Curo Places Limited (202207832)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207832

Curo Places Limited

6 July 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Response to missed and cancelled appointments.
3. Knowledge and information management.
4. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy at the property which is a 3 bedroom semi-detached house. She has lived there since 2002 and lives with her college-aged son.
The resident has informed the landlord of vulnerabilities including with her mental health, hearing, breathing, fatigue and Meniere disease.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 says that landlord must carry out certain repairs as follows:
1. Installations for the supply of power, heating and water.
2. The structure and exterior of the dwelling house. This includes internal plasterwork.
3. The landlord must carry out the repairs within a reasonable period of time once it has been notified of the problem.
Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) the landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including damp and mould.
The landlord is expected to meet the home standard set by the Regulator of Social Housing. The Decent Homes Standard sets out that a home must:
1. Meet the current statutory minimum standard for housing.
2. Be in a reasonable state of repair.
3. Have reasonably modern facilities and services.
4. Provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.
The landlords’ damp and mould promise to customers says as follows:
1. It will treat all reports of damp and mould seriously and as health and safety issues, not property repair requests.
2. It will take a caring and supportive approach, recognising that having mould in a home can be distressing.
3. It will carry out any repairs needed because of damp and mould as quickly and efficiently as possible.
The landlords’ responsive repairs policy says as follows:
1. For damp, mould and condensation, it will investigate the causes thoroughly and will not blame residents’ lifestyles as a first response. Using a systematic approach it will determine the cause and remedy; where this requires major works, or action by the resident it will provide information and support.
The landlord’s customer service standards sets out the timeframe for repairs:
1. Emergency repairs such as large structural collapse, the same day.
2. Priority repairs, such as a rainwater leak from the roof, before the end of the next working day.
3. Routine repairs, at a mutually convenient time.
4. Complex repairs, will be arranged following a remote call with a surveyor.
The Housing Ombudsman spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) highlighted the importance of accurate recording of data and information to provide an effective and efficient service. Poor knowledge and information management is a key contributing factor to why landlord fail to provide adequate services, particularly in the repairs service and in complaints handling.
Without good information management, a landlord cannot adequately:
1. Horizon-scan and identify risks
2. Contingency plan
3. Proactively address hazards (such as fire safety, asbestos and damp and mould)
4. Fully comply with legal and regulatory requirements
5. Ensure evidence-based practice, and
6. Provide a high-quality service to residents.
KIM issues cause problems in progressing complaints through the landlord’s process, or through our processes once the complaint has come to the Housing Ombudsman.
The KIM spotlight has made the following recommendations:
1. To ensure databases are capable of adequately capturing information about residents – e.g. vulnerabilities.
2. To ensure databases are capable of adequately capturing information about homes – e.g. repairs and stock condition.
3. Including minimum data standards, performance measures and quality assurance processes.
4. Staff should be able to easily access the information they require. This is essential for evidence-based practice and informed decision-making. Where systems can be interrogated effectively, this produces crucial insight regarding patterns, themes and potential shortfalls.
5. Resident information and personal characteristics change on a regular basis. Records should be appropriately reviewed to ensure a landlord continues to know its residents – disability or illness, financial difficulties and family composition.
6. Staff should be able to easily access the information they require. This is essential for evidence-based practice and informed decision-making. Where systems can be interrogated effectively, this produces crucial insight regarding patterns, themes and potential shortfalls.
The landlords’ compensation procedure says as follows:
1. Compensation may be paid where a resident has been unable to use part of their house due to disrepair and the landlord failed to deal with the disrepair in accordance with its repair responsibilities and timescales. Compensation will be based on the number of rooms affected as a proportion of the total number of rooms in the property, and calculated by that proportion of the weekly rent for the period when the rooms could not be used.
2. It will pay £10 for each missed appointment. This amount can be increased if the resident can provide clear documentary evidence of a loss of earnings.
The landlord has a 3 stage complaints procedure which says that it will resolve complaints in the following timescales:
1. Level 1, 3 days.
2. Level 2 and 3, 5 days.
3. At each level the landlord can extend the timeframe if the resident agrees.

