Arawak Walton Housing Association Limited (201908574)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201908574

Arawak Walton Housing Association Limited

29 October 2021

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp, mould and repairs issues and her request to be rehoused.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a one bedroom, ground floor flat. The tenancy agreement commenced in 2013 and advises that the landlord is responsible for the structure such as walls and floors, and the resident is responsible for fixtures and fittings and for improvements such as laminate flooring.
3. The landlord’s repairs webpage outlines its repairs timeframes and that it responds to emergency repairs within 24 hours; urgent repairs within seven days; and other routine repairs within 21 days. The webpage highlights condensation, where moisture builds up and makes walls wet and leads to mould growth, is often confused with damp, which occurs when water gets in from outside. The webpage advises that condensation can be stopped through ventilation, not drying clothes indoors, not over filling wardrobes and keeping properties warm.
4. The landlord’s allocations procedure outlines its aim to give letting priority to those in greatest housing need, to make best use of available stock and to ensure applicants meet the criteria for the accommodation allocated. Waiting list applicants can specify preferred areas and properties will only be offered if these are met. Applicants are communicated with at least annually to confirm they wish to remain on the waiting list, and housing need priority on the list is based on a points system. Points are added for issues such as overcrowding; under occupation; medical need; and where properties are considered a concern by the landlord or the local authority/have issues such as severe damp or poor insulation. The procedure advises that if an applicant does not have a prospect of being rehoused within the next five years, there is discretion to accept or not to accept them onto the waiting list.
5. At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a two stage complaints procedure after an initial informal stage. At stage one it aimed to respond within 20 working days, while at stage two its response timeframe was unstated. It normally looked at complaints about service which occurred within the past six months.

Summary of events

Scope of the investigation

6. This investigation notes the resident complains about her landlord’s handling of matters in relation to rehousing and damp over six years. This investigation also notes that while more historic information was provided than is included in this report, this was all carefully reviewed to consider how this might impact on the landlord’s handling of the case. This Service understands the resident feels the landlord has failed to properly address issues which has impacted living in the property, her health and possessions and we recognise the concerns she reports have affected and caused distress to her.
7. In relation to the issues raised, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether a tenant should be rehoused or to assess whether a property has specific defects. This is because this Service does not make findings on technical aspects in relation to a property or repairs. It is also not the Ombudsman’s role to make a determination on matters such as the impact on health and liability for possessions damage, as this is not in our expertise and jurisdiction. The Ombudsman’s role when considering complaints is to assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, and reasonably applied its policy and procedure, complied with any relevant legislation and followed good practice when reaching decisions.
8. When assessing a complaint, this Service considers the timeframe of a complaint to be of note, because the Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is set out by its Scheme. Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.”  The landlord’s complaints policy similarly sets out that it does not consider incidents that occurred more than six months before the complaint was made.
9. The resident complains about a timeframe of over six years, and supplies correspondence/photographs from 2015 and 2016 when she raised and discussed issues with the landlord. Whilst this information provides important background and context to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s position on this matter, there is no evidence that she made a formal complaint and exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure prior to October 2019, when the landlord raised a complaint after contact from this Service. In accordance with the Scheme as well as the landlord’s complaints policy, the Ombudsman does not usually consider complaints that go back over six years, because the longer time goes on, the more the ability to conduct an effective investigation may be impacted.
10. This means that this investigation primarily focuses on events from September 2019, when the formal complaint was made, up until 26 February 2020, when the formal complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Events that pre and post-date the complaints procedure are mainly referenced for contextual purposes only.

Damp, mould and repairs issues

11. The information provided advises that after the resident reported problems with humidity and mould in the property in November 2015, the landlord inspected and identified issues with condensation, which was subsequently confirmed by an independent damp specialist. In July 2016, the resident reported her floor was affected by moisture and queried the previous independent specialist’s survey. The same month, the landlord agreed to get a second opinion from a different independent damp specialist, whose report concluded issues were condensation, said that moisture levels were below thresholds to recommend a remedial damp proof course, and quoted for a new ventilation system to help reduce condensation. The landlord supplied the resident with the second independent specialist’s report and findings, minus the quote; provided information on how to deal with condensation; and relayed the explanation from the specialist on how condensation could cause the resident’s bedroom floor to become wet.

