Broadland Housing Association Limited (202112894)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112894

Broadland Housing Association Limited

20 March 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
1. damp and mould.
2. the handling of the decant.
3. complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident held an assured tenancy with the landlord which started in September 2018. The landlord’s property is a ground floor studio apartment. She has since moved to privately rented accommodation.
The landlord has a three stage complaint process;
1. ‘swift resolution’ an informal process whereby the landlord will “listen and apologise” where there are issues, and respond within three to five working days to putting things right
2. stage one is the first stage of the formal complaint process. Residents can expect an acknowledgement within five working days and a full response within ten working days
3. stage two is the final stage of the formal complaint process. If a resident informs the landlord they are dissatisfied with the response at stage one, then a stage two panel hearing will be arranged. The panel is made up of the Chief Executive plus two board members, and the resident is given the opportunity to attend if they wish. A decision letter will be sent a complainant within three working days of the hearing.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by (the landlord) or those acting on our behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”.
The landlord has a compensation policy includes payments for disturbance, and states that compensation will be paid as a result of having to move to another property (either temporarily or permanently) whilst works are carried out to their existing property. It will also consider payments for any service failure of the landlord.
The landlord’s responsive repairs and void policy states that repairs are categorised as emergency, urgent or routine. In certain situations, different timescales can apply dependent on whether extensive or structural damage has been identified. Where this applies, the landlord says that it will ensure that the resident is fully aware of the implications and the expected timescales for the work.
The landlord has a decant policy. It says that for temporary decants residents can be compensated by means of a disturbance allowance. The allowance is compensation for the “actual physical costs of relocation” and can include;
1. actual cost of removals and or storge or belongings
2. cost of refitting carpets, curtains and blinds, or replacing them where they cannot be adapted to fit
3. cost of kennels for pets if they cannot be accommodated in any temporary accommodation
4. redecoration allowance (if necessary) for the new home.

Summary of events

The landlord repair logs show that it first recorded the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in her kitchen and bathroom on 20 September 2019.
The landlord’s records demonstrated that an operative attended on 14 October 2019. During this visit;
1. mould on the affected walls were treated
2. the resident asked the operative to look at the damp behind her toilet. She said that files were coming through from that area
3. the operative advised that they could block up the hole to stop the flies, but the resident said she was not satisfied that this would resolve the issue of the damp
4. follow up works were raised to install a new bathroom fan.
On the same day, the resident contacted the landlord. No evidence was seen of the detail of this contact from the landlord’s records. A subsequent note was added by the customer services team the following day which stated the resident “called after he attended on the 14 [October] to say she was unhappy and to complain, but no notes and not sure where the query went”.
On the 15 October 2019, the landlord called the resident to discuss the resident’s concerns. She mentioned that she was extremely unhappy as she had called the landlord twice in the past two weeks but on neither occasion were her concerns recorded nor were any repair works booked. The landlord advised her that it would arrange for a property visit on 17 October 2019, and that a damp survey would be scheduled if it was deemed necessary.
There is no evidence that the visit on the 17 October 2019 took place, and no further notes were made by the landlord on the matter until 2 January 2020 where the landlord recorded that “all issues have now been resolved”.
On the 28 January 2020 the landlord attended the property to install the extractor fan in the bathroom. Notes of this visit demonstrate that it fitted the fan, however an electrician was required to make the electrical connection.
The landlord attended on 21 February 2020 connect the electrics for the extractor fan, and noted that it was unable to complete the works as it was unable to gain entry to the property.
On 11 June 2020 the resident contacted the landlord and advised she had damp in her property. She said that it had started in her kitchen and bathroom, but had since extended to her living and bedroom area where she could see damp patches showing on the walls. She advised that the landlord had sent people to come out and investigate but they had “not taken it too seriously”, and asked what she should do. The landlord asked the resident to send in photos of the issue.
The landlord’s records demonstrate that it received the resident’s photos, however there was a delay in reviewing them as there had been an internal error, assuming that the photos were from another resident.
On 17 June 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident. She advised that she was unsure if, due to the damp, she should be using her plug sockets. The landlord raised a repair to attend the same day, and was able to confirm the sockets were “sound and working fine”. However it noted that there were issues with damp around the socket and on the exterior wall, and follow up works were raised to further inspect the damp.
