Aster Group Limited (202221546)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221546

Aster Group Limited

12 October 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of water leaking from a bay window.
2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
This service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background.

The tenant is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The tenancy began on 30 November 2020.
The tenancy agreement states the landlord will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property including:
1. Drains gutters and external pipes.
2. The roof
3. Outside wall, doors, windowsills, and window frames.
4. Internal walls floors and ceilings.
It will also keep in good repair and proper working order any installations provided by it for space heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of water.

Summary of events.

On 11 December 2020 the resident reported that when it rains the bay window in the living room lets water in and floods the windowsill. The landlord attended on 29 December 2020 to inspect but found no issue with the window, concluded that the flat roof must have a leak and raised another inspection.
On 7 January 2021 the resident called for an update. The landlord then attended to inspect the roof on 11 January 2021. It concluded that there was slight gaps in the felt and the lead flashing and that this should have been changed at the same time the new “torch on the roof felt” was fitted. It needed to go back to the contractors that fitted the roof originally.
On 15 January 2021 the resident reported that he had black mould in the front room, bathroom and around the front door. He had tried to clean it, but it just kept coming back. He said that the black mould had been present since he had moved in.
On 18 January 2021 the landlord called the resident about the mould but there was unable to get through. It sent an email asking for pictures of the mould. It sent its condensation and mould pack. It also listed products that the resident could use to remove the mould.
On 20 January 2021 the resident called the landlord. He said the rain was coming in again and had soaked all the electrics near the window. He was having to move everything away from the windows again. Because he is in a wheelchair, he was unable to put in temporary fixes and he was worried about the safety of the children.
The repair notes show that on 25 January 2021 the landlord was waiting for an update from its contractor in respect of the assessment of the roof.
The resident called the landlord on 27 January 2021 and asked if the appointment made for 4 February 2021 could be brought forward as the leak was “getting worse”.
On 2 February 2021 the landlord attended (this service has not seen any information indicating the works that were completed).
On 3 February 2021 the resident called the landlord to say that it had rained the previous night and the window was still letting in water. He asked for a call back.
On 4 February 2021 the resident called the landlord for an update as he had not received a call back. He said that when there was heavy rainfall, he had to put down several bowls to catch the water to stop it from penetrating the electrics. He said that as a result of the leak he now had damp and mould issues which he had also reported. He was concerned as his partner has asthma and he has an 8-week year old baby. The landlord advised that a job had been raised for its contractor to attend. The resident asked the landlord to call him back. This service has not seen any information confirming whether the resident received a call back.
On 8 February 2021 the landlord’s contractor attended. It is unknown what works were completed.
On 17 February 2021 the resident called the landlord. He said he had not been updated on the “follow-on works” needed and he had not been contacted by the landlord’s contractors. Where he had been advised that it was fixed, he had re-decorated and now the issue was getting worse, and the decoration was damaged. The records show that the landlord spoke to the resident on 19 February 2021, but it is unknown what was said.
On 17 March 2021 the landlord called the resident to book an appointment to inspect the mould. The resident’s partner advised that the resident was due to go into hospital for heart surgery so may need to change the appointment depending on when he was notified.
On 18 March 2021 the resident called to chase up the repair to the window. He had not heard anything in respect of the repair.
On 19 March 2021 the landlord called the resident and told him Its contractor would attend on 20 March 2021.
The landlord’s repair records state on 25 March 2021 that the landlord’s contractor was still trying to remedy the problem.
On 6 April 2021 the landlord attended to inspect the condensation and mould. It identified works that were required to the window to enable it to dry out. It raised a job for the corner guttering to be checked and electrician to attend to repair the air tech unit as it did not work and was causing humidity to build up within the property.
The inspection report said that the resident had a house cat and did not therefore open windows. There were also 3 young children in the home. It recommended window restrictors to enable the windows to be opened. It concluded that the leak from the bay window was causing most of the issues in the property and that this repair had been outstanding since November 2020.
On 13 April 2021 the landlord attended and fixed the down pipe linked to the corner guttering.
On 15 April 2021 the landlord inspected the roof. On 23 April the landlord attended and renewed the bay window felt roofing. It also cleared the guttering.
The landlord attended on 27 April 2021 to complete the repair to the air tech unit but was unable to gain access, so it left a card. The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 30 April 2021 offering another appointment for 27 May 2021.
The landlord attended on 27 May 2021 and determined that the problem area was the base of the wall internally and externally there was an issue with the down pipe. It said the roof had not been repaired and the resident reported that it was continuing to leak from the head of the bay window. The records do not show whether the air tech unit was repaired during this visit.
