Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited (202102484)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102484

Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited

13 December 2021

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 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 property.
2. The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Tenancy agreement, policies and procedures

The signed tenancy agreement between the landlord and the resident confirms that it is responsible for internal walls and skirting boards.
Section 3 of the landlord’s customer dissatisfaction and complaints policy confirms that “anyone can raise dissatisfaction or a complaint on [the resident’s] behalf”.
As per the landlord’s customer feedback document, it will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and, if it needs longer, it will keep the resident “fully informed”. For final stage complaints, it will respond to the resident within 5 working days of the appeal panel meeting.
Section 4.2 of the landlord’s compensation and goodwill gesture policy confirms that it will consider offering a goodwill gesture payment if it fails to meet its service standards which causes inconvenience to the resident. This includes not acknowledging or responding to a complaint within its stated timescales.
Appendix 3 “scales for goodwill gestures” of the landlord’s compensation and goodwill gesture policy confirms that it will pay up to £50 for service failures, which have led to inconvenience for the resident, due to a lack of communication.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
There is a historic element to this complaint, with the resident describing numerous works being done at her property to try and resolve damp and mould there over five years, having previously arisen 12 years ago, which is outside of the scope of this investigation. While some of this is included below for contextual purposes, this report focuses on events from the resident’s report of recurring damp and mould of 24 November 2020, and landlord’s inspection of the resident’s property on 2 February 2021 onwards. This is because this Service cannot investigate complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within six months of the matters arising of her complaint to it via us on 29 April 2021.
The landlord has previously acknowledged that damp had been present in the resident’s property “for several years”. In response, it had earlier carried out “large-scale” work to her kitchen, bathroom and downstairs toilet, and it had agreed a separate compensation award with her in settlement of that previous complaint.
The landlord had subsequently received reports from the resident of the return of damp and mould in her downstairs toilet on 24 November 2020, for which she chased it on 24 December 2020, and it agreed to carry out an inspection for this in February 2021, once the corona virus restrictions allowed it to do so.

