A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202011791)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011791

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

28 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Reports of damage caused by rats.
3. Complaints.
The investigation has also considered the landlord’s information management in respect of this complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder of the property, a three bedroom maisonette in a six story converted building, from 2007. The landlord is a housing association which owns and manages the building. The resident has given the landlord medical evidence that she has asthma, eczema and allergies which can be triggered by the presence of damp, mould and dust.
Under the terms of the lease the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the building including the roof, foundations, all external parts, windows (but not glass), and drainage that serves the building and common parts. The resident is responsible for maintaining items serving her flat including internal plasterwork, heating and ventilation systems, and water and sanitary apparatus.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will not carry out repairs for leaseholders which are their responsibility under their lease. Where the landlord is responsible, the policy says it will carry out urgent repairs within 24 hours and standard repairs at the next available appointment. Its policy includes a matrix of its repair responsibilities for specific issues depending on the type of occupancy arrangement and it accurately reflects the terms of the resident’s lease. The landlord’s website has a page dedicated to advice regarding damp and mould which says the landlord has a “duty to investigate in homes we manage and maintain”.
The landlord’s environmental services policy says it is responsible for pest control, including rat infestations, in communal areas. It says that resident’s are responsible for infestations within their home.
The landlord has a two stage complaint process and its service standards say it aims to respond to complaints within ten working days. The landlord’s website says that stage two complaints may be considered by a head of service, director or complaints panel and that it will respond to those considered by a head of service or director within 20 working days, and those considered by a panel “as soon as possible”. Its complaints procedure says that complaints escalated to stage two may be routed to a service director or panel for review depending on the reasons for the escalation and resolution being sought by the resident.
The landlord has a separate compensation policy which says it may provide compensation where residents are affected by service delivery failures. For example, it may give up to £150 for distress and inconvenience and up to £240 for long delays in resolving issues. The policy also says that the landlord may offer compensation for loss of amenity if it is not able to offer alternative accommodation. It says claims for personal injury should be made to its insurance team and claims for damage to personal belongings made to the relevant insurance company.

