Freebridge Community Housing Limited (202109575)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109575

Freebridge Community Housing Limited

26 May 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured resident of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 18 February 2008. The property is a two bedroom bungalow, adapted for wheelchair use.
3. Evidence provided by the landlord confirms that it was aware that the resident uses a wheelchair and crutches to get about and has caring responsibilities for an aging father with dementia who lives some distance away. The resident has advised this service that his father was diagnosed with dementia in 2020.
4. In an email to the landlord dated 28 July 2021, the resident stated that he had been complaining about the damp issues in his property since November 2019. There is no correspondence on the case file relating to complaints in 2019.

2020

5. On 19 March 2020, the landlord raised a job to inspect and make good the Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) unit in the resident’s property. These units reduce or eliminate surface condensation. The job was set a target date of 16 April 2020. The appointment was booked and works completed on 9 November 2020. The job ticket noted that the PIV unit was unrepairable and a new unit was required. The installation of the new PIV unit was logged on 3 December 2020.
6. A job to renew the sink and to repair a leak under the bath, was logged on 30 November 2020.
7. A job to treat the mould in the property, was logged on 30 November 2020 but was then cancelled on 3 December 2020 due to a change in the contractor.
8. On 29 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to complain about, what he described as, his ‘‘appalling living conditions’’ and the ‘‘poor almost non-existent help’’. The resident said that he had to mop the kitchen floor every morning whilst holding onto his crutches, that he was on medication to help with the fluid that had built up on his chest and throat, and that the damp was causing him more back issues on top of the disability issues he already had. The resident went on to explain that:
   1. The damp issue started in the kitchen during winter 2019 and after many calls the landlord sent a surveyor out to look at the damp, which had made the hallway carpet sodden and had caused water to build up on the floor tiles in the kitchen. He was told that it was due to the floor being moped, which the resident said he disputed saying that not that amount of water was used to clean the floor.
   2. Having followed the surveyor’s advice about opening his windows and turning his heating up, the surveyor believing it to be a condensation issue, his heating costs were now £180/190 a month.
   3. It wasn’t long before he had to call the landlord again about the damp and at the same time the PIV unit had stopped working, which he reported. The PIV was inspected and the electrician had said that a new unit would be required, but he had heard nothing since.
   4. Following multiple contact with the landlord about the damp, another surveyor visited his property and advised that the areas of damp would need to be hacked off, treated with mould inhibitor and replastered. The resident noted that the surveyor said that they would find out about the replacement PIV unit but eight weeks later he had heard nothing.
   5. He had mentioned to the landlord that his father was going to come and stay with him for Christmas but this had to be cancelled because he could not expect his 85 year old father to stay for two weeks in those conditions.
   6. He had never been offered a dehumidifier to at least reduce the damp in the rooms and not once had a damp reading been taken.

