Peabody Trust (202120342)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120342

Peabody Trust

5 September 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:
1. Response to reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. Knowledge and information management (KIM).
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property consists of 3 bedrooms, a kitchen, bathroom, and living room. The weekly rent charge was £132.08 from April 2022 and £140.89 from April 2023.
Following the resident’s report of mould in her property, the landlord replaced the windows as they were beyond repair and a likely contributing cause of mould on the walls and ceilings. After the landlord’s stage 2 response the resident gave it a quotation of £1,372.01. She felt that the landlord should compensate her as the windows were a different size and her original blinds now obsolete. The resident also requested compensation for a photograph that she said disappeared during the installation of the replacement windows.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and an effective resolution.
3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
The landlord supplied its relevant complaints policy for the time of the resident’s complaint. It states that when an expression of dissatisfaction was received, it would first look to resolve the matter locally via its contact centre or with the relevant service area or contractor. If this approach did not reach the desired resolution, or it was deemed inappropriate, the complaint could be registered and dealt with as a formal complaint.
The landlord’s complaint procedure dated February 2018 comprised 2 stages. At stage 1 the complaint would be acknowledged within 3 working days and a response provided within 10 working days. If escalated to stage 2 it would be acknowledged within 3 working days and a response provided within 15 working days.
The landlord’s complaint policy says that a complaint can be reported in different ways. These are by telephone, by email, via social media, in person, in writing by letter or by completing the online complaints form.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out a financial award scale based on the impact that a service failure had on the resident. It may award compensation up to £100 for complaint handling failures and up to £400 for time, trouble, and inconvenience in relation to service failures.
The landlord’s compensation policy considers whether a room or property is unusable at the point of the damage and repair request. For each unusable room the landlord will offer compensation based on a percentage of the weekly rent. As an example it would pay 20% of the weekly rent for the loss of a bedroom. If only partial loss of the room is experienced, the percentage of compensation will reduce to 5%.
The compensation policy states when it will not consider compensation. This includes:
1. The impact because of reasonable property improvements made to a resident’s property.
2. Where a claim can be made on home contents or buildings insurance.
The landlord’s repair policy sets out time scales within which it expects to complete repairs. It says works that fall outside the time frame of a responsive repair, (complex in nature, require either a specialist contractor and/or a technical lead in diagnosing and managing the works through to completion), are to be completed within 60 calendar days.

Summary of events

It is understood that during 2019 the landlord undertook a mould wash to bedroom and hallway walls and ceilings. Although requested, the landlord did not supply repair records for work completed in 2019 to August 2021.
On 4 August 2021 the landlord raised a repair due to reports of mould on the resident’s ceiling and walls in the bedrooms, and hallway. Its contractor attended on 6 August 2021 and advised the following:
1. It did not consider there to be a mould issue in the bedrooms or hallways.
2. It considered that there was a “decoration issue” and described that marks on walls (around chest/shoulder height) “would suggest people leaning against the walls.”
3. There was condensation on the bedroom windows that needed to be wiped away by the resident in the morning to prevent mould growth and damage to the wooden window frames.
4. All walls were partitioned walls so there should not be any water services behind the walls that could cause staining.
5. The landlord had sent a surveyor a year ago to inspect the reported issue and said that it was the resident’s responsibility to redecorate.
On 9 August 2021 the resident called the landlord as she was unhappy that the contractor had implied her reports of staining/mould were a decoration issue. She requested an inspection by a surveyor and said it was not life style issues as she had experienced mould growth for 15 years.
On 10 August 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord for an explanation about her mould concerns. It advised her that an operative would investigate on 12 August 2021. The resident was unhappy that the landlord was not sending a surveyor and asked to speak to the complaints team. She was told to complete a form online.
On 24 August 2021 the resident made a formal complaint about mould growth via the landlord’s website. She received an automated email acknowledgement the same day. The resident sent photographs of the mould spots on her bedroom walls and ceilings.