Summary of events

On 2 February 2021, the landlord’s records confirmed that it had carried out an inspection of the resident’s property for damp. It recorded that it had found “minor levels of damp in the downstairs toilet, with a small wet patch and some paint flaking.” To address this, the landlord noted that it would arrange a follow-up appointment to do so once the corona virus restrictions were eased, which would be no earlier than 12 April 2021.
On 3 March 2021, the resident contacted her local MP to see if they could assist in resolving her concerns with damp in the property, and her desire to move property. She reported that she had looked at the landlord’s mutual exchange programme, however the person who was interested in her property had withdrawn their interest due to the damp there.
In response to the resident’s enquiry, the MP wrote to the landlord to request that the landlord investigate the resident’s concerns. The landlord responded to the MP, to confirm that it had inspected her property on 2 February 2021, and that it would carry out further work to rectify the damp there once the corona virus restrictions allowed it to do so, as outlined above.
On 9 April 2021, the local authority’s housing standards team wrote to the landlord in respect of the resident’s concerns over the presence of damp and mould in her property’s living room and bathroom. They requested confirmation of the actions that it proposed to take to address her concerns about this.
On 28 April 2021, the landlord responded to the local authority’s housing standards team to confirm that her above concerns had been investigated during its subsequent inspection of her property on 20 April 2021, and that it had agreed to carry out the required work for these on 10 May 2021.
(On 29 April 2021, this Service wrote to the landlord to request that it respond to the resident’s complaint. This was in respect of her reports of the return of damp and mould in her property. As a result of the complaint, she wanted the landlord to transfer her to another property. The landlord used this communication as her stage one complaint.
On 14 May 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
1. She had reported the return of damp in her downstairs toilet to it on 24 November 2020. It apologised for the delay in carrying out this inspection, which was impacted by the corona virus restrictions.
2. It had arranged an inspection on 2 February 2021, which had found that a small section of paint was flaking on the walls of the toilet, where “minor” levels of mould could also be seen on the skirting boards.
3. It confirmed that there were other findings which were “linked to internal condensation”, but that these were not identified in the same area as that in which it had previously completed major works to address.
4. It also confirmed that the work to address the issues in her downstairs toilet previously began on 10 May 2021, and that this was estimated to take ten days to carry out. It would complete a post inspection of this work to ensure that this had been completed satisfactorily.
5. It understood that the resident wanted to move home as a result of the issues that she had reported. It confirmed that she had been eligible to bid on other properties since October 2018 with a priority five banding, but that she had not yet placed any bids for these.
6. It had also encouraged her to send additional information for it to consider a review of her banding for a move. She was also looking for another property on its mutual exchange programme.
On 2 June 2021, the resident submitted her final stage complaint to the landlord, which is summarised as follows:
1. She felt “let down” by the landlord, and she wanted to be allowed to live in a damp–free property with her children.
2. It had only taken one day to complete the latest minor work for the damp in her property, however some of this work “had to be redone and some [work was] still outstanding”. The contractor had also told the resident that the work that they were instructed to carry out “wouldn’t make any difference” to her reported concerns, which did not give her confidence that the work would be successful in removing the damp from her property.
3. She was also concerned that the proposed work was insufficient to address the issue of damp, as this had been found on an internal wall which was not connected to the walls which had been treated.
4. She had been looking at the property transfer list, however there had been no suitable properties in the area, which was necessary as this was close to her support network, and she required a move to a three-bedroom property to overcome the overcrowding and lack of sleeping space for her children at her current property. She added that a move was also necessary for her and her children’s medical conditions and wellbeing, including because she had previously experienced domestic violence at the property.
On 18 June 2021, the landlord’s records confirmed that it had visited the resident to complete a post–work inspection of her property on 17 June 2021. It had found her downstairs toilet walls to be dry, and it had scheduled work for 2 July 2021 to address this. In respect of the resident’s concerns over damp in her living room and cupboard, the landlord had taken some damp meter readings which were “quite below average”, although it could not gain access to the whole cupboard as personal items were being stored in there at the time of the inspection. It did note that her tumble dryer might also be contributing to the issues experienced by the resident, concluding that it might look into instructing a specialist damp contractor to inspect her living room and cupboard.
On 28 June 2021, a final stage complaint appeal panel meeting was held by the landlord with the resident, during which it had confirmed that it was satisfied that it had taken the appropriate actions in 2020 to manage the damp in her home, with the return of this being unforeseen by it.
On 5 July 2021, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
1. It recognised that there were historical issues with damp, which it had previously addressed. Therefore, it would focus on the current reports of damp from her.
2. It apologised for the contractor having questioned the work they had recently carried out to address the returning damp at her property, and it reassured her that the work was appropriate. It would also be discussing this matter directly with the contractor.
3. Improvements had been noted in the condition of her property following its post-work inspection on 16 June 2021, and it had instructed the contractor to carry out the work that it had identified following this inspection.
4. In respect to her concerns over the reported damp in her living room and under the stairs in her property, it proposed to arrange a specialist damp survey to take damp meter readings in these areas, for which it would contact her to arrange.
5. It did not consider her property to be “uninhabitable”, and therefore it could not agree to a property transfer for her. It therefore reiterated its offer to review her banding level if she provided it with further documentation for her and her family’s health and needs, and it agreed to contact her within one week to arrange to discuss and advise her on this or a mutual exchange.
The resident subsequently referred the matter to this Service, where she raised concerns over “significant” damp and mould at her property, which she believed had resulted in her children’s bedroom being “uninhabitable”. She described having reported the damp, mould and resulting smells at the property to the landlord from the winter after she first moved there approximately 12 years earlier, but that it had failed to carry out substantial works to address this for a number of years, during which she experienced domestic violence at her property. The resident added that the condition of the property during this period had prevented her from obtaining a mutual exchange to move away from there, and she provided this Service with photographs of this.
As a result of her complaint, the resident explained that she wanted to be rehoused as soon as possible in a three-bedroom house free of damp. She stated that this was in order to overcome the effect of the damp, mould, history of domestic violence and overcrowding at her property on her and her children’s health, wellbeing and medical conditions, and to feel safe, secure and adequately housed. The resident also confirmed that the landlord had not discussed her options to move with her, as it had agreed to in its final stage complaint response, and that it had declined to acknowledge or address the damp smell that remained in her living room, providing this Service with medical evidence of her mental ill-health and domestic violence that supported her moving.
The landlord additionally contacted this Service to explain that a surveyor had recently inspected the resident’s property, and that it was now seeking to arrange works there with her to resolve the damp and mould issues at the property. She then confirmed to us that she had requested, but had not yet received, a copy of the surveyor’s inspection report from it, and she asked that, if she could not be permanently moved from her property before the works began, she be temporarily decanted from the property for the duration of the works. The resident explained that this because of the extent of works required to address damp throughout her property, including in the bathroom, bedroom, toilet and under-stairs cupboard, and the effect of contractors’ behaviour on her and her children.