Summary of events

The resident made a report of damp in the downstairs toilet in 2011. A complaint response to the Ombudsman and complaint history records confirms this. This Service does not have details of the initial report and what works, if any, was undertaken.
The resident has stated that she has emails dating back to 2015 outlining issues with the damp and mould on the internal detached side wall of the property.
The landlord noted that the resident had said that the issues started when it carried out works/paint to the render on the side of the property and that the history of the property reflected this. The landlord also said in internal communications that it was concerned that the ventilation had been restricted by possible works to the render that it carried out in 2015 but it was unsure how it would “disprove/prove this” It noted that the resident had multiple works done “with no confident resolution so want to avoid further inspections without a clear plan”.
In 2015 the landlord noted that the resident raised an issue with the side render. The landlord attended and found that the render was in good condition with no visible signs of damage or water ingress. It cleaned mould from an inside wall and took a sample of plaster to check for moisture, although none could be seen.
The resident said that she had discussed works done in 2019 with the landlord and it had been suggested by the landlord that the damp could be due to the external tubing not having been fitted to the back of the extractor fans in order for the condensation to escape. It was also noted that the grills had a build-up of dust and that they were covered with a layer of paint.
In November 2019 the landlord told the resident that no asbestos had been found under the cloaking or roofs. It told her that scaffolding would go up that month and the roof would be surveyed.
On 28 August 2021 a surveyor attended as the resident had reported mould in the bathroom. A copy of this survey has not been provided.
On 23 September 2021 the landlord did a home condition survey on the property which identified that all parts of the property were in good or satisfactory condition. The following issues were identified:
1. The outside letterplate was missing.
2. Frost damage to the chimney brickwork.
3. Areas of moss on the roof.
The resident told the landlord that same month that her son had been sleeping downstairs for a few weeks due to the damp and mould in his room. Following this, a surveyor requested a damp and mould survey.
On 29 October 2021 the resident made another report of damp and mould.
On 1 December 2021 a damp surveyor attended the property. The appointment for this did not take place until 1st December 2022 due to miscommunication from one team to another. The resident told the landlord that the surveyor had advised that her son’s bedroom (bedroom 2) was unusable due to the mould and that she could claim back some rent. When the landlord queried this with the surveyor, the surveyor said it had told the resident that she could claim for damaged items on her contents insurance. The damp survey was not provided to this Service.
On 4 January 2022 contractors attended the property to investigate the damp and mould. The outcome of this is not clear.
On 28 January 2022 the resident made a complaint and said as follows:
1. Due to damp and mould her son had been sleeping in the dining room.
2. The mould had damaged furniture, electrical equipment and carpets. She had to replace clothing, a TV Box and the carpet.
3. She had seen mould mites in the property in November 2021.
4. She had lost the use of a bedroom since August 2021.
5. It had been an ongoing issue since she moved in in 2002.
That same day, the landlord requested that its environment team attend to survey the property.
On 1 February 2022 the resident told the landlord as follows:
1. It had only taken her complaint seriously when she said she would involve her MP.
2. She had had to live with “bodge jobs” for 19 years.
3. Her bedroom ceiling had previously collapsed.
4. During an asbestos survey in 2015 the attic hatch had not been checked for asbestos. She requested this be done.
5. She had reported the damp and mould in 2015.
6. Due to the damp and mould she had had to move her dining room furniture, heirlooms and collectables to the mouldy bedroom. She had moved her white goods to the hallway as there was no space in the kitchen.
7. The kitchen layout meant that the cooker was not near the window or vent. She had to have the fan on or open a window when cooking.
That same day the landlord asked the resident to provide pictures of the mould damage for it to consider compensation.
The resident contacted her MP on 10 February 2022 and raised a number of historical issues with the property. She also said as follows:
1. There was damp and mould (including mould mites) in the bedroom, hallway and ground floor toilet.
2. The landlord had not arranged investigative works as advised.
3. The living conditions were causing her anxiety and had impacted her mental health. The stress caused her to suffer from 2 suspected mini-strokes.
4. She requested compensation.
On 9 February 2022 the surveyor did not attend the pre-arranged asbestos survey appointment.
On 10 February 2022 the resident reiterated her concerns to the landlord. She said she hoped it would compensate her for the items and also for the inconvenience and anxiety caused. She said the situation had made her ill and that Meniere disease was debilitating at times of high stress.
On 16 February 2022 the landlord called the resident and cancelled an appointment for her radiator which had been booked for the following day.
On 17 February 2022 a contractor attended and took the following action:
1. Checked the external render and noted it had no signs of water ingress.
2. Cleaned mould from the inside wall.
3. Took samples from the wall plaster and noted that the blocks behind the plaster appeared dry.
On 18 February 2022 the landlord told the resident that the mites looked like book mites due to high humidity. It advised her to treat them with fly spray.
The resident responded the same day and said as follows:
1. She disagreed that they were book mites but said she had removed them.
2. She was self-employed and had taken the day off for the radiator appoint. As the landlord had cancelled this, she had lost wages.
3. The contractor who took the plaster sample told her that the exterior wall looked as if it was retaining water and that plaster in the bedroom was damp.
4. The landlord had not carried out any damp proofing to the toilet, kitchen and hallway areas.
5. There was rising damp in the kitchen and toilet.
6. Black mould was embedded in the carpet and it would need to be replaced.
7. She had told the landlord about the mould in 2015 but it had done nothing.
On 21 February 2022 a surveyor attended to do an environment survey. The landlord had not told the resident of this and she was not available.
