Clarion Housing Association Limited (202009112)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009112

Clarion Housing Association Limited

23 June 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Damp and mould in the property.
2. A rodent infestation in the communal areas.
3. Repeated boiler repairs.
This report will also look at the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant in a three bedroom maisonette. The tenancy began in February 2005.

Legal and Policy Framework

As per Section 11 of the Landlord of Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order the structure and exterior of the home, and installations in the home for the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation, space heating and heating water. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure the property is ‘fit for human habitation‘ in relation to, by virtue of Section 10 of the same act, ventilation. Section 11(1)(a) of the same act implies a covenant “to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters and external pipes)”.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy states that responsive repairs fall within two main categories, which are emergency and non-emergency repairs. An emergency repair is one that presents an immediate danger to the resident or a risk to the resident’s health, safety or security. These repairs should be attended to within 24 hours, and works carried out to make the property safe. Further repairs may then be required at a later date. Works classed by the landlord as ‘non-emergency’ are carried out at the resident’s convenience, where residents are offered the next available appointment that suits them, usually within 28 days of the repair being reported. Major component replacements, such as bathrooms and kitchens, are not considered responsive repairs and are delivered through planned programmes.
The landlord has a compensation procedure for when it has identified service failures. This pays between £50 and £250 for service failures that have had an impact on the complainant, such as repeated failure to reply to letters or phone calls. Compensation of £250 to £700 is given in cases where the landlord has found considerable failure but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. The landlord will pay over £700 where there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both.
At the time the resident made her complaint, the landlord operated a two stage complaints process; however, no specific timescale was attached to either stage. Since 17 June 2022, the timescale for responding to a stage one complaint is 20 working days. For a stage two complaint, which the landlord refers to as a ‘Peer Review’, the response time is 40 working days.
In line with its Tenancy Management Policy, the landlord is responsible for eradicating any infestations and pests in communal areas, or those caused by its own actions, or lack of action such as disrepair.

