ForHousing Limited (202306484)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306484

ForHousing Limited

28 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

1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, including a temporary decant;
   2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy which started in September 2019. It was originally a joint tenancy, and became a sole tenancy in early 2022 after the resident and his ex-partner’s relationship broke down. He has explained that the issues around damp and mould in their home had contributed to this breakdown.
3. The resident’s ex-partner reported mould to the landlord in November 2019. They told the landlord that they thought there were problems with the damp proof course, and that rising damp was present. The landlord said it tried to carry out an inspection that month, but access was refused by the residents. This is disputed by the resident.
4. The landlord carried out an inspection in February 2020, in which it noted that the extractor fans to the bathroom and kitchen had been switched off. It provided the residents with advice regarding this, as well as drying clothes inside, but recorded that the air humidity had been “acceptable”. It found condensation on the wall of one bedroom, and recommended that a vent should be installed. Additionally, it recommended pointing work was completed on the exterior wall, recording that the roof, flashing, damp proof course and air bricks were in good condition.
5. The coronavirus pandemic caused much change in most landlords’ operations over the following months. The landlord has advised us that the residents told it that they were shielding during the pandemic, and the resident has advised that on one occasion he had notified the landlord that his household had tested positive for the virus.
6. The landlord said it had scheduled the repairs to be carried out in July 2020, but the resident refused access to its operatives after explaining that he had expected them to attend the previous day. The landlord said that its operatives advised him to contact it to rearrange the repairs, but did not receive further contact about this.
7. At the end of May 2021, the resident noticed a leak from the property above, coming through a light fitting. The landlord attended within an hour to make the electrics safe and contain the leak. The next day, the landlord’s plumber attended and installed a stop tap, which the resident has advised was so that his household would not be left without access to water over the bank holiday.
8. On 4 June 2021, the landlord fitted a new light, and on 10 June 2021 its plumber attended the above property to look for the source of the leak. No leak was located in the neighbour’s property, but the resident later reported the leak had recurred on 11, 22 and 28 June 2021.
9. The resident has explained that when the leak recurred, he turned off the water supply. He has explained that he felt anxious about the tension that caused with his neighbour. He said his sleep had been affected by the worry.
10. The resident wrote to the landlord to express his dissatisfaction with the time taken to resolve the issue, and ask for compensation for damages, on 29 June 2021. The landlord appears to have logged a stage 1 complaint the next day, and to have decided to resolve it via a “quick fix”. It advised the resident that it had booked in a repair for the leak on 1 July 2021, but its records do not show that it addressed his request for compensation.
11. There is a gap in further events, until the resident reported damp to the landlord on 10 September 2022. The landlord carried out a new damp inspection on 26 September 2022. It identified several repairs that needed to be carried out; replacement of rotting skirting boards and door frames, treatment and re-surfacing of walls, and works to repair damaged flooring. These repairs were linked to damage from the leak. The landlord said it originally scheduled these repairs for December 2022, but they had to be postponed due to a “sudden influx” of damp and mould work being handled by its contractor.
12. The resident has explained that he was originally told he would be able to stay in the property whilst the works were completed. The repairs were subsequently booked in for one week at the end of February and start of March 2023, and the landlord decided the resident would need to move out while the works were done.
13. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 16 February 2023. He asked the landlord for £700 compensation for the damage caused to his walls and flooring.
14. The landlord’s records show that it discussed the temporary decant with the resident two weeks before the start date for the repairs, and told him it would provide details of the accommodation it would provide a week later.
15. The resident said he was caused anxiety whilst waiting for details of where he would be moved over the next week, and that the landlord had told him it would book a short-term letting. When the landlord contacted the resident a week before the works started to confirm the arrangements, it advised him that it had found a hotel for him to stay in.
16. The resident expressed concern about the lack of cooking facilities, and the landlord agreed to pay him £20 per night towards the cost of food in addition to paying for the breakfast available at the hotel. The resident discussed the need for his pet cat to be accommodated, and the landlord advised him to pay the hotel’s pet charge for the first night, and that it would arrange for the rest to be paid through its credit card. It explained that this was because its card holder was not available on the first day.
17. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response letter to the resident on or around 10 March 2023. It apologised for the delays to the repairs to rectify the damage caused by damp, and offered the resident £250 compensation. It told the resident that it would not offer compensation in relation to the time taken to fix the leak and any damages caused, due to the length of time that elapsed since the event. It committed to completing the damp repairs by 10 March 2023.
18. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 27 March 2023. He revised his request for compensation to £5,590.49, which included annual leave he and his ex-partner had taken, delays to repairs under the ‘right to repair’, a proportion of his rent, and damage to belongings. In its acknowledgement, the landlord told him it would issue a response by 27 April 2023.
19. The landlord carried out a further inspection of the property on 5 May 2023, and identified that a tile in the bathroom should be re-fixed, and that a damaged window frame should be inspected.
20. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response letter to the resident on 11 May 2023, which:
    1. Advised it had reviewed its stage 1 response on 20 April 2023 and would not offer more compensation;
    2. Had examined the repair records related to the leak and considered it had responded correctly;
    3. Apologised for the stress and inconvenience the resident had been caused by the decant arrangements, and explained it had now advised its relevant teams that most hotel rooms do not have fridges.
21. The resident has explained to this Service that he wanted compensation for the damage done to the decoration of the property, and that he was worried the further repairs would mean he needed to redecorate again.
22. The landlord has advised this Service that it has updated its processes so that it records details of any vulnerabilities or health concerns during its damp and mould inspections. It says it has also changed its approach to appointments where access is not given, to include efforts from its staff to contact the resident to discuss the reasons behind the refusal and to rearrange the appointment. 
23. The landlord recognised that it had not recorded details of all conversations it had had with the resident regarding the decant, and it has advised us that it has now introduced a new case management process to ensure that it keeps evidence of the information it provides to residents.

