Abri Group Limited (202105835)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105835

Abri Group Limited

31 January 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord that started in late 2017. The property is a three-bedroom semi-detached house. The resident has a genetic heart condition and is registered blind. She lives with her guide dog and her adult sons, one of whom acts as her carer.
The tenant’s handbook says that the landlord is responsible for the internal structure of the property including the walls, ceilings, and floors as well as the internal and external components that is the windows, doors, fitted cupboards, etc. The handbook says the landlord will treat severe dampness as a routine 30‑day repair. It also says if residents continue to experience condensation and problems with mould it may be necessary to have a technical survey carried out on the property.
The landlord may approve a “direct match” for a move, rather than signpost the resident to its choice-based letting system. Its direct match procedures say that all applications for a direct match will be considered on an individual case basis. It adds that where a customer has a disability or a requirement for an adapted property, it will seek advice on the suitability of the property from appropriately qualified support agencies and/or a housing occupational therapist.
The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond at stage one within ten working days and within twenty working days at stage two.
The landlord’s customer relations policy says that if it finds it could have done things better, or has provided a poor service, then it may take action to put things right and to improve the relationship with the customer. It says that, in line with its “Putting Things Right Guidelines” it should offer redress and remedial action. These guidelines say that, in relation to compensation for the cost of a damaged item, that the age and condition of the item should also considered, as it would provide a second-hand valuation based on condition and age of the item, rather than the price of a new item in replacement.
These guidelines set out that, if the landlord’s failure to carry out repairs means that it is responsible for the loss or severe limitation of use of rooms or services within a customer’s home, for unreasonable periods, it may pay compensation based on the rent that they pay. It says that, for a single impacted room, this may equate to 5-10% of rent. It says that the landlord will not pay compensation for loss of a room where, among other things, the resident has refused a suitable offer of a temporary home.
These guidelines also say that the landlord will pay compensation for distress, pain and suffering and inconvenience. It says that it will refer cases to its insurer in several circumstances including where there has been damage to property where the landlord may be at fault.

Summary of events

On 29 November 2018 the landlord inspected the property. It noted damp and mould issues in the main bedroom where one wall in particular was “very damp/wet to touch”. It noted further that a doctor believed the resident’s son’s bad chest was being caused by a fungal infection, caused by the mould.
On 19 December 2018 the resident reported to the landlord, among other things, that the extraction unit in the kitchen was not working and there was a damp smell behind corner base in kitchen. The landlord noted that the area affected by damp and mould should be treated and sealed/cleaned and the unit replaced. It noted this work was completed on 29 January 2019.
The repairs log notes on 30 January 2019 that the extraction in the kitchen and bathroom should be upgraded, a kitchen fan should be fitted, and the bathroom extractor fan should be replaced. It notes this work was completed by 30 April 2019.
The repairs log refers to an inspection of the property on 25 March 2019. On the same day the landlord raised the issue of damp and mould in a bedroom noting “damp issues in bedroom and very strong damp smell in kitchen cupboard to the right of the cooker. This is meant to have been investigated, but still an issue”. The repair log notes that works were completed on 12 April 2019 but gives no detail of the work undertaken.
There was an inspection by a damp contractor on 20 May 2019. They found that the moisture-laden air in the property at present was not being ventilated sufficiently and recommended that a positive input ventilation unit (a PIV) be installed in the property which used air displacement to ventilate a property which prevented condensation problems from occurring. The installation of the PIV did not take place at that time.
The repairs log refers to a further inspection of the property on 29 July 2019. Two days later the repairs log notes “mould spores all around the exterior walls and rake of ceiling”. It noted that the affected areas should be cleaned and sealed with a follow-on job to paint the exterior walls with anti-mould paint and touch in decorations on the rakes of the ceiling. The repairs log notes that this work was completed by 3 September 2019.
The repairs log notes one property inspection in January 2020 and another on 21 January 2021 for “extreme dampness and mould issues”.
