Aster Group Limited (202223235)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223235

Aster Group Limited

28 September 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 damp and mould and the associated repairs;
2. the adaptations to the resident’s property;
3. the resident’s decant request;
4. the resident’s complaint, including the level of compensation offered.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord and moved to the property, “Property A”, in 2021. Property A is a 2-bedroom bungalow. The resident is registered disabled and has a number of long-term health conditions which are known to the landlord. These cause her continuous pain, limited mobility and fluctuating energy levels. She lives alone and is supported by an advocate, carers, friends and family, who sometimes stay overnight.
The tenancy agreement sets out the responsibilities of the landlord and tenant. The landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, including drains, gutters, pipes, walls, floors, skirting boards and chimneys. It will not interrupt or interfere with the tenant’s right to peacefully occupy the property except where access is required (subject to reasonable notice) to inspect the condition of the property or to carry out repairs. The tenant must report promptly any repair for which the landlord is responsible, and must keep the property in a sufficiently clean, clear and tidy condition to enable the landlord to undertake repairs and inspections. The tenant is also responsible for using heating appliances/installations in an appropriate manner to ensure the property is adequately heated and for ventilating the property appropriately, although the landlord may (at its discretion) waive responsibility for these obligations where the tenant is unable to perform them because of disability.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it promotes a “safety first” culture, ensuring that customer and colleague safety and wellbeing always comes first, and will prioritise the needs of vulnerable customers. It also has a range of measures in place to allow customers to book a convenient time for works to be carried out. The policy sets out the timescale for different categories of repair, with emergency repairs being completed within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 working days, and routine repairs within 20 working days. The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure notes that there will be occasions when a repair may require more significant investment or is too complicated, and will need to be dealt with outside of the usual procedure.
The landlord’s condensation and mould procedure states that, when a report of damp and mould is received, an initial ‘level 1’ inspection will be carried out to assess the extent and cause of the issue. Escalation to a ‘level 2’ inspection is based on the severity of the mould. The housing team will be informed of the outcome of the inspection so that they can contribute to resolving the issue; advice should be given regarding heating use, and if fuel poverty is a factor, the landlord should refer the tenant to its financial wellbeing officer. Surveyors may issue a hygrometer device allowing the tenant to monitor the humidity and air temperature in the property, and further investigations such as inspecting cavities and loft areas may also be required. Humidistat fans may be used in kitchens and bathrooms.
The landlord’s decant procedure refers to situations where it needs to relocate customers due to repair or maintenance works required in their tenanted homes. Wherever possible, it will carry out repairs with customers in occupation in order to minimise disruption. If this is not possible, it will make every effort to offer suitable temporary accommodation and to keep the length of time that the customer is out of their home to a minimum. Customers will be regularly updated as to the progress of works and expected timescales. “Creative and pragmatic solutions” should be used when they are more suitable or cost effective, such as supporting customers to stay with family or friends, or using B&B or holiday let accommodation. The landlord recognises the importance of ensuring that a customer does not experience negative financial implications due to the need for a decant. It will arrange things such as removals, redirection of mail, installation of white goods and carpet fitting, while considering the level of assistance the customer requires and making reasonable adjustments for any vulnerabilities.
The decant procedure states that the landlord will not compensate tenants for loss of contents, unless it was the fault of the landlord or its contractors that possessions have been lost or damaged. In order to claim compensation, a customer must submit a formal complaint. The landlord’s compensation policy distinguishes between discretionary payments – which are offered when a complaint has been received and service failure has been accepted – and non-discretionary home loss and disturbance payments. Discretionary compensation may include replacement of damaged items on a ‘like for like’ basis. Compensation claims are considered on a case-by-case basis, depending on the individual circumstances and supporting evidence.
The compensation procedure provides further guidance on elements for which the landlord may pay compensation. This includes distress and inconvenience, with awards of up to £250 being made according to the level of impact (low/medium/high) and time taken to resolve (long/medium/short). If a customer is unable to use part of their home because of something the landlord has done or not done, it will calculate compensation based on the number of rooms unavailable (as a proportion of the total number of rooms normally available), the daily rent charge, and the number of days the room(s) were unavailable.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days, and will respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. If it is unable to respond within these timescales, it will provide an explanation and the date by which it will respond. This should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason. Complaints are ‘owned’ by the relevant service area and investigated by trained case managers, with the stage 2 responder being a head of service. Should a customer seek compensation for injury or ill health, this will be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurers and not through the complaints process.

