Guinness Housing Association Limited (202124293)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124293

Guinness Housing Association Limited

17 July 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a defect in her bathroom.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared owner and lives in a medium rise, two-bedroom flat.
The resident reported issues with damp and mould recurring on one side of her property in 2017, 2019, 2020 and in early 2021. The resident explained the landlord inspected her property in 2017 but she never received an outcome.
The resident raised a formal stage 1 complaint on 27 April 2021. She was dissatisfied that the landlord had not responded to her reports of damp and mould in her property and advised the issue had been ongoing for four years with no resolution. She reported having to clean the affected area daily to remove mould spores.
In May 2021, the resident raised a separate issue in her bathroom and asked for this to be added onto her complaint. She explained that water from her shower had been puddling behind her tiles which caused damages to her bathroom and hallway. She explained that she had paid for her bathroom to be renewed and was informed by the builder that the issues dated back to when the bathroom was first installed. The resident requested reimbursement for the costs incurred for her bathroom to be replaced.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 29 July 2021 which stated:
1. Due to the length of time that passed since the inspection which took place in 2017, the landlord was unable to investigate the outcome of this.
2. A surveyor attended her property on 20 May 2021 to inspect the damp, mould, and the bathroom.
3. The landlord identified the cause of the damp and mould as being a wider issue affecting other properties.
4. It was drawing up plans to complete repairs for those affected and the landlord was not sure whether plans would include repairs to shared ownership properties.
5. The landlord was unable to offer reimbursement for repair costs to the bathroom as there was insufficient evidence to suggest it was an issue with the original installation and similar reports had not been made by other properties. It also stated it had not been made aware of the issues during the defect period.
6. It offered £50 compensation as a good will gesture for the lack of communication before the resident’s complaint was registered.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 29 July 2021 and advised that she was dissatisfied with the £50 compensation given the ongoing damp and mould issues for the past four years. She advised that she had taken photos of the shower on the day before it was removed to evidence the damages.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 7 November 2021 which stated:
1. Following its inspections, the landlord believed the source of the damp and mould to be due to a roof defect across a number of blocks of flats.
2. The landlord decided to undertake the roof works itself as it did not hear back from the developers after reporting the issue. Works were due to be carried out in the following financial year between March 2022-April 2023.
3. The landlord was unable to offer reimbursement for the bathroom costs as it was reported outside of the 12-month defect period.
4. It offered the resident a total of £300 compensation. This comprised £100 for poor communication and time and trouble taken to clarify the next steps, £100 for overall delays in progressing towards a solution, £50 towards cleaning costs for damages to furniture or to cover the insurers excess fee, and £50 for delays responding to the resident’s complaint at both stages.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service as the damp and mould is still present in her property and the works the landlord advised it would complete have not been carried out within the stipulated timeframe. She is dissatisfied with the landlord’s delays in addressing the matter, the damages to her belongings, and the landlord’s communication throughout the complaints process. As a resolution, the resident is seeking for the landlord to rectify the cause of the damp and mould and offer a higher level of compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property

