Platform Housing Group Limited (202125368)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125368

Platform Housing Group Limited

9 June 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

1. This complaint is about the landlord’s decision to apply a mould treatment to the felt in the loft rather than replace it.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 21 May 2021. The property is a three-bedroom house.
3. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
4. The resident’s complaint was initially about delays resolving several repairs to the home. The resident confirmed the landlord resolved these satisfactorily as part of its internal complaint procedure. As such, the Ombudsman’s investigation is focused on the complaint defined in paragraph one.

Landlord’s obligations

5. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, there is an implied term in the tenancy agreement that the landlord will (in summary) keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
6. Once the landlord has notice of a repair, it should carry out the repair within a reasonable time (this is set out in case law).
7. The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property.

Landlord’s policies and procedures

8. The landlord’s repair guide states under the condensation section that if there is a spread of black mould on walls and ceilings, it may require inspection/treatment by the landlord.
9. There are no timescales within the landlord’s repair policy for appointed repairs. It says resident’s will be offered a mutually acceptable appointment at the first point of contact.
10. The landlord has a “quick resolution” complaint phase which is used when the matter can be resolved within two working days. If matters cannot be resolved within that timescale, it enters the formal complaint process.
11. The landlord has a two-stage formal complaint process. It aims to issue a response within 10 working days at stage one, and 20 working days at stage two.

Summary of events

12. The landlord’s records show the resident reported black mould in the loft on 17 May 2021. An inspection request was raised the same day.
13. The resident chased for an update on 25 May 2021. An inspection took place at the beginning of June 2021. The landlord determined that an overhaul of the ventilation systems throughout the property was required, including windows and vents.
14. The resident chased for an update on the mould in the loft on 20 August 2021. A technical officer attended the property in October 2021, but they did not have a ladder to access the loft.
15. On 12 November 2021, the resident made a complaint. She said she had been waiting since June 2021 for the damp and mould problems to be resolved. She was dissatisfied with the number of appointments made for various repairs in the property (including repairs to the loft) and the lack of progression with a resolution. It is unclear whether this was treated as a ‘quick resolution’ complaint or a formal complaint.
16. The resident expected a significant amount of work to take place to the ventilation system in the loft on 1 December 2021, yet the contractor did not attend. The landlord’s records indicate this appointment was rescheduled, but there is no evidence to show the resident was informed. The landlord apologised and confirmed an appointment was due to take place on 7 December 2021.
17. The resident contacted this Service on 17 February 2022. She was advised that she needed to complete the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. This Service contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s concerns.
18. The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 February 2022 and acknowledged her complaint. Records show it investigated her complaint internally. It issued a stage one response on 7 March 2022 and said:
    1. It understood her complaint was about the failure to complete repair works following identification of damp and mould at the property.
    2. It apologised for the failures experienced and upheld the complaint.
    3. It explained delays were caused as new materials were needed at each appointment, and there were delays obtaining the materials from its suppliers. It appreciated the inconvenience caused.
    4. Appointments were made for 8 March 2022 and 11 March 2022 for works to the loft. These jobs were marked as a high priority and not to be moved.
    5. It apologised for its failings and offered £150 compensation and a decorating pack.
19. The resident accepted the redress awarded by the landlord.
20. On 8 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord. She said mould was covering the insulation felt, and the operative refused to remove it and told her the job is ‘too big.’ She explained she was five months pregnant and there were young children in the property. She was concerned about the safety of the property, and it was impacting her mental health.
21. The landlord responded on 12 April 2022 and confirmed an appointment to repair the loft insulation was booked for 26 April 2022. The resident asked for confirmation that the repair would include removing the mouldy insulation. The landlord confirmed the job was to fit roof vents. The resident was unhappy with this and felt the mouldy insulation was a health hazard. The landlord agreed to investigate this further with the repairs team.
22. Records show the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns internally. It was also noted that its supplier failed to deliver the requested materials, however a roofer would still attend the address on 26 April 2022 to check the insulation and the mould spots on the roofing felt.
23. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 April 2022, to complain that repairs still had not been completed when this was promised within the stage one complaint response. A further appointment was made for 3 May 2022. Records suggest no one was home and a card was left. It is unclear from the evidence available whether the resident was told about this appointment.
24. The landlord booked a further appointment for 23 June 2022. It is unclear whether the resident was told about this.
25. This Service contacted the landlord on 10 August 2022 and asked it to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two. The landlord discussed the complaint with the resident and acknowledged the escalation request on 17 August 2022.
26. The landlord issued its stage two response on 26 August 2022. It said:
    1. All parties agree that all repairs connected to the damp and mould were completed apart from those within the loft space.
    2. It concluded roof vents were required due to poor air flow across the loft. The poor air flow caused condensation on uninsulated surfaces, causing mould growth on the underside of the roofing felt and adjacent timber.
    3. It apologised for the delay fitting the roof vents and explained this was due to the failure of its suppliers to provide the materials. It confirmed the work was prioritized and an appointment was made for 26 August 2022. It clarified what would happen at the next appointment:
       1. Install adequate roof ventilation to prevent future mould growth in the space.
       2. Spray all areas with signs of mould with solution to kill off existing mould.
       3. Check whether existing insulation was affected by mould or condensation. If it was, then it would be removed and replaced. If it did not need removing, then the level would be checked, and further layers added if required.
    4. It recognised the repair was not handled in line with its service standards and offered an additional £250 compensation.
27. Following completion of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure, the resident referred her complaint to this Service. She remained dissatisfied because the landlord refused to remove and replace the mouldy felt in the loft.

