Bromsgrove District Housing Trust Limited (202221811)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221811

Bromsgrove District Housing Trust Limited

08 February 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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Communication about damp, mould, and condensation during the resident’s mutual exchange.
2. Handling of repairs following the mutual exchange including damp and mould.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was an assured tenant in a 2 bedroom house since August 2022. She lives with vulnerabilities including diabetes, mobility restrictions, visual impairment, breathing difficulties, and terminal cancer.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repair should be completed on the same day. It also states that appointed general repairs should be completed within 11 working days.

Summary of events

A voids mutual exchange inspection was completed on 11 August 2022. The inspection found the property to be in good condition, and made no mention of damp, mould, or condensation in the property.
The landlord confirmed to the resident on 25 August 2022 that her mutual exchange application had been approved. The following day, she signed a property condition agreement which states that she accepted the accommodation in its current condition, subject to any outstanding repairs the landlord was responsible for, that had been identified.
Between 27 August 2022 and October 2022, the resident raised several repair requests. These included exposed plug sockets, a wire hanging from the living room ceiling light, the base of the toilet leaking, and issues with the radiators.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 7 October 2022. She explained following her move, the landlord had visited the same month, and she had provided it with a list of 8 issues which needed to be addressed in the property. Since then, nothing had been done. She explained about her vulnerabilities and advised that her husband had just had an operation. She stated despite its visit and the list, she had to log the repairs herself. She told the landlord that her family had no heating for 5 weeks and she had to wait for it to be sorted. She also informed it that her family had to clear the overgrown garden which had frogs, newts, and mice living there. She informed the landlord that the house had damp and there was a tree growing out of the chimney. She advised that there were also bricks missing from the back of the house and visitors had been disgusted by the condition of the property. She explained she was upset that they had no help, and she had spoken to it to report a repair on the same day, as it had not been done previously. She stated she had been put through to the member of its staff who visited in August 2022 who could not remember/ did not have the list of repairs she had initially reported. She advised she would have to email him the same list she had previously given him. She expressed her dissatisfaction.
The landlord’s internal notes from 18 October 2022 state that it tried to reschedule an appointment with the resident on 17 October 2022. She expressed her dissatisfaction at this and told it she would be posting on her social media platforms and contacting the media. It apologised to her for having caused her distress and said it felt it would still be beneficial to visit to discuss the complaint. It asked her to let it know if she was available that week for a visit from it and one of the repairs managers. If not, it would continue its investigation with the information available to it. It also asked her to call it if she would rather discuss matters over the phone and provided its contact details.
The landlord then contacted the resident on 24 October 2022 and apologised about the cancelled appointment. It said it understood her frustration and that a member of its staff had visited her to discuss her complaint. It apologised for the delay in its response to her and explained it had reviewed the stage 1 response letter, but there were elements it was challenging. It wanted to ensure it offered her a satisfactory response and explained it had arranged a meeting with the relevant member of staff the following day. It apologised and told her the response would be delayed by a day because of this. It further explained this was to ensure that it was addressing everything it needed to ensure the matter was resolved for her.
On the same day, the resident confirmed to the landlord that its staff had visited her. She advised that her family had also had chest infections due to a lack of heating for 4 weeks. She told it that she and her husband had been clearing the back garden in the cold weather and that had not helped her lungs. She also told it that her lungs were swollen, and she had a scan in November 2022. She said she had told it the outcome she desired, which was to not pay the rent for the month, and she had not received a response. She informed the landlord she did not understand the complaint stages.
On the 25 October 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident. It explained her complaint, provided an apology for her experience, and acknowledged the frustration and impact on her and her family. It then said it partially upheld her complaint. It said her complaint was about the mutual exchange property and garden condition, delays to repairs and poor communication. It gave a timeline of events before the exchange and after. It also explained the steps and procedures it had considered regarding her complaint. It stated:
1. Regarding the property and garden condition, it could see that it was densely overgrown and the issues she identified would not have been possible until it was cleared. The previous resident’s belongings and rubbish were also in there with it visited previously and as such upheld this aspect of her complaint and it would arrange for it to be cleared.
2. It acknowledged upon inspection, the property was in a certain state, and it had queried if she was sure she wanted it due to the condition it was in. She confirmed she did, and as such, it did not uphold that element of the complaint.
3. With regards to the communication, it stated within the six-week period of her inspecting the property, having the time to raise issues again and logging the complaint, it had spoken with her whilst at the property. She confirmed she wanted to exchange despite the condition. It explained the repairs it was responsible for, and said she confirmed she wanted to do some work on the property. It also confirmed it had not lost her lists of repairs and had taken required action. It apologised she did not receive the inspection report and it was not its current process to provide these, but it would be changing this. As such it partially upheld the area of poor communication as it believed there had been a genuine misunderstanding in their conversation.
4. Regarding the delays, this also was partially because of the initial misunderstanding, and it apologised for this. It explained the repairs had been arranged and it had tried to get them booked as soon as it could.
5. About the lack of heating, it explained it had completed a gas check in August 2022 ready for the exchange and no issues were identified. The hot water was tested to ensure the boiler was working upon inspection. Following her report on 20 September 2022 an operative attended to complete a minor repair and bleed the radiators on 5 October 2022, 11 working days after her report. The operative confirmed the system was left working but due to capacity issues, the response was 3 working days over its service standard, and it apologised for this.
6. She had cancelled a subsequent appointment on 7 October 2022, and it appreciated that she was under the impression that it was logging the repair to the heating as per the list agreed at inspection. It partially upheld that element of her complaint as it believed there was a genuine misunderstanding.
