Home Group Limited (202006423)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006423

Home Group Limited

9 August 2021

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 about:

a)     Water ingress at the property;

b)     Anti-social behaviour from neighbours;

c)     Complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or aspects of a complaint, will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint relating to the resident’s reports about ASB is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 39 a confirms that a complaint should first proceed through a member landlord’s internal complaints procedure before the Ombudsman will formally investigate. In this case, there is no evidence that this aspect of the complaint has completed the landlord’s complaints process.
4. The resident included the landlord’s response to her various ASB reports within the points of dissatisfaction outlined to the Ombudsman during her initial contact with this Service. The Ombudsman’s subsequent facilitation of the complaint through the landlord’s complaints process identified that the ASB issue had previously been responded to by the landlord (8 January 2020) at stage one of its complaints process, but that the damp/mould issue had been omitted from this earlier response. As such, it was appropriate that the landlord concluded that a new complaint process be opened with respect to the damp/mould issue, but that no further consideration would take place regarding the ASB aspects of the complaint.
5. The complaint response issued to the resident in respect of the ASB issues in January 2020 signposted the resident to its complaints procedure for details about her options if she wanted to progress the complaint. There is no evidence that this occurred within the landlord’s specified timescales (8 weeks) and it was therefore in accordance with the policy for no further consideration to take place on these issues. The resident had the opportunity to progress the complaint at the time and did not do so.
6. The resident’s contact with the Ombudsman outlined her desire that a wider investigation take place, incorporating the damp/mould reports, the ASB issues, as well as other matters (further discussion of which can be found in the body of the report below). The Ombudsman’s remit is limited by the terms of the Scheme to those issues that have progressed through a landlord’s complaints process. As the complaint about ASB did not progress to the end of the complaints process, this Service does not have the authority to investigate. It is also relevant here that elements of the ASB issues have progressed down a legal process; issues that have been through formal court proceedings are outside of the Ombudsman’s remit as a court of law represents a higher authority that the Ombudsman dispute resolution process.
7. The complaint about damp/mould is within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and has been considered below.

Background and summary of events

Background

8. The resident’s tenancy agreement for the property was not available to this investigation. The landlord has provided a template agreement for its assured shorthold tenancies, which confirm the resident’s tenancy terms and conditions whilst in occupation. These tenancy terms and conditions include confirmation that the landlord is responsible for repair/maintenance of the structure/exterior of the property (in accordance with its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985). The agreement also confirms the resident’s responsibility to maintain the property in ‘good repair and condition’. The resident vacated the property in September 2020.
9. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint included a two stage complaints process, with stage one responses required within 5 working days and stage two responses required within 20 working days. In the event that a resident remained dissatisfied with a stage one response, the policy required a request for escalation within 8 weeks of the stage one response.

Summary of events

10. The resident submitted a complaint relating to ASB and the property’s heating system on 17 September 2019. On 31 October 2019, the landlord officer dealing with this complaint also noted that the resident had, on that date, informed him that ‘damp and mould’ was appearing in every room. The landlord officer then requested an inspection to assess the property condition.
11. The landlord inspected the property in relation to the damp/mould reports on 8 November 2019. Following this visit, it raised jobs to remove and replace cavity insulation and to clear a cavity wall at damp proof course (DPC) level. These notes also confirmed the landlord’s view that, whilst the above works may help reduce the moisture and mould at the property, it had also advised the resident to adjust her living habits; this included, raising the temperature on the heating system, using existing ventilation fixtures and clearing items from around radiators. Further landlord notes, provided to this investigation and recorded at the time of the 8 November visit, stated that: no evidence of rising damp was identified through the moisture readings it took, that minor external cracks had been identified and that works to renew felting to the eaves of the roof were also required.
12. The landlord’s notes confirmed that the works detailed above were booked in for completion between 15 and 27 November 2019. The landlord’s contemporaneous repair records state the following jobs were listed as ‘completed’ between these dates:

a)     21 November – renewal and testing of kitchen/bathroom extractor fans;

b)     22 November – cavity works, including making good insulation and replacing brickwork;

c)     26 November – insulation laid to loft area and along roof eaves to isolate cold spots. Felt renewed on roof;

d)     27 November – works to renew the felt repair cracks, render and a bedroom lintel, and further works to repoint roof eaves and verge tiles.