On the following day the repairs log notes that there was mould on the exterior walls at the back of the property and ceiling, particularly in bedroom one. It noted all affected areas should be treated with anti-fungal wash; and the insulation in the roof should be checked.
On 14 January 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about its handling of her reports of damp and mould in the property. The note of the call said:
1. The resident stated that the mould situation was “getting severely out of hand”.
2. She said the mould had been treated but had come back and she had had to throw away all her soft furnishings.
3. She had to sleep downstairs “for the most part of the year” because of the mould and the smell.
4. The mould was also in her understairs cupboard and one of the kitchen cupboards and it was severely impacting her quality of life.
5. She did not want to move because she had received a lot of help to allow her to be independent (such as counting steps from the house to various places so she could go out on her own)
6. She had taken a number of steps to ensure the mould was not due to her lifestyle – she had ensured the property was well ventilated, did not dry clothes, etc. However, she had been told to open the kitchen window but was unable to because of the height of the handle and it was not safe for her to climb to reach it.
The landlord said that it would send a surveyor to investigate.
On 5 February 2021 the resident reported that there was a gap of approximately one quarter to half an inch above the bedroom window, which had been picked up during a previous inspection but not acted upon.
On 9 February 2021 there was a survey of the property. The surveyor found widespread condensation and mould. The mould was found:
1. On all of the window frames in the property (apart from the second and third bedroom).
2. In bedroom 1 on the ceiling perimeter to the outside wall; around the window reveals; on the external wall and in the corner of the external wall; on the residents’ clothes and personal belongings. The surveyor also noted a “musty smell”.
3. In bedroom two on the external wall.
4. In the hallway and landing on the external wall.
5. In the kitchen on the window reveals.
The surveyor noted that the hall cupboard required a vent above and the kitchen needed a fan. They also noted that the resident was “sleeping in lounge, needs to get back in bedroom”. They proposed installing a PIV which they felt would resolve the mould.
On 12 March 2021 the resident told the landlord she and her son had emptied the room ready for the works. She said that “the mould and damp has gone behind the wardrobes and unit as thought. However, it’s gone through the back and floor panels in patches and damaged most of all the contents including items boxed on the top. The contents of the bedside lockers, all faux leather boxes and wash and make up bags mouldy. Even the lampshades. Shoes on the floor, all my son’s black jeans and sadly his old rugby kit, prom suit and signed school leaving shirt all got mould on them”. She added that this was the third time the mould had been treated in the bedrooms and that she felt “so down, dirty and completely demoralised with it”.
On the same day a contractor attended to apply an anti-fungal wash to all the areas of the property affected by mould.
Also, in an internal email dated 12 March 2021 the landlord noted that there was a gap above the bedroom window into which the resident could fit her fingers and believed that was not helping the damp situation.
On 15 March 2021 the resident told the landlord that the workmen who attended at the end of the previous week said the damp and mould “was far more extensive than they were led to believe. She said their manager was called to inspect the property and he ordered more extensive works than mere spraying of a mould treatment as the original work schedule specified. In response the landlord said that it had contacted its planning team and was waiting for a response. It said it could not carry out works to eliminate the damp and mould until after the PIV had been installed; it gave details of the work still to be carried out including mould treatment, painting of the affected areas and fitting a vent to the cupboard in the hallway.
On 16 March 2021 the landlord spoke to its surveyor. The main points from the call were:
1. The surveyor was unsure what work had been done on 12 March 2021; no follow-on work was raised, and this would be chased.
2. The surveyor had not looked at the window but would ask the window company to attend.
3. There was no rising or penetrating damp in the cupboard; it was a condensation issue. It could fit a vent on the cupboard door and would raise this again.
4. No damp had been raised in relation to the kitchen cupboard by the damp contractor when they had surveyed in May 2019. (This Service notes, however, that the report says that inspection was limited and a more detailed inspection was recommended to determine the full extent of dampness.)
