Lincolnshire Housing Partnership Limited (202108665)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108665

Lincolnshire Housing Partnership Limited

27 February 2023

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 reports of damp and mould.
2. the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident holds an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord which began in March 2016. The property is a two bedroom, end of terrace bungalow. The Ombudsman has not been informed of any known vulnerabilities for the resident.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord must ensure that the outside and structure of the property are kept in repair. It states that the landlord ‘must make good any damage to the inside of the property, including decoration, arising out of the actions or omissions of its employees, agents or contractors’.
The tenancy agreement says that the resident is responsible for keeping the inside of the property in good condition. It advises that the resident is responsible for arranging adequate contents insurance to insure possessions against loss or damage.
There is a clause in the landlord’s tenancy agreement which specifies the resident’s right to compensation. It advises that the resident may be entitled to claim for compensation for qualifying improvements, or if the landlord does not attend to a repair on time.
The landlord holds a separate compensation policy which sets out further it’s approach to compensation. It explains that compensation can be requested ‘for a range of reasons’, and each situation will be assessed on its own merit. The policy says that compensation could typically be offered in the event of:
1. failure to deliver a service to a specified standard, with the exception of where a customer’s own actions have contributed to the service failure
2. damage or financial loss caused by the actions of staff or contractors.
The compensation policy states that it is the responsibility of resident to have home contents insurance and to claim on this insurance when it is deemed appropriate to do so. It states that the policy ‘is not intended to replace or compensate for the lack of such insurance’.
The landlord has a repair and maintenance policy which sets out how the landlord will carry out repairs. The policy states that the landlord is responsible for ensuring that the structure and outside of the home are kept in a good state of repair.
Timescales of repairs can vary, from ‘immediate’ with a response time of four hours, to ‘planned’ with a response time of 60 working days. Planned works are defined as ‘a repair which due to its size or nature requires planning and does not have an immediate impact on the customer or the property’.
The landlord’s website has a page dedicated to damp and mould. Within it:
1. it explains the difference between condensation, mould, rising and penetrating damp
2. provides tips to help residents
3. makes it clear that is aware of its responsibility to assess damp and mould, and will agree with each customer any action that needs to be taken
4. encourages residents to report damp and mould, and says is keen to identify any properties that have a problem
5. provides residents with email and telephone contact details to be able to do this.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process:
1. stage one complaints should be responded to within ten working days. If there is likely to be a delay, then this will be no later than a further ten working days
2. stage two complaints should be responded to within 20 working days. If there is likely to be a delay, then this will be no later than a further ten working days.

