Windrush Alliance UK Community Interest Company (202310419)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310419

Windrush Alliance UK Community Interest Company

15 August 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 response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Record Keeping.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a licence with the landlord which is a housing association. The licence commenced on 31 March 2022. The accommodation is a self-contained bedroom with an ensuite in a supported housing block with accommodation located over 4 floors. The resident has told this Service that she has asthma for which she is prescribed medication.
Evidence provided to this Service for the purposes of the investigation shows that the landlord leases the property from the freeholder. The landlord discharged its management duties to a managing agent before taking the service back in house from 21 September 2023.
On 22 June 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report damp in her bathroom. During July the landlord and resident exchanged a number of emails leading to an inspection of the property being carried out on 26 July. On 25 August the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it would carry out remedial works to remove the damp. In a letter to the resident of 27 November the landlord confirmed it had carried out remedial works.
On 22 June 2023 the resident made a formal complaint that:
1. During November 2022 to April 2023 the landlord took photos of the damp in her bathroom which was getting worse.
2. The damp was so bad it caused hives on her body and she had developed asthma for which she was prescribed medication.
3. In April 2023 she asked to be moved as her breathing was getting worse but this was declined. She asked the landlord to nominate her to another housing provider but it did not respond.
On 30 August 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response, the main points being:
1. Prior to 30 June the resident was dealing directly with its managing agent who did not provide a satisfactory response.
2. On 21 July the new managing director replied to the resident’s email and agreed that the previous service was unsatisfactory. They took over the complaint accordingly.
3. Also on 21 July arrangements were made to carry out an inspection of the property to identify remedial works.
4. An inspection carried out on the 26 July showed that although there was no prevalent damp within the property there was water running outside the exterior wall and vegetation growth in the pipes. Despite communication from the landlord to do the external works, both parties had yet to agree a date.
5. The resident requested a copy of the survey report several timesand received it on 25 August.
6. It understood why the resident was unhappy with the service and “why she may not have any trust in the organisation going forward.”
7. As a result of her complaint the landlord had employed a new contractor to deal with its maintenance queries. It had met with staff to explain the importance of responding to resident’s queries within time.
8. It would complete the remedial works within 7 days, including renewing the external down pipes of the building and repointing brickwork to prevent water penetration.
9. It would open a discussion with the resident to help relocate her to another suitable property.
On 31 August 2023 the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 because she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. She was dissatisfied that it had not offered her any compensation despite her developing asthma because of its “negligence.”
On 27 November 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, the main points were:
1. It had carried out remedial works.
2. Its managing agent did not offer the service they promised but since the landlord had taken management back in house it had communicated with her regarding repairs.
3. During a teams meeting with the resident on 16 November she advised she was unhappy with the property and wanted to move. The resident provided medical evidence regarding anxiety.
4. It would support the resident by referring her back to the local authority for a 1 bed flat.
5. It would set up a support plan with the housing officer to include more frequent welfare checks with a goal to help the resident to move.
6. It offered £500 compensation.
7. If the resident was dissatisfied with its response she could request a further review of her complaint which would be carried out by its managing director.
On 5 December 2023 the resident contacted this Service to advise that she was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered by the landlord. On 25 July 2024 she told this Service that she was still experiencing damp and mould in the property.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to make repairs to the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord must ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. This was updated in 2006 to take account of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which lists damp and mould as a potential hazard.
The resident’s licence says that the landlord’s objective was to provide medium term accommodation for vulnerable people. “We will provide the licensee with support, advice and assistance to enable the licensee to maintain independent living.”

Scope of the investigation

The resident has set out how the landlord’s response to her reports of damp and mould has impacted on her health. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
This is an accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
In her email to the resident of 22 June 2023 the resident said the landlord had been aware of the damp and mould as early as November 2022. While this investigation does not doubt that was the case, there is no independent evidence to that affect. Therefore, this investigation has focussed its assessment on the landlord’s response from 22 June 2023 onwards.
On 25 July 2024 the resident provided photographs for the purposes of this investigation. This Service is limited in the extent on which it can rely on photographic evidence as it was not possible for us to determinate the location or date of the images themselves.