Summary of events

The evidence seen shows that the resident reported damp and mould around April 2016 and that the landlord was due to carry out an inspection. Although the order for the inspection was marked as completed on 30 September 2016, the landlord told us it had not been able to arrange an appointment with the resident.
The resident reported the problem again on 4 November 2016 and a further inspection request was raised which was cancelled on 22 November 2016 with a note saying that the landlord’s leasehold team were to contact the resident. No evidence has been seen of what happened next but the landlord says that the resident did not report damp and mould again until 5 July 2019.
During 2018 the resident made a claim against the landlord’s insurance following rats getting into her flat damaging kitchen units and chewing through her washing machine pipe causing a leak. A further leak occurred when rats damaged pipework behind her toilet. The resident’s pest control contractor recommended blocking up the holes inside her flat where the rats had entered and checking the drainage system.
A report by the landlord’s insurer dated 20 September 2018 confirmed the resident’s claim was valid but noted that the landlord’s liability did not include sealing holes within the resident’s flat to prevent the rats entering.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 September 2018 saying the landlord had been negligent in not sealing walls outside which had enabled rats to enter the building, and that the landlord was responsible for internal and external repairs due to the “poor” building renovation. She also wanted the landlord to replace her washing machine.
The landlord’s insurer subsequently repaired the damage caused to the kitchen units and flooring. The landlord blocked up holes outside to prevent rats entering the building and the evidence suggests it may have blocked up holes in the resident’s flat in July 2019. It arranged pest control visits to bait and monitor signs of rat activity from October 2019 to April 2021 with weekly visits being carried out from December 2020. After several visits identifying no further activity, the job was closed on 14 April 2021.
On 5 July 2019 the resident reported damp and mould again and the landlord attended to remove the mould and redecorate the kitchen, lounge and chimney breast in the bedroom. The repair order noted that the resident had asthma and could be affected by the smell of chemicals used. The word “complaint” was also noted on the order and the landlord confirmed to us that it had logged a complaint in 2019 but did not provide any further details or correspondence.
Around June 2020 the resident was decanted to temporary accommodation by her insurance company following a leak from the flat above. The landlord told us that it was not aware of this until 27 October 2020 when the resident made a claim against the landlord’s insurance. However, the landlord’s repair contractor had attended in July 2020 and the resident says a survey was carried out which identified several leaks in her home. The resident says that the contractor took photographs and subsequently told her that it had sent a report to the landlord recommending repairs. The landlord says it did not receive a report from the contractor.
The evidence suggests that a joint visit for “investigation works” was carried out on 4 January 2021 attended by the landlord’s technical manager and its contractor. It is not clear from the evidence seen whether other parties were involved, what was being investigated or whether any work was carried out.
On 8 January 2021 the resident wrote to the Ombudsman saying she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the damage caused by rats, the leaks and associated damp and mould. She said that she was not able to live in her home but was still liable for bills and council tax and that the landlord had ignored the survey report from its contractor and a letter from her GP. The resident wanted to be refunded the excess charges on her insurance claims, compensated for damage to her belongings and for the landlord to seal holes to prevent rats entering and resolve the damp in her living room and bedrooms. The Ombudsman sent the letter to the landlord asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint within ten working days.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman again on 3 April 2021 saying that she had not received copies of surveys that she had requested and still had issues with damp. The resident was still living in the temporary accommodation funded by her insurance company.
The landlord says that the resident’s insurance company had started repairing damage caused by the leak from the flat above but became aware of bigger issues affecting the building including “defective roof, walkways and external render failing”. It says that the insurer withdrew their contractor claiming that the water damage to the resident’s home was caused by the building defects they had found. No evidence has been seen to confirm this and the timeline is unclear from the evidence provided to the Ombudsman.
The landlord commissioned a damp survey which was done on 18 May 2021. The surveyor’s report dated 7 June 2021 confirmed the presence of damp and mould and noted that repairs by the insurance company were underway which meant it was not possible to assess the extent of damage caused by the leak from the flat above. The report concluded the causes of the damp and mould as:
1. The leak from the flat above affecting the stairs and landing.
2. Penetrating damp in the living room caused by defective brickwork under the window, plant growth on the wall and overhanging shrubs.
3. Condensation where the leak from the flat above was a contributing factor. However, the thermal performance of the walls did not appear to comply with the building regulations in place at the time the building was converted.
The report recommended that:
1. The damp from the leak be allowed to fully dry out and underfloor areas inspected for damage and trapped moisture.
2. Humidity levels behind wall linings and under the floors to be checked before repair work was completed.
3. The defective brickwork be repaired and plant growth removed from the living room window cill.
4. Overhanging shrubs to be cut back and the capacity of gutters checked.
5. Wall lining boards in the living room be removed to check the damp proof course.
6. Internal mould growth be removed and surfaces treated.
7. Further advice be sought from a specialist on the best options for improving ventilation.
8. Heat loss calculations be carried out as some radiators appeared to be too small.
9. Improving thermal insulation may need to be considered if humidity levels could not be controlled by improving ventilation and heating.
The landlord says it held an internal meeting on 11 June 2021 to consider the report but no evidence has been seen of the discussion or outcomes from this. The landlord commissioned a specialist ventilation survey resulting in the landlord deciding to upgrade the extractor fans. The landlord also instructed its contractor to repair the water damaged landing ceiling and stairway walls and provided copies of the damp and ventilation surveys to the resident.