On 1 July 2020, the landlord attended and completed the outstanding job to wire in the new extractor fan in the bathroom.
On the 7 July 2020, the landlord attended to “follow up works from 17 June 2020” and completed a job to clean off the mould.
On 14 July 2020, the landlord attended the property to inspect the damp. However its notes state that it was unable to complete the works as it was unable to gain entry to the property.
There are no further repairs recorded until 2 December 2020, where the landlord noted that a specialist had been instructed to inspect the damp and mould.
During a conversation about a subject access request (SAR) on 8 January 2021, the resident again raised the concerns she had about the damp in the property. She advised she had been told to contact the customer service team, who had recommended using a mould spray. She also mentioned that during a previous visit, an operative moved a washing machine whilst cleaning off the mould, and ripped the vinyl flooring. She said mould was coming through her carpet, and that she had spoken to the council as she was “beginning legal proceedings”.
On 11 January 2021, the landlord spoke with the resident and advised her that a flooring contractor and a damp specialist would be attending her property to supply a quote and recommendations for work to her kitchen and bathroom. It gave her details of a member of staff as her point of contact. The resident said she had arranged via the council, for another for another contractor to inspect the property, but that she would cancel this to allow the landlord the opportunity to resolve the issue.
On 12 January 2021, the flooring contractor visited the property and informed the landlord it would be sending it a quote for replacement floor coverings. The resident advised the contractor that she wanted the lounge carpet to be replaced as part of the works, however the contractor had only been asked to quote for the vinyl. The resident stated that she did not want any flooring replaced until the damp and mould had been addressed.
On 15 January 2021, a damp specialist attended the property. It said that;
1. moisture meter tests were applied to those walls requested and revealed evidence of rising damp
2. in their opinion, the damp is due to the absence of effective damp-proofing
3. it recommended that a humidistat fan be fitted in the kitchen
4. a chemical damp proof course (DPC) should be injected into the affected walls
5. a number of remedial works were required. These included:
  1. the removal of all of the skirtings from the walls that required treatment
  2. re-fixing or replacement of the skirtings once the plaster had cured
  3. removal of electrical sockets from the walls that required treatment
  4. re-fixing of the electrical sockets once the plaster had cured
  5. removal and disposal of existing wall linings
  6. supplying and installing a ‘platon plaster’ base membrane, clad with plasterboard and finished with fine coat plaster
  7. fitting a dado rail to hide the “step in the wall” that the platon plaster would be likely to create
  8. removing damaged plaster, re-render and find coat finish, blending into the original wall.
6. due to the extent of the repairs required, all floor coverings, furniture and personal items would need to be removed prior to the commencement of the work.
On 5 February 2021 the landlord contacted the resident. It advised her that due to the nature of the repair works identified by its damp specialist, she would have to temporarily decant from her property. It would assist her in looking at appropriate accommodation in the local area, and would support with relocating her belongings.
During the same conversation, the resident advised the landlord that she wanted compensation for;
1. having to relocate temporarily
2. the time it had taken for the landlord to take action
3. the state of the property she has been living in as a result
4. the psychological stress she had experienced.
On the 11 February 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to advise that the works would commence on 22 February 2021, and that for this period of time it could put her up in a hotel. The resident;
1. said a decant to a hotel would not be possible because she owns a cat
2. advised she was not prepared to put the cat in a cattery
3. asked for the landlord to consider payment for fuel to drop the cat off at her partner’s home, who lived ‘the other side of the country’
4. wanted to know the extent of the work being done in her flat.
The landlord advised that the works were likely to take around 16 days, but that it did not have specific knowledge of what was planned. It agreed it would arrange for somebody to give her a call to go through the repairs in more depth.
On 16 February 2021 the landlord contacted the resident and explained that the works required to her property were classed as ‘major works’ and for this reason she would need to decant her property. It asked if she would be prepared to decant the following week. The resident declined, and asked if the landlord could postpone the works until April, which the landlord agreed.