13. On 4 December 2019, the resident emailed about ongoing building works relating to her reports of damp and mould, which were causing ‘health problems within the property’. The landlord responded the following day to say that it was aware that works would be continuing ‘to repair the damp and mould in the property’.
14. The landlord sent the resident a complaint response on 8 January 2020, which concluded that it had followed the correct process in response to the ASB issues raised and signposted her to its complaints policy (which it attached) for details on how to progress the complaint. The landlord subsequently acknowledged that this complaint response had not addressed the damp/mould reports that had been raised as part of the complaint.
15. There is no evidence that the above complaint was progressed by the resident, and no information available as to any attempts she made to progress her concerns about the property condition until 17 June 2020, when her MP emailed the landlord in relation to the damp/mould reports, which were said to be continuing to cause the resident distress. The landlord’s internal consideration of this MP contact listed the findings from the inspection in November 2019 and concluded that it was ‘mainly a lifestyle issue more than anything else’. This was confirmed to the MP on 24 June 2020.
16. There was further contact from the resident to the landlord in August 2020 regarding the programme of works identified back in November 2019, which she said had not been completed. At this time, the landlord identified outstanding works to re-point airbricks at the property – though it was subsequently identified that the resident was not prepared to allow access for these works to take place. The resident also confirmed to the landlord that she had been advised by her GP to discontinue residing at the property and that she was therefore taking steps to move away.
17. The resident completed a termination of tenancy form on 15 September 2020, this listed ‘poor service’ from the landlord, a failure to complete works and address ASB as the reasons for leaving. In an accompanying letter, the resident also requested a compensation form in relation to damaged possessions and the cost of storage/removals etc.
18. The landlord emailed the resident on 17 September 2020. It said that it was aware that its maintenance team continued to liaise with the resident on the repair issues. It also said that there had been a previous stage one response sent and advised the resident to refer to that as this included her options for progressing the case. The resident was also advised to make a claim directly to its insurance team if that was her desired option.
19. The landlord’s records from 21 September 2020 confirm that it completed void works at the property on this date. It subsequently confirmed that these works did not require any works to resolve any damp issues at the property. This position is in line with the repair notes provided at the time, which include some minor works to renew a fan and some windows within the property. The landlord’s final response (below) relied upon these records, in part, in its overall conclusion that it had acted appropriately in response to the resident’s damp and mould reports.
20. The resident brought her case to the Ombudsman on 27 September 2020. Her email on that date referred to both the ASB and the property issues related to the damp/mould reports. She said that she had been advised to vacate the property by her GP, that the landlord had failed to address her ASB reports, that she had incurred significant financial losses and had been arrested following one particular incident involving a neighbour. In a further email to this Service of 29 September, she added that the landlord had ignored her contact regarding the property being unfit for habitation and the costs she had incurred in moving from it.
21. The Ombudsman wrote to both the resident and landlord on 19 October 2020. The landlord was asked to respond to the resident’s reports about damp/mould and the resident was informed that this Service’s understanding of the case was that it related to the damp/mould issue and that she awaited a response from the landlord on this issue. The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman, on 26 October 2020, that the resident had terminated her tenancy and had been directed to its insurance team if she desired to make a claim.
22. The resident emailed this Service on 3 November 2020, stating that she had serious debts and her health had declined as a result of the landlord’s actions. She referred to photos she had taken prior to her departing the property, which, in her view, demonstrated constant water ingress into the main rooms of the house, including a hole in the roof area. She also disputed the landlord’s position that lifestyle issues had resulted in the water ingress.