7. It offered her compensation of £509.84 due to the delay in attending to repair the heating issues, the elements of poor communication and considering the impact this had upon her and her family. It then provided a schedule of works to be completed in the property.
Following the stage 1 response, on 31 October 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and told her that her complaint was being closed. On 3 November 2022, the resident confirmed to the landlord that all the repairs had been completed except for the roof and this was booked in for December 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 November 2022 and asked to escalate her complaint. She stated she had moved into the property within the last three months and had found damp and mould within her home. She said she believed the landlord was aware of the issues. She expressed her desired outcome was for boarding to be erected around the side wall and works required to resolve the damp and mould were completed. It arranged for a visit to the resident’s property on the same day.
The landlord’s system notes of 14 December 2022 state that:
1. It attended the resident’s property on 22 November 2022. It discussed her health and the stage 2 complaint with her. She showed it around her home and explained the issues she had encountered through the exchange process. She reiterated she should have been advised about the presence of mould in the property before she moved in and that the home was in a damp process.
2. She explained she only found out about the process when its surveyor contacted her to advise about a follow up visit which was scheduled. Its assets team were working off the previous resident’s records and the case file and notes had not been updated with the change in tenancy following the exchange.
3. She also raised several other issues which were to be scheduled in for follow on works. A further damp, mould, and condensation assessment was conducted at the time, and it was noted that the original issue of mould under the stairs had been rectified. There was no evidence of a continuation to the original issue, but it would monitor it as part of an ongoing process.
4. Other works were discussed, and 2 spots were identified during the assessment on the eaves. A further small patch was also noticed by the wardrobe in the bedroom. It is unclear if this was damp, mould, or condensation that was identified. It advised her that to ensure it was able to conduct the thermal insulation works and assess/ improve the heating system, it would be beneficial to decant her and her family to an alternative property whilst the works were completed, and she was happy with the approach.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 November 2022 and raised further issues with the heating. She contacted it again on 2 December 2022 and explained she believed there had been a progression in her condition after a long time with stable scans. She advised she felt the last few months of stress with the housing issues had contributed to this and she would confirm this with her doctors.
The landlord responded on the same day and said it was sorry to hear she had been unwell. It told her it had passed the information on and would be discussing the progress of its investigation.
The resident informed the landlord on 7 December 2022 that she had the heating on constantly, although her bedroom radiator was still not working and the damp by her breathing machine had increased. She informed it that the hall landing walls and bedroom were still cold with the heating on full.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident on 13 December 2022. It apologised for the delay and explained it was awaiting confirmation that it had covered the items they had discussed when it attended her property. It thanked her for taking the time to meet it at her home and outlining the issues that led to her complaint. It apologised for the issues she had encountered during the mutual exchange and for the poor communication in respect of previous repair issues at her home. The landlord explained it understood she was dissatisfied that she was not informed that the property had previously been treated for damp and mould, and there had previously been mould present in the property. It then explained its findings:
1. It stated it was evident from its visit and records that she was not told of the previous repairs history of the property, or that she was mutually exchanging into a home which was in a Damp, Mould, and Condensation (DMC) process. The property she currently lived in was within its own DMC process, as the former resident had reported some damp issues in relation to the understairs walls in the hallway of her home.
2. It advised that works had been successfully completed to the understairs area and were being monitored for a minimum of 12 months after resolution. This was a part of the DMC process to ensure there was no repetition of the issues. It found there was a failure in both points she had raised.
3. It explained that at the time of her move, the visit from its surveyor, and the subsequent visits from it, there remained no occurrence of the original damp and mould issue reported by the previous resident, within the understairs walls.
4. It identified it had spoken about other issues that she had identified outside of the complaint in terms of corrective works to ensure that they were resolved satisfactorily for her. The main items related to the property being cold, specifically in the main bedroom and that the heating system was not working consistently for her.
5. It also noted some further repairs and recommendations for improvements in its own service that it wanted to complete.
6. It advised that it had completed a further assessment of her home as part of its DMC process during its visit and it checked each of the rooms for signs of mould recurrence. There were no further substantiated signs or evidence of damp ingress or mould growth under the stairs at the time of its visit.
7. It said she had identified some staining to the shallow eave in the main bedroom above the window. It explained the approach it was going to take to rectify the different issues it had identified, and she had raised.
8. It stated it understood and completely empathised with her medical condition. It understood that she was concerned about any potential mould growth and the detrimental impact this could have on her lung condition should any spores get into the filtered system. It was therefore committed to ensuring that she received a responsive and supportive service that ensured both hers and her families wellbeing.
9. It had also enquired about the affordability for her to have the heating on and/or if she required support from its budgeting coach or any additional team. She advised she did not need the support service at the time.
10. It proposed decanting her into an alternative property whilst it undertook and completed the works in her home. It took the decision to do so, so that it could ensure that she was not disrupted or affected by the works and that any intrusive/reinstatement noise and dust related activities did not exasperate her health in any way. It said it was locating a property of similar size and in the same location she was living, to minimise the impact on her family and schooling. It stated it would arrange for the removal of her personal belongings and temporary relocation whilst works were completed, until it was ready to move her back into her home.
11. It looked to secure a temporary property as soon as possible, and its intention was to provide the decant after the Christmas and new year period, providing a suitable property had been secured for a temporary relocation. She would be contacted when a property was found.
12. It said it had visited her property following her reports of a humming sound coming from her heating system. It attended on the same day with a gas engineer and completed the required works. It stated it would undertake an assessment of the heating system when conducting the identified works and ensure that they upgrade and replaced the heating system as required to ensure that there were no reoccurrences of the issues she had raised.

