Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

ForHousing Limited (202203565)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203565

ForHousing Limited

6 October 2022


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

Background

  1. The resident, who is a secure tenant, reported the issue of damp and mould within the property on 15 February 2021. He advised that there was mould affecting his living room, and there was water coming in causing damp in a store room next to the kitchen. A damp inspection was carried out on 15 March 2021 and operatives identified the need for plastering, and for a plumber to inspect the above property for a potential leak. On 27 May 2021, the resident called the landlord as he had received no updates or follow-up communications since the inspection. The work was raised on that day with a 100 working-day priority (target date of 18 October 2021).
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 16 June 2021, in which he explained that the issue had been reported on 15 February 2021 and that the scheduled date for repair in October was far more than 100 working-days. Additionally, the resident noted that during the inspection on 15 March 2021, he had been advised that the repairs would be completed within 90 days. In further correspondence with the landlord, the resident also advised that the exposure to mould had been severely affecting his asthma and that he would like the work to be brought forward. The landlord agreed to this and the work to the living room was completed on 13 August 2021, aside from re-fitting of skirting boards which was completed on 4 October 2021.
  3. The landlord issued its final response to the complaint on 6 October 2021, in which it agreed that its investigation had not fully demonstrated an understanding of the impact the issue had on the resident and his family. It also acknowledged that whilst the work to the living room had been completed, the work to the store room remained outstanding. The landlord advised the resident that its contractor would treat the outstanding repairs as a priority. It also offered the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the delay and the upset caused. The resident had also expressed that he wanted to be transferred to a different property due to the presence of damp and mould. However, the landlord declined this request for a transfer, as the property was still habitable.[RJ1]
  4. Another damp inspection was carried out on 9 December 2021 in relation to the storeroom. Black mould was identified, but advised there was no damp present. The resident was advised to ensure that there was adequate airflow around the property and to clean and bleach the mould that was present. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord, advising that he was seeking two months rent as compensation for each calendar year that the repairs were outstanding. The resident also maintained that he wanted to be transferred to another property.
  5. The landlord informed this Service that and appointment had been booked for 2 September 2022 to complete anti-mould treatment at the property. However, it is not clear where in the property this treatment was carried out.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

  1. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy that was in place from 1 March 2021 states that “urgent repairs” are to be completed within three working days, “routine repairs” are to be completed within ten working days, and “planned repairs” are to be completed within 21 working days.
  2. The landlord’s current Repairs and Maintenance Procedure states that “damp repairs” are to be completed within forty working days[RJ2].

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s failure address the damp and mould within a reasonable time has impacted the health of himself and his family. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about his and his family’s health. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore we cannot say whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

