The Riverside Group Of Companies Ltd (202200076)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200076

The Riverside Group Of Companies Ltd

3 August 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 response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident has an assured tenancy which commenced in March 2020. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, the resident made the landlord aware that two members of the household suffered with asthma, that her son was a cancer survivor and daughter had a health condition which meant she did not retain her body heat.
This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould published in October 2021 recommends that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this. It also recommends that:
1. Landlords should consider whether they require an overall framework, or policy, to address damp and mould which would cover each area where the landlord may be required to act. This would include any proactive interventions, its approach to diagnosis, actions it considers appropriate in different circumstances, effective communication and aftercare.
2. Landlords should avoid taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident. They should evaluate what mitigations they can put in place to support residents in cases where structural interventions are not appropriate and satisfy themselves, they are taking all reasonable steps.
3. Landlords should review, alongside residents, their initial response to reports of damp and mould to ensure they avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language that leaves residents feeling blamed.
The housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) assesses 29 housing hazards and the effect that each may have on the health and safety of current or future occupants of the property. The HHSRS provides a way that hazards can be assessed and the best way of dealing with them. One of the hazards identified is damp and mould growth. Damp and mould are health threats due to dust mites, mould or fungal growth. It includes physical, mental and social wellbeing ill effects associated with damp, humid and mouldy conditions. Health effects include allergies, asthma, breathing difficulties, fungal infection, rhinitis, depression and anxiety. Landlords should be proactive and consider these preventative measures before damp and mould arise:
1. Damp proof courses, membranes and detailing around doors and window openings.
2. External fabric kept in good repair to avoid rain penetration.
3. Frost protection for pipes and tanks. Properly installed baths and sinks. Properly installed drainage. Properly installed and maintained rainwater goods.
4. Properly ventilated roof and under floor spaces to ensure timber remains air dry. Adequate extraction of moisture laden air during peak times, like cooking, bathing and laundry.
5. Continuous low-level background ventilation where necessary. Sufficient means of ventilation to cope with moisture from normal domestic activities without the need to open windows that could lead to heat loss, noise and security risks, and appropriate ventilation for dwellings of high occupant density.
The HHSRS also recognises that health threats can occur from cold indoor temperatures. A healthy indoor temperature is around 21C. Below 19C there is small risk of health effects and below 16C there are serious health risks especially for the elderly. Health effects include respiratory illnesses such as flu, pneumonia and bronchitis, heart attacks, strokes, hypothermia, blood pressure, low immune performance, worsening arthritis. Preventative measures include attending to:
1. Appropriate levels of thermal insulation to minimise heat loss.
2. Appropriate heating system safely and properly installed and maintained and controllable.
3. Appropriate and properly installed controllable low-level background ventilation without too much heat loss or draughts. Means for rapid ventilation at times of high moisture production in kitchens and bathrooms through fans.
4. Properly sited permanent openings, for air bricks and openable windows. Properly fitting butt-jointed floor boarding, doors and windows.
The landlord’s website section on damp and mould says “we understand that damp, mould or condensation can be concerning. If you have a problem with damp, mould or condensation in your home, please let us know straight away. Condensation usually appears where there isn’t enough ventilation so you might see it where air doesn’t flow easily”.
The tenancy agreement says the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord’s repair policy says that it will respond to urgent repairs within 5 days and routine repairs within 28 days.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. Stage 1 complaints are acknowledged by 5pm the next working day and will be responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are responded to within 10 working days.
The landlord’s financial redress and compensation procedure says that compensation may be paid by way of apology, commensurate with the circumstances of the case.