5. The landlord considered that the PIV “should sort” the problem with the kitchen cupboard.
6. It noted the contractor had provided a quote for damp treatment and it would use them if the issue got worse.
On 18 March 2021 the resident told the landlord, “I remain sleeping on my sofa after months awaiting work to start despite promises that I would be able to sleep in my bedroom as of last Friday … damp and other issues remain and have not been rectified after three years of living in the property. These problems have had a serious negative impact on my physical and mental health which your officers are fully aware of: the occupational therapist recommended I should be rehoused into a bungalow to meet my medical needs. I haven’t begun to estimate the cost to me and my son’s personal property. After Friday’s visit from your team to rectify matters even they were shocked at the extent of the problems”.
The repairs log notes the same day:
1. “In warm weather” it should remove items from the downstairs cupboard and store them outside while it treats any mould on walls then replace the items. It notes this work was completed on 20 April 2021.
2. The resident reported “a gap” above the window in master bedroom and that this should be inspected and repaired. It notes this work was completed on 20 April 2021. The repairs log also notes that it had “limited resource” so it should be dealt with in-house if possible.
On 19 March 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident and said it would raise orders urgently to complete the works as soon as possible and recognised the frustration that they had not been completed. The landlord noted that there were concerns about the resident’s mental and physical health, and matters were starting to take a toll on her son also. In relation to the complaint, the landlord noted it had “agreed to keep complaint as a stage one for now”.
The repairs log notes an entry on 23 March 2021 as “urgent” and that “extreme cold spot issues” were causing mould on multiple external walls. It noted it would need insulated boarding on external walls and window reveals of two bedrooms and in the downstairs cupboard and then plastered. It noted also that mould growth on the stairs should be removed and painted.
On 31 March 2021 the contractor installed insulated plasterboard to two of the bedrooms and the following day the resident confirmed to the landlord that the plastering had been completed.
In early April 2021 the landlord attended the property to dispose of two large wardrobes that had been affected by mould.
On 9 April 2021 the resident told the landlord her and her son both had to sleep in the living room. She said her cardiologist had serious concerns about that and might have to raise it as a safeguarding issue if it continued.
On 12 April 2021 the landlord listed the outstanding work in an email to the resident. This included chasing the installation date for the PIV; arranging for its cleaning contractors to attend; and for a contractor to look at the windows, as she had reported various issues including moss growing between the panes of the bathroom window; and treating any mould on the walls.
On 13 April 2021 the resident told the landlord that the plumber had not attended and neither had the cleaning contractor.
On 14 April 2021 the resident told the landlord that she had not slept in her bed for five months and she and her son had been forced to sleep in the front room on sofas which were deteriorating due to extensive use. She added that this was the third year of promises by the landlord to resolve the mould and damp issues and that her health was deteriorating due to their housing conditions.
On the same day, the landlord arranged for cleaning of those bedrooms as well as the affected areas in the hallway, kitchen and bathroom by its contractor.
On 19 April 2021 the contractor installed a PIV. On the next day the landlord helped the resident sort through belongings affected by mould to allow its contractors to access the cupboard area to complete works. The landlord said it could offer £1,000 to replace items damaged by the mould. Mould treatment was applied to the cupboard walls by contractors and a vent installed to the door; also internal doors were altered to allow circulation of air from the PIV.
On 21 April 2021 the affected areas of the property were cleaned and the cupboard under the stairs was painted.
On 26 April 2021 the repairs log notes that the external section of the extractor fan was not fixed to the wall correctly and this should be resolved to help prevent any return of damp and mould. It notes that this was completed on 20 May 2021. On the same day the landlord referred to the property being part of a roof renewal programme that ran from June 2021 to March 2022. This Service understands the roof of the property was replaced as part of this programme.
On 28 April 2021 the landlord issued the stage one complaint response to the resident under its formal complaint procedures. The main points were:
1. It apologised for the ongoing issues she had experienced with damp and mould in the property since she moved into it in December 2017 and the way in which they had been handled.
2. It said, each year following her reports of damp and mould, it had inspected and carried out works to remove the mould. Unfortunately, those works did not solve the problem meaning it had re-occurred the following year. It recognised the issue should have been fixed sooner and was sorry for the inconvenience and distress this had caused.