Rehousing application

12. The information provided advises that the resident applied for a housing transfer in September 2016, following which the landlord interviewed her in November 2016 where it noted she was seeking a one bedroom flat in certain areas. In its assessment of whether she was eligible for any waiting list points to be added, the landlord noted a transfer was sought because of mould and draught. It noted following enquiries that these issues were found to be condensation, so the application was made live on the transfer waiting list with no points added. The landlord subsequently sent annual review letters out, on receipt of which the resident confirmed she wished to remain on the waiting list.

Complaint

13. On 30 September 2019, the resident complained to the Ombudsman about her landlord.
    1. She reported she had experienced damp, cold and mould issues in her bedroom and cold draught issues in her hallway, for six years. She reported these had affected her health and wellbeing, and had led her to sleep in her living room, remove affected furniture, carpets and possessions, and use plastic storage. She also reported a sewage smell affected the bathroom, and dirty and smelly water came up through the kitchen sink during washing machine use, due to the ‘inadequate system’ in place.
    2. She advised her landlord had not sufficiently investigated the damp issues. She noted following inspections it informed her no action would be taken because two reports said there was nothing it needed to do. She stated the landlord’s inspections and reports were inaccurate and misleading, and the presence and effectiveness of a dampproof membrane was not investigated as expected. She reported that her property was adapted for a wheelchair user (which she was not) and she raised concern that the property’s environment was unfit for housebound, vulnerable people.
    3. She raised dissatisfaction that recently she had been informed rehousing could take two years or more, as advised when registering for rehousing over two years earlier. She raised dissatisfaction about lack of transparency over her position on the waiting list, and about other people being prioritised if they applied and were given higher priority.
    4. She sought to be moved to a healthy home; for works to be done to make the property free from the issues raised; and to be compensated for hardship and loss that had resulted from the landlord’s acts and omissions.
14. Following correspondence from the Ombudsman, the landlord raised a formal complaint, and on 24 October 2019 it visited the resident’s property. From the landlord’s contemporaneous records:
    1. It noted no damp readings were found and minimal amounts of mould were due to condensation, and easily wiped away with an appropriate solution. It noted the bedroom had an adequately sized radiator, behind which was a vent to the outside which could contribute to the cold in the room. It noted only the lounge was carpeted, and a lack of insulating floor covering would exacerbate the cold feel of the bedroom along with the vent behind the radiator. It noted that uneven plaster highlighted at the visit was aging plaster, which was offered to be removed but refused by the resident as this would not address the alleged damp the landlord found no evidence of. It noted that daylight showed through the front door and water from the washing machine bubbled up into the kitchen sink.
    2. It noted that solutions were limited as the property was not damp. It recommended to draught proof the front door; fit an anti-draught vent behind the bedroom radiator; and alter the kitchen sink waste trap to prevent water from the washing machine bubbling up into the sink.
    3. It noted that the resident was initially informed at the visit that her rehousing application could not be found. It noted it later established she had a live application since 2016, and updated her that she was on the waiting list and would be placed on a mutual exchange list.
15. The same day, the landlord raised repairs to draught proof the front door and letterbox; fit an anti-draught vent; and carry out necessary works to the kitchen sink. The landlord and resident’s records agree contractors attended for these around 4 and 5 November 2019.
16. On 4 November 2019, the landlord issued its stage one response to the resident’s complaint.
    1. It advised it had inspected and there was no evidence of damp in the property. It advised it was identified any mould present was due to condensation caused by lifestyle issues such as insufficient air circulation and use of the heat controls. It advised the heating system was adequate, and that most rooms lacking an insulating cover such as carpet would contribute to rooms feeling cold.
    2. It advised that it had checked the resident’s rehousing application and this had been handled correctly. It explained lack of progress was due to very few properties becoming available each year, of which even fewer met the resident’s needs. It explained that, as a social landlord, it prioritised people with housing need, and noted she had been advised how to maximise chances of being rehoused.
17. On 14 December 2019, the resident asked the landlord to progress the complaint to the next stage, after correspondence between 20 and 22 November 2019 over whether its final stage was mandatory. She queried having to complete the complaint procedure, when informed in 2016 and 2017 that nothing was going to be done about the issues after investigations of the complaint. She queried how the stage one was going to be reviewed when it had not got facts right and issues existed before moving into the property.
18. On 23 December 2019, the landlord confirmed the matter would be reviewed and a response provided in due course; and on 3 January 2020, it asked if it could arrange a visit to the resident’s home to understand how to satisfactorily resolve matters. It apologised for the delay, due to taking steps to liaise with relevant departments to understand the complaint, which went back some time.
19. On 5 February 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident and noted attempts to contact her to arrange a visit. It asked her to make contact otherwise it would review the complaint based on information on file and staff feedback. In regards to the resident’s transfer, it added that she was living in an adapted property not appropriate for her needs, and in the circumstances it had been authorised to offer her the next available general let one bed flat. It noted assistance had also been offered with applying to a housing moves scheme. Following this, the landlord and resident arranged a visit for 17 February 2020.
