Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited (202105716)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105716

Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited

24 June 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 response to the resident’s report of a leak.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for dehumidifiers.
4. The landlord’s handling of its provision of loft re-insultation.
5. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation.
6. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a three-bedroom house under an assured tenancy which tenancy was transferred to the resident on 20 July 2010. The resident was recorded as vulnerable. During the period covered by this investigation, the resident reported to the landlord her health issues.

Legal and policy framework

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord’s obligations included keeping the structure and exterior of the premises in repair, including the roof, major internal plasterwork, chimneys and chimney stacks. The resident’s obligations included keeping the interior of the premises in good repair and in clean and good decorative condition. The landlord could offer assistance if the resident was disabled. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, the resident would be responsible for undertaking mould treatments caused by condensation.
Under section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord covenanted that the property was fit for habitation in relation to freedom from damp.
Under the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord promised to:
1. Ensure homes were efficiently maintained to a high standard.
2. Provide an efficient, prompt and cost-effective responsive repairs service.
3. Promote understanding of the landlord’s legal responsibilities and mutual obligations in relation to responsive repairs issues.
4. Achieve high standards in customer care and high levels of customer satisfaction.
5. Provide a framework to monitor the performance of the response repairs service to seek continuous improvement.
6. Take account of the needs of vulnerable customers.
The repair policy stated that:
1. It aimed to respond to emergency repairs within 3 hours and complete within 24 hours. An emergency meant an immediate threat to the health, safety or security of a customer, occupant or property.
2. Responsive repairs would normally be completed within 5 and 20 working days, depending on priority. If the situation was causing discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance to the occupants and was likely to lead to further deterioration to the property if the problem persisted, then it would prioritise and offer an appointment within 5 working days.
3. Where repairs were more extensive than anticipated, “follow-on works” would be arranged which could take between 10 and 30 working days.
4. Inspections, when required, for example for dampness and structural defects, would be attended within 10 working days. Following the inspection, the inspecting officer would arrange for the repair order to be raised based as appropriate and agree a suitable appointment slot with the customer.
Under the landlord’s complaints policy, the landlord promised to “listen and show empathy, take ownership and focus on resolution”.
Making a complaint was a two-stage procedure. Under Stage 1, an assigned officer would be proactive and try to resolve the issue rather than make an ‘official decision.’ The landlord would provide a full written response within 10 working days. It would explain and notify the tenant of any delay. A tenant could request escalation of the complaint. Again, the landlord would be “proactive” and provide a full written response within 20 working days.