Post complaint

The resident contacted the Ombudsman in January 2023 and asked for her complaint to be closed as she hoped to work with the landlord on the matter. She then rang a few weeks later requesting an update. She also stated there were other issues that had occurred due to the damp and mould. She reiterated her health difficulties and said the landlord was not responding to her or resolving the issues.
The landlord’s notes state that it had spoken to the resident on 30 January 2023. She explained there had been no communication since November 2022 and she wanted to know what was happening. She also told it that she felt her health had deteriorated since moving to the property, and that they accepted the home due to the location being close to her child’s school. This was to allow for easier commutes for her child. She reiterated not being aware of the existing damp and mould case when she agreed to the exchange and that there was evidence of plaster coming away from the walls behind the wallpaper in the living room. It discussed internally to identify who was handling her case. It arranged a meeting for the following day with them to gain an update for the resident, advised her of this and said it would update her on 31 January 2023 during its visit.
The landlord’s notes show that on 31 January 2023 it informed the resident that a property it thought she could move into was no longer available. She had told it she would only move to a property within the school catchment area for her child. It explained it had agreed for removal contractors to complete a full pack up and removal, if that suited her due to her health concerns, which she agreed to. It said it offered her an alternative property so it could get the work started on her home and then move her back, but she refused it as she did not want to move to a flat. The landlord said it explained to her that it was temporary, but she declined. It referred her to the tenancy sustainment panel to request that she was permanently moved, and she agreed for this to be done. It advised her that it spoke with two contractors to identify properties which were returning to it before they were advertised. If one became available that it believed would be suitable, it would inform her, and she could tell it if it met hers and her family’s needs. It also agreed to update her following its meetings with the contractors. The resident was happy with the explanation and update.
In February 2023, the landlord advised internally that it had agreed to direct match the resident with a property within 1 of her agreed areas. It had spoken with her and advised that the property would not return to it until the middle of March at the earliest and offered a temporary move if required. The resident declined the temporary move as she wished to only move once. The landlord’s notes also state it visited her, she reiterated her health concerns, and the lack of awareness of the issues with the property including the damp and mould case. She explained the works her family had completed on the property including wallpapering. She explained this did not stick in parts due to the condition of the walls and there was evidence of the plaster coming away behind the wallpaper in the living room. She explained it had completed works to the property but felt it did not care. It explained the works that needed to be done to the property and that it was awaiting a suitable property to move her family to whilst the jobs were completed. She advised there was a property down the road that was empty that would be good for her family.
On 15 February 2023, the resident informed the Ombudsman she had been offered a move which she accepted. Nothing had been done to the damp and mould since the previous year although she had received a letter from the landlord in January 2023, explaining they would continue to treat it regularly. It said an operative would continue to visit and treat the damp and mould, but they had not done so, and she had sent it a reply to confirm this. She confirmed it knew she was terminally ill in 2017. She said she had all the notes of all the times she had dealings with the landlord about the property and its never ending problems.
In March 2023, the resident updated the Ombudsman and explained the landlord had said it would attend to paint over the mould. She also advised that it had said it would possibly move her at the end of March 2023. The resident confirmed she wanted us to continue investigating her complaint regardless of the landlord’s actions as it had delayed and affected her health. The landlord also updated the resident on progress of the move. It informed her that due to delays with another property her move would take place the week commencing 10 April 2023. The resident was dissatisfied with this and expressed her desire to move from the property. She informed the landlord she was currently “out of pocket” due to the money she had spent already and believe she should be further compensated for the issues she had.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised issues about the impact of the landlord’s actions/inactions on hers and her family’s health. She has also informed the Ombudsman that she feels they were worsening. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health. Personal injury claims must be decided by the court as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to any reported impact on her health.
The resident has raised issues with the Ombudsman around the landlord’s handling of repairs to her property. The landlord addressed certain repair issues in its stage 1 response, and although others were discussed in its stage 2 response, the landlord made it clear that these works were identified outside of the complaint. As such these repairs were not the subject of the complaint response. The Ombudsman has been provided with no evidence that a complaint was raised with the landlord about them and is unable to make a determination on these repairs. This is because the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond, and the issues have not exhausted its internal complaints process. If the matters remain outstanding, the resident can make a complaint about them, and the landlord is encouraged to provide the necessary response.