It is evident from the landlord’s records that the damp and mould issues within the property have been long-standing, and that the resident first reported the problem in 2017, shortly after moving in.
The landlord attended the property in 2017 to inspect the matter but never provided the resident with an outcome of these findings despite her chasing up with the landlord. It was unacceptable for the landlord to not take action over the damp and mould until the resident raised a formal complaint in May 2021.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord inspected the property on 20 May 2021. Upon attendance, the landlord noted there was a tendency of condensation related damp and mould to form on the ceiling and against the rear wall of the flat. The landlord confirmed the presence of damp and mould was not due to lifestyle issues and was well managed by the resident who regularly cleaned down the affected areas.
The landlord identified the cause of the damp and mould within the resident’s property as being a roof defect and agreed to take responsibility for the repairs given it did not receive a response from the developer regarding the matter. This was in line with the resident’s lease agreement whereby it is the landlord’s responsibility to maintain, repair, renew and improve the load bearing framework and all other structural parts of the building which includes the roof.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that roof works would be carried out between March 2022 and April 2023. However, the damp and mould was initially reported five years prior to when the works were scheduled to begin. The landlord acknowledged in an internal email that the damp and mould had been affecting the resident’s property since she moved in (in 2017), and that it had failed to resolve the matter during the defect period. It was unacceptable for the landlord to be aware of the damp and mould for this length of time but not carry out repairs to address it at an earlier stage. Although investigations were carried out by the landlord in 2017, these appeared to be abandoned and no cause was identified.
The resident informed this Service that roof repairs have not been carried out to date, or within the stipulated timeframe of March 2022-April 2023. The landlord has not fulfilled what it said it would do in its stage 2 complaint response, and the damp and mould is still present in the resident’s property.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould outlines that ‘landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner’. It continues that ‘landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to manage resident’s expectations’. In this case, the resident has been left exposed to damp and mould in her property for a prolonged period because of the landlord’s inaction. The landlord failed to consider the impact on the resident and undermined the situation by not completing the roof repairs within its set timescale.
The landlord’s offer of £100 compensation is not proportionate to redress the delays in addressing the roof defect to stop damp and mould occurring in the resident’s property. Furthermore, due to the landlord’s delays, the resident has had to regularly treat and paint the affected area of her wall. The landlord did not consider the distress and inconvenience caused by this, or the potential health implications of mould in the resident’s property for a prolonged period. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance (available to read at: Guidance on remedies (housing-ombudsman.org.uk), maladministration is identified in cases where the Ombudsman has found failure which adversely affected the resident. This includes instances where the landlord acknowledged the failings but failed to address the detriment to the resident. Awards of between £100 to £600 should be made to reflect maladministration. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £600 to account for the delays in addressing the roof defect, and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
In reviewing the landlord’s records, the landlord sent a number of internal emails discussing the cause of the damp and mould. However, this information was not passed to the resident until the stage 2 response, seven months after the complaint had been logged. This was not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould whereby it is important that ‘landlords clearly communicate its diagnosis with the resident, sharing any relevant information, to ensure the resident has confidence in it and understands the next steps’.
The landlord took little action to reassure the resident it was addressing the cause of the damp and mould in her property throughout the complaints process. The resident phoned the landlord on 15 July 2021 to find out whether builders inspecting her block of flats were attending regarding her complaint. She was advised that it had not yet sent anyone out to complete works, and that builders were attending to a separate issue. The landlord provided no further update on the resident’s complaint. At this point, the resident had not received any updates from the landlord having raised her complaint three months prior. As the resident had been reporting issues with damp and mould intermittently from 2017, the landlord should have ensured its communication with the resident was frequent to provide reassurances that the matter was being handled.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it failed to keep the resident updated on how it intended to address the damp and mould and that the resident had to chase it for updates. In light of the failings, it offered the resident compensation of £100 for poor communication and the time and trouble chasing. However, this offer is insufficient to put things right. The lack of communication would have caused a loss of confidence in the landlord’s handling of the matter and exacerbated the situation, causing stress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident advised that the ongoing presence of mould caused damages to her personal belongings, including her living room furniture. As per the resident’s lease agreement, it is the resident’s responsibility to insure her personal belongings within the property. The landlord therefore would not have been expected to reimburse the resident for damages to her belongings or furniture.
However, as the source of the damp and mould had not been addressed by the landlord in a timely manner, the impact on the condition of the interior of the resident’s property was reported as worsening.
This Service’s guidance confirms that for complaints involving insurance, a landlord should consider what is a fair and reasonable response, and initially consider if there is any evidence it is at fault for claimed damage, rather than refer residents straight to an insurer. If a landlord disputes fault, it may be reasonable to refer complainants to their or the landlord’s own insurer to establish liability. If a landlord accepts that it was or may have been at fault, it may not be reasonable to ask complainants to claim on their own insurance. If liability is denied, a landlord should still investigate and respond to reports that its actions or inactions caused distress and inconvenience, consider if there was any service failure, and if any compensation is applicable. It is not clear the landlord has considered this.
This Service would expect the landlord to inform the resident how she could make a claim through its insurance policy if she believed the landlord was liable for the damages to her belongings. This claim could then have been investigated by the landlord’s own insurer to establish liability. Although the landlord offered a £50 discretionary payment to go towards the resident’s insurance claim or towards replacing damaged belongings, it is not evident it considered signposting the resident to its own insurers. The landlord should therefore provide this information to the resident.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould reports in the property was poor. There were a series of failures which had a detrimental impact on the resident. In light of this, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of damp and mould within the resident’s property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a defect in her bathroom

The resident reported an installation issue with her bathroom on 4 May 2021. The landlord did not have the opportunity to inspect the bathroom as it was brought to the landlord’s attention after the resident had paid for an independent builder to replace the bathroom. This was four years after the resident moved into the property. The landlord advised that as the installation issue was not reported to it during the 12-month defects period, it was unable to reimburse the resident for the costs incurred for her bathroom being replaced as it was not within the timeframe to raise a claim with the developer.
The landlord acted in line with the resident’s lease when determining it was unable to offer reimbursement, as internal repairs are listed as the resident’s responsibility. The landlord advised that the resident could submit a claim through her insurance policy, or against her National House-Building Council (NHBC) warranty provided with the property at purchase completion. In light of the above, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines that a stage 1 complaint response will be provided within 10 working days from the date the complaint is logged, and a stage 2 response will be provided within 20 working days from the date of the escalation request. It explains that if there is good reason, a response may take longer than these timeframes, but that an explanation for delays will be provided to the resident and the timeframe will not exceed a further 10 working days unless agreed by both parties.
There was an excessive delay by the landlord in issuing its responses. At stage 1, the landlord provided its response after 81 working days, and it took 73 working days at stage 2. This resulted in an unreasonable delay for the resident’s complaint being progressed and caused delays for her to bring her complaint to this Service. The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate as it did not adhere to the timescales set out in its complaint’s procedure, or this Service’s Complaints Handling Code.
The resident was not provided with any updates after the landlord’s published timescales elapsed as its policy advises, nor was the resident provided witha reason for the delays. The resident was unclear on what was happening with her complaint or when she would receive responses.
Although the landlord acknowledged the delays in its response and offered £50 compensation to ‘put things right’, it failed to apologise and did not demonstrate any learning from its failures. The Ombudsman considers that the level of redress does not adequately reflect the failings, or the level of detriment caused to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a defect in her bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Service, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1,050 compensation comprising of:
1. £250 for the landlord’s lack of communication with the resident, including a failure to provide regular updates. This amount is inclusive of the £100 already offered by the landlord.
2. £600 for the landlord’s failure to complete the roof repairs causing the damp and mould and to account for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This amount is inclusive of the £100 already offered by the landlord.
3. £150 for the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint. This is inclusive of the £50 already offered by the landlord.
4. £50 as previously offered by the landlord as a discretionary payment towards an insurance claim for damages in the resident’s property.
The landlord is ordered to complete the roof repairs to the resident’s property to address the cause of the damp and mould.
The landlord is ordered to provide the resident with details of how she can raise an insurance claim with the landlord’s insurer should she feel the landlord are liable for the damages to her belongings.
The landlord should confirm compliance of the above orders to this Service within four weeks from the date of this report.

Recommendation

The landlord is strongly recommended to read this Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould that was published in October 2021.