Brighter Places (202113425)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113425

Brighter Places

12 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s :
1. Reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
2. Request to repair the back door.
3. Complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a 2 bedroom terraced house, and her tenancy started in December 2007. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The resident described herself as having a disability due to restricted mobility, and her daughter as being vulnerable to the effects of damp and mould, as she suffers from asthma.

Summary of events

On 16 July 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to report the back door to her property needing repairing. The repair was booked for 28 July 2021, and at the repair appointment the resident was told by the operative, that the back door needed replacing.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 August 2021 and asked what was happening with her back door, as she had been told it would need to be replaced. The landlord sent an internal email on the same day asking the relevant team to progress with replacing the door. It is unclear whether the repair was booked at this time.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 August 2021 and said she had concerns about rising damp and a “large crack” in the wall at the rear of the property. She explained that the landlord had done “some damp work” before, but she had not heard anything since.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 August 2021 and asked for an update on the back door issue. The landlord sent another internal email on the same day to chase the progress of the back door repair, and it does not appear the repair was booked at this time.
The resident called the landlord on 15 October 2021 to say that she was unhappy that the back door had not yet been repaired or replaced. The resident said she was concerned that the back door was left “unsafe”. The landlord sent an internal email on the same day chasing the door repair. The officer dealing with the issue expressed a concern that it had “not ordered the door as yet”. They asked the relevant team to provide a date for when it could install to the replacement door. It does not appear that the door repair was booked at this time.
The landlord contacted the resident on 13 December 2021 and said that it planned to install scaffolding “after the Christmas break” to look into issues with water ingress from the crack and “issues at roof level”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 February 2022 to ask for an update about the repairs to the roof and other repairs at her property. The resident stated that the scaffolding had been up since 16 January 2022, but nobody had attended for a month. It is unclear from the repair log when the works to the roof were completed. An internal email, on 20 April 2022, said the scaffolding was removed, and the resident had called to chase the progress on the internal repairs.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 May 2022 and said:
1. The repair to her back door was never completed
2. It had attended to inspect “rotten skirting boards” but she had heard nothing back
It is unclear what action the landlord took following the above report, and the resident contacted it again on 24 May 2022 to ask for an update. The resident said she had not heard anything back and was concerned that it was not responding to her reports. The resident sent the landlord an online complaint form on the same day that said:
1. She had been waiting “years” for some repairs and was often told the landlord would call her back with an update, and “never” did
2. There were issues with damp in “multiple rooms” due to water ingress. The damp issues had led to ceiling damage in her kitchen and rotten skirting boards
3. It took “over a year” to repair the back door. The work was now done but the job was not finished, as it had not re rendered, or redecorated on the inside.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 30 May 2022 and said:
1. It understood the complaint to be about the repair service the resident had received from its contractor
2. It had replaced the back door and completed “all necessary roofing works”
3. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for the “distress and inconvenience caused”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 June 2022 and asked her complaint to be considered at stage 2. She said it had not addressed “any of the issues” she complained about, and added:
1. The back door was replaced, but it had left visible expanding foam and plaster ripped off the walls on the inside. The job was not finished properly and she wanted to know when it would do so
2. A roof repair had been done, but it was “still leaking”
3. She had rotten skirting boards and a damaged ceiling that needed repairing
4. There was still evidence of damp in the wall
5. She was concerned about the impact of the condition of the property on her and her daughter’s health, and explained that her daughter was a “chronic asthmatic”.
The landlord contacted the resident on 20 June 2022 and said it had booked in the ‘making good’ works to the back door for 1 July 2022. It added that it was in discussion with the appropriate team to arrange works to the ceiling in her kitchen.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 20 July 2022 and apologised that it had not responded sooner, and it would send the response within 20 working days.
On 29 July 2022 the landlord referred the resident’s property to its “damp and mould project” to investigate the damp and mould issues in her property.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 19 August 2022 and said:
1. It apologised for the poor workmanship the resident had experienced
2. Its surveyor was speaking with its contractors to “define the works” and agree dates. It would update the resident when it had identified dates and times for works to go ahead
3. It had decided to uphold the resident’s complaint, and explained how she could raise her case with this Service, if she remained unhappy with the outcome.