On the 9 April 2021, the landlord emailed the resident. It referenced an email that the resident had sent and advised that;
1. it was not possible for the resident to go into the accommodation she had found and suggested as it was too expensive
2. as a resolution it would work with her to identify an appropriate property, and it forwarded her various options on an accommodation website
3. it said it did not have a duty to rehouse pets, but would take her cat into consideration when suggesting alternative accommodation
4. it would purchase her a new desk so that she could continue her studies whilst temporarily decanted
5. it really wanted to get the works sorted, and did not want to delay it further.
The resident responded to the landlord on the same day and said she would not be accepting the landlords suggestions. She advised that;
1. the landlord had left it to the last minute to find her alternative appropriate accommodation
2. the proposed works would need to be delayed
3. the offer of a new table was not a suitable solution. She considered that it was a waste of money that could be put to more suitable accommodation
4. the landlord had the “cheek” to ask her not to delay the matter, when it had taken it over two years to investigate the issue
5. she refused to confine her cat to a small space. She said if he were to be confined to a small space, he would not rest and her sleep would be affected
6. an alternative date for repairs could be arranged for when she had finished her academic year at university
7. the amount of distress the landlord had caused her was “unacceptable”
8. she wanted to be directed towards the landlord’s complaint procedure.
The landlord responded to the resident with two further options of accommodation through a website. Both apartments had Wi-Fi and the option for the resident to bring her cat. The resident declined both options as being too small and advised she would only consider properties in the city centre, to be close to her support network, work and university.
On 12 April 2021, the landlord gave the resident a link to the complaint section of its website. It asked the resident to read the information and confirm the reason for her complaint and the outcome she was seeking.
On 15 April 2021 the landlord called the resident to discuss her concerns. It followed up the call with an email of all the points they had discussed, which included:
1. that the resident deemed the temporary accommodation the landlord had offered so far had been unsuitable and requested the repair works be put on hold until the end of the academic year (no earlier than the end of June 2021)
2. confirming the area which the resident was willing to move to, that it had to have space for her cat to roam. She expressed she would like a two bedroom property and a work station or desk to continue to carry out her studies
3. that the landlord had agreed a schedule of works from the end of June 2021. It said that the works will take approximately 21 days and that the works would only commence once a relocation package had been agreed
4. aspects of the complaint process including details of the Ombudsman.
On 26 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and advised that she:
1. had not been sent a day to day plan for the works to be carried out at the home. She was undergoing assessments for autism and not knowing what was going on in the property was making her feel overwhelmed
2. would like two weeks’ notice of the accommodation she is due to be moved to
3. was not aware that the works would take 21 days. She had been told it was a “handful” of days, then 16 days and now 21. She wanted clarification for the proposed increase of time
4. had somebody “randomly turn up” to look at her bathroom. The operative was not aware of any redecoration or cleaning up of the dead flies that had collected and got stuck on her ceiling and wall due to the damp. She wanted confirmation as to whether the landlord would be repainting her bathroom as part of the works they were doing
5. required a minimum figure of compensation from the landlord. She advised that she felt that the landlord had neglected her property for 20 months. The resident advised that she wanted compensation as a percentage of her rent from the date she first complained about the damp, and additional payment for distress and inconvenience.
On 27 May 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and advised that it had made a conscious decision to hold back on communications, aware of the study time she discussed during their last telephone call. The landlord:
1. apologised for the confusion of the timescales for completion, and could confirm that it would be 16 days, not 21 as previously stated. It confirmed that redecoration of the bathroom and a deep clean had been included in the schedule of works
2. attached a schedule of works to the email, and advised that in addition to the works listed, a cat flap would be fitted
3. said that a property had been identified for the resident to decant to. This property was within the same location of her current home, to minimise upheaval of the temporary move
4. confirmed that the decant property would be supplied with an admin desk and Wi-Fi to assist with studying. The property was undergoing its own refurbishment in preparation for the proposed move, which it hoped to take place on 28 June 2021
5. the 28 June 2021 deadline was the earliest available date for the works, taking into consideration the resident’s advised university deadlines
6. compensation would be investigated as part of the stage one complaint process.
