The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Silva Homes Limited (202313847)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313847

Silva Homes Limited

10 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Damp and mould, and related repairs.
    2. Damaged personal possessions due to mould.
    3. Poor conduct by one of its contractors.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a one-bedroom bungalow. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has recorded that the resident has asthma, a mobility disability, and a mental health condition.
  2. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the building, including guttering, external and internal walls. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Under its repairs policy, in use at the time, it will categorise repairs as either emergency (repair within 24 hours) or routine (repair within 20 working days). Under the policy mould is the resident’s responsibility but the landlord will give advice and install or overhaul extractor fans as needed. It will also assess for penetrating damp. It also states that its staff and contractors are to abide by its code of conduct and are to treat residents and their homes with respect.
  3. The landlord’s damp and mould policy, which was implemented in January 2023, sets out its approach to damp and mould. It will give damp and mould a high priority and communicate ‘timely’ with residents reporting damp and mould. It will assess reports to provide the correct initial action, communicate clearly what its solutions will be to treat and prevent, and provide a timeframe for resolution.
  4. The Housing Act 2004 introduced the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). One of the 29 identified hazards is damp and mould. Landlords have an obligation to minimise or remove the identified hazards, and their presence can be used to help determine whether a property is fit for habitation.
  5. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Damp and Mould: It’s not lifestyle, sets out 26 recommendations for landlords to improve their approach for handling reports of damp and mould.

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This Service will apply these principles when considering its decisions. However, some matters fall outside of what the Ombudsman can make a determination on.
  2. The resident has raised throughout her complaint that the presence of damp and mould in the property has made her asthma worse and affected her breathing. The Ombudsman is not able to investigate or determine matters relating to personal injury. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wishes to make a legal personal injury claim.

