Connexus Homes Limited (202215584)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215584

Connexus Homes Limited

26 March 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of:
1. Damp and mould.
2. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. The unsuitability of the property and the resident’s request to move.

Background

The resident has occupied a 2 bedroom first floor flat with her husband, son and daughter on an assured shorthold tenancy since 2018. The resident has epilepsy and her daughter has asthma.

Summary of events

The resident reported to the landlord on 10 November 2020, that there was an issue with damp in the property. Although she said it was ongoing, the landlord had no record of there being a prior issue. A plumber attended on 17 November 2020 to see if there was a leak in the attic, but the outcome of that visit is unknown.
A leak through a wall was reported on 23 November 2020, with a target response date of 21 December 2020. A job was also created on 4 December 2020 for a ceiling or duct fan to be fitted by 26 February 2021. It is not known what work was carried out in relation to either of these jobs.
The resident advised the landlord on 7 June 2021 that her neighbour had smashed glass on the landing and it trailed down the stairs and they were using other people’s bins. As the neighbour’s property was privately rented, the landlord said it would report the matter to the council. In addition, the resident said there was an issue with mould and, although someone had painted the wall, it had returned.
On 23 June 2021 a mould survey was carried out and it suggested a bathroom fan upgrade and a Positive Input ventilation (PIV) system, which would push fresh filtered air around the property and safeguard any future changes of use and occupation. The resident was told on 2 August 2021 that an appointment had been made for 13 August 2021 to fit a fan and tile. The contractor would also look at the damp in the bedroom.
On 13, 23 and 31 August 2021 the resident notified the landlord about the police being notified of potential break-ins as wire had been found in the lock. The landlord confirmed that contacting the police was the correct course of action as it was a criminal matter.
From August 2021 until September 2022 the landlord’s repair log records that other than carrying out its annual gas safety check, it attended to move a smoke alarm, replace a seal to stop a leak under a sink and to repair the front door that was not locking properly.
The resident sent a complaint to the landlord on 22 September 2022, which focused on 3 main issues:
1. Mould – This was reported within months of moving in and despite numerous emails and telephone calls nothing was done for a long time. Anti-mould paint was eventually applied but did not work. It was suggested there may be a leak in the roof and that an extractor fan should be fitted, but nothing had been done to resolve the issue.
2. ASB – Drunk and unsafe behaviour by the neighbour in the adjacent privately rented flat, such as fighting and leaving candles alight outside. The police had been called.
3. Home unsuitability – The flat was no longer suitable for the family as she had seizures and there had been issues accessing the property including by emergency services who came to treat her. She wanted to be rehoused.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 October 2022 and issued its stage 1 response on 12 October 2022 as follows:
1. It had placed orders for a PIV system, new kitchen and bathroom extractor fans, and a mould treatment. However, the contractors had been unable to contact the resident for 2 months so the job was cancelled. It upheld the complaint as it had not been told the works had not been carried out. It apologised and said the contractors would arrange for the works to be done.
2. It had spoken with its Leasehold Officer regarding the ASB and they were aware there had been issues but no recent reports. They would be visiting shortly, would monitor the situation, and liaise with the council as it had more power over private landlords. It encouraged the resident to report any further issues to the landlord, police and council to build up evidence.
3. It acknowledged the resident wanted to move due to having concrete steps and potentially having a seizure and being injured. Her application was being considered but information was needed from an occupational therapist (OT) so the correct housing requirements could be considered to ensure the resident was in the correct banding.
On 2 November 2022 the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. This was acknowledged on 4 November 2022 and she was told a response would be sent by 30 November 2022.
In relation to her ASB reports, the resident was sent instructions for using the noise application and the contact details for the council’s Environmental Health Team (EHT) on 4 November 2022.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 17 November 2022. Following a visit on 10 November 2022, the landlord had noted there was a pot of cigarette ends left outside. The resident said she was unhappy about the neighbour smoking near the door and discarding cigarette ends. The landlord explained it had spoken with the neighbour who said they would not do that anymore.
Having discussed the complaint with the resident on 30 November 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 response the same day, as follows:
1. Regarding the reports of mould, it reiterated its stage 1 response and noted an appointment had been made for contractors to attend on 21 December 2022 to carry out the proposed works.
2. It acknowledged the difficulty of having issues with neighbours and reminded the resident to report when issues arose. It explained that it was difficult to take action without evidence. She has been sent contact details for the EHT and instructions on how to download and use the noise application as requested. The Leasehold Officer would also be attending the block whenever they were in the area.
3. It confirmed that a letter which had been sent to the resident about removing items and smoking in communal areas was sent to everyone in the block.
4. Having checked all logs of incoming post, it confirmed it had never received a letter dated 5 October 2022 so could only assume it was lost in the post.
5. It noted the resident was awaiting an appointment with an OT and that may then assist with enhancing her banding with the council. It offered additional support if needed and said once all work at the property had been done, it would provide her with decorating vouchers.
The resident’s living situation was assessed by an OT arranged by the council on 11 January 2023 and her concerns about the damp and mould and the suitability of the property were noted.
From 14 February 2023 the landlord tried to contact the resident to arrange a survey and she was ultimately notified of the visit on 6 March 2023.
A surveyor attended the property in March 2023. A statement from the surveyor said it found:
1. no evidence of damp ingress at all but there was visible mould to the external walls of the master bedroom.
2. The PIV needed to be moved to the central hallway and for thermal boarding to be fitted to the internal walls of the bedroom.
The resident sent the landlord a copy of the OT report and photographs of damp on 23 March 2023, which was acknowledged on 27 March 2023.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 5 April 2023 and explained it would need to see 6 months bidding history before it would look at a direct let. The resident said she was bidding when properties become available and made the landlord aware that the EHT was carrying out a review.
On 5 April 2023 the landlord was contacted by a local councillor, on behalf of the resident, asking for an update on a possible move. The landlord responded the following day that it had been communicating with the resident and was sympathetic to her situation. It was dealing with the mould issue and an electrical fault with sockets had been fixed. It had discussed a possible direct let but it would need to see between 3 and 6 months of bidding history before it consider this further. The resident was on ‘Home Point’ bidding on properties including accessible homes and it had also discussed a possible mutual exchange.
The resident’s MP advised her on 11 April 2023 that they had contacted the landlord as they had seen a copy of its correspondence and considered it “woefully inadequate”. They explained that the landlord had said on 6 April 2023 that there had been no report of mould since 2020 but it would get an urgent inspection carried out.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 12 April 2023 regarding her family’s welfare and her daughter’s asthma and requested medical evidence to support her comments. The resident also commented on her neighbour and how they party most nights and how she submitted noise reports but nothing had been done. The landlord said it would follow that up.
The landlord’s surveyor wrote to the resident on 13 April 2023 and confirmed it had attended the property on 14 March 2023 and did not identify any moisture ingress. It said all the mould in the main bedroom looked to be caused by condensation. New extractor fans and PIV had recently been fitted, which should help. It said a decision had been made to internally insulate the 2 external walls to that bedroom and a contractor would be in touch to arrange the work. This should prevent the walls from becoming cold so mould would be less likely to form.
Following a visit to the property on 13 April 2023, the landlord concluded there was no water ingress in to the bedroom from the wall. The plasterboard needed replacing but it could only be condensation and there was no mould elsewhere in the property. The landlord spoke with the resident on 14 April 2023 as someone had visited the property the day before to look at the damp. During that call the landlord asked about the resident’s daughter’s health and was told the resident would provide a doctor’s letter.
A recommendation for a permanent decant form was completed on 18 April 2023, in order to request a ground floor property. It explained the 2 children shared a bedroom, access to the property was via communal concrete stairs, and the resident’s medical condition meant the property was not appropriate.
The landlord decided on 27 April 2023, based on its Damp and Mould procedure and Direct Let policy, not to do a direct let to another property because it did not meet its urgent/risk to life criteria, because:
1. The OT report did not say there was a higher level of risk due to being housed upstairs. There was no internal or external water ingress. The issues could be resolved by replacing a piece of plaster board. The repairs team considered that the issues could have been resolved some time ago if the resident had allowed access.