On the same day the landlord’s specialist contractor visited the property. It said that there was no evidence of damp and described the job as “quite unexplainable…” It was not sure what was causing the reported issue and described a “black dust on the ceilings and discoloration on the walls.” It suggested that a surveyor should attend.
On 21 September 2021 the landlord inspected the property and recorded the following:
1. There was no evidence of damp or mould in the bedrooms.
2. Its moisture meter readings at the time of the visit were within threshold limits and very low.
3. The resident had pointed out marks on the ceiling and behind the wardrobe in a bedroom on the first floor. The marks were at high levels and around the window and it found these marks to be dry.
4. It had checked the loft in response to the resident’s reports of excessive dust in the bedroom. It found no evidence of water ingress and the loft felt was in good condition.
5. It noted that when looking at the ceiling it considered that the use of different satin and mat paints caused visible patches.
6. It noted that it had been unable to identify damp in a second bedroom. The walls had been painted black, and had white marks present throughout multiple locations of the room. There was no residue present when these marks were rubbed and no explanation why the marks occurred. It questioned whether the type of paint could have been a cause.
7. It had checked the void roof space and loft space on the first floor landing. No evidence of a leak was found and the loft felt was in good condition. It noted that these spaces contained many items own by the resident and a former resident that was “cluttering up the area.”
On 14 October 2021 internal communication between the landlord and its contractor recorded no concerning damp issues had been found during the contractor’s visits. There was no identified “fed source” causing damp or mould and all areas that the resident had reported concerns about, had been tested with a damp meter. It said all recordings at the time of the visits had been within limits. It suggested that the issues could be ventilation/condensation related and it would inform the landlord of its findings.
Following an inspection by the surveyor on 2 December 2021 it reported that the roof required an inspection and the top floor bedroom window needed replacing. On completion of the roof inspection all repairs identified would be completed and any affected decoration would be made good.
On 23 December 2021 this Service sent the landlord a first request for action letter which explained:
1. The resident had reported severe damp and mould, but the landlord had taken no action.
2. The resident had complained about a draught coming from her loft.
3. The resident had requested to see a copy of the surveyor’s report that had not been provided.
4. The landlord was encouraged to contact the resident to resolve her complaint.
On 19 January 2022 the landlord issued a holding response to the resident. It said that her complaint was at stage 1 and it would provide her with a final response on completion of the repairs. It said:
1. It was sorry that she had had cause to complain about ongoing damp. It wished to reassure her that it aimed to address her issues and find the best solution to resolve them in a timely fashion.
2. It had visited on 6 and 28 August 2021 and on 21 September 2021 where there had been no evidence of damp in the bedrooms. Its meter readings had been within thresholds and marks on the walls were dry.
3. Its contractors had ordered new windows and scaffolding was required to install the windows and to investigate any issues with the roof. On completion of the roof repair, it would make good the internal areas affected and treat any damp and mould.
4. That the resident had complained about excessive dust. The void roof space and loft had been checked and there had been no evidence of leaks and the felt was considered to be in good condition; no issues were found.
5. That there had been no damp issues in the bathroom and the extractor fan was operational.
6. That the ceiling had patches present that were determined to be due to the use of both satin and matt paints; no damp was identified.
7. That the black paint used on the walls in bedroom 3 had white marks in multiple locations. However when rubbed no residue was present and there was no explanation as to why this had occurred. The landlord recorded that it could have been due to the type of paint used.
8. It acknowledged that there had been a delay in its contractor sending a report to its surveyor. This was not in line with is repair policy and caused unnecessary delay for the inspection visit on 21 September 2021. It offered its apology and acknowledged that the repairs could have been done sooner. It recognised that the delay would have caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
9. It recognised that the resident had chased it for an update several times requesting a visit from its surveyor. It apologised that these requests were not honoured and delayed progress.