Between 5 July 2021 and 22 July 2021, the landlord’s damp contractor and insurance loss adjuster exchanged emails. The loss adjuster advised that there had been two previous “significant” water leaks in the property. He said that on 6 September 2018 there had been a leak from a kitchen appliance causing extensive damage to the entire ground floor and, on 16 November 2020, there had been a leak from the flat above. The loss adjuster said that a moisture assessment had been done and underfloor areas dried out but another leak from the soil pipe had then been discovered which had damaged the first floor landing and mezzanine bedroom though no damage was caused to the ground floor. He said that investigation had taken time due to confusion with other properties being affected by separate water ingress issues. The damp contractor suggested that further investigation was needed to establish whether the leak from the soil pipe had damaged the ground floor and that the pipe that had damaged the first floor area may still be leaking as the walls were damp. The loss adjuster agreed to carry out the further investigations suggested.
On 23 July 2021 the resident emailed the loss adjuster asking for an update on the insurance work and saying she was concerned that the landlord planned to start repairs. She said that she had been told the insurance work was delayed but the landlord was going ahead with its repairs and wanted her to move back into her home as soon as possible. The loss adjuster advised that he was arranging further investigations and was not aware of the repairs that the landlord was going to start.
On 27 July 2021 the landlord wrote to all residents in the building saying there had been a leak from overflowing gutters which had affected several properties. It said that it was at the building investigating further and asked residents to get in touch if their flat had been affected.
On 30 July 2021 the landlord provided its stage one response to the resident’s complaint saying:
1. It understood that she had been decanted by her insurance company but the matter was being handled by its contractor and it was not aware of the issue until October 2020.
2. It had taken many months to get the leaseholder of the flat above to carry out the necessary repairs and the resident’s insurance company had agreed to pay the costs as the delay was due to them arguing that the damage had been caused by a roof leak.
3. It was sorry that she believed that the landlord’s contractor had provided it with a report.
4. It had commissioned an independent damp survey which had highlighted several issues and had sent her a copy which she passed on to her insurers who again had disputed their liability.
5. The landlord had agreed to pay for upgrading ventilation and would attend to the external work needed but could not confirm the timescale.
6. Its contractor would repair the damaged walls and ceiling in the landing and treat the mould in the bedroom by 6 August 2021.
7. The resident had claimed for damage to her belongings which was being considered by its insurance team.
8. It would refund the £250 excess of her insurance claim and offered £390 compensation for her distress and inconvenience, and £50 for its communication failures.
The resident replied on 31 July 2021 saying that her complaint remained unresolved and she wanted to escalate it. She said:
1. The landlord’s contractor had inspected all the water damaged areas in July 2020 and sent a report to the landlord recommending repairs. The landlord had ignored this and, during the delay, a further leak occurred. She believed the landlord was attempting to conceal the contractor’s report because of the cost of the repairs needed.
2. Other repairs were needed on the stairs and landing due to the water damage including the bannisters and the carbon monoxide and fire detectors. The chimney breast in the bedroom and living room walls had not been repaired.
3. The compensation offered was not sufficient redress for the ongoing failures, poor communication and impact on her health.
The resident emailed the loss adjuster on 2 August 2021 saying that she felt the repair work planned by the landlord was premature as the further investigations had not been done. She was concerned that her home may not be ready for her to move back into by 21 August 2021 when her temporary accommodation was due to end. The loss adjuster responded saying that the further investigations should take place that day but he had no control over the landlord’s repair plans.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 and 4 August 2021 saying that she was concerned that the landlord was ignoring the findings of the damp survey, that mould washes had been done previously but not resolved the problem, and that the mould was a particular risk to her because of her health conditions. No evidence has been seen of a response by the landlord.
On 9 August 2021 the resident emailed the landlord again asking for an update as her temporary accommodation was due to end and the accommodation fees had not been paid either. The landlord emailed her on 12 August 2021 confirming that her complaint had been escalated but no evidence has been seen that it gave an update on the progress of repair work or advised on the position regarding her temporary accommodation.
The landlord and loss adjuster exchanged emails between 18 and 19 August 2021. The loss adjuster advised that it was not known how long the insurance repairs would take as further investigations were needed. He also advised that the landlord should have paid the temporary accommodation fees up to 20 August 2021 and that the insurance company had made arrangements for temporary accommodation from then.
The landlord provided its stage two response to the resident’s complaint on 17 September 2021 saying:
1. It had carried out work in June 2021 to repair the landing ceiling and walls and block the holes where rats had entered but this had not been to the expected standard.
2. It had carried out further work including to the kitchen and bathroom in August 2021 with the intention that she would be able to move back into her home.
3. Although the repairs to her home had been done, further work was needed to resolve the wet walls in the living room and insulation in the “main structure” and a liability claim had been made. Once repairs had been done it would make good to her decorations.
4. The residents of the building had written to the landlord and council expressing concerns about repair issues. The landlord had appointed consultants to investigate further and would update all residents on the situation.
5. It would carry out further training of staff to ensure they gave the correct information to residents in future.
6. It offered £240 compensation for her time and trouble.
On 17 September 2021 the landlord’s insurance team sent the resident a copy of her claim and asked her to contact them if there were any updates.