23. A further internal email by the landlord dated 13 November 2020, set out that it had considered its previous complaint response from January 2020 and identified that damp/mould reports had been included as part of that complaint and its failure to address these issues as part of its response represented a service failure. It referred to the Ombudsman’s email to it of 19 October and concluded that it should now raise a new stage one process for consideration under its complaints process. The email also confirmed that a separate complaint had ‘come up post termination of tenancy’, though it did not understand this to have been a live complaint at the time. It was not clear what the substance of this separate complaint was, though it is reasonable to conclude from the reference to the end of the tenancy that this related to issues relating to the date the tenancy ended and resulting charges to the resident. On the same date (13 November), the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had raised a new complaint in relation to the damp/mould reports.
24. The landlord sent its stage one response to the damp/mould complaint on 30 November 2020. It confirmed that its response related only to the damp/mould issues and acknowledged that it should not have closed the case previously on the basis that there were pending legal/insurance claims as there was no evidence of such claims. On the basis that it also should have previously provided a full response to the damp/mould reports and due to the length of time taken to progress the complaint, the landlord apologised and offered £150 compensation.
25. Specifically in relation to the damp/mould reports, the landlord said that this had first been reported on 31 October 2019, that it had inspected the property on 8 November 2019 and then carried out works identified at this inspection. The stage one response referred to the repair records listed above (21 to 27 November 2019) but also added that the felt renewal to the roof had been deemed unnecessary upon further inspection. The landlord also referred to the recommended lifestyle changes that it had made at the time of the inspection and concluded that no damp had been identified, but that a build-up of condensation was evident ‘primarily caused by living conditions’; It therefore concluded that its response at the time had been appropriate.
26. The resident responded to the stage one response on 1 December 2020. She said that the landlord had not attended the property on the date that she vacated the property so no final inspection had taken place. She refused the landlord’s offer of compensation and disputed the landlord’s version of events regarding the works carried out back in November 2019. She said that one of the fans did not get renewed at that time as it had to be ordered and that other works had not taken place (repairs to cracks, re-pointing, cavity clearance, guttering clearance, felt renewal). She also said that the lifestyle recommendations were actioned, though she disputed that the bathroom fan had been taped over at the time of the November 2019 inspection.
27. In addition, the resident said that the works programme from November 2019 did not complete, but that it had been stopped before most works had started. Air bricks had been left in place using expanding foam and the unresolved works meant that the property continued to experience water ingress up until the point of her vacation. The resident sent a further request for escalation of her complaint to the landlord on 9 December as she had not received a response. The landlord responded on the same date to confirm the request had been passed on to the complaints team.
28. The resident said, in emails dated 9 and 16 December 2020, that, in her view, her complaint was not just about the damp/mould issues, but also related to ‘the complaints regarding two anti-social neighbours which were never addressed, and the catalogue of dismissals regarding a property which was unfit for habitation’. She was also dissatisfied with the termination date of her tenancy, following receipt of an outstanding council tax bill. This latter issue was passed onto the landlord’s housing/complaints teams by the maintenance staff member, who confirmed to the resident that she was not in a position to resolve the issue. It is not known what, if any, further action was taken on this issue by the landlord.
29. An internal landlord email dated 21 December 2020 confirmed that the complaint had been escalated to stage two of its complaints process. On 22 December, it emailed the resident, confirming that its insurance team did not send out claim forms, though it required claims to be made in writing. It also said that it understood that the resident remained dissatisfied with several issues however, it was only in a position to respond to the damp/mould reports. In relation to the earlier issues (i.e. ASB), the landlord said that it would be prepared to provide the Ombudsman with any requested information on its earlier investigation.
30. The resident emailed the landlord on 23 December 2020. She said that she disagreed with the landlord’s timeline in relation to her vacation from the property. She said that she had first emailed the landlord’s legal team in relation to the works programme on 27 August 2020, had confirmed the date of vacation to it on 9 September and had then left on 16 September.