Assessment and findings

28. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman investigates whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
29. The landlord was responsible for investigating reports of damp and mould within the property. It acted reasonably by arranging a damp and mould inspection in a timely manner. However, the Ombudsman concludes there were unreasonable delays clarifying the works required to reduce condensation in the loft and completing the repair. The damp inspection initially took place in June 2021 and the repair was completed in August 2022 – approximately 64 weeks later. This was unacceptable. While the Ombudsman appreciates that services may have experienced delays due to supplier issues, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this does not fully account for the significant delays the resident experienced while waiting for the loft to be repaired. This compounded the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
30. Records indicate that appointments were not always managed effectively and communication from the landlord was below the level expected. It is evident the resident made regular contact to drive the repair forward, particularly as she was pregnant and concerned about the health impact on her children. This caused further time and trouble to the resident.
31. Ultimately, the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s resolution to the damp and mould problem in the loft. While the Ombudsman recognises the resident’s strength of feeling on the matter, there is nothing within the tenancy agreement, repair policy or housing law that requires a landlord to remove and replace roofing felt affected by mould. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was reasonable for the landlord to investigate the problem, implement additional ventilation to stop mould from growing again and to treat the area affected to kill existing mould spores. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest the landlord did not complete an effective and lasting repair.
32. Overall, the Ombudsman finds there were failures with the way the landlord communicated with the resident about the repairs and the time taken to complete them. The Ombudsman notes the landlord demonstrated in its final response that it reflected on its mistakes, identified the reasons for the delay, made the repair a priority and clearly explained the next steps to the resident. Considering all the evidence available, the Ombudsman finds that an apology was appropriate in the circumstances, in addition to £400 compensation and decorating packs.
33. The compensation offered by the landlord falls within the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website). This considers the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident due to the poor communication and delays identified. The Ombudsman therefore concludes that the landlord has offered reasonable compensation.

Determination (decision)

34. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord to resolve the complaint about the landlord’s decision to apply a mould treatment to the felt in the loft rather than replace it.

Reasons

35. The landlord acted in accordance with its repair policy in relation to treating the mould. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to indicate the mould is ‘live’ or there is a hazard to the resident.

Recommendations

36. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord inspects the loft within the next eight weeks to ensure the treatment was effective and there are no signs of further mould growth in the loft. If there are any signs the treatment was unsuccessful, the landlord should clarify the works required and agree timescales with the resident.