Longhurst Group Limited (202319059)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319059

Longhurst Group Limited

26 June 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 reports of damp and mould and associated repairs at the resident’s property.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord from March 2014. The property is a two-bedroom bungalow, owned by the landlord. The landlord confirms the resident is a “part-time wheelchair user.”
From October 2020 the resident had an outstanding complaint with the landlord. This was regarding repairs to her bathroom and ongoing damp and mould. In March 2022 it is believed the landlord completed work in an attempt to resolve the issues. The resident raised a further complaint however in October 2022 concerning the landlord’s delay in repairing her shower and damp and mould affecting her belongings. The landlord responded to this complaint on 13 February 2022. It only responded to the concern about the repair to the resident’s shower.
A damp and mould specialist attended at the resident’s property with the landlord’s surveyor on 21 November 2022. The specialist made several recommendations. These included replacing the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans, replenishing missing insulation, replacing the skirting in the bedroom, replacing the wet room floor and raising the upstands, and applying mould treatment. The resident raised a complaint concerning this on 24 November. She said the landlord should have previously completed the recommendations raised by the specialist. She said the issue was affecting her health and she had to replace personal items due to mould. She asked for decorating vouchers, a paid decorator and compensation for replacing furniture and carpets. The landlord told the resident on 5 December it would investigate her complaint and reply by 9 January 2023. The local authority contacted the landlord on 9 January asking it to provide evidence of work to address damp and mould at the resident’s property. It gave the landlord 14 days before it would serve a statutory notice under the Housing Act 2004.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 7 June 2023. It stated specifically its response was about the resident’s complaint that it had acknowledged on 5 December. It stated the following:
1. It replaced the kitchen extractor fan on 13 February and the bathroom extractor fan on 21 March.
2. Its operative removed the skirting in her bedroom on 13 February but was unable to renew it due to the adjacent wet room floor leaking. It raised the repair to the wet room flooring to a specialist contractor on 28 March. It chased the repair on 24 April and scheduled work at the property for 24 May but later changed this to 6 June. It was unable to complete the work on 6 June as it needed to remove tiles. It said the resident rejected this as her bathroom would be “unusable.” The landlord said its contractor would liaise with its specialist contractor to replace the flooring and tiles on the same day.
3. It apologised for the delays and the impact on the resident. It confirmed that if the resident wished to escalate her complaint she would need to put this in writing.
The resident escalated her complaint on 13 June 2023. She said the landlord had treated her poorly, issues were ongoing, and it had a “big impact on a disabled lady.” She said she had only had 2 extractor fans fitted and the skirting board removed. She said one of the extractor fans was the “wrong type” and there should be no skirting in the bathroom. She said the issue had been “ongoing for years” and wanted the landlord to pay for alternative accommodation whilst it completed work to make the property of a “liveable condition.” The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 15 June and said it would reply by 13 July.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 13 September 2023. It told the resident the following:
1. It had completed repairs to the wet room floor and tiles on 12 July 2023.
2. Its surveyor attended at the property on 15 August to inspect for damp and mould. It found there was rising damp to external causes and made the following recommendations: to remove soil around the property and cut back tarmac to reduce the level below the damp course; replace the ramp at the rear of the property with new gauge plastic; replace the bathroom extractor fan with a larger one. It said that it would agree on a start date for the works when it attended on 13 September.
3. It had repaired walls but issues with the wet room meant it had to reattend to complete the work. It said the wet room was the source of the damp and mould but were “exacerbated by external issues.”
4. It apologised for the “significant delays” in completing the work. It confirmed it had made a “dedicated team” for reports of damp and mould, to inspect and order repairs.
5. It offered total compensation of £975 as follows, £225 for complaint handling, £600 for the impact on the resident during repairs and the complaints process. £50 for issues with appointments with its contractor and £100 contribution to decoration of rooms.
On 19 September 2023, the resident asked the Ombudsman for a thorough investigation, additional compensation for lost belongings, cleaning costs and assistance expenses. She also asked for resolution of the ongoing issues and improved communication from the landlord. The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 18 April 2024. In correspondence on the same day, the resident stated work on the exterior of her property was complete. She said the only outstanding issue of replacing skirting boards had not taken place due to the landlord discovering a leak under her bathroom floor. The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman it was arranging a decant for the resident from her property and that it had offered her temporary accommodation on 2 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of assessment.