  1. In this case, it is not disputed that there was a significant delay in completing remedial works to the resident’s property following a damp inspection in March 2021. The landlord has acknowledged this in its final complaint response and offered £100 in recognition of the delay and the upset caused. It also acknowledged that its investigation into the issue had not “demonstrated an understanding of the impact” to the resident and his family.
  2. Following the resident’s first reports of damp and mould within the property (15 February 2021), the landlord acted appropriately by raising a damp and mould inspection that was carried out on 15 March 2021. This inspection was actioned within a reasonable timescale. However, remedial works were not raised until 27 May 2021 following a call from the resident approximately two months after the inspection. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have raised the works immediately following the inspection due to the identification of black mould in the property which posed a potential health risk. This was likely to have caused inconvenience for the resident who needed to seek updates and was awaiting a resolution for a considerable length of time.
  3. Once raised, the work had been given a target date of 18 October 2021 (100 working-days). The landlord’s repair policy at the time did not specify this as the timescale[RJ3] for damp and mould repairs. However, this has since been changed in the landlord’s repairs policy to 40 days. Aadditionally, the potential health hazards posed by the presence of damp and mould in a property should have been considered when determining the urgency repairs.It is the Ombudsman’s view that the need for a timescale of 100 days would be limited to works that required extensive planning and preparation for example the fitting of a new kitchen or windows. There is no evidence to suggest that this level of planning was required in this case.
  4. Generally damp and mould would be considered a routine repair. It is industry best practice for routine repairs to be carried out within one month of first being reported. Some circumstances, such as the need for complex investigations involving multiple properties, may have caused the landlord to exceed this timescale. However, where there is likely to be an extension of this timescale, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the extension and provide a new expected completion date. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was informed of the progress of the works, or given any type of update. By not managing the resident’s expectations, the landlord caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
  5. Following the resident presenting his concerns about the mould’s effect on his asthma, the landlord brought the date of repairs forward. It was reasonable for the landlord to bring the date of the repairs forward to take place on 12 and 13 August 2021 in view of the resident’s concerns about his health. However, this was six months after the resident’s initial repair and therefore it would not be considered a reasonable timescale given the lack of progress until this date.
  6. After completion of the repairs to the living room, follow-on work was raised on 13 August 2021 for the re-fitting of skirting boards. On 7 September 2021, the resident received a text from the contractor informing that somebody was on the way to carry out the work. The resident disputed that he had been informed of the date prior to this message and therefore, was not provided sufficient notice to allow access. The landlord acknowledged its failure to arrange an appointment within its final response to the complaint. This error was likely to have caused inconvenience for the resident who needed to spend additional time and trouble in re-booking the appointment, which contributed to the overall delay in repair.
  7. However, whilst the work to the living room was completed, the issues relating to the storeroom remained outstanding. The landlord has offered no justification as to why it did not address this aspect of the repairs at an earlier date given that these issues were also raised in February 2021. The delay in addressing these repair concerns was significant and considerably outside of the landlord’s repair timescale. The landlord advised that it had asked its contractor to address the storeroom as a priority. However, it gave no date to the resident for when it expected to be done. It is important for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations, by giving a target date for repairs to be completed.
  8. On 21 October 2021, the landlord advised that it had arranged for a damp inspector to attend the property to assess the store room, and to ensure that it had a full picture of the situation before assigning further work. However, the inspection was not raised until 25 November 2021, one month after it said it had done so. It should also be noted, that it was raised following contact from the resident after not having received any further updates.
  9. The contractor attended on 9 December 2021 but found no evidence of damp, however, there was the presence of black mould. The resident noted that the contractor had advised the resident to clean and bleach the mould. This was not disputed by the landlord. This Service’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould report (2021) which is published on our website, encourages the landlord to take a proactive approach to damp and mould. Therefore, it would have been more appropriate for the landlord/contractor to offer more helpful advice on how to prevent mould growth, and ensure adequate air circulation within the property. This advice should have been offered from the outset alongside the works the landlord was going to undertake. [RJ4]
  10. In an email from the landlord to this Service on 1 September 2022, the landlord advised that it had arranged to complete anti-mould treatment at the property on the following day (2 September 2022). Whilst this was positive, there was no suggestion of where in the property this treatment would be carried out, what prompted the landlord to take action nine months after its inspection in December 2021, or why this had not been considered sooner.
  11. It was reasonable for the landlord to decline the resident’s request for a transfer to another property, in view of the damp and mould. The landlord would only be expected to offer such a move in this situation if the property was considered to be unsafe to live in due to the damp and mould. In this case, there is insufficient evidence to show that the property was uninhabitable due to damp and mould. However, the resident could approach the local authority’s environmental health department (Environmental Health) if he remains concerned that the damp and mould is posing a significant health and safety risk. Environmental Health can investigate concerns about health and safety and the landlord would be expected to act on Environmental Health’s recommendations. Although the resident did not meet the criteria for a transfer, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer alternative steps for the resident to take should he still wish to move property, such as a mutual exchange.
  12. In view of the identified failures, the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation is not considered proportionate to the impact on the resident. The failures included communication issues and extensive delays in repairs. These multiple failures by the landlord amount to maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. In view of this, the landlord should offer the resident a further £400, bringing the total offer of compensation to £500. This amount is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which suggests that amounts of £250 to £700 are reasonable in instances of considerable service failure or maladministration by a landlord, but where there may be no permanent impact on the resident. Examples of this may include “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs” and instances in which the resident was “repeatedly having to chase responses”.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay a total of £500 in recognition of the delays and communication failings throughout its handling of the issues.
  2.  [RJ5]This compensation includes the landlord’s offer of £100 which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.
  3. Unless the resident confirms that the damp and mould has been fully resolved, the landlord should carry out an inspection to check if any further repairs are needed to resolve the damp and mould. The landlord should carry out any repairs identified as necessary following this inspection within 28 days and it should inform the Ombudsman when it has done so.

[RJ1]Not sure if I’m being blind but you need to include that the resident raised this somewhere above.

[RJ2]Do the policies or tenancy agreement confirm who is responsible for resolving damp and mould? It may be worth adding something about this.

[RJ3]Might be worth adding whether the current policy does or doesn’t include this timescale.

 

i.e. neither the landlord’s current repairs policy or the one in place at the time…

[RJ4]I don’t think this is quite right or needed.

 

It is usually ok for landlord’s to ask residents to do this.

 

 

[RJ5]I don’t think the breajkdown is needed for this one, I usually only do a breakdown for different complaint aspects.