20. On 17 February 2020, prior to the landlord’s visit, the resident emailed to input on its stage one response and its previous visit on 24 October 2019.
    1. She disputed the methodology/findings about no evidence of damp, which she stated was present by stopcocks, and she queried the stated causes of condensation and mould. She noted before the anti-draught vent was fitted behind the bedroom radiator, the original vent was a hole in the wall finished with an airbrick. She advised this meant there had been constant cold air circulation/draught coming in which had made her unwell and unable to sleep in the bedroom. She stated there should be appropriate insulation in the floors and walls, regardless of carpets. She advised she had removed carpet in the bedroom and hall twice after they developed musty smells and had been ‘wasting energy’ on heating, dehumidifiers and ventilation.
    2. She confirmed that following the fitting of the anti-draught vent, the bedroom was better than it was, but noted that despite this and a bigger radiator being previously fitted, it was more cold and draughty than the living room and still had an unpleasant, cold and damp climate.
    3. She advised the front entrance door was adjusted and the draught coming through it was reduced, but there were still gaps in the door so it was not fully draught proof. She advised operatives had attended about water from the washing machine bubbling up into the kitchen sink, and were going to ask the landlord’s permission to alter drainage, but she had not heard back. She noted that previously contractors had been unable to address sewage smells affecting the bathroom because this would have involved drilling concrete, which permission was not given for.
    4. She raised dissatisfaction that the rehousing/transfer system was not transparent, so it was not possible for her to know if her application had been handled fairly as stated, and she raised dissatisfaction she had been informed at one point that she was not in the rehousing/transfer system. She confirmed she had been informed about an housing moves application and confirmed that if she needed assistance she would request this.
21. On 19 February 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident and summarised its visit on 17 February 2020:
    1. It noted it was agreed the bedroom was warmer and mould had receded after a radiator replacement and a new air brick. It also noted that cold air in the hallway had reduced after the front door had been ‘replaced’ with a better fitting door, draught excluders and a new letterbox.
    2. It noted it offered to remove any trace of mould from the bedroom wall, and discussed options to reduce the difference in temperature between the lounge and the rest of the property. It noted it offered to carpet the hall and bedroom and to arrange for contractors to move belongings to facilitate this, but that the resident was reluctant to do this as her preference was to move.
    3. It noted it had confirmed she had been placed at the top of the waiting list, but it had no timescale when an alternative property would become available. It advised that her best option was to apply to housing moves and mutual exchange schemes, which it offered assistance with.
    4. It noted that issues with a leaking stop tap and a smell coming from a bathroom drain were raised at the visit, and it confirmed contractors had been asked to contact the resident to investigate and resolve these.
    5. It invited the resident to confirm if she would like arrangements to be made for the carpet and to comment if she disagreed with its summary, in advance of a final response.
22. On 24 February 2020, the landlord emailed the resident about attempts by its contractor to contact her to arrange an appointment for the stop tap and bathroom drain. Following this, the resident queried a ‘sudden insistence’ to gain access when she had wanted the issues resolved ‘several years ago,’ and noted she would contact the contractor when convenient for her.
23. On 26 February 2020, the landlord issued its final response.
    1. It noted the resident advised she would contact the contractor, and explained calls were not intended to cause distress, but to assure her that it took her concerns seriously.
    2. It restated the contents of its letter dated 19 February 2020. In regards to the front door, it omitted reference to it being replaced but noted it now had draught excluders and a new letterbox which had reduced cold air in the hallway.
    3. It apologised if the resident felt its efforts to resolve issues had been insufficient previously, and advised it hoped its final proposals were acceptable.
24. The information provided advises that on 17 March 2020, contractors attended to carry out repairs which included to investigate and rectify the smell from the bathroom drain; repair the stop tap leak; make good water damage under the stop tap; carry out a bedroom wall fungicidal wash; and to rectify the issue with the washing machine.
25. The information provided also advises that the resident has continued to confirm she wished to remain on the waiting list on receipt of the landlord’s annual review letters, and the landlord has offered the resident to register interest in two alternative properties, in September 2020 and July 2021, which were not accepted.
26. The resident contacted this Service in February 2021. She queried condensation being concluded as her floor, not walls, were wet/damp. She expressed dissatisfaction with inaccurate reports after inspections of the issues, and with a lasting solution not being offered. She expressed dissatisfaction with initially being blamed for the flat’s problems, and explained she had been sleeping in the living room after she experienced chest problems sleeping in the bedroom. She reported that she had not heard back from contractors after their investigations into the bathroom drain smell and water bubbling up into the kitchen sink, which she had understood was going to be discussed with the landlord. She expressed wider concerns about heat retention at the property, the temperature being imbalanced and the ventilation ‘refrigerating’ the flat.