On 23 February 2022 a contractor attended to move the radiator.
On 7 March 2022 the landlord told the resident as follows:
1. It apologised that she had not been told of the environment survey appointment.
2. It asked if she could move some of the bedroom furniture so that the damp proofing work could take place.
3. Although it could compensate for missed appointments, it could not do so for time taken off work for appointments. It would require proof of loss of earnings to be able to investigate this further.
4. It asked if she had contents insurance to claim for the damaged items.
The resident contacted the landlord that same day and said that her online account showed an appointment on 21 March 2022 but she had not been told about it. She said that she needed notice as she had to rearrange her clients to fit in with appointments. She requested compensation for loss of earnings, damaged items and the carpet.
On 8 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and said as follows:
1. It had not followed its damp and mould procedure.
2. It had shown her a lack of respect for the damage and consideration of compensation.
3. She would not claim on her contents insurance as the landlord had caused the damage by its delayed action.
4. The landlord had focused on the bedroom and had overlooked other areas.
5. The external detached wall was retaining water and the mould was not caused by ventilation or condensation.
6. She was “disgusted” at the landlord’s suggestion that she move her large items of furniture.
7. The landlord had ignored her disabilities.
The resident reiterated her concerns the following day and said that the situation was impacting her mental and physical health and her financial situation. She said she was at “breaking point”.
On 9 March 2022 a contractor attended to repair a roof tile.
On 10 March the landlord apologised to the resident for the confusion about the environment survey and said it would confirm the date. It advised that it would escalate her complaint.
On 11 March 2022 a contractor attended to undertake damp proofing in the bedroom.
On 16 March 2022 in response to the escalated complaint, the landlord spoke to the resident who raised the following issues:
1. There were holes in the side of the roof.
2. Only half of the plastered wall had been done and this had been “bodged”.
3. The recent damp proofing would not resolve the issue as she felt it was being caused by water ingress from the external wall.
4. The landlord had not addressed the damp and mould in the downstairs toilet and landing.
5. The skirting boards in the bedroom had rotted.
6. The ceilings in both bedrooms had bowed.
7. She requested:
  1. New bedroom skirting.
  2. A surveyor to identify the cause of the damp and mould.
  3. A new bedroom carpet.
  4. Compensation for not being able to use bedroom 2, stress, delays, lack of communication with appointments and damaged items.
The environment survey was done on 17 March 2022 and found as follows:
1. The external wall had no moisture issues.
2. The fans in the kitchen and bathroom needed replacing.
3. The external vent grill needed replacing.
4. The downstairs toilet was clear of damp but the resident had shown the surveyor a photograph of water ingress marks on the outside wall. The surveyor recommended that this be looked into by a contractor specialising in external works.
5. It said that the installation of a positive input ventilation (PIV) unit in the loft would help prevent condensation.
On 18 March 2022 the landlord’s internal correspondence noted that it had done all it could to investigate the potential water ingress. It had taken the plaster back to stone work which was “bone dry”. It had coated the stonework in aqua seal and had boarded and plastered the wall.
On 21 March 2022 the resident told the landlord that she did not want a PIV unit as she did not think it would be effective. She reiterated her request for further investigation into the cause of the damp and mould. The landlord said that as she did not want a PIV unit, it would upgrade the kitchen and bathroom fans to humidistat fans.
On 30 March a repairs manager conducted a site visit at the property and raised the following works:
1. New bedroom skirting.
2. Re-boarding both bedroom ceilings.
3. A further damp and mould survey to see if the external paint was contributing to the issue.
On 5 April 2022 the landlord installed new fans in the kitchen, bathroom and toilet.
The following day (6 April 2022) the resident told the landlord that she did not want the fans to be on all the time for financial reasons and asked for them to be changed back. She chased up the work for the ceilings and the skirting board. The landlord explained that the fans used very little power and would reduce the damp and mould.
On 11 April 2022 the resident told the landlord that she felt the damp and mould had started after it had painted the exterior of the property in 2015. The landlord’s internal notes say that the history of the property appeared to reflect this.
In mid-April 2022 the resident told the landlord as follows:
1. She was not happy with the new bathroom and toilet fans but the one in the kitchen had made a big difference.
2. Condensation was not the cause of the damp and mould.
3. The old fans did not have extractor tubes and had blown condensation back into the wall.
4. By the end of April 2022 her son would have been sleeping in the dining room for 10 months.
On 14 April 2022 the landlord clarified that only bedroom 2 would be boarded and skimmed and during the visit, contractors would assess the ceiling in bedroom 1. It offered the resident the opportunity to speak to its money advice team.
That same day (14 April 2022) a damp specialist attended and found as follows:
1. 2 of the 3 extractor fans were restricted. Excess humid air was likely to blow back into the property and cause condensation.
2. The internal walls were free from condensation.
3. There was no excess moisture in the skirting or any evidence of wet rot.
4. The coldness of the walls could be helped by lining them with thermal board.
Following this visit, the resident contacted the landlord and said as follows:
1. The external vent grills should have been removed to clear debris. The front of them had been painted which had stopped condensation escaping.
2. The living room radiator needed to be replaced.
3. The bathroom and toilet fans should be adjusted so that they would only be on if the light was on.
4. She was managing her finances by setting up another business
On 20 April 2022 the landlord confirmed upcoming appointments and said:
1. It had asked a flooring company to contact her to measure for the new carpet.
2. It declined to remove the new fans as it would be counterproductive. It said they cost approximately 7 pence per day to run.
The resident contacted the landlord the following day and said as follows:
