Clarion Housing Association Limited (202008232)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008232

Clarion Housing Association Limited

22 October 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 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 concerns:

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

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant. The tenancy started on 7 October 2014. The property is a two-bedroom ground floor flat.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman in November 2020 when she advised of a problem with damp and mould which she said had been ongoing for eight years. She said over the years the landlord had applied 20 washes and blamed the mould on her lifestyle. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord logged the resident’s report of damp and mould as a formal complaint. This complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints process on 22 March 2021. The Scheme notes that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. Whilst communication and repair logs provided by the landlord show the resident’s reports of damp and mould date back to 2017, there is no evidence of the resident raising a formal complaint about the damp and mould at the time. This investigation will therefore, consider events from December 2019 when the resident made a report of damp and mould to the landlord as this is twelve months prior to the formal complaint raised in 2020.
The resident made report of damp and mould in her living room at the property to the landlord on 2 December 2019. The landlord’s repair log indicates it raised a repair job on the same day with a target date of 30 December 2019, however, it is unclear from the landlord’s repair log what, if any, action was taken and when it was completed.
The resident’s MP subsequently raised the same matter with the landlord on 21 January 2020. The landlord inspected the property on 23 January 2020 and in its response to the resident’s MP dated 13 February 2020, it said no wet patches or signs of damp was found during this inspection. It said however that it found mould which was being caused by a build-up of condensation on the walls, ceiling, around the windows and some furniture located against the wall. It referred to a previous inspection on 2 April 2019 when it said it had concluded that the condensation issue was as a result of the windows and curtains remaining shut, reducing the ventilation in the property. It said everyday activities like cooking, showering, drying clothes were increasing the warm, moist air inside the flat.
The landlord referred to previously carrying out a number of mould washes but said as the walls were dry and no leak was detected during the 23 January 2020 inspection, there were no repairs required at that time. It provided advice to the resident on ways to reduce condensation within her home that it said had been previously advised to her. This was to: regularly open windows to ventilate; clean and dry water droplets from windows daily; when cooking, keep lids on saucepans and use extractor fan/window open; when using the kitchen or bathroom, keep the door closed; avoid condensation from forming on cold surfaces by heating flat evenly and; daily use of a home dehumidifier to reduce or eliminate condensation.
The landlord carried out a further inspection of the damp and mould at the property on 5 March 2020. The report from the landlord’s Technical Inspection Officer (TIO) said that there were no signs of penetrative damp only condensation mould. It said: the windows in the property had heavy condensation on them and there was a pool of water on the window seal; there were long curtains draping over the radiator, which stopped the dissipation of heat; there were mould patches around the front door where there was another long curtain which would prevent air circulation. All walls have either clothing, or cupboards and draws around them which also prevented air circulation. It said overall the reason for all of the issues “is one of the property being overcrowded” and the lounge was being used as a bedroom. It said the resident did not have enough ventilation in areas where needed, which they commented could not be helped as there was not enough space in the property to store clothing.
The landlord scheduled an appointment for a mould wash on 26 March 2020 however its TIO advised that the resident was refusing any work on advice of a company that was dealing with the issue via the disrepair route. They commented that this company had advised her not to clean any mould off or let the landlord carry out any works to treat or prevent the current situation.
The landlord’s repair logs indicate that the resident reported a leak from the toilet’s main drain pipe on 16 March 2020 which was re-raised in July 2020. The landlord’s records indicate that repair jobs were raised on both occasions however it is unclear from the logs what, if any, action was taken to rectify the leak and when any repairs were completed.
The landlord’s repair logs indicate that the next report of damp and mould from the resident was on 19 October 2020 when the landlord raised a repair job to carry out a “damp trace” for source of damp and mould. This evidence indicates that other repair jobs were raised at the beginning of November 2020 for issues reported by the resident however these were unrelated to the damp and mould issue except a leak from the back of the toilet when it was being flushed.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman in early November 2020 advising the landlord was not responding to her reports of damp and mould. On 18 November 2020, the landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman that it had raised a stage one complaint to investigate outstanding repairs; in particular the mould in the property. It said it would contact the resident to gather further information and investigate the issues raised.
