Amplius Living (202333792)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333792

Longhurst Group Limited

11 September 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 reports of:
1. Damp and mould in the property.
2. Disrepair in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 3-bedroom house.
A contractor’s report dated 10 January 2022 noted that there was a considerable amount of damp in the property. It stated that the kitchen cupboards were mouldy and that the damp affected a number of rooms.
The resident raised a complaint on 21 July 2022. She advised that she had reported repairs over a year ago and had not had any response. She reported that her windows had holes drilled in them, which was allowing spiders and cobwebs to sit between the windowpanes. She reported multiple other repairs as well as damp in the property.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 12 August 2022. The landlord acknowledged all the repairs noted in the resident’s complaint. It stated that it changed contractors and that a member of staff would visit and confirm what repairs were still deemed necessary. It stated it would monitor any repairs to completion and offered a total of £340 compensation.
On 8 November 2022, the resident stated that the only repair that had been completed was to her light switch in the bedroom. On 14 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord as she was unhappy that no one attended a scheduled appointment for that day. The landlord rearranged the appointment and escalated the case to stage 2 of the complaints process.
The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 29 August 2023. It stated that some repairs took place on 22 December 2022. It advised a surveyor had been to the property on 27 June 2023, and identified repairs which were then raised with the contractor. It advised that window and door replacements began on 20 July 2023 and repairs to a manhole were completed on 24 August 2023. It offered a further £550 in compensation.
The landlord asked the resident if the response resolved her complaint. The resident responded on 30 August 2023 and stated that the main issue, which was the damp, remained outstanding. She stated that redecorations to the property were costing her a significant amount of money.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 September 2023 and stated that it would complete a mould wash. It advised that further works to investigate the cause of the damp was needed.
The landlord reissued its stage 2 response on 20 November 2023. In addition to what was previously written it acknowledged that works on damp and mould were still to be completed. It increased the compensation to a total of £1,040 and offered a redecorating pack.
The resident has advised the Ombudsman that the promises made at stage 2 have not been kept. She states that the investigations have not been completed, and damp and mould remains in her home. She wants the landlord to resolve the issues.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to damp and mould in the property

The Ombudsman has seen limited records from the landlord prior to the resident’s initial complaint. The resident noted that she reported damp in many places in the home a year prior to raising the complaint. The Ombudsman has seen a contractor’s report from 10 January 2022, which confirms damp was affecting multiple parts of the property. It also confirmed there was mould in the kitchen cupboard. The landlord’s repairs policy states that damp and mould would be considered a routine repair, which should be attended within 28 days. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord took any action in relation to the damp and mould, within the time frames stated in its repairs policy.
The stage 1 response acknowledged the resident’s concerns around damp. It stated that a new contractor had been appointed and that an assessment would be done to see what repairs were needed. While the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord had appointed a new contractor, and as such might need to carry out a new survey, we note that no specific promises were made to tackle the damp and mould. This is concerning, given that a report had previously identified damp and mould in the property.
On 8 November 2022, the resident raised concerns about the damp survey being outstanding. The landlord should have addressed this concern and advised the resident when this would be actioned. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns regarding damp at this time.
The landlord’s records indicate that it was chasing up a number of repairs with the contractor, however the records do not provide specifics of the works being chased. The Ombudsman notes that none of the records specifically mention damp. This is concerning as damp can lead to damage in the property. In addition, it can be a cause of mould, which had already been identified in the resident’s property. Mould is considered a hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. Additionally, the Ombudsman’s damp and mould spotlight report was published a few months prior to the resident raising a complaint. This report highlights multiple risks with mould in the property and encouraged landlords to take a zero-tolerance approach. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to support that the landlord was treating the resident’s concerns with any urgency.
On issuing the stage 2 response, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s concerns regarding damp. The lack of records regarding the damp and the failure to address this in the stage 2 is concerning. It indicates a lack of awareness to the reports of damp.