1. The flooring company had given her an hours’ notice and she had not been available. The appointment had been re-arranged for that day (21 April 2022) but when she messaged at 4pm she had been told the contractor could not attend. It had offered her another appointment which “infuriated” her due to the short notice. She had since heard nothing further.
2. She asked to be compensated for the carpet and source it herself.
3. She reiterated her request to have the new fans removed.
On 22 April 2022 the landlord told the resident it had rescheduled the skirting board appointment for 12 May 2022. The resident advised that she was only available on Wednesdays and reiterated that she had lost wages due to the number of appointments. She attached a quote for new carpet of £207.44
On 26 April 2022 the landlord told the resident that it had rearranged the wallpapering, bedroom ceiling and skirting board jobs. In addition it said:
1. It would compensate her £207.44 for the new carpet.
2. It apologised that it had not told her that it had rearranged the ceiling boarding (booked for that day), to a Wednesday, following her previous email.
That same day (26 April 2022) a contractor attended to check the efficiency of the heating and measure for a possible replacement radiator.
On 28 April 2022 the skirting board in bedroom 2 was replaced.
On 9 May 2022 the landlord rescheduled the appointment to replace the external vent grilles. The resident told the landlord that it was a “shambles”.
On 10 May 2022 the resident expressed her dissatisfaction that appointments had been cancelled last minute and contractors had not attended. She said she received contradictory text messages about appointments which she described as “draining” and affecting her health. The landlord apologised and said it would consider compensation at the end of the complaints process.
On 17 May 2022 the landlord cancelled the appointment for the following day for the wallpapering and skirting board as the work to the ceiling needed to be done first. The resident expressed her frustration and said that she had moved furniture around.
On 18 May 2022 the landlord replaced the vent grille.
On 1 June 2022 the resident told the landlord as follows:
1. A contractor had attended unannounced to remove the radiator ready for the wallpapering and new skirting.
2. The contractor booked to do the mist coat of paint on the newly plastered ceiling had not attended.
3. She queried what was happening with the vent grills.
The landlord apologised for not informing her of the contractor appointment and assured her that the painter would be attending that day.
That same day (1 June 2022) the landlord responded to the complaint at level 2 and said as follows:
1. Following the home condition survey in September 2021 it had requested a damp and mould survey.
2. In November 2021 the resident had reported that her son could not sleep in his bedroom due to the mould.
3. The damp and mould surveyor had attended on 1 December 2021. The delay was due to miscommunication within its teams.
4. It had cleaned the mould and moved the bedroom radiator.
5. It had inspected the external wall to check for water ingress.
6. It had taken the plaster back to the stonework and applied aqua seal in bedroom 2.
7. It had checked the efficiency of the heating and had installed humidistat fans. It reiterated that these would not be removed.
8. A senior surveyor had recommended applying thermal paper to the external walls and cleaning the external vent grills.
9. It had arranged the following work:
  1. Skim the ceiling of bedroom 2 on 25 May 2022.
  2. Mist coat the ceiling in bedroom 2 on 1 June 2022.
  3. Line the external walls and address the skirting board on 8 June 2022.
  4. Overboard bedroom 1 on 29 June 2022.
  5. Skim bedroom 1 on 6 July 2022.
10. It acknowledged that it had taken longer than it would have liked to resolve the issues and that the situation had caused stress and inconvenience.
11. It offered the following resolutions:
  1. To complete the jobs above.
  2. To compensate £207.44 for the carpet as previously agreed.
  3. To compensate for the length of time taken to resolve the matters and the impact of this. The amount would be determined once the works had been completed.
The resident responded the same day and said that she wanted the complaint to remain open until the work to bedroom 2 had been completed and the ceiling in bedroom 1 had been boarded and skimmed.
That evening the resident contacted the landlord and said as follows:
1. The contractor had not attended for the mist coat and she was “absolutely livid”.
2. She had moved furniture unnecessarily and had caused herself physical issues which she would be seeing a doctor for.
3. She expected the landlord to complete the work by 8 June 2022.
4. She had asked for her complaint to be escalated to level 3 weeks ago.
The landlord responded and said that the contractor had attended at 12:21pm. It asked if she had received a text or phone call.
On 5 June 2022 the contractor attended to do the mist coat.
The following day (6 June 2022) the resident told the landlord as follows:
1. It had not replaced the vent grilles.
2. She did not agree to having the new bathroom and toilet fans.
3. The mould was not caused by condensation.
4. She had renovated the bathroom herself some years before due to damp and mould. She believed the mould had contributed to her and her son’s health conditions.
5. It was still not keeping appointments.
6. The contractor for the mist coat had not arrived as arranged. It had accused her of lying.
7. The contractor had applied emulsion paint instead of a mist coat to the plastered ceiling.
That same day (6 June 2022) the landlord told the resident that it had escalated her complaint to level 3. It apologised for the confusion with the appointments.
On 7 June 2022 the repairs manager introduced himself to the resident and told her that he would be reviewing her complaint.
On 8 June 2022 the resident told the landlord that she was unhappy with how the thermal wallpaper had been applied and that she would re-do it herself. She said that the bathroom had not been finished and that she was suffering from extreme anxiety.
On 10 June 2022 the resident queried why she had not received the compensation for the new carpet. The landlord apologised and said she would receive the payment within 10 days.
On 17 June 2022 the landlord told the resident that it was going to condense the pending jobs to be completed by 6 July 2022. It would confirm the date for the mist coat once the other works had been completed.
On 20 June 2022 the resident told the landlord that her main business client had cancelled their contract due to her not being available due to the number of contractor appointments and the worsening of her illness causing exhaustion vertigo.
