Stonewater Limited (202125506)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125506

Stonewater Limited

30 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 concerns:
1. The landlord’s response to reports of damp, mould and leaks.
2. The related complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a two-bedroom ground floor flat in a four storey block. The property is retirement accommodation.
The landlord advised the Ombudsman that over the past two years it carried out a large project to transfer all hard copies of records to digital, including tenancy agreements, however, it is unable to locate resident’s tenancy agreement.
The resident has vulnerabilities, the landlord’s records note that she is elderly and has diabetes, type two.
On 2 February 2022, the resident explained to the Ombudsman, the negative impact the issues had had on her physical and mental health. These included hip and back pain, a sense of despair, nausea, vomiting and suicidal ideation. She said that she was prescribed anti-depressants to aid her mental health.
It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate if there was a causal link between reports of health issues experienced by the resident and the actions of the landlord. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint. As these claims are more appropriately dealt with by a court or other procedure, this element will not be investigated. Nonetheless, the landlord had a duty to take into account any vulnerabilities when responding to her reports of damp, mould and leaks and therefore this issue will be considered in this review.
The landlord’s records show that the resident first reported damp and mould at the property on 9 June 2021. She and her Housing Officer (HO) emailed the landlord photos of the affected areas on 14 and 16 June 2021.
On 13 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord reporting a suspected leak on the radiator which she said was causing damage to her property. On 15 July 2021, the landlord’s records indicate an operative attended to check the radiator valves, but its notes indicate the source of the leak was not the radiator valves and they recommended for the issue to be referred to its repairs contractor.
On 19 July 2021, the resident reported that she has been in the property all weekend with a wet bathroom carpet. She discovered the flooring underneath the carpet in the bathroom and main bedroom was “soaking wet” and that there was damp “rising from the floor”. She said she did not agree with previous advice given that it was “her lifestyle” and said she had followed advice provided to keep her windows open and she had been using dehumidifiers.
The landlord’s HO visited the resident again on 20 July 2021 and their notes state they were concerned about the “very large patches on the bedroom walls” and that the mould in the bedroom and small patched in the living were getting larger. They asked for the landlord’s repairs contractor to visit the property.
The entry in the landlord case system dated 22 July 2021 shows the landlord’s HO reported internally that she was receiving daily complaints from the resident about the damp issues in her property and requested for the repairs contractor to call the resident.
The entry in the landlord system dated 26 July 2021, shows the landlord’s HO reported that the resident was “very upset” about not being able to sleep in the bedroom due to the damp. The note says the smell was unpleasant.
The landlord’s repairs history (operative notes from contractor) indicates that at some point, the landlord raised a job with its repair contractor to investigate the reported leak from under the floor and to supply a large dehumidifier as the bedroom and hallway carpets were wet. It had a target date of 27 July 2021. The evidence indicated its heating contractor attended on 2 August 2021 and its repairs contractor attended on 4 August 2021, who noted the leak on the resident’s central heating pipes had been resolved however they were awaiting the report from the heating contractor. Work to address the mould on the walls would be carried out on 12 August 2021. Their notes stated this had not been caused by the leak but “lifestyle issues” and “just needed washing down and stain blocking”.
On 9 August 2021, the landlord received a formal complaint from the resident dated 5 August 2021. Within her complaint, she said that she had been reporting the damp issues for nine weeks since the first week of June 2021. She stated that both she and her HO had reported the issue and had sent photos to the repairs contractor. Whilst checking under the carpet near the radiator in the main bedroom, she discovered that the carpet and underlay was “soaking wet and damp was “coming up through the floor”. The resident advised that she received some information from the landlord about how to address damp and mould, however, this had not helped and dampness and a bad smell remained in the flat. She said she was told “week after week” that she would be contacted by the repairs contractor until eventually a surveyor contacted her and said they would attend on 10 August 2021.
The resident stated that a plumber attended on 2 August 2021, to check the radiator valves and advised her that the repair would take one day. She also received a dehumidifier on 2 August 2021, however, the machine leaked onto the carpet exasperating the problem. The resident advised the bedrooms were not useable and that she had been sleeping on the sofa in the living room for the past six weeks.