On 29 May 2021, the resident responded to the landlord, she advised that she had “lots of qualms” regarding the email and the schedule of works. Specifically she had concerns that:
1. her hallway was not mentioned in the schedule sent, when she had previously been advised that it would be cleaned, re-painted and the flooring renewed
2. she had been advised that a new kitchen fan would be installed, and this was missing from the schedule
3. her living room carpet had growing mould, and she had been advised there would be new flooring throughout her home
4. she cannot move everything out of her living room due to the size of the property and would require the landlord to manage the work around her belongings
5. she had been advised to speak to various people with regards to compensation. She was now “really angry” that she was being told this would be dealt with as part of a complaint procedure and asked why she was not advised to raise a complaint some months ago.
The landlord responded to the resident’s email on 1 June 2021 and apologised that it was not its intention to make the resident “angry or upset” in any way. It confirmed that:
1. the missing items from the schedule had been amended and would include the hallway, flooring and extractor fan
2. that the landlord was addressing the issue as a complaint, but “the final decision if it goes to a formal stage one complaint, will be yours”
3. once the works have been completed was “the right and proper time to discuss any compensation”, as it would include “the full time scale and full level of inconvenience caused”.
The landlord later called the resident the same day and she confirmed to them that the decant scheduled for 28 June 2021 was acceptable.
On the 24 June 2021, the landlord’s records show that the resident requested that a formal complaint be raised about the length of time it had taken for the landlord to complete damp and mould works in her property. She requested compensation for “inconvenience and stress” she had been put through since the tenancy started.
On 25 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge her complaint at stage one of its process. It advised that the complaint would be investigated by a senior manager and that she could expect a response within ten working days.
On 29 June 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and advised that on receipt of the keys to the decant property, and having viewed it, she was requesting a delay to the works to her property. She advised the reasons for this were that;
1. she did not feel safe staying in the new property without her partner. It did not have a deadlock and only one point of entry and exit which would increase her anxiety if she were to be alone
2. there was an issue with the quality of the contents within the new property. She said there were no amenities for her in the flat, in particular the kitchen, and that she was not aware she would have to take “everything from sponges to a washing up bowl to a mirror”.
She stated that the situation was “adding to the already significant mental strain”, and that the landlord had provided “absolute barebones furnishing in a flat that would not be acceptable for anyone to live in for any reasonable amount of time”. She asked that the works be put back to the week commencing 27 July 2021.
On 12 July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and advised that further to a telephone call she had the previous week, she had felt “pushed into” agreeing a new start date for works. She said that the thought of it had caused her to have a panic attack, as it would mean she would be in the property alone for a week. She suggested alternative dates which would suit her partner being available to stay with her, into August and up until September.
On 14 July 2021 the landlord issued its stage one response. It summarised the issues that the resident was dissatisfied with, and confirmed that as an outcome, the resident wanted the landlord to agree a standard of the property she would be moving to and a minimum compensation award of £3000. The landlord advised it had considered all aspects of her complaint and summarised that it had upheld her complaint. The landlord:
1. apologised for the failures that had occurred and the impact that this had had on the resident
2. said it had identified learnings required, including;
  1. correct diagnosis of damp at the earliest opportunity
  2. a plan for alternative accommodation and agreement of standards be backed up by policy, and agreed at the earliest opportunity
  3. any appointments for inspections should be agreed in advance to minimise inconvenience
  4. that a better understanding of residents’ needs was required to support them in the process of temporary moves should be referenced in policy and procedural documents
3. confirmed that works had been agreed with would start on 23 August 2021 and conclude on 11 September 2021
4. said that the resident would have support in the move to the temporary property, including support with removals
5. stated that it will ensure that decorations to the property take place, including areas not affected by damp
6. offered £995 in compensation for the “inconvenience, timescale and negative impact”
7. said that if the resident remained dissatisfied, that she would escalate her complaint to stage two of its process, for a panel to review her complaint.
The landlord noted that it had spoken to the resident on 6, 13 and 14 July to talk through her complaint. Details of these calls were not recorded by the landlord, but were summarised in an entry on 14 July 2021 which advised that the resident:
1. was not happy with the compensation offered, and requested the minimum compensation be £3000. She said other residents had been offered more compensation yet her situation was worse
2. stated there was no benefit of having the works completed with such a low level of compensation and asked that the remedial works be rescheduled as a result
3. would like to appeal against the landlord’s response and escalate to a panel hearing at stage two.