Damp and mould

In her email to the landlord of 22 June 2023 said the damp was so bad it was causing hives and she had developed asthma because of the conditions in the property. On 23 June the landlord emailed the resident and provided a response to other issues raised in her complaint, not subject to this investigation. However, it failed to acknowledge her concerns about damp and mould which was inappropriate. This suggested to the resident that it did not take her report seriously.
On 30 June 2023 the landlord’s managing director emailed the resident to arrange to carry out an inspection and to meet to discuss her complaint. They said it would carry out works “without due haste” following the inspection. They asked that all communication be directed to them going forward. The resident replied on 2 July with details of her availability for both the meeting and the inspection. However, the landlord failed to respond which was inappropriate because the resident was uncertain as to whether the matter was being progressed.
On 13 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and attached a screenshot of a text it had sent her asking for a named staff member to inspect the property the following day. She said this had not been discussed with her and she felt its approach was “unprofessional and inappropriate.” The resident provided her availability on 2 July but heard nothing more until she received the text. The date of the appointment did not correspond to dates they had discussed previously therefore, her concerns were reasonable.
The managing director emailed the resident on 21 July 2023 to say they were newly appointed and had received her complaint in “recent days.” They repeated their request to arrange to carry out an inspection and meet with the resident. They said once the inspection had taken place the landlord would be in a better place to arrange works. It would also then be able to allocate a staff member to look at move on accommodation. They apologised that the resident had had to “endure these conditions” and her concerns had not been addressed.
On 21 July 2023 the resident emailed the managing director to confirm that she had sent her complaint and details of her availability to them weeks ago, not days. The managing director replied on the same day and reiterated that they were new in post. They said they understood matters were being dealt with and agreed the landlord’s response was “unsatisfactory.” The wording of the email was confusing for the resident given that it was the same managing director who had emailed her before, on 30 June 2023. This created a lack of trust and further eroded the resident / landlord relationship.
Furthermore, the resident was caused inconvenience, time and trouble when she emailed the landlord on 24 July to provide details of her availability again.
On 25 July 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to request access to inspect the property the following day. The inspection was carried out on 26 July, noting that the following works were required:
1. Remove vegetation growth around the down pipe.
2. Remove vegetation growth from windowsill and replaster brick work to window.
3. Re-silicon the plaster around window frame and repoint the brickwork to create a watertight seal.
The report was silent on whether there was evidence of damp and mould in the resident’s bedroom and bathroom. There were no photographs of these rooms included in the report. Given the purpose of the inspection was to inspect the property for damp and mould the lack of clarity and transparency was inappropriate.
On 27 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to confirm it was her understanding that it would liaise with her to arrange for contractors to attend. She said she looked forward to the report being produced. On 31 July the landlord emailed her to ask for her availability to carry out remedial works. She provided this by email on the same day. However, the landlord failed to respond which once again created uncertainty for the resident who was unsure as to next steps.
Furthermore, she was caused inconvenience, time and trouble when she emailed the landlord to chase. In her email to the landlord of 18 August 2023 the resident said she was frustrated that she had not received the report from the inspection, details of a new housing officer or updates on the works to address the damp. She said she was struggling to breathe and had recently gone to stay with her mum.
The landlord replied on the same day, 18 August. It confirmed that “damp was not prevalent within the accommodation on inspection” and that it would send a copy of the report to the resident. It said it had identified the cause as the guttering and it would undertake works to ensure the problem did not occur again.
It said its surveyor had spoken to the resident on the day to explain it was a historic issue and what remedial action needed to be taken to prevent a reoccurrence. It is unclear how, if there was no evidence of damp and mould, the landlord came to its conclusions.
The landlord’s response lacked empathy because it failed to acknowledge the resident’s concerns around her health which had caused her to leave the property for a period of time. It is unclear how long this period was for.
In a further email to the resident that same day, also 18 August 2023, it asked her for details of her availability to “sort out the damp issues in the first instance.” However, there is no evidence as to what works it wanted to carry out and what exactly the damp issues were. The lack of effective communication meant it did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations which was inappropriate.
On 21 and 22 August 2023 the landlord and resident exchanged emails to arrange access for works to commence. In her email of 22 August the resident requested a copy of the inspection report prior to works commencing.
The lack of clarity around what works were to take place and for what reason caused the resident distress and inconvenience. On 25 August 2023 the resident asked the landlord to clarify what works it would be undertaking including what action it would take to eradicate the damp “for good.” The landlord replied on the same day to say it would “fix all the issues that are mentioned on the report (…).”
It also provided the resident with a copy of the report. It said it had asked its contractor to confirm in writing the proposed works to remove damp which it would forward onto the resident. However, there is no evidence that it did so, adding to her uncertainty.
On 29 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord photographs of “positive” damp readings (not seen by this investigation). She said they were taken where the weeds were growing on the external brickwork and where the leaking pipe was situated outside. The landlord replied to the resident on the same day to advise that the issue would be “dealt with once the outside works have been completed.” It is not clear what the landlord meant by this, for example whether it intended to take readings and/or inspect once the works had been completed.
A further email sent by the landlord to the resident later the same day, 29 August, confirmed that damp in the property had been dealt with. The source of the damp was identified as weeds growing on the outside of the building which were holding water against the wall. It confirmed that the works carried out would ensure there was no further damp. The resident replied to say the damp in the bathroom was dealt with but not the “damp inside the wall outside the bathroom.” It is unclear as to what the resident meant by this.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 30 August 2023 it said it understood why the resident was unhappy with the service it had provided and why she may “not have any trust in the organisation going forward.” It said that because of the complaint it had employed a new contractor to deal with its maintenance queries. Having reviewed the evidence in the case there is no suggestion that a contractor had failed to provide a service on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, the reason for the landlord’s response is unclear.
It also said it would complete the remedial works within 7 days. This would include renewal of the external down pipes of the building and repointing the brickwork to prevent water penetration. This is contrary to the landlord’s email to the resident of 29 August 2023 which said the works had been carried out.
On 6 October 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say it had failed to carry out the actions set out in its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 27 November said that it had been in communication with the resident regarding the remedial works which had been carried out. It is unclear when the works were completed, if at all.
The resident provided the landlord with a professional’s letter dated 11 October 2023, written on her behalf, which said that there was “mould everywhere in her studio flat, on the walls and ceiling” which was causing breathing difficulties. It asked the landlord to provide “safe and healthy living conditions” for the resident to support her “health and wellbeing.”
There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this information which was inappropriate. This is because it failed to take swift and effective action to demonstrate a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould as set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (2021).
In her email to the landlord of 22 June 2023 the resident said that she had provided a letter from her doctor to the landlord and asked to be moved because of conditions on the flat. The landlord declined her request. She said she had asked to be nominated to another housing provider but the landlord had not responded. The landlord failed to provide a response which was inappropriate, causing disappointment and frustration to the resident.
In its email to the resident of 21 July 2023 it said that when they met it would be in a better position to allocate staff to look at move on accommodation. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered this further which was inappropriate.
In an email to the resident on 18 August 2023 the landlord said it would allocate a new housing officer to work with her on her support needs, including move on. There is no evidence that this was actioned which was unreasonable, particularly as the landlord was obligated to provide support, advice and assistance to the resident as part of the licence agreement.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 27 November 2023 the landlord said that during its discussion with the resident on 16 November she had asked to be moved. It noted that the resident had provided a medical letter setting out her anxiety caused by living in the property. The landlord agreed to help to refer the resident back to the local authority and provide a new housing officer to work with her on a support plan with a goal of moving. There is no evidence that it did so.