The resident said the matter had caused her “much discomfort and distress”. She was 74 years old and diabetic. She felt that the landlord had not met its duty of care owed to her. She said that due to the length of time the problem has been ongoing, damage had been caused to her possessions including her bed, mattress, mattress cover, two duvets, a bed set, six pillows plus cases and running costs of the dehumidifier. She requested compensation for this.
The landlord’s repairs history indicates that the repairs contractor attended the property on occasions including on 12 and 24 August 2021 to address the damp and mould. The mould on four bedroom walls was “cleaned and damp sealed”. The notes also state they checked all internal pipework and found no issues with the leak but there were signs of the damp proof membrane failing and a possible issue with the soil stack that needed inspecting. Follow on work was raised but the details are unclear from the available evidence.
On 30 August 2021, the landlord provided the resident with a stage one response in which it apologised for the experience she had had with its repair service. It advised its surveyor and contractor representative had attended the property and arranged to have the mould treated in the first bedroom on 12 August 2021 and in the second bedroom on 24 August 2021, in line with her husband’s shift pattern. It said it was sorry for the distress and upset this had caused her.
The landlord advised that its heating engineer had identified a leak on the pipework in the bedroom and that the thermostatic radiator valves in both her bedroom and bathroom required replacing. These repairs had been booked in with her. It said it was sorry for the length of time it had taken to identify the leak and resolve the issues; this was not the service that it expected for its customers.
It advised that its contractor had confirmed that the dehumidifier would be collected on 24 August 2021. Her complaint had been shared and its repairs contractor had recognised the shortfall in service provided and changes had been made to improve the service and communication in relation to repairs.
It offered the resident compensation of £365 comprising:
1. £50 for service failure for repairs;
2. £50 for Inconvenience and distress caused;
3. £200 towards her damaged carpet and;
4. £65 for 13 days use of the dehumidifier (£5 per day).
The resident replied to the landlord on 30 August 2021, asking for a review of her complaint. She said that her property was “unfit for purpose” due to mould and damp and the “pungent smell”. She said the hallway was also damp and smelly and the odour in the bathroom remained. She reiterated that she had resorted to moving herself as well as most of her possessions into the sitting room. She explained sleeping on the sofa had caused issues with her hip. She complained that it taken ten weeks before its repair contractor attended.
The resident explained that she had not claimed for her carpets but for personal items no longer useable and the cost of electricity to run the dehumidifier. The stated that the cost of damaged items were:
1. 1 kingsize Divan bed – £350
2. 2 kingsize duvets – £30
3. 1 kingsize bedset – £20
4. 6 pillows – £30
5. 6 pillowcases – £18
6. 1 kingsize mattress cover – £8. Total £456
The resident said that this did not include the cost of electricity to run the dehumidifier. She therefore requested a review by the landlord of the compensation amount.
The landlord’s repair history indicates its heating contractor attended again on 6 September 2021 and identified a leak coming from under the floor. They reported that all the heating pipes “run on the surface” and referred the job back to the landlord to investigate the leak.
On 6 September 2021, the resident confirmed in a letter to the landlord the points raised in her 30 August 2021 email including that she was dissatisfied with the compensation amount offered and she requested a review of her complaint. She reiterated the problems and said they remained unresolved. She repeated that the condition of the flat was impacting her health.
The resident emailed her MP on 15 September 2021, advising that she had been reporting damp and mould in both bedrooms and the hallway to her landlord since June 2021. She had moved into the living room on 25 July 2021. Items left in the bedroom had been damaged by mould spores. She eventually realised that the mould was caused by water ingress under the carpets near the outside walls of the bedroom. There was also wetness under hall carpet. She observed that the issues were underground. She was unhappy with the compensation offered and said that she requested a review, but had not heard back from the landlord.
The landlord contacted its heating contractor on 20 September 2021, to ask if the leak had been fixed. Their response was that it attended on 16 September 2021 and its engineer advised a leak on the radiator pipework had been repaired and tested and all was working okay.
