East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202001018)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001018

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

28 January 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The 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

1. The resident complains about the landlord’s response to his reports of damp and mould in the property.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
4. The resident states that his family’s health has been impacted by the mould (they have become asthmatic). Whilst the Ombudsman is able to consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns, the Ombudsman is unable to make a causal link between the repair issues and the impact on the resident’s and his family’s health. This is as the Ombudsman is an independent arbiter of complaints and does not have the expertise to make binding decisions relating to one’s health. Such assertions amount to claims of personal injury which are better suited for the courts or as an insurance claim, where negligence or liability can be determined.
5. Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme provides that: ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.’ Thus, any issues raised by the resident regarding the impact of the mould on his family’s health is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider and no further comment will be made on the matter.

Background and summary of events

6. The resident is an assured tenant.
7. The tenancy agreement states the landlord will keep in repair and good working order, the structure and exterior of the property. It notes that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the external fabric of the property.
8. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy notes responsive repairs are day to day repairs, planned maintenance repairs result from surveys, whilst major works are larger scale repairs resulting in structural surveys. It adds that the walls of the home will be inspected…Any failures to the wall structure will be investigated to establish the cause and to plan the necessary remedial work.
9. The policy further states the standard to be applied to the property during the tenancy is described for external walls as being free of cracks or bulges…Internally, no mould from water penetration and no rising damp. This is the landlord’s responsibility.
10. In October 2019, the landlord noted in its repairs records that previous works had been carried out at the resident’s property but the mould had returned in the property and the living room walls were wet and that this would be inspected.
11. On 24 February 2020, following further reports by the resident about mould in his property, the landlord noted that an inspection was required to check rising damp.
12. The resident made a formal complaint on 10 March 2020, as no appointment had been made. The landlord acknowledged this on the same day, noting a response would be provided by 24 March 2020.
13. On 12 March 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident advising that in order to ascertain the cause of the mould, a survey of the property would be completed by an independent specialist company. An appointment would be arranged and following this a report would be provided and it would then carry out any recommendations. It noted if the resident remained dissatisfied with its response, he could request a panel review.
14. An inspection was carried out on 16 March 2020, but it was noted a detailed inspection was required.
15. On 2 April 2020, the Council’s Environmental Health Team (EHT) contacted the landlord noting that the resident had informed it of the ongoing mould problems in his property, since he had moved in 5 years ago. It noted the resident advised that previous repairs had been completed but the problem persisted. It requested information on the situation. It noted that the resident was willing to move to alternative accommodation if the problem could not be resolved.
16. On 17 April 2020, the EHT wrote to the landlord again, informing it the resident had been in contact again about the mould in his property. It requested information on the action taken. On 11 May 2020 EHT sought a further update on the issue. The Ombudsman cannot see that one was provided.
17. The resident contacted the Ombudsman for assistance and the landlord reissued its stage one response to his complaint on 15 May 2020. The resident contacted again a few days later on 19 May 2020, noting no contact had been made to arrange the inspection.
18. On 28 May 2020, the resident chased the landlord to organise the specialist inspection. He noted he had contacted the EHT and the Ombudsman.
19. The landlord responded the following day noting it had attempted to contact the resident to arrange the survey for the following week and the surveyor would be back in contact to confirm the appointment.
20. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on several occasions noting that the lack of response by the landlord. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord requesting it update the resident and the service.
21. On 22 June 2020, the landlord informed the resident it was still seeking to confirm an appointment once a surveyor was available. Following further contact from the Ombudsman, it reiterated this on 16 July 2020, noting that the delay was caused by contractors not carrying out routine inspections given the Covid-19 pandemic and the city was still in lockdown. It noted his property would be a priority once the restrictions were lifted.
22. Following the specialist visit the landlord received a report on 18 August 2020 as follows:
    1. The damp issue was historic and present on the party wall- previous attempts to resolve it had happened in 2014, 2015 and 2017 (resident decanted on both occasions)
    2. Numerous attempts both in house and by specialists, had been made to resolve the issue
    3. The cause could be rising damp and a possible problem with the floor base
    4. Work to the ground floor of the property was needed; requiring a lengthy decant which the resident was dissatisfied with, understandably as it would be the third time the family had been decanted for the works to be completed.
    5. A permanent decant (management move) should be offered
23. On 28 September 2020, the resident advised the Ombudsman that the landlord had accepted there was a structural issue and the need to move, but it had not been in contact with the resident for the last 6-8 weeks.
24. On 20 October 2020, the landlord advised the Ombudsman that a management move had been approved and a property was being sought. It noted that an additional mould wash had been arranged in the interim.

Assessment and findings

25. It is evident that the resident has been experiencing the mould issue for some time and while the landlord has responded in the past, the works carried out have been ineffective in resolving the issue long term.
26. In October 2019, the resident made the landlord aware again that the mould had returned. As per the polies noted above the landlord is responsible for mould on the internal part of the property due to water penetration or rising damp. It is noted that the landlord advised an inspection would be carried out- however the Ombudsman cannot see that an inspection was carried out as no evidence has been provided, more so, the resident complained further and in February 2020 the landlord noted that an inspection would be carried out to check if the property was suffering from rising damp.
27. From the evidence on file, it is clear that whilst a visit was carried out in March 2020, this visit did not actually determine the cause of the mould or check for rising damp, and as such the resident had further cause to complain.
28. The resident continued chasing the landlord to schedule an appointment, and whilst the Ombudsman accepts that the Covid-19 pandemic had an impact on the landlord being able to carry out the inspection from April 2020, it had had the opportunity to arrange for a specialist inspection prior to this. Given the history of the property it would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange the specialist inspection once the resident raised the issue again in October 2019, or even at the March 2020 visit.
29. Additionally, the landlord’s lack of communication with the resident, meant the resident was further inconvenienced as he constantly chased for an update on the matter, whereas the landlord should have kept him updated.
30. The resident consistently had to contact third party organisations for assistance and yet updates to those services, the Ombudsman included was also lacking.
31. While the Ombudsman accepts that a management move was offered, it is still the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the residents reports of mould.

Determination (decision)

32. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property

Reasons

33. The landlord has failed to satisfactorily investigate the issues at the earliest opportunity, given the history of the property.
34. It failed to provide clear and timely communication with the resident, leaving the resident further inconvenienced.
35. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports fell short of its service standards. It has not provided adequate redress for its demonstrated failings.

Orders and recommendations

36. The landlord is to pay a total of £300 in compensation to the resident for its failure to address the mould issue at the earliest opportunity, the general inconvenience caused and the further delay in carrying out the inspection. The Covid-19 pandemic has been considered as mitigation.
37. Payment should be made within three weeks from the date of this report