Summary of events

On 26 November 2020 the landlord’s repairs records showed that it received a report of suspected damp in the property. On 7 December 2020 the landlord’s operative advised the resident that she needed to keep vents open and allow air to circulate in the property.
On 8 December 2020 the landlord’s repairs records showed a further report of suspected damp at the property. On 10 December 2020 the landlord’s records said that this was mainly due to living conditions. It said it would carry out a cavity clean to check for bridging. A further record for 10 December 2020 said that the landlord had cut out brickwork in several areas, cleared the cavity and replaced the bricks.
On 20 January 2021 the landlord’s records showed that it had raised a repair to carry out two further cavity cleans to either side of the door, and for a roof inspection to check the front corner of the chimney and seal around the canopy. On 21 January 2021 the landlord’s records showed that it attended the property with an inspector but that the resident had “refused” work to be carried out. On 25 January 2021 the landlord checked the corner of the roof and chimney but found nothing wrong. It sealed back the canopy to the front door.
On 5 January 2022 the resident raised a complaint about a repair to a leaking radiator and problems with damp and mould. The landlord’s repairs logs did not show when the repair for the radiator was raised, however the landlord’s internal emails showed that this was reported on 28 December 2021. In her complaint the resident said:
1. That the bedroom radiator had started to leak. This was isolated at 3.40 am, and at 7.40 am she telephoned the landlord to report it. She explained that the house was humid, damp and suffered from mould. She said that there were two highly vulnerable adults in the home and two adults were asthmatic. The damp mouldy air was not good for their health. The landlord said it had noted this and would forward on the repair.
2. That she had phoned again at 10.20 am as it had been 3 hours and she had not had any contact about the repair. She said that heating was a basic need and essential when there were health related problems. The landlord again said it would report the issue and get someone to contact her about the repair.
3. That when the resident reported the repair to the landlord it clearly said it was an emergency. She asked for the repairs to be completed within 24 hours of reporting the problem.
On 28 January 2022 the landlord’s records indicated “ongoing mould issues”. It attended on 4 February 2022. It said that the issue was with ventilation and vents being “taped shut”. It said a further cavity clean would be ordered.
On 3 March 2022 further cavity work was undertaken. The landlord’s records said that the inspector had reported issues of “the customer blocking vents and cling filming windows not allowing for airflow”. It had taken photographs and written to the resident.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 11 March 2022. The landlord said:
1. It was sorry to hear about the resident’s recent experience and the service she had received regarding the leaking radiator, the difficulties she had in raising the repair initially and the overall time the process took.
2. It could see that the repair was completed on 5 January 2022. It had investigated the detail of the repair. To manage expectations in the future, it explained that this kind of repair did not qualify for a 12 hour response time. The leak was contained and was only a partial loss of heating. It apologised for the lack of communication and said that it should have been picked up in the diagnosis during the initial call and reported back to the resident for information. It offered its apologies.
3. It also noted that the resident had reported issues with damp and mould. The landlord had spoken to its contractor who attended on 5 February 2022. It had reported that there was some taping up of ventilation which it could see from the notes was due to a medical complaint. It noted that the resident had been happy with the works as of this date. Photographs were included in the letter showing taped vents and windows which were cling filmed.
4. The landlord said that it understood that the rooms needed to be maintained at a steady 20 degrees for medical reasons and respected this. The vents were there to help circulate air through the property to help prevent the symptoms of condensation and reduce the impact of excess moisture in the property. Taping the vents would increase the humidity in the home. Without adequate ventilation there was a possibility of condensation causing black spot mould growth within the home.
5. The landlord provided guidance and information relating to condensation and its causes.
6. It said it understood and appreciated the reasons why the resident had taped up the vents and placed film on the windows, but this would not stop the effects of condensation within her home.
7. It said it noted the resident’s comments about reduction of rent and said that for the reasons mentioned (taping of vents and cling filming the windows) this was not something it would support. The repair to the radiator was not deemed to be a 12 hour call out and therefore no part of the tenancy had been breached.
On 11 March 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord and her MP. She said:
1. She had attached photos and said that her windows had been open for two hours letting in air.
2. The film on the windows was there because all the seals had gone, and again cold air and hot air caused condensation and mould. She said that the landlord should replace the outdated windows.
3. The vent was not completely taped up and during Christmas the internal cupboard was used as a second fridge although the temperature of the actual fridge was 4 degrees warmer than the cupboard which was only 1 degree.
4. The floor during this time was freezing to stand on. She also said that water came up through the floor and wall in the dining room. She said that if the landlord looked at the pictures taken from when the cavity clean was done, it would see this.
5. The fireplace had been removed and no damp proofing was in place nor was it bricked up properly.
6. She felt that the landlord thought residents’ belongings were expendable.
7. She said the landlord had failed to maintain the property and the outside walls needed repointing.
On 11 March 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to say it had tried to call and left a voicemail message. The resident responded the same day and asked for her complaint to be escalated. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s “condescending attitude” and that of the housing officer and contractor who visited on 5 February 2022. The landlord responded the same day and acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint. It said it would respond within 10 working days. It also apologised if the resident felt that its attitude was in any way condescending.
On 14 March 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said it was sorry to hear that the issues were not resolved at stage one. It said it would undertake a review of the complaint and the target for resolution was 25 March 2022.
On 25 March 2022 the landlord’s repairs records showed that it had attended, carried out an inspection and taken pictures of the fireplace and roof. It said that the roof was in good condition. The resident had asked for the ridge tiles to be taken off for investigation.
On 25 March 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident explaining it needed an extension to respond at stage 2 of its complaints process. It said it would respond within a further 5 working days. It also offered an appointment of 31 March 2022 for an inspection. On 26 March 2022 the resident responded and said that she was available after 3pm on 31 March 2022.
On 31 March 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and said that no one would be attending on this date. It would be in touch the next day with a full response to the stage two complaint and would provide alternative dates for an appointment. The resident responded the same day and said that 2 operatives had already attended and would be reporting back their findings. They did not know which fireplace they needed to take a picture of. They had looked at the roof and pointing issues of the wall.
On 1 April 2022 the landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process. The landlord said that the resident’s complaint was about:
1. General property condition which exacerbated her son’s and daughter’s health conditions.
2. The roof required further attention.
3. The landlord’s attendance to previous appointments.
4. The fireplace required attention.
5. To resolve the complaint, the resident wanted:
  1. An inspection of, and works carried out to,the roof.
  2. An inspection of, and works carried out to, the fireplace.
  3. The damp proof course replaced.
  4. An apology for the landlord attending previous appointments in the incorrect order.
6. The landlord said that when the resident reported the leaking radiator (attended and completed on 5 January 2022) it failed to correctly advise the resident of the timescale for attendance of the repair. It said its staff all undergo extensive training to ensure it manages customers’ expectations appropriately when arranging appointments. It apologised that that this did not happen on this occasion and for the inconvenience caused to the resident and her family.
7. With regard to the roof, it could see that its contractor attended in January 2021 and checked the corner of the roof and chimney and reported that this was all in good condition. No further work was carried out and it received no further reports of any roofing issues. It had carried out a roofing inspection on 31 March 2022 and found no evidence of poor condition that would contribute to any issues affecting her home. It apologised for any confusion regarding attendance and apologised for any inconvenience or disruption caused.
8. It had inspected the fireplace and issues raised to understand what was required following the removal of the log fire prior to the resident moving in. It had been unable to identify any work required.
9. It was sorry that the appointments made had been attended in the incorrect order. It explained how repairs were allocated, acknowledged what she had been advised and said it was sorry for any distress that this had caused.
10. The resident said she wanted the damp proof course to be replaced. However, given that there were no indications that this had failed or any symptoms of rising damp within the home, it would not recommend that this type of repair was carried out.
11. It included a link from its website on dealing with condensation and the effects and impacts within the home. It said that it appreciated from the conversation that the resident had a good understanding of this impact however, it would always recommend that she allow her home to ventilate fully to reduce the impacts of condensation.
12. It acknowledged that her daughter needed a specific room temperature to support her health.
On 1 April 2022 the resident responded to the landlord. She said:
1. The landlord had not “grasped” the fire issue or the rising damp issue.
2. The roof may have looked fine on the outside, but it was causing major problems on the internal wall where there was water ingress. She said that this was nothing to do with condensation.
3. She said that the fire issue was one that could not be seen from the inside of the property. There was rising damp where the fire had been badly boarded up.
4. The house was in desperate need of repointing and that damp and mould now affected the kitchen following work done to the water main and stop tap.
The landlord’s response of 1 April 2022 was its final response to the resident’s complaint, confirming that her complaint had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.
On 4 April 2022 the resident contacted this Service as she was dissatisfied with landlord’s response to her complaint. She told this service:
1. That she wanted the rising damp in the dining room properly resolved. This was causing damage to her carpet and furniture. She also said that the wall was a “mess”.
2. She wanted the water ingress into her daughter’s bedroom to be investigated and rectified. She said that this was not to do with condensation as when it rained the wall got very wet. She believed there to be a problem with the roof.
3. She explained that her daughter had a health condition which meant that she didn’t keep her body heat and that the installation of vents would cause her heating bills to increase. Keeping windows open to ventilate was not an option due to her daughter’s condition.
4. The windows suffered from condensation due to the seals having gone. This was the reason that she had clingfilmed the windows.
5. She required an apology from the landlord for attending on the wrong appointment date, attending without an appointment and that photos were taken without permission.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
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.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.