The landlord’s internal communications dated 23 September 2021 refer to an internal meeting taking place on 22 September 2021 to discuss the resident’s case.
The landlord’s repair history indicates its heating and drainage contractors attended the property on further occasions between 24 September 2021 and 7 October 2021 to undertake a CCTV of the pipes and the soil stack. Notes referred to a defect being found, but no further details are given.
On 24 September 2021, the landlord issued a response to the resident’s MP. It advised its customer relations team was in contact with the resident regarding her complaint which it was investigating. The compensation and repairs elements were being monitored. It carried out mould treatment on 24 August 2021, additionally a leak that was identified on the radiator pipework was repaired, and tested on the 16 September 2021 by its heating contractor who confirmed that all was working okay.
The landlord advised it had arranged for its repair contractor, to attend again on 24 September 2021, to fit window trickle vents to allow additional ventilation to the property, along with their specialist contractor to ensure that there were no underground pipe issues. The landlord said it hoped this information would give some reassurance that it was actively trying to resolve the issues for the resident.
The landlord’s repairs history show its contractor attended on 24 September 2021 and its internal email communications show they advised on this date that trickle vents were already installed at the property and there was no sign of any further mould since the last treatment on 24 August 2021. However, they advised that there was a minor leak on the pipework feeding the radiator in main bedroom that was causing “minor wet patches to the carpet” that needed attending. They referred to undertaking a camera survey to establish if there was any leak on the soil stack which they noted likely ran under the floor to the manhole in the garden.
On 29 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident offering a further £350.00 in compensation for the damage caused to her mattress.
A representative from the landlord visited the resident at the property on 30 September 2021 and their notes of the visit stated that the resident had rejected the compensation amount offered. They noted that:
1. There was no signs of a leak.
2. The carpet was damp and had moisture marks, but these did not look like they had occurred recently.
3. It told the resident the flat did not smell of damp and mould and there was no evidence of damp spores.
4. The mattress affected by the mould had been removed from the property.
On 4 October 2021, the landlord told the resident that it had escalated her complaint to stage two of its complaints process and advised that it aimed to respond within 10 working days.
On 14 October 2021, the landlord provided a stage two review response. It advised that in relation to mould in the property, its understanding was that the mould issue she reported earlier in the year had now been treated, with the last affected area treated on 24 August 2021, and that following a subsequent visit to her home to check whether the treatment had been effective, its partnering contractor confirmed it had.
It advised that the underground piping and damp proof coursing were also checked to ensure these were not causing damp or mould and also her windows were checked to ensure the trickle vents were all operational, meaning she had additional ventilation within her home. It was hopeful this would prevent the mould returning advised her to contact it if she had further concerns or needed further support or guidance regarding how to avoid damp, mould and condensation in her home.
In addition, the landlord advised that the leak identified at the property during the course of its recent visits had been isolated and the final repair works were due to take place later that week. It apologised for the repairs taking slightly longer than expected but in the current operating environment, its partnering contractors were facing challenges in relation to access to labour and materials, meaning some repairs were taking longer than normal.
It advised it would honour its previous offer of compensation. The landlord advised if she was unhappy with its response she had the option to request a review by its customer complaints panel (CCP) or alternatively to contact the Ombudsman Service.
On 20 October 2021, the resident advised that the heating contractor had attended but they were unable to complete the repair to the bathroom pipes as equipment to freeze the pipes had not been delivered. She reiterated that the living room, where she was sleeping had damp rising from the floor and the carpet had turned from a green to a dullish grey and had moisture spots. She complained that no one had addressed the dampness from the flooring. The resident also referred to drainage contractors having attended to undertake a CCTV survey and said she was concerned about them finding a fracture in her pipes.
The landlord’s internal communications show it contracted the heating contractor on 22 October to ask if the “leaking radiator and any associated works” had been fixed as jobs were showing as open. It said if the works had not been completed, to advise when they would be completed and to get back to it that day. Its contractor replied advising the works had not yet been completed.
On 1 November 2021, the resident asked for her complaint to be reviewed by its CCP. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request on the same date and advised a response would be provided within 20 working days.
