Beyond Housing Limited (202212624)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212624

Beyond Housing Limited

20 December 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her living room.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request that she be moved to temporary accommodation while the damp issues were resolved.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a permanent transfer on medical grounds.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was an assured tenant and lived in a 4-bedroom house owned by the landlord from August 2021.
The resident lived in the property with her husband (a joint tenant) who was also her carer. Sadly, the resident passed away in February 2023.
The resident had a number of physical health conditions including arthritis, fibromyalgia, heart conditions and COPD. The resident’s grandson also lives in the property. The landlord’s records show that the household is vulnerable due to “mobility and medical issues”.

Repair policy

The landlord had advised this Service that it does not have a repairs policy.
The landlord outline’s repair timeframes on its website. It states it will respond to emergencies which pose “a significant inconvenience…but does not pose an immediate danger” within 24 hours. It also states that it will carry out planned works within 180 working days. The website does not however provide a timeframe for routine repairs or repairs to damp and mould.

Lettings and transfer policies

The landlord is part of a lettings partnership with several local councils and other housing associations. All the providers have signed up to a common allocations policy which outlines a single set of rules for how the organisations give priority for housing.
Under the joint agreement, the landlord must “advertise and seek to let the majority of their available general needs homes via this scheme”.
The lettings partnership assesses the priority of applicants for housing. ‘Band 2’ is defined as “high housing need” and includes people who need to move on “urgent medical grounds”.
The landlord’s tenancy management policy states that it is committed to “reducing the number of transfers where there is no housing need”. It does however state that it will consider a transfer request where there is a housing need and exceptional circumstances.
The landlord operates a policy on exceptional transfers however this only applies in the case of major repairs and specifically states that residents “should not benefit from this move”.

Complaint and compensation policies

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and provide a formal response within 10 working days. If a resident is unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint, they can request within 28 days that it be escalated to stage 2 of the complaint process. The landlord aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 2 working days and provide a full response within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider paying compensation where there has been a service failure, loss of facilities, damage to possessions, or missed appointments. It states that it will not pay compensation for “Service failure and right to repair where reasonable access has not been given to carry out our services”.
The landlord’s policy states that if it fails to adhere to its complaint timeframes it will pay compensation of £10 plus £2 for every day outside of the timeframe (up to a maximum of £50).

Scope of the investigation

When a tenant applies for re-housing by a local authority on the grounds of reasonable preference (eg because they are homeless, overcrowded, or need to move on medical or welfare grounds) they must apply via the allocations scheme also called the social housing register. Complaints about such applications are the jurisdiction of the LGSCO, not this Service.
This Service is, however, able to consider complaints relating to management transfer requests and temporary accommodation requests, which are discussed below.

