Sanctuary Housing Association (202229332)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229332

Sanctuary Housing Association

10 April 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 handling of:
1. repairs following the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. the resident’s complaint and claim for damaged possessions.
The resident has also complaint about the impact of the damp and mould within the property on her health.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord told us that it had no vulnerabilities logged for the resident, but that during her decant she advised that she had epilepsy and was asthmatic.
The landlord’s repairs procedure states that it aims to complete all routine repairs in 20 working days. It operates a 2-stage complaints process. It states that it aims to provide a response at stage 1 within 10 working days and to those at stage 2 within 20 working days. Its complaints policy and repairs procedure also sets out that it may pay compensation for damage to personal possessions due to the landlord’s action or inaction. It says that compensation may be paid up to an amount which will allow the resident to purchase a like-for-like replacement. It says that its staff may obtain their own quotes to support an offer of compensation.
On 21 April 2022 the landlord recorded that the resident had reported damp and mould issues at her property. It noted the resident said this was affecting her asthma. That day the landlord told the resident it would decant her during bathroom replacement work, agreed in March 2022. It said a surveyor had been booked to inspect damp and mould issues on 18 May 2022. On 11 May the resident contacted the landlord again. She said the mould was affecting her asthma and that she could not ventilate the property as she was awaiting window repairs.
The landlord noted details of the surveyor’s visit to the property on 18 May 2022, as follows:
1. no positive damp meter readings on external walls and that internal walls were plasterboard.
2. the bathroom was to be replaced and was leaking and the surveyor believed this was causing the damp issues.
3. the resident was to be decanted during planned bathroom replacement.
On 15 June 2022 the landlord decanted the resident. Later that month the landlord noted the resident had cancelled repair work at her property on the advice of her solicitor. It noted the resident said no work should go ahead without the agreement of her solicitor’s surveyor. Following this, the landlord’s surveyor placed a cancel note on the work.
A surveyor appointed by the resident’s solicitor inspected the property on 3 October 2022. In his subsequent report he noted:
1. significant damp and mould and at the property.
2. the bedroom and living room windows did not open.
On 4 and 7 October 2022 the resident, who was still decanted, told the landlord that damp and mould at her property had affected her furniture. She said she wanted it to replace damaged items. Later that month the landlord told the resident that it usually advised residents to claim through their own contents insurance for damaged items. However, it said it would ask the surveyor to look into this as part of the work that was to be undertaken. Later in October the landlord noted it now had the “go ahead” to complete work at the property.
On 8 November 2022 the landlord noted its surveyor was to attend to inspect the property and that it was to supply a dehumidifier at the property for a week. It had advised the resident it was aiming to complete work by 22 November 2022 to allow her to return to her property. Later in the month the resident told the landlord that:
1. she had no contents insurance,
2. she was severely asthmatic and mouldy items such as the bed would affect her chest.
The landlord responded the resident stating that it would do everything required to return the property to its previous condition but it could not confirm that her furniture would be replaced. On 23 November 2022 the resident told the landlord that windows at the property still did not open. Later in November the landlord noted:
1. there was further work needed to overhaul 3 windows at the property and that it had only just become aware of this work.
2. it had told the resident it would order her a new bed if she sent a photo of her damaged one.
3. the resident had found a rat’s nest behind her sofa, and it had arranged for pest control to attend.
4. the decant was being extended due to further work.
The resident complained to the landlord on 5 December 2022. She said she had been moved a number of times since June 2022 while the landlord resolved damp issues. The resident said that her possessions, such as bed and blinds had been damaged by damp and mould and the landlord had refused to compensate her or provide reimbursement.
The following day the landlord sent an email to the resident. It outlined that pest control found evidence of rodents at the property and that work to remove these would require the kitchen to be removed and reinstated. It proposed renewing the kitchen in view of its condition. It said it planned to complete this work so that the resident could return to her property before Christmas.
Later in December the landlord:
1. confirmed it would be ordering the resident a new bed.
