ForHousing Limited (202329305)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329305

ForHousing Limited

22 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

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

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant at the property of the landlord between 11 February 2019 and 3 March 2024. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property was a two-bedroom flat. The resident resided in the property with his, partner, two children, and their grandmother. The grandmother is affected by mobility issues.
  2. The landlord has advised that it initially received a report of damp in the property in February 2023. The resident has advised that he reported it several times before any action was taken. This service has not been provided with any records of communication from this period.
  3. The landlord conducted a damp survey on 1 March 2023. The inspection noted that the property’s extractor fans had been switched off. The landlord has advised that following the inspection, it gave advice to the resident about ventilation; however, this service has not been provided with any communication from this period.
  4. The survey also noted repair works to the property, including resealing the windows and relaying insulation. The landlord’s later communications indicate it agreed to do these works. However, it is not disputed that no works took place.
  5. On or around 16 June 2023, the resident reported his concerns about the ongoing issues with damp and mould to the environmental health team (EH) at his local authority. EH then contacted the landlord and forwarded his concerns. They also noted that the resident’s child was experiencing respiratory issues.
  6. The landlord subsequently opened a formal complaint and provided its stage one response on 10 July 2023, which included the following:
    1. It acknowledged there had been a delay to the repairs, for which it had apologised. It explained that this was due to a backlog of repairs. It advised that it had been hiring extra staff to address this.
    2. It noted it had attempted to raise the works to take place in mid-July 2023, but that the resident had declined these works due to concerns about overcrowding. The landlord agreed that it would be best to decant the resident during the works and advised that it had postponed the works until a suitable arrangement had been made.
    3. It advised that it had arranged for a mould wash to occur on 14 July 2023, as an interim measure in order to alleviate any effect the mould was having.
    4. It offered £100 compensation to reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
  7. The landlord has advised that around this time, it approved a permanent decant for the resident to a three-bedroom property.
  8. The resident escalated his complaint on 14 August 2023, which the landlord acknowledged on 22 August 2023.
  9. The landlord provided its stage two response on 12 September 2023, which included the following:
    1. It noted that it had offered the resident a three-bedroom property but that he had declined it due to the need for a downstairs toilet.
    2. It explained that the availability of a suitable property was limited and may take some time to find. It advised that the resident had the option of a temporary decant while the works were completed and assured him that it would still offer a permanent decant once a suitable property was found.
    3. It reassured him that it would also continue to undertake mould washes in the meantime.
    4. It increased its offer of compensation to £500 for his distress and inconvenience.
  10. Following its final response, the landlord completed a further mould wash on 12 December 2023. The resident subsequently accepted an offer of a new property and moved in on 5 February 2024. The landlord allowed the existing tenancy to overlap until 3 March 2024, in order to assist the resident with the move.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has raised concerns about how the issues he reported and the landlord’s subsequent service delivery may have impacted his and his family’s health.
  2. The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by a court. Should the resident wish to pursue a claim relating to the impact on his and his family’s health, he has the option to seek legal advice.
  3. The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s management move policy notes that it may offer a management move where there is an immediate risk of harm. It may not offer a move where there is damp and mould in the property. It will instead offer a temporary decant while works are completed. It may also not offer a management move for overcrowding but will instead advise a resident to register on the relevant choice based letting system. Where it makes an offer, it will only make one offer. If it is refused, it may remove the resident from the waiting list.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould policy notes that it will complete a vulnerability assessment and prioritise properties where there are vulnerabilities identified. This includes children, persons over 65, or people with disability issues. It also notes that it will keep residents regularly informed about the progress of any inspections or works.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy does not note a specific timeframe for the completion of any non-emergency repairs. However, the Ombudsman would expect these to be completed within a reasonable timeframe, dependent on the circumstances.
  2. In this case, the resident reported the issues with damp and mould in February 2023, and the landlord completed an investigation in March 2023. While this response time may be reasonable, the landlord should be able to demonstrate that it assessed whether a more urgent response was needed. Its damp and mould policy notes that it will complete a vulnerability assessment when it receives a report of damp and mould. It is not evident that any assessment was completed. Had it done so, it would have noted overcrowding, an elderly resident, and children in the property. This could have better informed its response time, and its failure to do so was not in line with its policy.
  3. Following its inspection, the landlord’s surveyor identified a number of works necessary to address the damp and mould in the property. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to be proactive in arranging these works with the resident; however, no follow up arrangements or contact was made. The landlord later explained it had a backlog of works which caused a delay; however, there was no communication sent to measure the resident’s expectations about timeframes or delays. It also failed to consider what mitigating actions, such as the use of a dehumidifier, it could have taken while waiting on works. Its failure to do so meant that the resident and his family were left in the property with damp and mould for longer than was necessary. He also had to expend time and trouble chasing the landlord for answers and reporting his concerns to EH.
  4. Upon receipt of the concerns forwarded by EH, the landlord’s actions improved. Given the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction, it appropriately opened a new complaint. In its stage one response, it recognised and apologised for its failings. It also explained what it was doing to improve, such as hiring additional staff. It further sought to raise the works at the earliest opportunity, being mid-June 2023. Given the resident’s concerns about the impact of the works on the living space, it also appropriately sought to arrange a decant. It further noted the need for mitigating action and appropriately arranged for a mould wash in the interim.
  5. The landlord’s management move policy notes that it may not offer a management move for instances of overcrowding or where repairs for damp and mould are needed. Therefore, it was initially reasonable for it to seek a temporary decant. However, given the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and his family, it was appropriate that the landlord went above and beyond its obligations to offer a permanent decant.
  6. The landlord’s policy also notes that it will only make one offer of a permanent decant. Following its initial offer, which the resident declined, the landlord once again went beyond its obligations to offer a further property. This demonstrates its commitment to resolving the issues for the resident. In its stage two response, it also explained that the resident could move on a temporary basis initially, then still move permanently once a suitable property became available. This was appropriate advice and helped the resident to understand all of his options. Given the time taken to find the new property, the landlord also ensured that a further mould wash occurred to alleviate the issues experienced by the resident.
  7. In its stage one response, the landlord offered £100 compensation. Given that there had been an initial failure to consider the vulnerabilities in the household, followed by three months of unreasonable delays to the works without communication, this offer was not proportionate to the impact on the resident. In its stage two response, the landlord revised its offer to £500. It also appropriately apologised, took mitigating action, and went above and beyond to find a suitable permanent decant for the resident. It also assisted with the move by allowing an overlap of the tenancies.
  8. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of compensation, along with the other steps it took, amounted to reasonable redress for the impact caused by its initial failings. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to reiterate its offer of compensation if this is yet to have been accepted.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaint regarding its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to reiterate its offer of £500 compensation if this is yet to have been accepted.