On 13 November 2021, the resident set out the details of her complaint to the CCP. She explained the problems being experienced, when they started and the reasons she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the issues.
The landlord’s internal communications show it contacted its heating contractor on 26 November 2021 chasing the outstanding repairs to the property. In their response dated 30 November 2021, they explained the outstanding work was to install isolation valves which would be used to isolate the radiator so it could carry out the repair. It explained the visit scheduled for 29 November 2021 did not go ahead as there was an issue with the freeze kit. This appointment had been rescheduled for 7 December 2021.
The landlord’s repair history shows a drainage contactor attended the property on 2 December 2021 to unblock the sink.
On 7 December 2021, the landlord contacted its heating contractor to ask if the work scheduled for that day was going ahead. The contractor replied that the appointment would not go ahead as the parts were unavailable. The landlord called the resident to advise her of this delay.
On 9 December 2021, the landlord’s CCP issued the resident with a customer complaint outcome letter. It advised it had completed a review on 6 December 2021, when the panel considered all of the information, the photographs and evidence supplied by the landlord, alongside her personal statement.
In regards to her concerns regarding damp and mould, it understood a leak on the pipework in her bedroom was identified and the thermostatic radiator valves in both her bedroom and bathroom needed to be replaced. They understood from the information supplied that the mould and damp had been successfully treated and the valve repairs had also been completed however if this was not the case, they asked her to let them know.
The CCP said they believed that the landlord previously provided her with a copy of its guide to damp and mould/condensation but it was providing a link for this or if she wanted a printed version, she should request this from the customer engagement team.
It acknowledged that the mould and damp combined with the issues of the leaking pipework and the leaking dehumidifier, must have been a challenging few months for her. It had reviewed the landlord’s two offers of financial recompense to her totalling £715 and felt this amount was “more than fair” and had this amount not already been offered, they would have made a judgement to offer a lesser amount.

Post CCP response.

On 16 December 2021, the resident confirmed to the landlord that the repairs to address the damp, mould leaks had been completed but that there was still an odour at the property which had not been addressed. On 31 December 2021, the resident told the landlord the bad smell indicated there was still “a serious problem in the flat”.
On 2 February 2022, the resident explained to the Ombudsman, the negative impact the issues had had on her physical and mental health. She also said:
1. She was unable to “dress” the flat as there were issues with the flooring which had deteriorated and an “oozing brown substance” had changed the appearance. She would like a full investigations of this and the flooring tiles should be removed and replaced. As there is no evidence of this specific complaint exhausting the landlord’s complaints process, this service is unable to consider this request in this review.
2. There had been a lack of information given regarding the smell that “permeates” in the flat which she feels is related to the drains and she would like a full investigation of this.
3. She requested that the landlord pay her compensation for: the cost of replacing her possessions which were damaged including clothing, shoes, handbags; king-size bed; bedding; a rug and all carpets, which have had to be removed; and for the manner it handled the issue and the lack of a duty of care shown.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 14 April 2022 to report “a sewerage smell” in bathroom and hallway within the property.
In subsequent communications with the Ombudsman from 13 March 2023 to 13 March 2023, the resident advised:
1. She is unhappy with the amount of compensation offered given she had to sleep in her living room “for over a year”.
2. Whilst the leak was addressed, “black speckles” of damp have returned. The resident said the landlord sent an independent company to assess the damp in March 2023. She has asked the landlord for a copy of the report but she has not been provided with this. As these relate to events after the date of landlord’s final response which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, its handling of these recent reports of damp and mould will not be considered in this review.
3. She reiterated her request for the landlord pay her compensation to cover the cost of the damage to her possessions.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of damp, mould and leaks.

The landlord’s repair guide states it will respond to high priority repairs within 24 hours and repairs that don’t pose an immediate risk to health and safety it will carry out repairs based on an appointment system. This guide states it is responsible for repairing pipes, flooring and leaks.
The causes of damp and mould can vary and range from condensation as a result of moisture in the property but can also be indicative of leaks or structural issues with the building. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord handled the reports of damp, mould and in this case also leaks, in accordance with its policies and reasonably in all of the circumstances.