10. That its surveyor attended on 2 December 2021 and confirmed that that the roof required an inspection and the top floor bedroom window needed to be changed.
11. It acknowledged that the resident had requested compensation for 15 years. It advised that in line with its complaint policy it would only go back 6 months from the date the resident’s complaint was logged. On completion of the repairs it would address compensation and award, if due, in line with its policy.
On 20 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and expressed dissatisfaction with its stage 1 complaint response. She said:
1. She had complained numerous times for many years.
2. The problems had escalated over the years. She considered that the mould could be damaging her health.
3. She had provided photographs in her complaint on 24 August 2021.
4. The visiting surveyor had confirmed that:
  1. There was evidence of cold spots above a bedroom and the loft insulation needed to be checked.
  2. 8 small windows in a bedroom needed replacing.
  3. An area of wall on the staircase needed to be hacked back to brickwork to investigate why the wall was constantly stained.
  4. The guttering hopper was blocked and needed to be cleared.
  5. The integrity of the roof needed to be checked.
5. There were water marks in the roof which was affecting the walls.
6. She felt insulted that its contractors had suggested that there were decorating issues.
7. She washed the mould from the windows daily.
8. That previous contractors attended and would complete mould washes but not resolve the cause of the problem.
On 25 March 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:
1. It was sorry that the resident considered that the damp and mould had been in her property for 25 years. Its complaint policy allowed it to review issues within 6 months of the complaint being raised. Therefore its investigation was from August 2021 when she raised the issue.
2. Its original contractor had checked the walls and the meter readings had come back dry and reported the issue was decorative rather than due to damp and mould. It explained that when there is damp it “is normally because of a lack of ventilation” which is outside of its control to resolve.
3. Its original contractor had informed the resident that it would refer back to the landlord. This did not happen. Its surveyor completed a more thorough inspection.
4. It had passed the identified works to a specialist team with its new contractor.
5. There was no obvious issue with the loft during its initial inspection. It acknowledged that following its inspection this would now be within scope to check any possible cold spots.
6. It provided the resident with a copy of its surveyor’s report as requested.
7. It would complete the identified works to the roof, guttering, mould wash, repaint any damage caused.
8. It was working with a specialist scaffolding contractor to resolve the scaffolding requirement.
9. There would be a long lead time for completion and its contractor would require access for consecutive days.
10. It had ordered the windows and anticipated 9 to 10 weeks to manufacture and would then arrange installation.
11. It apologised for the time it had taken to date.
12. It could not consider compensation for 25 years and did not uphold the resident’s complaint that it was responsible for mould. It said that it was inconclusive that there was damp and no evidence of previous repair failures. It had acted once notified by the resident but acknowledged that there had been slow progress in the repairs.
13. It offered £150 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble pursing the repairs.
The landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed that the complaint had exhausted its internal complaints process (ICP).
Between 18 May 2022 to 6 July the resident sought help from this Service as there had been no updated about the outstanding repairs. Although the landlord replaced the windows on 13 June 2022, she remained dissatisfied due to the change of size and style. She considered that she was due compensation for the time mould had been present, for mould damage to her furniture and personal belongings, and for the loss of a photograph.
On 18 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord because she remained dissatisfied. She said:
1. No work had been started on the gutter and roof repairs.
2. The replacement windows were not like for like. This meant:
  1. She was unable to clean them herself as she could previously.
  2. It had told her that they should be timber frame to match the rest of the building but only the loft bedroom was timber. The other windows were uPVC.
  3. The windows were dirty and there was damage on the frames.
  4. The windows were smaller. She expressed concern about not being able to use them as an exit in the event of a fire.
  5. That the windows open wider in the wind. She considered this dangerous and expressed concern about security.
  6. That her made to measure blinds no longer fit the windows due to the change in window size. She no longer had privacy.
  7. That a photograph of her son’s graduation day had gone missing from the window sill.
On 15 August 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s email of 18 July 2022.