The landlord arranged for a TIO to visit the property on 26 November 2020. The TIO’s report said all the issues with mould and damp were down to condensation, radiators being covered with furniture and doors being open throughout whilst cooking and showering. The TIO recommended that all radiators were checked to see if they are adequately sized. Further the report said:
1. Front bedroom– the radiator to be relocated under the window – heating pipes could be extended round across chimney breast to window.
2. Bedroom -no shower curtain, bathroom fan had no overrun so went off as soon as the light is switched off. Bath panel and framework poorly installed. No cover to light fitting -recommendation for repair to be carried out as an emergency.
3. Living room (being used as a bedroom) -bed covering the radiator, mould around window at low level.
4. Small bedroom– exposed wires on light fitting in small bedroom-recommendation for repair to be carried out as an emergency. Furniture covering radiator to be removed.
5. Hallway- mould by the front door at a low level, hallway cupboard which ran under the stair on the property above full with personal effects and no ventilation on the door.
6. Kitchen- extractor fan operational but recommended that this was serviced. Mould inside base unit below extractor unit – main water supply pipe runs behind unit and is not lagged. Externally to kitchen door there was evidence of a leak from the wash down tap.
7. Front bedroom- had three external walls, furniture was covering the vent to chimney breast (this also backs on to an external garage). Radiator covered by furniture and fitted to an internal wall.
The landlord sent the resident an email on the same day advising it had spoken to the TIO who attended her property that morning. It said they had confirmed that her address was subject to a legal disrepair case and as such it could not give further assistance through the complaints process. It advised that she should receive the necessary communications via her solicitor who would communicate with its legal team.
The landlord’s internal record dated 4 December 2020 referred to outcome of the Technical Inspection and noted that the resident needed to move furniture that was covering radiators to allow the radiators to do their job. The landlord raised a job for its heating contractor to check the radiators to see if they were adequately sized.
On 5 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord’s CEO advising that she had been experiencing bad mould and damp within her two-bedroom flat that she lived in with her four children for the past eight years. She said she had been complaining during this timeframe about the mould. She has had numerous mould washes, breeze blocks installed and guttering replaced however the mould was getting worse and was in every room including her kitchen cupboards. The poor living conditions were affecting hers and her childrens’ health.
On 19 January 2021, the landlord called the resident who advised of the impact of the damp and mould issue. She advised the landlord that she did not think the cause of the damp and mould was condensation rather a much larger issue, possibly as a result of three severe leaks at the property over the last eight years. She told the landlord that she had to replace possessions regularly due to the mould. She asked for a management move to which the landlord said it would not be able to arrange this on the basis of the damp and mould issue. The landlord asked if she was on council list to move to which the resident said she was not. The landlord advised her to get on the list as her property was overcrowded.
The landlord’s heating contractor carried out a heat loss survey in January 2021.
The landlord called the resident again on two further occasions on 21 and 27 January to discuss the proposed works and regarding decanting the resident and her children from the property whilst the works are undertaken.
On 9 February 2021, the landlord provided its stage one response to the resident. It apologised for the delay in providing its stage one response. It acknowledged that her complaint concerned damp and mould within the flat and that the resident sought the following outcomes:
1. For the landlord to get to the bottom of the mould and damp issues.
2. For the landlord to reimburse her for items ruined by mould.
3. For her to move property.
The landlord referred to the conversation of 19 January 2021 when the resident had informed it that she did not think the cause of the damp and mould was condensation rather a much larger issue, possibly as a result of numerous severe leaks at the property over the last eight years.
