One Manchester Limited (202123151)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123151

One Manchester Limited

13 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of condensation, damp and mould and the resulting repairs undertaken.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a new build, which was in the defect period at the time of these issues being reported.
3. The resident’s tenancy started on 30 August 2021. In September 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that the property had an issue with excessive condensation. He explained that this was specifically extreme around the skylight in his bedroom. As the property was still in the defect period, the landlord contacted the developers to ask them to inspect the issue. The developers attended the property on 29 September 2021 and gave the resident advice on how to adequately ventilate the property to assist with the drying out process.
4. The resident continued to report that the condensation was excessive to the landlord. It contacted the developers, who attended the property in October 2021 and installed a dehumidifier. After the resident reported that the issue was ongoing, the developers again attended in November 2021 and installed an acoustic vent in the apartment, to aid ventilation. The resident complained that the vent had caused a draft and excessive noise and so the developers installed a mechanical ventilation unit, also in November 2021.
5. After a visit to the property in January 2022, the landlord asked the developers to further inspect the skylight. The developers, together with the skylight manufacturer compiled a report dated 19 January 2022. It concluded that the heightened levels of humidity in the properties was caused by a combination of the property still drying out after construction, exacerbated by the resident’s lifestyle choices.
6. The resident submitted a complaint on 20 January 2022. He complained that the ongoing issues with condensation had not yet been rectified. He felt that the landlord was not supporting him in this issue, but passing him along to the developers. He was also upset that the solutions the developers had tried had caused his flat to be much colder, which in turn was costing him more in terms of electricity bills. The landlord continued to meet with the developers to discuss a solution to the problem, and updated the resident. The resident escalated his complaint on 28 January 2022, due to the landlord’s delay in sending its stage one response. In addition, the resident stated he would like to be compensated for the extra electricity usage incurred by the ventilation unit.
7. The landlord sent its stage one response to the resident on 4 February 2022. It apologised that the steps taken so far had not rectified the condensation issue. It explained that as the developers report had been inconclusive, it had decided to gain an independent assessment of the skylight. It explained that it was continuing to investigate the issue and therefore could not yet address his complaint in full. The independent survey took place on 17 February 2022.
8. On 11 March 2022, the landlord sent its stage two response to the resident. It explained that the independent survey had found that the skylight was not airtight, and had listed some repair recommendations to help combat the condensation. It assessed the resident’s electricity bills and offered £250 towards the extra electric usage, as well as £150 compensation for the resident’s stress and inconvenience.
9. Although the developers have since carried out the works recommended, the resident has stated in his complaint to this Service that the condensation issue is ongoing. He would like the problem to be solved and for the compensation amount to be reassessed.

Assessment

10. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the building in repair. This includes the windows, windowsills and frames.
11. As the property was still in the defect period, the landlord needed to refer to the procedure laid out in its ‘defects reporting and monitoring process’ document. This states that any defects highlighted during the defects period must be reported via the landlord. The landlord should then raise the issue with the contractor, who will then arrange access with the resident directly to complete the remedial work. At the end of the defects period, if any issues are highlighted as outstanding, the repairs need to be completed by the contractor and then closed down.
12. On receiving a report of a possible defect in September 2021, the landlord acted reasonably, and in line with the above policy by contacting the developers to investigate. It continued to communicate proactively with the developer, chasing for a response whenever the resident reported any issues. After the developer had undertaken several repairs that had not reduced the condensation, the landlord liaised with the developer, arranging for the parties to inspect the property again in January 2021.
13. The landlord continued to act reasonably, as it worked to gain a resolution for the resident. After querying the developer’s conclusion that the property was simply drying out after construction and needed extra ventilation for the first 12 months, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for an independent survey of the property. The survey suggested that the skylight was defective, due to an issue with being improperly sealed. The survey also highlighted that the resident was not using the mechanical ventilation unit, or the extractor in the bedroom and bathroom. It suggested making the skylight itself easier to open, to allow for further ventilation of the property. The landlord arranged with the developer to undertake the repair works suggested in the report. The developer complied, although it did state that it was doing so as a goodwill gesture, and not because it believed that the window was defective.
14. The landlord’s complaint’s policy states that a formal stage one response should be provided within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, the landlord should escalate the complaint and respond within 20 working days. The landlord did not manage to respond within these timescales. However, it acted appropriately by updating the resident continuously about his complaint and managed his expectations effectively. The response was delayed due to the landlord actively investigating the condensation issue and pursing a solution.
15. In its stage one response in February 2022, the landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the resident’s frustrations and apologising for the difficulties he had faced since moving into the property. It explained that it would pursue an independent survey to ensure that the condensation issue was properly assessed. In its final response in March 2022, it detailed the repairs it would undertake to try and solve the issue. It explained that a dual approach needed to be taken, with the resident also taking steps to properly ventilate the property. It was reasonable of the landlord to offer £400 compensation to the resident, to help cover the costs of the extra electricity used, and in recognition of the inconvenience suffered.
16. Despite the developer undertaking the recommended repairs to the property, the issues with excessive condensation have remained ongoing. The landlord has continued to work with both the developer and the resident to try and gain a solution to the problem. It provided a dehumidifier in March 2022 to help dry out the property. It also offered to take thermal images of the property in June 2022, to ascertain how much heat the property was losing. In response to the resident’s concerns about incurring extra costs by running the ventilation unit and extra heating, the landlord offered in December 2022 to compensate the resident £50 a month until the issue was resolved. It also offered the resident £1,500 in compensation for the ongoing issue.
17. Although it is not disputed that the resident has been greatly inconvenienced by the condensation issues, the landlord has acted to the best of its ability to find a solution to the problem, and to mitigate the impact on the resident. It would be helpful for the resident to follow the landlord’s advice for properly ventilating his property, now that he has been provided with additional financial aid to fund the extra electricity usage.

Determination (decision)

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of condensation, damp and mould and the resulting repairs undertaken.