Together Housing Association Limited (202213905)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213905

Together Housing Association Limited

8 March 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Handling of the resident’s managed move.
3. Response to the resident’s request for compensation.
4. Response to the resident’s reports of leaks causing damp and mould in the property.
5. Response to the resident’s concerns about the structural safety of the property.
6. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. The property a ground floor, semi-detached, 1 bedroom maisonette. The tenancy started in February 2013 and ended in December 2023. The landlord recorded multiple health vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident said she had experienced damp and mould in the property for some years and sent photographs to the landlord in 2022 of a wet concrete floor. She believed external flooding from a drain in the garden had caused this. She also said that she had suffered damage to her property and possessions due to a leak from the property above for “a couple of years.” She described wallpaper coming away from the walls and considered this due to the presence of moisture and cracks.
On 29 September 2022 the landlord received notification via the Housing Ombudsman Service that the resident had raised a complaint. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the next day.
The landlord’s repairs team coordinator inspected the resident’s property on 11 October 2022 and a stage 1 response sent on 13 October 2022. The landlord told the resident that there were no identified leaks or structural concerns. However it said it would arrange a camera survey of the drains. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
In November 2022 the resident informed the Ombudsman that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said repairs from the inspection remained outstanding. She described living in a cold and constantly damp property. We assisted her to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP). The landlord received her escalation request on 7 November 2022.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 9 February 2023. It acknowledged that following two further inspections on 16 December 2022 and 16 January 2023, it had “failed to repair the property within a reasonable amount of time.” It offered:
1. £150 to contribute for the purchase of a dehumidifier to reduce excess moisture.
2. £200 to support the resident with keeping the property warm.
3. £250 compensation for its delayed stage 2 complaint response.
On 20 March 2023 the resident informed us that she was happy with the landlord’s stage 2 response and did not, at that stage, want us to investigate. However, she expressed concern about the level of compensation and how the landlord had responded to her service requests. She was advised of our procedures and encouraged to refer the case to us within 12 months if the landlord did not put things right.
On 3 October 2023 the resident requested our assistance as she considered the issues remained unresolved.
In December 2023 the resident accepted a managed move to another property.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence I have determined that the following parts of the resident’s complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Handling of the resident’s managed move.
3. Response to the resident’s request for compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
While we acknowledge that ASB is unacceptable and can cause distress, the landlord must first be given the opportunity to investigate the resident’s complaint. Therefore this part of the resident’s complaint is outside of our jurisdiction.
Within the resident’s communication she has more recently expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of a managed move. This took place in December 2023 and did not form part of her original complaint. Therefore this is a new complaint matter that we are unable to investigate. The landlord must first be given an opportunity to respond to the resident’s concerns.
In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
The resident says leaks caused damage to her personal belongings. She considered the landlord liable for the costs to replace them. She also described that her health and wellbeing had been affected.
This investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and how this related to the complaints reported. The Ombudsman has not determined whether the landlord was responsible for any damage to her personal possessions or any deterioration in health. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and are decided by a court or insurer. However, where the Ombudsman identifies a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Response to the resident’s reports of leaks causing damp and mould in the property

The landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy states that it will do everything it reasonably can to make sure residents stay safe, healthy and well in their homes. Information via its website asks that issues are reported as soon as a resident becomes aware of them and states it will respond within 3 working days.
The landlord’s repair policy sets out the timeframes in which it will respond to repair reports that it receives. It will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 28 calendar days, and routine repairs within 63 calendar days.
There is evidence that the resident reported a suspected leak from the property above, and damp and mould on 8 occasions between January 2020 to September 2022. It attended to each report of a leak within 24 hours as an emergency. This was appropriate and in line with its repair policy response timeframes. The landlord reported inspecting each room and using damp reading equipment. On each occasion it recorded finding no evidence of a leak, damp, or mould in the property.
In November 2021 the resident reported further water ingress issues. She said that her walls in her property were wet. The landlord accessed the privately owned property above her to inspect the roof. This was a reasonable step in the circumstances to rule out potential causes of her concerns. It found no leaks and again recorded no damp and mould. It also recorded at this stage there was “nothing more it could do.”
