Aster Group Limited (202310554)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310554

Aster Group Limited

9 April 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The landlord’s handling of reports of repairs to the roof, and damp and mould issues.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association, for the property which is a bungalow. The tenancy started in June 2018. The landlord states that it does not have any vulnerabilities flagged for the residents.
The resident has a representative who acts on her behalf in relation to the issues within the property. The representative also dealt with the complaint on her behalf, however for ease, the report refers to all communication as being from the resident.
On 16 February 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint about the lack of communication they had received regarding outstanding repairs to the roof. The resident explained that the property had had over 15 inspections of the last 5 years and that in December 2022 a surveyor determined that the roof needed to be replaced. The complaint also said that damp and mould had now formed within the property. In order to resolve the complaint, they wanted to know what was happening with the roof and provide them with a schedule of works.
On 3 March 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response, where it said that the roofing works were due to start on 27 March 2023, following the erection of scaffolding. It further acknowledged that there was a lack of communication, despite the resident asking for updates on multiple occasions and offered £150 compensation.
On 10 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and escalated the complaint to stage 2. The resident explained that the reasons for escalation included:
1. The lack of performance management and why it took staff so long to respond to callback requests.
2. The main issue was severe damp within the property and water had been running down the walls for 5 years.
3. The roof needed replacing, and that the landlord had completed numerous ineffective repairs.
4. The damp was affecting the young child in the property, who had severe health issues including atopic eczema.
5. In order to resolve the complaint, the resident wanted an apology and accountability.
On 22 March 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint and said it would respond by 11 April 2023. On 14 April 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and said it needed additional time and would respond by 25 April 2023. On 27 April 2023, the landlord contacted the resident again and confirmed that it needed further time, and the resident would be compensated for its failure to provide a response.
On 17 May 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response where it:
1. Detailed a full list of repairs it had carried out in response to reports of condensation and mould in the property.
2. Agreed that there had been poor communication, and that the landlord had failed to respond to the resident’s request for updates on multiple occasions.
3. Acknowledged it should have assigned a single point of contact for the resident. It also said that it had implemented a new IT system to assist with the communications issues.
4. Confirmed it had reviewed the latest inspection, dated December 2022 and was confident that the repairs raised would resolve the issues. But in order to be sure, it had also appointed an independent survey company to visit the property and would review the findings once completed.
5. Offered a total of £1,400 compensation, made up of:
  1. £250 in recognition of the service failures, this included the £150 offered at stage 1.
  2. £1,000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience endured. Made up of £250 per year,
  3. £150 for the delay in responding at stage 2.
On 25 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to discuss the stage 2 response and requested increased compensation. The landlord followed up the conversation with an email which said that it was unable to offer compensation for a medical claim and provided the resident with further options, should they wish to pursue a claim for injury. In relation to compensation for damaged items, it asked the resident to send a list of items so that it could reassess its previous offer.
The resident provided the landlord with a list of items that they wanted the landlord to reimburse them for. On 22 June 2023 the landlord responded to the resident’s request for additional compensation.
On 7 July 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman as they remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident explained that they had been reporting roof repairs over the last 5 years, which remained outstanding and that the compensation was not enough.
In March 2024, the resident informed the Ombudsman that works remain outstanding within the property and that the landlord has not been in contact with then to arrange for them to be completed. This includes ongoing water dripping from the ceiling.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s approach.

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right, and
3. Learn from outcomes.

Scope of investigation.

The resident mentions that their daughter’s health has been affected by the property condition. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding their child’s health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.
The purpose of the complaint process is to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity. Residents are encouraged to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues and reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As issues become historical, it becomes increasingly difficult to unpick the events that took place and how matters were handled.
In accordance with paragraph 42(c), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints about matters which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
In this case, the repair records show that the resident had reported issues from January 2019. While the resident may have raised a complaint earlier than February 2023 which exhausted the internal complaint process, it had not been referred to the Ombudsman for investigation.
Consequently, this investigation will focus on matters which occurred 6 months prior to February 2023, and whether the landlord has delivered what it said it would, as a way of resolving the resident’s complaint. It will also consider the wider implication of historical repairs in the context of the landlord’s handling of more recent issues.
Furthermore, the Ombudsman also acknowledges that the resident requested an increased amount of compensation following the landlord’s final response. While the landlord did respond to the resident and reviewed its compensation request, this was done so after the internal complaints process was completed and will not be investigated by the Ombudsman.
This is because we generally do not consider complaints that have not been considered by the landlord’s formal complaints procedure. Should the resident remain dissatisfied with the revised amount of compensation offered in June 2023, the resident should make a new complaint to the landlord.

Policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a legal duty on landlords to make full, effective and lasting repairs once it is given notice of disrepair. They must keep in repair and working order, the installations for the supply of gas and electricity, water and sanitation and space heating and heating water. The resident’s tenancy agreement also reflects these obligations.
The Housing Act 2004 ensures landlords are responsible for assessing hazards and risks within their rented homes. When assessing any such hazards and risks, the assessment should be considered in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould growth are potential category 1 hazards and the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also requires the property to be free from a hazard to be fit for human habitation.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published in 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, and share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on the next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations promptly.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord agrees to keep in good repair, the structure and exterior of the premises including drains, gutters and external pipes, and the roof.
The landlord’s repair procedure states that some repairs require pre-inspections, which include any issues relating to condensation and mould, structural or very technical issues. The landlord will advise the resident of the outcome and raise any repairs in line with the repairs matrix.
The landlord’s condensation and mould procedure, dated August 2021, states that it operates a 2-tier inspection process. The initial inspection is to assess the extent and cause of the condensation, damp and mould to determine the actions which should be taken by the landlord or the resident. Escalation to a second inspection is based on the severity of the mould.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will pay compensation for service failure, and discretionary payments will be assessed with the outcome of returning the resident to a situation as if the specific incident did not take place. It provides a matrix for staff to assess the level of distress and gives suggested amounts of compensation.

The resident’s reports of repairs to the roof, and the subsequent damp and mould issues.