Summary of events

The resident moved to Property A in April 2021. Soon afterwards, in May 2021, the local authority completed an occupational therapy housing options assessment. This stated that the resident needed a wet floor shower and adaptations to her kitchen. In June 2021, the landlord informed the resident that it had received a disability funding grant (DFG) enquiry from the local authority and that it would contact her in due course regarding next steps. In July 2021 the local authority provided drawings showing the proposed layout of the adapted bathroom and kitchen.
On 3 September 2021 the resident reported issues with damp and mould in Property A to the landlord. She said that, when she signed up for the property, she was told that damp issues reported by the previous tenant had been addressed. However, she had found “dark green powder mould” on a wooden box, mould on her carpet and skirting boards, and her kitchen cupboard door looked damp and had split. She was concerned about inhaling mould spores and the impact on her asthma.
On 6 September 2021 the landlord contacted its subcontractor that had completed the void works at the property. It also carried out a property inspection the same day. During the inspection, it took readings of the moisture content of the wall, skirting and floor in different areas of the property. It found elevated readings in some areas and suggested possible causes for this. A report produced following the inspection identified a number of diagnostic and remedial works, including: checking for leaks; checking the condition of the gully; cutting back concrete from a path/wall abutment to create a French drain; inspecting the damp proof course (DPC) line; sealing around the junction of a waste pipe; checking the flow rate to extraction fans; venting the chimney within the roof space; relaying loft insulation; wiping down the mould; and replacing the fixed close louvre to the chimney with an open fixed louvre. It also proposed placing a hygrometer in the lounge and data loggers in the lounge and bedrooms. The report noted that the resident was not using the heating in the property due to the costs associated with this, and that condensation and mould could form within a property (even if ventilated) when no heating was used. The landlord advised the resident that the property had to be heated to keep it out of disrepair, and said it would inform her housing officer so that they could offer relevant support.
On 7 October 2021 the resident told the landlord that she had found more mould in the property, and that she had been waking up wheezing and had had asthma attacks. The landlord confirmed that it had raised a number of repairs which were due to be completed the same month. On 12 October 2021 it collected some data loggers which had been installed in the property and arranged for a CCTV drainage camera survey to be carried out. The drainage company which completed the survey recommended extensive jetting to remove a buildup of debris, followed by a further survey. The landlord checked the resident’s extraction fans on 25 October 2021.
On 9 November 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding the data logger findings. They showed that the relative humidity in the property was high which indicated a lack of ventilation. It recommended that the resident opened windows on opposite sides of the property to cross-ventilate it. The landlord’s letter stated that the lounge would benefit from increased heating and advised the resident to speak to her housing officer if she was struggling with her finances. It also provided an update on progress of the works it identified following its inspection. The landlord told the resident it felt the best course of action would be to log a formal complaint, which would allow it both to investigate and to agree a compensation figure if required. It initially said its complaints team would contact the resident before the end of the week, but in a separate email it asked the resident to send her complaint in bullet point form in order for it to raise it with its complaints team. The resident apparently did not do so, and so no formal complaint was logged at this stage.
On 12 November 2021 the landlord carried out works to the chimney and provided a dehumidifier. On 16 November 2021 its contractor assessed the cavity wall insulation and found a void space which required access from the garden of the private owner next door; it subsequently re-filled this. It also completed a thermal imaging survey. On 22 November 2021 a drainage company visited to investigate the damp in the kitchen and lounge. A letter sent by the company to the landlord on 24 November 2021 stated that it found no leaks in the property, but an air test of the toilet feed had failed and it recommended a CCTV survey to confirm there were no issues with the drainage system. It also recommended checking the DPC and soakaway, replacing tiles in the bathroom, and fitting a drainage channel to prevent pooling by the gully. The drainage company noted that the top of the chimney breast had been cut off in the loft, and that the damp in the kitchen and lounge could be caused by a previous issue with the chimney breast, although it was unable to confirm this.
On 2 December 2021 the landlord attended to fix the resident’s kitchen fan and install a new fan in the bathroom, but following the visit the kitchen fan did not work. The same day, a drainage company contracted by the landlord carried out a second CCTV drainage camera survey. This found that a pipe was still holding water because joints had been displaced. The contractor recommended further extensive jetting to a specified area. The landlord raised a job for its contractor to complete the necessary repairs and install a new ACO channel at the front of the property the same month. It also repaired the kitchen fan, and installed hygrohoods in the property between 15 and 18 December 2021 and between 10 and 13 January 2022. On both occasions these showed humidity readings of around 90-95%.
Between January and June 2022 the landlord made further visits to the property with its contractors to scope and carry out repairs. On 31 January 2022 it again provided the resident with a dehumidifier, for which it said it would pay the running costs. At the resident’s request, it reassured her that it would replace her lounge carpet after lifting it if it could not be cleaned and refitted, and confirmed that it would grant her management transfer status if she moved out of Property A and was unable to return. On 30 March 2022 the landlord raised further works, including reducing the chimney height within the loft space. Some works were completed on 14 and 25 April 2022. On 1 June 2022 it re-filled the cavity wall insulation, which allowed it to complete further external works between 14 and 16 June 2022. On 20 June 2022 it met with the resident at her request to discuss and agree a schedule of works, although according to the resident, some works planned for later in the month were later cancelled by the landlord.
On 23 June 2022 the resident’s advocate submitted a complaint to the landlord on her behalf. This stated that:
1. She was complaining about the ongoing problems with damp and mould at Property A and her current living conditions.
