Onward Homes Limited (202107041)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107041

Onward Homes Limited

2 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property and its handling of the repairs required.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The complaint was raised by both the resident and, at times, by his partner. For clarity, this report will refer to both the resident and his partner as ‘the resident’.
3. The resident initially reported that the walls near his bedroom and living room windows were wet in January 2020, the landlord raised a repair order for an inspection but this was not booked. In July 2020 the resident reported that the guttering at the property was overflowing and causing a leak. In September 2020 the resident reported a slow leak in his bathroom which was causing damage to the flooring. Following this the resident continued to report that there was water coming though the brickwork underneath the windows in his living room and there were a series of rescheduled and cancelled appointments. During November 2020, contractors established that the flooring under the resident’s bath was rotten and the bath would need to be removed for the work to be carried out. It was also established that the external brickwork needed repointing. Work to repair the guttering was completed and an internal mould wash was carried out.
4. In December 2020, the landlord raised several repair requests for the bathroom works. In the living room it arranged for the plaster under the window to be removed and a waterproof membrane to be installed. It was found that there was considerable humidity in the property causing condensation. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord via his local MP about the time taken to resolve the repair issues. He noted that there had been several missed appointments and he had been given differing accounts of what was causing the mould. He added that the black mould had caused additional costs of £1000 as he had needed to replace his flooring.
5. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord noted that the resident had declined the work to his bathroom as he felt the work would damage the flooring currently in place. It agreed to replace the floor covering with a colour of the resident’s choice. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £300 in view of the missed appointments and delay in completing the repair works. It arranged for a second inspection of the external brickwork on 15 February 2021 where it was found that no re-pointing was necessary.
6. The works required in the bathroom were completed in April 2021. Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord in June and July, asking it to respond to his complaint as he said he had not received a response. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response in August 2021 and said that the overall delay had been exacerbated by the resident’s refusal to allow access or agree works. It noted that several appointments had been arranged to address the damp and mould in the living room but contractors had not been able to gain access to the property. It acknowledged that the resident had asked for confirmation of the works in writing before they were carried out and arranged a further inspection of the property that month. It increased its offer of compensation to £350 in view of the inconvenience caused by the repair delays.
7. Following its final response, the landlord confirmed that works to the lounge had been completed and agreed to redecorate. It arranged for a further damp survey in October 2021 and found that the cause of the damp was primarily internal condensation. It noted that an external area of brickwork and piping needed further investigation, which was completed on 21 October 2021.
8. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation. He said that he wanted the level of compensation increased and additional compensation due to decoration costs he had incurred and the time he had taken off work for appointments.  He added that contractors had reported no access to his property to complete repairs despite him being in the property at the time. In February 2022 the resident contacted this Service and said that he was still awaiting some repairs to be completed. This included redecoration of the living room and work to the plastering in the bedroom.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The resident has said he considers that the issues affecting his property have impacted his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the repair issues and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his or his family’s health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property and its handling of the repairs required.

10. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord would be responsible for repairs needed to drains, gutters and external pipes, external walls and window frames as well as the internal walls, floors and ceiling of the property, excluding any painting and decoration. The landlord’s repairs handbook confirms that it would complete routine repairs within 20 working days. In some cases, repairs can take longer; the landlord would be expected to keep in regular contact with the resident and provide updates on the timeframe of the repair. The resident would be responsible for preventing condensation in the property. The landlord would be responsible for repairs required due to damp and mould where the problem has been caused by disrepair.
11. In this case, it is not disputed that the repairs required in the resident’s property took a significant time to complete and there were a series of missed and failed appointments which contributed towards the delay. The resident first reported the bathroom leak in September 2020 and the repairs were not completed until April 2021, which was significantly outside of the landlord’s timescales. Furthermore, the resident had first reported wet walls in his living room and bedroom in January 2020. Whilst this was not pursued by the resident at the time, the evidence suggests that the work to the internal plaster in the property was not carried out until over a year late. This was following his further reports in September 2020, which was significant.
12. The evidence suggests that the resident initially expressed concern about the disruption the works would cause and asked for written confirmation of the bathroom works including the timescales involved, which was not unreasonable. The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to support its claim that the resident had refused the works. There is also no evidence to suggest that the landlord had provided written confirmation of the works, and timescales to the resident as requested, which is likely to have caused uncertainty.
13. Given that the resident had received contradictory information regarding what was causing the damp and mould in the property, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for another inspection of the external brickwork to take place. Ultimately there were no issues found with the pointing in February 2021 and it established that no further work was required. The landlord would be entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff and contractors who originally established that no works were required. It is noted that a surveyor later found an issue with an unused external pipe in October 2021 which was rectified. However, the delay in identifying this issue would not amount to a service failure by the landlord as it there is no means of guaranteeing accuracy in identifying required repairs.
14. In its final response, the landlord explained that the resident had also contributed towards the delay by not allowing access to the property for the works to address the damp and mould in the living room. The resident has disputed this, stating that he had been in the property when ‘sorry we missed you’ cards were posted for various appointments in June and July 2021. When there are conflicting accounts of what happened, with insufficient evidence to confirm either way, it would not be possible for the Ombudsman, as an independent arbiter, to establish what happened. Given that the resident raised concern that he had been present on the dates specified, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have raised his concerns with the contractors to prevent future reoccurrences, however there is a lack of evidence to confirm whether this was done.
15. In his communication with the landlord and this Service, the resident asked for additional compensation in view of the time he had taken off work for missed or cancelled appointments, reimbursement for decoration costs and an amount to acknowledge the time and trouble spent pursuing this matter. The landlord would not be expected to pay for the resident’s loss of earnings for the time he was out of work for appointments as it would be the resident’s responsibility to provide access to the property in line with the tenancy agreement. However, landlords should acknowledge the inconvenience caused by missed or failed appointments and offer compensation accordingly. The landlord acted appropriately by offering £350 compensation in view of several missed appointments and the overall repair delays at this stage of the complaint.
16. The resident also requested compensation for belongings damaged by the damp and mould and decoration costs which he felt the landlord had not addressed in its complaint responses. The landlord told the resident to claim via his home contents insurance for damaged items and decoration costs. Although it would be the resident’s responsibility to insure his belongings against damage, it is unusual for insurers to cover damp and mould damage. Liability for damage to personal items is a legal matter, thus, the resident should consider seeking legal advice regarding how to pursue this aspect of his complaint. Regarding the decoration costs, the landlord had agreed to replace the floor covering in the bathroom with a colour of his choice, it also agreed to redecorate some internal parts of the property although it is noted that this work was outstanding.
17. In line with the tenancy agreement, the resident would usually be responsible for decoration in the property. It must be noted that the resident did not discuss the costs of any redecoration he undertook himself prior to undertaking these and this Service has no evidence that he provided the landlord with receipts in support of his claims. The evidence does not indicate that the property was not habitable prior to the repairs, thus, this Service has not found that partial rent rebate is warranted in this case.
18. The landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident and offering £350 compensation in view of the missed appointments and inconvenience caused by the overall delay in completing the repairs required. The compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, which states that amounts in this range are proportionate where there has been considerable service failure but there may be no permanent impact on the resident. For example, a resident repeatedly needing to chase responses or failure over a considerable period of time to act in line with policy.  Overall, the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to the impact on the resident at the time of its final response.
19. However, there have been further delays in fully resolving the issue and completing the decoration work as agreed, following the stage two complaint response in August 2021. This means that the offer of £350 sufficed only to the extent of its actions up to the final decision but the promised works and redecoration were a most significant and necessary part of the resolution. Therefore, the delays to completing the outstanding works, including redecoration, is a failure to provide adequate service in appropriate resolution of the earlier shortcomings which it acknowledged. As such, the landlord is ordered to pay further compensation to the resident in view of the inconvenience caused by the further delays.

Determination (decision)

20.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property and its handling of the repairs required.

Orders

21. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions take place within four weeks:
    1. The landlord is to pay the resident £450 in view of the inconvenience caused by the repair delays. This includes its previous offer of £350 if this has not already been paid.
    2. The landlord is to contact the resident to discuss the decoration works and either complete the works as agreed, if it has not already done so, or discuss the amount it would contribute if the resident wanted to do this himself.