The landlord’s records said that the leaking radiator was reported on 28 December 2021 and repaired on 5 January 2021. The landlord said:
1. That the resident had been expecting the job to be completed as a priority 1 repair, however a leaking radiator was partial loss of heating in one room and would not therefore be a priority 1 repair. In line with its policy, it would be a priority 3 repair.
2. The landlord raised the resident’s expectations in relation to the repair by not correctly diagnosing this when it was reported. It did however acknowledge this in its stage 2 response and apologised to the resident for not providing the correct timescale for the repair or clearly communicating this.
3. The landlord’s response was therefore appropriate.
The landlord carried out a number of investigations in relation to the condensation, damp and mould at the resident’s home. Roof inspections were carried out on two separate occasions.The landlord found no issues to suggest that there was water ingress into the property caused by any disrepair to the roof. The landlord’s response in relation to the roof was appropriate. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to rely on its contractor’s professional opinion.
The landlord inspected the damp proof course but found no evidence that this had failed. Its response was therefore appropriate. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to rely on its contractor’s professional opinion.
The landlord acknowledged that appointments had been attended in the incorrect order and apologised for this and any disruption caused to the resident and her family. The landlord advised this Service that its supervisor had spoken with staff and would ensure that the resident was informed prior to attending any further visits.
The resident told this Service that the landlord had taken photographs without her permission. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to take photographs externally of the roof and structure. The landlord had taken photographs of blocked vents and cling film on the windows including interior photographs. The landlord has advised this Service that it would seek permission during any further visits to the resident’s home.
While the landlord did investigate the resident’s reports by inspecting the roof and damp-proof course, there was maladministration by the landlord as:
1. This Service’s spotlight on damp and mould report published in October 2021 said that landlords should avoid actions that place the onus solely on residents. Instead, they should consider what mitigations can be put in place to support them, in cases where structural interventions are not appropriate and satisfy themselves, they are taking all reasonable steps. Landlords cannot keep repeating treatment works whilst blaming a resident’s lifestyle.
2. While the landlord attended and investigated the resident’s reports it did not go far enough to fully investigate. There was no evidence to suggest that the landlord had retained a damp and mould specialist to investigate further.
3. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports of damp and mould did not confirm whether there was a presence of damp and mould at the property but repeatedly referred to condensation caused by lifestyle, the taping of vents, using clingfilm on the windows which did not allow ventilation, putting the onus on the resident.
4. It continued to repeat cavity wall investigations but failed to consider any other causes.
5. The landlord’s solution to the condensation would result in the property being colder. The resident made it known that she had vulnerable occupants in the home who could be more adversely affected by the cold. The suggestions that the landlord made would lead to another hazard under the HHSRS which is excess cold. The landlord did not consider its obligations under HHSRS which suggests a number of solutions outlined in the background in this report.
6. The resident said that during the Christmas period a cupboard had been used to store food which was colder than the fridge and the floor was freezing to stand on. The resident also told the landlord that that her daughter had a medical condition which meant that she needed a constant heat. The landlord acknowledged this in its responses but did not demonstrate that it had investigated the heating and whether it was adequate to heat the home. It also did not consider the other medical conditions the resident reported for her family or consider what mitigations could be put in place to support the resident.
7. In respect of the bedroom wall, the resident said that after it had rained the wall was wet. Whilst the landlord completed roof inspections there was no evidence that it has carried out further investigations into this other than advising that this was due to condensation. It failed to acknowledge or investigate the resident’s concerns about the water ingress into her daughter’s bedroom.
8. Whilst the taping of vents and cling filming the windows would not help reduce condensation, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord investigated the windows and resident’s reports that the window seals had gone. It is not known what the condition of the windows is or whether any repairs or replacement are required.
9. Landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this. The landlord does not appear to have a strategy to deal with this matter and has not provided this service with one.
10. From the photographs provided to this Service as part of the evidence, one photograph appears to show some issues with the pointing work around the vent however, there was no evidence that the landlord had investigated the pointing work or responded to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s responses did not address the resident’s dilemma between increasing air flow in the property and maintaining a suitable temperature for her daughter’s medical requirements. The landlord said it understood that the rooms needed to be maintained at a steady 20 degrees for medical reasons and it respected this. It said it understood and appreciated the reasons why the resident had taped up the vents and placed film on the windows. However, it did not offer a solution to the trade off between ventilation and heat and whether any steps would be taken as suggested under HHSRS.
Good practice from this Service’s one year on follow up report on damp and mould, outlines good practice from other landlords. This includes staff training and refresher training, specialist damp and mould teams, humidity and temperature sensors, removing the sole focus on expected resident action from policies and being more open to the consideration of wider factors. There is no evidence to show that the landlord considered what further actions it could have taken.