Summary of events

Emails between the landlord and the resident’s Occupational Therapist (OT) dated 21 June 2021 stated that the resident had accepted an offer of the property. The OT responded and said that a stairlift could be installed at the property but that the resident would need to request a social care assessment.
In August 2021 the resident moved into the property.
On 1 September 2021 the landlord’s records show that the resident telephoned the landlord and asked who had decided that the property was suitable for her. The landlord advised that the OT had said the property was suitable and it had suitable access, space for a stairlift to be fitted, an over bath shower, and 4 bedrooms.
On 6 April 2022 the resident reported damp in her living room to the landlord.
On 21 July 2022 the resident’s husband informed the landlord that the resident’s needs had changed and that she was now unable to use the stairs. He said that she was therefore unable to use the toilet in the property and was having to use a bucket. The landlord contacted the OT and asked her to contact the resident.
The resident made a formal complaint on 25 July 2022 regarding her housing needs not being met. The resident’s requested outcome was a move to a more suitable property.
The landlord’s records demonstrate that on 26 July 2022 the OT offered the resident a commode until a housing needs panel meeting could take place. The resident refused this offer.
The medical panel meeting was held on 4 August 2022. At the meeting it was agreed that the resident would be awarded priority 2 banding to bid on properties on the local council’s housing register. The additional priority was backdated to 20 July 2022.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 August 2022. It stated:
1. The resident had complained about the landlord’s lack of recognition of her housing needs due to her medical conditions.
2. It was sorry for the “delays experienced and the upset caused”.
3. The resident had stated that she was unable to use a stairlift. This contradicted the Occupational Therapist (OT) report of June 2022.
4. It was necessary for the case to be discussed at a medical panel meeting but one of the professionals who was required to attend was on leave for 3 weeks.
5. This delayed the landlord’s decision about the resident’s priority banding which caused her understandable frustration.
6. The landlord had spoken to the resident since her complaint and agreed that the resident required:
  1. A 3-bed ground-floor property.
  2. A level-access shower.
  3. Band 2 priority was awarded and the priority was backdated to 20 July 2022.
7. If the resident was unhappy, she could escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process within 28 days.
The resident’s husband telephoned the landlord on 6 August 2022 to report a “mouldy damp patch” on the living room wall. He stated that the resident had a chronic lung condition and asked for an inspection to be carried out urgently.
On 19 August 2022 the landlord carried out an inspection of damp reported at the property. The landlord has stated that the operative who carried out the inspection is a qualified and experienced “water restoration technician”. He carried out a moisture survey which found 2 walls in the living room to be wet. The operative stated that he followed the moisture patterns and traced the issue to a boiler leak. The operative also found the to be “small mould patches” behind furniture in the living room and advised the resident that these could be cleaned off with an anti-microbial spray. The operative stated that he explained to the resident what works were required but the resident was unhappy and said she would not allow works to be carried out until she was moved out of the property. She also stated that the damp and mould in the living room were causing her health issues.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 August 2022 via its website. She stated that she wanted to make a complaint about damp in the property which she stated she had reported more than a year previously. She said she had severe disabilities and a young child and therefore the works could not be carried out while she was living in the property. She stated that she wanted to be “moved permanently not temporarily”.
Also on 22 August 2022 the landlord visited the resident in her home and explained that the required works could be completed without moving her out of the property. The resident stated that the dust from the works would make her existing health issues worse. The landlord said that it could place the resident in bed and breakfast accommodation for the duration of the work but she refused this saying she wanted a permanent move.
The landlord’s contact records state that on 22 August 2022 the landlord telephoned the resident. The landlord stated that the resident’s husband was aggressive on the phone and stated that the work would not be allowed to go ahead and “demanded to be moved”. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process at this time.
On 23 August 2022 the resident telephoned the landlord and stated that she had moved to the property a year ago and had not been made aware at that time that major works were being carried out prior to her moving in. She said that she had experienced “nothing but issues with…damp in the property” which was impacting her health. She advised the landlord that she had COPD and was struggling to get up and down the stairs and was unable to fit a stairlift as her young grandchild was living with her so stairgates had to be fitted. She said she was sleeping downstairs and was using a bucket to toilet as the toilet was upstairs.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 31 August 2022 and was described as “distressed”. The resident stated that she did not want anyone carrying out works to the damp while she was in the property. She said that she had provided a letter from her GP which stated she could not live in the property while works were being carried out due to health reasons.
On 1 September 2022 the resident’s GP sent a letter to the landlord confirming the resident’s health conditions which included arthritis, fibromyalgia, heart conditions and COPD. The letter does not state that the resident needed to be moved out of the property.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 5 September 2022 and asked that the family be moved before works to the property take place. The contact notes stated that when it was explained that she would not be moved, the resident started shouting and said that the landlord would not get access to complete the repairs so the damp would “only get worse”.