The landlord referred to the two damp inspections carried out by two different TIOs in 2020. It said both had reached the same conclusion that the issue with mould within the property was attributable to condensation. It said a list of works were drawn up and sent to its contractors to complete following the second inspection. Alongside this, it also requested its heating contractor, to carry out a heat loss survey to ensure that the radiators were adequately sized to enable her to heat her home efficiently. It said they had reported back that one radiator needs to be changed to a slightly bigger size. The heating contractor also requested for the radiator to the lounge to be relocated to the window wall, to assist with heating this room more effectively.
The landlord said that at the time of the 26 November 2020 technical inspection, the resident had logged a legal disrepair claim, which she then withdrew. It then instructed its repair team in early December 2020 to carry out the works identified by its TIO during the inspection. The landlord set out the proposed works in its response.
It referred to the telephone conversation with the resident on 21 January 2021 when it said she was advised of the proposed works and offered a decant from the property for two to three days to a hotel in order for it to complete works. The landlord said that the resident did not want to commit to the works and during a further conversation on 27 January 2021, it said the resident asked if her children could be decanted to a hotel with another family member as she wanted to stay at the property whilst work were being completed and video the works being undertaken. The landlord said it explained it could not allow her to video the works as they were being completed as it could not comply with Covid safe working practices in this scenario. The contractors were also within their rights to refuse to be videoed whilst working. It also explained it could not decant her children to a hotel with another family member, as it was only responsible for decanting her and her children.
It said as the property was a two-bedroom home and she was residing there with four children with the lounge being used as a bedroom, the lifestyle usage of the property was a big contributing factor in the issue of the condensation mould that is present. It said it had advised during the phone call that it was pertinent for her to ensure she had an active housing application with her local authority, to ensure she was banded correctly, and able to bid on other properties.
It said unless the resident agreed to the diagnosed works being completed, it would raise a tenancy breach on the basis that it was being refused access to carry out repairs that were required to its property, as per her tenancy agreement. It advised that if she wanted to make an insurance claim in relation to her personal property and possessions, standard practice would be for her to go through her home contents insurance provider. It said however that if she wanted to pursue a claim against it, she could submit a claim. It provided details of how to go about this.
In its stage one response the landlord also acknowledged the delay with providing its response and offered the resident compensation of £50 in recognition of its failure to response in accordance with its published timescales.
On 9 February 2021, the resident called the landlord to advise she was unhappy with its stage one response. She explained her circumstances and how long she had experienced the damp and mould. The resident said she disputed the landlord’s position that the mould and damp was solely caused by condensation because they are overcrowded as she said her next-door neighbour experienced same and she is a mother with one child. She believed that it was not getting to the bottom of the problem. The resident requested an independent third party surveyor to inspect the property to assess the cause.
On 8 March 2021 the landlord acknowledged her request for a stage two escalation request. It said she had requested a review as she did not agree with the outcome of the stage one complaint, that the cause of the damp and mould was due to overcrowding. It acknowledged her request for the appointment for an independent surveyor to establish the root cause. It advised that it had referred her complaint to the Head of Response Repairs and that peer reviews normally take 20 working days to complete.
On 9 March 2021 the resident emailed the landlord a letter from her GP which she said covered the adverse medical effects of the damp which she and she had been suffering for some time. She reiterated that she believed the issues were not down to condensation. The resident raised issues with the quality of work carried out by workman who were attending her property.
On 22 March 2021, the landlord provided the resident a final complaint response. It confirmed it had reviewed the response provided to her complaint, and actions taken by its repairs team investigating the damp and mould. It said it was satisfied that it had investigated the issue thoroughly and accurately. It reiterated that two different TIOs both concluded that the issue was attributable to excess condensation and reiterated the factors contributing towards the condensation.
It said that following the first inspection on 5 March 2020, the resident had declined for the recommended work to commence. She also initially declined to commit to the proposed works to try to mitigate the condensation from the second inspection on 26 November 2020. As previously explained, her home was currently overcrowded which was a factor in the condensation issue. However, it said the proposed works previously outlined from these inspections plus a heat loss survey to ensure all radiators are suitably sized for the rooms and property, may reduce the condensation in her home.