It is clear that it took multiple visits by various of the landlord’s contractors over several months before damp, mould and leaks identified at the property, were fully addressed. Whilst this service recognises that it can take landlords longer to diagnose and rectify causes in more complex cases, this review found the landlord could have taken further steps earlier on to identify the problems sooner.
There is also evidence of the resident being told by the landlord or its contractors, that the damp and mould within the property was due to her “lifestyle”. This was inappropriate as this was prior to any significant active investigation of the issues and furthermore the resident told the landlord from the start that she regularly cleaned the wallswith mould remover, heated the property and kept windows open. It is clear that her HO witnessed early on that the resident was following the advice provided in the landlord’s guidance on condensation, damp and mould (the Guide) which they relayed to the landlord. This suggests it was not actively listening to the resident or HO. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and mould sets out our expectations in relation to landlords, in their initial response to reports of damp and mould,avoiding apportioning blame or using language that leaves residents feeling blamed.
The resident informed the landlord from as early as July 2021 that she was sleeping on the sofa in the living room due to the extent of the damp patches on the bedroom walls and also due to wet flooring. These issues were indicative of a serious problem. But it took at least two months after the resident’s initial reports, before the landlord’s repair team began investigating the potential causes of the issues being complained about. This did then result in it identifying issues with the pipework at the property causing the leaks.
On receiving an initial report of damp or mould, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to arrange an inspection or survey so any issues can be identified, and the landlord can follow any recommendations made to tackle the damp and mould. The resident first reported damp and mould at property on 9 June 2021 (in both bedrooms and a small amount on the living room walls) and both she and her HO sent photographs of the affected areas to the landlord within a few days. In response the landlord provided the resident with its Guide. Whilst this was appropriate, on balance, the lack of any inspection arranged to investigate the reported damp and mould at this stage was a failure in the service provided.
The landlord subsequently arranged for an operative to attend on 15 July 2021 after the resident reported a leak from the radiator valve (slow drip) on 13 July 2021. Whilst the landlord’s repair policy does not give a timescale to respond to non-emergency repairs, its response time was reasonable. However, this job was not raised with its repair contractor and the expertise of the attending operative is unclear from the evidence. It is clear there was no assessment of the damp and mould during this visit and the notes indicate no leak from any of the radiators was found at the property on this occasion. A few days later the resident reported finding the flooring underneath the carpets in the flat “soaking wet”. The resident’s HO confirmed this after attending the property on 20 July 2021 and their notes on the landlord’s case system refer to having concerns about “very large wet damp patches on the bedroom walls”. Further, that smaller patches on the living room walls were getting larger. Its HO sent further photos and recommended that the landlord’s repair team attend to investigate the damp issues. The landlord’s repair history show it raised a job for its repairs contractor to attend the property to investigate the suspected leak from under the floor and to supply a dehumidifier. Whilst the job had a target date of 27 July 2021, its heating contractor did not attend the property until 2 August 2021 with the repairs contractor attending on 4 August 2021. On balance, the landlord did not respond to her report of the wet flooring within a reasonable timeframe.
Therefore, it is clear the landlord missed opportunities to investigate the reports of damp, mould and leaks in a timely manner. Had it promptly carried a thorough inspection at the property, it likely would have identified the wetness under the carpet at an earlier stage and commenced investigating the pipework sooner. Prior to its contractors visiting in early August 2021, the resident was calling her HO almost on a daily basis regarding the issues. Having to chase the landlord regarding the repairs in addition to living with the impact of the damp would have caused the resident additional stress. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the delays in diagnosing the causes show it did not take sufficient steps to make reasonable adjustments and prioritise investigating her reports of damp, mould and leaks.
In its stage one response dated 30 August 2021, the landlord acknowledged the delay in providing the necessary repairs and said it had shared her complaint with its contractors who recognise the shortfall in service provided. It confirmed that the affected walls at the property had been treated on 12 and 24 August 2021. The landlord’s repair records confirm this. In its complaint response, it also explained that the thermostatic valves on radiators in the main bedroom and bathroom needed replacing in order to fix a leak on the pipework identified. It advised that this work had been booked in with the resident. This again indicates it had missed an opportunity to identify the fault with the radiator valves during the previous visit on 15 July 2021.
