Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202105422)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105422

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

21 March 2022

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve damp and mould in the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the decant whilst repairs were taking place.

Jurisdiction

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction;
1. The impact the situation had on the resident’s health and the replacement of damaged goods.
The resident has advised that the situation he was left in, resulted in health issues, both mentally and physically. However, the Ombudsman is unable to establish a causal link between health issues experienced by complainants and the actions of landlords. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of his complaint.
Our position here is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme which provides that: ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure’.
With regards to any damage to his personal possessions and injury, the Ombudsman is not able to establish liability as this is not within our jurisdiction to do. The resident may wish to make an insurance claim and could request details of the landlord’s insurer. Should a claim be registered, the insurer will be able to assess whether the landlord was liable for the damage caused. Additionally, the resident may also be able to raise a claim in relation to any alleged personal injury.
I appreciate the resident has advised the Service that he has new complaint points to raise with regards to his decant that were not mentioned as part of this ongoing case. The resident should raise any new issues with the landlord before the case can be brought to the Service, to ensure that the landlord has an opportunity to investigate and attempt to resolve these issues.
Our position here is in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme which provides that: ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale’

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, living in a ground floor 1-bedroom flat.
The Ombudsman has discretion as to the period of time considered when determining a complaint. This investigation has focussed on events from late 2016 because it is not disputed that the resident has had regular contact with the landlord since that time. While the resident did not make a complaint until January 2021, there is sufficient evidence on which to reach a determination on from 2016.

Summary

In June 2016 the resident contacted the landlord regarding damp issues in the property. The landlord advised the resident that his property had a condensation issue and it sent out a pamphlet regarding condensation. The resident also reported that his extractor fan was not working and had not been working for three weeks. The landlord noted that a repair to the fan had been raised.
In November 2016 the resident contacted the landlord to report issues with mould in the bathroom. The landlord emailed the resident with information sheets to follow the condensation tackling procedure for 6 to 8 weeks.
In December 2016 the resident contacted the landlord. He confirmed he had received information and had been keeping his bathroom window ajar whilst showering. The landlord advised him in addition to the advice already given, to put the heating on to keep the property warm and use antifungal spray on the walls. The resident advised he would try the recommendations for six weeks and if the issue persisted, he would call back.
Records from February 2017 indicate the resident continued to experience mould and damp and an inspection was booked by the landlord and the extractor fan was replaced. A pre-inspection was completed in March 2017 where it was found that the extractor fan was not working sufficiently, and arrangements were made for an environment fan to be installed.
In December 2019 records show that the resident’s fan stopped working and it was suggested this caused the moisture and mould to reappear.
The landlord’s reports indicate an appointment was arranged for the resident’s issues with damp in his property in September 2020, with a further inspection carried out in November 2020. Following this appointment, jobs were booked to mould wash the bathroom and bedroom, renew the extractor fan, redecorate the ceilings, and treat affected areas.
An Environmental Health Practitioner from the council contacted the landlord on 3 March 2021 to notify the landlord of damp issues within the flat, suggesting that there were possible building defects.
On 3 March 2021 the landlord’s contractor attended the property to clean the black mould and bleach the bathroom. An appointment was arranged with the contractor, the landlord and the resident for the following day to identify the issue and how best to move forward.
Following the inspection, the surveyor advised the landlord that there were mould issues in three rooms of the flat – the bathroom, bedroom, and hallway. It also confirmed that the external wall linked to the bathroom was extremely wet up to ceiling level. The surveyor suggested that four access panels be cut into the walls and ceilings to inspect the insulation and also give access to the external wall. The surveyor recommended that the whole bathroom be removed including the walls and ceilings and reinsulating the walls before reboarding could be necessary and ceilings and walls would need reskimming before re-fitting the bathroom. He confirmed the bathroom fan needed to be upgraded to the environment fan.
The surveyor advised that approximately two square meters of the ceiling in the hallway needed to be cut out and insulated, if necessary, then reboarded and redecorated and the same works would be required to the bedroom, with further inspections carried out to the window to confirm water ingress. He advised that some curtains in the hallway needed to be removed as they were covered in mould.
On 4 April 2021 the landlord inspected the property with its contractor and arranged for areas of the affected ceiling and wall finishes to be opened up to check for external sources of damp.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 April 2021 to request an update. He was concerned as he felt his health was deteriorating due to the mould. He explained that he still had holes in his ceiling bringing cold air in as well as bugs and spiders. The resident advised he would seek legal action if he didn’t hear back from the landlord as he had evidence to prove the situation with his health from the GP. He queried where he was supposed to live whilst the works were being carried out and also advised the landlord was aware of his disabilities which was another factor for it to take into consideration. The landlord replied to the resident about the jobs that it was arranging with its contractors. These included:

Renewing all areas of mould spore affected plasterboard to ceilings and walls in the hallway, bedroom, and bathroom, then redecorate.
Renew the extractor fan to the kitchen.
Upgrade the extractor fan to the bathroom.

The landlord also advised it would be checking the external parts of the building for any leaks. It noted that there were exploratory holes made on 26 March 2021 to the ceilings and walls and apologised that these remained, noting its contractor would attend to resolve.
On 20 April 2021 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord given he had been reporting issues with black mould since he moved into the property in 2016. He noted action was only being taken as Environmental Health was involved and the landlord had previously continuously stated it was his lifestyle, but this had now been proven not to be the case. The resident felt being blamed had affected his mental health and given his disability and the cost of mould spray he had been unable to continuously clean the mould every 1-2 weeks. In addition, the resident advised appointments had been cancelled and arranged with less than 24 hours’ notice meaning he struggled to clear areas in the property. He reiterated that the holes made since March remained unfilled, letting in cold air and bugs.
The resident was advised that work would commence on 26 April 2021 with an anticipated completion date of 5 May 2021 and that he would be temporarily rehoused, but he had not received an update on this, and it was causing him severe anxiety. The resident requested an apology from the landlord for the situation he had been left in, and compensation for the effect on his wellbeing.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day advising that he would receive a response within 10 working days.
The landlord visited the resident on 27 April 2021 to inform him of the works that would start the following week. The landlord noted it was anxious to move him out of the property prior to the works which were now planned to be completed by 14 May 2021, however it would keep him updated.
The resident was decanted from 27 April 2021 to 29 May 2021. This was originally due to end on 24 May 2021 however the landlord confirmed the resident was decanted for two weeks longer than expected due to delays in the works by the contractor.
The resident spoke with the landlord on 29 April 2021 as he had been informed, he would be given an allowance whilst decanted.
The landlord issued its first response on 29 April 2021. It partially upheld the complaint as it acknowledged there were missed appointments. It acknowledged that as well as missed appointments, there were occasions where the contractors attended without arranging an appointment and the landlord confirmed this had been raised internally. It advised there had been several repairs and inspections carried out over a period of time however the issue with damp and mould persisted and works would commence on 3 May 2021 to fully resolve the issues, prior to the resident returning. The landlord advised it was not possible to exactly quantify the extent of which the damp was caused by condensation or by external water ingress, but that further external investigations would be carried out at the same time as the internal works. The landlord noted the resident’s reports of damage to his property however explained that it was not within its insurance policy to cover costs for damage as residents were responsible for insuring their own personal belongings. In resolution, the landlord offered £100 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble, and £50 for missed appointments.
On 6 May 2021, the resident chased the allowance for food. The landlord confirmed it would look into the matter.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email received on 12 May 2021, to escalate the complaint on 17 May 2021. It advised the resident would receive a response within 20 working days. The resident sent follow up emails noting concerns about damage to his property, including a damaged suit. He reiterated that further compensation was due, and that his mental and physical needs needed to be considered within the complaint.