Assessment and findings

24. This Service does not make decisions as to whether the health of residents has been affected by the events in their case. This is because this is a medical matter and outside of the scope of our investigations. We do, however, acknowledge that the resident has set out how he considers the events have significantly impacted on his well-being and relationship.
25. The resident first raised issues regarding damp and mould soon after moving in to the property in 2019. The landlord was right to arrange an inspection. The landlord recorded that the resident initially did not give it access for this, however we note that he denies this.
26. The inspection that was carried out for the landlord in February 2020 was thorough and while it found “acceptable” moisture levels, it identified two repairs that should be carried out. The coronavirus pandemic and the associated restrictions and guidance had a clear impact on this case, with both the resident and the landlord postponing the works. While we understand the difficulties the landlord had in managing the situation, we recommend that it considers the learning from this case and whether there are any changes it could make to the recording of outstanding works on its computer systems, so that it retains visibility of these should a similar disruption to normal operations arise in future.
27. The resident contacted the landlord again in 2021, to report a leak from the property above. The landlord’s records, and the timeline of events that the resident has provided with his complaint, support the landlord’s assessment that it had followed its policies. The landlord did make sure that the electrics were made safe quickly, and its operative showed concern for the resident by setting up the water so that the leak could be controlled but he would have access to a supply over the weekend. While it would understandably be frustrating for the resident, the landlord was correct to advise him that it is required by law to take proportionate and reasonable steps to gain access to a neighbouring property to carry out repairs. The information we have seen supports that this is what it did here, and the issue was eventually located and repaired.
28. When the resident made a further report of damp in September 2022, the landlord carried out a fresh inspection. It identified several repairs that indicated there had been moisture and mould damage. The landlord has recognised that the repairs were completed four months beyond its target. For this, it offered the resident a total of £250 compensation, based on £50 per month for the delays and £50 for the inconvenience caused to the resident. We consider this amount to be proportionate in the circumstances.
29. The landlord assessed it as necessary to move the resident out of his home for the week where the bulk of the works were carried out. We acknowledge that the resident was anxious while awaiting the details of the move, however the landlord did make sure he was given details in advance. We accept that it is reasonable for the landlord to make use of hotel accommodation for temporary moves, and it provided the resident with money towards the cost of food during this time as was appropriate.
30. Although it had secured accommodation that allowed pets, the landlord did appear to leave some of the arrangements for the resident’s cat to him to sort with the hotel. This appears to have been in part due to its credit card holder being off work. This could have been avoided if it had another person available to organise payment, and in this case would have provided the resident with important reassurance. It is not clear if the landlord ever reimbursed the resident for the first night’s charge for the cat, and we ask that it makes sure this has been done.
31. The history of reported damp issues does go back several years, however there were significant gaps in the resident’s reports of problems. The landlord has on the whole responded appropriately to the reports, and after it addressed the leak in 2021 there was a gap of over a year before the resident made another report to it. Our focus is on the recent reports and the subsequent decant, and the landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate to its failures here. There is nothing in the repair records to suggest that it had failed to respond to the resident’s reports or that there were early failures by the landlord which directly contributed to the need for the resident to be decanted. 