On 28 June 2022 the resident queried why the landlord had not responded to her emails about her complaint. She confirmed that bedroom 2 had been redecorated and the carpet had been fitted by her cousin. Her son had been able to sleep in the bedroom since 26 June 2022.
On 6 July 2022 the resident told the landlord that the contractor had not arrived to do the mist coat. She also said she had not had a response to her complaint.
On 19 July 2022 the resident contacted this Service and said as follows:
1. The repairs had taken 10 months.
2. The landlord had missed a number of appointments.
3. The mist coat and painting of the ceiling in bedroom 1 had not been done.
On 25 July 2022 this Service asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint by 8 August 2022.
On 27 July 2022 the landlord sent a level 3 complaint response to the resident and said as follows:
1. The staff member originally allocated the review could not deal with it as he had been involved in the repairs. A different member of staff had therefore done the review.
2. Its complaints process was being re-designed to make the process simpler.
3. It offered compensation totalling £1250.94, made up as follows:
  1. £207.44 already paid for the new carpet.
  2. £500 to acknowledge the length of time the works had taken and the impact on the resident.
  3. Rent reimbursement for the bedroom which could not be used for 11 months of £725.94.
  4. £25 to acknowledge the delays with the complaint process.
On 28 July 2022 the resident responded to the landlord as follows:
1. The time she had taken off due to “incompetent workmanship” had caused her to lose her main source of income of around £250-£300 per month.
2. It was “disgraceful “that she had not been made aware that the staff member could not investigate her complaint.
3. Moving her furniture had caused her significant issues for which she was seeking medical advice and possible surgery.
4. The contractors had used plastic sheeting but had got plaster dust on her stair and hallway carpet which would need to be replaced.
The landlord told this Service on 1 August 2022 that it had agreed to reconsider its offer of compensation.
On 2 August 2022 the resident told the landlord that a contractor had found that the external fresh water pipe to the property had been leaking. She said she could not believe the pipe had not been checked before.
On 18 August 2022, after further considering the offer of compensation, the landlord told the resident as follows:
1. It had booked contractor appointments for Wednesdays at the residents request. It had booked one for a different day but it had given the resident over 2 weeks’ notice of this.
2. It did not reimburse for loss of earnings.
3. It acknowledged that it had missed 2 appointments and, as per its policy, it would offer an additional £20 (£10 per missed appointment).The revised compensation figure was £1270.94.
4. A senior surveyor had attended but could not identify a link between the external pipe corrosion and the damp and mould.
5. It would consider the new issues of complaint (the stair carpet and external pipe) separately.
On 18 August 2022 the resident told the landlord as follows:
1. Although the wallpaper appointment had been booked for a Wednesday, it had overrun to the Thursday so she had had to cancel her client.
2. She would still be out of pocket even if she accepted the compensation due to paying rent and the damaged items.
3. The landlord had failed to understand the impact on her finances and mental health.
On 3 October 2022 the landlord paid the resident the compensation of £1380.26, which included the additional amount for wallpaper and paint.
On 5 October 2022 the resident told this Service that she had accepted the compensation as the landlord had told her that the Housing Ombudsman would agree that she was not entitled to compensation for loss of earnings.
On 12 October 2022 the resident told the landlord that she had found an email which showed that it had not booked a 2 day appointment for Wednesday and Thursday. The landlord apologised that it had misunderstood but maintained that she could have said it was not suitable. The resident later said that she felt she had no choice but to accept the appointment.
On 20 October 2022 a damp surveyor attended the property.
On 2 November 2022 the resident told the landlord that mould had reappeared in bedroom 2 after a period of heavy rain. She said the windows were covered in water every morning.
A contractor attended on 4 November 2022 which the resident said she had not been told about.
On 30 November 2022 the resident told the landlord that the seals of the PVC windows had gone and water was trapped within them.
On 6 December 2022 the resident confirmed her complaint to this Service as follows:
1. She had not been compensated for her loss of earnings.
2. The landlord had not told her when pipework in her toilet would be removed.
3. The external vents had not been cleaned.
4. There was condensation in bedroom 2 as the PVC window had failed, causing mould.
5. The vent in bedroom 2 was in a chimney which had been capped so no air flowed through.
6. The landlord had not informed her of an upcoming appointment.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has indicated that she believes the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and the distress of the missed appointments has impacting her mental health. Whilst this Service acknowledges the resident’s views, it is beyond the remit of the Housing Ombudsman to decide whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the matters and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or inaction of the landlord.
Residents will often describe how they have been affected by the situation that has led to their complaint, such as impact on family life, use of their home, enjoyment, health and emotional wellbeing. This may be expressed as giving rise to or exacerbating existing health conditions. The Ombudsman’s remedies can recognise the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a service failure. Distress can include stress, anxiety, worry, frustration and uncertainty, raised expectations, inconvenience, a sense of being treated differently and problems caused by delays. There may also be aggravating factors that could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident. Such aggravating factors include mental health, the presence of young children, disability and previous history of mishandling by the landlord of the resident’s tenancy.
The resident has raised a number of issues to this Service which did not form part of her complaint to the landlord as follows:
1. The landlord’s handling of the removal of a piece of pipework in the resident’s toilet.
2. The failed window units in bedroom two.
3. The positioning of the vent in bedroom two.
The scope of this investigation is however limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. This Service has however made a recommendation that the landlord look into these matters as a formal complaint.