Summary of events

The landlord advised this Service that it was first made aware of the resident’s concerns regarding damp in 2020, and their records demonstrate that the resident requested that the landlord visit the property to inspect the damp on four occasions between October 2020 and March 2021. Each time that the resident contacted the landlord, an inspection was assigned as ‘planned works priority’ with an estimated timeframe for attendance within 60 days.
The landlord’s records state that the first report of damp and mould was on 20 October 2020. The resident requested an inspection at the property, and on 1 December 2020, a surveyor attended. They raised follow up works to inspect the gutters and roof, and check the external bridging to the damp proof course.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 21 December 2020 and requested a further inspection. The surveyor attended on 7 January 2021. The damp and mould were inspected and during the same visit, the loft insulation was renewed. Three days later, on the 11 January 2021, the resident requested that the landlord visit the property to inspect the damp and mould again.
On 15 January 2021, the surveyor reattended the property, and raised further work to check for any “bridging plaster” in the living room. The landlord’s repair notes state “small amount removed, but nothing that impacted on the issues present”.
On the 15 March 2021, the landlord’s records show that the resident contacted the landlord for a further assessment. A repair supervisor and a surveyor jointly attended on 12 May 2021. They noted that:
1. no windows or vents were open in the property
2. advice was given to the resident that the humidity in the property felt high, and that the rooms required ventilating to help reduce the humidity levels
3. they had taken the resident outside to let her “feel the difference in climate, from the sticky humid atmosphere in her bungalow, to the fresh exterior”. The surveyor stated that the resident recognised that upon doing this, that she needed to better ventilate the property
4. they explained to the resident what humidity levels were, and how she could maintain daily limits to “a sensible level”. They discussed use of a mobile phone app to monitor humidity levels, which the resident stated she was going to explore with family
5. they fitted a hydrometer floor box to the ground floor. This was to be left for a period of five days as the resident reported that she felt the damp was rising through the floors
6. some plaster had been removed that was bridging the damp proof course, but the surveyor felt that this would not have been the cause of the excessive humidity at the property.
Following this visit, and after a period of five days, the hydrometer floor box readings were reviewed. The landlord advised that it had an average reading of 70%, and a maximum of 71%, and that as a result the readings suggested to the landlord that the floors were dry with no structural damp present.
The surveyor concluded that the property was suffering from condensation issues. They recommended that:
1. the bathroom fan be upgraded to increase efficiency
2. the resident limits the use of their condensing tumble dryer
3. the resident open windows more often, keep the internal environment at “more comfortable levels”, and take steps to heat her home more efficiently
4. the resident reviews the landlord’s damp guidance, contained within its damp leaflet.
On 26 May 2021 the resident filled in a compensation claim form. Within it, she stated that she wanted to complain and make a claim for items that had been damaged in her home due to ‘constant mildew due to damp on the ceiling’. She stated that personal items had been affected including:
1. furniture, including her bed and leather suite
2. flooring, wallpaper and walls
3. shoes, bags and cases
The resident provided photographs with her claim form and stated that the issue had been ongoing for three years, and in addition to the items listed above, she wanted to claim for painting in both bedrooms, and damage to her carpet. She stated that she had not claimed against her own insurance. In a separate follow up email, she also reported that the laminate was lifting in the lounge.
On 15 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that her form had been received that day, and that a complaint had been raised at stage one of its process. It advised that:
1. a representative would contact the resident by phone within two working days
2. a detailed response would be sent to the resident, including learning outcomes if appropriate, within ten working days of the letter
3. if the landlord did not receive a response within 28 working days of the detailed response, then a closing letter would be sent to the resident.
On 29 June 2021, the landlord issued a stage one response. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and advised that the resident’s complaint was ‘part upheld’. It said that:
1. a repair surveyor and supervisor attended the property on 12 May 2021 and found that the issue present was condensation. As a result it had been agreed that the property be fitted with a new bathroom fan
2. condensation was “usually contributable to certain lifestyle factors”, such as using a condenser drier without ventilation, not opening windows or not heating the property adequately in colder months
3. the surveyor had advised the resident of the need to ventilate more and recommended that the resident use an app to monitor humidity
4. that the moisture levels within the floor had been monitored using a hydrometer. The results of these had demonstrated to the landlord a reading of 70/71% and this indicated that the floors were dry
5. it would not “typically” compensate the resident for damage to belongings under the circumstances the resident had raised, however on this occasion they would offer her £100 as a goodwill gesture
6. if the resident was not satisfied with the response, she could make contact with the landlord to review the matter again within 28 days.
The resident responded to the landlord on the 8 July 2021. She advised that:
1. she did not accept the landlord’s offer of £100, as she did not feel it was enough to compensate her for damage to her belongings
2. she had arranged for a technician to inspect her condenser drier, and he had told her that it could not possibly be responsible for causing damage to her belongings
3. the room that the condenser is in didn’t have any mould present, it was two other rooms in the property that were affected
4. the fan in the bathroom had been fitted by the landlord, but she did not feel that it would be effective to resolving the issue throughout her property.
The landlord responded to the resident on the same day via email. It reiterated that the information provided by the surveyors had noted that no damp was coming through the floors. The landlord stated that:
1. there would be moisture on the walls due to condensation issues through lack of ventilation
2. the resident should make use of fans, and open windows and trickle vents to allow fresh air flow. It said that if items become moist in a warm environment that mould would occur
3. that it would increase its offer of compensation to £150, but this would be full and final, in light of the information provided by the surveyor’s visit.
The resident advised the Ombudsman on 12 July 2021, that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said that damp was still present in the property and ruining her furniture.
On 9 August 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised the resident that her complaint would be closed. It thanked the resident for raising her concerns, identifying that there was a problem, and providing the landlord for an opportunity to “learn from mistakes”. It advised the resident that if she were still dissatisfied, she could contact the Ombudsman for a review.
The landlord has subsequently advised the Ombudsman that:
1. extensive testing showed no structural defects relating to damp. Instead, the environmental surveys conducted showed the humidity levels in the property were excessive
2. the compensation offered in light of the issue she faced was a goodwill gesture towards the renewal of any damaged items
3. surveyors continued to advise the customer of steps she could take to alleviate the issue
4. it fitted a positive ventilation unit (PIV) to the property on 23 March 2022 to help support the customer to “live well in her home”
5. small patches of mould were treated on the ceiling on 18 March 2022
6. it had shaved off the bottom of the internal doors to assist with airflow in the property on 27 April 2022
7. it offered to fit an environment monitor to the property, which would allow the resident the ability to be alerted in real time as to when humidity and temperature levels are above or below optimum via an app
8. no further reports of damp had been made since the end of April 2022.
The resident has recently advised the Ombudsman:
1. she cannot recall the date of the first time she reported the damp to the landlord, however she was “sure” it was before the date she submitted the claim form, as she had to redecorate every year since she moved in 2016. The landlord would come out, advise her to wash the mould and that would fix the issue to an extent, however every winter, the mould would return, and she would have to decorate again
2. the repairs done in 2022 seemed to have resolved the issue, and she reported no further concerns with damp in her home this winter. She felt confident she could now redecorate for a final time
3. she has declined the landlord’s offer of using an app to monitor humidity
4. she remained unhappy with the length of time it took for the landlord to address the matter and that she wanted a higher level of compensation towards her damaged belongings
5. that she had not kept receipts for costs of damaged items and redecorating. She had chosen not to make a claim on her home contents insurance as she did not want to increase the premium.

