Connexus Homes Limited (202219149)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219149

Connexus Housing Limited

16 January 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 landlord’s handling of reports of reports of a damp and water ingress in the property.
The landlord’s response to concerns about the effectiveness and efficiency of the heating, hot water, and shower system.

Background

The resident held an assured tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association, since 3 March 2003. The resident ended her tenancy in approximately April 2023. The property is a 3 bedroom house.
On 25 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and reported issues with water ingress within the property and her concerns that the cost of running her heating and shower was very high.
On 15 September 2022 the landlord raised an order to investigate a leak within a bedroom, it also raised an order to a third party contractor to complete a damp inspection at the property.
On 23 September 2022 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. The resident said that she had not received an answer to her previous email about the cost of using her shower and heating and that she needed the shower for medical reasons. The resident said that there had been a leak in one bedroom, which no one had been out to look at, her house was damp and she had no affordable heating within the house.
On 4 October 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint by telephone. The landlord confirmed that it would need a time extension due to the complex nature of the complaint. The landlord followed this up with an acknowledgement letter on 6 October 2022, where it detailed that it would be investigating the cost of heating, damp, bedroom wall (which was affected by a leak), and the shower. It also acknowledged that in order to resolve her complaint, the resident wanted affordable heating to be installed, for the damp and bedroom wall to be treated and for a bath to be installed within her bathroom, so the hot water stored within a tank could be utilized.
On 6 October 2022 the third party contractor attended the resident’s home and carried out a survey relating to the damp. The survey recommended that the extractor fans within the property should be upgraded, patch mould treatment was required and a full damp survey should be completed by a damp specialist. It also identified issues with the exterior pointing and guttering.
On 14 October 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 response which said that it had arranged for the relevant departments to attend the resident’s house and assess the issues she had reported, and that an appointment had been made for 28 October 2022 for the repointing and gutter issues to be fixed. The landlord also attended the resident’s home on 14 October 2022 to carry out a damp inspection, as recommended by the third party contractor.
On 17 October 2022 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She explained that while she was happy that the landlord had acknowledged the issues she was experiencing, the response did not provide her with a clear path of what actions the landlord was taking.
Following the landlord’s inspection on 14 October 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident on 19 October 2022 where it provided her with a detailed schedule of works. The schedule confirmed the issues which were identified within each room and the actions it would be taking. This included instructing a contractor to survey the cavity wall insulation, authorising the third party contractor to carry out its recommended repairs and raising a number of jobs to its internal repairs team.
On 24 and 27 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and escalated her complaint as she said that she still did not know what will happen and when, nor did the response give her any solutions. The resident also explained that she wanted the landlord to provide sustainable heating, for a bath to be installed the damp to be rectified and for dates for when the work will be completed.
In November 2022, there was various communications between the landlord and resident. This included the resident sending pictures of damp in one bedroom after a period of heavy rain, which the landlord arranged for the loft and roof to be inspected, a cavity wall inspection was carried out on 3 November 2022 and a further survey was carried out by a home energy efficiency company.
On 21 November 2022 the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response where it said:
1. It had instructed 3 contractors to assess the issues within the house, and the repairs supervisor would be over seeing the work. Although it could not give dates at present, it would review the position at the start of December 2022. It also apologised that the resident had been passed from person to person.
2. In relation to the cost of heating and shower, it had:
  1. Arranged for the tenant liaison officer to contact the resident and offered to arrange for someone to check the heating system and ensure it was working correctly, but this was declined. It had also arranged for an electrician to attend and check the shower was working correctly.
