognised that the landlord persevered with an inspection in different weather to in August 2020. It is also recognised that the landlord did go some way to compensating the resident. If the landlord had not recognised its failings and made an offer of compensation, the Ombudsman would have made a finding of maladministration rather than service failure.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The delays in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling were significant. It closed the first complaint without ever responding to it. It initially failed to investigate the resident’s second complaint and wrote a letter than was confusing to the resident. However, it reasonably undertook not one, but two, reviews which resulted in an increased offer of compensation and an acceptance of its failings. In the end, the landlord was open and recognised its failures. It made an offer of compensation which was in line with what the Ombudsman would expect to see in these type of circumstances. In the circumstances of this case, the level of compensation in relation to its complaint handling was appropriate and in the Ombudsman’s opinion constituted reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in her bathroom, in relation to its offer of compensation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the compensation offered to the resident was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. After the initial delays, the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s reports both in timescales and by taking actions. However, and as the landlord has acknowledged, it failed to investigate sufficiently thoroughly. Given the impact on the resident, in all of the circumstances, £1,000 would be the more appropriate remedy.
  2. There were numerous failures by the landlord in its complaint handling. However, the landlord recognised its failings and made a reasonable offer of compensation.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay a total of £1,250 to the resident, to include the £1000 already offered, or the remaining balance, as appropriate, within 28 days.
  2. The landlord should confirm compliance to the Housing Ombudsman service with the above order within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should share the Housing Ombudsman’s report on mould and damp published in October 2021 with its repairs and housing management teams and the relevant managers should review the recommendations set out in that report as well as consider the lessons from this case, if it has not already done so, to carry out more extensive investigations when issues persist over a length of time.
  2. The landlord should not send out complaint closure surveys until the complaint is closed, even if the case is being escalated.