Summary of events

  1. On 20 March 2020 and 23 June 2020 the landlord inspected the property for damp and mould. It raised a mould wash but cancelled this after it could not contact the resident to book it in. It reglazed windows between July and August 2020 and called her on 3 September 2020 to ask if she still had damp and mould. She called it on 4 November 2020 and reported that she did.
  2. The resident called the landlord on 21 February 2021 and said the mould was getting worse. It completed a mould wash on 16 May 2021 and inspected again the following day. It carried out a further inspection on 25 January 2022 and a mould treatment on 8 April 2022. It also laid insulation in the loft. It inspected again on 8 December 2022.
  3. On 17 January 2023 the resident used the landlord’s online complaints form to make a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
    1. Having been reporting damp since she moved into the property in 2019, and the landlord painting over the problem but not fixing it.
    2. The damp worsening over time and that it was now affecting her health as she had asthma.
    3. Mould had spread to her furniture and possessions.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 January 2023. In an internal email it said it requested a specialist survey from an external company on 23 January 2023 and it repaired an extractor fan on 31 January 2023.
  5. On 2 February 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response in which it:
    1. Accepted the resident had been reporting damp since January 2020, and that it had a policy of asking residents to “monitor” it in 2020. It had identified damp during an inspection but could not complete a mould wash until May 2021 due to restrictions in place during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    2. Said it inspected again in January 2022 but due to a backlog it delayed in booking further works in. It apologised for the delays which it said were due to the pandemic.
    3. Confirmed its approach to damp and mould had changed. It had inspected, along with Environmental Health, on 26 January 2023 and had instructed a specialist company to inspect.
    4. Asked the resident to provide evidence of her damaged furniture and possessions so it could consider offering compensation.
    5. Said how she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  6. The specialist company completed the damp and mould survey on 9 February 2023. The landlord’s records say the specialist company tried to call the resident to book in works on 22 February 2023 but could not reach her.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord on 28 February 2023 and disputed its stage 1 response. She said it had been slow to act, blaming the pandemic was an excuse, and she wanted to know its plan to resolve the damp. She also listed her damaged furniture and possessions. It replied on 2 March 2023 and said it would chase the specialist company for its report and asked her to send it photographs.
  8. On 8 March 2023 the specialist company called the resident and booked in works for 5 April 2023. She emailed the landlord on 14 and 27 March 2023 to provide the photographs of her damaged possessions and asked to be provided a copy of the specialist company’s report. It replied to say it would not receive this until after the specialist company had completed a “clean and shield” booked for 5 April 2023.
  9. Environmental Health emailed the landlord on 4 April 2023 to chase the report. It replied on 11 April 2023 and said it was yet to receive it. Environmental Health emailed the landlord again and said they were going to inspect on 20 April 2023. It replied on 19 April 2023 and provided a copy of the specialist company’s report. It wrote to the resident on 26 April 2023 and provided a copy of the report. It also listed the repairs it needed to complete and appointment dates between 3 and 24 May 2023, to repair the guttering, inspect brickwork pointing, overhaul extractor fans and inspect the loft insulation. Environmental Health emailed the landlord on 2 May 2023 and asked it to complete additional repairs.
  10. On 3 May 2023 the landlord attended, as booked, to overhaul the extractor fans. The resident called it on 10 May 2023 and said its contractor was rude to her. She emailed it to ask for compensation for her items again the following day. Between 22 May 2023 and 26 June 2023 the landlord completed the repairs it had detailed in its earlier letter, and also shortened an extractor fan hose and unblocked and installed additional air bricks.
  11. Between 28 June 2023 and 6 July 2023 Environmental Health and the landlord exchanged several emails. In these Environmental Health chased it to schedule and complete further outstanding repairs, reported an issue with its contractor being rude to the resident, and asked it to provide a single point of contact for her. It replied with a further list of repairs and appointments for 29 August 2023 and 7 September 2023. It also said it had spoken to the contractor who it said had allegedly been argumentative.
  12. In an internal email on 13 July 2023 the landlord said the resident had called it to complain about its contractor. She said the contractor had had a bad attituded, did not do the work, and told her to move to another housing association or buy a house if she did not like the landlord. She also emailed Environmental Health to provide a video from her doorbell, which they forwarded it. The landlord has not provided a copy of the video to this Service. It replied to Environmental Health on 19 July 2023 and said it had called the resident as soon as she had made the complaint and said it would deal with it. It also confirmed it had spoken to the contractor about his comments which it said were wholly unacceptable.
  13. On 24 August 2023 the landlord inspected the bathroom extractor fan, and it repointed external brickwork on 29 August 2023.
  14. The resident contacted this Service and on 30 August 2023 the Ombudsman emailed the landlord and asked it to escalate the complaint. It emailed the resident the following day to acknowledge her stage 2 complaint. Within its acknowledgement it said the complaint was about damp and mould, delays to repairs, damage to her furniture and possessions, and contractor conduct.
  15. The landlord discussed in internal emails on 19 September 2023 its approach to offering compensation based on the resident’s request for her damaged possessions. It agreed its approach and then provided its stage 2 response on 20 September 2023 in which it:
    1. Said that it had responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould within its target times, although accepted it did not complete a full assessment until after it had attended a few times.
    2. Set out the repairs it had completed following the specialist company’s survey, and said it completed most of these within its target time, but also apologised for the delay.
    3. Admitted that it had not identified the cause of damp and mould or resolved it effectively and said it had learnt from the case and had new guidance in place. As part of this it said it would visit her for a follow up inspection in 6 weeks’ time.
    4. Regarding contractor conduct said it had fully investigated this in accordance with its disciplinary policy.
    5. Offered £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. It also offered £500 compensation for damaged possessions.
    6. Gave details on how to contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. On 21 September 2023 the landlord post inspected the mould wash and painting works. It decided it had not completed this properly and recalled the work, which it then completed on 4 October 2023.
  2. The resident and landlord exchanged emails between 24 and 28 September 2023. She said all the repairs had been completed except for the guttering and fascia boards. She also said she was not going to accept the compensation offered and set out her reasons. She said it did not compensate her for the number of possessions damaged and the experience she had had. The landlord asked her how much compensations she would accept.
  3. On 5 October 2023 Environmental Health emailed the landlord to chase the repairs to the guttering. The landlord inspected the property on 10 October 2023 and its reports said there was no damp, mould or condensation found on any walls or ceilings.
  4. The landlord made a further offer of £3,290 compensation which the resident accepted on 17 November 2023. It completed the guttering works on 26 January 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and related repairs