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

The landlord has not provided the surveyor’s reports that were requested by the Ombudsman. It has therefore not been possible to interrogate the events that occurred with the level of thoroughness the Ombudsman normally would.
The landlord has acknowledged that the resident made a report of damp in the downstairs toilet in 2011. The landlord told this Service that it received no further reports of damp and mould for around 10 years. Given the events of 2015 this is clearly incorrect. The resident has also mentioned external works in 2019 for damp and mould. It is therefore fair to say that issues with damp and mould were at least present since 2015. This contradicts the landlord’s assertion that there were issues in 2011 and then nothing for 10 years (until 2021).
Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. The landlord therefore has an obligation to ensure that it had taken all reasonable steps to address the damp and mould in the property.
The landlord has comprehensive damp and mould information available to residents on its website and it is clear that the landlord has put considerable effort in to create an informative and supportive resource. Along with information on damp and mould on a room-by-room basis, the landlord also runs question and answer sessions and has conducted surveys with residents.
Despite the landlord taking positive steps to support residents, it does not appear to have a specific policy in relation to damp and mould. Given the health risks associated with damp and mould, this is something that the landlord would benefit from specifically addressing within a policy. A recommendation has been made in regard to this below.
When the resident informed the landlord of the mould in August 2021 the landlord arranged for a survey to take place. Unfortunately as a copy has not been provided, it is unclear what this found and what, if any, action ought to have been taken.
The landlord arranged a home condition survey which is not suitable for fully investigating issues of damp and mould and it is noted that none were found. Following a further report of mould by the resident on 29 October 2021, a surveyor attended and found mould on 1 December 2021. The landlord has acknowledged that this survey in December took longer to take place than it would have liked due to a miscommunication and apologised for this. A further environment survey was then done in January 2022.
It is acknowledged that identifying the cause of damp and mould can take some time, however, following the surveys, no work was done to address the damp and mould until February 2022. This was 6 months after the issue was first reported. The landlord took the following time to complete the works:
1. Around 6 months after the survey the landlord:
  1. Checked the external render for signs of water ingress.
  2. Cleaned mould from the inside wall.
  3. Took samples from the wall plaster.
  4. Coated the stonework in aqua seal and boarded and plastered the wall.
  5. Moved the radiator.
2. Around 7 months after the survey the landlord:
  1. Repaired a roof tile.
  2. Dampproofed the bedroom.
1. Around 8 months after the survey the landlord:
  1. Installed new fans.
  2. Checked the efficiency of the heating.
2. Around 9 months after the survey the landlord boarded and skimmed bedroom 2 and replaced the vent grille.
3. Around 10 months after the survey the landlord:
  1. Boarded and skimmed bedroom 1.
  2. Replaced the skirting board in bedroom 2.
  3. Applied thermal wallpaper.