Chronology

On 15 April 2019, the resident reported damp to a wall in the living room. The landlord carried out an inspection on 13 May 2019. A repair was carried out on 10 October 2019 to brick up an obsolete vent opening right of window both inside and out and fit insulation to the cavity. The evidence indicated that the landlord carried out decorative works. The resident informed the landlord that she was happy with the outcome.
The landlord inspected the property on 10 January 2020 and found brickwork was “bulging”. It was to be re-inspected in April 2020. On 10 March 2020, the resident reported damp to her front door. A job was raised to inspect the external brickwork. On 22 April 2020 the landlord inspected the brickwork above and to the left of the front door for damp.
On 16 September 2020, following a report on 27 August 2020, the landlord identified damp/mould at the bottom of the stairs and above the front door and in the resident’s bedroom next to an air vent.
On 11 November 2020, according to the landlord’s records, the resident reported that she had a number of illnesses and disabilities which were getting worse due to the conditions in her home. She “desperately needed” the repair work to be carried out to stop a draught and a leak in her bedroom. She said even carrying out works to the external brickwork would assist. The landlord considered whether to treat the repair as urgent. According to the landlord’s records, it did not have the capacity to carry out the job. The resident chased the job on 23 November 2020. It was booked for 27 November 2020 as the closest mutually-available date. On 27 November 2020, the landlord informed the resident that it would arrange for a bricklayer to attend that afternoon.
On 30 November 2020, the landlord’s contractor or operative was due to attend the next day to repair a roof leak. The following day, the resident chased the delivery of a de-humidifier and the roof repair at several times of the day.
According to the landlord’s records, the resident made a complaint on or around 1 December 2020 in relation to her report of 11 November 2020 as follows:
1. The landlord noted that a job had been raised on 27 November 2020 to seal up two tulip vents and on 1 December 2020 regarding a roof leak “coming through the roof” when it rained and was coming through a corner of the bedroom ceiling. The landlord had bricked up the tulip vents but was not able to identify where water would be getting in.
2. The works to repair the leak and a promise to deliver a humidifier were not carried out. There had been draughts and a constant leak in her bedroom from the roof/ceiling. The property and her belongings were damp which was worsening her health.
The landlord logged this as an informal complaint on 1 December 2020.
On 2 December 2020, the resident chased progress of the repairs. The landlord was waiting for an update from its contractors. It called the resident who expressed her disappointment with its services and with conflicting information regarding reimbursement. The landlord agreed to treat her complaint formally.
The resident reported on 3 December 2020 that the landlord had not delivered the humidifier as arranged.
On the following day, according to an internal email, the resident reported that the dehumidifier had still not been delivered and that the mould had spread. She required a skip to dispose of items that had been affected by the mould and an additional dehumidifier for other rooms. According to the landlord’s records, the landlord officers were not returning the resident’s calls. The landlord deemed that additional humidifiers were not needed as it was not a damp issue but did not contact the resident in order to explain this. Another officer of the landlord attempted to resolve this by seeking to arrange a call back.
According to an internal email, the resident had telephoned the landlord a number of times over the previous few days regarding a roofing repair. Its contractor or operative had identified some minor repairs which, in its view, were not causing any significant impact on the property and would have these completed as soon as it was possible. It had supplied a dehumidifier as there was some mould and a smell of damp in the bedrooms but this related to poor ventilation. It had inspected the property. There was some mould on the windows upstairs but this was not severe. Given there was a dispute about the cause of the damp, it suggested there be an inspection by a surveyor in order to identify further works if the dehumidifier did resolve the issue.
The landlord logged a complaint on 8 December 2020 regarding delays in resolving the “alleged” leak and staff conduct. The follwing day, the landlord sent £25 to the resident as a contribution to her electricity costs.
On 14 December 2020, the landlord informed the resident that the repair works would not be going ahead. The resident accepted it would be carried out when it resumed “normal repairs”, so it is assumed the works could not go ahead due to lockdown. There was no reference to the job number in the repairs records and therefore it was not possible to identify which job the landlord was referring to.
According to the resident, a contractor was due to attend on 1 December 2020 to identify where the leak was coming from. The leak then started coming down her second bedroom wall via the chimney breast. A contractor attended on 15 December 2020. He located the leak and repaired the chimney stack that had been letting in rain for “nearly a year”. She reported he was “glad” she had dehumidifiers in order to address the damp and humidity.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 5 January 2021. According to the resident, during the course of her communications with the landlord at that time, the landlord identified that the loft insulation was below standard. It was due to be replaced once lockdown eased but she reported that she did not hear further from the landlord after January 2021.
According to the resident, two industrial dehumidifiers were collected on or around 23 December 2020. According to the landlord’s records, a dehumidifier was also collected between 27 January 2021 and 1 February 2021.
There followed a gap in the evidence, except that on 17 May 2021, there was a reference in the landlord’s records to the resident’s complaint having been closed.
The landlord wrote two letters to the resident dated 8 June 2021 and headed “Stage one” and “Stage two” respectively from the same senior manager. The content was the same except the Stage 2 response referred the resident to this service.
The letters referred to a complaint the landlord received on 21 May 2021 and stated as follows:
1. It had reviewed the resident’s complaint and did not uphold her request for compensation for cleaning products and bags. The landlord had stated it would not be reimbursing the resident for cleaning products over the phone, as the condensation was a “lifestyle issue” and the tenant’s responsibility to manage.
2. It stated that the complaint was “first reported” following an “unfortunate situation” where its supervisor would not take a call from the resident regarding the delivery of a dehumidifier. The supervisor’s manager investigated this matter, offered her an apology and spoke “at some length” in relation to condensation in her property. It had arranged the delivery of the dehumidifier and agreed several payments for the electricity the equipment would use.
3. The manager had provided his direct mobile number, had several long conversations and arranged a surveyor’s inspection that confirmed there were no structural defects at her home. The issue was condensation for which the landlord took no responsibility. It gave her advice on how to reduce condensation. It was also noted that the loft space would benefit from reinsulating. This was deemed not to be urgent and would be added to its backlog repairs list and attended to when possible.
4. It appreciated she may have been incorrectly advised at the beginning of the complaint that there was a possibility of compensation, and it apologised for this miscommunication. It offered her a £25 voucher in compensation.
5. It felt that in communicating with the resident and working to resolve the issues the landlord went “over and above” and that all matters were resolved. The landlord had contacted her to arrange the loft re insulation. She declined it pending the resolution of the complaint. It had re–raised the insulation job and asked for it to be given priority.
On 27 July 2021, an inspection was raised to the chimney breast in the living room for damp.
On 12 May 2022, a job was raised to inspect the roof, repair the “problem” and remove wet patches to chimney breast caused by rain.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman was somewhat hampered in this investigation by gaps in the landlord’s records, either due to the landlord’s record keeping or the landlord did not provide the complete relevant repair records to this service. As this report identifies, while well-maintained in general, the records contained inconsistencies, the job references referred to did not correlate with the repair records and there were clearly gaps in the records, in particular as regards telephone contacts.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak.