  2. It had referred the resident to an energy charity to see if there were any further support that could be offered regarding the cost of the resident’s electricity bills.
  3. It had arranged for an electrician to inspect the heater in the bathroom and the lack of heater in the downstairs bedroom.
  4. Been unable to change the heating system as it had not received medical evidence regarding the resident’s concerns that she could not use the heating system due to her medical conditions. And it would not install a different system as the current one had only been upgraded in 2016.
3. In relation to the damp in the property, it confirmed that:
  1. It can be a process of elimination with regards to finding a suitable solution and it had asked its contractor to quote for the work which needed to be carried out around the chimney breast and roof.
  2. It had asked the contractor to inspect the internal wall within the bedroom and remove the old plaster and reskim, if necessary.
  3. It had asked the contractor to inspect the damp within the ground floor bedroom and kitchen.
  4. It had also arranged for the third party contractor to attend and upgrade the extractor fans and carry out a mould wash, as per its recommendations.
4. In relation to finding the cause of water penetration:
  1. It had arranged for a contractor to check the cavity wall insulation.
  2. Following receipt of the report it had instructed the contractor to remove the old wall insulation and replace with new.
On 2 December 2022 an independent energy charity attended the resident’s home to investigate the high heating costs and damp and mould within the property. The agency noted that the resident had confirmed that they did not use the heating system due to high costs and while the resident wanted an air source heat pump system to be installed, there was a fairly new system in place. The report was provided to the landlord and also confirmed that the damp/mould and condensation issues are highly likely due to insufficient heating and ventilation in the affected areas. In particular the ground floor bedroom, which is directly next to a bathroom, with that bedroom only heated by a small towel radiator. It also gave recommendations on how to reduce the usage, which may save some money each month.
On 7 December 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident with an update, which said:
1. The electrician had attended the property and confirmed that the shower was working correctly. It was also more cost effective to have an electric shower rather than a shower which used water from a cylinder. Furthermore, it would not look to install a bath into the property as a level access shower was installed in 2012 for the resident’s use.
2. The electrician had also checked the heater in the bathroom and confirmed that it was working as it should.
3. The relevant contractor would be in touch to erect scaffolding, so that the gable end could be inspected.
4. The surveyor had confirmed that no damp had been identified in a number of rooms, but if that changed, to inform the landlord.
5. It offered the resident £150 compensation due to the delay and inconvenience the resident experienced while a contractor was secured.
On 8 December 2022 the resident contacted the Ombudsman where she explained that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident explained that she could not use her heating system due to medical conditions, they could only use the shower once a week, the house had damp and mould, there was a water stain in one of the bedrooms, and there was not sufficient heating in the house. The resident further explained that in order to resolve her complaint she wanted the landlord to install an economical heating system, shower and underfloor heating in the bathroom, and also treat the damp.
On 18 January 2023 a further contractor attended the property and completed a full damp survey of the property. The inspection identified:
1. No issues with rising damp were present.
2. The extractor fans needed to maintained or replaced.
3. There was a Positive Input Ventilation unit (PIV) in the loft, which was turned off by the resident
4. It was their opinion that the cause of dampness within the property was due to a chimney leak and condensation.
5. The contractor recommended that it install an air gap membrane system around the chimney, it replaces the extractor fans and service the PIV, which should be left turned on at all times.
On 17 April 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and confirmed that she had left the property as repairs remained outstanding. In May 2023 the resident asked the landlord to review its compensation offer. After reviewing the resident’s complaint, the landlord agreed to increase its compensation offer to £2150 which the resident declined.
In December 2023 the resident confirmed that she remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord due to the fact that her son had been diagnosed with asthma as a result of the condition of his room. The landlord also informed the Ombudsman that it had made a compensation payment of £2150 to the resident.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. Put things right, and
3. Learn from outcomes.