Communication about damp, mould, and condensation during the resident’s mutual exchange.

The resident explained that she was unhappy as the landlord was aware of damp issues but did not inform her. Based on this and her health issues, she believed the mutual exchange should not have been approved. A mutual exchange is not a new tenancy but a means by which residents’ legally swap homes with a resident they wish to exchange properties with. This means that the incoming resident takes the property “as is”. However, the resident is still entitled to have necessary repairs which are a landlord’s responsibility completed. Prior to the exchange, the landlord stated the required works to address the damp and mould had been completed and it was only being monitored for any reoccurrence. The void mutual exchange inspection of 11 August 2022 also did not identify any issues with damp, mould, or condensation. As such at the time of the exchange, the landlord believed there was no damp and mould present within the property, and reasonably did not disclose such issues to the resident.
It is important to note that a landlord is not obliged to inform a resident of the repair’s history of a proposed exchange property during a mutual exchange. As such, the fact it did not inform the resident that there had been damp and mould issues with the property previously was reasonable. Despite this however, where there was a failing was that it should have informed her that the property was currently in its damp mould and condensation process at the time of the mutual exchange. It should then have explained what this meant and looked to reassure her that the property was free of DMC. This would have allowed her to make an informed decision on if the exchange still met her needs. The failure to explain this appropriately to her caused her frustration and distress. Although it appropriately acknowledged this and apologised, this was not satisfactory in resolving the matter.
The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and should have considered damp and mould might have been of more of a concern to the resident. Its communication failing meant she decided about the exchange without all the relevant information. Although the landlord acknowledged its failings, recommended changes to its process, and tried to put things right through its apology, it failed to adequately address the detriment already caused to the resident. Its apology was not proportionate redress, and an offer of financial compensation would also have been appropriate.
The landlord also failed to change the details of the DMC case to the details of the new resident. This led to unnecessary delays in the monitoring of the issue and saw the resident being informed of the concerns by a third party. This caused the resident frustration and distress and raises questions about its record keeping.
In summary, the landlord believed that there were no outstanding issues of damp and mould within the property as it had been addressed prior to the exchange. It then did not disclose the prior damp and mould issues to the resident and there was no obligation on it to do so. Where it did however fail was around its communication about the property being in its DMC process and it has acknowledged this should have been disclosed to the resident. The resident then found out about the ongoing DMC process following an attempt to monitor the previous issues. Although it offered an apology, and identified changes to its processes, this did not go far enough to address the level of detriment to the resident. Based on this the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £200.

Handling of repairs following the mutual exchange.