In her referral to the Ombudsman, the resident stated the landlord discovered a new leak in December 2023 under her wet room floor. The landlord and resident have confirmed the resident will be decanted while this work takes place. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the Ombudsman, this is not something that the Ombudsman can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and associated repairs at the resident’s property.

The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It will keep in proper working order installations for water, sanitation, and heating. It further states it will carry out any repairs it is responsible for “within reasonable time of finding the repair is needed.” It states this will depend on “how urgent the repair and the “service standards in force.” The resident must report any repairs required as soon as possible and contact the landlord if it fails to carry out its obligations. The resident is responsible for internal cleaning and decoration of the property.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms residents can report repairs by telephone, email or online. Its repairs contractor handles all repair calls and arranges appointments. It has three main categories of maintenance, responsive repairs, cyclical maintenance, and planned maintenance. It prioritises its responsive repairs as follows:
1. Emergency repairs. Where defects or faults put the health, safety or security of the resident or property at risk. It will attend as soon as possible and prioritise depending on the nature of the emergency. It will make the property safe within 24 hours. Examples include substantial leaks which cannot be isolated or contained.
2. Appointed repairs. Defects or faults that do not put the health, safety or security of the resident or property at risk. They are repairs that a resident can “reasonably live with for a period of time.”
  1. It will complete appointed urgent repairs within a maximum of 7 calendar days. Examples include mechanical extractor fans in the kitchen or bathroom and minor adaptations.
  2. It will complete appointed routine repairs within a maximum of 28 calendar days. Examples include skirting boards and general joinery, bathroom fixtures and fittings, general plumbing repairs and containable leaks, tiling in the bathroom, plastering, exterior paths and ramps.
3. Where the resident has vulnerabilities it “may adjust the priority and responsibility to reflect this.” It will consider each resident on an individual basis and available support from other residents in the property.
A landlord appointed damp and mould specialist attended at the resident’s property and then provided its report on 21 November 2022. This raised several repairs that were recommended at the resident’s property to alleviate the reported presence of damp and mould. The landlord’s response to each of these requests will be assessed later in this report. In its stage 1 complaint response in June 2023, the landlord said it was “delayed in receiving this report” as reasoning for not taking prompt action on the recommendations made. The landlord was aware of the appointment having taken place as its surveyor was in attendance during the mould specialist visit and there was therefore a reasonable expectation that the landlord was aware that there were significant issues at the property, regardless of any delay in obtaining the report. Furthermore, on 5 December it acknowledged her complaint, which included mention of the specialist report. If it had not received the report the above points show it was aware the appointment had taken place, and it had the opportunity to chase this. It is uncertain why it did not follow this up with its surveyor.
The landlord did not follow up with the mould specialist to obtain a copy of the report until 10 January 2023. It is believed its action was only prompted by the local authority’s environmental health team contacting the landlord on 9 January. The local authority warned it could take statutory action if it did not show action of tackling the causes of damp and mould at the resident’s property. It is of concern it took a warning of statutory action to prompt the landlord to act. The landlord should have obtained and reviewed the mould specialist’s report much sooner as a responsible landlord committed to putting things right for the resident. The mould specialist was so concerned about the landlord’s lack of communication they felt obliged to contact the resident directly on 12 January. They said they had been unable to reach the landlord and had opted to try and progress the issue through the resident.
The landlord raised an order for replacement extractor fans in the resident’s bathroom and kitchen on 20 January 2023. This was equivalent to 61 calendar days from the issue with the extractor fans being reported to the landlord on 21 November 2022. It is unclear if it prioritised the repair as an appointed urgent repair in accordance with its policy. It would eventually replace the kitchen fan on 13 February 2023, with the timescale for completion from the initial report of 85 calendar days. This far exceeded the landlord’s timescale of 7 calendar days in its Repairs Policy.
The landlord did not complete the replacement of the resident’s bathroom fan on 13 February 2023 and its note states it was “on order”. It would go on to complete this on 21 March 2023. This was equivalent to 121 calendar days and exceeded the landlord’s timescale of 7 calendar days. This was even accounting for any time in which the fan was “on order.”