2021

9. On 5 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord again, following he said a discussion with the landlord earlier that day. The resident said that a contractor had taken damp readings of the walls in the hallway, bedroom, in the corners of the lounge and front bedroom which were at 43% in all these areas. The resident said that a normal read would be 4%. The resident sent the landlord a number of photos of the areas affected and said that a leak had been suggested. The resident suggested that a visit to the property would show the landlord how desperate he was and asked that the landlord move him to the empty bungalow next door while the required works were carried out. (PDF 91)
10. A job to re-route the pipe work was logged on 6 January 2021 and completed the following day.
11. Jobs to renew the sink, to repair a leak under the bath and to install the new PIV unit were completed on 14 January 2021.
12. The landlord issued its stage one response on 3 February 2021. The landlord acknowledged its poor communication and failure in service and said that it was working on improving its communication with customers. The landlord said that:
    1. It had identified significant delays in programming repairs for the resident’s property, as well as a failure to provide a timeline for those repairs to be carried out, offering its sincere apologies for this, and for any inconvenience that these delays have caused.
    2. It was committed to reviewing the working procedures within the Property Services team, implementing additional processes to ensure that those issues did not reoccur, and to improve the service provided by that team moving forward.
    3. The following actions had taken place:
       1. The pipe work had been rerouted and the leak had now stopped.
       2. A new PIV unit had been fitted and an electrical safety (EICR) report completed.
       3. A dehumidifier had been delivered and was working to draw moisture from the property.
       4. The sink had been replaced.
       5. Its roofing operative had attended to inspect the flat roof and found no signs of a leak or any damage to the roof that could be contributing to the mould in the storage area below. During their attendance, the roofing operative cleaned out all the gutters to the front and rear of the property and replaced a rubber seal above the front door
    4. A further appointment to complete the outstanding works to remove and replace the remaining kitchen floor tiles had been scheduled to take place on 26 January 2021, however, this had been postponed at the resident’s request due to a recent stay in hospital. The landlord asked the resident to let it know when he was ready for the works to take place.
    5. In recognition of its acknowledged service failures and as a contribution towards the costs of using the dehumidifiers, the landlord offered the resident a discretionary payment of £100.
13. On 28 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to say that:
    1. He was disappointed and disgusted with the amount of time the landlord had left him in his current conditions.
    2. The works were meant to be completed in March 2021 but the appointment was changed by the landlord to 29 April 2021.
    3. The landlord had apologised and offered him £100 but apart from that had just made false promises and done nothing but replace his PIV unit in January 2021, which had been reported as being broken in November 2019.
14. In an internal email on 29 April 2021, the landlord noted that it had spoken to the resident that day, and that:
    1. The works were rescheduled for March, but the resident said that he was not advised of the new appointments until he received a text on the day, but he was not available that day.
    2. Operatives had attended that day, 29 April 2021, and stripped the plaster from the walls and then said that the walls needed to dry for two weeks before new plaster could be applied.
    3. All the outstanding works had been rescheduled for 17/18/19 May 2021; the flooring would need to be reassessed as the resident had said that much more was needed that has been ordered.
    4. The resident had requested his complaint be escalated to stage two but this had not happened as it had assumed that the appointments that had been rescheduled would resolve the complaint. They confirmed that this was not the correct thing for it to have done and had apologised to the resident for this.
15. The landlord issued its stage two, and final response, on 14 May 2021. The landlord offered its sincere apologies for the initial incorrect diagnosis of the cause of the damp and the issues this had caused the resident. The landlord provided details of the remedial action that would be taking, including:
    1. That it had arranged for damp meter readings to be taken on both sides of the affected walls and the floors in the week commencing 17 May 2021, prior to any works commencing.
    2. If the damp readings had dropped to a level where the plastering and tiling could be done then, with the resident’s agreement, it would proceed with the existing appointment dates in the week commencing 17 May 2021.
    3. If the resident was not happy with this, and the damp reading were still too high, this would require further investigation by an independent surveyor to see if there were any other potential causes.
    4. If the independent surveyor highlighted other issues then it would offer the resident the opportunity to move, either temporarily or permanently, if the property required significant works and if those works would involve significant disruption to the resident. The landlord said that it had copied in its Director of Customer and Communities into its letter so that as soon as it knew whether further works were needed the resident could speak to them about what properties might be available.
    5. Should the resident decided to remain in the property or if the property had fully dried out, suggesting that the leak was the cause, its planned maintenance team would then review the kitchen and the heating system and give the resident a clear indication of when the replacement of these would likely be offered.
    6. As a when the kitchen was replaced, it would ensure that the resident’s needs as a wheelchair user would be discussed so that this was catered for in any new installation.

The landlord said that this was its second and final response and if the resident remained dissatisfied he could now refer his complaint to the Ombudsman.