The landlord said in February 2021, she agreed to accommodate these works and they were now in progress of being completed. Its repairs team and contractor would continue to liaise with her until these works were completed. It reiterated the need for her to contact her local authority to ensure her housing needs were banded correctly by them, so she could bid on suitably sized properties as and when they become available. It explained that as a social housing landlord, it did not manage housing need bandings however it was able to advise and guidance on this if needed.
In recognition of the time taken to review her complaint it had arranged an award of £25 in compensation. This concluded the final stage of its internal complaints process.
On 30 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord advising she was dissatisfied with its final response and said she did not accept the £25 that she felt was an insult. She said the response did not acknowledge her request for an independent “unbiased” surveyor to assess the cause of the damp and mould. The heating contractor had recommended in January 2021 that a new, smaller radiator was required however this had not yet been installed.
On 20 September 2021, the resident told the Ombudsman that the works took many weeks to complete, much longer than the two to three days mentioned in the complaint responses. She said this was because the landlord’s contractors found the condition of the property was much worse than expected, for example live slugs and snails were living in and around framework of bath. She also said where the heating contractor had changed the positioning of the radiator in the living room and replaced with a smaller one to under the window on the external wall to help mitigate the mould issue, the new copper piping has not been boxed in. This meant her children were at risk of burning themselves whenever the heating is on. The resident also said despite all of the works that were carried out in her property earlier in the year, the mould had returned. The resident reiterated that the heavy damp and mould has impacted hers and her childrens’ health and referred to possessions that have been damaged by mould.
On 13 October 2021 the landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman that the full list of works it had completed at the resident’s property:

Upgraded the extractor fans to both the kitchen and the bathroom. Fitted humidistat fans that operate constantly and do not only turn on when the light is switched on.
Carried out halophen mould washes to all rooms to remove condensation mould present.
Repaired a leak to the mains stopcock in the kitchen sink base unit, renewed the sink base unit, carried out mould wash to washing machine space and sink area and lagged the mains water pipework to prevent condensation build up on the cold pipes.
Renewed the kitchen fluorescent light cover.
Fixed loose wiring to the light in the bedroom.
Repaired a leak on the external garden tap.
Fitted vents to the hallway cupboard door.
Renewed the bathroom and lounge radiators following the heat loss survey. It also relocated the lounge radiator to under the window on the external wall.
Repaired the gutters – The gutters were found to be blocked and not draining away fully due to layers of uneven / lifting felt that had been laid inside preventing water movement. The felt was removed, the gutter was coated in a waterproofing system and checked for correct drain away.
External works – French drain installed, re-pointed/mortar filling where required, carried out concrete sill repairs. Unblocked drains, overhauled gullies and rain water goods. These items were not contributing to the mould within the flat, however the approach was taken as it was prudent to carry out these works to prevent any future issues arising from these areas.
Installed a brand new bathroom – including new plastering, tiles, polysafe flooring, a full new bathroom suite, and a new shaver light. It said it upgraded the bathroom because when it took the bath panel off to renew it, a leak was discovered under the bath. The WC was also discovered to be slightly cracked and leaking. Some of the tiling was blown. Therefore, it stripped the bathroom out and installed a new bathroom upgrade.

The landlord said the works took longer to complete than initial three to five day timescale that the resident was advised of. This was because once the works began, other issues were identified. It said it also had to adhere to the resident’s requests to only work in certain rooms at any one time, which caused further delays. The resident then refused to allow it to complete certain works and the job came to a standstill until such time as she was happy to allow it to return and complete the outstanding items. All works were fully completed on 4 May 2021.