In her complaint escalation of 13 June 2023, the resident raised concerns about the extractor fan installed in her bathroom. She said it was the “wrong type” and not in accordance with the one suggested by the mould specialist in their report. The landlord acknowledged these concerns on 13 June. The landlord took no further action to investigate or complete the work. In her frustration, the resident contacted the landlord on 27 July to ask for a surveyor to attend to assess the outstanding repairs. It duly arranged this for 15 August, but it is unclear if it would have taken this step had the resident not contacted it. From the resident’s initial report of 13 June, it took the landlord 64 calendar days to take positive steps to investigate the issue.
On 15 August 2023, the landlord’s surveyor found a “large extractor fan” was required in the resident’s bathroom. This suggests the resident’s belief the fan was “unsuitable” was correct. It also suggests the initial extractor fan installed on 21 March was not in accordance with the mould specialist’s recommendation. The landlord therefore failed to “get the issue right the first time,” causing inconvenience and distress to the resident.
By its stage 2 response of 13 September, the landlord had taken no further action to replace the bathroom extractor fan. It told her its contractor would be attending the same day to arrange a date for all repairs. It is unclear if this took place, however. The first evidence of the landlord raising an appointment was for 15 January 2024 which it rearranged to 29 January 2024 due to the contractor being ill. The delay meant it did not maintain its stage 2 position that it was managing the situation for a quick resolution. It completed the replacement on 29 January 2024. This meant the landlord took 231 calendar days to replace the bathroom extractor fan from the resident reporting it on 13 June 2023. This total delay caused uncertainty, distress, and inconvenience to the resident. This also exacerbated her concern the “unsuitable” extractor fan was continuing to make damp and mould worse.
The mould specialist recommended on 21 November 2022 the landlord should check and replenish “missing or displaced loft insulation.” There is no evidence of the landlord taking any action to follow up on these recommendations. It did not communicate with the resident about this in its complaint responses or otherwise. The local authority contacted the landlord on 6 June 2023 after speaking with the resident. They told the landlord the mould specialist had identified the loft insulation needed “topping up” due to “cold spots.” The local authority said, “any further delay” would mean it would have to “enforce the works.” There is no evidence of the insulation works taking place, nor whether the local authority took further action on this point. This left the issue outstanding for the resident causing inconvenience and distress to her. An order will be made for the landlord to check and replenish insulation in the resident’s loft if it has not already done so. It is of further concern this was not completed as it contradicted a report on the landlord’s website on 18 January 2023. The report said it was obtaining “a greater understanding of tackling damp and mould by “allocating more of its budget” to “improve loft insulation.”
The mould specialist also recommended on 21 November 2022 that the landlord should “supply and fit altro (safety) flooring” and “raise the upstands” in the wet room. They said this would “stop water leaking in the resident’s bedroom.” The resident chased this on 12 March 2023. A contractor further confirmed to the landlord on 13 March 2023 the wet room was the source of the leak. The landlord did not raise an order for the wet room until 28 March 2023. This was equivalent to 128 days for it to take any positive action from the initial report from the mould specialist. The wet room continued to cause a leak in the bedroom throughout this period. There is no evidence of the landlord considering short-term measures for the resident to use shower facilities whilst mitigating any flooding. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident in managing the leak every time she used the shower at her property. It failed to treat the repair as urgent and did not complete the repair in 7 days.
The landlord chased its contractor on 24 April 2023 as the contractor had taken no action since 31 March. It’s unclear of the outcome of this further contact. However, it did not complete the repair, and its surveyor raised the issue again on 11 May. It attempted to resolve the issue on 6 June, though by this time 198 calendar days had passed from the initial report. The landlord left the resident to deal with the leak at her property throughout this time. Its contractor was unable to complete the floor and upstands repair on 6 June as it found it needed to remove tiles at the same time. It is uncertain why the landlord or its contractor had not established this before commencing the work, as it had inspected this at the property on two previous separate occasions. This prolonged the repair whilst the landlord organised for two different skilled contractors to attend at the same time.
The resident had rejected the option of having the floor and upstands completed and tiles removed. She said this would mean the wet room was “unusable.” This was her prerogative. As previously stated, the landlord was aware the wet room was leaking every time the resident had a shower. It failed to consider this again here or consider if it could manage the situation for the resident if it did remove the tiles, to hasten the full repair. The landlord completed the repair to the wet room floor and upstands on 12 July 2023. From the initial report from the mould specialist, this was equivalent to 234 days. The total period exceeded the landlord’s period of repair by 227 days. The landlord left the resident to manage the leak in her property herself with no evidence of it helping to mitigate the issue or expediting the repair.
