Peabody Trust (202118747)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118747

Peabody Trust

20 September 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The landlord has advised there are no alerts for vulnerabilities in the household on its systems. The resident has advised that she suffers with sickle cell disease and asthma. Both her children also suffer from asthma. Her son has hyper-mobility, fibromyalgia and requires the use of a wheelchair.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it operates a repairs service with the following timescales:
1. Emergency repairs – repairs that require a rapid response will be attended within 4 hours and made safe within 24 hours
2. Routine repairs – residents will be offered the “next available appointment”, with the aim to deliver repairs within an average of 10 working days. Where some repairs take longer to resolve or are specialist in nature, residents will be informed of further timescales.
The landlord has a compensation policy which states that:
1. Compensation will be considered where residents have experienced a delay because of a failure in the agreed standards of service, or where the landlord had not handled the complaint properly
2. In assessing compensation, the landlord will consider:
  1. The severity of the time, trouble and inconvenience and whether the landlord may have avoided the situation
  2. Any household vulnerabilities, including disabilities
  3. Whether the landlord has failed to follow policies and procedures
3. Compensation amounts are dependent upon the level of failure, which range from “minor” to “extensive” or “severe”.

Summary of events

The resident said that she first reported concerns about her extractor fan not working in the bathroom on 6 December 2018 to a particular member of the landlord’s staff. She informed the Ombudsman that she sent several emails to the landlord between 2018 and 2021, chasing an update about the issue. Copies of the emails were not provided to the Ombudsman.
On 12 November 2021 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and said she had tried to raise issues of damp and mould, but was not getting a response from the landlord. The Ombudsman prompted the landlord on 2 occasions to respond to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 15 December 2021. It said that:
1. It was sorry the resident felt the need to raise a complaint
2. Works to remedy the damp and mould in her property as a result of a leak would take place on 21 December 2021
3. Her complaint had been closed, but if she had any questions she could make direct contact, or escalate the matter to stage 2 of its complaint process for an impartial review.
The landlord attended to inspect the property and photographs were taken that showed a pink bathroom with black mould spores on the walls and ceiling. The job was closed by the landlord on 5 January 2022, noting “inspection only”. There is no evidence of further correspondence between the landlord and resident about the matter until October 2022.
On 13 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and said it visited and took photographs of her property in the week of Christmas 2021. She was informed that work would start the same week but she had not heard anything further. She was concerned that the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom were in need of repair. The landlord responded the following day and said that repairs had been booked for:
1. 28 October 2022 to check, test and clean the extractor fans
2. 10 November 2022 to mould wash the bathroom, cut back silicone around the bath and re–seal.
On 6 December 2022 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and said that the works in October and November 2022 had been completed but the mould was still visible. The same day, the Ombudsman prompted the landlord for a stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord informed the resident on 12 December 2022 that it was aware of her request for an escalation of her complaint. Due to the festive period, she could expect to receive a response by 17 January 2023.
A stage 2 complaint response followed on 17 January 2023. It said that:
1. It had noted that the resident was concerned that the ventilation system in the property had not been repaired, and as result there was mould regrowth.
2. It was sorry that it had failed to repair the ventilation system within a reasonable time. It noted that whilst it had attended to complete a mould wash, delays in repairing the root cause had affected her overall enjoyment of her home.
3. The reason for the delay was because a part was not in stock at the time the landlord had ordered it. The part now had a lead time of up to 6 weeks. In the interim it had arranged to carry out a “temporary repair” which would be completed by the end of the week. It would be in touch to arrange another mould wash.
4. It acknowledged that its stage 1 response lacked detailed investigation and did not address all parts of her complaint. It could see that her request for an escalation had been received but was not actioned within a reasonable timeframe.
5. As a result of her complaint, it had learned that training and support needed to be continually offered to its customer resolution team. It had restructured the team to accommodate more case handlers and administrative support. It had also recruited more staff to its repair services team.
6. Overall it was sorry for her experience and would monitor outstanding repairs until completion. It wanted to offer her compensation broken down as:
  1. £50 for the length of time it had taken to resolve her repairs
  2. £50 for delays in its complaint handling.
7. If she remained dissatisfied she could contact the Ombudsman.
On 3 February 2023 the landlord noted that works to mould wash and repaint had been completed in the bathroom. It recorded photographs of the finished works which showed the bathroom had been repainted white. The landlord later noted that repairs to the ventilation system were completed on 10 February 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 February 2023 to advise she was unhappy with its final complaint response. She said:
1. The issue with the extractor fan had been ongoing since 2018, and despite chasing on several occasions, it had not been resolved.
2. On 4 January 2023 she attended the landlord’s office with a container of bugs to show what she had been living with.
3. The landlord had not taken into consideration her household vulnerabilities, and that she and her son were disabled. Her son in particular was struggling to fit his wheelchair down the corridor, and she wanted to be moved.
4. The compensation was not reflective of the time and trouble she had experienced since first reporting the repairs 5 years ago.
The landlord responded and said that it would increase its compensation offer by a further £200 for time, trouble and inconvenience. The resident accepted the amended compensation.
On 26 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord on social media. She said that the extractor fan the landlord had fitted was “not doing its job” and the mould had returned, with bugs appearing “absolutely everywhere” in the house. She said that she and her children suffered from considerable disabilities which were negatively impacted by the presence of damp and mould.
The landlord raised an “urgent” job for an inspection on 10 August 2023. The outcome of the visit was not shared with the Ombudsman. In response to a request by the Ombudsman for further information about the repair, dating back to when the resident first reported it, the landlord said it did not have access to the system for “older repairs”.
In recent correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident said:
1. She had been reporting issues with damp and mould since 2018. The landlord had written to her and made reference to the mould occurring as part of a leak in its stage 1 response, but she had never said that a leak was the cause. She struggled to get a response from the landlord and had to put photos on social media to get a response from them.
2. The landlord attended the property approximately 3 weeks ago to do another mould wash and had arranged for pest control to attend to “mould bugs”. Neither treatment had resolved the issue and “slight signs” of mould were starting to form again in recent weeks. The landlord had not instructed a surveyor or damp specialist to conduct further investigations.
3. She and her children suffered from considerable disabilities and the mould has had a direct impact on their health. They were constantly coughing and their asthma had worsened. The landlord recently sent her medical transfer forms, as she had expressed she wanted to move.