Assessment and findings

Damp, mould and repairs issues

27. In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property. As a result, it is necessary for it to investigate reports of issues which affect living in the property, and to take appropriate steps to resolve any issues it identifies. In addition, the landlord is responsible for ensuring rehousing applications are dealt with consistently and fairly and in accordance with its relevant policies.
28. Following the resident’s complaint referred by this Service, the landlord visited her and assessed her reports including damp and cold, which it considered to relate to condensation and lack of flooring. It outlined actions to move matters forward, which included repairs to fit an anti-draught vent; draughtproof the front door; and investigate water bubbling up into the kitchen sink. It also reviewed if the resident’s housing application had been handled correctly, provided explanation about reasons for the length of time on the waiting list, and offered some support to maximise rehousing chances.
29. When the resident contacted the landlord to relay dissatisfaction with the stage one response, it carried out a further visit; assessed the repairs it had raised and completed; and outlined further actions to move matters forward. This included offering to lay carpet, and placing her at the top of the waiting list for the next available appropriate properties, in light of her property’s suitability for wheelchair users. Later, it raised repairs to investigate and rectify the smell from the bathroom drain; repair the stop tap leak; make good water damage under the stop tap; carry out a bedroom wall fungicidal wash; and to rectify the issue with the washing machine. It also invited her to register interest in two alternative properties it considered suitable.
30. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, in the timeframe of the complaint, the landlord’s responses to the issues were overall reasonable and in accordance with its policies and procedures.
31. It is not disputed that, to assess the resident’s historic reports, the landlord conducted multiple inspections and arranged for at least two independent specialists to inspect, which found no structural defects such as damp. This demonstrates that the landlord appeared to take the resident’s historic reports seriously, and took positive action to investigate these in an appropriate way through first–hand inspection and seeking views of independent experts.
32. This investigation notes the resident’s disagreement with the findings and accuracy of some statements; her views that issues existed before moving in; and her views that a damp–proof course and insulation are lacking. The nature of damp and draught proofing, insulation and ventilation at properties may vary depending on when a property was built and building regulations at the time, and this investigation notes the landlord’s staff and multiple independent specialists have had the opportunity to assess the property for issues first–hand and identified no further action in relation to these.
33. This investigation notes that the resident was not provided with a quote for a ventilation system which accompanied an historic report, and it may have been customer focused to share this along with an explanation about any decision not to commission this. However, in its decision-making, the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of both independent experts and its staff, and there is no specific evidence that issues such as the minor and insignificant mould at the property necessitated installation of a new ventilation system, before exploration of alternatives such as condensation reduction guidance and the later repairs.
34. The landlord does however have obligations to tenants, including under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 towards a tenant’s enjoyment of a dwelling house, so it was appropriate it considered and took action about reported issues related to cold, and assessed the impact of its actions.
35. The landlord identified the property would benefit from a vent behind a radiator being replaced with an anti-draught vent, and replaced this within three weeks of the complaint; which it confirmed led to the resident’s bedroom becoming warmer and to mould receding.
36. It also identified the property would benefit from the front door being draught–proofed, and carried out work in relation to this within three weeks of the complaint; which it confirmed reduced cold in the hallway.
37. The landlord considered what the resident has said was evidence of damp by a stop tap, and identified repairs to repair a stop tap leak and make good water damage. It also took steps to arrange investigation of a smell from the bathroom drain, and water bubbling up into the kitchen sink due to the washing machine. These appear to have been attended within a reasonable timeframe at the resident’s convenience.
38. In addition the landlord identified the property would benefit from flooring insulation and, after the resident stated there should be appropriate insulation in the floors and walls, offered to carpet the hallway and bedroom and to provide practical support with this.
39. As noted above, the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its staff, and this offer appears reasonable to help progress matters. This investigation notes that the complaint appears to have been brought after carpet was removed and within the timeframe of the formal complaint the landlord does not appear to have had the opportunity to investigate issues such as wet/musty carpets and cold, with carpet present.
40. Carpet being laid, along with other repairs, would allow opportunity for the landlord to monitor/assess actions it believes would improve condensation and cold. It is not uncommon for some issues to require various attempts to address and resolve an issue before an effective solution is found, and it is understandable the landlord’s actions may be limited without first being able to assess the impact of the carpet it believes would reduce issues. There is no evidence the landlord is responsible to fit carpet, therefore its offer to carpet the property shows it has sought to be customer and resolution focused, and sought to help by directly addressing what it believed contributes to cold. This and other work the landlord has done such as the additional draughtproofing would constitute ‘improvements’ rather than repairs, which shows it has taken steps beyond its repair obligations.
41. The above demonstrates the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the repairs issues the resident raised, took reasonable steps to arrange repair and investigation of issues raised, and sought to address and resolve these in a customer and resolution focused way beyond its repair obligations, which the additional draughtproofing and its carpet offer demonstrate.
42. This investigation does note that after the exhaustion of the complaints procedure, outcomes to any investigation of the drain smell and kitchen sink issue are unclear, and the resident should have been provided clarity about these. A recommendation is being made in respect to these issues.