On 16 July 2021, the landlord sent the resident an acknowledgement email in respect of her request to escalate her complaint to stage two of its process. It advised that an information pack would be brought together for the panel to read in advance of the meeting. It advised the resident that the panel would take place via video meeting and requested details of dates and times that were unlikely to be suitable for this.
On 21 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and advised that she wanted to have access to the information pack that was being reviewed at panel. She provided a list of dates she would not be available to attend and advised that as a resolution, she required:
1. an agreed standard of the property she was to temporarily move to
2. a minimum compensation award of £3000
3. an agreed standard of completion works to the property when she returns.
On the 26 July 2021, the landlord responded to the resident and advised that the panel hearing date was set for 11 August 2021. It advised it is “not normally possible” to share the information pack with the resident prior to the panel date due to time constraints.
On the 12 August 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage two response. It said that it had reviewed the information pack prior to the hearing and concluded that:
1. it was sorry that it had failed to deal with the damp issues in a timely manner
2. there had been challenges it had faced since the first covid lockdown, which had made it more difficult for contractors to attend properties to complete repairs. Despite this, it recognised that it had still missed opportunities to correctly diagnose damp issues in the property. It acknowledged it had been aware that there were issues approximately six months before the pandemic began
3. it would provide new floor coverings throughout the substantive property and completely redecorate it once the damp repairs have been completed
4. an “inventory” of equipment would be provided to the resident in her temporary property and will be available before the resident moved in
5. the £995 that it offered in stage one was substantial in light of all of the circumstances. It said it had been calculated having taken into account recent determinations made by the Ombudsman
6. if the resident was unhappy she could refer her complaint to the Ombudsman.
The resident responded to the landlord by email on 12 August 2021. She advised that:
1. she was unhappy with the outcome, particularly with regards to financial compensation
2. in addition to emotional distress, she had had to chase staff on a number of occasions, and this had not been taken into account
3. she was seeking to leave social housing and privately rent with her partner. She said that the issues she had experienced had accelerated this decision
4. she was requesting further works to her property to be cancelled and delayed until she had moved out permanently.
In contacting the Ombudsman, the resident advised that:
1. she moved out of the property into privately rented accommodation, and her tenancy with the landlord ended in October 2021
2. she was unhappy with the level of compensation offered to her by the landlord, and wanted a higher amount to be considered to reflect the impact
3. she wanted changes made to the way the landlord handles its complaints.
The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that since the resident’s complaint, it has:
1. implemented a new condensation, damp and mould process in July 2021. This is currently under review, with the intention of producing a new policy in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould.
2. a new decant policy and procedure, which was implemented in May 2022. The new procedure sets out expectations for residents during the decanting process.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report about damp and mould

The landlord was aware of the resident’s reports of damp and mould since September 2019, approximately a year after she moved into the property. Its records demonstrate that after initially attending the property to treat the mould, it was aware that the problem continued, and that the resident had concerns about the damp coming from her toilet which caused flies to enter her property.
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. However the landlord did not arrange for any follow up monitoring, and the resident had to chase it for a more appropriate response.
When the landlord discussed the resident’s ongoing concerns on 15 October 2019, it agreed to visit the property further to investigate the issue and establish if a visit from a damp specialist was necessary. However no records were seen that this visit took place and the landlord noted on 2 January 2020 that “all issues have now been resolved”. The lack of any record of visits between the property for 3 months, before concluding that the issue was “resolved” was contrary to its HHSRS obligations, and is of significant concern. It is not evident on what basis the landlord considered that the damp had been resolved where it had not demonstrated it had visited the property to investigate the matter further.
There were significant delays in getting the extractor fan fitted, having raised the job in October 2019, it did not fit the fan until July 2020. One of the reasons for the delay was that it did not send an electrician to connect the fan on the same day it was fitted. There are also no records to show that it followed up a missed appointment in February 2020. The delay of nine months to fit the bathroom extractor fan was not reasonable, and was significantly outside of the landlord’s 28 day time frame for a routine repair.
