Eastlight Community Homes Limited (202215689)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215689

Eastlight Community Homes Limited

15 September 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 handling of damp and mould in the resident’s property.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord.
The resident reported an issue with damp and mould at their property to the landlord on 16 March 2022. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend the property on 30 March 2022, and it visited the property on 26 April 2022. The surveyor identified “no building defects” or water “ingress” but recommended that the landlord replaced the sealant around the resident’s shower.
The landlord received contact from Environmental Health (EH) on 6 and 13 May 2022. EH made a number of recommendations and the landlord agreed the following actions as because of those recommendations:
1. To complete a mould wash in the bathroom.
2. Renew the sealant in the bathroom.
3. Insulate an exposed pipe.
The landlord made a subsequent appointment for 29 June 2022, however the resident requested cancellation of this appointment on 27 June 2022. The landlord attempted to rebook the appointment in July and August 2022, which the landlord said the resident refused.
The landlord arranged for a second survey of the property on 2 September 2022. This report identified the existence of “slight damp and mould growth” in multiple locations at the property.
The resident requested an update from the landlord on 15 September 2022. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the reported damp and mould and lack of communication. They made a subsequent complaint on 19 October 2022 and said:
1. They had been in touch with the landlord multiple times but not had responses.
2. The issue had been “severely” impacting their health, as they suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and, if left, the mould may kill them. They had sent letters from their GP/doctor, but these had been ignored.
3. The damp and mould were “so bad” it has caused the resident to contract bronchitis.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint via email on 20 October 2022 and issued its stage one complaint response on 27 October 2022. The response outlined events up until that date and stated the landlord would raise a work order for a mould wash and replace “panelling” if required. The date of the appointment was to be confirmed with the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 October 2022 to advise it of mould on the kitchen floor. The resident also requested temporary rehousing while any work was carried out, due to their health condition and the potential to breathe in any airborne mould. The landlord responded to the resident on 1 November 2022 and said they had contacted the contractor for an update on the planned repairs. The resident responded to the landlord again and provided pictures of the mould at the property and said their GP had recommended they vacate the property while the mould wash was being done. The resident also mentioned the need for their belongings to be put into storage or steam cleaned after the work was complete, due to having mould on them. They said they were unable to do this themselves due to mobility issues.
The landlord responded to the resident with an update on 3 November 2022 and confirmed 3 upcoming appointments as:
1. 22 November 2022 to renew sealant, wash mould off a pipe, install a shower panel and check for any leaks.
2. 19 December 2022 to renew 2 fans.
3. 3 January 2023 to replace a windowsill and box in a downpipe.
The resident responded on 4 November 2022 and said the fans would need to be renewed first, as the other work will likely cause “mould to be in the air”. The resident also mentioned their request to be housed in alternative accommodation while the work is carried out and for belongings to be put in storage or steam cleaned after the work’s completion.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to their complaint and requested escalation to stage two of the complaint process. The landlord acknowledged the request on 29 November 2022 and issued a response on 23 December 2022. The response provided an overview of the resident’s complaint points and said:
1. A mould wash had been scheduled for 22 November 2022.
2. The resident had “turned down” two offers of alternative accommodation due to their suitability, as they required a “personal fridge” to store medication.
3. Work had been put on hold until suitable alternative accommodation had been found for the resident.
4. There had been no consistent communication between the repairs team and the resident since the work had been put on hold.
5. The landlord apologised to the resident for the service they had received.
6. The landlord had arranged alternative accommodation for the resident for 9 and 10 January 2023. This was to allow for the installation of a fan in both the bathroom and kitchen, to replace the bathroom windowsill, install a shower seat, and complete a mould wash.
The landlord contacted the resident again on 4 January 2023 to confirm the details of the scheduled work. It confirmed the alternative accommodation and said it would arrange a taxi to and from the location. The landlord also said it had arranged for the steam clean of some of the resident’s personal items, but the resident could take those that could not be steam cleaned to a dry cleaner and it would reimburse the cost.
The resident returned to their property on 10 January 2023 and told the Ombudsman that the work was “completed in 50 minutes” and that only “some” of the repairs had been done. The resident contacted the Ombudsman again on 11 January 2023 and said that the work was “absolutely disgusting” and mould remained on the kitchen and bathroom floor. They also said the contractor had caused some damage when completing the work.