While it was appropriate for the landlord to attend to the resident’s concerns, it is unclear why the landlord did not consider using monitoring equipment. It rectified a leak in 2020, yet the resident described experiencing ongoing issues from the property above for “a couple of years.”
While the landlord may have been satisfied that there were no problems, the resident continued to report witnessing moisture on her walls. Therefore she did not feel it had taken the required action to provide her with a permanent remedy to her concerns.
Prior to the resident’s complaint, the landlord received the resident’s service request on 5 September 2022 and attended on the 7 September 2022. This was appropriate and in line with its damp, mould, and condensation policy response timeframes. During the inspection the weather was dry. The landlord recorded finding no evidence to suggest damp and mould or water ingress. The landlord’s record’s state that as a precautionary measure it would arrange for the gutter to be checked and cleared. This was a reasonable step in the circumstances.
In response to further concerns from the resident, the landlord completed another inspection on 11 October 2022. The landlord’s records state that it used damp testing equipment and the results found no evidence of damp in the property. At this stage, the resident provided photographs and said the concrete floor was wet. Following inspection, the landlord ordered a camera survey of the external drains. While its damp and mould recordings were normal, this action demonstrated it considering precautionary steps to identify a potential cause of the resident’s concerns.
While there is evidence of the landlord raising the need for gutter and drain works, it is unclear from the evidence why there were delays completing them. There is evidence to suggest that the external drains were “overflowing” but the repair order inspection comments simply said “cancelled.” Therefore, the landlord failed to do what it said it was going to do. Furthermore, it failed to communicate why there was a delay or when it would reschedule. This demonstrates poor record keeping. The need for a camera inspection was further raised within the specialist report on 23 February 2023.
The landlord’s failure to evidence taking action sooner was not appropriate. Over 130 calendar days had passed since the precautionary action of inspecting the drains was considered necessary but not rescheduled. This timeframe was beyond the landlord’s expected urgent and standard repair responses with no evidence of regular communication to update the resident during this time. This further demonstrates poor record keeping and caused the resident distress and inconvenience having to re-raise her concerns.
Although the landlord’s notes on 12 October 2022 state “roof repairs completed (blocked gutters)”, the evidence shows on the repair records that this was completed as of 26 October 2022. Therefore this took 49 calendar days from when the order was raised. She had regularly reported moisture on her walls and damp and mould concerns, it was reasonable for her to expect the landlord to complete this repair within its urgent 28 day repair timeframe.
On 11 November 2022 the resident informed us that while the guttering work had been completed, black mould remained in her property. She advised that the landlord had failed to complete previously identified repairs including the drain inspection.
At this stage it had been more than 28 days since the landlord’s inspection. It was therefore reasonable for the resident to have expected progress in line with the landlord’s repair policy. Given that it was aware of her health vulnerabilities and had considered these repairs necessary, it is unclear whether it communicated the reason for the delays or gave due regard to her vulnerabilities. The lack of progress and information caused her further distress and inconvenience.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response of 2 February 2023, it acknowledged that it had failed to repair the resident’s property within a reasonable amount of time. While it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this failure, it failed to provide the resident with the timeframe of when it would put this right.
However, although it is noted that it said it would undertake a post works inspection in April 2023, the resident said that the work remained incomplete. Therefore the landlord did not demonstrate any learning of completing repairs in a reasonable time. It failed to show due regard to her vulnerability and the affect the delayed repairs was having on her.
It was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation to put right its service failures. It said it would:
1. Arrange payment of £150 to contribute to the purchase of a dehumidifier.
2. Support the resident with £200 to assist with her heating costs.
3. Arrange a camera survey of the drains and building survey to evaluate cold spots within the property.
However, having recognised that it had failed to complete repairs in a reasonable time, it made no offer of compensation for any distress and inconvenience its lack of communication or delays caused.