The landlord’s records demonstrate that in June 2020 it was made aware by the resident that the damp was ongoing, and after visiting to inspect the plug sockets, it identified the property required a follow up inspection. However, having been unsuccessful in gaining entry on one occasion in July 2020, it took no further steps to investigate the damp further for approximately six months. This was an inappropriate response by the landlord who had an obligation to ensure that it had taken all reasonable steps to prevent damp and mould in the property.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould makes clear that landlords should avoid taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident to tackle the issue. On 8 January 2021, the resident advised the landlord that when she reported the damp again, she had been advised by the landlord’s customer service team to use a mould spray to tackle the problem. This response was inappropriate as the landlord was aware that a thorough investigation into the damp remained outstanding, yet put the responsibility back on the resident to manage the issue herself.
The delay in the landlords response to monitoring the damp has exacerbated the problem for the resident over a significant period of time. Between July 2020 to January 2021 no mitigations were put in place by the landlord to support the resident. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had taken all other reasonable steps to tackle the issue in the absence of a comprehensive investigation by a specialist, in accordance with its HHSRS obligations.
The resident was living with significant damp in her home for a prolonged period of time, with limited intervention from the landlord. Once the specialist attended in January 2021, it reported that there were considerable issues with damp in the property which it concluded was largely due to “the absence of effective damp-proofing”. The report demonstrated that there was a significant amount of remedial works required to the property to address the issue, compounding the concerns the resident had raised on a number of occasions.
The resident had informed the landlord that she was undergoing tests for autism and that not knowing what works would be taking place in her property caused her significant distress. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had taken fully taken the resident’s vulnerability into consideration as it was not consistent in helping her understand the findings of the specialist report. The resident was given conflicting information as to the amount of time it would take to complete the repairs, and experienced time and trouble in querying missing items from the work schedule.
As the works identified were so extensive, it was reasonable that the landlord concluded that it would be appropriate to decant the resident in order for it to complete the remedial works as effectively as possible. The management of the decant will be reviewed separately in this report. However it is noted that the delays in completing the remedial works in the property were significantly impacted by being unable to complete them with the resident in situ. The refusals made by the resident in respect of her decant limited the landlord’s ability to repair at an earlier opportunity.
Overall, it is not disputed that there were significant delays in addressing the cause of the damp early on and there were considerable gaps of inaction by the landlord. These amount to a finding of maladministration. The landlord failed to address the cause of the damp early on, and it missed opportunities to effectively monitor the issue within the property where there were significant gaps of inaction, contrary to its HHSRS obligations.
In assessing whether the landlord learnt from outcomes, it is pertinent to highlight that it did take reasonable learning from the resident’s complaint. The landlord appropriately apologised for its failures, addressed inadequacies in its policies, and made further offers of decoration relating to her decant. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of the landlord’s new damp and mould assessment, and has recognised by utilising this in the future it will be better able to mitigate damp and mould risks affecting its residents.
However in offering compensation which took into account its poor handling of the damp issue, the landlord did not go far enough to recognise that the resident experienced a unique level of disruption which was compounded by living in a studio apartment. The layout of the studio property meant she was in closer proximity to the damp she was experiencing, as she did not have other rooms she could use to avoid it. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order of further compensation which better reflects the inconvenience the resident experienced from the date she first reported the damp, until the damp specialist report was issued.

The handling of the decant

It was appropriate that the landlord make arrangements to decant the resident, given the findings in the specialist damp report. However its records demonstrate that there was an unreasonable delay in explaining this to the resident, as it did not discuss the findings until 16 working days after the specialist report. This was a missed opportunity to discuss with the resident as soon as possible, what reasonable adjustments it could make in moving her to temporary accommodation.
The thought of decanting to another property was stressful for the resident and she had a number of concerns about where she would move to. The landlord demonstrated that it tried to work with the resident to identify properties which would suit her requirements for the 16 day period it anticipated the works to take place, and acted reasonably in managing her requests. It had no obligation within its decant policy to have provided the resident with sufficient desk space, to have accommodated her cat or to have taken into consideration her partner, who did not live at her substantive address.
