GreenSquareAccord Limited (202105123)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105123

GreenSquare Group Limited

28 June 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Mould.
2. Window repairs.
3. A crack in the ceiling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy agreement with the landlord that started in 2012. The property is a two-bedroom first floor flat.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that it gives all responsive repairs a priority based on urgency and risk. The landlord aims to complete 95% of non‑emergency repairs within 28 calendar days from report. The policy says that, if an inspection is needed, this should be completed in the first seven days, leaving 21 days for the repair to be completed.
The repairs policy says that the landlord is responsible for, among other things, the roof; outside wall; windowsills, window catches; the repair or renewal of window fasteners; the repair or renewal of window locks; internal walls; and ceilings and plasterwork (but not painting and decorating). This policy also sets out what falls under the responsibility of the resident which includes, among other things, minor cracks to plaster and internal painting and decoration.
The repairs policy also says that residents should make simple lifestyle changes to resolve issues such as condensation. Where condensation is the cause of any reported dampness the resident will be advised of the action that is needed to be taken to deal with the problem and prevent further instances.
At the time of the complaint, the landlord had a two-stage formal complaints procedure after trying to resolve matters immediately (within two working days). At stage one the landlord aimed to reply within five working days and ten working days at stage two.
On 23 March 2020 the UK government announced a national lockdown due to covid-19. This was eased from June 2020 when schools and non-essential retail outlets re-opened. The government introduced new restrictions from 22 September 2020 and a second full national lockdown was announced on 31 October 2020 that came into effect from 5 November 2020. While restrictions were lifted slightly over Christmas, there was a new national lockdown from 6 January 2021. While schools re-opened on 8 March 2021, the “stay at home” order remained in place until 29 March 2021. On 19 July 2021 most legal limits on social contact were removed in England and the final closed sectors of the economy reopened. During lockdown the landlord operated an essential repair service only inside properties.