2. ‘Home Point’ should address the resident’s medical needs within its banding priorities. There were other epileptic people in its housing stock who were bidding to rehome themselves.
3. The reported ASB was not supported with evidence that the alleged perpetrators were in breach of their tenancy conditions.
The landlord sent the resident £65 decoration vouchers on 25 May 2023 following an inspection to look at damp and mould.
The surveyor that attended in March 2023 said in its statement to the landlord that Insulation works were carried out in May 2023. The process included hacking off the existing render and fixing insulation backed plasterboard by way of dot and dab method and at no point while on site did the contractors notice any damp issue with the wall. It went on to say that there was then a complaint of damp and an appointment was made on 7 July 2023 and upon inspection “the external wall was extremely wet to touch as was the carpet and top of the surface mounted double socket. This amount of moisture on surfaces is extremely abnormal. It was noted that the ceiling was bone dry and no signs of moisture. As too was the attic. Completely dry including the ceiling plasterboard, insulation, and external wall. The next day the roof was stripped, the cavity and roof were exposed. All parts were completely dry with no signs of disrepair”. The conclusion was that moisture had to come from inside the room and not from outside.
The landlord discussed with the resident her concerns about the neighbour on 25 July and 8 August 2023. It explained it would speak to the neighbour but the resident needed to keep evidence as her claims were not supported by police reports (it had only one report in April 2023). The noise recordings submitted by the resident could not be found by the landlord so she was advised to delete and download the application again. She could send in recordings on her telephone and she needed to send the landlord details of reports made to the police. The resident was also asked when using the noise application to show how often the family were in the property.
Internal emails between landlord staff on 10 August 2023 discussed potentially moving the resident to the flat on the ground floor, but it would need to check it was suitable. It had concerns over how the walls were getting wet in the resident’s property.
The EHT sent a report to the landlord on 18 August 2023 following an inspection on 3 August 2023. It said there was significant wall surface dampness in the external corner wall from floor to ceiling. However:
1. There were no obvious defects to the internal or external roof or wall structure (with the exception of some minor disrepair/crumbled mortar to flaunching along the roof edge).
2. Thermal imaging and surface damp meter readings indicated no dampness to the ceiling or floor.
3. The ground floor flat immediately below exhibited no signs of dampness to the walls, floor or ceiling using both thermal imaging and surface damp meter.
The EHT said a Hazard Awareness Notice was the most appropriate option given that the extent of the dampness was worrying and would normally be indicative of a significant property defect. It also said it could not identify any obvious defect without significant destructive examination and/or temporary/permanent relocation of the resident.
After the resident chased the landlord for an update on 14 September 2023, an email was sent between landlord staff on 15 September 2023. It said a decision had been taken to decant the family to a ground floor property temporarily as it wanted to go inside the resident’s property when it rained to check the walls. However, the Housing Services Team (HST) then issued a section 188 Notice and moved the family to a hotel. The family returned to the property and were unsure if the ground floor property was still available to decant to. The landlord said the HST would be contacted to find out why the family left the hotel and what was happening.
An internal email sent by landlord staff on 19 September 2023 said the EHT had chased for an update following its advice to move the family temporarily.
On 16 October 2023 the landlord spoke with the resident who had been staying in a hotel but had found it difficult so had moved home. She said the bedroom wall was still wet. Despite having a dehumidifier as it was going cold it was hard to keep it on. The whole of the end wall was now wet. The landlord agreed to look in to it further with the HST.
The resident has told this Service it was not the landlord that decanted her to a hotel, it was ‘Home Point’. She stayed in a hotel for about a week but was told she could still use the facilities of her home, for cooking for example. She moved home as she wears a bracelet that issues a notification of a seizure, and had she had a seizure, help would have attended at the wrong address.
Between 15 January and 8 February 2024, the landlord liaised with the resident about a possible property elsewhere and the bidding process. It was noted the resident felt properties on the bidding system were not suitable and the landlord encouraged her to perhaps “tweak” what she was asking for.
The resident has advised that she had to be assessed by an OT to determine whether the other property was suitable. After an assessment was done, she has said she was told the property was withdrawn as not suitable as it had stairs and no downstairs toilet.