On 12 September 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. This stated:
1. The resident had appealed the landlord’s stage 1 decision and asked for a move as an outcome to the stage 2 complaint.
2. The resident had also complained about damp in the property. The landlord had carried out a moisture survey and found the living room wall to be damp. The area of damp had been caused by a small leak from the boiler which had been repaired.
3. The landlord needed to remove a small area of plaster to allow the brickwork to dry out for “a couple of weeks”. It would then replaster the area.
4. The landlord outlined reasonable adjustments it would make in view of the resident’s health issues to allow her to remain in the property while the work was completed. It would:
  1. Move all the furniture to a corner of the room and roll back the carpet.
  2. ‘Tent’ half of the room with polythene to prevent dust.
  3. Vacuum the area to remove all dust and clean the area thoroughly.
  4. Put the room back together afterwards.
  5. This would be repeated after the area had dried when the landlord replastered the patch.
5. The process would take half a day on each occasion. It had offered to provide temporary overnight accommodation in a bed and breakfast while the work was being completed. The resident had declined this.
6. The resident had refused to allow operatives into the property to complete the work. If the work was not carried out it would take months for the damp patches to dry out which may cause small patches of mould to form.
7. The landlord did not uphold the complaint as it had awarded the resident the appropriate banding to allow her to apply for suitable properties. It had also offered to remedy the area of damp, making reasonable adjustments for the resident’s ill-health.
The resident responded to the landlord on 12 September 2022 and said that the landlord was “disgusting”. She said that there were live electric sockets on the wall and she would not allow the works while she was in the property along with a toddler who would get in the way. She stated that she was experiencing “worse breathing problems” due to the damp. The resident stated that she did not believe that the cause of the damp was the boiler as the damp was nowhere near the boiler and the moisture was coming from the chimney breast.
On 13 September 2023 the resident asked this Service to investigate the landlord’s handling of the complaint. She stated that she was unhappy with the outcome of the complaint process because:
1. The landlord was overlooking her serious health conditions.
2. Her GP had advised the landlord that the repair work would have a negative impact on her health.
3. She disagreed with the landlord’s assertion that the damp was being caused by a previous boiler leak. She believed it was coming from the chimney breast.
Repair notes demonstrate that on 16 September 2022 the landlord agreed to send an independent contractor to carry out a further damp survey to reassure the resident that the cause of the damp was the leaking boiler.
On 29 September 2022 a damp survey was completed by an independent contractor. The landlord received the damp report from the contractor on 6 October 2022. The report stated that moisture was found in the living room walls and on the chimney breast. It also found damp on the hallway, dining room and kitchen walls where they adjoined the living room. The report recommended that further samples be taken to identify whether the high moisture levels were down to the previous leak from the boiler or due to a separate issue of water ingress from the chimney.
On 3 October 2022 the resident telephoned the landlord and stated that as the contractor had known the landlord’s operative who carried out the initial damp survey, it was not “independent”.
On 10 October 2022 the resident contacted the local council’s environmental health team. She stated that she had reported damp and mould in her property to her landlord but they were ignoring her. The environmental health team contacted the landlord on 13 October 2022 and asked that it provide an update on the issue.
The resident’s husband telephoned the landlord on 11 October 2022 and asked why the independent contractor knew the landlord’s operative who had carried out the initial damp survey. The landlord stated that, due to the nature of the work, the operative had worked with the contractor previously.
On 18 October 2022 the resident’s husband contacted the landlord and asked when the work identified in the damp survey would be completed. He reiterated that due to his wife’s ill-health they could not remain in the property while work was completed. On the same date the resident contacted the environmental health team asking for an update.
On 19 October 2022 the landlord replied to the environmental health team. It advised that the resident refused to allow it to carry out repairs to damp in the living room following a leak unless she was moved out of the property. It stated that the work did not require her to move out and therefore it would not move her.
The landlord advised this Service in response to an information request made on 12 December 2023 that the resident had sadly passed away. Her tenancy has been succeeded in February 2023 by her husband who was the joint tenant and remains in the property with the couple’s grandsons whom he cares for.
The landlord also advised that no works had been carried out to the property but that on 13 December 2023 the landlord had contacted the resident’s husband to offer its condolences and ask if he would grant access to the property to resolve the damp. The resident’s husband had stated that he had “a lot on his plate” due to the death of his wife. He also advised that he was the carer to his grandsons who had been diagnosed with autism and that the works would be too disruptive for them.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised that the resident reports that this situation has caused her distress as she states that the damp in the property is worsening her existing health issues. She has also raised concern that the required repair works could impact her health if carried out when she was living in the property.
Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or calculate and award damages, this would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Though the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, it will be taken into account when considering the resident’s circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her living room.