2. asked that the resident provide a list and photos of other damaged items.
3. confirmed the resident could move back to her property on 22 December 2022.
4. raised an inspection of damage to the resident’s possession to consider if these could be cleaned or should be replaced, and told the resident it would consider her claim following this.
In January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord again asking when her damaged furniture would be replaced. She told the landlord that she had discovered that rodents had made a hole through her sofa. Shortly after the landlord sent an interim response to her stating it was still waiting for further information to consider her claim. It told her she could escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process if she was unhappy. Following this, on 9 February 2023, the resident sent an escalation request.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 4 April 2022. It saidthe bathroom replacement and damp and mould work had been delayed due to the resident’s disrepair claim and her not allowing access to the property to complete work.
The landlord said, after the resident decided not to continue with the disrepair claim, it completed a further inspection. It said at this time the surveyor noted condensation issues had become worse while the resident was not living at the property. It said:
1. it installed a dehumidifier at the property, and then completed work to address the damp and mould issues and replace the bathroom.
2. it arranged for pest control to attend after the resident reported at the end of November 2022 that rats were nesting behind her sofa.
3. while its actions were impacted by the disrepair claim, it recognised work had taken longer than it would have liked and offered the resident £150 for this.
4. it had awarded £50 towards the electricity costs of running the dehumidifier.
5. it had considered photos supplied by the resident as well as those taken by its surveyor in December 2022. It said it could see mould damage to blinds and offered the resident £50 for this.
6. it had not seen clear evidence of damage to her wardrobes, chest of drawers or sofa and so was not able to offer compensation for these without further evidence.
7. it had awarded the resident £75 in recognition of the delay in providing its stage 2 response.
8. it therefore awarded total compensation of £325.
The resident responded to the landlord the same day expressing dissatisfaction with its response. She said:
1. damage to her sofa was not there when she was decanted.
2. her wardrobe and chest of drawers were affected by mould.
3. her blinds cost more than £50.
On 26 May 2022 the landlord provided a further response to the resident. It said:
1. £50 it had offered for her blinds was not intended to cover the cost of replacing them and that it could not increase this offer without proof of purchase or evidence of the original price.
2. It had reviewed additional photos the resident had provided, and it was clear her wardrobe and chest of drawers were affected by damp. It offered £200 for the wardrobe and £100 for the chest of drawers.
3. It did not accept responsibility for the damage the resident said had been made to her sofa by rats. It said there was no evidence this was as a direct result of any actions by its staff.
4. It offered the resident a further £75 in recognition of its delayed response, so its total compensation award was now £700.
In response, the resident told the landlord that she considered rodents had been let in when it installed the new bathroom. She said they would not have been there while she was present as she had a cat. She said she would accept the amounts it had awarded for the other damaged items. In response the landlord said again there was no evidence damage to the sofa was caused as a direct result of its operatives and that it was “completely unforeseen” and should be covered by the resident’s contents insurance.
The resident told us that the landlord had not taken into account the impact on her health of living in damp conditions. She said she was unhappy she had needed to move while decanted. She said that mould had started to come back in her hallway and bedroom.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman 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 us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident says that the damp and mould issues at the property had a negative impact on her health. While the resident’s concerns about this are acknowledged, we cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. This is a matter which is most appropriately decided by a court following a claim for damages. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer. It would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how she could make such a claim. If the resident remains concerned about this, she should contact the landlord to request information about how to make a claim via its insurer.
Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. It follows that the resident’s complaint about this matter is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider in line with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme. However, we have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health and well-being when considering her complaint. We have also considered any distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Handling of repairs following the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord took appropriate steps to arrange for a surveyor to inspect the property in May 2022 after the resident reported damp and mould issues in April 2022. The landlord had also, appropriately, decided that it would be necessary to decant the resident while the bathroom replacement works were underway. However, the resident said in April and May 2022 that mould issues were affecting her asthma and that she could not ventilate the property as she was awaiting window repairs. In response, it would have been reasonable for the landlord explore what steps could be taken to address this and to ensure that the resident was adequately supported. Instead, there is no evidence of any steps to raise repairs until after the resident was decanted over a month later. The landlord should reasonably have considered what it could do to address issues in the period the resident was still residing at the property. This was particularly as she had told them of her asthma and as it was clearly of concern to her.