Repairs

Following the exchange, the resident raised numerous repair issues. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that there were delays in its service provision around the repairs, especially with the heating. It acknowledged that there was also a communication issue around them in its stage 1 response and appropriately remedied the identified failings with an apology and its offer of compensation. It further appropriately provided the resident with a schedule for the completion of the works. The landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate to the failings identified, and the resident acknowledged that the majority of the repairs had been addressed at that stage.

Damp and mould

The landlord completed a further assessment of the original mould issue and found that there was no evidence of the original concerns subject to its DMC process. It appropriately explained to the resident that the issue was restricted to one location and its findings to her. This was a reasonable and appropriate action for the landlord to have taken to reassure the resident.
Its records also show that following a report registered on 12 October 2022, it arranged for the resident’s roofs and gutters to be checked as there was damp in the bedrooms. This was also appropriate action taken by the landlord.
When staining and patches were identified within the property by the landlord and its surveyor during a visit, it correctly created a plan of action to tackle the concerns. It also communicated this to the resident and showed that it had considered her vulnerabilities in light of the situation to ensure her wellbeing.
Following its complaint response, the resident asked this service to close her complaint as she believed she would be able to work with the landlord to resolve the issues. Its failure to then communicate with her saw her requesting an update on the agreed works and prompted it to investigate what was happening. This was inappropriate. Given the nature of the situation, it should have been proactive in its communications with the resident to ensure she was sufficiently updated. The lack of communication following the stage 2 response was unsatisfactory, especially around the damp and mould as this was considered as part of her complaint. This then led to frustration for the resident and saw her asking for her complaint to be reopened with the Ombudsman.
The landlord has confirmed to this service that it completed the necessary works around the identified damp and mould issues during its visit of 22 November 2022 on 6 March 2023. This represents a 3 month delay in addressing the matter. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that it would complete the required works after decanting the resident. This was reasonable and considered her needs given the level of work required to the property. The Ombudsman acknowledges that an acceptable offer of decant to a ground floor flat was made, but this was declined as the resident felt it was not suitable. It is also acknowledged that there were also issues outside of the landlord’s control with another move which was offered. This in turn led to delays in completing the works. However, the landlord has not demonstrated it considered other options which could allow it to address the specific issue of the damp and mould or other urgent matters. For example, it could have offered or provided the resident with a dehumidifier, to aid with the damp issues, or a mould wash. It also has not demonstrated that it provided her with the weekly updates it promised or that it continued to visit to treat the damp and mould as suggested.
In summary, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delays in its repairs service to the resident following her move into the property. When she became of the damp and mould issues, it correctly completed a further assessment of the property and reassured her the original issue had not reoccurred. It then took on the responsibility of addressing the new damp and mould issues she raised. Despite this however, its communication around the matter caused her frustration and led to her reopening her complaint with the Ombudsman. It also failed to show that it considered alternative measures to completing the damp and mould works following issues with decants. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration with the landlord’s communication about damp, mould, and condensation during the resident’s mutual exchange.
2. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of repairs after the mutual exchange including damp and mould.

Reasons

The landlord failed to appropriately inform the resident that the property she was exchanging into was currently in its damp, mould, and condensation process. It also failed to appropriately update its records, and this led to the resident being informed of the issue by a third party. The landlord appropriately recognised its failings, but its offer of redress did not go far enough.
There were delays in the landlord completing the required works to address the damp and mould and it failed to appropriately communicate the reasons to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology about the identified failings.
2. Provide evidence that it has started to implement the recommendations suggested in its stage 1 and 2 responses namely:
  1. Reviewing its process to ensure that inspection reports completed at the time of exchange are emailed to residents.
  2. Staff taking responsibility for logging repairs raised by residents on site.
  3. Ensuring changes to its process for residents transferring or moving into its properties that they are advised of historical DMC cases.
  4. Ensuring that ongoing DMC cases are monitored for tenancy changes, and that ongoing cases are attached to the property as well as the current resident.
  5. Ensuring that the DMC process is communicated thoroughly to new customers moving into a new home where there has been a prior DMC history. Progress within an ongoing case and any remaining works and or monitoring visits to be clearly communicated and arranged with residents.
3. Pay the resident compensation in the amount of £909.84 calculated as:
  1. £509.84 previously offered in its stage 1 response if this has not previously been paid.
  1. £200 for the failings identified in its communication about damp, mould, and condensation during the resident’s mutual exchange.
  2. £200 for the failings identified in its communication about damp and mould works after the mutual exchange.
4. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.

Recommendation

Review the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould.