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

Guinness Housing Association Limited (202112707)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112707

Guinness Housing Association Limited

30 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, in a block of flats.
  2. Following the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property, a surveyor attended on 23 September 2020 and outlined several external issues that the landlord was responsible for, including clearing the gutters and repointing the brickwork. He also identified several internal works as the resident’s responsibility.
  3. The resident raised a complaint as she was dissatisfied that the repair issues were still ongoing. In her complaint escalation on 18 November 2020, the resident stated that she thought the external issues identified had caused the internal issues with damp and mould.
  4. In its final response on 31 March 2021, the landlord stated that the resident was responsible for all internal repairs to the property. The external work that was outlined by the surveyor’s report had since been completed. It stated that the surveyor had inspected the inside of the property as a gesture of good will and determined there was no water ingress from outside the property. He suggested follow on works and said these would be the resident’s responsibility to complete. The landlord stated it should have inspected the side of the building earlier and this had been completed on 10 March 2021. It offered the resident £400 compensation due to the time taken to resolve the issue.
  5. In her complaint to this Service, the resident stated that she remained dissatisfied as she had hired an independent surveyor who stated that the damp and mould was caused by water ingress. She wanted compensation for financial loss, stress and time and effort in pursuing the issue. She also added that the landlord took ten weeks to provide her with the surveyor’s report.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has also referenced how the landlord’s failure to remedy the damp has impacted her health. It is outside the role of the Ombudsman to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or insurance. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which 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.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

  1. Under the lease agreement, the resident is responsible for keeping “all fixtures and fittings” in good condition and the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the building, including the foundations, roof, gutters and rainwater pipes. As such it was appropriate for the landlord to carry out an inspection following the resident’s report that the external issues were causing damp and mould inside the property.
  2. The landlord completed an inspection on 23 September 2020, in which the surveyor identified several external repairs that needed to be completed by the landlord. The landlord then advised the resident it had visited the property with the surveyor on 21 October 2020, to discuss issues with pointing and the guttering and that it had subsequently arranged the works with its subcontractor.
  3. Following the inspection, the landlord completed the recommended repair works to the guttering at the property on 3 November 2020 and it repointed and replaced missing bricks at the back of the building on 20 November 2020. Additional repair works were completed to the gullies on 29 January 2021 and the gutters on 15 March 2021. Overall, it took the landlord over six months to complete the works raised in the surveyor’s report, which clearly exceeded the landlord’s routine repairs timeframe of 28 days. However, the landlord did demonstrate that it was making progress with the works. Although the landlord provided the resident with updates on the progress of the work, they were sporadic and the landlord would be expected to provide more regular updates, when considering the length of the delays. In particular, the landlord should have ensured it promptly sent the surveyor’s report, following the resident’s request.
  4. There was a more significant delay to inspecting the side of the property. In its stage two response, the landlord explained that it had to reduce the size of the bushes on the exterior of the property before it could inspect the area, which was then completed on 10 March 2021. The landlord raised additional works to renew the brickwork, and it managed the resident’s expectations by outlining a timeframe for the works. The Ombudsman is mindful that given the unprecedented time caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, some of the delay was unavoidable and as such the landlord cannot be held completely responsible.
  5. In her complaint the resident stated that the landlord should have taken responsibility for the internal repairs as she thought the external repair issues had caused the damp and mould. The landlord is expected to rely on its appropriately qualified contractors to make decisions regarding repairs. In its final complaint response, the landlord stated that the contractor had determined that the damp and mould was due to the humidity in the property, rather than water ingress from external defects. The survey report on 23 September 2020 noted that there were high levels of humidity in the property, however, it also said that damp in the kitchen and living room was caused by penetrating damp. In her complaint escalation, the resident highlighted key points from an independent survey that had been completed. The report noted several external causes to the water ingress in the property, including a blocked external gully, an overflowing water down pipe and general ingress. The landlord did not address the external causes raised in either of the inspections in its responses.
  6. While the Ombudsman is unable to comment on whether the landlord is liable for the internal repairs following the damp and mould, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have signposted the resident to its liability insurance to assess her claim; particularly as the landlord had already identified service failure in its handling of the external repairs. However, as the resident advised the landlord on 8 February 2021 that her home insurance was completing the repairs, it was not unreasonable that the landlord determined this aspect of the complaint had been resolved.
  7. The resident has requested for £225 compensation for the independent survey she paid for. As the landlord had completed an inspection, it would not be expected to reimburse the resident for the independent surveyor she hired. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have demonstrated that it had considered the findings from both reports. The resident also requested compensation for rent, however as the landlord had determined it was not liable for the internal repairs, it was reasonable that it declined her request in its stage two response. There was also no indication in the surveyor’s report that the property was uninhabitable, and the resident would require alternative accommodation.
  8. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will issue a stage two response within 20 working days of receiving a complaint escalation. If it cannot adhere to the timeframe, it will provide the resident with an explanation and will not exceed a further ten working days. The resident escalated the complaint on 18 November 2020 and the landlord issued its final response on 31 March 2021, thus vastly exceeding its timeframe. This Service’s complaint handling code states that “a complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed”. Therefore, it was unreasonable for the landlord to delay its complaint response until the repairs had been completed.
  9. However, it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the delay in completing the repairs and issuing its complaint response. It offered £400 compensation as a result of the delays. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance, awards of £250-£750 are appropriate in cases where there has been considerable service failure, including when the landlord has failed to act in line with its policies and the resident has had to chase responses. In this case, the landlord failed to adhere to its repair and complaint timeframes and as a result caused inconvenience and additional time and effort to the resident. In light of these failings, and also given the Covid-19 pandemic, the landlord’s compensation offer was reasonable and appropriately resolved the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and the associated complaint handling satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, it is recommended that the landlord should pay the resident the £400 compensation that it offered previously through its complaints process.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its complaints policy and provides further staff training if it is required, to ensure response timeframes are adhered to.