Scope of Investigation

The Ombudsman notes that the resident has informed the landlord and the Service of the exacerbated health issues she has experienced and her son’s asthma diagnosis, which she says are as a result of the landlord’s actions. This investigation is unable to determine a causal link between these and the landlord’s actions. Often when there is a dispute over whether a health issue has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause or deterioration of a condition. Without that evidence, this Service is not able to draw any conclusions on whether the resident or her son’s health has been affected by the way in which the landlord handled the reports of water ingress and damp within the bedroom and the source of heating. This question may be better for the courts to decide, where an expert can be cross examined during a live hearing.
Also, the purpose of the complaint process is to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity. Residents are encouraged to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues and reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As issues become historic, it becomes increasingly difficult to unpick the events that took place and how matters were handled.
In accordance with paragraph 42(c), the Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about matters which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. In this case, the repair records show that the resident had reported repairs from 2017, but there are no records to show that a formal complaint was raised with the landlord until September 2022. Furthermore, if a complaint had been raised and exhausted the internal complaint process, it had not been referred to the Ombudsman.
Consequently, this investigation will focus on matters which occurred on or after August 2022 but will consider the wider implication of historic repairs in the context of the handling of more recent issues.

Policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a legal duty on landlords to make full, effective and lasting repairs once it is given notice of disrepair. They must keep in repair and working order, the installations for the supply of gas and electricity, water and sanitation and space heating and heating water. The resident’s tenancy agreement also reflects these obligations.
The Housing Act 2004 ensures landlords are responsible for assessing hazards and risks within their rented homes. When assessing any such hazards and risks, the assessment should be considered in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould growth are potential hazards that may require remedy. Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also requires the property to be free from a hazard to be fit for human habitation. The landlord’s repair policy, dated July 2021, confirms that it will fully comply with the requirements of the HHSRS
The resident’s tenancy agreement stated that the landlord agrees to keep in good repair, the structure and exterior of the premises including drains, gutters and external pipes, the roof, chimneys and chimney stacks. It will also keep in good repair and proper working order any installations provided by the landlord for space heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas and electricity including water heaters, fitted fires and central heating,
The repairs policy states that the landlord classifies repairs as emergency, urgent, routine or planned. Planned maintenance repairs will be completed within 12 weeks and are works that cannot wait for the investment works programme and will be packaged together and dealt with on a programmed repairs basis, this includes resolving condensation problems to bathrooms, kitchens and bedrooms, timber and dampness treatment to walls, floor or ceilings, major plastering works to walls and ceilings and external repairs to brickwork, rendering, chimney’s or garden walls.
The landlord’s compensation policy, dated November 2021, says that it will pay compensation for rooms which are inhabitable at a rate of 20% of the weekly rent.

The landlord’s handling of reports of reports of a damp and water ingress in the property.