Events after the complaints process

The landlord emailed its contractor on 21 October 2022 to chase the outstanding works to the back door. It does not appear the works took place at that time.
On 7 December 2022, the landlord completed repairs to the roof to allow “rain water to run into the guttering” and inspected the rear wall to check for water ingress into the kitchen. The outcome of the inspection was not recorded.
On 9 January 2023 the landlord completed the “make good” works around the back door, inside and out.
On 23 January 2023 the landlord raised the following works (the works were completed on 24 July 2023):
1. Clean down the outside wall
2. Apply a 2 part “mould killer paint” to the bedroom cupboard, and install a ventilation grill
3. Remove the loose plaster and apply a 2 part “mould killer” paint to the outside wall
4. Replace the extractor fan in the kitchen with a new model
5. Redecorate the kitchen ceiling with “waterproof paint”
6. Add salt neutraliser to the walls in the kitchen, and then paint with waterproof paint
7. Replace the damaged skirting boards in the kitchen
The resident contacted this Service on 24 January 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord had “not carried out the works” needed to her property, and it had not booked in works it had agreed to, and the damp was reported “years ago”. The resident explained she was concerned about the impact the damp was having on her daughter, as she suffered from “chronic asthma”.
A surveyor for the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection on 5 October 2023 and produced a report, that said:
1. The resident was concerned that mould was returning in the lounge, and a humidity reading of 72% was recorded
2. The party wall in the kitchen had “high moisture content” in the area by the wall unit. A humidity reading of 70% was recorded
3. The bathroom also had a “high reading” of 71%
4. The new render at the rear of the property had “blown and cracked” and there were areas of water stains “possibly from the gutter overflowing/leaks”
5. It recommended the following:
  1. Investigate the roof for leaks
  2. Investigate the cause of water ingress into the kitchen and bathroom
  3. “Hack off” damaged render and re render all affected areas
  4. Check and repair (if needed) the guttering to the rear of the property
  5. Mould wash and decorate the lounge wall
The landlord told this Service on 17 November 2023 that the original contractor for the above proposed works was unable to complete them. It said it had now agreed a new scheme of works with the resident and, at her request, the works would take place in January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the drains, gutters and external pipes of the property.
The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’) obliges the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation. In determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters including repair, stability, freedom from damp, ventilation, drainage and sanitary conveniences, and facilities for preparation and cooking of food and disposal of waste water, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, repair works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The Ombudsman published the Spotlight report on Damp and Mould in October 2021 which stated that landlord should “adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould”. The report said landlords should take “proactive interventions” in its approach to diagnosing damp and mould issues in its properties.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it responds to residents’ concerns about damp and mould in a “timely manner”. If structural repairs that are contributing to damp and mould are identified, it will complete identified repairs within 28 days. The policy states that it will “provide an assessment” of the individual needs of a household, and respond appropriately.
The landlord’s repairs guidance on its website states that it will attend to non emergency repairs within 3 months. It states that each repair is assessed on a case by case basis taking into account the individual circumstances of the resident, and any vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will send stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 20 working days. The policy states that its complaint investigation must be “unbiased, empathetic and thorough”. The responses will address “all points raised”.

