ForHousing Limited (202313858)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313858

For Housing Limited

20 May 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The reported damp and mould issues.
2. The resident’s request for compensation for damage to furniture.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy of the property, a 2 bedroom ground floor flat. The resident is 79 years old and has informed this Service that she suffers with breathing problems.
The resident reported the issue with damp and mould in both bedrooms to the landlord on 28 July 2022. The landlord inspected on 3 August 2022 and identified some repair works. The landlord started the works in December 2022, however the work was not completed.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 3 March 2023 and said that the works were taking too long and told the landlord that the dampness had damaged some of the bedroom furniture. In its stage 2 response of 30 June 2023 the landlord explained there had been delays completing the works due to an increase in demand for damp repairs. The landlord apologised and offered £100 compensation for the delay. The landlord increased this offer to £150 following a phone call to the resident on the same day. The landlord also confirmed that it could not compensate for the damaged furniture due to a lack of evidence but that it had made an offer through its LiveWell fund of £400 in Argos or Ikea vouchers. The resident rejected the landlord’s offer and said she would not allow any further work to take place until a resolution was found.
In referring the matter to this Service on 17 July 2023 the resident said the repairs remained outstanding. She wanted an increased offer of compensation in recognition of the length of time the issue was ongoing and to cover the cost of replacing the damaged furniture.
It is noted that the landlord has informed this Service that repairs to resolve the dampness were completed in December 2023. The resident has said that she believes there to be some work outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident raised a concern around the handling of the window replacement at the property in her referral to this Service. This did not form part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord and there is no evidence of the landlord having investigated this concern. As this issue has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure it has not been considered as part of this investigation. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the handling of the window replacement, she can make a complaint to the landlord which can be referred to this Service in due course if required.

The landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould.

The resident reported dampness in both bedrooms on 28 July 2022 and the landlord completed a damp inspection on 3 August 2022. By arranging the inspection, the landlord acted appropriately in line with its damp and mould procedure. The inspection identified some repair works required to resolve the damp issues. The works included:
1. Hacking the plaster off the wall under the window in bedroom 1, treating the rising damp and making good.
2. Treating mould in bedroom 2 and completing patch repairs to the wall.
The landlord’s damp and mould procedure says works related to damp and mould should be completed within 40 working days. The landlord’s repair logs show that the works did not start until 7 December 2022 and were not completed until December 2023. The landlord failed to act in accordance with its policy in taking 17 months to complete the work.
The landlord acknowledged the delay in commencing work in its complaint responses and said the delay was caused by an increase in demand for damp and mould repairs. In its complaint responses, the landlord did not commit to a timescale by which the resident could expect the repairs to be completed. The landlord also failed to outline any plans to manage or resolve the problems it was having resourcing the demand for damp and mould repairs.
Damp and mould is listed as one of the hazards assessed under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. Damp and mould have the potential to impact on a resident’s health, especially for individuals considered vulnerable. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it may escalate repairs to a higher priority where appropriate. There is no evidence of the landlord assessing the risk in this case. Had it done so, it would have identified that the resident was potentially vulnerable due to her age and reported breathing problems and as such it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether the damp repairs should have been treated as urgent. The policy does not stipulate how quickly urgent repairs should be completed but it is reasonable to conclude that it would be shorter than 40 working days.
If the landlord considered the situation low risk or low priority it was unreasonable that it did not communicate this to the resident and explain its reasoning to manage her expectations. In referring the matter to this Service, the resident described the dampness as “terrible” and it is evident the situation has caused her a great deal of distress. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have committed to a timescale by which the repairs would be completed and discussed any interim measures it could have offered to support the resident in the meantime. There is no evidence that the landlord did anything of this nature and this is a service failure.
The landlord’s repairs policy notes it will make 3 attempts to confirm appointments with residents by telephone and if unsuccessful it will confirm an appointment in writing prior to closing a repair job. If the operative attends and fails to gain access then a “no access” card will be posted through the door and the resident will be required to call to rebook the work.
On 29 June 2023 the resident called the landlord because she had received text messages to book in repair appointments for the next week. The resident was unhappy the landlord hadn’t checked if she was available before booking the appointments and wanted clarification of what work would be completed. In a phone call following the stage 2 response of 30 June 2023 the landlord outlined what work would be completed on each day and told the resident that the operatives would attend as planned the next week. The landlord said the job would be closed if she did not allow access.
In its response to the request for evidence as part of this investigation the landlord told this Service that the works had been delayed until June due to the resident refusing access for the asbestos survey in May 2023. There is no evidence to support this in the call logs or repairs logs provided by the landlord. The landlord also did not make reference to this access refusal in its stage 2 response to the resident. The landlord should be able to evidence clearly what happened at each appointment and rely on this evidence when determining the outcome of complaints. This lack of evidence demonstrates a pattern of poor record-keeping.
It is also not clear from the evidence what caused the additional delay from June 2023 when the landlord issued its stage 2 response until December 2023 when the work was completed. The landlord has informed this Service that access issues prolonged the process, however there is no evidence of the landlord taking steps to achieve a more timely solution. On the contrary, there is evidence of the resident contacting the landlord to chase up appointments on at least 7 occasions between 5 December 2022 and 3 October 2023. The landlord failed to offer a reasonable explanation for the length of time it took to complete the repairs and has not followed its own policy in regards to making attempts to book appointments.
The Ombudsman published a spotlight report on damp and mould in October 2021. As well as noting that reports of damp and mould must be acted on in a timely manner and with urgency, one of the recommendations relates to missed appointments. The report suggests that landlords should have processes in place to follow up with residents to rearrange missed appointments promptly. In this case, the landlord told the resident the job would be closed if she did not allow access, despite not following its own process for booking appointments and knowing the distress the issue was causing the resident. In placing the onus on the resident to rebook the appointment, the landlord has not acted reasonably.
The landlord’s damp and mould procedure outlines a process by which satisfaction surveys are automatically generated to residents when repair jobs are closed on the landlord’s system. The procedure states that if the resident advised she was not satisfied or said the work was not complete then this would trigger an alert for a Damp Manager to make contact with the resident and agree a solution. There is no evidence of this process being activated in this case. Had this process been followed and the case been brought to the attention of the relevant team manager, it may have been resolved more efficiently.
Ultimately, the landlord is responsible for keeping the property free from damp and mould and from when it was put on notice of the issue it had a responsibility to put things right in a timely manner. It is not reasonable that the landlord’s explanation for a 17 month delay to a repair was an increase on service demands. Nor is it reasonable to lay blame on access issues when the landlord has not evidenced compliance with its own policy in this regard.
When the landlord became aware of the likelihood of delays with its repair service, it did not assess the risk to the resident, discuss any interim measures it could have offered to support the resident in the meantime or commit to a realistic timescale by which the repairs would be completed. The landlord has not evidenced any proactive steps taken to resolve or manage the situation and this is a service failure.
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that it will consider compensation based on the length of time an issue has been occurring and the level of impact or inconvenience this may have had on the resident. The guidance states that offers may be made of between £50 and £300 for moderate impact and above £300 for severe impact.
The landlord offered £100 compensation for delayed repairs in its stage 1 response of 24 March 2023. The landlord said it would not offer an increased amount of compensation in its stage 2 response of 30 June 2023 but, following a phone call with the resident on the same day, the landlord increased the offer to £150. Considering the resident’s potential vulnerability and that the repair had been outstanding for 11 months, it is not reasonable for the landlord to have considered the impact of this delay as equivalent to the lower end of “moderate” on its compensation guidance scale.
In conclusion to the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould issue, the landlord has failed to act promptly and in line with its own policies. It has also failed to make any adjustments to its approach considering the resident’s potential vulnerability. Through its complaint responses it failed to proportionately put things right and for this reason this investigation has found maladministration.
The resident has informed this Service that, as of the date of this report, the works outlined in the survey of 3 August 2022 have not been completed. The landlord has confirmed that further inspections identified external issues with the property including issues with a leaking gutter drainage pipe, external brickwork and ventilation to the bedroom. The works to resolve these issues were completed in December 2023. It is unclear whether the landlord communicated any change in the scope of works and an order has been made concerning this below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damaged furniture.