On 1 September 2023, the landlord emailed the resident stating that an inspection had taken place on 1 July 2023 and that it had now been confirmed that the works would need to be passed to the complex works team. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence relating to the July inspection. However, it is concerning that if works were identified that needed further investigation that these were not passed to the repairs team until 2 months later. The Ombudsman notes that a damp and mould wash was requested by the landlord. This is a positive action in the interim while the cause of the damp was being investigated, however, it is unclear from the records if this was completed.
The resident emailed the landlord to advise that an appointment on 15 November 2023 had not been attended to by the contractor. It is unclear what this appointment was for, although the resident understood a mould wash would be done on her kitchen cupboards. It is difficult to establish from the records, what, if any progress had been made in relation to the damp and mould concerns at this time. However, the stage 2 response noted the investigation works identified in the surveyors report to be outstanding. The landlord stated that the work would be completed on 22 November 2023. This is an excessive amount of time from when the need for investigation was first identified.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 November 2023 to say that a vent had been fixed that day, but that no mould wash had been completed. The landlord noted that more time was needed and that a further appointment was scheduled for 5 December 2023. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of that appointment being completed, and on 5 January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to advise the works were still outstanding. She also stated she had not received her redecorating pack.
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to support that the landlord completed the investigation into the cause of the damp and mould as identified in its stage 2 response. The resident has provided the Ombudsman with pictures which show mould in the property and has advised she has not had her redecorating packs. The pictures show mould on her kitchen utensils and in her kitchen cupboard.
It is concerning that despite being aware of a damp and mould problem for a significant amount of time, the landlord has not provided the resident with a long-term solution. The resident has described a significant impact on her, as the kitchen’s functionality is affected due to the mould affecting cooking utensils and storage cupboards. It is unclear from the records to what extent the mould is affecting other areas in the property, although the Ombudsman is aware that damp and mould is present in the bathroom. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord has failed to provide meaningful updates to the resident, throughout the time she has been reporting her concerns. Due to the lack of evidenced action and the matter remaining unresolved, coupled with the poor communication, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of mould in the property.
The landlord offered compensation in its complaint response, however it is unclear how much was for general repairs and how much was for the damp and mould concerns. The second stage 2 response was issued to include delays to damp and mould works. The compensation was increased to £150. The Ombudsman has considered this as the amount awarded in relation to damp and mould. It considers this to be insufficient compensation, given the length of time the matter was outstanding and the impact on the resident.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s compensation policy when calculating an appropriate amount of financial redress for the resident. The landlord’s policy states that for a 3-bedroom property the compensation for the loss of use of a kitchen is 35%. The Ombudsman recognises that the full kitchen was not affected, however it considers that the kitchen cupboard and mould on cooking equipment, would have significantly impacted on the resident’s use and enjoyment of this room. Further, the Ombudsman has noted that damp was noted in multiple rooms on 10 January 2022, and this investigation has been unable to identify any significant attempt from the landlord to rectify this. We are unable to confirm what proportion of the property has been affected, however, on balance we have considered compensation based on 20% of rent from 10 January 2022 until the date of this report proportionate in calculating compensation.
The landlord has advised us that the rent from 1 April 2022 – 31 March 2023 was £116.20. This increased to £128.41 for the year 2023 – 2024 and is currently at £135.41 for this financial year. The amounts for compensation has been calculated as follows:
1. £1,460 from 10 January 2022 until 31 March 2023.
2. £1,330 from 1 April 2023 until 31 March 2024
3. £675 from 1 April 2024 to the date of this report.
The total compensation is £3,465.
The Ombudsman will also make an order for the landlord to conduct a survey, which identifies all areas of concern, and potential causes. Following this, the landlord should produce a schedule of works, identifying all repairs and investigation works that need to take place and time frames for completion. The landlord should also provide evidence of a commitment of when it will update the resident in relation to the repairs.