The landlord’s Decant Procedure suggests it can offer a temporary decant when there are specific planned works which it makes it unsafe to remain at the property. It says this can be due to the circumstances of the resident or the nature of the works. On 12 March and 27 July 2023, the landlord raised internally whether it should decant the resident whilst it completed the repairs to her wet room. The Ombudsman can find no evidence of the landlord formally considering this. It should have done so as up to 15 August it believed the pending wet room was the sole cause of the leak and damp and mould at the property. A decant could have mitigated against the landlord managing the leak and damp and mould at her property whilst the repair was pending. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about being decanted in her escalated complaint. It failed to explain its position in its stage 2 response or anywhere else. This left the issue unresolved for the resident causing uncertainty and distress to her.
On 21 November 2022, the mould specialist recommended the landlord should replace the skirting in the resident’s bedroom, which was diminished by the leak from the wet room. It raised the order on 20 January 2023 but completed no further work until 13 March 2023. This was equivalent to 113 calendar days, and it did not complete the work in 28 days in accordance with its policy. It removed the diminished skirting board on 13 March. It did not replace the skirting board. This was appropriate as any replacement skirting would be affected by the ongoing leak in the wet room. It is uncertain if the removal of the skirting board affected the positioning of the leak at the property. There is no evidence the landlord investigated this and as previously stated had not mitigated against the impact of the leak in the property.
To date the landlord has not been able to replace the skirting in the bedroom due to its delay in repairing the leak in the wet room. In December 2023 the landlord discovered a further leak under the wet room flooring. This issue will not be investigated in this report. However, this has caused further flooding. The landlord has decided appropriately not to replace the skirting board as it may be affected by the ongoing leak.
On 15 August 2023, the landlord’s surveyor discovered several external issues exacerbating damp which it recommended be resolved to alleviate persistent damp and mould at the property. It is uncertain why the landlord had not recognised this in previous surveys at the property, its most recent one taking place in May 2023. Had it considered this sooner it had the opportunity to stop the persistence and exacerbation of the damp and mould issue. It is unclear when the full external works were completed by the landlord. However, in correspondence with the Ombudsman on 16 May 2024 the landlord confirmed all external work to the property was complete. This was in accordance with its surveyor’s recommendations.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms in relation to condensation damp and mould it is responsible for conducting surveys, initial cleaning of affected areas, clearing blocked air vents and installing extractor fans as needed. It prioritises such repairs as “appointed routine” repairs, which it will complete in a maximum of 28 calendar days. The landlord’s website has a document available to residents for managing mould and condensation in the home.
A report on the landlord’s website on 18 January 2023 explained its approach to damp and mould. It said would not be able to “resolve issues overnight” but it would have a “greater understanding” of how to “tackle them” by taking the following steps:
1. Prioritising work by greater understanding of the conditions of its properties and the challenges residents face. Monitoring the performance of its contractors. Introducing a damp and mould task force.
2. Allocating more of its budget and bidding for funding to improve ventilation in bathrooms and kitchens, install more efficient heating and improve loft insulation.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. A landlord is obliged, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from category 1 hazards. Landlords should also ensure that their staff, whether in-house or contractors, can identify and report early signs of damp and mould.
The mould specialist’s report of 21 November 2022 recommended a number of things to address damp and mould. It stated mould treatment should be applied to the resident’s cupboard and “small remedial areas.” This was alongside its recommendations for repairs at the property, which has been assessed earlier in this report. From the date of the mould specialist report onwards, the landlord took no action to apply mould treatment at the property. This is despite the following things taking place during this period:
1. The resident raised the mould issue in her complaint of 24 November 2022. She raised the impact on her health and damage to her property. In its stage 1 complaint response of 7 June 2023, the landlord failed to refer to the reported damp and mould at the property in its findings. This was despite it acknowledging the resident had raised this in her complaint. It did not assure the resident in its response on what it would do to investigate or treat damp and mould.
2. The local authority contacted the landlord on 9 January and 6 June 2023 regarding the “hazard” of damp and mould at the property. It warned of “enforcement” and issuing a “statutory notice” if the landlord took no action. It is uncertain if the landlord took this seriously and if it responded to the local authority.