1. It was sorry that she was dissatisfied with the windows. It said it understood why she would be upset.
2. It assured her that the windows were safe and explained that new windows would always be uPVC unless in a conservation area.
3. That it could fit restrictors on the windows to prevent them opening wider in the wind.
4. That it was not its responsibility to replace the resident’s blinds. These were fixtures and fittings that the resident was responsible for. However, as a goodwill gesture it would contribute to the overall replacement cost. It asked the resident to advise how much it would cost to replace the blinds.
Between 12 September to 4 November 2022 the landlord and its contractors emailed about outstanding works. Due to the resident allegedly restricting access to the property and the contractor losing 2 supervisors, completion of the repairs had been delayed. Within this time it recorded that the resident had chased for updates on 22 September 2022 and 5 October 2022.
On 5 October 2022 the landlord and its contractor discussed the outstanding works. It was noted that the resident had been refusing access for a window contractor to complete the inspection works to the new windows. It also noted that it had been unable to gain access to complete the internal decoration works. The landlord and contractor discussed that it had been trying to address new concerns raised by the resident that:
1. She did not like the new windows.
2. The new air vents were letting in insects.
3. She considered water was penetrating from the roof.
4. She had lost a sentimental picture during the window replacements.
5. Her window blinds had been damaged during the window replacement.
6. She would not allow any internal mould wash works to be completed until the roof and windows were sealed.
7. The resident had agreed to an appointment on 12 October 2022.
On 19 October 2022 the landlord’s contractor informed it that work to the roof would start on 24 October 2022 and the resident would be informed. It noted that the work had been delayed and had anticipated completion in July 2022.
On 25 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord receipts for £1,372.01 for replacement blinds. She said that she would accept £1,000 as compensation for the lost graduation photograph.
On 1 November 2022 the landlord’s internal communication showed that it was concerned by the delays to complete the works. It commented that its contractor had recently had two supervisors leave and works had “stagnated.”
On 4 November 2022 the landlord’s contractor informed it that although windows had been replaced for “a while now” the resident was refusing access to allow for internal works to be completed. She had expressed some concerns with the windows and believed that there was further water ingress. However all works had been completed and only internal works remained. It advised that it had attempted to contact the resident to schedule works but had only been able to leave messages.
On 9 November 2022 the resident chased the landlord for an update regarding compensation for her blinds and missing photograph.
On 18 November 2022 the landlord emailed the resident. It was prepared to process a compensation payment for the full cost of the blinds and pay her £1,372.01. This payment would be its full compensation award to recognise the repair delays and settle her complaint in full.
On the same day the resident sent an email accepting its offer of £1,372.01 but considered that this payment was for the blinds only.
On 23 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. She referred to an earlier telephone conversation that day. It suggests that the landlord had decided not to go ahead with the compensation payment for the resident’s blinds.
On 25 November 2022 the landlord’s contractor emailed photographs to the landlord and the resident to illustrate that it had completed roofing works. On 9 December 2022 the resident responded to the email saying that she believed there were more external works required that had not been photographed. It was unclear if anyone responded to the resident’s email.
On 6 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord. She wanted to know if all roofing work had been completed and was upset that someone had been working on the scaffolding while she was at home. She said that she had not been informed and was upset as this affected her privacy.
On 1 February 2023 the landlord’s contractor informed it that it had arranged a post work inspection on 30 January 2023. It recorded that the resident refused access on the day and it was attempting to rearrange. Internal communication continued to coordinate availability with the resident.
On 21 February 2023 the landlord’s contractor informed it by email that a post works inspection had been completed with the resident and no further action was required.

Assessment and findings

The resident has said the mould growth affected her wellbeing and mental health. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine what impact, if any, the landlord’s actions or lack of actions had upon the resident’s health. This would ultimately be a matter for the courts and the resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected. This is a legal process, and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option.