On 21 May 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it was safe for him to return to the property the following day or the Sunday, preferably the Sunday to allow the bathroom works to settle. It did advise there were still outstanding jobs which the contractors would attend to the following week. These included:
1. Plastering and decorating ceilings.
2. Fitting a new kitchen fan.
3. Works to external walls.
4. Fitting of new curtains.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 May 2021 to advise that he attempted to return to the property but found it in an unacceptable condition. He was concerned over the tools that were left behind having cut his finger. He noted he was not comfortable returning to the property and requested urgent out of hours assistance. The landlord decanted the resident to a hotel; however, he queried the booking as he was informed this was booked until 29 May but had been advised by the landlord that he could return to the property on 30 May 2021. The hotel noted that there had been a delay in the landlord extending his stay and there was no longer availability for 30 May 2021. The resident expressed his concerns that he needed funds for food and washing urgently as he could not wait until the following week as he had no money. He queried why this was not arranged sooner as the landlord was aware it was extending his stay at the hotel.
The landlord confirmed the booking dates and advised that there would be another meeting at the resident’s property that afternoon to ascertain what went wrong, as it was surprised by his accident. It confirmed the locks had been changed on his patio door and the key safe number changed for his safety. It stressed the importance of the resident not entering the property until it was safe. It advised that food vouchers were being arranged however, that the resident would only receive these the following week. The resident stated he was in desperate need of the money for food and requested a call back about the issue.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 28 May 2021 as he had still not received the money for food. The landlord advised that £140 had been authorized but it was unable to confirm when the resident would receive this. The landlord advised the resident of the food bank and also to speak with his aunt (previously a representative for him) to find out if she could assist.
On 3 June 2021 the landlord issued its second stage response. It acknowledged that before officially returning to the property on 29 May 2021, the resident was advised that the property was safe to return, and he was provided with a key safe code to allow access. It confirmed that at this stage the works had not been completed and the property had not been signed off by a member of staff as being safe to return. The landlord acknowledged the service failure for the resident incorrectly being advised he could return to the property whilst it was still unsafe and upheld this aspect.
The landlord advised that it was appropriate for the resident to be decanted, and he was adequately provided for by the housing team by way of food vouchers and allowance in line with its process for decanted customers. The landlord reiterated its advice from the first response regarding the resident’s damaged property. It acknowledged that since permanently returning to the property, the resident had raised multiple issues with the works completed and it had notified the repairs team and requested an urgent inspection to address this and complete any remedial works. In addition to the compensation offered in its first stage response, it offered an additional £100.00 for time and trouble, and £150.00 for its service failure.
The landlord has confirmed that the works to renew the bathroom and renew the mould damaged plasterboard to ceilings have been completed however, have not provided the date of completion. There are still outstanding works to redecorate the walls in the hallway and bedroom. The landlord also confirmed it was still awaiting confirmation of the findings of the investigative works that were instructed to the bedroom wall to check the correct drainage of the cavity tray over the window and to check that there are no leaks to the water service pipe adjacent to the flank wall in the bedroom.