Although the works were appropriate, the timescales of between 6 and 10 months to complete them were not. There is no evidence that the landlord treated the damp and mould in this case as a health and safety concern as per its damp and mould promise to residents. This was particularly concerning as the landlord was aware that one bedroom was not usable due to the mould and that the resident was vulnerable.
The time taken for the landlord to do the repairs was not reasonable, however it acknowledged this within its complaint response and offered compensation. The Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the Code) expects landlords to put things right where things have gone wrong. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation to acknowledge the delays in doing the work. Where an offer of redress has been made, this Service will determine whether that offer was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord’s offer of compensation for the missed appointments and complaint handling have been addressed separately below.
This Service has seen that the landlord paid for the resident’s new carpet, paint and wallpaper at her request, which was reasonable. These amounts of compensation are not in dispute.
The landlord offered £500 compensation to acknowledge the length of time the works had taken and the impact of this on the resident. This amount was reasonable and was in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for maladministration. The landlord also offered an additional £725.94 as rent reimbursement for the bedroom that could not be used for 11 months. The landlord has told this Service that this figure was calculated as a proportion of the resident’s weekly rent over the 11 months. This was an appropriate way of calculating compensation and to acknowledge the loss of the use of the room for the period of time.
As the resident reported that the damp has reappeared it is apparent that the underlying cause had not been resolved during the course of the complaint. Therefore a finding of maladministration has been found.

The landlord’s response to missed and cancelled appointments

Between August 2021 when mould was identified and July 2022 when the level 3 complaint response was provided, there have been at least 25 appointments arranged, either for surveys or repair work. Whilst it is acknowledged that resident’s should expect to have to accommodate some appointment, it is reasonable to assume that having an average of 2 appointments a month for a year would be disruptive to the resident, particularly in light of her being self-employed.
From the correspondence provided, it appears that 4 pre-arranged appointments did no go ahead as the contractor did not attend, with no notice given.
A further 2 appointments were cancelled by the landlord at short notice (the day before). There were also another 3 appointments that had been arranged but the resident had not been told about.
The landlord did not acknowledge the missed and cancelled appointments within its complaint responses. It was not until the resident asked for it to reconsider the level 3 response that it acknowledged 2 of the missed appointments. It offered her £10 compensation per missed appointment (£20 in total) and said that it did not reimburse for loss of earnings due to missed or cancelled appointments. This advice was contrary to its compensation policy which allows for consideration for loss of earnings due to missed appointments, if evidenced.
The landlord had requested evidence of the resident’s loss of earnings in March 2022 and the resident provided this in June 2022 to show the loss of her main client due to her unavailability. Despite providing this, there is no evidence that the landlord considered it and it continued to advise her, contrary to its policy, that it could not compensate for loss of earnings. As the resident provided the evidence requested, the landlord should have followed its policy and considered whether compensation was appropriate.
As the landlord did not consider the resident’s request to be compensated for loss of earnings, together with the poor communication about appointments, a finding of maladministration has been made.
The resident has said that the loss of her main client reduced her income by £250-£300 per month. It is noted that the resident’s said the worsening of her medical issue also contributed towards the situation. This Service has determined that compensation of £600 is appropriate to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the missed and cancelled appointments. This replaces the £20 previously offered by the landlord.
The landlord must also now assess whether a further payment for loss of earnings would be appropriate. An order to this effect has been made below.

Knowledge and information management

The landlord has not provided most of its surveyor’s reports, which indicate issues with its record keeping which was not in line with the expectations of this Service as detailed in the spotlight report.
It is clear that damp issues were reported in 2015 but the landlord has not been able to provide these records which amounts to poor record keeping on the part of the landlord. In addition the resident has said that she has emails going back to 2015 but the landlord has not provided these emails or its responses.
Due to the issues identified with the landlord’s record keeping and its inability to provide the associated records and correspondence, maladministration has been found.

Complaint handling

The Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the Code) recommends that landlords have a 2 stage complaint procedure. The timescales of 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2 are considered to be appropriate. It is encouraging to note that the landlord has identified that its complaint process required simplifying and that it is in the process of re-designing it. In doing so the landlord should ensure its complaints procedure is in line with the Code. An order has been made in respect of this below.
The landlord significantly exceeded the timeframes outlined in its complaints procedure at each stage. The resident made her level 1 complaint on 28 January 2022. As the matters had not been resolved, the landlord escalated it to level 2 on 10 March 2022, 6 weeks later. This was far outside of the stated timeframe of 3 days in the complaints procedure. At level 2, instead of responding within 5 days, the landlord took 12 weeks. At level 3 it took just over 7 weeks to respond, when its procedure says it would respond within 5 days.
Whilst it is acknowledged that at each stage the landlord can extend the timeframe with the resident’s agreement, there is no evidence that it sought her agreement to do so at any point. It did not keep her up-to-date with the progress of her complaint, nor did not apologise for the significant delays.
The landlord did act appropriately in identifying that the member of staff originally allocated the complaint review could not do so as he had been involved in the repairs. It is important for complaints to be investigated impartially and without any perceived bias. It was therefore appropriate that this be reallocated. The landlord should however have kept the resident informed about this change especially as she had queried why her emails had not been responded to. It was not until the level 3 response that the resident was informed that a different staff member had been reviewing her complaint.
The landlord was aware that the resident was vulnerable and she had told it on a number of occasions that the situation was causing her distress. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord considered the impact of the delays in responding to her complaint on the resident. It was only within the level 3 complaint response that the landlord acknowledged there had been any delays in responding to her complaint.
Although the landlord identified that it had not responded to her complaint within the timeframes, its offer of £25 compensation did not follow the dispute resolution principles of putting things right. The amount offered did not sufficiently acknowledge the impact the delays had on the resident. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made in regard to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out that in circumstances where the landlord acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but failed to address the detriment to the resident or the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation, compensation of between £100-£600 is appropriate. Given the delays in responding to the complaint and the time and effort spent by the resident in pursuing it, compensation of £600 is appropriate to acknowledge the impact of the complaint handling failures on the resident. An order for payment of this amount has been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
1. Response to missed and cancelled appointments.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. Knowledge and information management.
4. complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord took too long to action the repairs following the mould being reported by the resident. The landlord however acknowledged its errors and offered compensation for the impact of the delayed works and for the loss of use of the bedroom. It offer of compensation to acknowledge the impact on the resident was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s response to missed and cancelled appointments in not considering the resident’s loss of income was not appropriate as its compensation policy clearly allows for consideration of this. The landlord was aware of the number of missed and cancelled appointments but did not consider the resident’s request for compensation despite her providing it with the proof it had asked for.
The landlord did not provide survey reports requested, and the landlord evidenced a lack of information associated with the history of the property, works undertaken and surveys conducted.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaints in line with the timeframes given in its complaints policy. It did not keep the resident up-to-date with the progress of her complaint or when she could expect a response. The landlord’s offer of £25 compensation to acknowledge the delays was not reasonable given the significant delay at each stage and the impact on the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
Pay a total of £2200 compensation to the resident, made up as follows:
1. Pay £1000 to acknowledge the landlord’s failings to appropriately respond to the reports of damp and mould
2. Pay £600 compensation to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by the missed and cancelled appointments.
3. Pay £600 compensation to the resident to acknowledge the distress caused to the resident by the complaint handling failures.

The landlord must now assess whether a further payment for loss of earnings would be appropriate. If it requires further evidence from the resident to make this determination, the landlord should request this from her.

Review its process for record keeping to ensure accurate records are available.
Review its complaints policy and procedure in light of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling Code.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord consider the following as a formal complaint:
1. The landlord’s handling of the removal of a piece of pipework in the resident’s toilet.
2. The failed window units in bedroom 2.
3. The positioning of the vent in bedroom 2.