Residents will often describe how they have been affected by the situation that has led to their complaint, such as impact on family life, use of their home, enjoyment, health and emotional wellbeing. This may be expressed as giving rise to or exacerbating existing health conditions. The Ombudsman’s remedies can recognise the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a service failure. Distress can include stress, anxiety, worry, frustration and uncertainty; raised expectations; inconvenience; strong sense of being treated differently; and problems caused by delays. There may also be aggravating factors that could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident. Such aggravating factors include mental health, young children, disability, dependant with disability and previous history of mishandling by the landlord of the resident’s tenancy.

Response to reports about damp and mould in the property

The resident described to this Service that she had been affected by mould growth for at least 15 years and although the landlord had previously made some effort to mould wash her walls, it never fixed the cause of the problem.
During this investigation the landlord confirmed undertaking a mould wash to the bedroom and hallway walls, and ceilings in 2019. During an inspection of the windows it had identified that general maintenance was required to prevent draughts and moisture. It considered that none of the windows were defective at this stage. It completed works to replace gaskets and mastic and that general decorative maintenance was required. It said that this was the resident’s responsibility under its repair policy. A mould wash was completed following the window maintenance works. It said there were no other reported mould issues until the repair request in August 2021. The resident disputes this.
The landlord does not dispute the presence of damp and mould in 2019. It is also evident that damp and mould was found in the same locations in 2021. As the windows required maintenance in 2019 to prevent draughts and moisture, and the windows required replacement from 2021, it is reasonable to presume that the aging windows had been a contributing factor of moisture all along.
The landlord said there was no reports of damp and mould between 2019 and 2021, until the resident’s complaint in August 2021. However, the contractor’s feedback from 6 August 2021 visit stated that the landlord had sent a surveyor a year ago [2020] to inspect the reported issue and said that it was the resident’s responsibility to redecorate. It is reasonable therefore to presume that damp and mould was reported again in 2020.
The resident is adamant that the problems persisted before 2019 and was a regular occurrence. Considering all of these matters it is fair to assume that damp and mould was at least an intermittent issue since 2019.
Although the landlord’s initial response was timely in August 2021, attending within 2 days of the repair request, it failed to effectively identify the essential property repairs. Poor communication between the landlord and its contractor delayed things further.
Initially, there appears to be some issue with the contractor’s ability to identify the root course of the damp and mould when carrying out the initial assessment. This further delayed the appropriate action being taken.
On 6 August 2021 the landlord concluded that there was no mould issue in the bedrooms or hallways. It considered that there was a “decoration issue” and described that there were marks on walls around chest/shoulder height “which would suggest people leaning against the walls.”
On 24 August 2021 the landlord’s specialist contractor visited the property. It said that there was no evidence of damp and described the job as “quite unexplainable…” It was not sure what was causing the reported issue and described a “black dust on the ceilings and discoloration on the walls.” It suggested that a surveyor should attend.
On 21 September 2021 the landlord inspected the property and recorded that there was no evidence of damp or mould in the bedrooms. However, following an inspection by the surveyor on 2 December 2021 it reported that the roof required an inspection and the top floor windows needed replacing. It recorded that on completion of the roof inspection all repairs identified would be completed and any affected decoration would be made good.
In the landlord’s stage 1 holding response on 19 January 2022, it identified that its contractors had ordered new windows and scaffolding was required to install them, and to investigate any issues with the roof. On completion of the roof repair, it would make good the internal areas affected and treat any damp and mould.
Within the period of 2 months (21 September 2021 to 2 December 2021) the landlord’s assessment had changed from no damp or mould issues to the need to replace windows and complete roofing works.
By the stage 2 response in March 2022 the landlord’s assessment expands to works to the roof, guttering, mould wash, repaint any damage caused; long lead time for completion and consecutive days that its contractor would require access to the property. It had ordered the replacement windows and anticipated 9 to 10 weeks to manufacture and would then arrange installation.