It tried to accommodate the resident’s requests as much as possible and demonstrated that it had considered and acted in goodwill, seeking to find a property that accommodated her cat and caused minimum disruption to her studies. The landlord fairly demonstrated that it tried to work with the resident to identify appropriate accommodation that was reasonable in terms of her needs but also its own budgetary constraints.
Given the urgency of the remedial works, it was reasonable that the landlord tried to move the resident out as quickly as possible. It had to balance the availability of a suitable property against a reasonable amount of notice so that the resident could prepare for the move. At the resident’s request, the landlord ‘pushed back’ the date to start the works several times. Having initially suggested that she move in February 2021, it extended the start of the works on a further four occasions, until August 2021. This was an unreasonable amount of time to delay significant remedial works, yet by doing so, the landlord demonstrated empathy in an attempt to minimise the disruption to the resident. Overall it acted reasonably by trying to balance her needs against its obligations to carry out the remedial works as soon as possible.
The landlord’s offer a temporary move to a neighbouring property within the same location was reasonable. It allowed the resident to be a few doors from her home and therefore in the same location for her work and studies, minimising disruption as much as reasonably possible. It also gave the resident appropriate notice of the move, informing her on 27 May 2021, that the property would be ready on 28 June 2021.
The neighbouring property it offered had recently undergone its own refurbishment, and the landlord made arrangements to move furniture between the properties. It also arranged for Wi-Fi and an admin desk to assist the resident with her studies. This was a reasonable approach that took into account the disturbance allowance detailed within its decant policy.
There had been a failure in the landlord managing the resident’s expectations, which is evident in her surprise that the decant property only had limited furnishing. However the issue of the decant property not having more than a single point of exit, which caused the resident distress, was not something the landlord could have reasonably foreseen. No evidence was seen that not having a single point of entry to the property was a requirement of the resident at any point alternative accommodation options were discussed.
Over the period of time in which alternative accommodation was discussed with the resident, there were more elements to the move that the landlord had to continually consider that it was not previously aware of. A full understanding of the resident’s circumstances and requirements during its initial discussions about the move could have better managed the resident’s expectations. There was a failure of the landlord to have considered the full extent of support the resident required with the move at an earlier stage.
In its complaint response, the landlord has recognised and accepted this. It recognised that a basic inventory of items could have been provided to the resident on arrival to her temporary accommodation. It also appropriately highlighted that a better understanding of residents’ needs to support them in the process of temporary moves was required and that this should be backed by a more effective policy.
The Ombudsman has seen sight of the new decant policy in which it has implemented “important principles” in the relation to its management of a decant. This includes consulting with residents as soon as possible to find out what elements of the move concern them, and offering additional support through their tenancy support team as required. Overall, the landlord’s response to the decant was appropriate and it has taken sufficient steps to put its highlighted minor failures right.

Complaint handling

It is clear from the landlord’s records that it was aware that the resident was dissatisfied with it response to damp and mould over a prolonged period of time. Records demonstrate that when the resident first expressed that she wanted to complain on 14 October 2019 that “no notes [were taken] and not sure where the query went”. Failure to keep detailed records of what the resident was dissatisfied with was inappropriate and is of significant concern. It failed to effectively record the resident’s first expression of dissatisfaction and set out its understanding of the complaint, as is required by its own complaint policy.
There is also no record that having called the resident back to discuss her concerns, that it took any further action until it concluded that “all issues have been resolved” three months later. This was an inappropriate response by the landlord and failed to demonstrate what it did to put matters right. It failed to record what the outcomes and learnings of the initial complaint were at the earliest opportunity.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) recommends that landlords operate a two stage complaints process. The progression of the resident’s complaint was impaired by the landlord’s understanding of the purpose of the third, informal stage the landlord had set out within its complaint policy. The response sent on the 1 June 2021 demonstrates that the landlord’s staff acknowledged that a complaint had been made, but inappropriately put the onus on the resident to consider whether she wanted it dealt with formally or informally.