Summary of events

On 19 January 2020 the resident gave the landlord details of the action she was taking to try to minimise the mould in the property adding that this was not helping. She said the main problem was with the windows and asked if a damp survey could be carried out.
On 29 January 2020 the landlord told the resident that one of its surveyors would inspect the property for damp and mould on 20 February 2020. The evidence suggests a surveyor visited and recommended works; however, this Service has not seen a copy of any report by the surveyor. On 4 March 2020 the resident asked for an update.
Some six months later, on 24 September 2020, the resident chased up the landlord for action that had been agreed with a damp contractor. The landlord noted it had tried to contact this contractor by various means without success and a further damp inspection would be required as these were now carried out by the landlord, rather than a contractor.
On 29 October 2020 a surveyor visited the property. It noted that furniture should be moved away from the walls and that the resident should de-clutter to allow the air to circulate better.
On 20 November 2020 the resident asked the landlord for an update. She said that repairs had been agreed following the inspection but had not been carried out. She said she believed the windows in the property needed replacing. She said that the handles were hanging off and the plastic pieces for tightening the windows were falling apart. The resident added that some windows did not close properly and she could clearly see there were gaps where the cold air got in. She also explained that the landlord had inspected the walls and found they were dry from the outside but there was mould all over the walls inside the property. She added that she had been patient but the landlord now needed to do something.
On 24 November 2020 the landlord responded saying it had raised numerous jobs that day with regards to the ongoing mould problems: kitchen and bathroom fans to be renewed; vents to be installed in cupboard door; mould wash to be undertaken in all rooms and loft insulation to be taken up and refitted.
On 20 December 2020 the resident told the landlord that she was not happy with plans to carry out a mould wash and said that the windows should be replaced instead.
On 30 December 2020 the landlord inspected the windows in the property. It noted that some hinges needed renewing, some windows needed overhauling and eased and adjusted.
On the following day the landlord noted that it had sent referral forms to have the windows upgraded. The landlord subsequently noted that the windows had been installed in October 1995 and were not due to be replaced for a further five years.
On 26 January 2021 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about, among other things, the mould in the property and the windows.
On 1 February 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident to acknowledge her complaint and said it would respond by 19 February 2021 at the latest.
In early February 2021 the landlord carried out various work in the property including a mould wash of a cupboard, hallway, bedrooms, lounge, kitchen and bathroom. It also installed vents in the top and bottom of the cupboard door and installed a new vent in the bedroom. It also replaced fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
On 9 February 2021 the resident told the landlord that there was still mould in the kitchen, most notably behind the washing machine and freezer. On the following day the landlord noted that the work to remedy the mould was still ongoing.
On 10 February 2021 the landlord inspected the roof of the property for leaks. It noted that felt should be renewed over the kitchen area as it was rotten and falling in.
On 12 February a damp contractor carried out a second inspection of the property. They found that the property was suffering with condensation and black spot mould growth. They noted no levels of dampness were found in the external walls which they said confirmed they were dealing with a condensation issue. They said that heavy condensation was evident on all windows and they therefore believed that excessive moisture production was the main cause of the ongoing issues and, therefore, that the property required additional air changes to resolve the ongoing issues. They said that appropriate biocides should be used to ensure that black spot mould growth was kept to a controllable level (rather than a bleach-based product). They recommended installing a PIV (positive input ventilation) unit and further mould-washing of the walls in the bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen and lounge.
On 15 February 2021 the landlord asked the resident to move items out of the attic so that its operatives could return to finish relaying loft insulation.
On 19 February 2021 the landlord responded to the resident at stage one of its formal complaint procedures. In relation to the repairs, the main points were:
1. The resident had first reported mould in the property in January 2020. Its surveyor had visited on 20 February 2020 and subsequently asked for an independent inspection of the property to be carried out by its contractor, (the mould contractor). However, that was put on hold due to the pandemic as it was only able to carry out emergency repairs.
2. It gave details of the work undertaken following a second visit to the property by a surveyor in October 2020; this work was carried out in early February 2021. It could not top up the insulation in the loft as it could not access it due to the items stored there and the resident was asked to remove these so this work could take place.
3. On 12 February 2020 a damp contractor had carried out an independent assessment of the flat. They recommended installing a new ventilation unit in the hallway to help manage the condensation and therefore reduce mould growth. This work had been approved and the contractor would be in touch to arrange a date for its installation.
4. It had also arranged an inspection of the roof as a result of the resident’s concerns that holes in the roof were causing the mould. This inspection found that sections of felt needed renewing and it had asked its roofing contractor to arrange this with the resident.
5. The replacement of the windows had been referred to its major works team and the windows were inspected on 18 February 2021. It was found that the windows were 25 years old and had a lifespan of 30 years it said it was its intention to replace these the following financial year (2022-23), although that was subject to potential change. In the meantime, it had asked for the windows to be eased and adjusted and the hinges changed where necessary to help resolve the problems the resident was experiencing. It said it would do so when the pandemic restrictions had been lifted.
In conclusion, the landlord said it was working to resolve the problems she had reported about mould and various repairs in the property. It said it recognised that it was taking longer than it would ordinarily expect to complete repairs due to the restrictions placed on it due to the pandemic.
On 1 March 2021 the resident reported cracks in the ceiling of the property.
On 5 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident. The main points were:
1. It apologised that there were areas that it had not included in the previous mould wash and said its contractor would include these areas when it installed new ventilation.
2. The damp survey had not found damp but that the mould was caused by condensation; it would increase ventilation in the property to help manage that.
3. It apologised that the contractor had got paint on the resident’s sofa and curtains and offered £50 to have those items cleaned.
4. It would undertake the repairs the resident had reported (cracked ceiling and two broken extractor fans) when it could carry out non-emergency repairs again in line with Government pandemic restrictions.
On 12 March 2021 the landlord issued the final response to the resident under its formal complaints procedure. In relation to the repairs, the main points were:
1. It would process the payment of £50 for the cleaning of the sofa and curtains and the resident should receive it within ten working days.
2. The issue was condensation rather than damp which been confirmed by the inspection.
3. The contractor would contact the resident to fully complete the mould wash which the landlord had partially completed in February 2021.
4. The kitchen and bathroom extractor fans would be repaired on 26 March 2021, which was within its current timescale for routine repairs.
5. A PIV unit would be installed by the contractor; they would contact the resident direct to make an appointment.
6. The replacement of the windows had been added to a planned schedule of works for future, although it could not confirm that date for that at that time.
7. Repairs to the windows and to the crack in the ceiling had been raised in the meantime and would be booked in once normal service had resumed in line with government advice on the pandemic.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 22 June 2021 the window contractor noted that the work to overhaul all the windows and “ease and adjust” was practically finished.
On 3 August 2021 the operative told the landlord that, while the resident wanted to have the ceilings skimmed, no repairs were required to the ceiling
On 2 October 2021 the resident told the Ombudsman that she had not had hot water for months; her storage heaters did not work; there were cracks on the ceilings and walls and mould everywhere. She said that paint was coming off the walls and artex from the ceilings “fell on our heads”; window replacements had not been booked and her wooden floorboards squeaked which would cause problems if anyone moved into the flat below.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said that no repairs had been carried out. She said the landlord had painted anti-mould paint on part of the walls which meant she had half green and half white walls. She said she could not decorate because of the anti-mould paint. She said that the bits of the kitchen ceiling were falling off and onto their food. The resident also said that her squeaky floorboards were a nuisance for the people living downstairs.