The landlord made another appointment for 8 March 2023 to complete any outstanding work, which it confirmed in an email to the resident on 23 February 2023. The landlord later said work was completed and subsequently closed the complaint. However, the resident remained unhappy and told the Ombudsman on 6 September 2023 that damp and mould remained an issue. The resident requested that the mould be removed from their property to resolve their complaint.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman can understand that the damp and mould issues over a prolonged period would have been distressing for the resident. We acknowledge the resident’s comments about the effect damp and mould had on their health and wellbeing. It is generally accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. However, it is outside the role of the Ombudsman to determine if there was a direct link between any action or inaction of the landlord and any specific damage to the resident’s health. Matters of legal liability for damage to health may be better suited to a court or liability insurer to decide. The Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of any errors by the landlord, as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about their health.
The Ombudsman has also acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the state their property had been left in following repair work in January 2023. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaint procedure. While the issue regarding the state of the resident’s property was brought to the Ombudsman’s attention, it does not appear to have been raised with the landlord as a formal complaint and, therefore, the landlord has not had the opportunity to put things right for the resident through its complaints process. This also applies to the resident’s concerns about damage caused by repairs after the landlord’s stage two complaint response had been issued. If the resident remains dissatisfied with these issues, they should consider raising them as a formal complaint with the landlord. The resident may be able to approach the Ombudsman to investigate these issues if they remain dissatisfied once they have received the landlord’s final response to their concerns.
The tenancy agreement between the landlord and the resident sets out the responsibilities of both parties. The agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to a number of structural components, fixtures, and fittings, including “internal walls, floors and ceilings…”. The resident reported an issue with damp and mould in multiple locations at the property, including the kitchen and bathroom floor and on walls throughout both rooms. Therefore, it is fair to determine it was the landlord’s responsibility to address these issues when they were reported. After the resident reported the damp and mould issue on 16 March 2022, the landlord should have followed its relevant repair policy.
The landlord’s repair policy provides information about reporting repairs and the timescales it aims to respond to reports. The timescales are put into 3 categories. These are:
1. Emergency – 24 hours. These are repairs which pose serious risk to health, safety, or security, or where there is a risk of serious damage to property.
2. Appointed – 40 calendar days. These are repairs which pose no risk to health and safety, but the issue may cause a nuisance but not adversely affect the use of the property.
3. Planned responsive – 90 calendar days. This category is for “fencing and concreting work” only.
The Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord’s policy timescales are reasonable and has determined that the timescale associated with the “appointed” category does not meet expectations. Industry best practice recommends a timescale of 28 days to respond to a routine repair, however the landlord’s repair policy refers to 40 days. The Ombudsman has found this to be an excessive amount of time for a resident to be made to wait for a routine repair and, therefore, the landlord should review the policy timescales and bring them in line with industry best practice.
The resident first reported an issue with damp and mould on 16 March 2022, which the landlord should have resolved within a reasonable timescale – 40 days according to the landlord’s repair policy, or 28 days according to industry best practice. However, the resident informed the Ombudsman that issues with damp and mould were still outstanding as of 6 September 2023, which the Ombudsman has acknowledged the landlord has disputed. This meant the resident has been living with damp and mould issues for around 18 months.
The landlord has said it treated the damp and mould and considered the issue resolved. However, the resident remained unhappy and said damp and mould was still existent at the property. Therefore, the landlord was expected to investigate the resident’s ongoing concerns. The evidence provided suggests that no investigation took place after the landlord said the issue had been resolved. While the damp and mould at the resident’s property had been treated, it is possible it had returned or had not been completely removed when the landlord treated it. This is something the landlord should have taken the time to determine, arranging a review of the work it completed or having an additional survey of the property to confirm all existence of damp and mould had been removed. Given the resident’s continued concerns about the presence of damp and mould, the Ombudsman has determined the landlord should take further action. The landlord should consider whether another independent survey of the property is appropriate. If required actions are identified during the survey, it should arrange for these to take place within a reasonable timescale.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s actions during the 18-month period damp and mould was an issue for the resident. It arranged for a survey of the property shortly after the damp and mould issues were reported. While the survey found no “building defects” or “ingress”, an EH report made multiple recommendations to treat and prevent the existence of damp and mould at the resident’s property. The landlord showed a willingness to act and took steps to arrange appointments to follow those recommendations, which it said the resident cancelled and rejected the requests to reschedule.
