A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202101199)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101199

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

27 October 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 regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

Scope of Investigation

In her initial correspondence with this Service, the resident advised she had experienced issues with mould in her property since 2015. Paragraph 39 (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that this Service will not investigate complaints which “were not brought to the attention of the member (the landlord) as a formal complaint within a reasonable period”, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. It is difficult for landlords, and this Service, to fairly investigate issues which may have occurred a significant length of time ago. This investigation will therefore only consider events that took place in the lead up to the resident’s complaint rather than historical issues.
The resident also reported she has developed asthma, inferring this is due to the mould in her property. However, it is beyond the remit and expertise of the Ombudsman to determine whether there is any direct causal link between the reported health issues and the landlord’s actions. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a further personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action, or lack thereof, by the landlord.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. She has resided at the property, a one-bedroom ground floor flat, since 2008.
The landlord’s repair policy divides repairs into “urgent” and “standard” priorities. Urgent repairs will be attended to within 24 hours and standard repairs will be attended to on the “next available appointment”. An absolute target for responding to standard repairs is not noted. The landlord’s repair policy also does not make any reference to damp and mould issues.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. It aims to respond to complaints at Stage One of its procedures within 10 working days, although its procedures do not seem to clarify a target for responses at Stage Two.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it “may decide that service failure…warrants compensation” in instances that include “where…a customer has received a poor service…or received a service that has been unreasonably delayed”. It notes that “in line with the Housing Ombudsman guidance, residents will be compensated for their time and trouble taken in drawing a matter to (the landlord’s) attention”.