It is reasonable to conclude that the degree of works required did not occur over the period of a couple of months and is consistent with the resident’s complaints that the landlord failed to identify the cause of the damp and mould when reported.
Following its inspection on 2 December 2021 it was clear that it had identified repairs that were missed during previous visits. The failure to correctly identify the required repairs following its inspections on 6 and 28 August 2021, and 21 September 2021 left the resident exposed to these conditions for an avoidable period of time. It acknowledged that this delay was likely to have caused the resident distress and inconvenience and it would consider compensation in its final complaint response.
The resident informed this Service that the landlord was not providing updates regarding the identified repairs or progress with replacing the windows. She said that it was not until 25 March 2022 that it sent a letter explaining the actions it would take to resolve her reports of mould. In this response it acknowledged that its contractor had not referred back to its surveyor as it should have and this delayed repairs. At this stage it acknowledged that the resident had pursued the repairs, requested updates, and offered £150 compensation for her time and trouble. This was not paid as the resident withdrew her initial decision to accept this payment. She informed the landlord that she did not consider its offer to be enough for the time and trouble “over the years” that she had experienced the issues.
Within the same letter the landlord informed the resident of the need for specialist scaffolding and the likely long lead time to complete the identified repairs. This included the replacement windows, work to the roof, identification of a draught from the loft, clearing guttering, mould wash, and redecoration of affected walls and ceilings. Its repair policy states that it would expect to complete complex repairs such as those required within 60 calendar days. However the final completion date was not until on 30 January 2023.
There was no suggestion at any stage of this investigation that the resident and her family were unable to occupy the property.
There is evidence that the landlord had attempted to finalise a compensation award with the resident on 18 November 2022. It agreed to pay £1,372.01 as the full cost of replacing her window blinds. However, it considered this its full and final settlement of the resident’s full complaint. The resident was unhappy with this redress and did not consider this offer to adequately address the distress and inconvenience she had experience for an extended period of time.
Paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) says the Ombudsman will determine complaints by what is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Although the landlord’s compensation policy states that it will not pay for fixtures, fittings or compensate for the “impact because of reasonable property improvements,” this Service must consider whether this was reasonable.
The landlord replaced the resident’s windows and the resident claims that there was no consultation with her about any change to the size and style. There is no evidence that the landlord did in fact consult with her. As a direct result of the landlord’s actions the resident’s blinds became obsolete and she felt the landlord should recompense her for replacements. Had the landlord informed the resident of a potential design change in advance, the topic of window coverings may have been raised and a solution found sooner. Its failure to effectively communicate with her impacted her financially. Therefore it was not reasonable for the landlord to rely on its restrictions within its compensation policy.
The resident reported the loss of a photograph and requested additional compensation for it and other personal belongings after the stage 2 response. The landlord informed this Service that it had taken the report of a missing photo seriously and discussed the matter with its contractor. It reported that its contractor was unable to recall a photograph being present during its visits and that it had no knowledge of its disappearance. This would obviously be upsetting for the resident.
Where there is no evidence to suggest that the contractor is at fault or that the item was lost during the window replacement process, it is challenging to assign direct responsibility. However while there may not be clear evidence of fault, the resident’s feelings of upset and loss should be acknowledged. If the landlord is satisfied that its investigation was thorough and does not consider that an offer of goodwill is required, it should provide its liability insurance details to the resident for her to purse a claim. The landlord did not supply an investigation report to this Service.
In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. 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
Whilst the landlord attempted to resolve the repairs an offer of £1,372.01 compensation was made to settle the complaint in full. It is unclear why it later withdrew its offer to pay the compensation. However the evidence suggests that the resident was seeking additional compensation for personal items during a telephone conversation on 23 November 2022.