The landlord does not have a repairs policy and its website does not provide a timeframe during which routine repairs and repairs to damp and mould will be responded to. The lack of such timeframes means that residents do not know what to expect from the landlord’s repairs service and their expectations are not effectively managed.
The resident reported damp in her living room in April 2022. This Service has not seen evidence that any action was taken by the landlord until August 2022 when the resident raised the issue again following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. This was an unreasonable delay of 4 months. This delay is particularly concerning considering the vulnerabilities of the resident which the landlord was aware of.
Following the resident’s reports in August 2022 the landlord attended on 19 August 2022 after 9 working days. This Service considers that this timeframe was reasonable.
The operative who attended has been demonstrated by the landlord to be an appropriately qualified and experienced professional and it was therefore reasonable that the landlord relied on his assessment that the damp was caused by a boiler leak.
The resident disagreed with the findings of the initial damp survey and in September 2022 the landlord asked an independent contractor to carry out a second survey of the damp in the property. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns regarding the accuracy of the first survey.
The resident has since raised concerns regarding the independence of the contractor that carried out the second survey. This Service has seen no evidence to indicate that the contractor who carried out the second survey was not independent and in fact the findings differed to the findings of the landlord’s own operative.
The second survey found further areas of high moisture in the property including the chimney breast, hallway, dining room and kitchen walls. It recommended that further samples be taken to rule out a separate issue of water ingress from the chimney. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord acted on this advice.
It is not reasonable that the landlord has not demonstrated that it acted on the advice of its own contractor.
Following the resident’s refusal to allow the damp works to be carried out while she was in the property (considered in the next section) this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord took any further action. This Service would have expected the landlord to make further contact with the resident at some time after October 2022 to try again to come to an agreement with the resident to resolve the damp. That it has not done so is a failing.
Overall, the landlord delayed unreasonably in its initial response to the resident’s reports of damp. When the issue was raised again the land acted quickly and carried out a full survey. The landlord also acted reasonably by ordering an independent survey when the resident was unhappy with the first however it has failed to act on the assessment of the independent surveyor and this is a failing. This Service considers that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request that she be moved to temporary accommodation while the damp issues were resolved.