Summary of Events

As part of its investigation into the resident’s complaint, the landlord put together a chronology regarding reported damp and mould issues, containing diary notes regarding repair reports made by the resident and which it is assumed are taken from a centralised repair system. These records show the landlord arranged for a contractor to “assess damp reports” in October 2015. This Service has not seen further details regarding the reports made but records note the issue was deemed to be “likely…condensation due to flash heating and lack of ventilation”.
In August 2016, landlord records show it received a further report from the resident of “damp/mould” and it carried out an inspection. This Service has not seen the inspection report, but a diary note indicates “no mould (was) found” and extractor fans in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom were “in working order”. The tenant was also said to have advised an operative that she was “removing mould as and when it appears”. Records indicate the landlord arranged for window reveals in the resident’s living room to be “painted with anti mould paint” in February 2017.
On 2 August 2019, the landlord noted that the resident’s “kitchen and bathroom extractor fans (were) overhauled and cleaned”. A further repair diary note from 17 February 2020 shows the resident requested a further inspection “for what is reported as being a long running damp problem”. It noted a contractor attended “after a pandemic related delay” and compiled a report which recommended fitting two constant duty extractors and two passive vents. These would “address condensation issues caused by a lack of ventilation”. From the information available, the survey referred to here was carried out in June 2020, so the notes seem likely to have been updated or backdated to include details of the report.
The resident contacted this Service on 15 April 2021 to advise she had experienced mould issues in her property since 2015 which the landlord had not resolved. She advised the landlord “completed mould washes” but the problem returned and got worse each time, although a survey had been undertaken but this had been “lost”. She stated she had now developed asthma. This Service contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to provide a complaint response.
Landlord repair records show it attended the resident’s property on 21 April 2021 and installed two constant duty extractor fans. However, it also reported the resident had “refused” permission for the installation of the passive vents, but this did not appear to have initially been fed back to the landlord by its contractors.
The landlord provided its Stage One complaint response on 4 May 2021. It stated it understood the complaint to be about “the recurrent mould in the property and our handling of follow-on works” and “the time we are taking to resolve the issue”. The landlord made the following comments and findings:
1. Having checked its repair records, it acknowledged it had received reports of mould in the property since 2015 but that “supervisors and surveyors have gone out on each occasion but have not always been able to find a problem”. It noted the resident had advised this was “because (she had) been cleaning the mould as and when it occurs”.
2. It had “implements mould treatments to try to resolve the issue” each time the issue had been reported. However, it noted that the “treatments unfortunately only deal with the symptom and not the cause”. It outlined that a damp specialist had carried out an inspection and determined the “problem was down to condensation caused by a lack of ventilation”. It noted that, following the inspection, the resident had been advised “about the importance of opening windows and venting the property”.
3. It clarified the damp specialist report (which it advised had been generated on 1 June 2020) had not been lost and reiterated the report had advised the mould and damp was caused by a lack of ventilation. It advised the report recommended the fitting of passive vents but noted the resident had declined the works, initially “because of the (coronavirus) pandemic” but later after refusing to have them installed.
4. It reiterated that “every time you have tried to contact us about the mould measured had been taken to resolve the issue” and further advised the problems with damp and mould would “happen in any property you move into” unless the property was “aired and given proper ventilation”.
5. It advised its contractor would arrange for the damp specialist to carry out a new survey “and compare the current situation…with…June 2020” and it committed to “completing all works by 28 May 2021” once it received the report from the specialist. It gave a named member of staff who would “oversee the remaining works”.
6. It confirmed that it had not upheld the resident’s complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 May 2021 and advised the named member of staff had contacted her on an unspecified date to advise a surveyor would attend her property on 12 May 2021. However, she advised that while the person who attended checked the “area that it affected by mould”, he told her they were “not a surveyor”. She advised she had not heard anything from the landlord since. She further disagreed with the landlord’s position and believed the damp and mould was not caused by ventilation issues but by structural issues, noting the property was “an old flat and is not properly insulated”.
On 28 May 2021, landlord records note it had spoken to the resident “after (an) inspection by (a) supervisor”, although the date the inspection took place is not detailed. The landlord noted the resident had advised she was “wiping away mould as and when it appeared” but confirmed a damp specialist had attended and installed new constant duty extractor vents. It also noted she advised she “agreed the contractors could return and fit the passive vents” and that she had only refused the work as she believed it no longer necessary after her kitchen and bathroom extractor fans had been overhauled.
30 June 2021, following contact from the resident, who advised the landlord had not acted on her requests to escalate her complaint, this Service wrote to the landlord and asked it to provide a Stage Two complaint response by 22 July 2021. The landlord responded the same day to advise it did not have any record of the resident requesting an escalation and had not had contact from her since 28 May 2021 “when she refused works as part of the resolution of her Stage One complaint”. The landlord advised it would acknowledge the escalation request and aim to provide its Stage Two response by 28 July 2021. The landlord also requested this Service’s assistance in asking the resident to “engage” with it so it could “progress the outstanding works at her property”.
A landlord repair diary note from 5 July 2021 reported a contractor had advised it they had been unable to contact the resident to make an appointment regarding the installation of the vents but acknowledged they had not tried “since the first week of June”. The landlord noted the contractor would “confirm a new appointment by the end of the week”.
Landlord repair records indicate its contractor completed the installation of two passive vents at the resident’s property on 9 July 2021. It requested the contractor arrange a post-work inspection.
On 19 July 2021, the landlord issued a Stage Two complaint response. It noted it did not consider the resident had explicitly asked for her complaint to be escalated in the email she sent it on 26 May 2021, but it was providing a further response after the request from this Service. It again clarified the complaint definition around damp and mould issues and the length of time taken to resolve them, but also noted the resident had expressed dissatisfaction that her complaint had not been escalated. The landlord made the following findings:
1. It acknowledged it had not met its commitment to complete works at the property by 28 May 2021, as it had set out in its Stage One response. It advised its records indicated its contractor had been “unable to contact you by phone for some time” but the landlord advised it was of the view “that we could have made more concerted effort to reach you” regarding the works.
2. It reiterated its position that, while it had received reports from the resident on a number of occasions since 2015, it had “attended on each occasion” and had not always been able to “find a problem that required further investigative examination or works”. It noted the cause of the mould had “always been found to be…’lifestyle’ caused by poor ventilation in the property”.
3. It noted that passive vents had now been installed at the property and it was due to conduct a post work inspection on 20 July 2021. It advised this would “conclude the works” but advised the resident she could contact it if there were any further issues.
4. It advised it was making a “discretionary” offer of £200 compensation, consisting of £150 to reflect the resident’s “time and trouble in pursuing this matter” and £50 for “communication failures”. It also outlined that it had upheld her complaint and “further staff training will be carried out to ensure (it was) more proactive in the managing of repairs” and residents were better updated “with regard the status of their outstanding repairs”.

Post Complaint

The resident contacted this Service on 5 August 2021 to advise she had received the landlord’s Stage Two response but, while it had also contacted her by phone to arrange a further inspection, she stated it did not need to visit the property again. She advised she had informed the landlord she wanted to be moved to a new property. She sent a further email to the landlord on 10 August 2021, reiterating her opinion that the mould was caused by a lack of insulation at the property and that, despite a surveyor attending on five occasions since 2015, the landlord had not made “any attempt to sort the problem or find a lasting solution”. She advised the mould and damp had damaged some of her personal possessions as well as affecting her and her son’s health and she therefore intended to make herself homeless rather than continue living at the property.
Following an enquiry by this Service during our investigation, the landlord has advised that following the conclusion of its complaint procedure, it made an appointment with the resident to “assess and deal with the damp and mould” in November 2021. A post-work inspection had then taken place on 23 December 2021 and since that time it had not received any further contact from the resident, which indicated “that there are (not) any further issues with the property”.