Damp, mould, and the associated repairs

When the resident first reported concerns about water ingress and the resultant damp and mould in August 2021, the landlord did not erect scaffolding to investigate further until January 2022. This was a failing in its handling of the matter, as it did not adhere to the 28 day timeframe set out in its damp and mould policy. The delay in progressing with a meaningful investigation to the cause of water ingress and damp, is evidence of a lack of urgency on the part of the landlord. That it did not start investigating the cause until 5 months after it was put on notice about the issue was unreasonable. The result was an inconvenience to the resident as, having reported her concerns, the landlord failed to take any action for a significant period of time.
From the records provided, it is unclear when the repairs to the roof took place, which is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping. It is apparent that the roof repair took place some time in early 2022. That the resident was required to chase the landlord for a progress update in February 2022 cost her time and trouble. This indicates that the landlord’s poor communication and record keeping contributed to its overall poor handling of the matter. The resident experienced an inconvenience, time and trouble by having to request updates from the landlord. That the landlord was not proactive in keeping the resident updated about the progress of the roof repairs was unreasonable.
In relation to the damp, mould, and the associated repairs the landlord stage 1 complaint response was inappropriate. Its response did not provide any meaningful assessment of its handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould up to that point, which was unreasonable. The landlord’s comment that it had completed all repairs was dismissive, and failed to take into account the resident had reported the issue was not resolved, as part of her complaint. This was a failure in its handling of the substantive issue, and a failure to adhere to the Ombudsman dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes.
The complaint response did not mention damp and mould, or the resident’s concern that her skirting boards were rotten. The landlord failed to acknowledge that its initial response was not in line with the timeframes outlined in its damp and mould policy. The lack of assessment of its actions up to that point can reasonably be expected to have contributed its poor overall handling of the matter. Had it reflected and learnt from its poor handling up to that point it could have used such information to improve the service it was delivering to the resident.
That the landlord referred the resident’s property to its specialist damp and mould project was appropriate, given the concerns she had reported. It is concerning that its investigations into the causes of damp and mould were not appropriately investigated before this time. The referral happened nearly a year after the resident first reported concerns about water ingress, damp and mould. That it did not conduct a more thorough investigation earlier was a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident experienced distress of living in a property where damp and mould was present and the landlord not investigating with appropriate urgency.
As with its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not assess its actions up to the point. It admitted failings, but did not genuinely reflect on its handling of the issue or show what learning it had done. As part of her escalation request, the resident had expressed concerns about the impact of the situation on her and her daughter’s health. That it did not address that concern in its complaint response, was a further failing. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it must “provide an assessment” of the individual needs of a household and respond appropriately. After the resident had raised specific concerns about the individual circumstances of her household, and her vulnerability, it would have been reasonable for it to have completed an assessment of the resident’s circumstances, and the impact the situation was having on her. That it did not was a failure to adhere to its damp and mould policy and to consider the individual circumstances of the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated that it was seeking to address the resident’s concerns about the repair issues causing damp and mould, but lacked detail. Given the resident had raised concerns about specific repairs and damp and mould, that its complaint response lacked detail was inappropriate and a further failing in its handling of the matter. That it did not outline the specific action it intended to take, and give indicative timeframes, was unreasonable.
Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to minimise the disadvantages suffered connected to a person’s protected characteristics. The evidence available indicates that the landlord did not have due regard for whether the resident, and her household members, had a disability, as defined by the Equality Act. The landlord was told by the resident that her daughter’s health conditions made her particularly vulnerable to the effects of damp and mould. The landlord failed to consider the resident’s unique circumstances, her potential disability, and the potential impact of damp on the health of her household.
When the landlord completed repairs to the roof in December 2022, the notes from the repair log indicate that it asked the operative to inspect for possible water ingress into the kitchen. The outcome or proposed actions from the inspection were not available for this investigation, which is a further failing in the landlord’s record keeping. The later inspection, of October 2023, recommended further investigation into water ingress into the kitchen. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that such an investigation did not happen at the time. This was a further failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter, and evidence that the landlord’s failure to thoroughly investigate the causes of damp and mould contributed to the overall delay in resolving the issue.
In January 2023, the landlord raised further works to try and address the damp, mould and water ingress issues at the property. The evidence provided indicates that despite the works being raised in January 2023, these were not completed until July 2023, 6 months later. This lengthy delay was a further failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter, and was well outside of the 28 day timeframe set out in its damp and mould policy. The resident experienced a further inconvenience of an unreasonable delay in the landlord completing works that sought to resolve the issues she was experiencing.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord raised a specialist damp and mould survey before the survey of October 2023. This was over 2 years after it was put on notice about damp and mould issues within the resident’s property. The lack of action from the landlord during this time is particularly concerning given the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on damp and mould was published in the intervening period. The landlord was on notice that the resident was suffering with damp and mould in her property, and considered her daughter to be vulnerable to the effects of damp and mould. The landlord’s approach was inappropriate and did not demonstrate the “proactive interventions” called for in the Spotlight report.
It is noted that the issue remains outstanding and the landlord is due to complete works it is hopeful will resolve the issues at the resident’s property in January 2024. The Ombudsman understands that the works have been delayed from the end of 2023 to the start of 2024, at the resident’s request. The landlord, therefore, cannot be held accountable for the entirety of the delay. However, that it conducted a damp and mould survey 2 years after the matter was first reported, was a lengthy delay which resulted in a significant detriment to the resident. The landlord’s communication and record keeping were poor, which contributed to the overall delays in responding to the issue. The landlord accepted failings in its handling of the matter, but failed to offer any redress to the resident, which was unreasonable. As such, a series of orders have been made below.

Repairs to the back door

When the resident first reported a concern about the back door, in July 2021, the landlord attended promptly to repair the door, which was reasonable in the circumstances and in line with the 3 month timeframe set out in its repairs guidance. The landlord assessed the door and decided that it would be more appropriate to replace the door rather than repair it, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
From the evidence available for this investigation, it is apparent that there was an unreasonable delay in ordering the replacement door. An internal email from October 2021 indicates that the door had not yet been ordered. This meant the repair was completed well outside of the 3 month timeframe outlined in the landlord’s repairs guidance. The resident had described the door as “unsafe” and was concerned about security. In line with its guidance, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have progressed with the repair with greater urgency.
The landlord’s record keeping around the door repair was poor. It is evident from internal emails the time it took to book the repair was unreasonable. It is also evident that by the time the resident made her stage 1 complaint, the new door had been fitted. It is not clear, from the records available, exactly when the repair took place. This is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping and its overall handling of the matter.
It is evident that the landlord did not complete the repair within its own 3 month timeframe, as the new door was installed sometime in early 2022. That the landlord did not finish ‘making good’ works to the inside and outside of the property, was a further shortcoming. It is noted that the immediate safety risk was resolved by the installation of the new door. However, that the resident had to chase it for making good works was an inconvenience that cost her time and trouble. That the landlord was not proactive in follow up on the making good on the works was unreasonable.
As with other substantive aspects of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint response lacked detail on the door repair. That it did not assess its actions up to the point, was a failure to adhere to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes. The landlord admitted failings, in a general sense, for its handling of repairs. However, it did not genuinely reflect on its handling of the issue or show what learning it had done. This was unfair, and it missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident.
The ‘making good’ works were completed in January 2023, 18 months after the issue was first reported to the landlord. This was an unreasonable delay and a failure to adhere to the 3 month timeframe outlined in its repairs guidance. The resident experienced inconvenience, time and trouble through the delays and the landlord’s poor communication about the repair. As such, a series of orders have been made below.