On 11 June 2021 the resident called in to chase up works. On the same day the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. He said:
1. He had reported the leak from the bay window since November 2020.
2. A repair operative had attended and informed him it was not a window issue but a roof issue.
3. He then had to raise the repair again. A repair operative attended but as soon as it rained again there was another big leak.
4. He had to log the repair another 3 times before a contractor came out. He was told that his landlord was going to strip out the cavity, relay roof on the slope but the landlord’s contractors failed to attend.
5. He then rebooked the window issue and the same repair operative attended and said he could not do anything.
6. He felt like he was “going around in circles and wanted to know when it would be repaired”.
7. He was in a wheelchair and had a heart condition. He had 3 children one who was only 6 months old. His partner was also asthmatic, so he had concerns about the mould.
8. He had redecorated the house when moving in which was ruined by the mould and he redecorated after the first fix which had been ruined again.
9. Plaster was crumbling off the walls. He would have to redecorate for the third time and 2 sofas had been ruined by mould.
10. He wanted a date for the work to be completed and compensation for the inconvenience and distress.
The landlord visited the resident on 17 June 2021 and sent its stage one response on 24 June 2021. It said:
1. The new roof at the front of the property had been completed and the leak had been resolved.
2. It had raised a repair for the downpipe to be repaired to stop the splash of water on the brickwork.
3. The cavity wall insulation would be inspected, and any issues resolved.
4. The reason for the same trades turning up to undertake the repairs was because there was uncertainty between the roof or the window leaking. This should have been resolved at the first instance but this time there was a sub-contractor involved that confused the process. It had amended this now.
5. Its communication had been inadequate. It was in the middle of a restricted repair service, and it seemed the resident’s situation slipped through which was unacceptable and it apologised for this.
6. It awarded £250 compensation to cover the cost of the internal damage and extended time to resolve the matter.
On 10 February 2022 the resident reported that the plaster was crumbling due to damp which had now been resolved. On 2 March 2022 the landlord attended and completed plastering works in the hallway and around the front door due to damage from the damp.
On 6 September 2022 the resident reported that the bay window in the lounge was seeping water through the frame and all the way around. There was lots of water coming in and the resident was having to empty bowls of water. He said the leak was much worse when it rained.
The landlord attended on 8 September 2022. It said that the fruit bush could be contributing to the issue of water ingress and suggested that this was removed to see if it resolved the issue.
On 1 November 2022 the resident called in again as his window was still leaking. The notes stated that the bush was still waiting to be cut back.
On the 4 November 2022 the resident asked that a stage 2 complaint was raised as he was still experiencing the same issues.
On 10 November 2022 the landlord attended to inspect the condensation and mould which was located in every room except the kitchen.
On 14 November 2022 the landlord attended to inspect the bay window.
On 25 November 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:
1. In respect of the leak on the bay window it visited the resident on 14 November 2022 and inspected the window again. The new roof was in good order, and it did not consider this was the source of the water ingress. The repair was completed in April 2021 and the issue was not reported again until September 2022. It then attended again but thought that it might be an issue with the roof or the bush outside.
2. The job was then closed without resolution which was a mistake on its part. This meant that the resident had to call in again to report the damp in the property in November 2022.
3. It was frustrating that the repair on the bay window roof had not resolved the leak, but this was the most obvious cause of the water ingress which was why it had dealt with this first.
4. On 10 November it confirmed that there was damp in the bathroom which it considered was because of a water leak and it had arranged to investigate further.
5. It believed that the bush outside was growing into the soakaway which was blocking the drainage. Its estate team would be removing this, and a drainage contractor would be instructed to clear the soakaway and make sure it was free flowing.
6. It would arrange decoration around the bay window once the leak was fixed and the walls had dried out.
7. Its policy was to fix repairs rather than move residents. It understood it was difficult in a small flat with a growing family as a wheelchair user however he would need to pursue the normal routes through the council for re-housing.
8. It would be happy to offer advice if the resident required in respect of his options for re-housing with the council.
9. The assessment of the damp in the bathroom and hallway cupboard was due to a leak on the internal pipework. It believed that there was a leak on either a water pipe in the floor or on the waste pipe from the bath or toilet.
10. It had arranged for a specialist to investigate and a mould clean. It was also arranging delivery of a dehumidifier to prevent any additional humidity. It would redecorate the bathroom and replace the bathroom floor as part of the works.
11. The property had been inspected for damp in 2021 but there were no high damp readings found in the bathroom. The mould was attributed to the extractor fan not working and the damp in the hallway was attributed to a leaking gutter outside the front door.
12. The damage to the plaster in the hallway suggested an internal leak rather than water penetration from the outside. It considered the leak may have started then and became worse over time so it could have found it sooner.
13. It upheld the complaint as it could have been better at diagnosing the leaks, reacted faster, and communicated better with the resident. It offered £300 compensation for the additional distress and inconvenience.

Post complaint

On 19 November 2022 the landlord inspected the drains. It concluded that the bath was one of the main causes of damp in the bathroom/kitchen. The down pipe at the back of the property was filled with roots which would also cause problems. It recommended to move bath and allow the concrete to dry out and then refit the bathroom properly. The down pipe guttering should be cleaned out and bush removed and then it will return and complete “a jet report” on the soak away condition.
On 14 December 2022 a job report stated that the bathroom and tiles would need to be stripped out. It would then need to install drying equipment into the relevant rooms so it could attempt to lower the moisture to acceptable levels. It said that the resident would require temporary accommodation while the works took place.
The resident chased up the temporary accommodation in February 2023. He said the mould was spreading and everyone was ill. He was using the dehumidifier, but it was really expensive.
On 21 March 2023 the resident was decanted to a bungalow. The landlord assisted with the move.
In June 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to advise that there was a delay in the works starting due to quotes. It said it would update the resident in 3 to 4 weeks with progress and confirm timescales on when the resident would be able to move back in.
In July 2023 the landlord’s internal notes stated that it had to remove the bathroom and the kitchen and lift the asbestos floor tiles to dry out. It took longer to organise due to asbestos removal. It hoped that it would be ready in 4 to 6 weeks.

Assessment and findings.

The Housing Ombudsman provides a dispute resolution service which is an alternative to a legal route. Our approach to providing remedies to cases following investigation is framed by three principles – be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
We cannot make the same findings that a court would, and we do not operate in the same way a court does. We do not make binding decisions on matters such as negligence or liability and we do not make orders of compensation in the way that a court may order a payment of damages. Equally, we do not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance.
Our focus in this case is therefore on how the landlord responded to the resident’s initial concerns and their complaint and whether this response was reasonable and fair in all the circumstances. This includes consideration of whether the landlords’ actions were in accordance with the landlord’s relevant policies and procedures.
The resident has described the effect on his and his household’s health caused by the length of time it took for the issues to be resolved. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his or his household’s health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

Legislation, guidance, policies, and procedures.

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for structural repairs. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
The landlord has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.

Repairs and maintenance policy.

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that an emergency repair is any repair that puts the health, safety, or security of the resident at immediate risk or adversely affects the structure of the property and may well consist of make safe only. It should be completed within 24 hours.
Urgent repairs are a non-emergency but likely to cause further issues if left for example containable leaks. These should be completed within 5 working days.
Routine repairs are any reported repair that can be deferred without serious discomfort, inconvenience, or nuisance to the resident and should be completed within 20 working days.

Mould and condensation procedure

The mould and condensation procedure states that all initial reports of mould and condensation will be recorded on the system and a pre inspection raised.
The “initial inspection” is to assess the extent and cause of the mould or condensation and to determine the actions which should be taken. This is the first stage of a three-tiered inspection process. Escalation to a second and third inspection is based on the severity of the mould.
Where a case is initially reported by a resident a level 2 survey can be requested if the mould problem is described as severe or there are medical concerns for the occupants of the property.
A level 1 inspection is undertaken by a series of triage questions on the telephone. This should highlight any obvious causes of moisture, both internally and externally that could be causing the mould.
Property defects including water leaks should be investigated at level 2 survey for possible cause.
A level 2 referral is made by the staff member who conducted the level 1 assessment. It is completed by the area surveyor or person of similar experience.
Medical conditions should be recorded with the customer consent and where possible include mental well-being as this is an assessment criteria on the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) survey.
Level 3 surveys should be carried out by a principal surveyor or an independent external mould and condensation consultant and should include a full written report.
If mould is due to a service failure in carrying out its repairs or defects within the property it should carry out the mould removal once the repair of defect has been rectified.

Management transfer procedure

The landlord’s management transfer procedure states a management move can be requested based on individual exceptional circumstances. It has discretion to offer a management transfer and that the decision is made by the head of housing. A resident who requires an immediate move will be referred to the local authority housing team.

Complaints procedure

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint procedure. It will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. If it is unable to respond within its time scale it will provide an explanation and a date by which it will respond.

Compensation procedure

The landlord’s compensation procedure states that service failure will be judged on the basis of published service standards or where they are not clear a test of reasonableness will be applied to determine if the service received was acceptable.
Inconvenience and distress payments are considered based on the time relevant to the issue and whether the impact is low, medium, or high.
For damage and loss to items every effort will be made to replace the item.
Damage to decoration will be assessed in the same way as service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from a bay window.

The landlord’s repair logs show that in December 2020 it responded to the initial report of the leak from the bay window 12 working days day after it was reported. It is unknown how it classified the repair. The report of a containable leak however is more aligned with the classification of ‘urgent repair’, in accordance with its policy which should have been responded to within 5 working days. The time taken was therefore inappropriate.
The landlord attended a second time 8 working days later but referred it on to its original roof contractors which resulted in works not commencing until 8 February 2021 which was approximately 40 days after the initial report of the leak. This was unreasonable particularly as the resident reported on 20 January 2021 that he had concerns about his electrics being dangerous due to the leak which in accordance with its policy should have been classified as an emergency and checked within 24 hours.
Furthermore, the repair records do not show what works were completed on 2 February 2021 so it is not clear that the landlord did attend to the electrics and that it did all it could and followed the findings of the first 2 inspections. The resident did not raise any further issue in respect of the electrics, but this service has seen no evidence to show that the electrics were checked. Given that this would be classified as an emergency repair this was a serious failure. The delay in the contractor attending to the leak was also inappropriate particularly as the resident had a disability and had a very young child. The resident reported the next day that the repair had been unsuccessful, and the leak was continuing.
It took a further 2 months for the felt roof and guttering to be repaired in April 2021. The landlord correctly acknowledged that its communication with the resident had been poor within its stage 1 response. This was correct as the resident had to continually chase the landlord to ensure that the repair was progressed.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response that there had been confusion between its contractors around whether works were required to the roof or the window. Its repair records do not clearly indicate what the landlord considered the source of the leak to be, or which areas were still to be investigated.
While it is appreciated that sometimes finding the source of a leak can be complex and a process of elimination. Where there is difficulty in terms of diagnosing a repair, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to ensure that the repair is inspected by an appropriate person, such as a surveyor. This service would also expect the surveyor to carry out a joint inspection with the relevant contractors if this is deemed appropriate. The records should have been clear as to what the process was in this case. This would have ensured that the works could have been managed effectively between contractors to ensure that the issue was resolved at the earliest opportunity. That it did not was a failing which meant that the first repair to try to resolve the issue took 4 months to complete.
The next report of a leak was made over a year later in September 2022. The landlord responded to the report within 2 days. This was in accordance with its own policy timescales. However, the works to remove the bush to try to eliminate the cause were not raised after the initial visit and the landlord acknowledged this failing in its stage 2 response.
The repair logs do not show when the bush was removed but indicate that it was completed by 5 December 2022 which was 3 months after the first inspection and the job was raised which was not within the landlord’s own timescales. The time taken to remove the bush that was blocking the soakaway was therefore inappropriate.
The landlord acknowledged it had failed in its communication and awarded £250 in its stage 1 response. This was to cover the cost of the internal damage and extended time to resolve the matter.
The landlord then considered its further failing within its stage 2 response and it upheld the complaint. It said it could have been better at diagnosing the leaks, reacted faster, and communicated better with the resident. It offered £300 compensation for the additional distress and inconvenience which was a total compensation payment of £550.
It is unclear whether the landlord’s reference to the “leaks” included the potential internal pipe leak which was still under investigation as the cause of the damp and mould when the stage 2 response was issued. This service considers that £550 is unreasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s failings in its response to the resident’s report of the leak from the bay window. Whilst the landlord’s attempts here are recognised, when considering the scale of its failings and the serious impact of these failings on a vulnerable resident with a vulnerable household a greater remedy amount would be more proportionate.
It had unduly delayed the repairs to the window and failed to communicate with the resident meaning that he had to continually chase the repairs whilst trying to manage on-going water leaks and damage within the property. It failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the electrics and has shown no evidence to show that it had checked the electrics. It is acknowledged that there was almost a year gap between the reporting of the secondleak from the bay window, but it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have monitored the matter after its initial repair work to ensure that matters were resolved.
The delays however, after both initial reports in December 2020 and again in September 2022 were unduly long particularly given the resident’s known vulnerabilities. They were certainly not in accordance with the landlord’s policy. This would have caused distress worry, uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident having to continually chase matters. The resident was wheelchair bound and had a heart condition and had explained the difficulty he was experiencing managing the leak from the window because of these vulnerabilities. He also had 3 children in the property including a child who was only 6 months old. The landlord’s response to the reports of damp and mould have been considered separately below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The resident first reported mould in the property on 15 January 2021 which he said had been present since he had moved in. The landlord responded within 3 working days. It was unable to contact the resident by telephone to complete a level 1 assessment so sent an email requesting photographs of the mould.
This was not in accordance with its own mould and condensation procedure which states that water leaks should be investigated at a level 2 survey. The water leak had been reported over a month earlier and should have been considered alongside the report of damp and mould in the first instance. Furthermore, the resident informed the landlord that he was wheelchair bound several days after the report of mould so an assessment of his medical concerns including his wife and children in relation to the mould should have also been considered at that point. That it did not was a failing and not in accordance with its own mould and condensation procedure.
The landlord did not complete a level 2 inspection until 6 April 2021 which was nearly 3 months after the resident first reported the damp and mould. The landlord’s procedure does not provide response timescales, but it is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for an extended period.