16. In an internal email of 17 May 2021, the landlord said that it had spoken to the resident following receipt of its final response on 14 May 2021. The landlord noted that the resident said that he did not believe the property had dried out sufficiently to undertake the plastering and tiling works, he would not be there that day as he was still sorting out his father’s flat and that he would prefer that the landlord send an independent surveyor to assess the property and take further damp readings before the works commenced. The landlord also noted that the resident had said that he would like to take up the landlord’s offer of either temporary or permanent alternative accommodation as he did not feel the damp is likely to be sorted and he needed to move his father in with him. An internal transfer recommendation report was completed the same day.
17. There is evidence of the landlord attempting to contact the resident to make an appointment for a surveyor to attend and take meter readings between 23 July and 3 August 2021, and an appointment made on 5 August 2021. However, this appointment was cancelled as resident had to go to visit his father and so was rearranged for 9 August 2021, at which point the surveyor confirmed that the moisture levels had dropped significantly.
18. In internal emails on 11 August 2021, the landlord said that as the moisture readings had shown a significant drop it would look at appointing the remedial works, but that the surveyor should visit the property the day prior as some repairs may need to be carried out after a further drop on moisture levels.
19. On 6 September 2021, the resident confirmed to this service that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as there was still damp present within the property.
20. An appointment was made for the plastering works to be completed, pending confirmation that the moisture levels in the property had fallen sufficiently, on 15 October and 29 November 2021. However these were cancelled by the resident.
21. On 13 December 2021, the landlord wrote to this service to explain that the plastering work were outstanding as the moisture levels had not reduced enough. It had made several attempts to arrange for surveyors to monitor the damp readings, but these were cancelled by the resident. The heating upgrade had been booked and cancelled for the same reasons. The delays in the kitchen adaptions were also because it had not been able to assess the resident’s needs. It also intend to revisit the offer for compensation.

Assessment and findings

Relevant agreements, policies and procedures.

22. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house . Clause 6.1 of the tenancy agreement confirms this obligation.
23. Clause 6.3 of the tenancy agreement states that the landlord will carry out all reported repairs for which they are responsible within a reasonable time. The timescales for repairs are set out in the landlord’s Welcome handbook which states that the landlord will respond to emergency repairs (such as serious leaks from water or heating pipes) within four hours, Urgent repairs (such as leaking or faulty radiator valves) within 24 hours and Routine repairs (such as plaster work) within 28 days.
24. The landlord’s Welcome handbook suggests that, in order to reduce condensation, resident’s ventilate their home by, for example, opening window to allow air to circulate and to try and ensure their home is kept warm.
25. The landlord’s Welcome handbook and Clause 10.1 of the tenancy agreement state that the resident must allow the landlord’s employees or contractors acting on the landlord’s behalf access, at reasonable times and subject to reasonable notice, to inspect the condition of their home or any installations or to carry out repairs or other works to their home or adjoining property.
26. The landlord’s Allocations and Lettings Policy states that in the event that it is necessary to carry out improvements or repairs, including in respect of structural defects, or adaptation works to a property that cannot be safely completed with the tenant in occupation, it will make available stock to offer as a temporary relocation.
27. The landlord’s compensation policy states that there may be times when it is appropriate to offer compensation to residents, such as when the landlord failed to provide the proper level of service; it made a mistake that took a long time to put right or because it needed to do something that would cause inconvenience or discomfort.