The Ombudsman has found the actions the landlord took to address the damp and mould were reasonable and, while it was unable to access the property, it did make attempts to reschedule the appointment in June, July, and August 2022, although the resident did not agree to them. There can be legitimate reasons why residents are unable to grant access to the landlord to carry out repairs and the Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for rescheduling appointments. However, the landlord would not be responsible for any delays this caused. This is likely to have delayed the landlord’s ability to resolve the issue and somewhat attributed to the time taken to attempt to remove and prevent the damp and mould. The landlord has also shown an awareness of the wider impact of damp and mould in properties it is responsible for. The Ombudsman has been provided with evidence which shows comprehensive details of action and planned action by the landlord, taking into account the recommended actions in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould (available to view on our website).
The landlord demonstrated a willingness to accommodate the resident’s request to be rehoused while treatment of the damp and mould was carried out, due to their health condition. While the first offers of alternative accommodation were not appropriate, the landlord was eventually able to find somewhere suitable for the resident. The Ombudsman understands suitable accommodation may not always be available immediately, particularly when a resident has specific requirements. However, this was not arranged until some 10 months after the resident first reported the issue, and 4 months after the second survey of the property which identified “slight damp and mould growth”. The landlord had also shown awareness of the resident’s health condition, which they had said the damp and mould was negatively impacting. This information should have been enough for the landlord to act sooner, in order to prevent any further impact on the resident’s health, but it did not. The Ombudsman has determined that alternative accommodation should have been provided to the resident sooner, such as a hotel which the resident could pay for upfront and be reimbursed for. The landlord said this was an option in February 2023. Given this finding, the landlord must act to put things right, as set out below.
The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance, published on our website. The guidance suggests that awards of £100 to £600 may be appropriate for cases where the landlord has made an error which adversely affected the resident. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord made attempts to provide alternative accommodation while repair work was completed, however, this could have been done sooner given the impact the resident said the damp and mould was having on their health. Therefore, this service has determined an offer of £400 compensation to be fair and proportionate to the delay the resident experienced.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s failure to provide the resident with responses to their communication throughout the period the issue remained outstanding. The evidence shows the resident had been in regular contact with the landlord, requesting updates on its action to treat the damp and mould. There were multiple occasions where the landlord’s response had been delayed or it did not provide a response at all. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage two complaint response and provided an apology. The landlord is responsible for communicating with the resident and providing updates on outstanding repairs, including when a contractor is involved. If communication between the landlord and contractor was unsatisfactory, the landlord should have taken appropriate action to resolve this issue, without impacting the resident. The Ombudsman has determined the landlord’s apology fell short of putting things right for the resident, and it must take further action.
The remedies guidance mentioned earlier in this report refers to awards of £100 to £600 may be appropriate for cases where the landlord has made an error which adversely affected the resident and the steps the landlord took to put things right did not go far enough in resolving the situation for the resident. The landlord and contractor’s failure to effectively communicate with the resident meant they spent time and effort to find out the status of the repair. Having this responsibility, on top of the ongoing impact the damp and mould was having on their health, is likely to have added to the distress the resident was experiencing at the time. Therefore, this service has determined an offer of £200 compensation to be fair and proportionate to the poor communication the resident received from the landlord and contractor.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of damp and mould in the resident’s property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £600, made up of:
1. £400 for failing to provide alternative accommodation for the resident sooner and the impact this had on the resident.
2. £200 for the poor communication while the damp and mould remained outstanding.
The landlord is also ordered to arrange for a survey of the property to identify whether damp and mould remains an issue. A copy of the survey should be provided to the resident and this service.
The landlord must confirm compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
If the ordered survey identifies damp and mould issues at the resident’s property, the landlord must agree a schedule of work with the resident and treat the issue within 28 days of the findings.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to review the timescales associated with repairs in its relevant repair policy. The timescales should be brought in line with those agreed as industry best practice. For example, a routine repair should be resolved within 28 days of being reported.
This service identified some delays and miscommunication between the landlord, resident, and contractor during the investigation. The landlord should review its relationship with any external contractors to ensure communication is efficient and delays are avoided where possible. Where delays are not avoidable, the landlord should ensure an explanation is provided to the resident including an estimated date for completion of the repairs.