The resident emailed the landlord’s complaint team on 22 September 2021 again saying that the landlord was ignoring the findings of the damp survey report. She said that the inadequate insulation on the bedroom chimney breast had caused mould that had affected her breathing for many years. The resident said that the landlord had gone ahead with repairs in July 2021 against the recommendations of the loss adjuster and its damp surveyor that further assessment was needed after another leak in July 2021. She said that the work to the landing, stairs, living room wall and bathroom had not been done and that the windows and radiators did not meet building regulations. The resident said that “extreme” stress had been caused to her family who had to move into different temporary accommodation and hotels because the landlord had not paid the fees. She said that she planned to take legal action and again requested a copy of the contractors report from July 2020. No evidence has been seen that the landlord responded.
An internal email dated 8 October 2021 shows the landlord asking for further enquires to be made with the loss adjuster on the progress of the insurance works and whether decant costs paid by the landlord could be recovered from the resident’s insurance company.
The resident emailed the landlord’s insurance team on 14 October 2021 saying that her belongings were in storage in different places and would need to be checked and itemised. She asked if her claim could include reimbursement of her service charges from June 2020. She said that she had moved seven times and had to stay in a hotel due to the landlord not paying the temporary accommodation fees on time. She said that this had been stressful particularly during the challenges of covid-19 and her children taking exams. The resident said that she had visited her home on 30 September 2021 with the landlord’s technical manager and found work remained outstanding. She wanted the landlord to pay all the bills at her current temporary accommodation and resolve the issue of who was responsible for completing the remaining work needed.
Between 26 and 29 October 2021 emails were exchanged between the loss adjuster and damp surveyor. The loss adjuster proposed that the damp and mould in the understairs cupboard be remedied under the insurance claim but the damp surveyor was not clear what work was being proposed. The damp surveyor contacted the landlord and the landlord referred the matter to its insurance team.
Internal emails dated 9 and 10 November 2021 show the landlord considering the costs it had paid for storage of the resident’s belongings which it concluded could be recovered from the resident’s insurer.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 9 and 10 December 2021 advising she was still in temporary accommodation, that repairs were still needed to her home due to ongoing defects from before she bought the flat, and that her complaints had been closed without resolution.
No evidence has been seen of what happened next until the resident sent the Ombudsman a copy of a letter from her GP on 11 January 2022. The letter confirmed the resident’s health conditions and recommended she be housed in more suitable accommodation. The resident contacted the Ombudsman again on 19 January 2022 saying that she was due to move back to her home on 6 March 2022 and repairs had not been completed.
The evidence suggests that the landlord’s contractor repaired the heat detector and lights in the resident’s landing sometime in January 2022. The landlord says an internal meeting was held on 31 January 2022 to agree the final repair responsibilities but no evidence has been seen of the discussion or outcome of this.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 February 2022 saying she was concerned that repairs had not been done and there was damp and mould in her home which she had been reporting for 14 years. She said that her temporary accommodation was due to end on 6 March 2022.
No evidence has been seen of what happened next until the resident sent the landlord a social media message on 14 October 2022 saying she was disappointed the landlord had not responded to the damp and mould.
The loss adjuster emailed the landlord on 9 November 2022 to confirm it had completed the repairs arising from the insurance claim. However, the loss adjuster pointed out that there was “serious” penetrating damp in the ground floor lounge area and the fireplace in the bedroom had collapsed due to the plaster becoming compromised. He said that the resident had advised that she could not return home until those issues were resolved and that it would be “appropriate” for the landlord to resolve them as the damage was the result of an ongoing defect and not part of the insurance claim.
On 22 November 2022 the landlord emailed the resident saying it was considering her compensation request. On 30 November 2022 the landlord emailed the resident saying it would repair the defective brickwork causing the damp and mould in her living room and make good to the internal walls. It said it would remove the plaster to the chimney breast in the bedroom, seal the wall, replaster and decorate it. The landlord said the work would be done by 23 December 2022 and it would visit in January 2023 to check the work had resolved the damp and mould issues.
The resident responded on 3 December 2022 saying that she wanted the landlord to follow the recommendations of the damp survey report. She asked for a damp proof course in the living room, the chimney breast in the bedroom to be insulated and the bedroom redecorated, and for windows and radiators to be replaced to improve the ventilation and heating. The resident asked for the work to be done before she moved back into her home.
The resident chased the landlord for a response on 20 December 2022 and 10 January 2023. On 19 January 2023 she emailed the landlord saying that water had been “flooding” from the roof into the communal walkways and affected her bedroom ceiling and window causing significant damp and mould. She said that the scaffolding around the building meant that that ventilation was not adequate and she was not able to return to her home. On 26 January 2023 the landlord acknowledged her contacts and said the matter had been escalated to a director to consider.
On 27 January 2023 and 1 February 2023, the resident chased the landlord for a response saying her temporary accommodation was due to end on 23 February 2023.
The evidence provided by the landlord suggests that some repair work was completed on 7 February 2023 but does not say what work was done.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 February 2023 offering to buy back her flat and the resident refused the offer on 10 February 2023 saying she wanted the landlord to complete the necessary repairs so that she could return to live in her home. The evidence suggests that the landlord telephoned the resident on 10 February 2023 but no evidence has been seen of what was discussed or the outcome of the call.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 12 February 2023 saying that her home had been damaged and her health affected due to living with damp and mould for 14 years. She said that she had been unable to work and care for her children at times and all her complaints had been closed without resolution. The resident asked for her temporary accommodation to be extended and for the repairs to be carried out.