The landlord advised the resident that the work required to resolve the damp in the living room would require operatives to attend on 2 separate dates for less than half a day on each occasion.
The landlord outlined additional measures that it would take to ensure that any dust and other debris from the repair works were safely contained. It stated that it would move the resident’s furniture and carpet, protect the rest of the room by ‘tenting’ the area where work was being carried out, and thoroughly clean the area before putting the room back as it was.
The resident has stated that her GP provided a letter to the landlord stating that the repair should not be completed while the resident was staying at the property as it would have a negative impact on her health. This Service has seen a letter from the resident’s GP dated 1 September 2022 but it does not state that the resident should be moved or make any reference to her housing situation.
The landlord offered to provide bed and breakfast accommodation for the family while the works were carried out. The resident did not accept this offer.
This Service considers that the measures proposed by the landlord to ensure that no dust or debris from the work was transferred to the rest of the property were reasonable and proportionate. We also consider that, while the landlord was not obliged to offer temporary accommodation to the resident, it nevertheless offered to provide bed and breakfast accommodation while the work was carried out. This offer was fair and reasonable. Therefore there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for temporary accommodation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a permanent transfer on medical grounds.

The landlord is a member of a lettings partnership with several local councils and housing associations. The landlord must adhere to a common allocations policy and let most of its available properties via the scheme.
The tenancy management policy does, however, provide for a transfer in the event of exceptional circumstances. The landlord would therefore be expected to consider a transfer in the event of such circumstances. The policy does not specify what is considered to be exceptional circumstances which provides the landlord with a wide degree of flexibility to apply its discretion.
The landlord does not have a policy that governs all exceptional transfers. The existing policy only applies in the case of major repair works and specifically states that residents “should not benefit from this move”. This Service considers that, in order to provide a transparent and fair management transfer process, the landlord should consider implementing a policy that applies to all management transfers. A recommendation has been made in this regard.
This Service does not consider that the resident’s circumstances were exceptional. This is not to say that the resident did not have housing needs particular to her health issues, she clearly had a number of severe health issues that impacted her housing situation. However, the landlord has demonstrated that it proactively communicated with the resident’s OT. This ensured that the resident was offered the right support and aids and adaptations (including a commode and stairlift) to allow her to live safely in the properly while applying for a permanent transfer via the local housing register. The resident decided not to accept the adaptations and this was her decision to make.
This Service considers that it was reasonable for the landlord to apply the common allocation policy in this case. We also consider however that the landlord should have provided the resident with an explanation as to why it was not applying its tenancy management policy and why it did not consider the resident’s circumstances to be exceptional. Therefore there was service failure in this respect.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord adhered to the timeframes outlined in its policy in responding to the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord fully addressed the resident’s complaint regarding its handling of the change in her housing needs due to her medical conditions. The landlord apologised for the delay caused by staff leave and explained that it had increased her priority banding so that she could apply for more suitable properties. It backdated this banding to account for the delay. This Service considers that the stage 1 complaint response was reasonable.
As the resident had raised concerns regarding damp in the property following her initial complaint, it was reasonable that the landlord added this to its stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response again addressed each of the resident’s complaints fully. It explained the actions it had already taken in relation to the damp and proposed an action plan to carry out the work while making reasonable adjustments for the resident’s health issues.
At the time of the stage 2 complaint response the independent damp survey had not been carried out so the landlord was unaware that there was uncertainty regarding the cause of the damp. It was therefore not in a position to address this in its response. This Service considers however that the landlord should have contacted the resident when it became aware of this issue to arrange further tests.
Overall the landlord acted in accordance with its complaints policy and its responses were reasonable, fair, and aimed to resolve the issue for the resident. Therefore there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her living room.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request that she be moved to temporary accommodation while the damp issues were resolved.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a permanent transfer on medical grounds.
4. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord delayed unreasonably in its initial response to the resident’s reports of damp. It has also failed to act on the assessment of the independent surveyor or carry out any actions to address the damp.
The landlord demonstrated that it considered the resident’s health conditions and was willing to make reasonable adjustments when carrying out works to remedy the damp. While the landlord was not obliged to offer temporary accommodation to the resident, it offered to provide bed and breakfast accommodation while the work was carried out.
It was reasonable for the landlord to apply the common allocation policy in this case. It should however have provided the resident with an explanation as to why it was not applying its tenancy management policy and why it did not consider the resident’s circumstances to be exceptional.
The landlord handled the resident’s complaint in line with its policy. It addressed all aspects of the complaint and acknowledged and apologised for its failings.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £450 comprising:
1. £300 for distress and time and trouble caused by failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to provide an explanation of its decision making regarding the resident’s transfer request.
Within 2 weeks of the date of this report the landlord make further contact with the resident’s husband and make a mutually convenient appointment to carry out further investigations into the cause of the damp in the property. The investigations should take into consideration the findings of the survey carried out by an independent contractor in September 2022. Within 2 weeks of completion of these investigations the landlord to arrange a further mutually convenient appointment for the required works to be carried out. In order to minimise disruption to the children in the property the landlord should offer the same adjustments as it previously offered:
1. Move all the furniture to a corner of the room and roll back the carpet.
2. ‘Tent’ half of the room with polythene to prevent dust.
3. Vacuum the area to remove all dust and clean the area thoroughly.
4. Put the room back together afterwards.
5. Bed and breakfast accommodation while the works are being carried out.
In accordance with paragraph 54 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its approach to management transfer applications. The review must be carried out within 12 weeks of the date of this report, and be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. Consideration of whether it would be beneficial to implement a policy that covers the landlord’s approach to all management transfer applications.
2. The landlord should include applications where residents would benefit from the move for example where there are serious medical needs or threats to life (eg in serious ASB cases).