Assessment

28. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
29. Following the resident’s initial report of damp in his property in November 2019, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for his property to be inspected. The landlord has not provided details of the initial inspection by the surveyor.
30. Having not had sight of the inspection records it has not been possible to review the reasons given by the initial surveyor for their conclusion that the resident’s sodden hallway carpet and the build-up of water on his kitchen floor tiles were due to condensation and mopping of the kitchen floor. If that had indeed been the case, it was reasonable for the surveyor to advise the resident of this and to advise him to open his windows and turn his heating up as this would have been in accordance with the advice given in the landlord’s Welcome handbook. However, given that the resident had raised concerns about the surveyor’s conclusions, stating that he did not use that amount of water to mop the floor, it would have been reasonable to expect the surveyor to consider whether there may have been other reasons for this. There is no evidence that they did so.
31. The next report on record is the landlord raising a job to make good the PIV unit on 19 March 2020. The appointment was not booked until 9 November 2020 at which point it was unidentified that the unit would need to be replaced. Even taking into account the disruption caused by the Covid pandemic, eight months is a long time for the resident to have to wait for the PIV unit to be inspected, especially given the landlord would have been aware of the resident’s previous reports of damp in his property.
32. Following what the resident described in his complaint of 29 December 2020 as ‘‘multiple contact with the landlord’’, the landlord sent another surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. Again there is no evidence of the exact date the inspection occurred and the landlord has not provided a copy of the surveyor’s report, however, the resident said that on this occasion the surveyor advised that the areas of damp would need to be hacked off, treated with mould inhibitor and replastered.
33. At this point, over twelve months had passed since the resident’s initial report.
34. Following the surveyor’s visit three jobs were raised on 30 November 2020, to renew the sink, repair a leak under the bath and to treat the mould in the property. However, there were then further delays in completing these repairs, none of which were completed in accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s Welcome handbook.
    1. The renewal of the sink and repair to the leak under the bath were completed on 14 January 2021, 33 working days later.
    2. The job to treat the mould was cancelled on 3 December 2020, due to a change of contractor. There is no evidence that this job was re-allocated to a new contractor.
35. In addition to the delays in completing the repairs raised on 30 November 2020, the job to replace the PIV unit raised on 3 December 2020 was not completed until 14 January 2021, 30 working days later, and there is no evidence of any jobs being raised at that time to hack off the areas of damp or to replaster.
36. By January 2021, a contractor had taken damp readings damp readings of the walls in the hallway, bedroom, in the corners of the lounge and front bedroom which were significantly higher than normal. This was referred to in the resident’s communication with the landlord, the landlord has not provided any evidence of this, although it is noted that this was not disputed by the landlord. A job to re-route the pipe work was then logged on 6 January 2021 and completed the following day.
37. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that there had been significant delays in it carrying out the repairs to the residents property, for which it apologised. In recognition of its service failures the landlord also offered the resident £100 compensation towards the cost of the dehumidifiers. The landlord also said that it was seeking to learn from its failures and to improve its service going forward.
38. In its stage one response, the landlord also confirmed that the re-routing of the pipe work had resolved the leak, the PIV unit and sink had been replaced and that a dehumidifier had been delivered, which it said was working to draw moisture from the property, and that the roof had been inspected and no damage found that contributed to the mould. It is noted that at this point the landlord did not acknowledge its failure to correctly identify the cause of the damp in the first instance and the unnecessary delay to the resident as a result.
39. The landlord did however confirm that a further appointment had been made to complete the outstanding works on 26 January 2021, at which point approximately two months had passed since the resident first reported the damp. However, this appointment had been postponed at the resident’s request due to a recent stay in hospital and the resident was asked to let the landlord know when he was ready for the works to commence.
40. Whilst it is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for an extended period, it was appropriate for the landlord to take the resident’s wishes into consideration and therefore to postpone the works.
41. Evidence of the resident contacting the landlord to ask that the works progress has not been seen by this service, however, the appointment was rescheduled for March 2021 but then cancelled. The resident and landlord have differing explanation for why this appointment was cancelled. The resident saying that the appointment was changed by the landlord, and the landlord saying that the resident had said that he had not been advised of the appointment, had received a text on the day but was not available. Where there are disputed facts, this service relies on evidence to make a determination, however, in this case, no evidence has been provided by either party to support their position.
42. Whilst it is not possible to definitively establish why the appointment in March 2021 did not go ahead, it is clear that the landlord followed up with the resident to rearrange a further appointment for 29 April 2021, at which point the operatives stripped the plaster from the wall and then left saying that the walls needed to dry for two weeks before new plaster could be applied. The landlord then made further appointments with the resident for the outstanding works to be completed between 17 and 19 May 2021, approximately two weeks after the plaster had been removed and as per the advice of the operates who had removed the plaster.
43. Prior to these works going ahead, the landlord issued its final response on 14 May 2021, and at this point appropriately acknowledged and apologised to the resident for the initial incorrect diagnosis of the cause of the damp. The landlord also provided the resident with a detailed explanation of what steps it was going to take with regards to assessing the level of damp and, depending on the outcome of the damp readings, what work would be carried out and when, including potentially engaging an independent surveyor to see if there were any other potential causes.
44. In its final response, the landlord also raised the possibility of moving the resident out of the property (decanting) to suitable accommodation, either on a temporary or permanent basis if, following an independent inspection there was a significant increase in the works required. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities this was a reasonable position for the landlord to take. It is noted that an internal transfer recommendation report was completed three days after the landlord’s final response.
45. Once the cause had been identified, the landlord took reasonable steps to ensure that the works were progressed. At this point, the main issue with regards to completing the repairs was access. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the resident is obliged to provide the landlord with access to carry out inspections and repairs. The landlord is unable to complete repairs unless it is provided access by the resident.
46. Following the final response, the resident raised further concerns about the moisture levels and asked that a further assessment be made before the works commenced. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s request, arranging for a further reading to be taken and, following a number of attempts by the landlord to arrange an appointment, on 9 August 2021 it was confirmed that the moisture levels had dropped significantly. It is unclear whether the inspection was carried out by the independent surveyor referred to in the landlord’s final response.
47. There then seems to be a lack of clarity as to whether the moisture levels had reduced enough for the plastering works to go ahead, further issues with the resident cancelling appointments including the heating upgrade and continued delays in the kitchen adaptions. During a telephone call with this service in April 2022, the resident advised that the outstanding works had not been completed.