The landlord’s repair history show that over the course of the subsequent month, heating and drainage contractors attended the property on several occasions to check underground piping and the damp proof coursing in case there were issues that were contributing to the problem. This shows the landlord was thoroughly investigating the potential causes at this stage, which was appropriate. However, where further repairs are needed or suspected to be needed, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to keep the resident updated regarding these. There is no clear evidence to show the landlord kept the resident informed regarding the ongoing investigations. On 15 September 2021, the resident wrote to her MP about the continuing situation of her sleeping in her living room due to “wetness” under the carpet in the bedrooms (and hallway).
In its response to the resident’s MP dated 24 September 2021, the landlord reiterated that the mould on the walls had been treated and said a repair to the pipework on the radiator had been carried out on 16 September 2021, which had been tested and found to be working. Additionally, it said trickle vents would be fitted to allow additional ventilation to the property, and it had arranged for its specialist contractor to ensure there were no underground pipe issues.
The landlord’s internal communications show new trickle vents were not fitted as its repair contractor told the landlord later on 24 September 2021, that they had found trickle vents already installed at the property. The landlord confirmed in the stage two response that these were found to be operational and therefore it was satisfied the resident had sufficient ventilation in her home. However, there is no evidence of the landlord checking if the resident had extractor fans that were operating as required. Extractor fans are needed to reduce moisture in the air particularly in the bathroom and kitchen where moisture is created through bathing and cooking. The landlord’s Guide highlights the need for residents to use extractor fans, therefore, it was reasonable to expect it to check there were functioning extractor fans at the property. By not doing so, the landlord failed to provide its service to the expected standard in this regard.
On 24 September 2021, the landlord’s contractor reported they had found a minor leak on the pipework feeding the radiator in the main bedroom. It is not clear from the evidence if this was a recurrence of the leak fixed on 16 September 2021, or if it was a new leak found. In the landlord’s stage two response dated 14 October 2021, it explained to the resident that during recent visits, a leak had been identified which had now been isolated but said “final repair works” were due to take place later that week.
It is noted that the repairs to the pipework were not completed until approximately two months later on 15 December 2021. The landlord’s internal communications show it chased its contractors on a number of occasions from 22 October 2021 regarding the delay with completing repairs. They advised the delay was because they did not have equipment or parts including a freeze kit which was needed to isolate the radiator for the final repairs to be completed.
Therefore, it is acknowledged that some of the delay in completing the repairs was due to challenges faced by the landlord with sourcing materials. It had explained this issue to the resident in its stage two response and said as a result some repairs are taking longer than normal. Nonetheless, the overall six month timeframe taken by the landlord to fully address all of the issues identified that were causing the dampness and mould in the property, was unreasonable.
In its stage one response the landlord offered £385.00 in compensation based on: £50 for its service failure in dealing with the repairs; £50 for the inconvenience and distress caused; £65 for the cost of operating its dehumidifiers for 13 days (based on 13 days), as well as £200 towards damage to her carpet. On 29 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident offering a further £350.00 in compensation for the damage caused to her mattress. The landlord did not agree to increase the compensation in its stage two response and its CCP considered that the compensation offered was “more than fair”.
It is acknowledged that in her formal complaint the resident asked for it to pay her compensation for the cost of her personal possessions damaged by damp and mould. She mentioned a figure of £456 in her stage two complaint but the resident told the Ombudsman that she remained unhappy with the landlord’s offer of £550 and its refusal to cover the full cost of other possessions damaged.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that in the event of damage to belongings caused by alleged negligence on its part, residents should submit a claim through their own contents insurance or if the customer does not have contents insurance and the damaged goods are available for inspection, then a claim can be submitted to it which will be passed onto its insurers.
Therefore, in view of its policy, the landlord’s offer to pay compensation of £550 towards the cost of replacing her carpet and bed was reasonable. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord explained its policy or signposted the resident to this in case she wanted to make an insurance claim. This shows its communication with the resident about this issue was poor.