Assessment and findings

The resident has reported that over the past 12 years her and her family’s health, wellbeing and medical conditions have been affected by the damp, mould, history of domestic violence and overcrowding at her property and her subsequent complaint, for which she seeks to be rehoused. It is not, however, within the authority or expertise of this Service to determine whether the landlord was liable or to award damages for this in the way that a court or insurer might, or to order or recommend that she be rehoused in the way that a local authority or the landlord might.
Therefore, the above aspects of the resident’s complaint are outside of the scope of this investigation. However, we can look at the general distress and inconvenience caused as a result of her complaint, which are considered below.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property

Following the resident’s reports to it of damp and mould recurring in her property, the landlord was obliged to carry out an inspection to understand the causes of the damp and mould there. This had been reported by the resident to it on 24 November 2020, however the landlord was unable to carry out an inspection due to the corona virus restrictions in place at the time until 2 February 2021.
This was reasonable of the landlord, as it had informed the resident when she chased it on 24 December 2020 that there would be a delay in the inspection being carried out until February 2021 for these reasons, and so no failing has been identified on its part for the delay in it carrying out the inspection of her property. This is because the delay was outside of its control, although it is of concern that it took it one month to provide her with the timescale for its delayed inspection of her property for damp and mould, and that it only did so after she chased it for this.
Following this inspection on 2 February 2021, the landlord had identified additional work to be completed to address the damp and mould that it had found in the resident’s downstairs toilet. Again, the impact of the coronavirus restrictions meant that it could not complete this work until these had eased, which it confirmed would be no earlier than 12 April 2021.
The landlord then re-attended the resident’s property to complete another inspection there on 20 April 2021, and on 10 May 2021 to carry out the work that it had identified for the damp and mould in the downstairs toilet during this inspection. As it had explained that it was unable to carry out such work prior to 12 April 2021 due to the corona virus restrictions, this was a fair response time for the landlord to complete the work, and so no failing has been identified on its part for the time that it had taken to carry out this work. This is again because the delay was due to events that were beyond its control, but it is also concerning that it took almost one month after the timescale for the work that it had given the resident for it to begin this, without previously updating her.
The landlord had committed to carrying out a post–work inspection of the above damp and mould work to the resident’s downstairs toilet in its stage one complaint response to her on 14 May 2021. Furthermore, the resident had raised concerns from at least 9 April 2021, via the local authority’s housing standards team, over the work which had been proposed for this due to damp and mould in her living room and bathroom. It was therefore fair that the landlord carried this inspection out on 17 June 2021. It had found the toilet walls to have dried since its last visit, and it agreed to address this on 2 July 2021. This was reasonable action for the landlord to take, as the condition of the walls had deteriorated since it had previously visited the property.
The landlord also addressed the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in her living room and bathroom, as it had also taken damp meter readings during its post–work inspection on 17 June 2021, which were “below average”, although it noted that the resident’s tumble dryer might be contributing to the readings. Despite this, it had suggested considering a specialist damp survey to understand the issues in the property, which it supported in its final stage complaint response to her on 5 July 2021. This was additionally reasonable of the landlord, and demonstrated a desire to resolve the resident’s concerns about damp and mould recurring elsewhere in her property.
The resident had also expressed a desire to move property as a result of her complaint from at least 3 March 2021 via her local MP. The landlord nevertheless explained to her in its final stage complaint response on 5 July 2021, that it did not consider the property “uninhabitable” as a result of the above damp and mould that it had found there. It invited the resident, however, to send it any additional information for it to consider increasing her priority banding when bidding on other properties for a move on that date, and in its earlier stage one complaint response of 14 May 2021.
This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take, and no failing has been identified on its part for its response to the resident’s request to move from her property as a result of the damp and mould there. This is as a result of its above expert inspections of the property finding that this did not prevent her household from continuing to live there, the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary, and the fact that it addressed her concerns about this and her request to move appropriately. The landlord did the latter with its above agreements to consider a specialist damp survey of the resident’s property, increasing her priority to move with further information from her, and contacting her within one week to arrange to discuss and advise her on this or a mutual exchange on 5 July 2021.
The resident had suggested in her final stage complaint on 2 June 2021 that a contractor had questioned the effectiveness of the damp and mould work that they were completing at her property. In response to this, the landlord confirmed to her on 5 July 2021 that it had reviewed the proposed work, and that it was happy this would resolve the resident’s issues. It is recognised that the resident explained that this had resulted in a loss of confidence on her part in both the landlord and the proposed work, which it had also committed to discussing directly with the contractor on the above date, as well as to considering the above specialist damp survey of the property.
This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take, and no failing has been identified on its part for its response to this aspect of the resident’s complaint, as this addressed her concerns about its contractor’s damp and mould work at her property and their attitude towards this appropriately. This is because it reviewed the work, agreed to discuss this with the contractor, and proposed to investigate this further via a specialist damp survey.
In summary, the landlord has evidenced that it acted upon the resident’s reports of recurring damp and mould from November 2020, once it was permitted to do so following the easing of the corona virus restrictions in February and April 2021 onwards. It carried out inspections which had identified work that it duly carried out. The landlord also carried out further work following its post-work inspection, agreed to consider a specialist damp survey, invited the resident to provide it with further information for it to consider increasing her priority for a move, and agreed to further discuss this or a mutual exchange with her.
It is nevertheless unclear whether the landlord had subsequently carried out the specialist damp survey that it had discussed in its final stage complaint response to the resident on 5 July 2021, and it has therefore been recommended below to contact her to agree a suitable date for this to be completed, if it has not done so already.