2. After being informed at a viewing in March 2021 that all the repair issues at the property had been addressed, she had moved in in April 2021. She began to find evidence of mould in July and August 2021. Due to her concerns, she felt unable to unpack and so was unable to see the full extent of the mould damage in her spare room where her belongings were stored.
3. While she accepted that works had been carried out, she felt progress had been very slow. She wanted to know why, 15 months after moving in, the conditions were still the same.
4. She felt that contractors’ work should have been checked throughout, and the landlord’s principal surveyor was the only member of staff who had tried to help.
5. Her belongings had been damaged, resulting in her having to throw away furniture and personal items. She had to clean daily to remove mould from her home.
6. She was registered disabled and had to open her windows daily regardless of the weather to ensure adequate ventilation. Her chest was worse since moving to the property, and friends and family often told her that her voice sounded as if she had a cough or sore throat.
7. She was still waiting for adaptation works to be completed to her kitchen and bathroom, despite a DFG grant being approved the previous summer. She wanted the landlord to produce a robust plan to ensure her home met her needs.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day and told the resident that its principal surveyor aimed to respond by 7 July 2022. It noted that if it was unable to respond by that date, it would let her know.
On 7 July 2022 the landlord informed the resident that, while it had hoped to respond to her stage 1 complaint by that day, this had not been possible due to its ongoing investigations. It told her it now intended to respond by 21 July 2022.
On 12 July 2022 an excavation/repairs company contracted by the landlord visited the property. The company found that there was no leak on the water supply pipe, but identified two possible areas of concern: the chimney structure, which had previously had the chimney pot removed and the flue sealed, and a drain installation which could cause issues in heavy rain.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 21 July 2022, stating that:
1. It agreed it was clear that works which should have been carried out during the void period were not completed to an acceptable standard, and it did not manage this process well enough. It apologised for this and accepted that there had been service failure.
2. While it understood the resident had had limited use of her living room, it did not agree this was the only reason for her being unable to use her second bedroom. The photos it took during its visit showed a large number of items that had not been unpacked, and it did not feel they would all fit in the living room. It therefore disagreed that there had been service failure in this respect.
3. It agreed that, on occasions, its contractors had either not followed its instructions or had not had a clear understanding of what was required when they attended. It apologised for this. Moving forward, it would ensure that its contractors had a full understanding of what was needed, and where possible it would meet them at her home ahead of any works to ensure this was clear.
4. It had taken a logical approach to investigating the damp issues and had to follow “a natural process of elimination”. Unfortunately, it had identified multiple issues at the property. It believed it had identified the issue in the lounge, and with time this would dry. It now needed to determine why the moisture content was so high around the chimney area.
5. The resident had queried why it had only recently broken into the floor to take moisture readings. This was because a new liquid DPM was installed during the void period and it wanted to check other things before breaking this seal. It was sorry if this was not explained clearly at the time.
6. It noted that there had been a period of around a month when the resident did not allow access as she was ill. She also did not allow access until after 11am. While it appreciated her medical issues, these access restrictions had impacted its timescale for repairs at times.
7. It was sorry to hear that the damp and mould had made her ill. It was unable to assess or offer her compensation for medical claims under its complaints procedure. If she wished to pursue a claim for injury, this could be dealt with via its insurers. It provided the insurers’ contact details.
8. It summarised its findings and works to date, and its plan moving forward. This involved:
  1. Reducing the chimney within the loft space;
  2. Extensive drying of the lounge using a metered dehumidifier, with weekly monitoring of progress and renewal of carpet once dry;
  3. Improving gully detail to ensure moisture did not disperse into the ground around the gully pot;
  4. Mould wash, stain block and decoration of affected areas throughout the property, including a mould wash to the lounge at low level followed by periodic moisture readings;
  5. Moving of items in the spare bedroom to allow intrusive investigations;
  6. Renewal of liquid DPM in areas where floor readings had been taken, with 300mm patches to cover any drill holes in the slab;
  7. Bi-weekly email updates to the resident.
9. It offered compensation of £350, comprised of:
  1. £200 for stress and inconvenience;
  1. £100 for its service failure in not completing works during the void period;
  2. £50 for its contractors’ lack of understanding of works required and poor communication.
10. It also offered the following additional compensation and remedies:
  1. £26.35 per week for the period of limited access to her lounge, to be calculated when the end date was known;
  1. Replacement of her lounge carpet, to the existing standard, in her choice of colour;
  2. A payment for loss of use of her spare bedroom, according to its compensation policy, once the end date was known;
  3. Consideration of payment for her damaged items, subject to further information being provided.
11. If she felt her complaint remained unresolved, she should contact its complaints team by 4 August 2022. The complaint would then be reviewed by the relevant head of service.
On 4 August 2022 the resident told the landlord’s surveyor that she was unhappy with the stage 1 response. The landlord’s principal surveyor advised her to liaise with its complaints team. On 17 August 2022 the resident’s advocate contacted the landlord on her behalf and requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The advocate explained that the resident felt no real changes had been made, despite the promises in the stage 1 response. She also remained unable to use her bathroom, as the adaptation works had been put on hold until the damp repairs had been completed. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 18 August 2022 and said it aimed to respond by 14 September 2022.
On 25 August 2022 correspondence between the landlord and the resident’s advocate stated that the resident was not allowing access for repairs to be completed, although the resident disputed this. On 13 September 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it would be unable to issue its stage 2 response the following day due to ongoing investigations. It said it intended to respond by 27 September 2022. It then issued its stage 2 response on 27 September 2022, stating that:
1. It apologised for the length of time the matter was taking to resolve. As explained in its stage 1 response, its investigations had to be methodical in order to ascertain the cause of the damp problems. Unfortunately monitoring of the situation had taken time, and a further period would be needed following the repairs to allow for drying out of the property.
2. It had previously acknowledged its failure to ensure that damp works were completed to an acceptable standard during the void period. It sincerely apologised that this happened. It had taken learning from this and had raised the issue with its void team to ensure that more thorough investigations were carried out at this stage in future.
3. It appreciated that the situation had prevented the resident from being able to live comfortably in her home, and that the repair works would cause additional inconvenience. It also acknowledged that until the works had been completed, this would further delay the adaptations being made to her bathroom.
4. At stage 1 it had listed the works that needed to be completed. It understood that, when it tried to arrange these works, the resident said she was not happy with works progressing while she was in situ and refused access. This caused further delays.
5. The resident’s request to be decanted was discussed with its housing team and considered with reference to its decant procedure and her circumstances. It would not consider asking a customer to vacate their home until all other options had been exhausted, and it would endeavour to keep disruption to a minimum. It did not feel it needed to take further action around this, but it would continue to monitor the situation closely as work progressed. It apologised if the resident felt that its communication and support around these concerns could have been handled better.
6. In response to the resident’s request for a robust plan, its surveyor would provide an outline of work dates and next steps once a start date had been agreed. They would be her point of contact regarding the works and would provide regular updates. The resident’s housing officer was also available for support.
7. It summarised the works to be completed, as outlined in its stage 1 response. It understood the resident had refused the mould wash to the lounge, but it needed to do this in order to understand whether the work it had carried out had been effective. Its bi-weekly updates had stopped after the resident refused access for works, but would resume from 30 September 2022.
8. The existing bathroom was in situ when the resident moved into the property. It did not want to carry out extensive works to the bathroom until it had fully dried the property. Therefore, once the above works had been completed, it would approve and continue with the wet room installation. It understood the impact that the delayed installation may be having on the resident, and it had awarded the maximum amount of compensation for the inconvenience that this had caused. However, it highlighted that the bathroom was still in the same usable condition as when she accepted the property. Her occupational therapy worker may be able to offer some temporary adaptations, and it had asked her housing officer to support her in looking into this further.
9. It made an increased compensation offer of £900, comprising:
  1. £250 for its failure to complete all damp works to an acceptable standard during the void period;
  2. £250 for the inconvenience and delays this caused to the resident;
  3. £250 for the impact and inconvenience caused by its delay in completing the bathroom adaptations;
  4. £150 for the timeframe the matter had taken to resolve and its poor communication.
10. If the resident did not accept its findings, she could refer her complaint to this Service or request a review by its tenant panel.
After professionals involved in the resident’s care expressed their concern about her health while continuing to live in the property, the resident told the landlord she did not want the repairs to be carried out while she remained in situ. The landlord subsequently agreed to her request for a temporary decant. Between October 2022 and March 2023 it offered her at least 9 decant properties, the majority of which she declined because of their size and/or accessibility. It also supported her in exploring the option of staying in a holiday let previously used by her friend, but this did not prove possible.
On 21 November 2022 the local authority informed the resident that it would be keeping her adaptation case on hold while the landlord completed repairs to the property. On 16 December 2022 the landlord arranged a meeting to agree an action plan, which the resident attended. Following some particularly cold weather in late December 2022, the landlord paid for the resident to stay in a nearby hotel over the Christmas period. While the resident was initially expected to return to the property in the new year, the booking was later extended until a suitable decant property (“Property B”) became available in March 2023, with the landlord also paying for the resident’s meals at the hotel for some of this time.
In January 2023 the landlord agreed to the resident’s request for an independent inspection of Property A, and this was carried out on 2 February 2023. The surveyor found that the floor slab was “very damp”, and probe tests showed that the moisture had dissipated from a badly leaking chimney that had been removed incorrectly. The issues in the property had therefore been caused by the chimney, which was “still soaking wet” and “full of mould”, and the installation of a liquid DPM on the damp floor slab. The surveyor said that, in their professional opinion, the property was “not safely habitable in its current condition, especially to those with existing health conditions (specifically respiratory)”.
On 10 March 2023 the landlord told the resident it would pay £3,000 towards the cost of items immediately needed to help furnish Property B. It said it would consider whether additional compensation was appropriate once the resident provided a full list of damaged items and their cost. It noted that, according to its compensation policy, replacement of damaged items was on a ‘like for like’ basis, and it would consider the age of an item and the possibility of replacing it with a pre-owned item or one of equal value. The landlord also increased its stage 2 compensation offer of £900 by £350, to £1,250, to reflect the further inconvenience caused to the resident. This brought the total payment offered to £4,250.
On 13 March 2023 the landlord noted the resident’s decision not to provide a list of damaged items for assessment and repeated its earlier offer. It clarified that it would not buy a replacement bed and chair, but the £4,250 would allow the resident to quickly purchase items of her choice directly. On 30 March 2023 it provided a final compensation offer, which included: dehumidifier costs of £76.14; £1,396.64 for loss of her spare room from 3 September 2021 to 10 December 2022; and an additional £250 for the inconvenience of her bathroom not being adapted. This brought the total offer to £5,972.78.

Post complaint

The resident moved into Property B on 31 March 2023. Prior to the move, the landlord made arrangements for the property to be redecorated/carpeted and to contain basic items, including an orthopaedic double bed, bedding, curtains, plates, mugs, cutlery and a kettle. The resident’s occupational therapy worker also organised for her to receive a rise and recliner chair, which was on loan from the local authority’s adult social care department until she could buy her own.
On 6 April 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident, after meeting with her the week before, to answer some questions she had about its offer of compensation. It explained how it had calculated the room loss payment, and clarified that it had awarded an extra amount (beyond the maximum award of £250 stated in its policy) for inconvenience.
Between April and July 2023 the resident sorted through her belongings at Property A in order to determine which could be salvaged and which had to be thrown away. The landlord supported this process by exploring options for storage and cleaning of items, and maintenance of the garden at Property A. It also carried out works that were required at Property B. On 14 July 2023 the landlord’s contractor removed the last of the resident’s possessions from Property A, and in August 2023 the landlord made arrangements for removal of a large number of potted plants from the garden. It also agreed for the mould repairs to be carried out by the resident’s preferred contractor after she expressed concerns about the contractor that was originally selected. The resident returned the keys for Property A to the landlord on 29 August 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman appreciates that the events of this investigation have been extremely upsetting for the resident, who has lost the majority of her possessions including irreplaceable items of personal value. She has also expressed concern about the impact on her health. In making a determination, the Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord has complied with its legal responsibilities and with its own policies, as well as treating the resident fairly. The decision reached takes account of all information provided and the resident’s circumstances.
Under paragraph 42(g), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where it is considered quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. The landlord has signposted the resident to its insurers regarding a personal injury claim, and this is something she may still wish to consider.