3. The resident chased the treatment of mould on 6 June 2023. She said it had caused “frustration” waiting for the landlord to treat the mould. She raised this again in her escalation of 13 June 2023. She mentioned the delay in completing work and said it had a “big impact on a disabled lady.”
4. On 25 July 2023 it checked on the position of damp and mould treatment. This was only because of an intervention from its safeguarding team when the resident said she felt “suicidal.” It is unclear if it would have acted without this intervention. Its internal response further confused the matter as it said damp and mould treatment had “not taken place or been requested.” This was inaccurate given the contact between 24 November 2022 and 13 June 2023 from the mould specialist, resident and local authority.
5. The landlord did arrange for its surveyor to attend the property on 15 August 2023 who found further cause of the damp and mould at the property. This was an appropriate step to resolving the root cause but there was no suggestion at this point to treat the damp and mould at the property or mitigate the impact on the resident.
6. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response it had “repaired walls”, but this is believed to reports of the wall being “crumbly”. Mould growth was reported by its surveyors to interior of cupboards as well as walls. As such this suggests mould treatment was not completed.
As shown above the landlord had ample opportunity and reminders of its obligation to investigate or treat the reported damp and mould at the property. It should have completed any treatment within 28 days from 21 November 2022 but failed to do so. It should have prioritised the repair given as per its policy for vulnerable people, particularly as the resident stated it was affecting her health. There is no evidence of it communicating with the resident outside of its complaint responses. As well as taking proactive action at the resident’s property it could have directed the resident in managing damp and mould at her property. It could have considered providing dehumidifiers or directing her to its advice on its website. There is no evidence it did this.
The landlord should have taken appropriate steps to avoid or minimise damp and mould which are potential health hazards in line with the HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. The landlord left the resident to manage the damp and mould at her property herself whilst it only focused on resolving the root cause. This caused her distress and inconvenience and made her feel it was not serious in supporting her with the issue on a day-to-day basis. The landlord will be ordered to ensure it further investigates the presence of damp and mould at the resident’s property and completes treatment, as necessary.
It is positive the landlord has made a “dedicated team” for damp and mould to “order repairs and “prevent delay” as stated in its stage 2 response. It is of concern that this new process did not highlight the need for damp and mould treatment at the resident’s property. The Ombudsman published a Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould – it’s not lifestyle (October 2021). The landlord should self-assess against the recommendations in the report considering what revisions to make to its approach considering the findings of this investigation. On 7 September 2023, the government published guidance on understanding and addressing the health risks of damp and mould in the home. The Ombudsman will recommend that the landlord reviews this guidance and uses this to help inform its approach to damp and mould.
The landlord failed to offer compensation at stage 1 of its complaint process. It should have done so as at the time of its responses a number of issues had been outstanding for 207 days and outside its timescale for completion. This included its failure to treat damp and mould, repairs to the wet room and replacement of loft insulation. In its stage 2 complaint response, it offered £600 compensation for the “impact on the resident during the repairs and complaint process” and £50 for issues with its contractor. This was in accordance with its Compensation Policy and recognised the “significant and long-term effect” on the resident.
The landlord also offered £100 to decorate the resident’s rooms before it completed new repairs. This was appropriate and addressed the resident’s concerns about being issued with a “decorating voucher.” The resident had requested compensation for damage to her possessions. However, there is no evidence of the landlord considering this, despite its Compensation Policy allowing for “damage to people’s property.” The landlord should have considered applying this policy or directing the resident to its own or her own insurance policy to make a claim. It did none of this which meant the issue remained unresolved for the resident and unclear on what steps to take next.
The Ombudsman finds the total compensation of £750 offered to the resident to be insufficient. This is due to the total detriment caused to the resident and also for the following reasons:
1. From 21 November 2022 it failed to inspect and consider the impact the resident said the damp and mould was causing to her health within an appropriate timescale. It failed to offer appropriate steps to manage damp and mould in her property. It did not complete mould treatment and failed to communicate about what action it would take. It also failed to discuss damage to her possessions or consider signposting her for advice.
2. It failed to consider the overall inconvenience caused to the resident in managing the leak in her property. It was delayed in completing all repairs recommended by the mould specialist on 21 November 2022. It made an error in installing an “insufficient” extractor fan in the resident’s bathroom. It also failed to consider a decant for the resident or communicate with her on the matter.