The first evidence of a report of a leak was on 11 November 2020. It is not clear from the evidence whether the damp in the resident’s bedroom that she had reported on 27 August 2020 was linked to her report of that leak. Nevertheless, it was reasonable that in response to the resident’s call on 23 November 2020, the landlord prioritised the works and, on 15 December 2020, addressed the further leak in her second bedroom. There was no evidence of a report of other structural leaks until after the conclusion of the complaints procedure.
It was reasonable of the landlord, given there was a dispute about the cause of the damp, to arrange for an inspection by a surveyor. The inspection, again, took place outside the 10 working days timescale, however allowance has to be made for the intervening Christmas holiday period.
The evidence showed that the landlord responded promptly and within its service timescales to the reports of a leak. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman has not identified a service failure in relation to the resident’s reports of leaks.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.

The evidence showed that the landlord’s inspections in relation to the resident’s reports of damp fell outside its own policy of inspections within 10 working days. It did however, as referred to above, prioritise as far as it was able to, works following the resident’s contact on 23 November 2020.
It was reasonable of the landlord to instruct a surveyor, given the dispute as to the cause of damp and mould. The Ombudsman notes that the resident still disputes the landlord’s surveyor’s finding that there was no structural cause for the damp and mould at her home. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its surveyor. The Ombudsman is unable to draw any conclusions as to the cause of the damp as this would be outside its expertise and remit of investigation. However, the Ombudsman would nevertheless expect the landlord to investigate the causes of the damp and mould and consider whether there were any steps it could have taken to alleviate the condition of the house, apart from merely giving the resident advice regarding condensation.
While outside the period of investigation, it is noted that, following an inspection of the chimney breast on 27 July 2021, a repair job was arranged and completed on 24 August 2021, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the chimney breast was the cause or contributing to the damp and mould the resident experienced. However, the landlord was entitled to rely on the report of the surveyor stating that it did not identify a structural defect and it was reasonable of the landlord to nevertheless arrange a fresh inspection.
While there was no evidence that the property was not fit for habitation, the landlord has a legal obligation to ensure the property was free from damp. Moreover, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to be proactive in its approach. It is not satisfactory or appropriate to attribute blame to the resident and merely dismiss damp and mould as “lifestyle issues” without looking further into the causes. The Ombudsman refers the landlord to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould. There was no evidence of the landlord being proactive in its investigations, but rather resisting the resident’s request for assistance. Aside from identifying the need for improved insulation, there was no evidence of the landlord taking steps such as inspecting the fans, windows, heating systems. Moreover, the landlord promised a high standard of service which, in the view of the Ombudsman, it fell short of in this regard. The evidence showed there had been a history of damp at the property. It would have been appropriate to have reviewed the matter in the context of that history. Had it done so, it may have arranged for a second inspection sooner. There was no evidence that the landlord had taken note of the resident’s health issues that she had described. Therefore, and taken altogether, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration in relation to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for dehumidifiers.

While it is not clear from the evidence exactly when the landlord promised the resident a dehumidifier, this would have been or around 30 November 2020. The evidence showed that the dehumidifier was delivered within a few days, which was reasonable, although the resident was required to chase its delivery.
The evidence showed, and the landlord acknowledged, that an officer of the landlord declined to contact the resident and explain its decisions to her. The lack of communication by the landlord was a cause of frustration for the resident and did not improve the resident/landlord relationship. The lack of communication was unjustified and did not demonstrate the standards of service set out in its repairs policy. However, the landlord was transparent, it openly and fully acknowledged its failure and apologised for the conduct of its officers.
The position regarding the dehumidifiers was not clear. The landlord considered it was not obliged to provide a dehumidifier, yet it did so. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have assisted the resident by supplying her with a dehumidifier, given the resident’s poor health, vulnerability, and given its promise in the tenancy agreement to consider assisting a vulnerable tenant, even where the landlord considered that the responsibility for the repairs lay with the resident. In any event, the landlord was not entitled to assume it had no responsibility, as already set out in this report. In the circumstances, it was reasonable that the landlord delivered more than one dehumidifier. It was also reasonable that it paid for the additional electricity costs. The Ombudsman considers that taken overall, and while recognising the resident’s frustration and distress caused by the landlord’s poor communication, there was no service failure in the provision of dehumidifiers.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for adequate loft insultation.

The evidence showed that the landlord offered the resident re-insulation but did not raise this as a job. However, it is noted that it was deemed to be non-urgent. There was a backlog of jobs following the various lockdowns, and, according to the landlord, the resident had deferred the works until the complaint had been resolved. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman does not consider there was service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation.