The landlord’s associated complaint handling

The landlord commenced its complaints procedure following notification from this Service of the resident’s concerns on 29 April 2021, which it treated as her stage one complaint. However, it had earlier received notification of the resident’s concerns on 12 March 2021, when it had received correspondence from her MP to try to resolve her ongoing concerns of damp and mould in her property.
It was therefore unfair that the landlord did not formalise the resident’s stage one complaint following its receipt of this correspondence outlining her dissatisfaction with its handling of her damp and mould reports until it was contacted by this Service. This is because its failure to do so was not in line with its customer dissatisfaction and complaints policy, which confirms above that anyone can raise dissatisfaction or a complaint on her behalf, and so a failing has been identified on its part for this delay. This is additionally supported by the fact that the landlord had also received correspondence to this effect from the local authority’s housing standards team on 9 April 2021 in respect of the resident’s same concerns.
Once the landlord had acknowledged the resident’s concerns as a stage one formal complaint on 29 April 2021, it issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 14 May 2021. Although this took ten working days against the same target response timescale for stage one complaints in its customer dissatisfaction and complaints policy, and so there was no additional failing on the part of the landlord in respect of this.
Following the receipt of the resident’s final stage complaint to the landlord on 2 June 2021, it arranged a final stage complaint appeal panel meeting on 28 June 2021, and it supported its decision from this meeting with its final stage complaint response to her on 5 July 2021. This was five working days after the review panel meeting, and so this was within its customer dissatisfaction and complaints policy’s above five-working–day response target for final stage complaints, there was therefore no failing on the part of the landlord in respect of this.
Nevertheless, it is of concern that the landlord delayed accepting the resident’s dissatisfaction with its handling of her damp and mould reports as a stage one complaint under its complaints process by almost five weeks from 12 March to 29 April 2021. It is also concerning that it did not accept this as such until after it was contacted by this Service, following communications with it on her behalf by her MP and the local authority’s housing standards team, which was contrary to its customer dissatisfaction and complaints policy.
The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay compensation for its failure to consider the resident’s concerns sooner, and it is further recommended below that the landlord review its staff training needs as a result of the delay experienced by the resident during her complaint.
The amount of £50 compensation recommended by the landlord’s above compensation and goodwill gesture policy for failures leading to inconvenience for the resident due to a lack of communication provides reasonable redress for the failings identified on its part above. This also is in line with our remedies guidance, which. suggests awards from £50 where there has been failure which had an impact on the resident, but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for her. In this case, the delays did not affect the outcome of the complaint, as the landlord ultimately agreed to inspect and carry out the required work when it was permitted to do so, but these errors did have an impact on the resident and compensation is due in view of this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its associated complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord evidenced that it had inspected the resident’s property for damp and mould, and that carried out the required work for this when it was able to do so following delays from corona virus restrictions that were outside of its control. It also carried out a post–work inspection, with further work additionally being completed following this inspection. Moreover, the landlord agreed to consider a specialist damp survey of the property, invited the resident to provide it with further information for it to consider increasing her priority for a move, and agreed to further discuss this or a mutual exchange with her.
The landlord failed to commence its complaints procedure, despite receiving notification from both the resident’s MP and the local authority’s housing standards team, which resulted in the delayed response to and resolution of her complaint.

Order and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident total compensation of £50 within four weeks, compromising of:
1. £25 for its delay in considering her concerns under its complaints procedure.
2. £25 for her distress, inconvenience, time and trouble as a result of the delayed complaint.
It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Contact the resident to agree a suitable date to carry out damp and mould works following a specialist damp inspection of her property, and to respond to her request for a copy of the inspection report, if it has not done so already.
2. Contact the resident to discuss and advise her on being rehoused with a review of her banding level with further documentation for her and her family’s health and needs or a mutual exchange, and to respond to her request to be temporarily decanted during the damp and mould works at her property if she cannot be permanently moved before then.
3. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its policies and procedures with regard to complaints and compensation, to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above failures in the resident’s case. This should include consideration of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/, this Service’s guidance on remedies at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords, if this has not been done recently, at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords/e-learning/.
The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order and whether it will follow the above recommendations.