Complaint handling

There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The resident raised a complaint on 5 January 2022 which the landlord responded to at stage 1 on 11 March 2022. 47 working days after she had asked to raise her complaint and 37 days outside of its 10 working day timeframe.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in:
1. its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
2. in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to fully investigate the resident’s reports and concerns about damp and mould within the property. It failed to adopt the recommendations in the spotlight report on damp and mould or to take the preventative measures under HHSRS.
The complaint response failed to explore the resident’s concerns and come up with a solution focussed outcome. Whilst it stated that it understood the resident’s concerns it provided no solution. The landlord failed to comply with its complaint policy timescales.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £800:
1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident for the landlord’s failure to fully investigate the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. £200 for the landlord’s failure to respond within timescale at stage 1 of its complaints process and the quality of the response.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures highlighted in this report.
2. Carry out an independent survey through a reputable damp and mould specialist at the resident’s home. Identify any presence of damp and mould, the causes and actions required to remedy this. This should include an investigation into the water ingress in the bedroom. Confirm its findings to the resident and this Service setting out any actions and timescales.
3. Consider its obligations under HHSRS and whether the home is decent and free from defects which may represent a hazard and to look at the matters under the HHSRS damp and mould and the HHSRS excess cold.
4. The landlord should inspect the property taking into account all of the elements listed in the background of this report under HHSRS, this should include a full inspection of the windows and seals. Provide a copy of its findings to the resident and this Service.