3. It gave details of the work it had undertaken since the resident had reported mould and damp in January 2021. In brief: the decision to install a PIV; removing the existing mould; and installing insulation boarding to the bedrooms and treating and painting other affected areas. The landlord acknowledged that the decision to insulate the bedrooms had caused delays and apologised for that.
4. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had been unable to sleep in the bedroom due to the mould and had not yet returned as she had had to dispose of her bed and mattress along with various other personal belongings.
5. It also recognised that there had been a number of occasions where the resident had received a lower level of service than it aimed to provide. It gave details of these incidents including operatives leaving debris on her mattress; issues with the cleaning contractor; and missed appointments.
  1. It understood the kitchen fan was not fixed and it was still not secured to the wall correctly. It had arranged for an electrician to attend on 20 May 2021.
The landlord offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £1,000 to replace the personal belongings that had been damaged by the damp and mould made up of £400 to replace the bed and mattress, £300 for wardrobes and £300 for miscellaneous items. It added it would pay for the professional cleaning of the property and the removal of the mould-damaged goods. It explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
On 21 May 2021 the landlord cleared the bed and mattress from the property.
In an email to the resident dated 25 May 2021, the landlord explained that the offer of goodwill to the value of £1,000 was in recognition of the items she lost as a result of the mould; it went on to say that she could make an insurance claim to it for these items.In that email the landlord acknowledged that, had it installed a PIV following the survey in 2019, the mould might not have returned to the sameextent that it did.
On 26 May 2021 an occupational therapist carried out a housing option assessment. She found that there were several issues with the property including the lack of level access at the front and rear entrances; push button controls were required for the shower; the kitchen required appropriate lighting to support visual impairment when carrying out food preparation tasks; the staircase required all stairs to be regimented in size and depth and bannisters on both sides were also required; and the bedrooms were not usable at times due to damp.
The occupational therapist told the landlord that “the levels of damp in the property over the past three years had affected the resident’s physical and mental health and this risk to her health was noted by her consultants. I would therefore support the family’s need to find a property of a similar size in the local area”.
The repairs log notes that on 6 July 2021 the resident reported mould issues in the kitchen which had not been resolved by the installation of the PIV in April 2021. She said the mould was in some cupboards which meant she was unable to use them, and the mould had got into sealed foods on occasion.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 15 July 2021 through this Service.
On 26 July 2021 the landlord decided that a further damp inspection (with photos) would be the best way forward in terms of repairs at the property including the damp and mould. A survey was subsequently booked for 4 August 2021.
On 4 August 2021 an inspection of the property took place. The evidence suggests that the surveyor found no mould present and arranged for the installation of a new kitchen window and fan.
On 6 August 2021 the landlord noted in an internal email that it had offered the resident a temporary decant while the works were carried out, but she had refused it.
On 10 August 2021 the landlord told the resident that follow-on works to the kitchen would be carried out on 23 August 2021. This was put back to 4 November 2021 as the glass had to be specially manufactured.
On 17 August 2021 the landlord visited the resident at the property in relation to adaptations as the resident had expressed her dissatisfaction with the work completed so far including that the newly installed shower was not suitable for use; no grab rails had been installed; the new bath taps were not suitable for use and the kitchen light had not been installed correctly. The resident had also expressed concerns about the damp and mould leading up to this visit, namely that the new extractor fan in the kitchen window was a bathroom fan which was on permanently and blew in cold air; and there was still mould at the backs of the kitchen cupboards.
The landlord noted, following this visit, that it would consider if a management move would be appropriate if the property was not suitable for the resident’s needs. It also noted that there was no sign of damp and mould in the property.
The landlord arranged for a further visit on 12 October 2021 to check that the measures to prevent damp and mould had continued to work in colder weather. The resident said that, if the damp and mould had returned, then she would want a move.
On 18 August 2021 the landlord issued its final response to the resident under its formal complaints procedure by email. The main points were:
1. It agreed with the findings from the stage 1 complaint response.
2. It confirmed that the offer of compensation of £1,000 still stood and enclosed a BACS form for the resident to complete and return. It assured the resident that accepting compensation would not prevent her from raising further complaints or claiming for damaged items in the future.