Events post internal complaints process

In a telephone call with this Service on 25 July 2024 the resident said she continued to experience damp and mould in her bathroom. Furthermore, the landlord had never carried out the actions set out in its complaint responses, including providing a new housing officer to assist with move on.

Summary

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould highlights the need for landlord’s to:
1. Be aware of the impact issues with damp and mould have on health and wellbeing, including asthma. Throughout her complaint the resident highlighted her concerns around her asthma. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered this and/or provided a response to her concerns which was inappropriate.
2. Recognise the importance of effective communication by landlords when responding to reports of damp and mould. This investigation has identified that there was a lack of effective communication by the landlord throughout the period of the complaint. In particular, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations in relation to the inspection, outcomes and time tabling of works.
3. Keep accurate records to provide a data driven response to damp and mould. In this case its records in relation to the presence of damp and mould, its investigation and the outcomes did not provide a sufficient level of detail. For example, there are no repair logs and the survey was silent on the issue of damp and mould.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) emphasises that complaints allow an issue to be resolves before it becomes worse. Therefore, it is important that the landlord ensures that any identified actions are completed to resolve the substantive issue. The landlord should ensure that its handling of the complaint does not compound the resident’s dissatisfaction. In addition to the failures identified above there is no evidence that the landlord carried out the remedial works and no evidence that it provided a new housing officer to work with the resident on a support plan with a goal to moving on.
The code says that landlords’ complaint responses should set out in clear, plain language the details of any remedy offered to put things right. In its stage 2 complaint response of 27 November 2023 the landlord offered the resident compensation of £500. However, there is no explanation as to what this offer of financial redress was for which was inappropriate.
Furthermore, the landlord’s failure to provide evidence to this Service when requested has hampered our ability to carry out a thorough investigation of its response to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s failures amount to severe maladministration because there were failures which adversely affected the resident. The finding reflects the landlord’s inaction and the detriment caused to the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £1000 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord may deduct the £500 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Record Keeping

The landlord is a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). Paragraph 11 of the Scheme obliges landlords to provide information requested by this Service. In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence from the time of the complaint to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
We wrote to the landlord on 12 April, 18 May and 3 June 2024 to request that it provide evidence for the purposes of this investigation. The landlord failed to respond and was issued with a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) on 1 July which it also failed to respond to. Despite a further request being sent on 23 July the landlord has still not provided a response. As such, it has failed to meet the obligations of the Scheme. Furthermore, the lack of evidence has hampered our ability to investigate the resident’s complaint which is inappropriate.
The landlord has also provided inaccurate evidence in its communication with this Service. On 18 April 2024 it advised that the resident did not live at the property and had signed a licence with a different provider in September 2023. An email sent by the resident to the local authority on 2 January 2024 confirms she was still residing at the property at that time. In a call with this Service 25 July the resident confirmed that she was still living in the property. This is a record keeping failure.
These were failures of service which shows a disregard for the landlord’s obligations under the Scheme and a lack of engagement with the Ombudsman’s investigation. The landlord’s failure amounts to severe maladministration.