In summary the landlord failed to act in accordance with its Repairs Policy for all the repairs required at the resident’s property. It was delayed in fully following up on the mould specialist’s report of 21 November 2022 until 10 January 2023. It failed to sufficiently consider the resident’s reports about the impact on her health or consider whether a decant might be appropriate. The failings above were exacerbated by the landlord’s insufficient communication and focus only on the root cause of the issue and not the impact of the leak and damp and mould on the resident day to day. The resident was required on many occasions to chase the outcome herself whilst managing the leak and damp and mould at the same time.
The landlord in accordance with the occupancy agreement is required to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. It failed to do so over a prolonged period which caused distress, inconvenience, and deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship. In all the circumstances of the case, a determination of maladministration has been identified. Compensation of £1300 has been awarded as the landlord failed “promptly and effectively” to complete repairs. This includes the £750 already offered by the landlord. It failed to fully consider the time and trouble, anxiety, stress, and uncertainty it caused to the resident through its poor handling of the repairs to the property. Its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. Further orders will be made for the landlord to consider the failings identified in this report.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s Complaints Policy confirms its approach is customer-focused and takes account of individual circumstances, puts things right in a timely and effective manner and uses learning from complaints to improve services. It will conduct investigations fairly by “acting independently and having an open mind” and “consider all information and evidence carefully.”
The Complaints Policy confirms the landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. The details of this are as follows:
1. Stage 1. The landlord will contact the resident in 2 working days to discuss the complaint, agree preferred method of communication and advise of a timescale for resolution. It will provide its response in 10 working days.
2. Stage 2. A resident must provide their reason for appeal within one month of receiving the landlord’s stage 1 response. If accepted it will clarify the complaint in 2 working days. It will provide its response within 20 working days.
3. The landlord can extend its response time for its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses by a further 10 working days. It states this is in “exceptional circumstances” and it will provide a “valid reason” to the resident.
The resident raised her complaint on 24 November 2022. The landlord did not speak to her and acknowledge her complaint until 5 December. This was equivalent to 7 working days and outside of its 2 working day timescale for acknowledgement. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 7 June 2023. Between 5 December 2022 and 7 June 2023, there is no evidence of it experiencing “exceptional circumstances” at this time that would delay its response. There is also no evidence between this time it spoke to the resident to explain it would be delayed in responding or provide her with a “valid reason” for the delay. This was responsible for causing uncertainty, confusion, and distress to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 1 response of 7 June 2023 took the equivalent of 133 working days to provide. This far exceeded the landlord’s 10 working day, or 20 working day (with extension) timescale for response in its policy. The delay prolonged the resolution of the issue for the resident. Had it considered resolution of the complaint earlier it would have had the opportunity to prioritise the outstanding issues at the resident’s property much sooner. It did apologise for the “delays required to resolve the complaint.” However, this was disproportionate to its delay in acknowledging the complaint and the overall delay in responding.
The landlord’s stage 1 response focused on the outstanding repairs at the resident’s property. The response failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the impact of damp and mould at the property, including damage to her possessions. It found on 11 May 2023 that damp and mould “may require further survey” but there is no evidence it followed up on this. There is no evidence it investigated the impact the reported damp and mould was having on the resident or her possessions. It never asked her for evidence of the damage to her possessions to make an informed decision about whether it could consider compensation. It did not award compensation in its stage 1 response and failed to address the resident’s request for compensation with a definitive response. This caused the issue to remain unresolved for the resident causing distress and inconvenience to her.
The resident escalated her complaint on 13 June 2023. She did this in writing as requested by the landlord in its stage 1 response. This approach was in accordance with its Complaints Policy. The landlord acknowledged her complaint within 2 working days on 15 June in accordance with the timescale in its policy. It acted in accordance with the resident’s wishes by emailing her its acknowledgement rather than calling her. In its acknowledgement, the landlord said it would provide its response by 13 July 2023 or would let the resident know if it needed additional time. The landlord did not provide its response until 13 September. This was equivalent to 66 working days and exceeded the timescale in its policy of 20 working days or 30 working days, with extension.