Conclusion

48. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
49. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its shortcomings and committed to reviewing the working procedures within the Property Services team. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take.
50. Whilst I am satisfied that £100 compensation was a reasonable amount for the landlord to offer in respect of the delays in carrying out the repairs to the PIV unit, the renewal of the sink and the repair to the leak under the bath, this amount does not reflect the significant delays in the landlord identifying the cause of the leak, the resident initially reporting the damp on November 2019 and the cause not being correctly identified until approximately one year later, nor the resident’s vulnerabilities and the increased distress and inconvenience such delays would have had on him.
51. The Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance suggests compensation in the range of £250 and £700 for considerable service failure or maladministration. Examples given for this category include a failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy, for example, to address repairs and resulting in unreasonable time, trouble and inconvenience to the resident.
52. Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including that whilst the resident’s absences from the property due to his caring responsibilities for his father are understandable, this nevertheless had been a contributory factor with regards to the delays in the outstanding works being completed, I am satisfied that the failure by the landlord was sufficient to justify a compensation payment at the upper end of this scale and as such, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an additional £300 compensation, in addition the £100 previously offered, a total of £400.
53. Further orders have also been made in order to seek to address and resolve any outstanding repairs.

Determination (decision)

54. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property.

Reasons

55. The landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for the significant delays in programming repairs for the resident’s property, as well as a failure to provide a timeline for those repairs to be carried out. The landlord also acknowledged and apologised to the resident for the initial incorrect diagnosis of the cause of the damp.
56. The landlord offered the resident £100. However, this did not provide the resident with reasonable redress for the significant and unnecessary delays, nor the increased distress and inconvenience such delays would have had on him given his vulnerabilities.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

57. That within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is to:
    1. Pay the resident the £100 offered in its stage one response, if it has not done so already, plus an additional £300 for its failures with regards to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp in his property.
    2. Provide the resident and this service with an update on its review of the working procedures within the Property Services team and what additional processes it has implemented to ensure that the failures it identified at stage one do not reoccur.
    3. Arrange to meet with the resident to discuss his concerns about the works. To provide the resident with an action plan for any outstanding works, including time frames, and details of the decant process, if this is still considered necessary.
    4. Report back to the Ombudsman evidencing the above.

Recommendation

58. That on completion of the works the landlord consider whether further compensation might be appropriate.