The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Christian Action (Enfield) Housing Association Limited (202200500)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200500

Christian Action (Enfield) Housing Association Limited

17 November 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation in recognition of damaged belongings.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has lived in the two-bed ground floor flat with her daughter from 2017.
  2. The landlord received a letter dated 3 September 2020 from the resident’s solicitor. It stated that the resident had reported damp issues in February 2019 and although someone had attended at that time and told her it was damp, no further work or inspections were completed. The resident had personal items destroyed due to the damp. The defects had caused discomfort, inconvenience, distress and prevented her from enjoyment of her home.
  3. The landlord confirmed it responded to the resident’s report of damp in late 2019 and resolved the issues in January 2020, but no further defects had been reported. In response to the solicitor’s letter, the landlord arranged for an asset surveyor to inspect the property on 12 September 2020, who then asked for a damp specialist to attend on 26 November 2020.
  4. The damp specialist did not visit the property and instead obtained photographs from the resident. They advised the problem was not rising damp and was due to ventilation. On receipt of this feedback, the landlord arranged for a ventilation contractor to assess the property on 26 November 2020, who confirmed mould was present but cited poor ventilation.
  5. The resident’s solicitor arranged for a surveyor to attend on 27 November 2020. Following this, the landlord arranged an additional inspection by an independent surveyor to attend to cross reference the findings. The reports both concluded the problem was damp and mould due to cold temperatures and ventilation issues.
  6. The case was prepared for court, but the landlord asked for a stay in proceedings to allow it the opportunity to respond to the issues raised. The solicitor and court agreed, and the landlord completed all the recommended work in the property by 23 December 2020. Repair records received as part of the Ombudsman’s evidence request show repairs continued until November 2021. There is no evidence the case proceeded to court following the actions of the landlord.
  7. The resident submitted a complaint on 9 January 2022 in relation to the way the issue was managed, and the damage caused. The landlord offered £250 stating it was towards the damage and for the inconvenience. The resident escalated the complaint as she did not agree with the compensation. In the final response, the offer was increased to £500 with the landlord suggesting the resident made a claim through her own insurance provider for the damaged belongings.
  8. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 7 April 2022 as she was not happy with how the landlord managed the issue or the level of compensation offered. These are the issues the resident would like the Ombudsman to investigate.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s Reactive Repair Policy and Procedure highlights a number of responsibilities that lie with tenants. These include maintaining a good level of ventilation to prevent condensation/mould forming in the premises.
  2. Section 11 of the above policy and procedure states major damp and condensation issues will be passed to the Asset Management Team for an inspection.
  3. The landlord provided home contents insurance information in which it states it insures the structure of the home but does not cover damage to personal possessions. The landlord strongly recommends residents insure belongings against theft, fire, water damage and accidental damage.