Summary of events

On 3 September 2019, the resident reported mould in her property and asked for the landlord to send a surveyor to inspect her bathroom following a leak. The landlord offered to send an operative instead but the resident declined this offer, explaining she would rather an inspection was carried out to look at the mould. There is no record to suggest the landlord took any further action at this point.
The resident reported severe mould in her bedrooms on 9 November 2020 and the landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 20 November 2020. During the inspection, the surveyor identified a rust hole on the bath where water was leaking through and noted that the bathroom was in a poor condition, with areas of untiled wall that got damp whenever the shower was used. The inspection also reported mould in the bedrooms which, in the surveyor’s opinion, was caused by condensation and a leaking boiler condensing pipe.
The resident made a formal complaint on 23 November 2020 and, despite chasing this up, the landlord did not respond. In January 2021, the resident approached the Ombudsman for assistance and we wrote to the landlord on 29 January 2021 to say that she was complaining about damp and mould in the property, as well as a leak, a rat infestation and a faulty boiler, and asked the landlord to get in touch with her for further details.
The landlord called the resident on 3 February 2021 to take down the details of her complaint and noted the following concerns:
1. She said her daughter had seen rodents inside the main door of the block of maisonettes and that there were so many maggots that residents were having to tread on them when entering the block. She added that the pigeon netting was damaged and needed replacing.
2. The resident stated that there was damp in her bathroom and mould in three of the bedrooms, and explained that the surveyor who inspected her property in November 2020 said he would call her within two weeks, but never did. She was upset to be told that the mould was due to condensation and her furniture being too close to the walls.
3. She was unhappy about the standard of cleaning around the bin area and about paint peeling from the external walls that had not been painted since she moved in.
4. She raised concerns about outstanding repairs to the kitchen and bathroom and described several issues with her boiler, which had a leak from the overflow pipe, hot water coming out of the cold water tap and the heaters coming on when the boiler was turned off.
5. The resident asked for all the issues to be investigated and resolved and the landlord advised it would pass her information to the appropriate teams and provide an update once it received a response.
On 8 February 2021, a contractor told the landlord that, due to lack of staff availability, works to the property could not start until March 2021, As a result, the landlord booked for works on the bathroom and kitchen to start on 15 March 2021.
The landlord called the resident on 18 February 2021, and she advised it that there was a rat or mice infestation throughout the communal areas in the block and that she could hear the rodents in the attic.
On 1 and 2 March 2021 the landlord’s pest control contractor visited the block, replaced the damaged pigeon netting, disinfected the area, installed metal bait stations and arranged to carry out further monitoring visits.
Operatives attended the property on15 March 2021 to carry out works to the kitchen and bathroom, however the resident asked them to leave and not to proceed further until the landlord gave her written confirmation of all works it planned to complete.
The landlord made a follow up call to the resident on 24 March 2021 following the visit by operatives on 15 March 2021, and the following was discussed:
1. The resident raised concerns about the condition of her kitchen and stated it needed to be replaced rather than repaired. The landlord explained that her kitchen was due to be replaced in the 2021/22 refurbishment programmeand that the interim repairs were intended to make the kitchen safe to use in the meantime.
2. When the resident had shown the operative the mould in the bathroom, he advised it was not coming from a leak or condensation and that the source needed to be investigated. He also advised that the mould in the communal corridor was coming from the roof.
3. The resident confirmed that a pest control operative had attended on 12 March 2021, threw bait into the loft and advised he would return within six weeks.
4. The resident stated her boiler had still not been repaired and asked for the outstanding repairs to be raised as a disrepair claim. The landlord stated it would ask its surveyor to check which works were still outstanding and to investigate the source of the mould in the bathroom and communal corridor.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 1 April 2021 and wrote to the resident on 8 April 2021 to confirm that the specification he had prepared following his earlier inspection on 20 November 2020 was correct, and he provided a list of all works to be completed in the bathroom. He also confirmed that the replacement kitchen works would take place during the current financial year. The resident wrote back to ask if alternative bathroom facilities would be provided during the works and asked that priority be given to the bathroom repairs.
On 9 April 2021, the landlord sent the resident its stage one complaint response, which stated the following:
1. That the mould in the bedrooms was due to condensation and that its surveyor had given advice on ways to minimise the effects of the condensation, and improve air circulation and ventilation, which included moving furniture away from walls and opening windows.
2. It summarised the actions the landlord had taken to address repairs to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom, and confirmed the resident had asked operatives to leave the property while undertaking works because the kitchen cabinets that they were replacing were not the same colour as the existing ones. The landlord explained the units would be mix and match in respect of colour as the existing units had been discontinued.
3. The landlord listed the works that were planned for the bathroom and advised that, following a conversation it had with the resident on 18 February 2021, it had asked its repairs team to contact her about outstanding repairs to the cooker, toilet flush, window and leaking guttering.
4. It advised that, following a report of rodent activity in the communal entrance and loft area, the landlord started a six week treatment on 2 March 2021 and that the baiting programme was underway. It confirmed it would provide updates on future visits to check on the effectiveness of the treatments. It also asked the resident to let the caretaker know if she saw any maggots outside the communal entrance and said it was looking to improve the bin storage and check the standard of cleaning in the bin store area.
5. The landlord acknowledged that, after its surveyor had raised a job to address a leak from the boiler overflow pipe that appeared to be causing mould in the communal area, its gas contractor had replaced the pressure relief valve on 26 March 2021 to stop the leak. It asked the resident to contact its repairs team if she had any further issues with her boiler.
6. It confirmed that external decoration to the block was planned for 2022/23 but that there may be delays due to COVID restrictions.
7. The landlord stated that its surveyor had made a referral, on 24 November 2020, for the kitchen to be replaced and that it was included in its 2021/22 programme of works, but that this was also subject to change due to possible COVID restrictions.
8. It offered the resident compensation of £250 for overdue repairs, £100 in recognition of inconvenience caused and £50 for the delayed complaint response.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 April 2021 to say it had reviewed its decant policy and that temporary accommodation could be provided while works were being done. On 13 April 2021, it contacted the resident again to confirm it had been offered 20 April 2021 as a start date for works, that the works would be to the bathroom and kitchen only and that, if the resident was happy with the plans, it would arrange temporary accommodation for the duration of the works. The resident wrote back on 13 April 2021 to confirm she was happy with the start date and, on 20 April 2021, the landlord’s surveyor visited the property with the operative to run through the proposed works with the resident.
Following completion of works to the bathroom and kitchen, and a post inspection on 7 May 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord on the same day to thank it for its efforts regarding the repair works. She confirmed she was satisfied with the works to the kitchen and bathroom but suggested that the ceiling above her main entrance may require some reinforcement after the bathroom floor was flooded during the works, causing water to drip through the floor.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 18 June 2021 to inform it that the resident was not satisfied with her stage one response and would like to escalate it. It confirmed that the boiler and mould were the main outstanding issues.
The landlord carried out two further pest control visits on 14 and 19 May 2021and noted that there were no pest issues to report but that residents were piling rubbish on the ground, which would encourage rodents.
On 6 August 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two complaint and, on 9 September 2021, it apologised for the delay and said it would aim to respond within the next ten working days. The landlord then sent its stage two response on 5 November 2021, which stated the following:
1. The landlord noted the resident’s comments that her concerns regarding the condition of her property had been ongoingfor several years but explained that, as its repair records only dated back to 2017, it was limited in how far back it could investigate. It saidit had been able to establish that the resident raised concerns about damp and mould in 2005 but that, although its records showed it had completed all outstanding works in 2007, there were no details about the work that it had undertaken.
2. It acknowledged that the resident had raised concerns about damp and mould in her bathroom in February 2018, and that it addressed the cause, which was a leak under the bath. It received a further report of mould, following a leak in September 2019 but, as the resident was unhappy the landlord had sent an operative rather than a surveyor to look at the problem, she did not want further works to be carried out. It explained its process that, before a surveyor could attend, the landlord’s repairs team would need to be given an opportunity to address the issue first but acknowledged it should have explained this more clearly at the time. The landlord confirmed that it received no further reports until November 2020, when the resident raised concerns about significant mould growth in the bedrooms.
3. The landlord stated it had acted appropriately when the resident reported repairs and, in its stage one response, offered £250 for the delay in completing the repairs to the bathroom and kitchen. It offered an additional £50 for not clearly explaining its procedure with regard to whom it initially deployed to deal with repairs.
4. The landlord acknowledged that its gas contractor had attended to four reports of boiler breakdowns between December 2020 and August 2021, but said the jobs were unrelated. It agreed that the works by the gas contractor had been poorly managed, that there had been delays in resolving the repeated breakdowns and that a more proactive approach could have prevented further boiler issues.
5. It acknowledged the resident had been left without heating and hot water between 20 July and 9 August 2021 while a repair was being completed, and offered her compensation of £165 for loss of amenities, and an additional £100 for failing to be more proactive in addressing the situation. It said it was satisfied the system was currently working and that it had received no further reports since.
6. The landlord noted that it had taken appropriate action following the resident’s report of rodents and it undertook a six week baiting programme from 2 March 2021. It said that an inspection on 19 August 2021 confirmed there were no mice or rats in the bait trays and the resident confirmed the noises in the loft had stopped. It believed the programme had been successful.
7. In recognition of the service failures it had identified, the landlord offered the resident £150 for the delay in responding to her stage two complaint, £50 for its lack of action regarding damp and mould, £165 for loss of heating and hot water for 20 days and £100 in recognition of the delays resolving the boiler issues and inconvenience caused.
On 5 November 2021, the landlord sent the resident a further letter giving clarification regarding the final compensation amount it was offering. It said that its revised total, taking into account the compensation offer in both its stage one and stage two response was £865 and it broke this amount down as follows
1. Overdue repairs = £250.
2. Inconvenience caused = £100.
3. Delay in stage one and two responses = £200.
4. Failure to communicate more clearly the procedure for responding to reports of damp and mould = £50.
5. No heating and hot water between 20 July and August 2021 = £165.
6. Delays regarding boiler issues = £100.
On 9 June 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident again after it had carried out a review of her case and stated the following:
1. The landlord’s stage two response had advised the resident that her kitchen refurbishment had been added to its 2021/22 schedule of works, which meant it should have been completed by 31 March 2022. It apologised that it had failed to contact the resident regarding the delays and stated that this was due to an internal communication breakdown and that the refurbishment had been cancelled on the understanding the repairs team would carry out the work.
2. The landlord recognised that it had not adequately dealt with the resident’s reports of damp and mould and apologised for its poor handling of the matter. It explained that, in line with recommendations from the Ombudsman, it would be changing the way it responded to with damp and mould reports.
3. It told the resident that it wanted to carry out a further inspection to ensure the property had no outstanding repair issues.
4. It said it had reviewed the compensation it calculated during the complaints process and revised its offer to £750, which it broke down as follows:

i. £250 for misdirection and inadequate information.

ii. £250 for failure to address repairs.

iii. £250 for delay and inconvenience.

The landlord offered additional compensation of £150 to recognise the delays in refurbishing the kitchen and lack of communication.
The landlord offered a revised total compensation offer of £900.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

This Service notes that the landlord recorded the resident’s complaint on 3 February 2021; however, this investigation will consider matters from September 2019 onwards. This is because records show this is when the resident first reported the concerns about mould in her property that led to her complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

This Service’s spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould, published in October 2021, confirms that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords and they should take a zero-tolerance approach; be proactive in identifying potential problems; extend investigations to other properties in a block; and clearly communicate to residents about actions. The report was published just before the landlord issued its second complaint response, and before the landlord issued its own Leaks, Condensation, Damp and Mould Policy, which it produced following the Ombudsman’s spotlight report. However, it consolidated some of the good practice that would be expected of landlords for such issues.
When the resident reported damp and mould in September 2019, there is no evidence the landlord completed work to rectify this. The records suggest that this was because the resident wanted a surveyor to inspect the property before any further work was carried out. In its complaint response, the landlord explained that, before instructing a surveyor to attend, operatives are given the opportunity to resolve any problems in the first instance. It is not disputed that this had not been clearly explained to the resident at the time and it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer compensation for this communication failure. However, it is unclear why the landlord did not exercise its discretion at this point and offer to carry out an inspection rather than allow the damp issue to continue without any further intervention. The landlord’s inflexibility in choosing not to veer from this policy meant it missed an opportunity to identify at an earlier stage that works were needed to bring the bathroom up to an acceptable standard. It could be argued that, had the resident allowed the operatives to complete works that the landlord felt were needed to address the cause of the damp, this may have prevented further deterioration. However, it was clear that, when the landlord finally did carry out an inspection, around a year later, that the bathroom was in a poor state of repair. It was unclear why the landlord had agreed to an inspection at this point, contrary to the policy it said it had previously adopted, however it is appropriate that it did so.
The landlord’s Leaks, Condensation, Damp and Mould Policy, published in February 2023, states that, “where particularly severe or recurring damp or mould issues are identified, the landlord will undertake a comprehensive risk assessment, which may result in a range of actions to support the resident depending on their circumstance”. It would have been good practice for the landlord to carry out an inspection when the resident reported damp and mould in September 2019, particularly in light of the fact there had been a history of damp and leaks in the bathroom, and the fact this was a recurring problem. It was not until the resident reported severe mould in her bedrooms, some 14 months later, that the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property and found water damage to the bathroom from a leak, along with several other outstanding repair issues. The landlord’s lack of action meant the damp in the bathroom was allowed to get worse, leaving the resident and her family to live with a bathroom that was in a poor state of repair for longer than necessary.
This Service’s guidance to landlords for repairs complaints, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, recommends that landlords give details and timescales for any actions they plan to take and should keep residents regularly updated and informed. There was no written correspondence to confirm the landlord’s plan of action following its inspection and no evidence the landlord contacted the resident regarding the works that the surveyor had recommended. The records suggest that the surveyor had agreed to get in touch with the resident within two weeks following the inspection, but there is no indication this happened. The evidence shows that it is not until the landlord had recorded the resident’s stage one complaint, following intervention by the Ombudsman in January 2021, that it took steps to book repair works to the bathroom and kitchen.
The landlord was not at fault for the further delays in starting works to the bathroom and kitchen from February 2021 onwards. These delays were initially due to the lack of the contractor’s availability, which the landlord explained was caused by COVID restrictions. There were further delays when the resident asked the landlord to pause the work until it provided her a written list of planned works. It is positive to note that the landlord complied with the resident’s request in a timely manner and, once the works were agreed, the landlord kept in regular contact, provided updates on progress and completion times, made the offer of a decant and completed a post-inspection to check the resident was satisfied with the repairs.
The landlord is normally entitled to rely on the outcome of its inspections which, in this case diagnosed condensation as the cause of mould in the bedrooms. It was appropriate that, following its inspection in November 2020, the landlord gave advice to the resident on how to mitigate the effects of condensation. However, there is no evidence the landlord took any further action to investigate other possible causes or that it had taken any steps to address the problem, such as offering to mould wash the affected areas, explore whether or not the ventilation in the rooms was sufficient or whether there were any external repair issues that were contributing to the growth of mould in the bedrooms. The Leaks, Condensation, Damp and Mould Policy states that, where damp and mould is caused by condensation, the landlord will work with residents to take appropriate measures to resolve the issues. This may include self-help advice about how to control moisture levels, increase ventilation or heating so that damp levels are kept low, or providing financial guidance or support for those in fuel poverty. Whilst the landlord’s Policy was produced after the events set out in this investigation, it is of concern that there is no evidence that, apart from some self-help advice, any other assistance was provided.
It is evident from recent contact from the resident to this Service that she continues to raise concerns about mould in her bedrooms and bathroom, which suggests that the landlord has failed to take the necessary steps in order to investigate the cause of the damp and ensure it has done everything it can to proactively supported the resident in addressing the mould issue. In addition, there is evidence in the landlord’s repair records that the guttering around the property was leaking, that it was blocked and that there appeared to be parts missing. Although the records show that the landlord had cleared the gutters, there is no indication that the guttering was ever properly checked for damage or whether this was the cause of the damp inside the property. Taken altogether, although the landlord took steps to acknowledge the delays in addressing the bathroom repairs by offering some compensation, it did not go far enough to acknowledge how its lack of action in dealing with the issue for over a year impacted the resident and her family.
It should be noted that, in its stage two response, the landlord states; “our surveyor visited your home on 20 November 2021 and concluded that condensation/lifestyle was the main factor contributing to the damp issues that you were experiencing in the bedrooms”. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report, Damp and Mould – It’s not lifestyle, published in October 2021 states that, “It is crucial that landlords avoid paternalistic attitudes, automatically apportioning blame or using language inferring blame on the resident. We have seen examples of this with landlords initially assuming that the cause is condensation due to the resident’s ‘lifestyle’. The term ‘lifestyle’ suggests that it is a resident’s choice to live in that way.” The follow up Spotlight report published in February 2023 states that, “although we have seen some good practice in this area, such as the removal by landlords of the word ‘lifestyle’ from all internal and external publications, it is clear that the culture of blaming the resident and their lifestyle can still prevail”. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation that the landlord considers the findings in the Spotlight reports when it reviews its Leaks, Condensation, Damp and Mould Policy in order to emphasise the importance of not apportioning blame for damp and mould on residents and avoid using terms such as ‘lifestyle’, which suggest that mould and damp are caused by the way people live their everyday lives.
The resident has paid approximately £133 per week (taking account some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period of landlord’s maladministration, which the Ombudsman considers can reasonably be considered to have started in September 2019, when the resident asked for the landlord to inspect her bathroom for mould and the landlord failed to take any further action. The Ombudsman considers that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time the resident was left with a bathroom that was in poor condition before the landlord finally arranged works for March 2021. Taking into account the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £2,200 compensation for the impact on the resident of a bathroom that was in a poor state of repair. This figure has been calculated as approximately 20% of the total rent during the period in question. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.