Assessment and findings

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

It does not appear to be in dispute that the resident, since 2015, has submitted a number of reports to the landlord regarding the presence of damp and mould in her property. As clarified above, this investigation will not be considering historic reports and will instead focus on the landlord’s responses to the during the 12 months leading up to her complaint in April 2021.
Although there is evidence the landlord did respond to the resident following her reports of damp and mould, its repair records lack detail. Records provided to this Service note the resident requested a further inspection in February 2020, but the initial report and the landlord’s initial response is not evidenced. However, the landlord did arrange for a damp specialist to attend the property and carry out a survey, which took place in June 2020.
It would usually be considered unreasonable that a period of four months elapsed between the resident’s request for an inspection and the survey taking place and it is not clear from the records whether the landlord took any additional steps during this time. However, the landlord has noted that there was a “pandemic related delay” that prevented the survey taking place sooner.
While there are no further details regarding the exact nature of the delay, and due to the lack of detailed records and there is no evidence the landlord communicated the cause of the delay to the resident, this Service acknowledges that during this period the UK Government had introduced coronavirus related restrictions and landlords across the sector were only responding to urgent or emergency repair issues. Although the landlord’s repair policy does not refer to damp and mould specifically, while the situation was undoubtedly pressing for the resident, this Service is satisfied it did not constitute an emergency repair issue, so this initial delay is not considered to be evidence of service failure.
The damp survey report advised there was “no conclusive moisture readings…of rising dampness…in the ground floor areas”. While there was “some evidence of Blackspot mould”, walls at the property had also been tested and “conditions were acceptable”. The report recommended the installation of two passive vents in the property and “an upgrade” to fans fitted in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom and that, “should problems persist”, it may be necessary to “apply insulated thermal board to the external walls…and fit a mechanical positive air pressure unit”, as well as painting “all walls…with anti-fungal/mould paints”.
Based on the content of the damp specialist’s report, the landlord was reasonable in concluding there were no apparent structural causes for the condensation within the resident’s property, or evidence of other factors such as external leaks. However, after the survey report was provided to the landlord, there is no evidence of it acting on the recommendations made until April 2021, some ten months later, when the two “constant duty” extractor fans were installed. In its Stage One complaint response, the landlord refers to the resident having refused the additional installation of the passive vents (which were ultimately installed in July 2021) “because of the (coronavirus) pandemic” and later for unspecified reasons. As above, while this Service acknowledges that Government imposed restrictions and unprecedented pressures on their services resulted in landlords only undertaking urgent or emergency repairs at times during 2020 and 2021.
However, the records seen by this Service do not make clear when the resident refused some of the works, although the landlord made repeated references to this in its records and complaint responses. As such, it was unreasonable for the landlord to apportion some of the blame for the repair delays on the resident if it is not able to provide the evidence to support this assertion. While it is noted that the resident apparently only refused some of the recommended works and coronavirus restrictions were in place for some of the period under investigation, this also does not adequately explain the significant length of time between the landlord receiving the damp specialist’s recommendations and the installation of the constant duty extractor fans. There appears to have been an unreasonable delay progressing the recommended works, which was a service failure.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s Stage One response indicated it would commission a further damp specialist report and complete “all works by 28 May 2021”. It was a proactive step by the landlord to agree to commission a new survey of the property. Its decision to compare the current conditions at the property with those identified in the June 2020 report to ascertain if there had been any changes was appropriate and showed it took the resident’s concerns seriously. It was also positive that it provided the resident with a firm timeline for when those actions would be completed.
However, the landlord should have been clearer as to what the “outstanding works” were, as it is unclear whether this was simply a reference to the additional vents recommended in the June 2020 report. Its lack of clarity is not appropriate and may have caused the resident confusion. It is also unclear whether the landlord also committed itself to completing any additional works that may have been recommended in the promised new survey by the 28 May 2021 deadline.
Regardless of what the remaining works consisted of, the landlord failed to complete them by 28 May 2021. Although it acknowledged this in its Stage Two complaint response, this was not appropriate and amounts to service failure. While its records note its contractor had been unsuccessful in contacting the resident to arrange an appointment, there are no details of when attempts were made to contact her. The lack of more detailed repair records means the landlord is not able to evidence actions taken to try and progress the issue after its Stage One response, although it was appropriate that at Stage Two it acknowledged it “could have made more concerted effort” to get in touch with her.
Records show the passive vents were not installed at the property until 9 July 2021, over a month after the landlord’s original commitment and after the resident had clarified in a phone call that she gave permission for it to return and complete the work. This was not appropriate and amounts to an unreasonable delay.
While records show the landlord did ultimately complete the installation of both passive vents and constant duty extractor fans, there is no evidence that it commissioned the new damp specialist report it promised in its Stage One complaint response. In information provided by the landlord regarding actions carried out after the conclusion of its complaints procedure, it advised an appointment took place in November 2021 to “assess and deal with the damp and mould”. However, it is not clear if this appointment was for a full survey by a damp specialist. It is therefore unclear if the landlord went on to compare the conditions at the resident’s property with those that were found there in June 2020 as it had indicated it would.
In the absence of evidence that a new survey was done, it appears the landlord failed to follow-up on an agreed action from its original complaint response. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord did not act in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, unfairly raised the resident’s expectations, and did not appear to carry out the further investigation of the damp and mould which it had agreed to do. This did not treat the resident fairly and also amounts to service failure.
While it is positive that works including applying anti-mould paint to various areas of the property took place in November 2021 which the landlord hopes has resolved the issue (it advised it had, as of September 2022, not received any further reports from the resident), this was over 21 months since the landlord originally noted the resident had requested a further inspection. Even taking into consideration delays related to the coronavirus pandemic and any refusal of works by the resident, this amounts to an unreasonable delay in investigating and resolving the reported repairs. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property amounts to maladministration.
In its final complaint response, the landlord awarded the resident “discretionary” compensation of £200 for “time and trouble” (£150) and poor communication (£50). While it was positive the landlord considered a form of compensation was appropriate in this case, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it could have been clearer as to what its offer related to (for example, it does not provide examples of the “poor communication” it awarded £50 for). While it also awarded £150 for the resident’s “time and trouble”, the landlord does not appear to have offered any redress for the ultimately significant delay in carrying out the repairs, or for its failure to carry out a further survey as promised in its Stage One response. The overall offer of compensation does not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, adequately reflect the failings in this case and the inconvenience and detriment the resident was caused. An Order has therefore been made for the landlord to pay an increased amount of compensation relevant to its failings in this case.
It is also of concern that, from the information this investigation has seen, while the presence of mould has been acknowledged within the resident’s home, the issue has been attributed to condensation caused by the resident’s lifestyle choices, and advice has been given regarding how she heats the property and that she shouldn’t “dry clothes indoors”.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (“It’s Not Lifestyle”, published in October 2021) outlines that landlords should “review…their initial response to reports of damp and mould to ensure they avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language that leaves residents feeling blamed”. While certain factors may increase condensation within a property, although the landlord had satisfied itself that mould was not caused by rising damp or any other external factors, it could have considered some of the other recommendations made in the original damp specialist report, such as the installation of thermal boards or a pressure unit but there is no evidence it did so. It should also have considered whether some of the advice give to the resident, such as not drying clothes indoors, was practical.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report also recommends that landlords “should consider their current approach to records keeping and satisfy themselves it is sufficiently accurate and robust”. Having considered the landlord’s position regarding condensation being the resident’s responsibility and the lack of detail in its repair records in this case, an order has been made for it to carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