Assessment and findings

Reports of damp and mould.

Although the resident has said it was around 2019 when she first reported an issue with damp and mould, the landlord’s first records were from November 2020. While the Ombudsman can only rely upon the evidence available, it is important to note that the evidence provided by the landlord in respect of work carried out is significantly lacking. It has supplied a report which mentions damp was reported in 2020 and 2021, but it contains no information about what work was carried out at each visit. Therefore, it is not possible to know whether the operative found an issue, or what remedial works, if any, were carried out.
This Service has concerns around the landlord’s record keeping and would therefore refer it to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023). This stresses the importance of storing information, for example, in order for it to be able to respond fully to complaints. As a result, an order has been made for the landlord to review the way it records all jobs, and ensure it includes what work was meant to be carried out, the work done, and any outstanding issues.
The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance policy states the interior and exterior walls of the property are the landlord’s responsibility to maintain and dampness treatment to walls, floor or ceilings would be dealt with as planned maintenance repairs.
By 23 November 2020 the landlord was aware that, despite a plumber’s visit, there was still an issue with damp. However, it took the resident raising the issue of mould again in June 2021 for the landlord to carry out a mould survey and make recommendations for treatment, which again referred to installing a fan; something it had identified in December 2020. Therefore the recommendation to fit a fan had been overlooked for 6 months, which is unacceptable as it shows the landlord failed to monitor and follow up on work needed and comply with its obligations.
This Service considers that landlords need to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp as set out in the Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021). The landlord said it would have the fan fitted in August 2021 as well as fitting a PIV, but again no record was kept of what happened. The evidence shows the fan was not fitted in August 2021; rather it was on 21 December 2022 when a PIV system was installed along with new kitchen and bathroom extractor fans. The resident was also provided with a mould treatment kit.
It was only when the resident complained that the landlord acknowledged it had not known the works had not been carried out. While it was right for the landlord to apologise for this oversight and arrange for the work to be done, it further demonstrates the lack of monitoring and poor record keeping. This led to an unacceptable 18 month delay in the landlord taking action following the mould survey and shows it had not adopted a zero-tolerance approach at that stage.
Despite the landlord then installing fans and a PIV, the resident continued to report damp. The landlord then arranged for the property to be surveyed in March 2023, which was an appropriate response. It found no evidence of damp ingress at all but there was visible mould to the external walls of the master bedroom. Work was done to fix plasterboard on the walls and move the PIV to a better location. However, following a visit on 7 July 2023 the wall was again wet to the touch. It is clear the landlord could not establish the cause of the damp as it checked the attic and roof and found no disrepair. The conclusion was made that moisture had to come from inside the room and not from outside, but it did arrange to insulate the 2 external walls to that bedroom.
From March 2023, the landlord did therefore take a more proactive approach to eradicating damp, but without success. Its Lettings Policy says it had the option to consider ‘direct let’ if needed. In this case, the landlord rightly considered whether the resident met its requirements for that, but based on its Damp and Mould procedure and Direct Let policy, it was not an option. This was because the circumstances did not meet its urgent/risk to life criteria.
Due to there being continuing damp, the landlord also considered other options. It liaised with the resident about moving, including bidding on properties (more on this below). It also liaised with the EHT and while it considered decanting the resident, the council then decanted her, albeit temporarily. Despite the investigations carried out, no obvious defects were found in terms of the internal or external roof or wall structure and thermal imaging and surface damp meter readings also indicated no dampness to the ceiling or the floor. The flat below was also checked and it had no signs of damp.
After all these checks, the landlord understandably questioned how the walls were getting wet. It looked into potentially moving the resident to the ground floor flat, but that was not an option. More recently it found a property for her, but due to her medical conditions, after an OT report it was deemed not suitable.
The landlord’s Lettings policy says it will “consider every customer’s individual circumstance before making any decisions; each one will be based on its own merits. However, if we decide not to offer a home to a customer we will explain our reasons clearly, as well as what the customer needs to do in order to be re-considered in future”. The Ombudsman is satisfied it did that.
The landlord was made aware of the resident and her family’s health needs and the resident accepts it ensured an OT report was carried out when another property became available. She accepts the landlord also explained to her why the property was not suitable, and the evidence shows the landlord also advised the resident to potentially “tweak” what she was asking for to perhaps open up more options on properties. Therefore, it followed its policy correctly. While it is unfortunate the property was not suitable, that was not as a result of anything the landlord did wrong.
The landlord has carried out a survey and inspections and the EHT has also been involved. The landlord has liaised with the resident’s councillor and MP, but after all these checks it is unable to identify the cause of the damp. Apart from the initial delays, it had taken reasonable steps to address the problem and sent the resident £65 decoration vouchers to acknowledge she had to remove wall paper and redecorate.
Overall, there were significant delays in the landlord taking steps initially to address the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It took too long to carry out a mould survey and there was an extensive delay in fitting new fans and a PIV system. From at least November 2020 to December 2022 no remedial work was carried out to address the issues other than apparently an operative applying some anti-mould paint, which is something the resident commented on but the landlord does not appear to have a record of. This amounts to maladministration.
A 2 year period is significant and clearly the resident had to live in difficult circumstances while the damp remained untreated. However, there is no evidence of the resident having chased the landlord over that period, which limits the detriment caused. Taking all these points in to account, this Service’s Remedies guidance suggests where there has been maladministration as in this case, compensation in the region of £600 to £1,000 is appropriate.
When considering the level of compensation, the Ombudsman is mindful that, although the resident continues to bid on properties, there is an added complication due to her having a health issue that means certain properties may not be suitable for her. In the meantime, the landlord has a responsibility to ensure the property is free from damp and mould.
Therefore, the resident should continue to report ongoing damp and the landlord should arrange for mould treatments as necessary. However, due to the fact the damp and mould has not been resolved after all this time, compensation of £1,000 is an appropriate remedy. This factors in that the resident may choose to pay for damp and mould treatments herself while she remains in the property.