Damp and mould

  1. In October 2019, the resident reported damp in the property. The landlord does not have a record of when the initial report was received but arranged for a contractor to attend on 24 October 2019. This lack of evidence highlights a potential issue with record keeping and makes it difficult to determine if it responded within its repair timescales as set out in the repair procedure.
  2. The contractor reported damp in the property but stated the window vents were closed which contributed to poor air circulation. There were no problems with the external walls, the damp-proof course and air bricks. To check the cavity, the contractor returned on 21 January 2020 and completed a CCTV inspection. The survey confirmed the cavity was dry and no issues were found. There is no evidence to confirm if any further work was recommended or completed at this time. This again highlights poor record keeping and makes it difficult for the landlord to be confident the issue was resolved without the need for additional work.
  3. The landlord confirmed it did not receive any further contact about the damp until it received the letter from the solicitor, dated 3 September 2020. The landlord accepted the letter as notification of further defects and arranged for an asset surveyor to attend the property on 21 September 2020. It is not clear as to when the landlord received the letter, however the timescale for inspection was reasonable and is in line with its commitment to have a member of the asset team inspect a property when damp is reported, as outlined in the repairs policy. The landlord communicated the arrangements to the solicitor on 15 September 2020 which was a positive step in communication. It showed the solicitor it was responding to their letter and kept them aware of the action taken.
  4. There is no evidence to confirm the findings from the asset surveyor. Following his visit, he did request an inspection from a damp specialist, but this lack of evidence again raises concerns over the landlord’s ability to keep stringent records and track progress against repairs. The damp specialist visit was arranged for 26 November 2020 and was confirmed to the resident and solicitor. This communication ensured the parties involved were informed and demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to resolving the issue.
  5. The resident and solicitor were told a contractor would attend the property, but it failed to do so. The evidence provided showed the damp specialist did not attend the property and instead, asked the resident to provide photographs via WhatsApp. There was no evidence to show the contractor’s approach was communicated to the landlord which left it unaware the visit did not happen. This created unnecessary contact and confusion from the resident and solicitor and led to a call from the resident, many emails from the solicitor, and additional calls to the contractor to establish what was happening. The landlord should have agreed protocols in place for contractors to update them on any deviation away from any agreement made. This in turn will allow them to update the parties involved in any changes to appointments and to manage expectations.
  6. The damp specialist reported the problem was not damp but was due to poor ventilation and the way of living. The contractor did feed this back to the resident, however there is no evidence to show the same feedback was given to the landlord until it chased the contractor’s attendance to the property. The landlord may therefore wish to consider how its contractors communicate with it so it can manage the expectations of residents and other involved parties and avoid unnecessary delays in action.
  7. The damp specialist recommended the ventilation was checked and the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend on 26 November 2020. It is not clear when the damp specialist received the photographs from the resident; however, once the landlord received the recommendation, it acted quickly and arranged the ventilation inspection for 26 November 2020, so no further time was lost.
  8. The ventilation contractor found low level mould in various rooms and made several recommendations to improve air flow. It noted the fans had been turned off at the spur and explained to the resident they should be on constantly to allow effective ventilation. Recommendations included installing advanced ventilation units, replacing the bathroom fan to one that would run constantly, installing an unswitched spur to the kitchen fan so it could not be turned off, installing a positive input ventilation unit to the cupboard in the hall, and fitting 3 low level air bricks with insulation in the bedrooms and hall. The landlord demonstrated it acted on the recommendations received and all work was completed on 23 December 2020.
  9. On 27 November 2020, the solicitor’s independent surveyor inspected the property. The surveyor’s report dated 8 December 2020 confirmed the property was fit for habitation and the conditions were not likely to affect the health of the occupants or constitute a statutory nuisance. In respect of the Fitness for Habitation Act 2018 however, the report did highlight ‘Hazard 1 – Damp and Mould Growth’ and stated the mould was the result of condensation due to cold temperatures and low-level ventilation. It recommended the property was treated with anti-fungal wash, had additional heating installed to the front entrance and the thermostat in the hallway relocated.
  10. The solicitor contacted the landlord on 9 December 2020. It asked for confirmation around acceptance of liability, a completion date for the recommended work from within the report, an offer in respect of the damages and an agreement to pay the costs. The solicitor gave the landlord 20 working days to respond, or the case would proceed to court.
  11. On 14 December 2020, the landlord told the resident a ventilation contractor would attend on 17 December 2020 to complete the ventilation work. It also confirmed a further survey would be completed on 16 December 2020 to cross reference the findings from the solicitor’s surveyor.
  12. While this was a reasonable approach by the landlord, the evidence shows this survey did not take place until 3 March 2021, some 3 months after the date given to the resident. The Ombudsman acknowledges this was at a time when Covid-19 restrictions were in place but there was no evidence the landlord monitored the surveyor’s lack of attendance, or that it communicated or explained the delay to the resident and solicitor. The additional survey was completed 3 months after the solicitor’s survey; without evidence to mitigate this delay, the Ombudsman finds this unreasonable.
  13. On 14 January 2021, the landlord confirmed to the solicitor that all ventilation work was completed on 23 December 2020. However, on review of the repair information provided by the landlord, the completion date was 24 November 2021. It is not clear if this is a typing error, a misunderstanding of the repair information, or the actual date the repairs were completed, but raises further concerns around the record keeping and administration of repair data within the organisation.
  14. The March 2021 report confirmed there was black mould on low level air vents in several locations. It stated the mould was the result of condensation from water vapour generated by the resident’s activities, combined with a lack of ventilation and heating. The landlord has provided evidence to confirm the recommendations were passed to a contractor who attended on 22 March 2021. However, the dates from the repair history do not support this, giving rise in concern over poor record keeping and its understanding of the repairs.
  15. In accordance with the repair information provided by the landlord, the decorative work was completed in July 2021 and the heating was completed in November 2021. Although all the work has now been completed, from being put on notice, this took 10 months. The work was not extensive and the Ombudsman finds the time taken was excessive. It is understood that the landlord had to work in collaboration with a number of external contractors to inspect or carry out the work, but without evidence to mitigate some of delays, the Ombudsman is of the view that this work should have been completed sooner to prevent any additional damage to the resident’s belongings.
  16. The Ombudsman finds service failure in the way the landlord handled the reports of damp and mould. There were delays throughout the process that were not explained, evidenced, or communicated to the parties involved. There was evidence of poor performance monitoring from the landlord in tracking the attendance of contractors and this meant unnecessary contact from the resident and solicitor was required. There was poor record keeping throughout and the works took too long to complete. The Ombudsman accepts the landlord’s own admission that it did not deal with this matter sufficiently and that it offered £500 by way of compensation for the way it handled the repairs. This compensation was within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend for a longer term service failure that has adversely affected a resident. This amount was therefore proportionate given the circumstances of the case.
  17. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord has acted in accordance with this Service’s dispute resolution principles of being fair, putting things right and learning from outcomes. The landlord took the opportunity through its complaints process to resolve the problem, offered a proportionate level of compensation and acknowledged its own failures. It identified learning that included individually recorded training to staff responsible for dealing with queries and complaints on how to record feedback and actions. It was also to remind staff of the aim of resolving issues at the first point of contact with the aim of the issues escalating. The Ombudsman finds this reasonable and proportionate.