Damp and mould reports and associated repairs

When the resident first reported issues with damp and mould at the property, the landlord responded promptly and appropriately by carrying out a level 1 inspection within 3 days. Since the cause of the issues was not immediately apparent, further investigation and a level 2 inspection was required. The landlord acted in accordance with its condensation and mould procedure by measuring the temperature and humidity levels in the property, assessing the cavity insulation and loft area, and providing a dehumidifier. Identifying the origin of the damp was unfortunately a complex and protracted process involving a process of elimination, due to the presence of multiple contributory factors such as a drainage issue, a missing section of insulation and the consistently low temperature in the property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord carried out initial investigatory works within a reasonable timeframe. Importantly, it was also quick to accept responsibility for its ineffective void works and to apologise for this.
When the landlord became aware that the resident was not heating the property for financial reasons (on 6 September 2021), it told her it would share this information with her housing officer so they could “explore any options”. This was in line with its condensation and mould procedure, which states that the housing team will be informed of the outcome of mould related inspections so that they can contribute to resolving the issue. However, there is no evidence that this was followed up or that any support was offered. The condensation and mould procedure also states that if fuel poverty is a factor, the landlord should refer the tenant to its financial wellbeing officer. The landlord did again advise the resident to speak to her housing officer about her finances the following month (on 9 November 2021), but it did not mention its financial wellbeing officer/team until March 2023. If the resident had known such a role existed sooner, she – or her advocate – may have contacted them for assistance. Moreover, the tenancy agreement states that it is the tenant’s responsibility to heat the property appropriately, but that this responsibility may be waived if the tenant is unable to do so because of disability. The resident’s feeling of being unable to afford heating due to her low income was clearly linked to her disability, but there is no indication that the landlord identified the relevance of this tenancy condition to the resident’s case, or that it proactively sought to address her financial difficulties (for example, by facilitating contact from a financial wellbeing officer rather than simply offering a referral). Even if there had not been an underlying damp issue within the property, the resident’s inability to heat it would have been likely to result in condensation and mould.
While the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould issues was commendable between September and December 2021, the pace of work slowed between January and June 2022. Some of the reasons for this were understandable – for example, the involvement and availability of different contractors; the need to put internal works on hold while external investigations were carried out; and, on some occasions, the resident’s availability and requirements. However, while there is evidence of regular and effective communication between the landlord and resident over this period, comparatively little progress was made in restoring the property to a safe and liveable condition. This evidently caused the resident significant anxiety, distress and frustration.
Given that the cause of the damp in Property A had not been confirmed by the time the resident submitted her complaint in June 2022, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider whether a vulnerable resident should be expected to continue living in an environment where she was concerned about the impact on her health and damage to her possessions. If it did so, no risk assessment or other evaluative process is documented. In fact, the cause of the damp was still unconfirmed when the landlord issued its stage 2 response in September 2022, over a year since the issue was first reported. Both the stage 2 response, and the revision of the decant decision the following month (discussed in more detail below), presented opportunities for the landlord to consider measures it could take to protect the resident’s belongings. Its failure to do so unfortunately resulted in a large amount of items being lost.
Once the resident had moved out of the property, the landlord demonstrated flexibility by agreeing to her request for an independent survey, and, later, to her request for its principal contractor to undertake all works to Property A (rather than using a subcontractor about whom she had concerns). The information provided shows that it also accommodated a number of other requests and requirements, such as arranging appointments at her preferred time of day, giving written assurance regarding her security of tenure, and exploring options for the care of her plants during the decant period. While the resident may have taken issue with the actions of some members of staff, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s actions and communication showed a genuine keenness to put things right. In conclusion, though there were failures in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould – such as delayed repairs, a lack of adequate financial support and an omission to safeguard the resident’s belongings against mould damage – the landlord offered redress for these prior to investigation which resolved the matters satisfactorily.

Adaptations to the property

The landlord was in a position to begin making adaptations to the property in July 2021, when the disability funding grant had been authorised and the specifications of the adapted rooms were agreed. It is therefore unclear why the adaptation works did not progress between this time and August 2022, when the resident was first informed they had been put on hold due to the damp/mould repairs. While the kitchen adaptation may have been affected by diagnostic works, the resident’s stage 1 complaint was clear that the bathroom was unaffected by damp and mould issues. If the landlord considered the property to be safe for the resident to occupy in 2021 and early 2022, it should not have delayed its planned works to bring the property into line with her physical needs. Its lack of action resulted in her being unable to use her shower for an extended period, and was unsatisfactory.
The landlord recognised this and offered redress for its delay in September 2022, when it awarded compensation of £250. This was in line with its stated award for high impact over a long period. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the specific detriment caused to the resident through living in a property that did not meet her needs. It was also appropriate for it to make a further award of £250 in March 2023 to reflect the additional 6-month period for which the resident had not had access to suitable adaptations, while living in Property A and hotel accommodation. Since the resident accepted Property B in its current condition (in preference to other properties with adaptations), no further compensation is due for the period of the decant. The Ombudsman understands that adaptations to Property A are being progressed at the same time as the damp and mould repairs, and so the kitchen and bathroom will meet the resident’s needs when she moves back in.
It is noted that the mitigatory factors considered by the landlord in addressing this matter – that Property A was not adapted when the resident agreed to move to it, that the bathroom was technically useable, and that her occupational therapy worker may be able to provide some temporary adaptations – did not excuse it from its responsibilities towards a disabled tenant. Since this was not ultimately disputed by the landlord, and the negative impact caused to the resident was reflected in the compensation awarded, a finding of reasonable redress has been made in relation to the property adaptations.