After the resident was decanted in June 2022 the landlord began to take steps to arrange repairs. However, the landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that work was delayed due to the resident making a disrepair claim through a solicitor. Although we have not seen records relating to the resident’s despair claim, it is apparent that she made contact to cancel repairs. Shortly after a surveyor for the solicitor inspected the property in early October 2022, the landlord noted that it received confirmation it could go ahead with the work. The landlord then took appropriate steps to inspect the property again in before beginning work in November 2022. The landlord also took reasonable steps to update the resident about the timeframe for work.
Further work was identified shortly before the resident was due to return to the property at the end of November 2022. The landlord could not have anticipated that it would need to address a rodent infestation, leading to work to renew the kitchen. But it could reasonably have taken steps to ensure that window repair work was undertaken sooner. The landlord said at the end of November 2022 that it had not previously been aware of this work. But that is not correct – it had been told by the resident in May 2022 of the need for window work. This had also been noted in the report completed by the surveyor appointed by the resident’s solicitor. It needed to arrange additional work to address rodent issues around this time. Therefore, it does not appear the late raising of window work itself led to a significant delay in completing all work, and resident’s return to the property. However, it was work the landlord should reasonably have raised earlier.
The need for the additional work would have been a concern for the resident, and inconvenient as it meant her decant needed to be extended. However, it is noted that the landlord took appropriate and proactive steps to keep her updated about the likely timescale for completion of this additional work. It also acknowledged in its complaint response that repair work took longer than it would have liked, and it offered the resident £150 for this. We consider this was an appropriate award to recognise the time taken to complete work, including the failure to raise window work earlier. However, the landlord did not appear to identify or acknowledge that more could have been done to address the resident’s concerns about the impact of mould on her asthma in advance of her decant. The landlord failed to take any steps to address this in the 2 months from April 2022 until the resident was decanted in June 2022. This was clearly a concern for the resident, particularly as she outlined that she could not ventilate the property due to window issues. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed the resident’s concerns. That it did not, was a failing in its handling of the matter. With reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered a further award to recognise the impact of the landlord failings. An order has also been made that the landlord remind staff of the importance of taking appropriate account of health vulnerabilities when responding to repair reports.

Handling of the resident’s complaint and claim for damaged possessions

The resident told the landlord in October 2022 that some of her possessions had been damaged by mould. In response, the landlord said that it would arrange to replace the resident’s bed, but it would usually direct residents to claim for damaged items through their own insurance. While it said it would arrange for its surveyor to look at other damaged items, this did not happen until after the resident submitted a complaint in December 2022. It is not clear why the landlord delayed arranging steps to consider the damage the resident had reported. In line with its policies and procedures the landlord may consider compensating for damage to possessions where this is due to the landlord’s actions or inaction. It would have been reasonable for it to take timely steps to do so.
The resident complained to the landlord in December 2022 about its refusal to compensate her for her damaged furniture. While the steps it then took to arrange for its surveyor to inspect damaged possessions were reasonable, it is unclear why it delayed providing a full response to the resident’s complaint. By February 2022 she was still waiting for this. This was far outside the response timescale of 10 working days set out in its complaints policy. The delays meant that the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 without receiving a full response at stage 1 to the issues she had raised.