Whilst the landlord completed the repairs, its communication regarding its offer of compensation was not reasonable. Following the resident’s request for additional compensation it appears that it simply shut down dialogue with her and the compensation was never finalised. It had previously acknowledged its failures such as communication and delays, however at this stage there was no evidence that it had learned from those outcomes and the matter of compensation remained unresolved.
It was also noted that the landlord’s letter on 22 November 2022 referred to its status as a housing association and having “limited funds.” Albeit that this was a factual statement it was irrelevant to the resident’s circumstances. This statement was dismissive and did not display empathy for the situation that the resident was in.
It was unclear why the landlord did not provide the resident with a written explanation of its position or a breakdown of how it was prepared to compensate her. Given that it had already acknowledged failures this was a missed opportunity for it to explain its position and make an offer to the resident that it considered reasonable and in line with its policies.
Following the stage 2 response in March 2022 the resident continued to chase the landlord for updates. The repairs remained outstanding for a further 10 months and the communication about progress during this time appeared to be limited. This did not show that it had learned from its previous service failure acknowledgements. This was not reasonable.
Prior to correctly identifying additional roof and window repair works, the landlord and its contractor appeared to attribute the damp and mould to the resident not wiping down moisture on the windows. This in effect was the landlord apportioning blame on the resident. It had placed the onus on the resident following its mould wash in 2019 and had not considered that the deterioration of the windows and/or roof repair may be contributing to the resident’s issues. Better communication should have taken place with its contractors sooner to identify and act earlier on the signs of damp and mould. This was managed poorly.
For the reasons set out above, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould in the property. The landlord has partially acknowledged its failings but failed to address the detriment to the resident since at least 2019. Therefore, an order has been made below that this investigation considers fair in the circumstances of this case and in line with the remedies guidance.

Knowledge and information management

During the course of investigating this complaint there have been several noticeable gaps in the information provided to this Service. There are no report records before 2019 for damp and mould in the property. The resident has been consistent that the issue existed for at least 15 years.
The information provided for 2019 was not adequate. The landlord referred to a mould wash that took place and repairs to the window. However, this service has not seen the reports of issues by the resident that led to the mould wash, and the time taken for the landlord to address this issue to know whether it was an adequate response.
The landlord said that there was no reported issue of damp at the property between 2019 and 2021. However, a contractor’s report in 2021 referred to a visit “last year.” This indicates that that there had been another reported issue in the property in 2020. This Service does not have details of what the resident reported to the landlord that led to the 2020 visit and what action the landlord to took to know if the response was reasonable.
Following the visit of the contractor in August 2021 there were communication issues with the landlord. It acknowledged that there had been a delay in its contractor sending a report to its surveyor. This delayed a surveyor attending the property to carry out a more comprehensive investigation of the issues.
Although it was evidenced that the landlord was chasing its contractor for repair updates during the resident’s complaint, it was apparent that the contractor’s loss of 2 supervisors had delayed progress. However it was also clear from the email evidence supplied that records of communication with the resident were not available following the departure of these staff. It was therefore difficult for this Service to conclude what information had been given to the resident or what assurances regarding completion time frames had been agreed.
All members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) are obliged to provide copies of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint. Although the landlord has provided summaries of events during the resident’s complaint it did not provide when asked, the repair records for the entirety of the resident’s tenancy. Without this information this Service has been unable to conclude whether a damp and mould concern had previously been reported by the resident or investigated.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigation and communications with contractors. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that its repairs processes are not operating effectively. These systems should be robust and adhered to by all users. The staff departures and its inability to identify the communication held with the resident evidenced that this was not always happening. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management and an order has been made below.

Complaint handling

On 10 August 2021 the resident expressed dissatisfaction about the service she was receiving from the landlord. Its internal communication showed that it had not transferred her to the complaints team as she requested and directed her to an online complaint form. This was not appropriate as its complaints policy says that a complaint can be reported in different ways. This includes by telephone.