As part of the initial complaint made on 3 March 2023 the resident informed the landlord that 2 beds and a chest of drawers had been damaged by the damp and mould. The resident wanted the landlord to pay compensation to the value of replacing the items. In response to this request, the landlord:
1. Asked for proof of purchase of the items.
2. Asked for photographs showing the damage.
3. Visited the resident on 22 March 2023 to inspect the damage when the resident said she was unable to provide proof of purchase or photographs. The landlord confirmed to the resident that no damage was evident.
4. Confirmed the outcome of the visit in its stage 1 response of 24 March 2023.
5. Offered £400 vouchers for Argos or Ikea through its LiveWell fund as a goodwill gesture.
6. Suggested the resident make a claim on her home contents insurance.
Whilst this Service does not investigate or make findings on matters involving liability for damage, we can look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s request for compensation for damaged personal belongings. The tenancy agreement and compensation policy sets out that the landlord is not responsible for the resident’s personal possessions and strongly recommends they arrange their own contents insurance. The resident told the landlord that her contents insurance policy would not cover the replacement of the items and that the offer of £400 vouchers was not enough to pay for replacement furniture. Whilst the landlord is not obligated to replace the damaged furniture, the landlord acted reasonably and demonstrated a resolution focused approach in making a goodwill gesture. There has been no service failure identified in this regard.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery. The landlord’s final response is lacking in any sincere acknowledgement of its delayed handling of the matter and missed the opportunity to work with the resident to improve the situation. Even where the landlord identified the cause for the initial delay, it failed to offer any reassurance that the issue was temporary or that it was working on a solution. This investigation has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reported damp and mould issues.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for damage to furniture.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £600, inclusive of the £150 it already offered in the stage 2 response, comprising:
  1. £550 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of the reported damp and mould issues.
  2. £50 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of its failure to identify and offer solutions or learning through the complaints process.
2. Contact the resident regarding the repairs carried out in December 2023 and discuss if there are any further repairs issues.
The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not used to offset any monies that she may owe the landlord.

Recommendations

The landlord should issue vouchers to the value of £400 for Argos or Ikea as previously offered to the resident.
The landlord should contact the resident about her concerns with the window replacements and open a new complaint if required.