Sanctuary Housing Association (202219328)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219328

Sanctuary Housing Association

31 October 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s decision not to award compensation for damaged goods.

Background

The resident made a homeless application to her local authority. The local authority nominated the landlord to provide this accommodation.
The landlord gave the resident an assured shorthold tenancy that started on 31 March 2022 at a property within its temporary accommodation scheme. The resident lived at the property with her two children who both have underlying health issues.
The resident complained to the landlord about the presence of damp and mould on 9 July 2022. The landlord treated the property on 14 July 2022.
On 25 October 2022, the resident made another report of damp and mould in her bedroom, bathroom, and lounge. She told her landlord it had affected her children’s clothes and a bedside cabinet which needed to be thrown away. She mentioned that her children were constantly unwell. She also referred to “sand” falling from the ceiling in her bathroom. The resident requested that her landlord replace her furniture and remove the mould.
The landlord sent an operative the next day, and the resident asked her landlord to escalate the complaint on 27 October 2022. She requested the landlord investigate the building for damp and mould. She also complained of having to throw away most of her clothes, bed, and drawers.
The landlord told the resident it had requested a damp survey. It informed the resident that it could not look at the whole building as part of her complaint. It told her that the survey would identify if there were structural issues in the building.
After contact from the environmental health department of the council, the landlord inspected the property on 9 November 2022. The landlord ordered a damp survey on 16 November 2022. It established that the thermostat, kitchen extractor fan, and positive pressure unit were not working.
Following on from this the landlord agreed to improve the ventilation at the property and repair the thermostat whilst the damp survey was pending. The landlord told the resident that it would not agree to replace her belongings.
On 22 November 2022, the landlord said in its final response:
1. It noted the resident reported mould in various rooms on 9 July 2022 and an operative came out on 14 July 2022 and treated the mould.
2. The resident complained again about mould on 25 October 2022 and an operative came out the next day. The operative reported some damp in the ceiling corners of the bathroom and bedroom. The operative identified some mould on the skirting in the lounge and on the windows.
3. It booked a full damp survey for 16 November 2022 but attended the resident on 9 November 2022 whilst awaiting this.
4. It repaired the thermostat on 25 November 2022 and requested an overhaul of a positive pressure unit in the kitchen and a renewal of the kitchen extractor fan.
5. It ordered an infinity fan for the bathroom and an electric radiator.
6. It reported that the surveyor could not identify any active mould or water source. The surveyor suggested the moisture in the air may be caused by the high internal temperature and poor ventilation.
7. It was satisfied it had acted promptly to get the issue resolved within the required timescales.
8. It had asked its regional team to share the findings of the damp survey with the resident and manage the electrical works.
The survey concluded that the cause of the damp was condensation which in turn was due to inadequate ventilation. The report recommended minor work to the resident’s shower.
In November 2022, the resident moved from the property after she accepted an offer of permanent accommodation. The resident complained to this service that her landlord had not considered if there was an inherent defect causing the issues. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with her landlord because it had not compensated her for damaged items.

Assessment and findings

Policies and legal framework

The landlord’s repair policy requires it to deal with “appointed repairs” that are not an immediate risk to life within 28 calendar days. The landlord must also respond to complaints in writing within 10 working days and at its final stage within 20 working days.
The landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and good working order the heating systems in the property. The resident is responsible under the tenancy agreement for adequately ventilating the property and wiping down mould.
The landlord’s compensation guidance excludes payments for damage caused by a lack of ventilation or airflow the resident is responsible for or where the resident could have claimed on home insurance. It states compensation will only be payable if the landlord fails to complete repairs within its published timescales.
This guidance also states when considering whether a decant is necessary, the landlord should assess the household needs against the work required. This is where it is aware of vulnerabilities in a resident’s household which may make continuation of occupation unsafe.
The landlord was required to ensure that the property was fit for human habitation from the start of the tenancy and during the tenancy. This is unless any unfitness was caused by the resident’s failure to keep to their tenancy agreement. The assessment of whether a property is fit for habitation includes consideration of whether it is free from damp and has adequate ventilation. A landlord will not be responsible for any unfitness until it has notice of the issue and has had a reasonable period to resolve it.
The homes standard of the Regulator for Social Housing requires landlords to meet each standard in the UK government’s decent homes standards. This requires homes to be free from the most serious hazards, including those caused by damp and mould.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould contains several recommendations including that:
1. Landlords should identify opportunities for extending the scope of their diagnosis within buildings, for example by examining neighbouring properties, to ensure a response early on is as effective as possible.
2. Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
3. Where extensive work may be required, landlords should consider the individual circumstances of the household, including any vulnerabilities, and whether it is appropriate to move residents out of their homes at an early stage.

The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould

The resident first complained of mould in July 2022. The landlord attended and treated her property in less than a week. The landlord acted in a timely way in recognition of the urgency of the issue. This service therefore finds no fault in the landlord’s immediate response.
When the resident alerted the landlord to reoccurring mould in October 2022 the landlord responded appropriately. It sent an operative the next working day. This was a reasonable step to take as it was in line with the landlord’s repair policy.
The landlord requested an independent specialist damp survey which it booked for 16 November 2022. This was an appropriate step for the landlord to take as this was necessary to identify the cause of the damp and mould to allow the landlord to solve it.
The landlord attended the resident’s property before it completed the damp survey. It agreed to improve the ventilation at the property by replacing or renewing the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen. It also overhauled the kitchen’s positive pressure unit. Finally, it repaired the heating controls and replaced a downflow heater with an electric radiator. These steps showed the landlord took proactive steps to help improve the situation whilst it awaited the damp survey report.
The landlord reassured the resident that it would do any other work recommended by the survey. The evidence this service has seen showed the landlord was proactive and communicated what actions it had taken and would take. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of the damp and mould within the resident’s property. It visited the resident’s property promptly, requested a specialist damp survey, and took appropriate steps to reduce the damp and mould.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould encourages landlords to widen the scope of any investigations. The resident requested her landlord look at the building to establish the cause of the damp and mould. The landlord’s self-assessment shows it is committed to using data to identify patterns of damp and mould. Whilst the Ombudsman considers that the landlord could have done more to widen its investigations its overall approach was reasonable. This is because it agreed to consider any structural issues that the damp survey might identify.
By late October 2022, the landlord was aware that the resident had growing concerns for the safety of her children given the damp and mould. The Ombudsman acknowledges the distress and anxiety the resident must have felt. The landlord considered a decant but decided as the resident was moving to another property this was not necessary. The landlord considered the resident’s household circumstances fairly having regard to its policy. It also took all reasonable steps to mitigate against the mould considering its duty to keep the property fit for human habitation.

The landlord’s decision not to offer compensation

The landlord concluded that a lack of ventilation together with high internal temperatures caused the damp and mould. The landlord repaired the heating controls and improved the ventilation within its repair policy timescale of 28 days.
The resident told the landlord about the damage on 25 October 2022 but did not report any problems since July 2022 or damage previously. It is unclear when the belongings were damaged.
This service is satisfied that the landlord could not have known about the damage before 25 October 2022. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve the problem thereafter. This service has found no failure of the landlord to act that would make it responsible for damage caused to the resident’s belongings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to offer compensation.