Request for compensation for damaged belongings

  1. The landlord was made aware of the damage to the resident’s belongings in the solicitor’s letter dated 3 September 2020. It did not however address or respond to this issue and caused further contact from the resident to the landlord directly on 20 November 2020 to make a claim. There is no evidence the landlord provided a response to the resident or solicitor who raised it again in communication dated 9 December 2020.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 February 2021 but did not include any information on the compensation aspect or provide any guidance as to the options available to the resident. The Ombudsman finds this a failure. If the landlord had provided signposting information at an early stage, the resident and solicitor could have pursued the damages claim differently.
  3. The resident was told the damage issue had been passed to a senior manager to investigate. There is no evidence this was done until 25 October 2021 which was after the resident had chased it again. Further chasers were made by the resident on 2 November 2021 before a complaint was submitted on 9 January 2022.
  4. There is no evidence of a response regarding the damage until the landlord’s January 2022 stage 1 response. In this, it stated the resident had been told on 25 October 2021 that the disrepair issue would be dealt with and the matter of the damage had been sent to a senior manager to review. There is no evidence of any communication to the resident which again meant she did not know what was happening with this aspect of her complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the lack of acknowledgement and response to the resident is a failing. The lack of response likely heightened the resident’s frustration and contributed to her seeking legal advice.
  5. The landlord did not award any compensation at stage 1. It stated that it had not been told of the issue before the solicitor letter, and it then completed all the work required. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged it had not dealt with the matter sufficiently. It addressed the lack of evidence and communication with the resident and, because of these findings, offered £250 for inconvenience and towards the damage to belongings. The offer was increased to £500 at the final stage but stipulated this was for the inconvenience. In signposting the resident to her own insurance provider, the landlord did not offer any compensation for the damage to belongings.
  6. The Ombudsman finds service failure in respect of how the landlord handled the request for compensation. There were occasions where advice was given to the resident, but this was not consistent or timely and was not followed through. The landlord’s insurance policy does not cover damage to personal belongings therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the advice came too late in the process and in doing so, caused confusion to the resident and falsely raised expectations. If this matter had been addressed earlier, the resident would not have been caused unnecessary time and trouble in escalating it as she did.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily in relation to its handling of reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation in recognition of damaged belongings.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Offer a sincere apology for the failures identified within this report. The apology should come from a senior member of management.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £600 compensation for the following:
      1. £500 (if not already done so) for the inconvenience this issue caused and for the time taken to resolve. This is the compensation offered in the landlord’s final response.
      2. £100 for the delays in the landlord notifying the resident of what to do in terms of the damage to belongings.
  2. The landlord should reply to the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timescale set.

Recommendations

  1. In October 2021, the Ombudsman published a spotlight report on damp and mould. Although this report was issued after this case, it is recommended the landlord, if it has not already done so, completes the self-assessment against this report and identifies any potential improvements to its service delivery in the future.
  2. In May 2023, the Ombudsman published a spotlight report on knowledge and information management. Although this report was issued after this case, it is recommended the landlord, if it has not already done so, completes a self-assessment against this report and identifies any potential improvements to its service delivery in the future.
  3. The landlord should complete a post inspection of the property to ensure the repairs have been successful and no further work is required.
  4. When offering compensation as part of a complaint, the landlord should provide a clear breakdown and explanation to ensure a full understanding of the reasons behind the offer.