When a resident reports damp and mould, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to take prompt action and inspect the property at the earliest and most convenient opportunity. It is then expected that the landlord has a process in place to follow up on any repairs that have been identified and carry out further investigative work if it is needed.
When trying to resolve issues with damp and mould, it can sometimes take time to find the right solution. However, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to follow up with a resident in a timely manner, in order to take a proactive approach and find a suitable resolution.
When the resident contacted the landlord on 25 August 2022 and reported damp and water ingress on 15 September 2022, the landlord raised an order for the leak in the bedroom to be inspected and for a third party damp inspection. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord communicated the action it had taken to the resident, nor is there any evidence to show what the outcome of the orders were. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the landlord failed to do so, as the resident raised a formal complaint on 23 September 2022 about the lack of response.
The landlord contacted the resident to discuss her issues in full and appropriately followed this up with a detailed acknowledgement letter, which confirmed the issues the resident wanted investigating, as well as the outcome she was seeking.
In order to resolve the resident’s complaint, the landlord arranged for a damp inspection to be carried out by a third party contractor. On completion the contractor provided the landlord with a number of recommendations, which included a damp specialist inspection and identified issues with the repointing. The landlord attended the property and completed a full inspection on 14 October 2022 and it is positive to see that it then wrote to the resident with a detailed schedule of works, which showed what works were identified within the property and who had been instructed to deal with it.
While the landlord did not provide any dates of when the work would be carried out, it did provide the resident with a direct telephone number for any questions she may have. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as although she had been given details of the actions the landlord was taken; she was not given any solutions.
There is further evidence which shows that the landlord was using the information provided by the various inspections and actively discussing the best resolution internally, which included the arranging for the cavity wall insulation to be inspected and raising multiple orders for repairs to be completed. This included when the resident contacted the landlord and informed them that the water ingress had got worse in November 2022, which the landlord acknowledged and instructed its contractors to investigate this also as part of its planned visit.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), 4.10 states that landlords should keep residents regularly updated about the progress of the investigation even where there is no new substantive information to provide, so it positive to see that was in regular communication with the resident by email and letters. It was actively following up on the recommendations given by the contractors and arranging for the works to be carried out.
It is also positive to see that one member of staff was coordinating the information which was received from multiple contractors and internal departments and following up with the resident, accordingly, providing formal written letters as well as email responses.
However, while the landlord took appropriate steps, following the resident’s report in August 2022, and arranged for various contractors to attend the property and carry out multiple independent surveys as well as arranging for repairs to be completed, there is evidence to show that the landlord had previously been made aware of the need to repair the chimney and repointing in relation to the water ingress, in December 2018, but did not complete the works.
As part of the landlord’s complaint investigation, it contacted one of its contractors to gather further information, the contractor responded and confirmed that it had ‘‘priced work on this [the property] a few times over the last few years, but not actually received any orders or done any work on it’’. There is no evidence to show that the work was completed.
While it is not possible for the Ombudsman to state with certainty that had the repairs identified in December 2018 been carried out then the further water ingress issues would have been prevented, it was a missed opportunity to address, identify and resolve any repairs which may have been present in 2022. The landlord appears to accept that the water ingress was not addressed, as reflected by its increased compensation offer in April 2023 and internal emails in relation to this.
In line with the HHSRS guidance, damp and mould are potential hazards, and as such, this Service would have expected to see records that demonstrated the landlord was exploring every possible solution to try to resolve the issue with the leak, damp and mould issue. The records shows that the landlord was aware of the resident’s health concerns, but failed to explore possible solutions within a reasonable timescale and therefore, the landlord failed to follow the HHSRS guidance. This potentially meant it left the resident is a property that was not fit for human habitation. This was a failure by the landlord.
The Ombudsman’s damp and mould spotlight report provides further insight into how this Service expects from landlords to act in these circumstances:
1. Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
2. Landlords should review the number of missed appointments about damp and mould cases and, depending on the outcome of any review, consider what steps may be required to reduce them.
3. Landlords must ensure there is effective internal communication between their teams and departments, and ensure that one individual or team has overall responsibility for ensuring complaints or reports are resolved, including follow-up or aftercare.
Whilst the landlord initially offered a £150 compensation in its stage 2 update letter, it did not do so within its final response letter. The Service acknowledges the review that the landlord undertook in April 2023, and that it offered the resident £2150 redress. However, the landlord should have made this offer of redress as part of its initial internal complaints procedure, rather than following on from contact with the Ombudsman and resident.
The Ombudsman draws the landlord’s attention to section 6 of the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code, which sets out what the Ombudsman considers are the best practice principles of “putting things right” where there have been failings. This includes the principle that any remedy offered by a landlord “must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident”. Therefore, the decision to not take into consideration those factors was not reasonable.
In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided.
Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive, but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In order to resolve this aspect of the complaint, the resident is seeking compensation for the amount of money she spent on the property whilst living there for a number of years.
The Ombudsman has first considered the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident as a result of the delay in ensuring the water ingress was fixed within a reasonable timeframe. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance where there has been a failure which significantly adversely affected the resident a payment of above £600 is recommended, and the landlord’s decision to offer £150 was therefore not sufficient.
The resident says she left her home as a result of the landlord’s actions and whereas the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether a definitive link, it is reasonable to conclude that the decision to leave her home of 20 years would not have been easy. The resident explained to the landlord the concerns she had regarding the leak within the bedroom, which it failed to fix within a reasonable time and there is no evidence to show that it listened to the concerns. Therefore the Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £725 compensation, which includes the £150 offered at stage 2.
The Ombudsman has then considered whether compensation based on rent is applicable. The landlord’s compensation policy states that if a room is inhabitable then it will pay 20% of the weekly rent and is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance also. Whilst the room may not have been inhabitable, the inspection reports and accompanying pictures evidence that the room was significantly affected by water ingress and therefore the Ombudsman has made an award based on this.
As detailed above, the landlord was aware of issue with water ingress in December 2018, and there is no evidence to show that the repairs were completed and remained outstanding up until the resident moved out in April 2023, this is a total of 226 weeks. The Ombudsman has used the average weekly rent for the property region in 2021-2022, which is £84.59, and made an award of 20% of the weekly rent for a total of 226 weeks, which totals £3823.92.
Finally, the resident has requested the landlord reimburse the amount she has spent on improving parts of the property. The landlord’s compensation policy states it may pay compensation for improvements, but certain requirements are needed before it can consider reimbursing a resident. This includes making a claim for compensation within 14 days of the date beginning their four-week notice period. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence to demonstrate the policy requirements were met. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to order the landlord to reimburse the resident for the improvements they have mentioned during their complaint.
In summary, due to the missed opportunity to address the potential cause of water ingress, there was maladministration in relation to the handling of reports of reports of a damp and water ingress in the property.