On 23 February 2023 a specialist completed a survey of the property. It advised the weather had been dry on that day. The report provided to the landlord said, but was not limited to:
1. Damp meter readings taken at the property were all in the normal range.
2. The level of the paving is higher than it should be relative to the DPC at the front corner of the property.
3. Commission a camera drainage survey to confirm no problems with the drains likely to cause damp. Carry out any required repairs that are identified.
4. There were some signs of black mould at the flat but these have been cleaned off by the resident who clearly looks after the property.
5. It seems most likely that damp problems at the property have been as a result of a number of leaks occurring from the flat above. It is recommended that all leaks are tracked and repaired as a matter of urgency.
While this report acknowledges the presence of mould, the report did not express concern for the resident. It made recommendations for investigations and repairs to be undertaken.
It is not disputed by the landlord that there had been delays completing repairs within a reasonable timeframe. It is the Ombudsman’s role therefore 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 we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
Initially, the landlord responded to the resident’s service requests in September 2022 well and within its published response timeframes. It found no evidence of damp, mould or leaks. Following repeat reports from the resident, it recognised the need for a specialist independent survey and quickly arranged this. This was a fair and reasonable step in the circumstances.
However, while it was unable to identify damp and mould itself, it repeatedly failed effectively communicate with the resident when any remedial or precautionary works were considered. It failed to complete works within a reasonable time and failed to evidence providing updates to reassure the resident when it would complete them. Having acknowledged delays within its stage 2 response on 9 February 2022, the ongoing delays and lack of updates demonstrated that the landlord had failed to learn from previous outcomes.
As stated in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp & Mould (2021), ‘Landlords should ensure they have strategies in place to manage these types of cases with an emphasis on ensuring that the resident is kept informed, feels that the landlord is taking the issue seriously and that the matter is progressing’. While it took appropriate action to instruct a specialist to inspect the property, it failed to demonstrate the importance of regular communication.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation, the offer was made to recognise a late complaint response and to assist with the purchase of a dehumidifier and improved heating. Although it apologised and acknowledged failings, its offer failed to consider the detriment on a resident with vulnerabilities. The delayed completion of the repairs caused the resident distress. Therefore its compensation did not go far enough to put things right.
In view of reoccurring delays to complete repairs, failures in record keeping, and the lack of proactive communication which caused distress to the resident, we find maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks causing damp and mould in the property. While no rooms were lost due to the intermittent water penetration, the landlord failed to demonstrate putting things right within a reasonable amount of time.
Compensation is warranted and the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £300. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which provides for awards of compensation between £100 and £600. This is where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident, as is the case here. Consideration has been given to the landlord’s actions to respond to each of the resident’s reports. However its failure to communicate or complete the remedial works within a reasonable time was not appropriate.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the structural safety of the property

In accordance with the tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has a statutory obligation to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms this responsibility.
Within the resident’s complaint she expressed concerns about cracks, crumbling walls, and a dropped sill. The landlord recorded this as concerns about the structural safety of the property. Having completed 3 inspections itself between September 2022 to December 2022, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for an independent survey to provide further reassurance. The work order was raised on 23 January 2023. This demonstrated it meeting its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ensure that the property’s structure was sound.
Within 31 calendar days the independent survey was completed and a report issued on 23 February 2023. The report issued to the landlord said, but was not limited to:
1. The property appears to have been adequately maintained and the general condition of the property was fair.
2. The external walls are in fair condition with no structural defects.
3. No structural defects were evident to the internal walls. Plaster was in fair condition. However, plaster was in poor condition to the following areas:
  1. To the side of the front door.
  2. To the corners in the hallway where there has been corrosion of the metal corner beading.
  3. To a patch of approximately 0.5sqm to the left of the television.
The landlord had sought to reassure the resident by completing its own inspections. It demonstrated a commitment to her concerns within the property with the undertaking of an independent survey. Although the report found no structural concerns, it said it would arrange to complete identified remedial works.
The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it taking the resident’s concerns seriously. However at this stage there is no evidence of how the landlord planned to undertake the identified repairs. Furthermore there is no clear evidence of regular communication with the resident. Given that it had apologised in its stage 2 response for its failure to undertake repairs within a reasonable time, the lack of an action plan did not demonstrate that it had learned from previous outcomes.