The landlord did apologise for the delay in its response stating this was due to a “large number of complaints” and “staffing issues.” Although it was assumedly aware of these issues from 13 June 2023 it did nothing to manage the resident’s expectations. There is no evidence the landlord communicated with the resident to explain it would be delayed in providing its response. It was prompted to do this when the resident chased the outcome of her complaint on 27 July, 24, 25 and 29 August. However, it still failed to manage the resident’s expectations. This caused uncertainty and distress to the resident. She was concerned if the landlord was seriously considering her concerns. In her frustration, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman intervened at the resident’s request on 30 August asking the landlord to provide its stage 2 response. The landlord complied, providing its response to the resident on the Ombudsman’s deadline of 13 September 2023. It is uncertain if the landlord would have replied in this period without the Ombudsman’s intervention.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did focus on the impact of the damp and mould at the property, which it had not done at stage 1. It provided information to show it understood the problem and the causes of the damp and mould. It also provided appropriate actions it would take to remedy the issue at the property. This did help to address the resident’s concerns that it was not doing anything to resolve the matter.
There were a number of issues raised in the resident’s complaint escalation the landlord failed to address in its stage 2 complaint response. This included skirting boards being unsuitable in her bathroom and her request for it to provide her with alternative accommodation. It would later remove the skirting in the bathroom and change the extractor fans. These were positive and appropriate actions to take but it should have explained this to the resident to appropriately manage her expectations and fully resolve her complaint. There is no evidence the landlord would respond to the resident’s concerns about moving her out of her property in 2023 whilst it completed work. It should have explained whether this was appropriate or not to ensure the resident was clear on its stance on the matter.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did appropriately offer £100 compensation for the decoration of her room. However, it did not address the resident’s concerns about damage to her personal items, which it also failed to address at stage 1. Its continued failure to acknowledge and respond to the resident’s concerns suggested to her it was not taking the matter seriously. The landlord’s Compensation Policy includes “damage to people’s property” decided on a “case by case basis.” It is unclear if the landlord considered the resident’s reported losses. It should have done this and explained any decision it made to her. Furthermore, it could have referred the resident to its own insurer or the resident’s insurer to make a claim for her possessions. It did neither, leaving the resident uncertain on what steps to take next. This caused inconvenience and uncertainty to her.
The landlord acknowledged the delays and service failures in its approach. It offered £225 compensation for its “complaint handling” and “communications during the complaints process.” This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance (published on our website) and the landlord’s Compensation Policy. The guidance suggests amounts of £100 to £600 for cases where there has been service failure which adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact. Due to further failures not identified in the landlord’s complaint responses, the Ombudsman deems it more appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £350 compensation. This includes the £225 already offered by the landlord. This includes its management of the resident’s expectations, its lack of updates and its failure to address points regarding a decant and her concerns about skirting boards.
A landlord’s complaint process enables it to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own Complaints Policy and exceeded its timescale for response at both stage 1 and 2. It failed to communicate with the resident whilst investigating her complaint and did not manage her expectations. It also failed to consider all the resident’s concerns at stage 1, in particular the relevant concerns about damp and mould. At stage 2 it failed to address further concerns about skirting boards, a decant or damage to her personal possessions. A determination of maladministration has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £350 compensation has been ordered, which includes the £225 offered by the landlord. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance about cases where service failure has occurred over a protracted period with moderate impact on the resident throughout that period.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and associated repairs at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord to carry out the following orders and provide evidence of compliance to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior staff member from the landlord to provide a written apology to the resident for the impact of the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £1650. Compensation is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
  1. £1300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s ineffective response to reports of damp and mould and associated repairs at the resident’s property.
  2. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient complaint handling.
  3. The amounts above include the £975 already awarded to the resident by the landlord during its internal complaint’s procedure for the above issues.
3. The landlord must carry out an inspection of the property, and to produce a schedule of works to remedy issues identified in this report. This includes:
  1. Checking and replenishing insulation in the resident’s loft in accordance with the mould specialist report, if it has not already done so.
  2. Ensuring it further investigates the presence of damp and mould at the resident’s property and completes treatment, as necessary.
  3. It should inform this Service within a further eight weeks of effective completion of the works.
The landlord must carry out a review of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred and provide a report back to the Ombudsman and the resident on this. This should include:
1. Its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident.
2. Why it failed to follow or was delayed in following the advice of the mould specialist and surveyors, and its related decision-making processes.
3. Its lack of transparency with the resident in communicating the results of action it was taking, the outcome of surveys and management of her expectations.

Recommendations

The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould, considering completion of a self-assessment against the report.
The landlord should review the September 2023 government guidance – ‘understanding and addressing the health risks of damp and mould in the home’ to help it to address it’s approach to damp and mould.