Assessment and findings

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

There was no evidence seen that the resident reported the issue of damp and mould to the landlord three years prior to submitting her claim form on 26 May 2021, though it is accepted that ongoing issues with damp and mould prompted her claim. The landlord has said it was “first made aware of issues relating to what the customer believed was damp in 2020”. The Ombudsman therefore has considered the evidence dating back to 20 October 2020, from the start of the landlord’s repair records on the issue.
The landlord’s repair records show that on each occasion that the resident reported damp and mould as an issue, it attended within the 60 working day time frame it had given for “planned works”. This demonstrated that the landlord adhered to its commitments as set out within its repairs and maintenance policy. However, the landlord should give further consideration to developing its own specific damp and mould policy, with attention to providing a quicker higher initial response priority, as would be more appropriate and in line with the recommendations set out within the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould.
Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in like with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Where the source of damp and mould was not immediately obvious, it was reasonable that the landlord took steps to eliminate potential root causes. The landlord was able to demonstrate that it visited the property regularly between October 2020 and May 2021, to try to identify these.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the roof and damp proof course, and fitted a hydrometer when the resident said she believed the damp to be rising through the floor. This demonstrated that the landlord was proactive in seeking to establish the source of the problem, and it appropriately used equipment to establish that it was confident that the floors were dry.
Having ruled out that the floor had no rising damp, the landlord’s surveyor concluded that they deemed that the issue was related to condensation, which in their opinion was attributed to certain “lifestyle” factors. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould actively discourages the use of the term “lifestyle”, particularly where there is inference or blame onto the resident for causing damp within the home. Up until the stage one response, the landlord did not place sole responsibility on the resident to manage the condensation herself and demonstrated it tried to jointly work with her to address the issue. This was a reasonable approach in line with the commitments set out in its publications about damp and mould, and in line with its HHSRS obligations.
The landlord’s records show that the surveyor took the time to go in and outside of the property with the resident, and explained their rationale as to why they felt the humidity levels were high. The landlord’s actions were appropriate in notifying the resident of the importance of ventilation in the property, and their approach to talk this through with the resident demonstrated a level of empathy to her situation. By taking the time to explain that the difference in humidity levels, the surveyor was better able to justify that there were some practical steps she could take to assist in reducing these.
However in its initial complaint response, the landlord deduced that the ongoing issue was condensation, caused by the resident not ventilating the property appropriately. It placed sole responsibility back on her to manage the condensation, despite identifying that at the same time, a more efficient bathroom extractor fan was required. This was an inappropriate response, as it attempted to conclude the matter before confirming whether its decision to replace the bathroom extractor had resolved the issue. It offered no further reassurance that it would continue to work with her, should the condensation continue to be an issue despite these interventions.
When the resident challenged the stage one response she advised the damp was ongoing, the landlord took no further steps to revisit the issue. It responded almost immediately to advise of the same conclusion, that it felt that the problem was condensation, and she would need to better manage it herself. This was an inappropriate response, as contrary to HHSRS, it appeared to relinquish further responsibility to carry out any further monitoring of the damp in the property, despite the resident advising that the problem was ongoing.
The Ombudsman approached the landlord in March 2022 to request information about its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and at a similar time the landlord raised further works to address the ongoing issues including installing a PIV unit. The works were successful and the landlord was able to effectively trial a variety of further solutions to tackle the problem inside the property. This was a reasonable response and also demonstrated that it had considered new technologies in its approach to managing the issue on a long term basis, as per its HHSRS obligations. Indeed the resident has confirmed that these later interventions have appeared to resolve the issue.
However the gap of approximately seven months since the stage two complaint response and taking further action was unreasonable and amounts to maladministration. The resident had to continue to live with damp and mould in the property for the duration of this time, having been told that the onus was on her to make changes in managing the property to resolve the condensation. She has explained that her belongings were affected, and she suffered inconvenience at being unable to decorate the property how she would have liked to where the problem was reoccurring. It is also of concern that the landlord may not have carried out the additional works it did in March 2022, had this Service not intervened.
The delay in the landlords response to monitoring the damp in accordance with its HHSRS obligations has exacerbated the problem for the resident over a significant period of time. Had the landlord continued to engage with the resident’s concerns of damp regularly after her request for an escalation to stage two of its complaint process, it could have demonstrated its commitment to finding a resolution. However it did not do this, and there was maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould from the point it put the onus solely back on the resident to resolve the issue at the end of its complaint process.