3. It recognised there had been failings in the service the resident had received. Since she had first raised concerns about the damp and mould, it had improved the way it dealt with condensation affected properties and recognised the benefits of installing a PIV.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 4 and 5 November 2021 contractors attended the property and installed the new kitchen window with vent.
On 12 November 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident. It noted, in relation to the damp, that works were still required to the backs of the kitchen cupboards to solve the mould issue in there as it seemed the PIV installed earlier that year had not helped with this. It noted the resident said she was unable to store food properly in her kitchen, with everything needing to be decanted into glass/plastic storage to try and keep it safe from the mould and sometimes that did not work, and mould got in and turned the food mouldy. She added that she was unable to keep much fresh fruit in the kitchen as it “turned mouldy very quickly”.
There was an inspection of the property on 17 November 2021. The surveyor noted that the resident showed her a slipper which was from the downstairs hall cupboard which was mouldy. She noted further that the cupboard was extremely cluttered, meaning that air was unlikely able to circulate, causing mould. The surveyor noted she could not smell mould in the kitchen and there did not appear to be any visible mould in the cupboard itself. A move for the resident was also discussed at that visit with a housing officer who noted that she could not put a timescale on it as the resident would need to wait for the right property.
On 30 November 2021 the landlord told the resident that, following the inspection on 17 November 2021, there was nothing to suggest the repairs had failed. It added that, whilst it appreciated this issue had been ongoing for a long period of time, it felt adequate resolutions had been put in place.
On 8 December 2021 the resident told the landlord that the surveyor’s view that there was no mould in the property during the visit on 17 November 2021 was “simply untrue”. She said the surveyor had refused to look in a cupboard and her occupational therapist, who was present at the time, “confirmed the presence and smell of black mould”. She said the landlord was “colluding” to cover this issue up.
On 12 January 2022 the landlord noted that this was a “complex and serious case” and that there had been “changing and failed resolution plans to get things right”. This note also recognised the vulnerability of the resident.
The repairs log notes on 24 January 2022 that the insulating plasterboard installed in the bedroom had a large crack along it and “there is a lot of pressure on the board meaning it is in danger of collapsing”. The log notes it was repaired as an emergency repair the same day.
On 2 February 2022 the landlord noted that the resident’s application for a direct match move had been approved.
On 3 February 2022 the landlord told the resident that it would ask its contractor to reinspect the property for damp. This Service understands that no further inspection took place. The landlord also said the inspection in November 2021 was by a trained surveyor and, as such, it trusted the information she had given.
On 9 February 2022 the resident told the landlord that it was failing to acknowledge that damp remained in the property in the three original areas that had been treated – the bedroom, kitchen cupboards and understairs cupboard. She added “the mould in my property never went. It remains”.
On 17 February 2022 the landlord noted in an internal email that there had been movement in the plasterboard in the bedroom, but it was “almost impossible to say for sure what has caused it”. It also noted that, having spoken to an operative, that “whilst he said there could still be some mould behind the new boards, he couldn’t confirm this or that it was the issue”.
On the following day the landlord acknowledged that the resident was again sleeping on the sofa.
In a further complaint response dated 30 September 2022 relating to a separate complaint about communication, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £1,500 to take account of a broken TV adding there was “no consensus” as to how it was damaged. It said it would replace the damaged hoover with a “near like-for-like” and this would be delivered to her shortly. In that letter the landlord acknowledged high damp meter readings at low level on the lobby wall near the rear door and in the cupboard. It added that, to investigate this, it would carry out a thorough damp survey (known as an “intrusive” survey) to those areas; it said this would involve the removal of some kitchen units.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said that the mould was having a profound impact on her mental health, and she was having treatment for depression and was prescribed sleeping tablets as she said she could not sleep in her bedroom. She said, during the pandemic, she felt trapped in the house and had to spend time in one bedroom where there was no mould. She said her son had been affected also and had been diagnosed with a chronic skin condition which was being treated with an anti-fungal treatment and he was on steroids also. She explained there was a possibility he was allergic to the mould.