Rehousing application

43. When the resident complained about rehousing, including length of time on the waiting list, the landlord confirmed her application had been handled correctly and provided explanation. After a complaint is made relating to an application, a landlord should review if this had been handled correctly, therefore it was appropriate for it to review and confirm its position about this to the resident.
44. This Service notes the resident’s dissatisfaction that she was informed at one point that she was not on the system, however this appears to have been swiftly clarified. Further, the landlord’s conclusion that the application was handled correctly appears reasonable. The landlord’s allocations procedure details criteria that increase priority, which do not appear applicable in the resident’s case. The procedure confirms applicants are communicated with annually to confirm they wish to remain on the waiting list, which the information provided advises the resident was. The procedure also advises there is discretion to accept applicants who do not have a prospect of being rehoused within the next five years, which along with the landlord’s explanation that few properties become available each year, confirms length of time on the waiting list may be lengthy and unpredictable.
45. The landlord’s subsequent noting of the resident’s wheelchair accessible property and commitment to offer her the next available one bed properties appears reasonable, as this met the resident’s desired outcome in what appears the earliest possible timeframe; and reflects the landlord’s aim to make best use of its stock and to ensure properties, such as the resident’s wheelchair accessible one, are allocated to applicants whose needs are most met by them.
46. The above demonstrates the landlord considered the resident’s complaint and housing circumstances, and sought to address and resolve these in a customer and resolution focused way, which its later property offers demonstrate a commitment toward.

Determination (decision)

47. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about damp, mould and repairs issues and her request to be rehoused.

Reasons

48. The landlord took steps to investigate the resident’s reports, arrange repairs and assess the impact of these after they were done. The landlord’s conclusion that there was no damp at the property was based on first hand inspection, an assessment supported by the opinions of multiple independent specialists in previous years. The landlord’s offer to carpet the property to improve the cold reported was reasonable and customer focused.
49. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns about rehousing was appropriate. Its handling of the resident’s application appears in accordance with policies, and after noting the property’s wheelchair accessibility, it appears reasonable and resolution focused to prioritise alternative property offers and to offer assistance with other rehousing options to try to resolve her concerns.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

50. The landlord to re-offer to carpet the hall and bedroom, and to review cold and condensation at the property if and after the resident agrees for it to do this.
51. The landlord to provide the resident with an update and/or position in respect to the investigations into water from the washing machine affecting the kitchen sink, and the bathroom drain smell.
52. The landlord should provide information to this Service about steps it has taken in relation to the above, within four weeks of this decision.