Response to reports of a rodent infestation in the communal areas

There is evidence that, following reports from the resident of rodent activity in the communal areas, the landlord was proactive in its response. Although the pest control visits started a month after the landlord recorded the resident’s stage one complaint, the landlord carried out regular baiting visits and inspections from March to May 2021 until it was satisfied there was no further pest activity. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord took reasonable steps to address the reports of pests in the communal areas.

Response to reports of repeated boiler repairs

It is not disputed that, for a boiler that was newly installed in 2016, it was unusual for it to have broken down four times between December 2020 and August 2021. However, the evidence shows that the repairs were unrelated and it is positive to note that the landlord’s gas contractor had attended to and completed most of those repairs in a timely manner.
It took the contractor 20 days to complete one of the repairs, which left the resident and her family without heating or hot water between 20 July and August 2021. Although the loss of heating during the summer would not have had as much impact on the resident than if it had happened during the winter months, the loss of hot water for over two weeks during this time would have caused considerable distress and discomfort, particularly for a family with children. There is no evidence the landlord explored any temporary measures while waiting for the works to be completed, such as considering interim hotel accommodation or gym membership so that the family had access to bathing facilities. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the time taken to resolve the repeated breakdowns, the poorly managed works and to offer compensation of £265 for loss of amenities and for inconvenience and delays. The landlord has also sought to learn from these failings by addressing the matter with its contractor so that new systems are implemented to prevent the same delays occurring in future. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to address and remedy the service failure it has identified.