Reports of ASB

Upon being advised by the resident that she was having issues with her neighbour the landlord explained it would refer the matter to the council. This was in line with guidance produced by the government, which can be found at www.gov.uk/private-renting/antisocial-behaviour. Therefore its approach was reasonable.
In August 2021 when the resident notified the landlord of potential break-ins at the property, it also correctly advised her to notify the police, as it was a criminal matter.
In response to the resident’s complaint in September 2022, when she complained about drunk and unsafe behaviour by the neighbour, as well as reminding her to notify the police if necessary, the landlord again correctly explained that it would notify the council as it had more power over private landlords. In addition though, it said it had spoken with its Leasehold Officer who would be visiting and would monitor the situation. This was a proportionate and reasonable response as there had been no other recent reports.
The landlord did then visit the property and noted cigarette ends had been left outside, so it spoke with the neighbour and sent a letter to all residents in the block; thereby acting promptly to address the issue.
The resident then complained about the noise the neighbour was making in 2023 and the evidence shows the landlord provided her with a noise application to take recordings and build up evidence of noise nuisance. The Ombudsman notes there was an issue with some recordings not being found but the landlord advised the resident to delete and reinstall the application and provided instructions on how to use it. It also said she could take recordings on her telephone and encouraged her to send it details of any reports she had made to the police. This was reasonable.
The landlord’s ASB policy says, “We will assist our tenants who are suffering from anti-social behaviour, where the alleged perpetrator is another of our tenants, an occupant of one of our leasehold properties or any other person affecting our housing management function in the communities in which we work.” The landlord certainly took reasonable steps to do this but it also explained that from the reports made, they were not actually in breach of their tenancy conditions. It therefore sought to manage the resident’s expectations about what action could be taken, and to reiterate the need to collate evidence.
From the information provided, the landlord took reasonable and proportionate action when addressing the residents concerns about her neighbour’s ASB. In accordance with its ASB policy it dealt with the reported incidents fairly and sensitively and advised the resident of action taken. It encouraged her to collate evidence which was the right thing to do, because although she was reporting incidents, no action could be taken either by the landlord and potentially by other agencies, without sufficient evidence of ASB. It also adhered to its ASB policy, including working in partnership with the police and council. There was therefore no maladministration here.

The unsuitability of the property and the request to move.

The landlord was made aware of the resident’s health condition, and this along with the damp and mould issues meant she wanted to move. The landlord correctly advised that she needed to bid on properties and it accepted her application to move. However, it also explained a report was needed from an OT so the correct housing requirements could be considered to ensure she was in the correct banding. This shows the landlord ensured the resident was fully informed of the position from the start.
As stated above, the landlord did consider the possibly of a direct let but the resident did not meet the requirements of its Lettings policy because in some part, the OT did not say she was at a higher risk by being housed upstairs. In addition, it pointed out that ‘Home Point’ had a responsibility to address the resident’s medical needs within its banding priorities and there were also other people in its housing stock with similar medical needs, who were bidding to rehome themselves.
A potentially suitable property was identified, but this had to be withdrawn due to it not being suitable to her health needs following an OT assessment. While this is likely to have been upsetting for the resident, she had stressed in her complaint to the landlord the difficulties and concerns she had living in the existing property due to her medical issues. Therefore, it was only right that the landlord considered her individual circumstances, in line with its Lettings policy.
While it is unfortunate that another suitable property had not been found, the Ombudsman concludes that there has been no maladministration, as the landlord’s actions in relation to dealing with this matter, have been fair and reasonable throughout.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. No maladministration in relation to;
  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. The unsuitability of the property and the request to move.

Reasons

There were significant delays in the landlord taking action in response to reports of damp and mould.
The landlord encouraged the resident to gather evidence and report issues to the police and council appropriately. It also spoke with the neighbour and sent a letter in order to help try and address the issues.
OT assessments have been carried out to establish the needs of the resident and the landlord has ensured the resident is bidding on properties, and has assessed her needs when a property became available.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £1,000 compensation, in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays dealing with reports of damp and mould.
3. Review the way it records all jobs, to ensure it captures the details of the job, the actual work done at the visit and any outstanding issues. It should also put a process in place to make sure all live jobs are actively monitored so it can easily identify if an issue remains unresolved.