It was clear that the resident’s concerns could not have been resolved informally in the three to five working days the landlord cited in its policy. By failing to treat the matter as a formal complaint, the landlord delayed the process for the resident on several occasions. It caused unnecessary confusion for the resident, exacerbated her frustrations, and resulted in significant delays in dealing with the matter.
In handling the resident’s complaint informally over a period of 20 months, it was unable to effectively offer or address her requests for compensation. It is of concern that the landlord would suggest that compensation would be awarded only after the works had been completed to consider “the full time scale and level of inconvenience”. This approach would have further delayed an outcome for the resident, and prolonged her distress for an unknown period of time until the landlord concluded its complaint process.
When the resident made it clear to the landlord that she did want to complain and for it to be dealt with formally on 24 June 2021, the landlord took 15 working days to respond, which was five working days later than the expected time frame for a response. This was an unreasonable delay, which failed to take into consideration that the resident had already had to wait a significant amount of time for the landlord to deal with the matter formally. The landlord failed to recognise the inconvenience it had caused, and did not apologise for it with the response.
The landlord acknowledged that it failed to address the damp and mould in a timely manner, and recognised that the pandemic was not a justification for its delays in addressing the problem. It appropriately identified learnings from the handling of her complaint. It looked beyond the circumstances of the resident, and recognised that there were actions it could take to ‘put things right’ in terms of a better future process for the benefit of all residents. However it did not give reassurances as to when these reviews would take place.
The landlord offered reassurance that, in light of the circumstances the property would be fully redecorated prior to her return. This was a reasonable response from the landlord and was fair in its attempts to ‘put things right’ in time for her return to the property.
However the compensation offer did not clearly define and separate what it considered to be compensation for the poor handling of the damp issue, and what was being considered as a disturbance allowance in terms of her move under its decant policy. In doing so, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations.
Whilst the compensation the landlord offered the resident took into account the delays she had experienced in the handling of her reports about damp, it did not go far enough to include compensation for its complaints handling failures. This was inappropriate, as it failed to consider the full and significant level of detriment caused to the resident.
The stage two response did not offer any further reassurances that it had taken into account that the resident had been complaining to the landlord for a period of 20 months before it treated the matter formally. This amounts to maladministration by the landlord, as it did not acknowledge the full extent of its failings, and therefore did not take appropriate steps to put things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the residents reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant satisfactorily.

Reasons

There were significant delays in the landlord’s investigations into the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The delay of approximately 16 months in getting a damp specialist to attend the property was not appropriate or in accordance with its obligations and had a detrimental effect on the resident who continued to experience significant damp and mould in her property for a prolonged period of time.
In accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, the landlord was fair in its assessment of the resident’s decant experience. It was customer focussed, flexible and proactive in its approach. Although there were failures in managing the resident’s expectations from the outset, it demonstrated it had addressed learning points and has amended its policy to better identify the support needs of residents with temporary moves.
The landlord delayed the resident’s access to the complaints procedure by dealing with the complaint informally over a significant period of time. It prolonged the distress and inconvenience she had experienced in getting a suitable resolution to her complaint. Its offer of redress in the form of compensation was not sufficient in recognising the full extent of its failings.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to apologise for the failures identified
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of the report to pay the resident £2690.75. This is comprised of:
1. £995 previously offered if it has not already been paid
2. £1195.75 for the delays and inconvenience caused in addressing the damp within the property
3. £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure in the handling of the resident’s complaint.
Within six weeks of this determination, the landlord should;
1. review its complaint policy and any associated staff guidance to demonstrate learning from the outcome of this complaint. This review should be completed with reference to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and must include:
  1. ensuring that staff are clear on the definition of a complaint
  2. ensuring that there are clear instructions on how and when a formal complaint should be recorded
  3. make staff of aware of the need to consider the individual circumstances of each complaint, and use appropriate discretion.
2. carry out a review of this case to identify learning, improve its working practices and ensure its procedures for damp and mould are fit for purpose. In doing so, the landlord 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 include clearly defining and communicating the responsibilities of both the tenant and the landlord, and service level expectations in its publications. The outcome of the landlord’s review should be shared with the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to consider replacing its three-stage complaint process with a two-stage complaint process, as recommended within the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the orders and its intentions in regard to the recommendation within the dates specified above.