Complaint handling

Although the resident raised her stage one complaint on 23 November 2020, the landlord did not record this until two months later, following intervention by the Ombudsman. The landlord was at fault for its failure to acknowledge the resident’s complaint, and for its lack of response when the resident chased it up. It was inappropriate that the resident was left with no option but to approach this Service for assistance and that it was not until we asked the landlord to contact the resident about her concerns that it called her and finally recorded her complaint on its system. In addition, it was a further two months until the landlord sent its stage one response. This was further exacerbated by the fact the landlord had initially sent the response to an incorrect email address.
The landlord’s complaints policy in use at the time stated that its principles are to provide a quality service by putting things right within reasonable timescales, keeping its customer informed and fully and accurately record details, actions and investigations of the complaint at all stages. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that, “when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage one of the complaints procedure within five days of receipt” In addition, it states that, “landlords must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.” The delay of over three months to respond, together with a failure to acknowledge the resident’s initial contact represents a clearbreach of the landlord’s own complaint policy, and the Complaint Handling Code.
The evidence shows that, following the resident’s escalation request, which she again made via this Service, it took two weeks for the landlord to acknowledge her stage two complaint, and then a further three months to provide a response. Although the landlord wrote to apologise for the delay and advise it would aim to send its stage two response within the next 10 working days, the resident had to wait a further two months to receive it. There is no evidence the landlord sent the resident any further updates or apologies for the ongoing delays. It should also be noted that, although the compensation offer in its stage two response was £865, this was later revised down to £750 in the landlord’s letter of 9 June 2022, following a review it had had undertaken of the case. There is no explanation in its letter of why the landlord had changed its original offer, which would have caused the resident obvious confusion. Once again, this demonstrates a lack of clear communication on the landlord’s part.
The poor complaint handling and lack of communication from the landlord would have caused the resident considerable frustration, particularly as it was evident she had already lost her confidence in the landlord’s complaint service following its failure to properly respond to her initial complaint. Although the landlord did take some steps to put things right by apologising and attempting to provide some explanation for the delays, along with its offer of £200 compensation, this does not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, go far enough to acknowledge the impact its poor communication and complaint handling had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation in the communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in response to the resident’s reports of repeated boiler repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not consider arranging an inspection when the resident first reported damp and mould, which meant the bathroom was left to deteriorate for another year before the landlord took any further action. In addition, the landlord failed to follow good practice and, although the surveyor concluded the mould in the bedrooms was caused by condensation, following an inspection, the landlord could have explored whether there may have been any other possible causes, or considered additional support in addition to general advice on condensation management. It could have explored, for example, whether dehumidifiers or improved ventilation would help to resolve the problem. The lack of meaningful intervention by the landlord to tackle the source of the damp and mould meant the resident was left to live with a continuing damp and mould problem in the property for well over a year.
The landlord took proactive steps to respond to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation in the communal areas by arranging and completing a pest control treatment programme.
Although the resident had to report several boiler breakdowns, the faults were unrelated and the boiler was fixed on each occasion. The resident and her family were left without hot water and heating for 20 days while the contractor delayed in completing the repair, and the landlord did not explore alternative interim hot water access for the family. However, it acknowledged the impact on the resident, took steps to learn from its service failure and offered compensation for loss of amenities and the inconvenience caused.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s stage one complaint or reply to her follow up contacts, which left her no choice but to seek help from the Ombudsman. Following this, there were repeated and protracted delays by the landlord to provide both a stage one and stage two response. The landlord’s communication was poor and confusing, and it gave no explanation as to why it later revised down its original offer of compensation. Whilst it offered some compensation (£900) in recognition of service failures in its complaint handling this did not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, constitute sufficient redress for the failings identified.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident the revised compensation amount of £3,465, which is calculated as follows:
1. £2,200 in recognition that the resident and her family were left to live with a bathroom that was in poor condition and subject to damp and mould from when she reported it in September 2019 to when the landlord arranged works for March 2021.
2. £500 in recognition of the landlord’s failure to follow good practice in respect to dealing with the damp and mould in the resident’s bedrooms and for its continued lack of action in dealing with the cause of the mould;
3. £265 for loss of amenities and inconvenience caused;
4. £500 in recognition of the landlord’s poor complaint handling.

The revised total amount of £3,465 must be paid within four weeks of receiving this determination. This replaces the landlord’s original offer of £900.

The landlord to carry out an inspection to determine the possible causes of the damp and mould in the resident’s property and, in line with its Leaks, Condensation, Damp and Mould Policy, with regard to recurring damp and mould issues, the landlord to “undertake a comprehensive risk assessment, which may result in a range of actions to support the resident depending on their circumstances. Actions may include providing and funding dehumidifiers, installing ventilation systems, dry lining walls or applying mould resistant coverings, as appropriate”. The landlord to provide evidence it has complied with this order within eight weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its systems for complaint handling in order to ensure all complaints are progressed in a timely manner, and that the onus is not put on residents to ensure their complaints are picked up by the landlord.
The landlord to review its Leaks, Condensation, Damp and Mould Policy against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports on Damp and Mould – It’s not lifestyle, and consider including advice to staff emphasising the importance of not apportioning blame on for damp and mould and avoid using terms such as ‘lifestyle’, which suggest that mould and damp are caused by the way people live their everyday lives.