Decant request

Though the resident has provided a detailed account of events relating to her decant request, limited documentary evidence regarding this aspect has been supplied by the landlord. After telling the resident in its stage 2 complaint response that “your request to be decanted while works go ahead was discussed with our housing team and … at this time we do not feel we need to take further action around this” (27 September 2022), its next reference to a decant was on 19 October 2022 when its complaints officer offered a property “for the proposed decant”. In the absence of any explanation for its change of decision, the Ombudsman therefore accepts that the landlord was persuaded by the resident and/or other professionals involved with her case that a decant was appropriate in or around October 2022.
However, it is concerning that it did not conclude a decant was required sooner. The resident had made it aware from the outset (in September/October 2021) that she was experiencing wheezing and asthma attacks, and was concerned about the impact of mould spores on her health. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to discuss the resident’s concerns with her at an early stage, seeking medical evidence or other expert guidance if necessary, and (as mentioned above in relation to damaged possessions) to consider a decant when it was unable to quickly identify the cause of the damp issue. This would enable it to make and communicate an informed decision, even if its response was to give assurance that it had completed a risk assessment which indicated a decant was not necessary. In summary, it should have been mindful of the resident’s vulnerability, and should not have waited for her to request a decant to explore this option.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, once the decant request had been accepted, the landlord’s efforts to find a suitable property over the ensuing 5-month period were reasonable. As set out in its decant policy, it explored a range of options, including a holiday let suggested by the resident and properties sourced through a third party organisation. It offered practical assistance, such as reimbursing carers’ increased travel costs to a property some distance away. It was also receptive to the resident’s concerns about parking at some properties, level access and number of bedrooms. Though the resident was unhappy about the items provided when she moved into Property B, such as an orthopaedic bed that she felt unable to use, the Ombudsman takes the view that the landlord took reasonable steps in the circumstances to make the property comfortable and useable. The resident’s objections are appreciated, but ultimately the landlord had to balance its obligations towards the resident with its need to avoid further delays and progress repairs to Property A. This was a challenging task that, in the circumstances, it handled sensitively and empathetically.
While the landlord handled some aspects of the decant well, including the eventual move to Property B, a finding of maladministration has been made due to its delayed consideration of a decant, inaction in relation to the resident’s health related concerns, and inconsistent decision making and record keeping in relation to the initial decant request. This caused avoidable distress and uncertainty to the resident, who it knew to be disabled.

Complaint handling and compensation

Complaint handling

The landlord originally suggested that the resident made a complaint so that it could consider awarding her compensation. While this advice was in accordance with its policy, which states that a customer must submit a formal complaint in order to claim compensation, this seemed an unnecessarily time-consuming and bureaucratic approach. It also did not result in compensation being awarded quickly or in terms the resident felt able to accept, as there were a number of increases to the amount (discussed below), and at the time of writing this report in September 2023 she still had not accepted any payment. A recommendation has therefore been made in relation to a policy review, to allow the landlord flexibility in awarding compensation outside its complaints process.
In fact, the landlord’s advice about making a complaint was confusing. An email and letter sent to the resident on 9 November 2021 said the best course of action was to log the case within its complaints process, and the resident would hear from its complaints team “before the end of the week” and “in the next few days”. However, another email sent by the same officer on the same day said “if you would like to email me your complaint in bullet point form, I will get this raised with our complaints team”. When the resident did not provide a bullet point summary, no complaint was raised. The landlord again told the resident on 2 February 2022 “my suggestion would be once we have resolved this then we open an official complaint”, but once more this did not happen. Though its communication with the resident was generally good, these were missed opportunities to address her obvious dissatisfaction with her living situation. It would also have been a reasonable adjustment for the landlord to log a complaint on the basis of the information it already had, since the resident’s emails (particularly those sent on 3 September 2021, 12 October 2021 and 26 October 2021) gave detailed accounts of the issues and their impact.
After the resident’s advocate supported her in making a complaint, 7 months after the landlord first suggested a complaint should be raised, the landlord responded within its stated (extended) timeframe. The stage 1 response took responsibility for the fact that void works to the property were not completed to an acceptable standard, and that there had been issues with its contractors not following instructions or understanding what was required, and apologised for this. The response included a useful level of detail regarding the landlord’s findings to date and its plan moving forward. The compensation offered – which included details of calculations for future awards as well as a breakdown of the £350 offered upfront – was reasonable in view of the information available at the time. While the resident was concerned that the stage 1 response was produced by the same surveyor who had been overseeing the repairs, feeling that they were “answering their own letter”, the landlord’s complaints policy states that complaints are ‘owned’ by service areas and investigated by trained case managers, who may also be officers involved in repairs. The stage 1 responder had a thorough knowledge of the resident’s case and was well placed to produce the response, and so (given that the stage 2 responder was a different officer of appropriate seniority) the choice of responder was reasonable.
The stage 2 response was also provided within the stipulated timeframe, which was again extended. It is noted that extensions should be the exception rather than the norm, and that at stage 2, the resident was given only one day’s notice that the landlord would be unable to respond by its initial target date. However, the Ombudsman appreciates the complexity of the case and that the landlord may have required more time at both stages in order to produce a comprehensive response. Its internal guidance to stage 1 and 2 responders, which made reference to this Service’s complaint handling code, was detailed and constituted an example of good practice.
At stage 2, the landlord again offered an appropriate apology for the length of time it was taking to resolve the damp and mould issue. It provided an explanation for its protracted investigation and gave assurance that it had taken learning from the case. At the resident’s request, it also detailed the planned works and expected timeframe. The response was detailed and demonstrated an understanding of the impacts of the situation on the resident.