The resident said that she felt “she will die” if she remains in the property due to her heart condition and the stress all this has caused and continues to cause her; she also described a suicide attempt. The resident said this had been going on for six years and she had done everything the landlord had asked of her but it had not resolved matters (such as cleaning with bleach, vinegar, airing the house, keeping the heating on etc).
The resident said the landlord had agreed to move her but was no longer engaging with her on this. She said the properties offered had not been suitable for her as they did not take account of her blindness and her guide dog.

Assessment and findings

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

It is evident that the damp and mould issues within the property have been long-standing and that the resident first reported a problem towards the end of 2018 after she had been living there for about a year.
An inspection in late 2018 noted the bedroom wall was “very damp/wet to touch”. The repairs log did not give details of any works undertaken. In January 2019 damp was identified in the kitchen and treated; the landlord provided no evidence that the bedroom was treated at that time. There was no evidence of works done in relation to damp and mould in 2020. However, in March 2021 the resident suggested the landlord had taken action when she said that that was the third time the landlord had treated the mould in the bedroom. This suggests the landlord had treated the affected areas in 2019 and 2020. It is noted that the gap around the window of the bedroom likely contributed to the damp and mould issues in the bedroom.
The repair log lacked details of the action taken by the landlord; dates were included when work was completed but no detail of the work undertaken was given. An improvement in the landlord’s record-keeping would result in significant benefits for both it and residents. It would enable accurate information to be shared across teams and with residents, which would improve the landlord’s response. It would also help with our investigations by improving our understanding of the situation at the time. More broadly, it would allow the landlord to better understand the resident, the history of the property and previous actions in relation to the repairs completed so that it could consider the most appropriate response.
The landlord undertook the same anti-mould treatment year on year at the property despite it not being effective. The landlord should have taken robust action at an early stage to have tried to identify the cause of the damp and mould. In these circumstances it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have engaged a qualified contractor that specialised in damp and mould to carry out a survey and make recommendations to resolve. There is no evidence that such a survey has taken place to date. That is a significant failing.
While a survey in May 2019 recommended the installation of a PIV; it took a further survey almost two years later recommending the same solution before the landlord took action to install one. That again was a significant failing and meant there was a substantial delay in trying to resolve the damp and mould issues.
The resident reported damp in the hall and kitchen also. In January 2019 the landlord identified that extraction in the kitchen should be upgraded and there was a significant delay in resolving this matter fully – which took until November 2021, nearly three years later.
Following the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord engaged with the damp and mould issue and looked more critically at the problems she had reported. While this approach should have been taken sooner, the landlord acted appropriately by engaging an independent contractor and, from March to May 2021 it undertook meaningful works to the property to try to resolve the damp by installing the PIV and undertaking works in the bedroom as well as taking steps to remove the mould from the affected cupboards. It also recognised the impact on the resident by its offer of a temporary decant.
A specific damp and mould policy or framework might have enabled the landlord to deal robustly and quickly with the issues raised by the resident. Such a policy would likely give clarity and consistency to the landlord when dealing with these issues and enable it to manage a resident’s expectations. Such a policy or framework would ensure a shared understanding and approach across different teams within the organisation. An order has been made, below, for the landlord to consider the introduction of such a policy.
In its complaint handling, the landlord apologised for the way it had handled the reports of damp and mould over the previous four years. It acknowledged the resident had been unable to sleep in her bedroom and that she had had to dispose of various belongings including her bed, mattress and wardrobes. Its final offer of compensation was £1,500 which it said was a goodwill gesture to recognise the items she had had to be destroyed as a result of the mould.
The evidence is not clear on why a goodwill gesture was made by the landlord rather than refer the resident to its insurer who could have made a decision on liability and considered the full value of the damaged belongings. While the landlord told the resident in May 2021 that she could make such a claim for these belongings, it did not explain how she could do so.