Furthermore the resident said to us in April 2023 that the identified repairs remained outstanding. The landlord’s repair record’s show it raised an order for scheduled works on 10 July 2023. This was more than 150 days after it had received the surveyor’s report. This was not appropriate and beyond its published repair response timeframes.
The landlord’s initial response to arrange a survey was appropriate and we would have determined no maladministration but for the landlord’s lack of communication with the resident and reoccurring failure to complete the identified repairs within a reasonable timeframe. Therefore we find service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the structural safety of the property. An order in line with our remedies guidance has been made below to put right the detriment the delays caused to the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s published complaint timescales says that it will respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. It will acknowledge a complaint and escalation request within 5 working days.
It is unclear why the resident did not first raise a complaint directly with the landlord on 29 September 2022. However, she sought assistance from us and a letter was sent to the landlord on her behalf. It was therefore appropriate, and in line with its complaints policy, that the landlord acknowledged her complaint within 5 working days on 30 September 2022.
Upon receipt of the resident’s stage 1 complaint, there is evidence that the landlord arranged an inspection of the resident’s property. This took place within 8 working days. This was a reasonable step to take in the circumstances. It provided evidence to assist the landlord with its stage 1 response and its attempts to address the resident’s concerns.
A stage 1 response was sent on 13 October 2022. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s 10 working day response timeframe as published in its complaint handling policy.
However, while the landlord’s stage 1 response included “damages to possessions” as a complaint point, it failed to address this point within its response. Paragraph 5.6 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
The landlord’s failure to provide the resident with a response at this stage was not appropriate and not in line with the Code. The landlord should have set out its position and provided guidance to the resident regarding her own contents insurance or by informing her of her rights to submit a claim against its own policy.
The landlord’s complaints policy states when it will close a complaint. This includes when it has had no further contact from a resident within 15 working days after it has sent its complaint response. However the resident’s escalation request was not received until 7 November 2022, more than 15 working days later.
It was therefore reasonable that the landlord recognised that the resident had been unwell and her escalation request delayed. It reopened and escalated the resident’s complaint. This was fair in the circumstances and demonstrated that the landlord was prepared listen to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 9 February 2023. This was not appropriate as it was 66 working days beyond its published complaint response timeframes. While it is acknowledged that the landlord encountered delays due to the resident’s health, it was appropriate for it to acknowledge where it had failed to deliver the expected service standards. It offered £250 compensation to recognise its delayed stage 2 response. This demonstrated the landlord taking steps to put things right.
However, although the landlord apologised and set out actions it would take to address the outstanding work for the resident, it did not identify steps it would take to prevent a similar delay from happening again. Therefore, the landlord did not demonstrate learning from outcomes or how it would improve its service delivery to prevent this from happening again.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s complaint handling would have been reasonable redress but for these failures. Therefore we find service failure and the landlord is ordered to review its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers respond and deal with complaints in accordance with its complaints procedure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s managed move is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (f) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks causing damp and mould in the property of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the structural safety of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident £1,000 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £250 offered at stage 2 to recognise its late complaint response, if not already paid.
  2. £150 offered at stage 2 towards the dehumidifier, if not already paid.
  3. £200 offered at stage 2 towards heating costs, if not already paid.
  4. £300 for the time and trouble, and the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks causing damp and mould in the property.
  5. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the structural safety of the property.
The landlord is ordered to review its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers respond and deal with complaints in accordance with its complaints procedure. The landlord may benefit from the free resources available via the Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning. This is available on our website.
The landlord is ordered to review its staff training needs to ensure all relevant officers know the importance of maintaining communication channels with resident’s reporting damp and mould. They should be aware of the landlord’s damp and mould policy and aware of the escalation channels should reports continue.

Recommendations

The landlord is encouraged to review the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights (relationship of equals), published January 2024. This available via our website. It should use the recommendations in the report to inform its future service delivery, and the importance of considering the individual circumstances of the resident.
The landlord is encouraged to consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) and self-assess against the recommendations in that report.