On 14 February 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to say it had set up a specialist team to manage the various issues in the building and provide a single point of contact. On 15 February 2023 the landlord confirmed it had extended her temporary accommodation until 24 May 2023.
The landlord provided the Ombudsman with an update on 17 February 2023 which said:
1. The resident had claimed against her own insurance for the damage caused by a leak from the flat above which had also caused damp and mould. The resident had been decanted by her insurance company whilst the repairs took place. The landlord had funded the resident’s temporary accommodation after the insurance work was completed.
2. It had commissioned the damp survey in May 2021 and had upgraded the extractor fans in the bathrooms and installed additional ventilation in the kitchen.
3. It had also repaired the landing ceiling and wall and replaced bathroom sealant despite these being the resident’s responsibility under the lease.
4. In January 2023 it had repaired the defective brickwork under her lounge windows and made good to her internal decorations.
5. It planned extensive remediation work to the building which was expected to start after Autumn 2023 and take up to 18 months.
6. It had offered to buy the resident’s flat from her due to her health issues and in consideration of the further work planned for the building.
7. It would arrange for an independent environmental health officer to inspect the residents home to assess whether it was safe for her to move back into.
On 7 March 2023 the landlord instructed the environmental health officer to survey the resident’s home.
The resident sent the landlord a video on 22 March 2023 showing rainwater shedding from communal walkways above onto the outside of her bedroom window and walls. She said that the living room had been painted in January 2023 but the paint was already peeling off due to damp and that the ventilation work carried out had not resolved the issues as the kitchen extractor was not sufficient and the bathroom extractors were in the wrong position. The resident again said that she wanted the landlord to carry out all the work recommended by its damp surveyor. She said the landlord had ignored the pest controller’s advice to seal holes to prevent rats entering the building and asked for her temporary accommodation to be extended until all the repairs had been done.
The landlord provided the Ombudsman with a further update on 30 March 2023 saying it was in “regular” contact with the resident and had spoken to her on 23 March 2023 following her email.
The environmental health officer visited on 10 May 2023 and the resident emailed the landlord on 12 May 2023 saying that the external rendering had not been inspected and that the landlord had painted over damp and mould before the visit took place.
The environmental health officer’s report dated 24 May 2023 confirmed that the resident’s flat was affected by condensation dampness in the first floor bedroom and bathroom which he considered to be the resident’s responsibility under the lease. The survey had considered the resident’s concerns about fumes from the boiler flue and ventilation and raised no concerns. It said there had been “no breach of the landlord’s repairing obligations that has rendered this property not reasonably suitable for occupation” and recommended that the resident should treat the mould and improve ventilation in the bedroom.
The resident emailed the landlord and environmental health officer on 2 June 2023 saying that the report had not referenced the findings of the previous damp survey, the concerns she had raised at the inspection or her medical evidence, the roof leak and associated damp and mould outside her bedroom window, the comments of the loss adjuster regarding damp and mould, or her concern that drainage had not been checked after the rat infestation. She also said that the flue she was concerned about was on a neighbouring property adjacent to her bedroom window.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 June 2023 saying:
1. It had carried out the repairs which were its responsibility following the damp survey in May 2021 and had carried out further work which was her responsibility under the lease. It would now arrange a further survey to inspect external brickwork, the bedroom chimney breast, the bathroom and living room and gas flues adjacent to her windows.
2. Her insurance company had paid for her temporary accommodation between 25 June 2022 and 23 February 2023. The landlord had continued to fund her temporary accommodation until the environmental health survey had been done but could not continue to do so. However, it would source a property of its own as alternative temporary accommodation until the environmental health officer responded to her points and the further survey had been done.
3. It clarified that it was responsible for the structural stability of the chimney breast but the decoration was her responsibility. It confirmed that she was responsible for internal plumbing and wiring, plasterwork and floorboards, decoration and “wear and tear”. As such the holes in her flat where rats had entered were her responsibility to block.
4. It had offered to buy her flat because of her health issues but understood her reasons for refusing the offer.
5. It would ask the environmental health officer to respond to the points she had raised about his report and confirmed he had found no evidence of rats during his visit.
6. It had previously investigated the external rendering of the building and further inspection was not necessary. It would complete works as part of the wider repairs planned for the building.
7. The planned remediation work to the building would start after October 2023 and it would pay each resident £3000 for the delays in carrying out the work needed and additional payments would be made depending on how resident’s homes had been individually affected. It would also meet with every resident to talk through how the work would impact them and any arrangements that were needed.
On 23 June 2023 the resident told the Ombudsman that the alternative temporary accommodation offered by the landlord had not been in a suitable location for her work and childcare and that she had refused the offer. The following day the resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord had extended her existing temporary accommodation for a week, that she had not had a response from the environmental health officer and the further survey had not yet been carried out.
On 17 July 2023 the resident emailed the Ombudsman saying that she had been moved to alternative temporary accommodation but had suffered an allergic reaction caused by dust from her furniture that had been in storage. She said that this had compromised her breathing, caused facial swelling and pain, and that it had required medical attention. The resident said that the landlord wanted her to move back to her home but she was concerned that exposure to damp, mould and dust was likely to cause her a similar allergic reaction.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case. Unlike a court we are unable to establish liability or calculate or award damages, nor can we establish whether the damp and mould caused any health issues.