After reviewing the information sent to the Service, it is clear that the resident was reporting issues with water running down the walls between 2019 and 2023, which they reported to the landlord multiple times. The resident stated that the property was suffering from a roof leak, which was causing damp inside.
There is evidence to show that the landlord attended on multiple occasions and carried out inspections, and that the landlord had reported a contributing factor was a build up of condensation within the loft space and lack of ventilation.
Repair records show that the landlord carried out a number of works over the years in order to try and resolve the issue. This included installing a new extractor fan, vents in the roof, taking damp meter readings and carrying out mould washes of the affected areas.
Prior to the resident’s complaint in February 2023, an order was raised in November 2022 to inspect the roof due to a further report of water running down the walls. An operative attended on 25 November 2022 and reported that he could not see any damage to the roof felt and that a surveyor needed to attend to inspect, as there was an issue with condensation within the loft and vents had already been fitted. The landlord arranged for a further inspection to be carried out on 6 December 2022, which identified that scaffolding was required so that works could be carried out to the roof battens.
When a resident reports a repair, including damp and mould, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to take prompt action and inspect the property at the earliest and most convenient opportunity. It is then expected that the landlord has a process in place to follow up on any repairs that have been identified and carry out further investigative work if it is needed.
It is important to note that when trying to resolve issues with damp and mould, it can sometimes take time to find the right solution. The Ombudsman would also expect a landlord to follow up with a resident in a timely manner, in order to take a proactive approach and find a suitable resolution.
While the landlord’s actions were in line with its repair procedure and damp and mould procedure, there is clear evidence that the landlord was not effectively communicating with the resident and keeping them updated in relation to the outcome of the inspections and any remedial works required.
The resident believes that the issues with damp and mould are as a result of a roof leak, whereas the landlord’s records show that there may be an issue with condensation as their investigations are not showing signs of a roof leak.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to clearly communicate with the resident the results of any findings and also take time to explain any technicalities in order for resident’s to have a clearer understanding of why they are experiencing the issues they have reported.
The evidence shows that the resident rang the landlord over 20 times between November 2022 and February 2023in order to seek an update. It is clear that the front line staff were raising callback requests, which detailed the level of distress the resident was experiencing, but the landlord failed to respond accordingly.
Despite the resident making a formal complaint in February 2023, the evidence shows that the communication did not improve. The landlord acknowledged within its stage 1 response that it had failed to communicate effectively with the resident, but there is no indication that it took any steps to put things right and learn from the failures it identified. The lack of response from the landlord in relation to this point, went on to form part of the resident’s stage 2 escalation.
Despite the resident making it clear that they remained dissatisfied with the lack of communication, the landlord’s records show that between the stage 1 and stage 2 response, which was issued on 17 May 2022, the resident continued to contact the landlord for an update.
It is clear that the landlord failed to learn from the failures it identified as part of its stage 1 response. The front line team continued to record callback requests on its systems, but the landlord failed to respond to the resident, which led to them feeling increasingly frustrated.
Whilst it is positive to see that the landlord has a robust internal complaints team who regularly monitor open complaints and forthcoming deadlines, it is concerning to see the lack of response they were receiving from other internal staff members. Emails were being sent asking for updates, but remained unanswered, until the matter was escalated internally in order to obtain answers.
When a final response was sent to the resident, the landlord addressed the resident’s complaint regarding the actions it had taken and detailed the steps it had taken over the years in order to try and resolve the issues reported.
The evidence provided confirms the landlord’s position and while there are multiple reports, the duration between the reports were prolonged and it would be reasonable for the landlord to assume that the work it had undertaken had resolved the issue. Therefore, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took appropriate action when further issues were reported.
In order to obtain an independent view and ensure the actions it was taking were appropriate, the landlord also arranged for an independent survey to be carried out and said within its final response that it would review the findings once it had been completed.
The Ombudsman has seen a copy of the subsequent report and is satisfied that the landlord reviewed the findings as it said it would do. However, the Service is also aware that the resident disagreed with the findings, and a new complaint was raised and responded to in August 2023. These actions show that the landlord was trying to take further steps to review its own findings, to try and reassure the resident that the steps it was taking were correct.
In an effort to put things right for the resident the landlord appropriately acknowledged its service failure in relation to its communication and apologised to the resident. It further detailed the steps it had taken as part of its learning. It also offered the resident a total of £1,400 compensation, which included the £150 offered at stage 1.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The Ombudsman has first considered the impact in relation the landlord’s failure to communicate effectively and efficiently with the resident. It is clear that the resident was feeling increasingly frustrated with the landlord’s lack of response. A number of calls were made to the landlord over a period of time, which the landlord failed to respond to. The resident’s frustration was further exacerbated by the landlord’s failure to improve its communication following its stage 1 response. The landlord offered £250 compensation in relation to this, which the Ombudsman feels is a fair and reasonable offer in relation to this aspect.
The Service has then considered the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of a roof leak and the damp and mould. The evidence shows that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a roof leak appropriately and identified that no leak was present. The evidence shows that the property was being affected by condensation and the landlord was taking appropriate action to try and resolve the issues. The landlord offered the resident £1,000 compensation in relation to this, which the Ombudsman feels is a fair and reasonable offer in relation to this aspect.
Finally, the Service has considered the redress offered by the landlord in relation to the delay associated with the stage 2 response. The evidence shows that the landlord was updating the resident on a regular basis with regards to the extra time needed and acknowledged that there had been service failure as it failed to respond within its published timescale. The landlord offered £150 compensation in relation to this, which the Ombudsman feels is a fair and reasonable offer in relation to this aspect.
In summary, it is clear that the landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s report in November 2022, and took the necessary steps in line with its policy and procedures. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s multiple requests for updates and delayed issuing the stage 2 complaint response. However, we are satisfied that the landlord has offered proportionate and appropriate redress for the impact of those failings. However its failure to respond to the resident resident’s multiple requests for an update were unreasonable. Too many call back requests were left unanswered and no improvements were made until the final response was issued.
This would normally result in a finding of maladministration; however, the Ombudsman is satisfied the redress offered by the landlord was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of a roof leak, damp, and mould.

Orders and recommendations

This determination is based on the landlord’s offer of £1,400 financial compensation made to the resident as part of its stage 2 complaint. The landlord should ensure that, should the resident accept the compensation, it pays this sum directly to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Review its staff’s training needs with regard to its customer service level agreement and how its monitors callback requests which has not been responded too.
2. Review the resident’s property at a later date to ensure that the repairs that have been completed have sufficiently addressed the issues reported.
3. Update its internal systems to reflect the resident and her daughters’ vulnerabilities and medical conditions.
It is recommended that that landlord contacts the resident to arrange to reinspect the property, regarding the outstanding works and confirm if any further works are needed in relation to the roof and water running down the walls.