  1. When the resident reported damp and mould in early 2020 the landlord inspected the property before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. It has not provided the outcome of these inspections to this Service, which is a failing. It tried to book a mould wash but gave up after one failed attempt which was a failing. It has told the Ombudsman that this was its standard approach at the time, which it has since changed.
  2. In 2021 and 2022 it reinspected following contact from the resident and carried out mould washes around 3 months after both inspections. Within its stage 1 response it said the delays were due to COVID-19 restrictions, and then delays to repairs due to the pandemic. While this may have been true, the landlord failed to give sufficient importance to the issue of damp and mould, especially when it was aware the resident had asthma. She had told it she believed the mould was affecting her health and it should have acted quicker to treat and resolve the situation. That it did not was a significant failing.
  3. Only after the resident made a stage 1 complaint in January 2023 did the landlord start to take meaningful action. This may have been due to its newly adopted damp and mould policy or because Environmental Health had become involved. It inspected, repaired an extractor fan in line with its repairs policy, and requested a specialist survey which was positive and in line with its damp and mould policy.
  4. The specialist company inspected within a reasonable time. However, it did not provide its report until after it had completed a “clean and shield” treatment. This was delayed by the company delaying and making minimal attempts to contact the resident. The landlord failed to be proactive in managing the appointment booking and failed to chase for the report. It did not receive this until 19 April 2023, which was 49 working days after the inspection.
  5. The landlord correctly arranged appointments to complete repairs set out within the report and wrote to the resident to inform her of these and provide a copy of the report. It completed most of the repairs within its 20 working day repairs policy timeframe from the date it received the report. It also agreed to carry out further repairs identified by Environmental Health which was positive. However, it delayed beyond its policy timeframe for brickwork repointing.
  6. Following its stage 2 response the landlord continued to manage the repairs. It correctly recalled a mould wash and painting repair. It also post inspected in line with its damp and mould policy and said it had resolved the issue.
  7. Within its stage 2 response the landlord offered £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays in repairs. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is 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 the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  8. Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint, the landlord took action to investigate and resolve the damp and mould issues. There were failings in how it did this. However, prior to the complaint the landlord failed to take the issue seriously, investigate to find the cause of the damp and mould, repair the cause, or treat the mould. It also failed to have any regard to the resident’s medical conditions or that the presence of damp and mould was a serious hazard under the HHSRS. While it is positive that its approach changed in January 2023, accountability starts at the point the matter is reported not at the point a complaint is made.
  9. There was severe maladministration which caused distress, inconvenience, worry, time and trouble to the resident. To reflect this impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £1,000 compensation to the resident. This amount is less than would ordinarily be ordered to take into account compensation already offered by the landlord following the end of its complaints process. The £3,290 accepted by the resident compensated generally for distress, inconvenience, and loss of damaged possessions.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged personal possessions due to mould

  1. The resident first raised the issue of her possessions having been damaged by damp and mould in her stage 1 complaint on 17 January 2023. In its response the landlord appropriately asked her to provide evidence so that it could consider offering compensation which was solution focused.
  2. Following the resident providing photographs and details of the damaged possessions, the landlord considered her request for £500 compensation. Even though she had not been able to provide receipts for her possessions, it offered this amount as compensation for the damaged possessions in its stage 2 response.
  3. The landlord did not dispute responsibility for compensating for damaged possessions, or insist the resident make an insurance claim, which was positive and fair in the circumstances. Its offer was reasonable based on the information it had at the time, and it could not have expected the resident to ask for a higher amount when it provided its stage 2 response. There was no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of poor conduct by one of its contractors

  1. The landlord’s disciplinary policy sets out its approach to maintain standards among its staff and contractors. It says that it will try to resolve misconduct informally at first through conversations with managers.
  2. When the resident reported that the landlord’s contractor had been rude to her it correctly contacted her to discuss the complaint. It said it would investigate it under its policy. It then followed its policy by having a manager speak to the contractor about the incident and confirmed it was unacceptable conduct.
  3. Within its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed it had fully investigated the incident in line with its policy. However, it would have been more reassuring to the resident if it had given her an outcome. Stating that it had spoken to the contractor would not have been a breach of data protection as it would not have disclosed any personal information.
  4. Overall, the landlord acted quickly, followed its policy and its actions were fair and reasonable. There was no maladministration.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and related repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Damaged personal possessions due to mould.
    2. Poor conduct by one of its contractors.

Reasons

  1. There was severe maladministration as the landlord was slow to act on the resident’s reports of damp and mould for 3 years. It did not take the matter seriously before the resident made a complaint and did not show that it took her medical conditions into account. It also did not manage the specialist company effectively which led to further delays.
  2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damage possessions as it accepted responsibility for these. It reasonably requested evidence from the resident and made an offer of compensation despite not having been provided with receipts it requested.
  3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of contractor conduct as it promptly spoke to the resident and then to the contractor. It followed its disciplinary policy.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident from the chief executive for the severe maladministration detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident additional compensation of £1,000 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling her reports of damp and mould.
    3. Provide a copy of its self-assessment against the recommendations within the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould.
    4. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay the £3,290 compensation it offered following the end of its complaints process to the resident if it has not already done so.
    2. Amend its complaint response letters to remove the words “in full and final settlement” when it makes an offer of compensation or add a sentence to make it clear that a resident would not be prevented from bringing a complaint to this Service if compensation is accepted.