Assessment and findings

With regards to the presence of mould and damp within a property, neither the landlord’s repair policy nor the tenancy agreement makes clear whether the landlord or resident are responsible for addressing such issues. Usually, this would depend on the cause of the damp or mould; if found to be as a result of condensation this may be due to the resident not adequately ventilating/heating the property, but mould and damp can also be caused by a lack of damp proofing or other building defects, which the landlord would be responsible for rectifying. The Ombudsman would however expect in the first instance for the landlord to carry out inspections of damp and mould reported in order to understand the cause and decide an appropriate course of action.
Following the resident’s and her MP’s reports of damp and mould at the property in December 2019 and January 2020, the landlord carried out inspections of the property on 23 January 2020 and 5 March 2020. This service has not had sight of the 23 January 2020 inspection however according to the landlord’s response to the resident’s MP dated 13 February 2020 damp was not found during this inspection only mould which it said was being caused by a build-up of condensation on the walls, ceiling, around the windows and some furniture located against the wall. In this response it also gave advice to the resident regarding practical things she could do to reduce condensation for example regularly opening windows to ventilate and cleaning and drying water droplets from windows daily. It also noted that no leaks were found at the property at this time.
The inspection report of 5 March 2020 echoed that there were no signs of penetrative damp only condensation mould. It gave examples of where condensation and mould was present in the property and said this was due to insufficient ventilation and air circulation. It gave details of where furniture, curtains and clothing in the property were stopping the dissipation of heat and preventing air circulation. It said overall the reason for the issue was due to the property being overcrowded and referred to the lounge was being used as a bedroom and the resident not having enough space to store clothing. The landlord raised a repair job for a mould wash to be applied to areas within the property however the landlord’s internal records indicate that the resident declined this treatment as she was in the process of raising a disrepair claim.
Therefore, as the landlord inspected the property following the resident’s reports of damp and mould and advised the resident of how to reduce condensation at the property due to the findings of the inspections indicating this was the main cause of mould, the landlord acted reasonably. There is no evidence of any further damp and mould reports from resident until approximately six months later in October 2020 although the resident had raised an issue with a leak from her toilet during this period.
Following contact from the Ombudsman in November 2020, the landlord arranged for a further inspection of the property on 26 November 2020. A different TIO completed the inspection on this occasion. Whilst they also concluded that the cause of mould was condensation, they made various recommendations to reduce condensation at the property and identified other issues including a possible leak externally to the kitchen door, blocked guttering and exposed wires around the light fitting in one bedroom and no cover to a light fitting in the other bedroom. They also recommended that the landlord arrange for a heat loss survey to be carried out to ensure that the radiators were adequately sized to enable the resident to heat her home efficiently. Therefore, it is clear that on this occasion this inspection resulted in recommendations for more extensive work than the previous inspection. This is likely to be due to a combination of new issues arising, some of which were unrelated to the damp and mould and also because the damp and mould may have worsened due to the resident having previously refused the recommended mould washes. The problems causing inadequate air circulation and ventilation at the property may have also been ongoing during this timeframe. Whilst the landlord is not responsible for any worsening of the damp and mould issue during this timeframe, it was appropriate for it to inspect the property again in November 2020 following the resident raising this issue again with it and the Ombudsman.
There was a slight delay by the landlord in commencing the works identified. Initially this was due to the resident having an active disrepair claim at the time of the inspection; the landlord said it would not instruct its contractors until such time this was withdrawn. The landlord also confirmed to the resident at this time that it would not communicate with her through the complaints process however that she should receive the necessary communications via her solicitor who would communication with its legal team. However, the Ombudsman does not consider that a disrepair claim justifies the landlord stalling the works identified that would resolve the issues. It would have also been appropriate for the landlord to relay to the resident as soon as possible the recommendation made by its TIO in regards to moving furniture away from radiators and walls and keeping internal doors closed when cooking and showering. The landlord made an internal note of this however there is no evidence of it advising the resident of these findings at this stage. The resident quickly withdrew the disrepair claim and according to the landlord’s subsequent stage one response, it then instructed its repair team in December 2020 to carry out the recommended works. It also said that it requested its heating contractor to carry out a heat loss survey at this time as per its surveyor’s recommendation. These were appropriate steps taken by the landlord.