Assessment and findings

Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we can only look at matters that have had a final complaint response from a landlord under its formal complaints procedure. The issue of the squeaky floorboards, storage heaters and lack of hot water did not form part of the complaint and therefore have not been considered as part of this report. If these issues are still outstanding, the resident should raise them with the landlord in the first instance.

The landlord’s response to reports of mould

It is reasonable for the landlord to rely upon the expert views of its contractors. Therefore, it is reasonable for the landlord to have treated the reports of mould as being caused by condensation, rather than damp, because that was the view of the surveyor and the damp contractor.
The landlord did not treat the resident’s report of mould in January 2020 in line with its repair policy because the survey took place one month later, rather than within seven days (paragraph 3). Not long after that there was a lockdown due to the pandemic and non-emergency repairs were largely put on hold until restrictions were lifted in June 2020.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have progressed these repairs when the first lockdown lifted in June 2020 or at least contacted the resident about them. However, it did not and, when the resident contacted it some months later, it then required a second inspection as its processes relating to such surveys had changed. This meant that there was a delay in carrying out recommended works, which took place in February 2021, over one year after the mould had been reported. While some of that delay was inevitable due to the pandemic, the works could likely have been carried out sooner had the landlord been proactive in managing them.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The delay in carrying out the works to remedy the mould evidently caused the resident and her family inconvenience and distress. It was inevitable that some delay would have been caused as a result of the pandemic; however, had the landlord acted proactively it is reasonable to presume that the works would have been completed by November 2020 (as it took over four months from September to February to carry out the works when the resident chased matters).
Financial compensation of £200 is appropriate here for that impact on the resident which meant she and her children spent a winter with mouldy walls and ceilings.
The resident is unhappy about the state of the decoration in the property following the anti-mould paint being out on the walls. In line with the repairs policy, residents are responsible for redecoration; however, I have made a recommendation, below, in relation to that.

The landlord’s response to reports of window repairs

There was some delay in the landlord’s handling of the report of the repairs to the windows – the inspection did not take place within seven days in line with its repairs policy and the repairs then took a further six months. It is reasonable to presume that these delays were likely due to the number of repairs that were outstanding when the pandemic restrictions were lifted. In its final complaint response, the landlord made it clear to the resident that these repairs would take place once its normal service had been resumed. Given that, overall, the landlord’s response to the reports of the windows was reasonable.
While the resident is disappointed that the landlord did not replace the windows, it acted appropriately by carrying out suitable repairs to improve their condition in the short term. It was also appropriate for the landlord to add the windows to a planned programme for their replacement given they were not yet considered to be at the end of their lifespan.

The landlord’s response to reports of a crack in the ceiling

The landlord’s response to the report of a crack in the ceiling was reasonable – it undertook to look into this matter once government pandemic restrictions were lifted. The outcome of the inspection was that no repairs were required; it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on that expert view of the operative that the crack was minor which meant that the resident was responsible for it (paragraph 4).
The resident gave a further description of the state of the ceiling to this Service more recently and I have made a recommendation for the landlord to carry out a further inspection of the ceiling, if it has not done so already.

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 mould.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Window repairs.
2. A crack in the ceiling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the reports of mould was not appropriate because it did not act initially in line with the timescales set out in the repairs policy and then was not proactive in progressing the recommended works or communicating with the resident about them.
The landlord acted appropriately by carrying out works to improve the condition of the windows in the short term as well as adding them to the window replacement programme.
The landlord acted appropriately by inspecting the ceiling and relying on the view of its operative that this was a minor crack and therefore the responsibility of the resident.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the delay in carrying out works to remedy the mould in the property.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £200 for the impact the delay in carrying out those works had on her and her family.
3. Install the PIV unit (if it has not done so already).

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
1. Give the resident advice on how to redecorate following the application of anti-mould paint.
2. Re-inspect the ceiling on the property and, if appropriate, carry out works to remedy the issue.