The landlord acknowledged that there was a miscommunication regarding the landlord’s promise of compensation to pay for cleaning products. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to abide by its promises or provide a reasonable explanation for not doing so. There was no indication of the cost of the products that the resident incurred, but the sum of £25 was reasonable in the circumstances. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident made a complaint in November 2020 which was referred to its complaint team on 1 December 2020. It was logged as an “informal complaint” and was upgraded to a formal Stage 1 complaint shortly after. However, there is no evidence of the landlord responding to that complaint, until its Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses, both dated 8 June 2021. The delay in response was significant and unexplained.
According to the landlord’s records, it had logged two complaints on 1 and 8 December 2020, yet the letters of 8 June 2021 referred to a complaint of 11 May 2021. The resident’s complaint was not provided to the Ombudsman who, however, understands that it referred to a request for compensation for cleaning products to clean the mould. There was no evidence that the landlord acknowledged any of the complaints and provided a reference number. This meant that the resident would have no way of knowing, except by inference, whether the letters of 8 June 2021 were a response to her complaint of November 2020, December 2020 or May 2021. While there had been a reference in May 2021 to the landlord closing the complaint, there was no formal letter or explanation. Both letters of 8 June 2021 were identical except they were headed stage 1 and Stage 2 respectively, and the Stage 2 response referred the resident to this service. The content of the 8 June 2021 letters did not address the substantive issue of the leaks and damp. It is evident from the content (as well as the date) that the Stage 2 response did not constitute a review of its Stage 1 response, which is the purpose of a second stage.
The complaint handling was inadequate and inappropriate. The landlord’s complaint handling did not comply with the landlord’s own procedures. While it acknowledged and apologised for its officer’s failure to take the resident’s call, it did not appear to recognise its failures in its complaint handling or note any learning. The delays in its responses and lack of meaningful review not only increased the resident’s frustration but missed its opportunity to explain its decisions and approach and to review its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Determinations

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the resident’s report of a leak.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the resident’s report of damp and mould in her property.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for dehumidifiers.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for adequate loft re-insultation.
In accordance with Paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was, in the view of the Ombudsman, reasonable redress offered in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The evidence showed that the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s reports of leaks when a leak was identified. It arranged for an inspection of defects in order to investigate any further leaks. While it transpired there was an issue with the chimney breast, the Ombudsman will not infer any retrospective conclusions.
The landlord too readily abnegated its responsibilities and failed to show any proactive steps in relation to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It failed to investigate whether there were any steps it could take to alleviate the condition of the property. It did not demonstrate any of the principles of its own repair policy in particularly given the vulnerabilities of the resident.
The evidence showed that despite its approach and poor communication, the landlord provided dehumidifiers and made contributions towards the resident’s additional utility costs.
The landlord identified the need for re-insulation. The delays were not attributable to any significant degree, if at all, to the landlord.
The landlord recognised its failure regarding its promise of compensation and its offer of compensation that constituted reasonable redress.
The landlord failed to address the resident’s complaint made in November 2020. The response was either delayed or non-existent, it failed to provide any clarity to the process, it did not comply with its own complaint procedure, and it failed to undertake a proper review.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £700 in addition to the £25 voucher offered within 28 days as follows:
1. £300 in relation to the resident’s report of damp and mould in her property.
2. £400 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord is also ordered to:
1. Arrange a fresh inspection within 21 days of the property in order to identify the cause of the damp and mould, including investigating the chimney breast, extractor fans, windows and heating systems, and to establish whether there are any further steps it can take to alleviate the condition of the property. This should include reviewing any outstanding works identified by the inspection of the chimney breast of 27 July 2021.
2. The landlord should ensure that orders for any works identified following its inspection of the property are raised within 14 days of that inspection. It should then write to the resident to confirm what works have been identified, together with a schedule of works and timescale of those works and provide a copy of that letter to the Ombudsman.
3. Review its complaint handling processes within 28 days in order to ensure that it acknowledges all complaints in writing, allocates a consistent reference, ensures that its responses are given within its policy timescales, addresses all the issues raised comprehensively and undertakes a meaningful Stage 2 review. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman within 28 days with an outcome of the review.
The landlord should confirm compliance to the Housing Ombudsman service with the above orders within 35 days of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should make the necessary arrangements to install loft insulation if it has not already done so.
The landlord should share with its repair staff and senior management the Ombudsman’s report Spotlight on damp and mould, Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)and puts the recommendations into practice and is cautious about attributing “lifestyle” as the cause when are no structural defects in the property.
The landlord should review its record keeping and consider keeping a written record of its telephone conversations so that it can retain a record of agreements, actions and decisions by the landlord.
The landlord should ensure all relevant staff are aware of the Complaint Handling Code and consider attendance at training events, such as learning from complaints workshops – https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/workshops/.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 28 days of this report.