Level of compensation

Following careful consideration, the Ombudsman finds that the compensation awarded at stages 1 and 2 (£350 and £900 respectively) was reasonable overall, given the information available at the time. At both stages the landlord demonstrated transparency by providing a breakdown of the amount offered, having made calculations according to its published policies. It was also appropriate, in light of developments in the case, for it to make further awards in March 2023. While it is not in the spirit of this Service’s dispute resolution principles for a landlord to make a substantial offer of redress at the end of a long process, with the anticipated effect that the Ombudsman will not consider the matter further, the Ombudsman is satisfied that this was not the reason for the additional awards. The landlord had committed in its stage 1 response to pay dehumidifier and room loss costs when the totals for these were known.
An important issue for the resident was the replacement of her electric bed and riser chair, which she disposed of after they suffered mould damage. It was reasonable of the landlord to decline to reimburse her for the cost of new items, which (according to the quotes provided by the resident) would have been between £4,330 and £4,851 for the bed, and £1,900 for the chair; the resident had been given her bed by a friend, and so it was not new when she received it. The landlord’s compensation policy states that discretionary compensation for damaged items is assessed on a ‘like for like’ basis, taking account of the age and value of the item. The resident’s quotes were factored into the landlord’s offer of £3,000 “towards items needed to enable you to immediately help furnish [Property B]”. Additional awards of compensation – £350 for further inconvenience and £250 for further delays in completing adaptations (as discussed above) – adequately reflected developments in the case. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to consider a further award in recognition of any additional items that were damaged, subject to the resident providing details of these.

Summary

While the complaint was effectively handled once logged, a finding of service failure has been made in relation to the landlord’s confusing advice about making a complaint in November 2021 and February 2022, and its missed opportunities to address the resident’s dissatisfaction with its handling of her case through its complaints process at an earlier stage.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s decant request;
2. service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint, including the level of compensation offered.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was:
1. reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs;
2. reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the adaptations to the property.

Reasons

The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould was prompt and appropriate. However, the pace of subsequent investigative works then slowed, meaning that the cause of the damp was not identified until 16 months after the issue was first reported. The delay caused distress to the resident and resulted in avoidable damage to her belongings. The landlord also did not take effective supportive action when it became aware that the resident could not afford to heat the property. It offered reasonable redress for these failures by apologising, taking learning from the complaint, and making a substantial offer of compensation.
The landlord delayed in carrying out adaptations to Property A between July 2021 and November 2022, and did not communicate its decision to put the adaptation works on hold in an effective and timely way. It offered reasonable redress for this by paying a total of £500 compensation and making arrangements to complete the adaptations at the same time as other repair works.
The landlord did not consider a decant when the resident informed it of her concerns about her health and it was unable to quickly resolve the damp issue. When the resident requested a decant it initially refused, but later changed its position. Once it agreed to the request, it was proactive and explored a range of options to find suitable alternative accommodation. It was sensitive to the resident’s needs and maintained effective communication in relation to the decant.
The landlord’s initial advice to the resident about making a complaint, or whether it would make one on her behalf, was confusing. This was a missed opportunity to address the issues through its complaints process at an early stage. After the resident’s advocate assisted her in making a complaint, the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses were detailed, apologetic, and contained a useful level of information. They also offered appropriate compensation, which was further increased when new information became available.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Reiterate its apology to the resident for its failures in handling her case and the distress and inconvenience caused to her as a result.
2. Pay the resident £6,272.78, comprising:
  1. The £5,972.78 it offered to her on 30 March 2023, if it has not already done so;
  2. £200 for its delayed consideration of a decant;
  3. £100 for its complaint handling service failure.

Any payments already made should be deducted from the total amount above, meaning that the difference is now due.

Offer the resident a meeting with its financial wellbeing team in order to explore any assistance that may be available in relation to utility payments and/or other financial matters. If accepted by the resident, the meeting should take place at a venue of her choosing or over the telephone, according to her preference.
Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers whether further compensation is due once the repairs to Property A have been completed and/or the resident’s temporary decant has ended. It is further recommended that the landlord considers whether it is appropriate to reimburse the resident for her other damaged items, subject to her providing details of these.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its approach to compensation and considers allowing awards to be made outside of its complaints process.