Assessment and findings

This Service recognises that the situation has caused the resident distress where she has reported damp and mould in the property over a prolonged period of time. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the living conditions have had on the health of her and her children. Unlike a court the Ombudsman cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability or award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
It is reasonable to conclude that the resident reported damp and mould in 2018 as she was able to recall the exact date and the particular member of staff she reported the issue to. The landlord has not disputed this, advising that it does not have access to its systems for “older repairs”. It is inappropriate that the landlord does not have access to historic repair records. Guidance on document retention and disposal published by National Housing Federation (NHF) suggests that property maintenance records should be retained for a period of 6 years. This suggests that as the damp and mould was raised in 2018, any documentation relating to the issue should have been retained until at least 2024. This is a failure in the landlord’s information management and an order has been made in respect of this.
There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould until it was prompted by this Service on 25 November 2021. As part of its stage 1 complaint response, it said it would undertake “works to remedy the damp and mould” on 21 December 2021. However records show that only an inspection took place. Given that the photographs from the visit showed significant black mould on the walls and ceiling of the bathroom, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have communicated to the resident what further actions it intended to take. The landlord failed to raise any follow up works, and the bathroom was left in the same condition for a further 10 months.
Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. The landlord’s response on 14 October 2022 failed to acknowledge the length of time the resident had waited for further action, and there is no evidence that it arranged to re-inspect the property given the amount of time that had passed.
In the absence of a further inspection, it is reasonable to conclude that the 2 repairs raised were follow on works identified from the visit that took place on 21 December 2021. It is inappropriate that there was a delay of approximately 10 months between visiting the property and arranging the works. The length of time to take further action was unreasonable and significantly outside of the timescale that could be expected within its responsive repairs policy. The resident experienced further delays and inconvenience when the extractor fans were not fixed for a further 73 working days.
The landlord has attended the property 3 times since 10 November 2021 to complete a mould wash. It is reasonable to conclude that the washes have not been sufficient in resolving the root cause of the issue, and the situation has worsened where the resident reported an increase in “mould bugs” throughout the property. The additional risk posed to the resident by ongoing reports of damp and mould is of serious concern, particularly as her household suffers from disabilities and breathing conditions.
Records show that the landlord has failed to record the household vulnerabilities on its systems and there is no evidence that it has undertaken further investigations into the source of the damp and mould. It has not taken appropriate steps to instruct a surveyor or damp specialist, and it has not adopted a risk based approach in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould. Without these investigations, it is unclear how the landlord intends to assess what actions it needs to take to monitor the property in line with its HHSRS obligations.
The resident has said she has experienced considerable difficulties in obtaining a response from the landlord about her reports of damp and mould, and she has had to chase it several times since 2018. Neither the resident or the landlord has provided evidence of this level of contact. However, it is noted that after the final complaint response from the landlord, the resident contacted it on social media about the damp again on 28 July 2023. Although the landlord acknowledged her concerns as “urgent”, it did not arrange an inspection for a further 12 working days. The delay was inappropriate and contributed to the resident’s distress.