The landlord’s response to concerns about the effectiveness and efficiency of the heating, hot water, and shower system.

While there is no specific policy or legislation which governs how the landlord should respond, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence which shows that it was actively working with the resident to ensure the heating and shower were working correctly and then sign post the resident to other agencies who may be able to assist.
As part of the stage 1 complaint, the resident raised her concerns about the cost of using her heating and shower. The resident said that as a resolution she wanted the landlord to fit a different heating system, such as an air source heat pump system and also wanted the landlord to fit a shower which would use the water stored within her hot water cylinder.
Following a property inspection where the resident informed the landlord that she did not use the heating due to the running costs, the landlord appropriately arranged for its tenant liaison officer to contact the resident and discuss the options available to her. The landlord has not provided the Service with evidence of what was discussed, however, there are internal emails which show that the resident also raised concerns about the heating system and her medical conditions and therefore wanted the heating system changed.
As part of the landlord’s final response, it confirmed that it had arranged for an electrician to attend and ensure the heating and shower were working correctly and that the current shower was the most cost effective option. Furthermore, it would not look to install a bath due to a level access shower previously being installed to meet the resident’s needs. The final response also confirmed that without medical evidence it was unable to look into changing the heating system but had referred the resident to an independent energy charity to see if there were any other ways in which it could help.
While it was not able to resolve the resident’s complaint entirely and give her the outcome she was seeking, these actions show that the landlord was trying to help the resident in order to assist her with finding alternative solutions so that she could afford to use her heating system.
The energy agency provided the landlord and resident with a copy of its report following an inspection and detailed some recommendations as to how it could reduce the cost of the energy bills, none of which were the landlord’s responsibilities.
Landlords are not obligated to replace existing installations or fixtures if they are of a good working order, nor are they obligated to make improvements. Therefore, the decision made by the landlord to not replace the existing heating and shower, which was in good working order, unless medical evidence was provided by the resident was reasonable.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of reports of a damp and water ingress in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns about the effectiveness and efficiency of the heating, hot water, and shower system.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to provide the resident with a written apology within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £4548.92, which includes the £2150 which has already been paid to the resident, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination. The total is made up of:
1. £725 for the distress and inconvenience the resident suffered as a result of the delay in addressing the water ingress.
2. £3823.92 compensation based on rent for a period of 226 weeks.
The landlord is ordered to review its current approach to damp and mould in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report within 6 weeks of the date of this determination and provide the Service with its findings.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord ensures that all repairs, which were identified as part of the complaint investigation are completed before the property is re-let.
It is recommended that the landlord ensures that future complaint responses are provided in one detailed letter to ensure that all answers are provided in full at each stage of the complaint. This negates the need to write update letters to residents, which may cause confusion.