Response to reports of damp and mould

It is not disputed that the resident’s home has been affected by damp and mould over many years. The dispute is whether the landlord or resident is responsible for the work needed to resolve the issues. Whilst the lease sets out the repairing responsibilities, neither the lease nor the landlord’s repair responsibility matrix specifically refer to condensation, damp or mould which means that consideration needs to be given to the causes of the issues.
The situation is further complicated in this case by the presence of other repair issues affecting the building including roof leaks. Whilst the landlord is now planning to carry out extensive repair works to resolve the issues it has identified; it is not clear from the evidence when the landlord first became aware of the wider building issues. The evidence suggests that some issues were present when the resident’s insurance company had started the work arising from her insurance claim of June 2020 causing the insurance company to challenge whether the water damage had been caused by a leak from the flat above or building defects.
The resident’s insurance company ultimately accepted liability for the water damage to her landing, stairs and kitchen but it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether the wider building issues were a cause or contributory factor of the damp and mould in the resident’s home.
It was reasonable that the landlord commissioned the survey carried out in May 2021 to determine the cause of the damp and mould and advise on repair responsibilities. However, the evidence shows that the landlord had not provided the damp surveyor with a copy of the lease and suggests the surveyor was not aware of the details of the insurance claim or historic reports of damp, mould and leaks before the survey was done. This may have affected the conclusions made regarding the causes of the damp and mould and meant the advice given on repair responsibilities was based on the surveyor’s assumptions of the lease. As such the landlord missed the opportunity to gain the clarity it had wanted on who was responsible for doing the recommended repairs.
The damp survey report was a thorough assessment of the presenting issues including damp readings, photographs, plaster salt analysis and modelling of humidity levels within the property. Recommendations were made for resolving the three causes of damp and mould that had been identified and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have followed them. However, it was not an intrusive survey and highlighted limitations in its conclusions suggesting further investigations be carried out where relevant.
The damp survey report assumed the landlord would be responsible for work recommended to resolve the penetrating damp under the living room window. The report had recommended that the internal lining boards be removed to enable the damp proofing treatment to be inspected for defects and no evidence has been seen that the landlord did this. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have followed this recommendation given that any defects in the damp proof treatment would fall within its repairing obligations.
It was appropriate that the landlord carried out repairs to the external wall under the living room window given this was its responsibility being part of the structure of the building. However, there was an inappropriate delay as the landlord says it completed the work in January 2023 which was over 17 months after the damp survey was done, and during which time, the penetrating damp continued to cause avoidable damage to the resident’s home. Further, we have not seen evidence to confirm that the work carried out was in line with all the recommendations made in the damp survey report and the resident says that the wall is still damp.
The damp survey report highlighted that the thermal performance of the walls did not appear to comply with the building regulations in place at the time of the conversion. The report noted that condensation was likely to occur behind the wall linings, though likely to evaporate in summer, and that the lack of appropriate insulation to the bedroom fireplace was also a condensation risk. It suggested that the condensation could be controlled by improved heating and ventilation but improving internal insulation may need to be considered if the problem persisted. The report said that liability for improving the internal insulation may be a matter for debate and legal opinion.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have sought legal opinion on whether there was any liability arising from the damp survey report’s references to noncompliance with the building regulations of the time and whether internal insulation forms part of the building structure. However, no evidence has been seen that it did so which was a further missed opportunity to clarify repairing responsibilities which may have led to the issues being resolved.
The damp survey report suggested that the landlord would be responsible for any work needed to the windows to alleviate condensation and that responsibility “may” lie with the resident for improving ventilation and heating. Although the landlord commissioned a specialist ventilation survey as recommended by the damp survey report, a copy of the ventilation report was not provided for this investigation.
It was reasonable that the landlord installed an extractor fan in the kitchen area and upgraded the bathroom extractor fans given that it deemed the work to be the resident’s responsibility. However, as we have not seen the ventilation survey, it is not clear whether the work done by the landlord was in line with the recommendations made and the evidence suggests it has not resolved the damp and mould. No evidence has been seen that any work has been carried out to the windows to improve ventilation.
It is acknowledged that the landlord has carried out work which would normally be the resident’s responsibility under the lease. In addition to improving the ventilation and resealing the bath and wash basin, the landlord repaired the ceiling, walls, heat detector and lights of the staircase and landing and redecorated the affected areas. It is not clear why the landlord did the work to the staircase and landing as the evidence suggests that these areas were the subject of the resident’s claim to her insurance company of June 2020.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord had limited control over the delays caused by acceptance of liabilities between the resident’s insurance company and its own. However, the landlord could have done more to resolve the disputed repair responsibilities as set out above. The evidence suggests ineffective oversight of the various repair issues, co-ordination of the repair work carried out, and inadequate communication between the involved parties also contributed to the delays. Further, the evidence suggests that the landlord’s focus at times was on resolving cost liabilities with the resident’s insurance company rather than resolving the causes of the damp and mould.
It was reasonable that the landlord offered to buy back the resident’s flat in February 2022 as it had no obligation to do so. However, when this was refused by the resident on 10 February 2022, the landlord could again have acted sooner to try to resolve the dispute over repair responsibilities. However, no evidence has been seen that the landlord considered carrying out further repairs or investigations at that time.
It was reasonable that the landlord continued to provide temporary accommodation after repairs carried out by the resident’s insurance company had been completed in November 2022. The evidence suggests that the landlord would like the resident to move back to her home as soon as possible. If so, the landlord could have been more proactive in resolving the outstanding issues to enable this. Whilst the evidence suggests some work was completed on 7 February 2023, it does not give detail of what was done and it is not clear whether the landlord carried out the work to the chimney breast as it said it intended in its letter of 20 November 2022.
The landlord instructed the environmental health officer to assess the resident’s home on 7 March 2023 which was four months after the loss adjuster had confirmed that the insurance repairs were complete and it was a further two months before the assessment took place. Further, whilst the environmental health officer’s report stated there was “no breach of the landlord’s repairing obligations that has rendered this property not reasonably suitable for occupation”, it does not say that the property is safe for the resident to move back into which was the purpose of the assessment stated by the landlord.
The various disrepair issues have resulted in the resident being unable to live in her home for three years during which time she has moved more than seven times. The evidence shows that this caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family. The resident had to chase multiple times for her temporary accommodation to be extended and was left not knowing whether the landlord would agree until soon before it ended on several occasions. For example, the resident asked the landlord to extend her accommodation on 17 January 2023 and chased it for a response at least twice. The landlord confirmed it had extended it almost a month later on 15 February 2023 when it was due to expire just eight days later on 23 February 2023.
Although the landlord has taken some positive action to try to resolve the disputed repair responsibilities it has also failed to follow some of the recommendations made within the damp survey report and missed several opportunities to reach a resolution. These failings have caused the dispute to remain unresolved after three years and amount to severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
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.
In this case, the landlord has provided temporary accommodation and commissioned a further survey of the disputed repair issues. Orders have been made below for the landlord to check for defects in the living room damp proof treatment, provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the survey report, seek legal opinion on its repair obligations and confirm its intentions regarding further repairs to the resident’s home and provision of temporary accommodation.
The landlord also offered the resident a total £930 compensation during its complaints process which included the £250 refund of the resident’s insurance excess. The Ombudsman does not consider this sufficient redress considering the duration of the disrepair and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay additional compensation of £2,400 for its failure to resolve the penetrating damp and £1,500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.