In regards to the £100 compensation offered for service failure and time and trouble, this amount does not reflect the significant inconvenience caused to the resident by the issues encountered. When it became apparent to the landlord that the leaks had not been fully addressed and repairs were ongoing, it ought to have considered increasing the amount of compensation offered for her time and trouble, however it did not. This review has also found that the landlord did not always keep the resident sufficiently informed which meant she had to contact it for updates above what could reasonably be expected. Furthermore, the landlord did not appear to consider or make any reasonable adjustments whilst handling her reports of damp, mould and leaks, despite the resident making clear her circumstances throughout.
Throughout the timeframe reviewed, the resident reported to the landlord a bad smell at the property. Whilst damp and mould can cause an odour, the resident has since told the Ombudsman that she feels this is related to an issue with drainage at the property which has not been resolved. It is clear from the landlord’s repair records that drainage contractors had visited the property during the timeframe reviewed to undertake a camera survey of the drainage pipes and that a blockage in the sink had to be cleared at one stage. As there is no evidence of the landlord explaining to the resident the outcome of the survey or its position in relation to her reports of an odour at the property, an appropriate order has been included below for the landlord to address this matter.
It is of concern that the landlord told the Ombudsman that it cannot locate a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement. The landlord has a duty to keep records of residents tenancy agreements, therefore, an order has been included below for the landlord to tell us how it intends to rectify this situation.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a two stage complaint process however its complaint policy states if residents remain dissatisfied, they can request a review of the landlord’s handing of the complaint from its CCP or alternatively escalate the complaint to the Ombudsman. Its policy states it will provide its stage one and two responses within 10 working days.
The landlord provided a stage one response on 30 August 2021. As it received the resident’s formal complaint on 9 August 2021, this response was issued slightly outside its timescale. The resident first asked for a review of her complaint on 30 August 2021, however, the landlord did not provide a stage two response until 14 October 2021, after the resident contacted the landlord to chase up its response. This indicates the landlord did not meet its own timescale whilst handling the resident’s complaint. This is evidence of a failure in the service provided.
Whilst the landlord’s complaint policy states the escalation to its CCP sits outside of its complaint procedure, this in effect constitutes a third stage. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) makes clear that two stage landlord complaint procedures are ideal so as to ensure that the complaints process is not unduly long. In the customer’s case, the CCP provided its outcome letter on 9 December 2021, after the resident requested a review on 1 November 2021. This service is mindful therefore that the resident’s escalation of her complaint to this stage meant the complaints process was ongoing for approximately four months, which is unduly lengthy. Therefore, a recommendation has been included below for the landlord to review whether this additional optional stage is needed or beneficial to the resident given that it extends the duration of the complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when responding to the reports of damp, mould and leaks.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not take sufficiently thorough or timely action in response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and leaks. This was particularly important as the resident had vulnerabilities. Whilst it took steps to chase its contractors when repairs were not completed on time, overall the service provided did not meet the expected standard. Its redress offered during the complaints process did not recognise the extent of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, in particular it did not reflect that she was prevented from using her bedroom for an extended period.
The landlord did not adhere to the timescales in its complaints policy and the optional third stage in its complaints process led to the complaint process being too lengthy.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. Pay the resident further compensation of £850 (in total) comprising:
  1. £750 for failures in the service provided whilst handling her reports of damp, mould and leaks.
  2. £100 in respect of its complaint handling.
2. Confirm to the resident if her reports of a bad odour at the property have been investigated and explain the outcome of this. If this issue has not been investigated, it should contact the resident to arrange to an appointment to investigate this issue.
3. Arrange with the resident to attend the property to ensure there are sufficient extractor fans in the property and that they are fully operational.
4. Tell us how it intends to rectify that it is unable to locate the resident’s tenancy agreement.
5. Comply with the above orders within four weeks.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Reviews whether this additional optional stage is needed or beneficial to the resident given that it extends the duration of the complaints process.
2. Read our Spotlight report on Damp and Mould in conjunction with the above findings to identify any learning.