Complaint handling

The landlord advised that it had received the resident’s completed claim form and complaint on 15 June 2021 and acknowledged its receipt the same day. The stage one complaint response was issued ten working days later, in accordance with its complaints policy.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) states that any remedies offered must reflect the extent of any service failures, and the detriment caused to the resident as a result. Up until the point of the stage one complaint, there had not been any service failure of the landlord in responding to the residents reports of damp and mould. It engaged with the resident to trial a number of remedies to eliminate the damp, and attended the property within the timeframe of its repairs policy.
The landlord’s original offer of an apology for the inconvenience and goodwill gesture was reasonable, and beyond the remit of its compensation policy. There had not been a service failure at the time of the initial complaint, and the landlord made the offer without referring the resident back to her own insurance.
However there was a service failure by the landlord in the handling of the resident’s complaint at stage two. When the resident advised the landlord that she wanted to challenge the compensation offered to her within its stage one response, it responded by email the same day, with the subject ‘mould damage complaint’. It was not made clear to the resident if this constituted a response under stage two of its complaint’s process. The CHC states that landlords must confirm in writing to residents at each stage of its process, what stage it is at. It is recommended that the landlord adopt this approach consistently so that residents are clearer on what stage of the process their complaint is being dealt with.
The landlord was hasty in providing its response on the same day the resident chose to escalate her complaint. It did not offer to revisit the damp the resident had reported was still an issue, and simply agreed to increase its goodwill offer to £150, without any rationale. No other assurances were made as to how it would continue to work with the resident to tackle the issue, and put the onus back on her to resolve what it deemed was condensation. The landlord did not consider the long term impact on the resident and the property which continued to suffer from damp and mould, contrary to its HHSRS obligations.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

In the stage two response, the landlord placed sole responsibility back on the resident to resolve the issue within her property. It inferred that if the resident made day-to-day changes to how she managed the property, then this would resolve what it deemed was condensation. This was an unreasonable response by the landlord, as contrary to its HHSRS obligations, it failed to respond appropriately to the damp and mould over a period of around seven months after its final complaint response.
Later interventions by the landlord demonstrated that the issue was still present and it is encouraging that these have now been resolved. However, the delay exacerbated the situation for the resident in the months following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. She continued to live with damp and mould in her property, suffering inconvenience where she felt unable to redecorate and her belongings were damaged.
The landlord replied to the resident’s complaints in a timely manner, and responded empathetically at stage one when it gave consideration as to how she had been effected by the damp in her home. However, it was quick to provide a response to the resident at stage two and in doing so it failed to give consideration to its ongoing commitments to tackle the damp and mould. It placed sole responsibility back on the resident to resolve the issue and closed the complaint, despite knowing that the problem was ongoing.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £650, compromising:
1. £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of the landlord’s delays in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould;
2. £150 in recognition of the time and trouble caused by its failure in the handling of its complaint at stage two.
review its working practices and ensure that its initial response times to damp and mould are fit for purpose, given consideration to implementing a specific damp and mould policy. In doing so, it should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). The landlord’s review should as a minimum clearly define the service level expectations for damp and mould in its publications. The outcome of the landlord’s review should be shared with the Ombudsman in writing within six weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. review the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and ensure that each complaint response is clearly defined as to what stage of the process the response is at.