Complaint Handling

As outlined above, both of the landlord’s complaint responses lacked detail and failed to show any genuine assessment or learning about its handling of the substantive issues of the complaint. This was a failing in its complaint handling, and a failure to apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes. The inconvenience caused by its brief and dismissive complaint responses is evidenced by the resident’s stage 2 escalation request of June 2022, that made it clear she felt it had not responded to the actual concerns she had raised in her complaint.
Both of the landlord’s complaint responses did not address specific concerns raised by the resident in both her initial complaint, and her escalation request. The resident raised concerns about damp, mould, water ingress and rotten skirting boards. Considering these specific concerns were raised as part of the complaint, their absence in the landlord’s complaint response is evidence of a unfair complaints process that caused an inconvenience to the resident. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that a complaint investigation “must consider all information and evidence carefully”. That the landlord failed to respond to specific concerns the resident had raised, was inappropriate and a failure to abide by the Code, and a further failing in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Both the stage 1 and 2 complaints were upheld, and the landlord appropriately apologised for its handling of the substantive issues of the case. However, the landlord did not offer any compensation for its admitted failings. As such it did not adhere to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of putting things right. That the landlord admitted failings, and did not seek to put things right as part of its complaint response was a further failing in its complaint handling.
The landlord delayed in acknowledging the resident’s stage 2 escalation request, which resulted in an overall delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response. The stage 2 complaint response was sent 53 working days after the stage 2 complaint was made, which was well outside of the timeframe set out in the landlord’s complaints procedure and the Code. The result was an inconvenience for the resident. The landlord, appropriately apologised for the delay in its stage 2 complaint acknowledgment. That it did not offer a further apology, or redress, in its stage 2 complaint response was a further failing in its complaint handling. This was a further missed opportunity to try and put things right for the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to repair the back door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

There were unreasonable delays in completing works identified to address the issue of damp and mould. The landlord repeatedly failed to adhere to the 28 day timeframe set out in its damp and mould policy. Its communication and record keeping in relation to the damp, mould and associated repairs was poor, and contributed to its overall inadequate handling of the matter. The 2 year delay in conducting a damp and mould survey was unreasonable and caused a significant detriment to the resident. The landlord failed to consider the individual circumstances of the resident, her and her daughter’s vulnerability, which is particularly concerning considering the health conditions present within the household.
The landlord identified that the door needed replacing, but there was an unreasonable delay in ordering the door. This resulted in the new door being fitted well outside of the 3 month timeframe outlined in its repairs guidance. There was a further delay in completing the making good works, which resulted in an inconvenience for the resident, as well as time and trouble in the need to chase the landlord to follow up on the repair.
The landlord’s complaint response lacked detail and failed to show genuine learning from its admitted failings. Its complaint response failed to address specific concerns raised by the resident, which caused an inconvenience. There was a delay at stage 2 of the complaint procedure, which the landlord failed to offer compensation for.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, it is ordered that:
1. A senior director for the landlord apologises for the failings identified in this report
2. The landlord pay the resident £1,550 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £1,000 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the damp, mould and the associated repairs
  2. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs to the back door
  3. £250 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Agree an action plan with the resident that outlines how it will monitor the damp and mould in the property. This should have a particular focus on assessing whether the works it plans to do in January 2024 are successful in resolving the issue.
2. Considering the failings identified in this report, complete a review into its handling of the damp and mould issue, and the back door repair. This should include how it can reduce the risk of similar failings happening again. The review should consider:
  1. Following up on reports of repairs, and booking repairs in a timely manner
  2. Its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident, and her particular vulnerabilities
  3. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould
  4. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management
3. The outcome of the above review should be shared with this Service, also within eight weeks.
4. Conduct training with its complaint handling staff, with a particular focus on:
  1. The importance of a meaningful complaint investigation that seeks to learn from outcomes
  2. Offering redress when a complaint investigation identifies failings
  3. The importance of acknowledging and offering redress when there are delays in responding to complaints.