It is apparent that the landlord’s response to the resident at stage 2 was also delayed. While she requested escalation of her complaint on 9 February 2023, she did not receive a full response for 2 months. Again, this was far outside the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaint policy. While it is noted the landlord maintained contact with the resident during this time and advised her of the delay in responding to her complaint, the reasons for the delay are unclear. It does not appear the landlord was awaiting information. The landlord acknowledged the delay in providing the stage 2 response by awarding the resident £75, but this did not appear to have considered the earlier delay in complaint handling leading to the resident escalating the matter without receiving a full response. In correspondence with the landlord at this time she expressed her frustration that she was waiting to hear about her complaint while having to use damaged furniture. The resident should not have had to wait so long for the landlord to respond to her complaint and claim. She had first told the landlord of the damaged items in October 2022. With reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance an increased award has been ordered to recognise the overall delay in the landlord’s response to the resident’s claim and complaint.
In its stage 2 response the landlord agreed to compensate the resident for damage to her blinds, but stated it had insufficient evidence of damage to her wardrobe, chest of drawers and sofa. It was reasonable for the landlord to request further evidence if it could not establish from photos it had seen. But it should then have taken steps to ensure this was considered quickly. It failed to do so. The resident sent correspondence to the landlord between 4 and 11 April 2023 outlining her dissatisfaction with its response, regarding her damaged possession. From the landlord’s subsequent response, it appears she sent further photos at this time. But it did not respond to her until 26 May 2023. This was a further delay to the resident receiving a full response to the issue. However, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay. It also awarded the resident £75 compensation, which was appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances.
In its May 2023 response the landlord told the resident the £50 it had awarded for the damaged blinds was not intended to cover the cost of replacing them, but it gave the resident the opportunity to provide receipts, or evidence of the original price. Overall, this was reasonable, and the resident later confirmed she was prepared to accept the offer it had made for this and the wardrobe and chest of drawers.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s refusal to compensate her for damage to her sofa. In response to this it said it was not prepared to accept responsibility as there was no evidence this was as a direct result of its staff, that it was “completely unforeseen”, and should be covered by the resident’s contents insurance. It is unclear why the landlord took this position. Its policies and procedures state it will consider compensating for damaged items due to its action or inaction. While the rodent issue, and the damage to the resident’s sofa, was clearly unforeseen, it happened at a time the resident had been decanted for several months and while work was being undertaken by the landlord.
The resident said that she believed the rodents entered the property at the time the landlord was replacing the bathroom. While it is possible access points may have been uncovered at that time, we do not know how rodents entered her property during the period she was decanted. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to take sufficient measures to ensure the pest issue was identified and controlled during work to the resident’s property. Given the evidence and the circumstances, we consider it is appropriate for the landlord to reconsider its decision in respect of the resident’s damaged sofa in line with its policies and procedures. As such, an order has been made that the landlord contact the resident so that it can take steps to do so.
It is noted that the landlord awarded the resident £50 for the costs of running a dehumidifier. It is not clear if this covered the entire electricity costs incurred by the resident from use of the dehumidifier. As set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, where landlords make use of electrical tools that are likely to have a marked impact on residents’ electricity cost, landlords should ensure they accurately calculate the costs. In light of this, an order has been made that the landlord offer the resident the opportunity to provide evidence, such as electricity bills, of any additional costs from running a dehumidifier and reimburse her accordingly.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs following the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and claim for damaged possessions.
In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the impact of damp and mould on her health falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. This apology should be made in line with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. pay compensation to the resident of £1,000, made up of:
  1. £700 it has already awarded.
  2. a further payment of £150 for the additional failures identified in its handling of repairs following damp and mould reports.
  3. a further payment of £150 to recognise failings identified in its handling of the residents’ complaint and claim for damaged possessions.
3. contact the resident so it can reconsider its decision in respect of the damage to her sofa, in line with its policies and procedures.
4. contact the resident to offer her the opportunity to provide evidence, such as electricity bills, as evidence of any increased costs as a result of using of dehumidifiers during work.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report:
1. remind staff of the importance of taking appropriate account of health vulnerabilities when responding to repair reports.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, contact the resident to:
1. establish whether all damp and mould issues at the property have been addressed.
2. ensure it has accurately recorded her vulnerabilities.