Assessment and findings

In accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the internal structure of the property. It was therefore necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of damp or mould in his property and to take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified which fell within its repairing obligations. However, when investigating the presence of mould, the parties must also be mindful that the tenancy agreement and responsive repairs policy confirm that the resident is responsible for some minor repairs within his property, including mould treatments due to condensation.
It is therefore necessary to ascertain the cause of the mould before determining who is responsible for resolving the issue and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to indicate that adequate investigations were carried out prior to 2021, and therefore it was premature for the landlord to state the issues were caused by the resident’s lifestyle.
The landlord’s records indicate that the resident has been having issues with damp in his property since 2016. Whilst the landlord provided records that indicate inspections were carried out, there is no evidence of the outcome of those inspections prior to 2021 other than the replacement of the extractor fan on more than one occasion in 2017, and 2019, and mould treatments in 2020. It is unclear why it took the landlord a considerable amount of time to realise that the damp and mould reported by the resident were due to more than condensation, or at least for it to investigate further.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has advised that its repairs team do not have a process in place whereby correspondence is sent after repairs/inspections are completed. This is vital in ensuring that the landlord can satisfy itself that relevant repairs are done following each inspection and whether any issues still persist. In this case it was only after the inspection in 2020 that the landlord took additional steps to try and manage the mould issue in the property, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a significant period of time after the issue was first raised and the landlord has failed to adequately support its actions, and this amounted to service failure.
Additionally, as noted it is not possible to say whether the mould was caused by damp or condensation and, as a result, it is not clear what the landlord has relied upon in concluding that condensation was the issue. Whilst the report of September 2020 confirms the presence of mould based on the jobs carried out, it does not provide any other conclusions on the probable cause of the mould.
The Omudsman further notes that it was only after the Environmental Health Practitioner raised concerns about the building defects in 2021 that the landlord’s own inspection confirmed that major works were required to the property. As aforementioned, inspections should have been carried out previously and the resident should not have had to involve Environmental Health before the landlord took the matter seriously.
In March 2017, the landlords report suggest that a standard fan was not sufficient, and an environment fan was to be installed. It is unclear if an environment fan was actually installed in 2017 as the notes from the surveyor in 2021 advise that there was currently a standard fan in the bathroom which needed to be replaced with an environment fan. Again, had the landlord ensured this work was completed, given the follow-on reports of mould, it may have been alerted that further action was required.
It was necessary for the landlord to decant the resident due to the level of works required to his property. In line with the landlord’s decant policy, it moved him to alternative accommodation prior to the works starting, however there were several periods that the resident had to chase his allowance for food. The landlord’s decant policy does not state how long it will take for the funds to be received by the resident. Evidence provided to the Service by the landlord shows a £40 food voucher was sent to the resident, £580 was sent to the resident’s auntie (at the resident’s request) on 27 April 2021 and a further payment of £140 was sent to the resident’s auntie (at the resident’s request) on 26 May 2021. The landlord did sufficiently keep him updated and offered options whilst the payment was being processed following the extension of the decant. Based on the evidence available, the Ombudsman has not been able to find any service failure by the landlord with regards to the decant process.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord accepted it had incorrectly advised the residnet to return to the property and offered reasonable redress of £150 compensation for inconvenience this caused. This highlights that the landlord was aware of its communication failures and took steps to address the impact this had on the resident.
The landlord acknowledged its failings with regards to appointments missed, and lack of communication about planned appointments and awarded the resident £50. The landlord also accepted that the resident did experience delays and inconvenience caused to the resident and offered a total of £200 in the first stage and second stage responses. Due to the length of time that the resident had to deal with the mould and damp, and the lack of clear investigation into the cause of this by the landlord prior to 2021, the Ombudsman finds that the offer of £200 was not sufficient to address the length of time taken to establish the cause was more than condensation, and it was not reasonable that the landlord only took the relevant action after the resident reported this to Environmental Health.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair work in respect of mould and damp.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the decant.

Reasons

The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that the cause of the mould was condensation. The records it has provided show that it has attended on a number of occasions since 2017 (although the resident had been reporting this since 2016), but only took further action when concerns were raised by the Environmental Health Practitioner. This action should clearly have been taken sooner.
The landlord followed its process to decant the resident after establishing major works were required to the property to resolve the mould and damp issues. It decanted him earlier than the work commencement date due to concerns for his health which the Ombudsman finds was reasonable. The landlord also advised the resident regarding the time it would take to process the allowance payment and suggested options for the resident in the interim such as family assistance and food banks following the extension of the decant due to the delays in the work being completed.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £500. This is in addition to the compensation already offered to the resident. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in cases of maladministration.
The landlord should confirm the results of the investigative works that were instructed to the bedroom wall to check the correct drainage of the cavity tray over the window and to check that there are no leaks to the water service pipe adjacent to the flank wall in the bedroom. It should also confirm if there any further works required as a result of the investigation and confirmation that the jobs have been booked (including dates).

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to:
1. update its Repairs Team process to ensure all records of any investigations and outcomes are clearly noted, with advice of subsequent actions it is going to take.
2. provide the resident with details of its insurer, so the resident may make a claim for his damaged goods and injury, if he so wishes.