Response to reports of damage caused by rats

No evidence has been seen that the landlord was aware of a rat infestation before the resident made the claim against its insurance. The evidence suggests that the landlord took appropriate action by blocking holes outside to prevent rats entering the building and continuing to bait and monitor for rat activity for 18 months. This was in line with its repairing obligations under the lease and its environmental services policy.
However, no evidence has been seen that the landlord checked the drainage as recommended by the pest control contractor. It would have been reasonable for it to have done so given that it is responsible for maintaining drainage serving the building and the landlord should consider doing so if the drainage has not been checked.
The evidence suggests that the landlord had baited and may have blocked holes inside the resident’s flat in July 2019. If so, this was reasonable given that the landlord had no obligation to do so under the terms of the lease.
The insurance claim resolved the damage caused to the resident’s home and the resident confirmed to us that the landlord had refunded the £250 excess she had paid.
The landlord has no obligation under the lease to compensate the resident for her damaged washing machine or the toilet repair she had paid for. It is noted that the resident believes the landlord should be liable as she believes that defects arising from the conversion of the building allowed the rats to enter. However, this is not a matter that the Ombudsman can decide and the resident may wish to seek legal advice.
For the reasons set out above there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of damage caused by rats.

Handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord told us that it had logged a complaint in 2019 but did not provide further details or related correspondence. As such, the Ombudsman is unable to comment on the landlord’s handling of it.
The landlord provided it’s stage one response to the resident’s complaint on 30 July 2021 which was over six months after the Ombudsman had passed on her complaint. This timescale was inappropriate and contrary to the landlord’s service standards and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
Whilst the landlord’s response acknowledged communication failures, it did not apologise or explain why it had taken so long to reply to the resident’s complaint. Further, the landlord’s response did not adequately address the points raised in the resident’s complaint. For example, the response said that the landlord was sorry the resident believed that its contractor had provided it with a report in July 2020. However, it did not say that the contractor had not provided a report or address why the contractor said it had. Nor has any evidence been seen that this was investigated by the landlord or that it tried to get a copy of the report from the contractor. It would have been reasonable for it to have done so given this was a key aspect of the resident’s dissatisfaction.
Further the landlord’s reference to the resident passing the damp survey report onto her insurance company resulting in the insurers “again disputing their liability” was unnecessary and could be perceived as blaming the resident for the delays in her insurance repair work.
The resident’s reference to believing that the landlord was concealing the contractor’s report in her complaint escalation of 31 July 2021 should have been a further prompt for the landlord to investigate and try to get a copy of the report but no evidence has been seen that it did so.
The landlord’s stage two response of 17 September 2021 was provided six weeks after the resident’s escalation request. Again, this delay was inappropriate and contrary to the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code. As with the previous complaint response, the landlord did not apologise for the delay or explain why it had happened.
Further, the wording of the response was inadequate and confusing meaning it was difficult to differentiate what the landlord was saying it had done from what it was saying it intended to do. For example, the letter referred to further work “being unresolved including insulation within the main structure” it was not clear what it meant by this or what action it intended to take. Nor did the letter give any timescales for the further action it seemed to be suggesting it would take. For example, the letter suggested the landlord would “investigate any remaining unresolved repairs” but did not say how or when it would do this.
Overall, the landlord took seven months to deal with the resident’s complaint and did not adequately investigate or respond to the points she had raised. This meant the landlord missed opportunities to put things right for the resident and amounts to severe maladministration in its handling of her complaint.
Although the landlord offered £50 compensation for its communication failures at stage one and £240 for the resident’s time and trouble at stage two, this was insufficient considering the duration of the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s failings. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident, pay an additional £700 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling and review its complaint handling procedures to ensure it complies with the Code.