Complaint Handling

The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 22 June 2023. The landlord failed to acknowledge receipt of the complaint and failed to provide a response. This caused the resident distress, inconvenience, time and trouble because she contacted this Service on 14 July to request assistance.
We wrote to the landlord on 17 July 2023 to request that it issue its stage 1 complaint response by 24 July. We chased again on 2 August, requesting that it provide a response by 9 August. We chased for a third time on 10 August, requesting that it provide a response by 17 August. The landlord failed to provide a response and was served with a CHFO on 22 August. The landlord was asked to provide its response by 30 August.
Following significant efforts made by this Service on behalf of the resident the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 30 August 2023. This was 49 working days after the complaint was made. The Code requires landlords to issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days. Therefore the response was 39 working days out of time which was unreasonable.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord failed to contact the resident to keep her updated as to when it would respond. This caused her further distress, inconvenience, time and trouble because she had to continue to contact us for assistance. Furthermore, the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its response. It failed to put things right and failed to identify lessons learnt and what it would do to prevent it happening again.
The Code says that if the complaint is not resolve to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 it must be progressed to stage 2. On 31 August 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. On 4 September the landlord emailed the resident to say that she would need to make a request to escalate within 20 days of the stage 1 response. The resident replied on 5 September to refer the landlord to her email of 31 August. The resident’s email of 31 August was a clear request to escalate therefore the landlord should have raised a stage 2 complaint rather than delay matters by requesting the same information.
On 6 October 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to chase the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord failed to provide a response and she was caused inconvenience, time and trouble when she contacted this Service again for assistance. We wrote to the landlord on 17 November to request that it provide a response by 24 November.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 27 November 2023. This was 62 working days after the escalation request was made. The Code requires landlords to provide stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days therefore the response was 42 days out of time. The landlord failed provide any updates to the resident about when she might expect a response, causing distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
The landlord once again failed to acknowledge and apologise for the significant delay. It started the letter by expressing its own disappointment that the resident remained dissatisfied with its response despite its efforts to resolve the issue. Its opening paragraph was defensive and combative. It did not reflect a positive complaint handling culture as set out in the Code.
The Code says that the person considering the complaint at stage 2 must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage 1. In this case the same person issued both the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. This was inappropriate because they reviewed their own complaint response and the resident could not be confident that an objective, independent review had been carried out at stage 2.
The Code says that 2 stage complaint procedures are ideal to ensure the complaints process is not unduly long. Its stage 2 complaint response offered to review the resident’s complaint at stage 3 if she remained dissatisfied which was inappropriate.
The Code sets out that “an effective complaints process enables a landlord to learn from the issues that arise for residents and to take steps to improve the services it provides. Complaint handling performs an important strategic role for an organisation, providing vital intelligence on its performance, culture and reputation.”
The evidence shows that without the intervention of this Service the landlord would not have provided a response to the resident’s complaint which is inappropriate because it:
1. Demonstrates a lack of understanding of the complaints process and a lack of willingness to provide an effective complaint handling service.
2. Failed to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of its failures, including delaying her ability to resolve her complaint through its internal complaints process. These delays also delayed the resident’s ability to refer her complaint to this Service for investigation.
3. Failed to fulfil its obligations as a member of the Scheme.
4. Failed to identify what had gone wrong and what it would do to prevent it happening again.
The failures in the landlord’s complaint handling amounts to severe maladministration. This is because it repeatedly failed to provide the same service which had a serious detrimental impact on the resident; demonstrating a failure to provide a service, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £700 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the standards landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met.
In this investigation, we found failures in the landlord’s complaint handling policy. We have therefore referred this to our team responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £1700 compensation as follows:
  1. £1000 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord may deduct the £500 it has offered if this has already been paid.
  2. £700 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.
2. Arrange for its Chief Executive to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in the case in writing or verbally depending on her preference (if verbally it should be confirmed in writing). A copy should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a senior management review of the case to identify what went wrong and what it would do differently. This should be presented to the senior leadership team and this Service within 10 weeks of the date of this report. This should include assessment against the spotlight reports, unless the landlord can demonstrate it has done these within the last 12 months, on:
1. Damp and mould.
2. Knowledge Information Management (KIM).