It appears that the resident has not replaced the damaged items as she has concerns about doing so until she is in a property that is free from damp and mould. There is conflicting opinions from the landlord and resident about whether the works undertaken in early 2021 have resolved matters. In the circumstances, it would be reasonable for the landlord to engage the services of an independent specialist damp contractor (one that has not been involved in this case previously) to undertake a full damp survey of the property. An order has been made to that effect, below. The landlord should act on any recommendations made in the survey report.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord acknowledged in that the damp and mould in the property has been ongoing since she moved into the property in 2017. It was aware from the survey in February 2021 that the resident was sleeping downstairs because of the damp and mould in the bedroom. It is reasonable to assume that the resident did so over the winters of 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021. The landlord’s putting it right guidance says where there is the loss of a room in the property, for a single impacted room, compensation may equate to 5 to 10% of rent. However, more than one room was affected by the damp and mould – parts of the kitchen, hallway and her son’s bedroom were also affected.
While the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, we will take this into account when considering the resident’s circumstances. We recognise that some of our residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s physical and mental health conditions) could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
Taking into account the resident’s vulnerabilities along with the number of rooms affected by the damp and mould, the Ombudsman considers that a 30% rent rebate is appropriate for 26 weeks of the year for four years. The calculation has used the current rent figure of £114.96 a week (rounded to £115 for ease). An order has been made, below for the landlord to pay compensation to the resident of £3,588. This figure also takes into account the evident distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family by the landlord’s acknowledged mishandling of her reports about damp and mould since they moved into the property. This sum is in addition to the goodwill gesture awarded previously by the landlord for the damage to the resident and her son’s belongings.
The landlord’s putting it right guidance says it will not pay compensation for loss of a room where, among other things, the resident has refused a suitable offer of a temporary home. While the evidence shows the resident did refuse a decant; given her vulnerability and her need for independence (such as counting steps from the house to various places so she could go out on her own); this refusal was reasonable and does not absolve the landlord from its responsibility to provide redress to the resident.
There were significant failings in this case demonstrated by the lack of recognition that the repeated damp treatments were not working from 2019 to 2021; the lack of a full, specialist damp survey and that the landlord only took robust action after a formal complaint. These, combined with an especially vulnerable resident, means that these failings amount to severe maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There was an excessive delay of three months by the landlord in issuing the stage one response. It is evident that the landlord took action after the complaint was received to investigate and then plan for works to try the damp and mould issues. While this action was reasonable, the landlord appeared to delay the stage one response until at least some of this work was completed. However, this resulted in an unreasonable delay. There was a slight delay at stage two also.
In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, landlords should send a complaint response to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed. It can then track and action any outstanding actions with regular updates provided to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate because it did not adhere to the timescales set out in its formal complaints procedure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to take robust action to deal with the damp and mould when it was first reported and in subsequent years. It failed to commission a full damp survey and instead repeated the same anti-mould treatments year on year. While it offered a goodwill payment to the resident, this did not reflect the full impact on a vulnerable resident and her carer.
There was an excessive delay in providing a complaint response at stage one.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
1. Within four weeks of the date of this report:
  1. A senior manager to write a letter (in large font) to the resident with an apology.
  2. Pay the resident the sum of £4,588 (minus any sums previously paid) in recognition of the impact of its failings.
  3. Ensure all staff are aware of the need to adhere to the timescales set out in its formal complaints procedure and provide training, if appropriate, to set out the type of response required when repairs issues are ongoing.
  4. Take steps to improve its record-keeping, particularly its repair records so that it is clear when work is undertaken, detail of what that work was and when it was completed.
  5. Consider implementing a specific damp and mould policy.
  6. Write to the resident and this Service explaining the current situation regarding a direct match or any other options to move including liaising with the local authority and local district councils to see what assistance they might offer.
  7. Engage an independent damp contractor (that has not been involved in this case previously) to carry out a full damp survey of the property.
2. Within four weeks of that survey report:
  1. Carry out any recommendations made in the report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman strongly urges the landlord to read our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould that was published in October 2021.