While it is acknowledged that the landlord was still trying to remedy the leak from the bay window. The damp and mould still needed to be assessed to establish whether immediate action was required. The landlord advised in its stage 2 response that after investigation it had determined that the damp and mould was not in fact related to the leak from the bay window. The landlord’s delay in inspecting the property was therefore unreasonable particularly given the known health risks associated with damp and mould the household vulnerabilities and the presence of a young child.
The repair logs do show that the landlord did most of the follow-on works raised by the level 2 inspection, but it is unclear from the records whether all were completed. Nevertheless, the resident’s report made in February 2022 for plastering works indicated that the issue of the damp and mould had improved at that point.
It is unknown when the resident raised the issue of damp and mould in the property again, but the stage 2 response states that it was reported in September 2022. It acknowledged the delay within its stage 2 response and explained that it had mistakenly closed the job.
The landlord then completed a further inspection of the property in November 2022 which showed that the damp and mould could be due to an internal leak, and it agreed to arrange a specialist report to investigate further and complete a mould clean which was appropriate and in accordance with its own policy.
In its stage 2 response it stated that it had found the cause of the damp and mould previously and the gap in the resident’s reporting of the issues could justify this conclusion, but it is of course unknown when the internal leak began.
The landlord delayed for several months from the first report and then further delayed when the resident raised the damp and mould again. The Landlord should ensure that jobs are not closed before they are fully resolved. Follow up appointments should also be booked quickly to make sure the response early on is as effective as possible.
It is acknowledged that since the stage 2 complaint the landlord did provide humidifiers and has now decanted the resident to complete the necessary works which was appropriate. It also correctly assisted and advised the resident in respect of his re-housing options in accordance with its management transfer procedure.
The resident had however explained that he was wheelchair bound with a heart condition. His partner was asthmatic, and he had a 6-month year old baby. The lack of communication and unnecessary delays not only caused time and trouble but caused uncertainty, worry and inconvenience to the resident which should have been considered in accordance with its compensation policy. In determining an appropriate order for compensation for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints in accordance with its complaint policy timescales and overall, its handling of the complaint was reasonable. It identified its delays and poor communication. It appropriately considered redress although it was unclear how the compensation was broken down and whether the amount offered included the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. For clarity and given the separate issues it should have been more specific on how it had calculated the compensation.
The Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
The resident advised the landlord within his stage 1 complaint that he had had to replace 2 sofas because of the mould. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have investigated this further and provide its findings within its stage 1 response and consider whether redress was appropriate.
The landlord failed to identify a number of key issues in both of its complaint responses. It failed to address why it had not attended in accordance with its policy to assess the electrics and why it had not completed the follow up work after the stage 1 had been issued. It also failed to assess and identify its own failures against its policy in relation to surveys of damp and mould. Furthermore, it failed to consider the overall impact all of the delays would have had on the family’s vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was also confusing. In one sentence damp in the hallway was attributed to a leaking gutter and in the other it was attributed to an internal leak. The response was therefore unclear and would have caused the resident further distress and inconvenience in having to pursue the matter further with this Service.
Overall, there was therefore maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and the above failings have been considered in the order and compensation below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak from a bay window.
In accordance with paragraph 52 there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord delayed in carrying out remedial works, failed to implement any ongoing monitoring to address the intermittent leak from the bay window and did not communicate with the resident about what action it would be taking. The landlord has acknowledged some of its failings within its complaint response and made redress of £550 to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion is disproportionate given the failings identified in this report and the impact of those failings on the resident.
The landlord unduly delayed the investigation of the causes of the damp and mould. The resident also had to provide access for a considerable number of inspections and repair appointments, and he went to significant time and trouble in pursuing the matter with the landlord. The resident was vulnerable and living in unsatisfactory conditions which would have been a source of worry and concern for him and his household. The landlord had made several attempts to identify the source of the leak, but the severity of the delays caused the family to become ill, and the decision would be more severe had those attempts not been made.
The landlord missed a number of key points within its complaint responses and parts were unclear and confusing. It failed to consider the full impact of its failings on the household, and it was not clear how it had calculated its offer of redress.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £2125 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £550 compensation already offered within its complaint response if not paid already.
  2. £350 compensation for the adverse effect caused by its handling of the resident’s report of a leak from a bay window.
  3. £975 compensation for the adverse effect caused by its handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
  4. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. Confirm in writing to the resident the plan for monitoring the effectiveness of the works it has completed or is still carrying out in the property and the next steps should the works prove unsuccessful in resolving the mould problem with timescales attached.
4. Review its handling of the damp and mould issues in this case and implement any necessary remedial action to ensure that the same issues do not arise again. A copy of the review’s report should be provided to this service also within 28 days.
Review its complaint handling in this case and consider whether refresher training for its staff on complaint handling to include the principles noted in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code is appropriate. A copy of the reviews report should be provided to this service also within 28 days.

Recommendation

The landlord is encouraged to share, if it has not already done so, the Ombudsman’s report on knowledge and information management (KIM) *Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) and consider the recommendations within.