The landlord’s response to disrepair in the property

The resident reported the following repairs as outstanding in her initial complaint:
1. Windows having drilled holes in, resulting in spiders living between the glass panes.
2. A broken bath panel.
3. A front door which needed replacing due to difficulties locking it.
4. Gutters needing cleaned.
5. A loose drain in the garden, which she identified as potentially dangerous.
The repairs were likely to be routine repairs, with the exception of the loose drain which the landlord should have assessed to ensure there was no risk. As per the landlord’s repairs policy, routine repairs should be attended within 28 working days. Although orders were raised for the bath panel, drains, front door and light switch there is no evidence any of these repairs were completed within 28 working days. The resident emailed on 8 November 2022, to state that only her light switch had been repaired.
The resident stated on 23 November 2022 that an appointment for repairs had been cancelled. There was a further cancellation from the contractor on 14 December 2022 which the landlord noted was due to an administration error. The resident reiterated to the landlord her concerns around the safety of the drain. She also expressed that the delays to the repairs were causing her distress. The landlord re-arranged the appointment for the 23 December 2022.
The landlord contacted the resident on 6 January 2023 to ask how the appointment before Christmas went. While it is positive that the landlord reached out to the resident, the Ombudsman has not seen records from the appointment. The landlord’s communication also indicates that the landlord was unaware of what repairs had been completed during the appointment. The landlord should have clear systems in place which allow it to see what work has been completed on a property and what remains outstanding. Failure to have this means the landlord is unable to monitor repairs to completion.
On 25 January 2023, the landlord stated it needed a further appointment for a surveyor to inspect the doors and windows. The landlord contacted the resident on 3 February 2023 to advise that someone would attend on 6 February 2023 and the resident should call in if this was not suitable. The appointment did not go ahead, and the landlord advised this was due to the resident not confirming availability for the appointment. The resident was frustrated with this as the message she had received was only to contact the landlord if she could not make the appointment. The landlord acknowledged its communication had been poor. The Ombudsman considers the miscommunication to be human error and considers it positive that the landlord acknowledged responsibility for this appointment not going ahead.
The resident emailed the landlord on the 22 March 2023 as she stated she had not had a further update regarding the surveyors visit. It is concerning that the resident had to chase this appointment, especially given the landlord had previously acknowledged poor communication. There is no evidence to support that the landlord responded to the resident at this time, or that it scheduled a new surveyor’s appointment. The landlord has not demonstrated that it was proactively looking to complete the repairs.
A survey request was raised on 19 June 2023. The Ombudsman would consider the time the landlord took to raise a new surveyor’s appointment to be excessive. This is particularly concerning as the complaint was active at this time.
The landlord emailed the resident on 20 June 2023 to advise repairs for the windows and doors would begin on 10 July 2023. Work notes on 5 July 2023 confirmed that the gutter clearance had been completed. The Ombudsman notes that the records for repairs are difficult to follow and we are unable to comment regarding completion of each repair identified in the initial complaint. However, the stage 2 response indicated that all repairs had been completed. When the resident was asked if anything was outstanding, she identified only the damp as an ongoing concern. While it is positive that the landlord completed the repairs, the Ombudsman considers the delays to be excessive.
The landlord failed to meet its own timeframes to complete repairs. Its communication with the resident was poor throughout. The resident identified several missed appointments from the contractor. The resident made the landlord aware that the damaged drain could be dangerous and there is no evidence that the landlord conducted a risk assessment.
The landlord’s compensation offer has not been broken down to specific repairs. It is therefore difficult to understand how much redress was offered for the general repairs, and how much was for the damp. However, the Ombudsman notes that there were 2 stage 2 responses. In the first response the amount offered for repairs delays was £400 in addition to the £340 offered at stage 1. As this response did not mention damp, it is reasonable to assume this compensation offer was for general repairs only.
The Ombudsman considers that the actions of the landlord were significantly delayed and recognises that this would have been distressing to the resident. However, based on the stage 2 response, we consider that the landlord has completed all repairs raised in the initial complaint. We also consider that £740 is a reasonable offer for the delays and poor communication. As such there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to reports of disrepair in the property.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days. The landlord took 16 working days. This is slightly out with the complaints policy response time, but the delay is not excessive.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days. The landlord took 177 working days to issue its first stage 2 response which is excessive. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord communicated that it would extend the response times, however these communications were infrequent, and were not proportionate to the significant delay.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns around damp in her property, which had been a significant concern for her throughout the complaints time. The landlord checked with the resident whether the stage 2 resolved her outstanding issues, which the Ombudsman considers to be a positive action from the landlord. On recognising that it had not responded to part of the complaint, the landlord also revisited the matter and reissued its stage 2 to ensure a full response was provided. However, the Ombudsman notes the new stage 2 was not issued until 59 working days later. This delay is excessive.
The landlord offered £150 compensation for delay in responding to the complaint during its first stage 2 response. The landlord did not increase this compensation offer despite the stage 2 response being incomplete, and despite a further delay until the full stage 2 response was issued. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord should have provided further redress for these errors and as such there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The Ombudsman considers £100 in addition to the £150 offered by the landlord to be appropriate redress in this case.

Record keeping

Throughout the report the Ombudsman has identified difficulties in making our assessment due to the record keeping. We have been unable to conclude when repairs were completed.
We have also noted that the resident was not getting regular updates regarding each repair. Where record keeping is not kept in sufficient detail, problems can arise when updating residents. This is especially challenging when there are multiple repairs outstanding.
Due to the poor record keeping and the impact this had on keeping the resident updated on her repairs, and on allowing the Ombudsman to complete our investigation, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Response to reports of damp and mould.
2. Record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 53b there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to reports of disrepair in the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to issue an apology to the resident for the delays in repairs, specifically in relation to the damp and mould investigations. In its apology, the landlord should consider the impact this has had on the resident.
The landlord is to pay a total of £3,715 in compensation. This is made up as:
1. £3,465 for the loss of enjoyment and use of the kitchen and other areas in the property.
2. £250 for complaint handling failures.
The Ombudsman should provide compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this report.
The landlord is to conduct a survey into the damp and mould which identifies all areas of concern, and potential causes. Following this, the landlord should produce a schedule of works, identifying all repairs and investigation works that need to take place and time frames for completion. The landlord should also provide evidence of a commitment of when it will update the resident in relation to the repairs.
The landlord is to consider its record keeping in this case. It should consider how repairs carried out by contractors are recorded on its own internal system to ensure staff who are handling repairs cases can clearly see the status of a repairs case. It should consider whether any policy changes or staff training is needed to achieve this. The landlord should provide a written report of its findings to the Ombudsman.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with orders 53 and 54 within 6 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the £740 compensation for delays to general repairs in the property if it has not already been paid.
Although the Ombudsman understands that the repairs raised in the resident’s initial complaint have been completed, we recognise that significant time has lapsed since this time. We also note that new repairs have become apparent and that the landlord’s communication with the resident has not been sufficient in providing assurance repairs will be completed. As such it is recommended that the landlord offer a meeting with the resident to discuss any outstanding issues and agree a timescale for these to be rectified.