However, the resident’s contact with the landlord in early January 2021 indicates that the works had not commenced by this stage nor had the landlord been in communication with her about the works identified to address the damp and mould and other issues. The lack of communication from the landlord regarding the proposed works at this stage was a service shortcoming.
The landlord then called the resident on 19 January 2021 to discuss her complaint and during two subsequent phone calls, it also discussed with her the works that its TIO had identified. The landlord offered to decant the resident and her children for the two to three days it said the works would take. This was appropriate however the resident did not agree to this or to the diagnosed works at this time.
In its stage two response the landlord confirmed the list of proposed works and noted that the resident had not yet agreed for its repair team to start works. It said the works now included recommendations made by its heating contractor to replace the bedroom radiator for a larger size radiator and relocate the lounge radiator to the window wall, to assist with heating this room more effectively. The landlord advised the resident that unless she agreed to the works being completed, it would raise a tenancy breach on the basis that it was being refused access to carry out repairs that were required to its property, as per her tenancy agreement. Preventing the landlord from carrying out necessary works at the property may constitute a breach of the tenancy by the resident and the landlord was entitled to advise the resident of this and of any repercussions. The resident subsequently agreed to the works and these commenced in February 2021. At the time of the stage two response dated 22 March 2021, these works were still in progress and the landlord said that its repairs team and contractor would continue to liaise with her until these works were completed, which was reasonable.
The resident told the Ombudsman in October 2021 that she was unhappy about length of time taken to complaint the works which she said had been necessary due to the extent of the issues. The landlord provided details of the full works completed to the Ombudsman in October 2021 and it is clear the works completed exceeded the list it had previously advised the resident of during the complaints process. Additional works included a complete new bathroom and a repair of a leak to the mains stopcock in the kitchen sink base unit. The landlord said these additional works had been carried out because further issues were identified whilst undertaking the works. This included in the bathroom where it said a leak was discovered under the bath when it took the bath panel off to renew it and also the toilet was discovered to be slightly cracked and leaking and some of the tiles blown. It said therefore it stripped the bathroom out and installed a new bathroom upgrade. It is noted that the resident previously reported to the landlord a leak to the toilet in 2020 although it is unclear from the available evidence if this was the same leak. This is partly because the landlord’s repair logs do not show when a specific repair job is closed or completed. Therefore, a recommendation has been included below for the landlord to include more details in its repairs log including when a specific repair job is closed or completed. The landlord explained some additional work undertaken did not relate to the damp and mould issue but was carried out to prevent issues in the future, for example it replaced and overhauled drains and gullies external to the property.
Overall, the landlord had demonstrated that by carrying out works to the resident’s property including those recommended following the heat loss survey, it acted on its TIO’s recommendations made following the November 2020 inspection of the property. The landlord also provided further repairs due to additional issues identified at the time. Whilst this meant the repair works took longer than advised to the resident, on balance this was an appropriate approach to take and the landlord has shown it reasonably addressed the resident’s reports about mould and damp.
In regards to the resident’s request for compensation to cover the cost of possessions damaged by damp and mould, the resident raised this issue in the complaints process and again with the Ombudsman in October 2021. In its stage one response the landlord advised standard practice would be for her to go through her home contents insurance provider. It said however that if she wanted to pursue a claim against it, she could submit a claim. It provided details of how to go about this. This was appropriate advice from the landlord.
Whilst the scope of this investigation is restricted to the events and complaints that were raised by the resident during the landlord’s complaints process prior to the landlord’s final response on 22 March 2021, the resident told the Ombudsman on 8 October 2021 that where the radiator had been relocated to under the window in the lounge, the new copper piping had not been boxed in. The Ombudsman would expect this issue to have been picked up in a post works inspection as such a recommendation has been included below for the landlord to carry out a post works inspection if it has not already been done and to address the exposed copper piping.