Handling of the associated complaint

32. The resident’s stage 1 complaint was centred around his request for compensation for damages to the decoration of the walls and flooring in the property. The landlord told him it would not consider this aspect of his complaint due to the time that had elapsed, which was a lost opportunity to examine the resident’s experience and reassure him that it fully acknowledged the difficulties he had experienced.
33. This is particularly unsatisfactory because the resident had previously made a request for compensation in June 2021. The resident said the landlord had treated that request as a complaint, and told him it would seek to put a “quick fix” in place. The landlord’s records show it did record the request for compensation along with his expression of dissatisfaction, but they do not show what steps it took (if any) to respond on this point.
34. A more appropriate avenue to resolve the matter would have been to explain to the resident how he could submit a claim through its insurance process, both for damages and for personal injury. This was mitigated in part by its signposting him to claim through his own home insurance (if he had this in place), and we note that it did tell him that it would consider specific claims if he could provide proof of the costs incurred.
35. The landlord’s failure to adequately address the resident’s request at stage 1 made it likely that the resident would feel the need to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The landlord’s response at stage 2 made it clearer that its view was that it had not failed in its response to the leak from the property above and would not therefore compensate the resident around this matter.
36. The landlord issued further apologies at stage 2 for the way the repairs related to damp had been handled, including its communication around the decant, and the delays due to the volume of cases its contractor was dealing with. It did not, however, increase its offer of compensation from the £250 it offered at stage 1.
37. It is the view of this Service that this offer of compensation was a reasonable level of redress  to recognise the issues around the time taken to complete the works. A satisfactory resolution to the complaint would have included an offer of compensation for the length of time taken to respond to the matters the resident raised in his complaints, especially as its stage 2 response was issued beyond its target timescale. We have made an order on this below, in order to put things right.
38. The landlord has demonstrated that it has taken appropriate learning from the mistakes it identified in the resident’s case, and taken action to implement improvements. This has mitigated against its failures in the handling of the complaint, and we have therefore made a finding of service failure in this case.

Determination

39. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, including a temporary decant, satisfactorily.
40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

41. The landlord must, within four weeks of the date of this report, explain to the resident how he can submit a claim for damages and/ or personal injury to its insurance team. It must confirm to us when this is complete.
42. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must directly pay the resident £100 compensation for the impact of the failures in its complaints handling. It must confirm to us when this is complete.

Recommendations

43. We recommend the landlord review its arrangements for credit card holders, to ensure it has adequate facilities to make use of this method of payment when individuals are not in work.
44. We recommend that the landlord confirm that it has reimbursed the resident for the cost of accommodating his cat on the first night of the decant, and do this if it has not already.
45. We recommend that the landlord considers the learning from this case and whether there are any changes it could make to the recording of outstanding works on its computer systems, so that it retains visibility of these should a similar disruption to normal operations arise in future.