Overall, there was maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. There is no evidence that the landlord has identified the root cause of the issue, and it has failed to monitor the property in line with its HHSRS obligations. It has failed to look at the repairs holistically, and has attended the property repeatedly to do a mould wash which has not resolved the issue, and the problem remains. The landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it has adopted a risk based approach and has not considered the impact on the household who have significant vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s stage 2 response recognised that it had not identified the root cause of the issue, and the resident’s enjoyment of her home had been impacted as a result. Despite this acknowledgement, it made no further assurances of what further steps it would take to identify the cause of the damp and mould, only that it would raise for further responsive repairs. The landlord’s offer of £250 in compensation was not sufficient to put matters right for the resident. The Ombudsman has ordered further compensation which takes into account the circumstances of the case, the resident’s rental liability and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
The resident’s current rent is £180.13 per week. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will consider awards of up to 5% of the proportion of rent where there has been a lack of overall enjoyment of the home. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the landlord has already acknowledged that this was the case in the stage 2 response, but further failures have occurred where interventions to establish the root cause of the damp remain outstanding. Compensation has therefore been awarded as follows:
1. The landlord should pay the resident 5% of the current rental amount following the resident’s report on 12 November 2021
2. The date of this report amounts to 96 weeks
3. Therefore compensation for the delayed repairs to identify the cause and fully resolve the damp and mould totals £864, minus the £250 it offered if not already paid.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident reports that she had difficulty in being able to raise a complaint to the landlord, and the Ombudsman had to intervene on 25 November 2021. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have contacted the resident directly to have a discussion about her complaint before issuing its response. There is no evidence that it did this and as a result it misunderstood that her complaint was about her concerns of damp and mould following a leak in the property, which was not the case.
Whilst the landlord’s stage 1 response apologised that the resident “felt the need to raise a complaint”, it failed to acknowledge the difficulties she had experienced in bringing her complaint nor the length of time it had taken to identify the source of the damp and mould. It did not utilise its compensation policy at the earliest opportunity or consider what steps it could take to put matters right for the resident. It’s response failed to manage the resident’s expectations. It said that it would arrange for works to commence to “remedy the damp”, but evidence shows only an inspection took place.
As a result, the resident had to chase the landlord for an update on 13 October 2022. When the situation did not improve, she sought further advice from the Ombudsman who had to intervene and prompt the landlord for a response on 6 December 2022. The landlord informed the resident there would be a slight delay in responding to her complaint due to the festive period and a stage 2 response followed 28 working days later. The landlord apologised for the delay which was appropriate.
The landlord recognised that there had been a failure to fully investigate the resident’s concerns prior to issuing the stage 1 response, however there is no evidence that it spoke to the resident before responding at stage 2 either. This demonstrates that the landlord failed to learn from outcomes and missed another opportunity to fully understand the resident’s complaint and how the issue impacted her household disabilities. As a result, its offer of £50 for its complaint handling failures was not sufficient to put matters right for the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s historic repair records were inaccessible. This impacted its ability to understand how long the reports of mould had been ongoing, or review what actions it had taken over time to tackle the issue. Once the landlord became aware that the resident wanted to make a complaint, it attended within a reasonable timeframe to conduct an inspection but it did not raise follow up works promptly. The landlord failed to establish the cause of the mould and was not proactive in seeking resolutions in line with its HHSRS obligations. As a result, the issue remains outstanding.
There were failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. It failed to communicate directly with the resident prior to issuing its complaint responses and as a result it did not investigate the matter fully. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concern about the health impacts to her family or offer her any support. The compensation it offered did not go far enough to recognise the inconvenience, time and trouble she experienced in bringing her complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord should apologise to the resident for the failures noted in this report, within 4 weeks.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,414 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation is comprised of:
1. £614 reflect the rent reduction figure noted in paragraph 29 of this report, plus the £250 it offered if not already paid.
2. £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the property.
3. £100 for the time and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures found in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord to arrange for a damp specialist to attend the property to inspect and identify any further remedial works, within 4 weeks.
If remedial works are identified following the visit mentioned above, then they are completed within a further 4 weeks.
The landlord to contact the resident to discuss her household vulnerabilities and take steps to update its systems accordingly. The landlord should also respond to the resident’s correspondence dated 13 February 2023 regarding move options, within 4 weeks.
The landlord carry out a full review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices, within 6 weeks. The review must include:
1. Confirmation of its strategy for handling damp and mould including, with regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould and include:
  1. response times to damp and mould reports, and formal hazard assessments for every inspection
  2. an explanation of how the landlord will identify and respond to repeat repairs relating to damp and mould in the future
2. A review of its repair procedures to ensure there is an effective mechanism in place to record and store property maintenance reports. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management
3. A review of its procedures in relation to resident vulnerabilities. In doing so, demonstrate how it will actively use its vulnerability information to provide any additional support that may be required.
4. Confirmation of its training to staff on complaint handling, giving regard to the Code and the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction guidance.