The resident said despite all of the works carried out to her property earlier in the year, the mould had recently returned. The Ombudsman expects the landlord to respond to any new damp and mould reports however that the landlord advised the resident in both its stage one and two responses that overcrowding is likely to be a cause of the condensation issue at the property and was clear about the repair works identified only reducing the condensation issue. It is noted that the landlord also strongly recommended that she approach her local authority to ensure she had an active housing application with it to ensure she was banded correctly, and able to bid on other properties. This was appropriate advice in the circumstance.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a two stage complaints process which says at stage one it will aim to resolve complaint within 10 working days. It says if it is unable to resolve the complaint within this timeframe it will keep the resident informed and provide timescales of what’s involved to resolve the complaint and approximately how long her complaint will take. The landlord’s complaint’s process says the landlord will provide a review response within 20 working days of this being requested.
There was a delay by the landlord in providing the stage one response. The landlord advised the Ombudsman that it had logged a complaint on 18 November 2020 however it did not provide its stage one response until 9 February 2021. As previously mentioned the landlord’s legal team was dealing with the resident’s complaint whilst she had an active disrepair claim. However, when the resident withdrew this claim in December 2020, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have confirmed to her that her complaint would be dealt with by its complaint team going forward and informed her of the likely timescales for resolving her complaint. There is no evidence of the landlord doing this and it was only after the resident contacted it again on 5 January 2021 chasing a resolution to her complaint, did the landlord take steps to progress her complaint and resolve the issue. However, in its stage one response, the landlord acknowledged the delay with providing its stage one response in accordance with its published timescales and offered the resident compensation of £50 in recognition of this which was reasonable.
There was also a delay by the landlord in providing its stage two review response; following the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 9 February 2021, it did not provide its stage two response until 22 March 2021 which was outside of its 20 working day timescale. Again, the landlord acknowledged this delay in its review response offering a further £25 in compensation, which was reasonable.
The resident requested in her escalation request for an independent surveyor or damp specialist to inspect the property, rather than one of the landlord’s internal TIOs as she did not accept that condensation was the only cause of the damp and mould. This is something that she has also raised with the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman expects landlords to address all aspects of a complaint raised in its complaints process and its failure to respond to this aspect of the complaint in its final response was unhelpful. In light of this and the resident’s report that mould has returned to the property, a recomendation has been included below for the landlord to consider her request for an independent inspection of the property to assess the cause of damp and mould and explain its position in relation to this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in property.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of complaint.

Reasons

The landlord arranged for inspections of the property following the resident’s reports of damp and mould which found the cause to be attributable to condensation. It gave appropriate advice to the resident of practical steps she could take to minimise condensation however explained overcrowding was a factor. It proposed mould wash to be applied to the affected areas and following the later inspection, recommended various works to reduce the condensation and resolve items of disrepair. There was a slight delay with progressing the diagnosed works once these were identified and some instances of poor communication on the part of the landlord. The works however were subsequently carried out at the property as well as additional work due to further issues found during the work being undertaken including several leaks.
There were delays by the landlord with progressing the resident’s complaint after she withdrew her disrepair claim however the landlord acknowledged delays in providing its complaint responses during its complaint process and offered appropriate compensation.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Pay the resident the £75 offered in its complaints process for failing to keep to its complaint handling timescales, if it had not already done so.
2. Inspect the works carried out during its complaints process if it has not already done so and arrange for the copper piping in the lounge to be boxed in.
3. Consider the resident’s request for an independent surveyor or damp specialist to inspect the property to assess the cause of any damp and mould and explain to the resident its position in relation to her request in this regard.
4. The finding of reasonable redress is conditional on the above recommendations being carried out; the landlord should comply with the above recommendations within four weeks.
5. Include more details in its repairs log including when a specific repair job is closed or completed.