Information management

The evidence provided by the landlord for this investigation raised the following concerns about the landlord’s information management:
1. Although it was asked to do so, the landlord did not provide some documentation that would have been relevant for the investigation. For example, the ventilation survey it had carried out, the repair history for the property, and information about the claims made by the resident against the landlord’s insurance. This meant that apparent anomalies in the timeline given by the landlord when compared with the evidence provided could not be resolved. For example, an email from the loss adjuster dated 5 July 2021 refers to a leak from the flat above on 16 November 2020 and there is no reference to this in the landlord’s timeline or evidence it provided.
2. As noted in the report, no evidence was provided of the landlord responding to many of the resident’s contacts and there were gaps in its records of contact with the resident. For example, after the resident visited the property with the landlord’s technical manager on 30 September 2021, there is no reference in the evidence seen of the landlord having further contact with the resident until 22 November 2022.
3. As noted in the report, the landlord’s records referred to internal meetings held but no records or details of the discussions or outcomes were provided.
4. There were gaps in the evidence which meant the Ombudsman was unable to collate a complete timeline of events. For example, no evidence was provided by the landlord of any events between 10 December 2021 and 31 January 2022.
5. The landlord’s response of 16 June 2023 to the Ombudsman’s further information request said that it had attached some documents including details and correspondence relating to previous complaints and the insurance claims. However, these documents were not attached.
The above suggests that the landlord may not have kept adequate records of all the events in this case and that it has not provided all its relevant records to the Ombudsman. This amounts to maladministration in the landlord’s information management of this case. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to review our findings in this case and use our recent spotlight report on knowledge and information management to improve its approach.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Complaints
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s information management relating to this case.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused by rats.

Reasons

Although the landlord took some positive action to try to resolve the disputed repair responsibilities it also failed to follow recommendations made within the damp survey report and missed opportunities to reach a resolution. This meant the dispute, and the damp and mould, remains unresolved after three years.
Overall, the landlord took seven months to deal with the resident’s complaint and did not adequately investigate or respond to the points she had raised. This meant the landlord missed opportunities to put things right for the resident and resolve the issues she had complained about.
The evidence suggests that the landlord may not have kept adequate records of all the events in this case and it did not provide all its relevant records to the Ombudsman.
The landlord took appropriate action by blocking holes outside to prevent rats entering the building and continuing to bait and monitor for rat activity for 18 months. This was in line with its repairing obligations under the lease and its environmental services policy.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Remove the wall lining boards in the living room and investigate any defects in the damp proof treatment in line with the recommendations made in the damp survey report of May 2021. The landlord must carry out any repairs that are needed to the damp proof treatment and make good the internal walls and decoration.
2. Provide the Ombudsman and resident with a copy of the report from the planned further survey of the disputed repair issues.
3. Seek legal opinion on its repair obligations in consideration of:
  1. The references made in the damp survey report of May 2021 regarding the internal insulation not complying with the building regulations at the time of the conversion.
  2. Whether the internal insulation of the property forms part of the building structure.

The landlord must provide the Ombudsman and resident with a copy of the advice it receives.

Write to the resident to confirm it’s intentions regarding further repairs to the resident’s home and provision of temporary accommodation in consideration of the outcomes from the planned survey and legal opinion. The landlord must provide a copy of its letter to the Ombudsman.
Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report. The landlord must provide a copy of its letter to the Ombudsman.
Pay the resident total compensation of £4,600. The payment must be made directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears and is comprised of:
1. £2400 for the delays in repairing the brickwork under the living room window and failure to resolve the penetrating damp.
2. £1500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her reports of damp and mould.
3. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her complaint.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Review its complaint handling procedures to ensure it complies with all the requirements of the code in future.
2. Review the findings in this case and use the Ombudsman’s recent spotlight report on knowledge and information management ( available here) to improve its approach.
3. Check the drainage serving the building as recommended by the pest control contractor if it has not already done so.