Paragraph 2.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to make it easy for residents to complain. There must be more than one route of access into the landlord’s complaints system. Its failure to address the resident’s complaint while she was on the phone in August 2021 was not in line with the Code and delayed her complaint being addressed.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord about mould in her property via its website on 24 August 2021. She received an automated email confirmation the same day. However it was not until she sought help from this Service that the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 January 2022. This was 103 working days later. The landlord’s complaints procedures state that the resident should receive an acknowledgment within 3 working days and a written response within 10 working days. This did not happen.
The landlord’s response on 19 January 2022 was a holding response and indicated that it would respond on completion of repairs. Although communication continued, no final stage 1 response was provided. A final response, when issued, should have investigated the matters complained of, provide a response to all the issues raised, demonstrate learning and put things right; as well as letting the resident know how to escalate the complaint.
On 20 January 2022 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. The landlord initially advised her it would issue its final response once all the repairs were completed. Her escalation request was not actioned. On 28 February 2022 the landlord changed its position, acknowledged her escalation request and told her on 1 March 2022 that it would respond within 15 working days.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on the 25 March 2022. This was 18 working days later and 3 working days beyond its 15 working day response time scale as set out in its complaints policy. However, considering the resident had made her escalation request on 20 January 2022 the landlord’s response was actually 46 working days later and 31 working days beyond its response time scales.
The landlord’s complaint response did not recognise or apologise for any complaint handling failures. It did not recognise that her complaint should have been taken on 10 August 2021 and no compensation was offered in relation to the significant delays she experienced with its complaint handling. It displayed no evidence of learning from outcomes and did not put things right for the resident. For the reasons evidenced above there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and an order has been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. Its response to reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. Its knowledge and information management.
3. Its complaint handling.

Reasons

The occurrence of damp and mould and the need for a mould wash was evident from at least 2019. Whist the landlord was initially responsive to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in 2021, it initially failed to correctly identify the issues. This was further compounded by delays for its surveying team to be instructed to inspect the property. There were delays identifying the required repairs and significant delays in carrying out works to the property. The resident was not updated regularly requiring her to chase the landlord for updates. These issues continued beyond the landlord’s final response letter concluding in January 2023.
There was evidence of records not being shared between the landlord and its contractor which led to delayed inspections and gaps in repair records. This included what was reported by the resident previously and when, what actions were taken, and the outcomes. There was further evidence that the landlord was unable to provide records of the communication its contractors had with the resident following its contractor losing members of staff.
The resident sought support from this Service to ensure her complaint was responded to. The landlord did not adequately resolve compensation with the resident and there were delays in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the shortcomings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £3,372.01. This comprises:
  1. £1,372.01 already offered by the landlord if not already paid.
  2. A further £1,200 for the resident’s time, trouble and distress and inconvenience pursing the repairs that caused damp and mould.
  3. £200 for distress and inconvenience the resident suffered by the landlord’s delays as a result of its inadequate knowledge and information management.
  4. £600 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of the date of this report, to carry out a ‘lessons learned’ exercise using this case. It should provide a report on the way it handled the complaint and repairs, to determine what action it needs to take to prevent a reoccurrence of the failings identified. As part of this, the landlord should review the Ombudsman’s October 2021 Spotlight Report on damp and mould, the Ombudsman’s March 2019 Spotlight Report on repairs and the Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight Report on Knowledge Information Management (KIM). The review should include consideration of:
1. The landlord’s processes and procedures for responding to repairs, including reports of damp and mould.
2. The processes and procedures it has in place to ensure that repairs are completed within a reasonable timescale.
3. The processes and procedures it has in place for record keeping specially in relation to repair actions and repair appointments. This includes recording actions undertaken by its contractors.
4. Ensures that it has clear procedures in place with its contractors to ensure recommendations for surveys and inspections are referred back to the landlord in a timely manner.
The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of the date of this report to contact the resident and explain its position regarding her lost photograph. It should provide her with its liability insurance details should she wish to submit a claim.