Reasons

While there is evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and appeared to take them seriously, there was an unreasonable delay in progressing repairs following the completion of a damp specialist report in June 2020. It also failed to comply with actions it agreed in its initial complaint response, completing the further installation of vents outside the agreed target time and being unable to evidence if the promised further damp specialist survey took place.
It made several references, both in its records and correspondence, regarding the resident having refused some of the recommended repairs, but due to its scant repair records, the precise details of this remain unclear so it was unreasonable for the landlord to rely on this as one of the causes of the repair delays. It also put undue weight on the fact that mould in the property was ultimately caused by the resident’s behaviour.
It reasonably considered that compensation was appropriate in this case, but the amount offered did not adequately reflect the failings found.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident £500 compensation, consisting of:
1. £300 for delays in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The £200 it originally offered in its Stage Two response (if this has not been paid already).
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above Orders within four weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord should also clarify whether it commissioned a second full damp specialist survey and, if so, it should provide this Service and the resident with a copy of the subsequent report. If a further survey has not been commissioned, the landlord should arrange one and write to the resident and this Service with the findings. It should also provide an action plan (including a target date for completion) for any recommended works.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above Order within eight weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider completing a self-assessment against the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, giving particular consideration to its communication with residents regarding damp and mould reports, and the advice it provides.