31. Internal landlord correspondence dated 12 January 2021 summarised its position in relation to the damp/mould reports. It said that no damp or mould treatment had been required during the void periods, which had only resulted in ‘minimal’ works. It also said that its records at the time demonstrated that it had responded appropriately to the initial reports, though it did recognise that re-pointing works to the air bricks had been raised in August 2020 and that it had been ‘really poor practice’ to have used expanding foam as it should have used sand and cement. However, whilst it acknowledged this failure, it did not believe that this issue would have resulted in significant water ingress, as any such ingress would have been limited to the wall cavity.
32. The resident emailed the landlord, on 14 January 2021, including photographic evidence which demonstrated, in her view, ‘incomplete work’ on the landlord’s part. This included an airbrick remaining open and allowing water ingress, plus ‘numerous dehumidifiers, trying to control the water ingress’. The resident also said that works to address cracked render and leaking guttering had never taken place.
33. The landlord confirmed, in its final response dated 21 January 2021, that it had inspected after the initial reports of damp/mould and identified that it was primarily lifestyle issues that had caused issues with mould/condensation. It said that it was satisfied with its actions following review of the available evidence and that appropriate works had been undertaken at the time; it also referred to no damp works having been required following the resident’s vacation of the property.
34. The landlord agreed however, that works to airbricks were not of sufficient standard however, for which it apologised. It understood that it had taken steps to attend the property and resolve this issue in August 2020 but had been asked to leave the property. The landlord acknowledged that this issue might have resulted in a small amount of water ingress, though it did not see this as a ‘cause for concern’.
35. Regarding the information provided by the resident, the landlord did not agree that this evidenced that the property was affected by damp. It said that the dehumidifiers would naturally fill with moisture and that the photos evidenced the condensation issues that it had identified.
36. The landlord apologised for its failure to confirm the actions it had taken in its earlier complaint response and also for its failure to make contact following Ombudsman involvement in October 2020. On this latter point, the landlord explained that, at that time, it understood that the resident was in contact with its legal and insurance teams, though it acknowledged that contact ought to have been made in any case. By way of redress for the acknowledged service failures, the landlord offered £150 in compensation.
37. The resident responded to the landlord on the same date to register her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s final response; she also confirmed that she would not be accepting its offer of compensation. The landlord responded the following day to say that the case had now completed its complaints procedure.
38. The resident also emailed this Service on 21 January 2021, expanding on her reasons for dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. She said that the landlord had not mentioned the photos provided which demonstrated ‘large holes in the roofing, the crumbling render, faulty airflow heating system and rampant mould’. She said that she refuted the landlord’s version of events, including the reasons for refusing works in August 2020, which had happened because by that point she had decided to vacate the property.
39. The resident emailed this Service on 12 March 2021. She referred to a recent invoice received from the landlord, which had no explanation for the cause, and said that she had contacted its insurance team regarding losses amounting to in excess of £2,000 for property improvements, though she still awaited a claim form.
40. On 26 April 2021, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord, the complaint was detailed as including both the resident’s reports about damp/mould, though it was also explained that any formal investigation would be limited to issues raised and responded to through the landlord’s complaints process.
41. The resident has provided confirmation that she has submitted an insurance claim with the landlord in respect of improvements made to the property, damaged possessions/property (including bedding, furniture, electricals, clothing, footwear) and costs incurred in attempting to remedy mould and damp herself. The landlord’s insurer confirmed receipt of the claim and the Ombudsman’s understanding is that this claim is currently in process.

Assessment and findings

Water ingress

42. The Ombudsman’s consideration of the resident’s reports about water ingress is limited to identifying whether or not there was a landlord service failure in respect of these reports and, if so, whether it identified a suitable remedy. It is evident that the resident has raised an insurance claim with the landlord’s insurer in relation to property/possessions that she believes were damaged by water ingress. An insurance claim is, in the circumstances described, the appropriate route for the resident to take; it is clear that she believed the landlord to have acted in a negligent manner, resulting in damaged property/possessions. The Ombudsman is, however, not in a position to determine liability in such circumstances. For the purposes of this investigation then, any consideration of redress for service failures identified will not take into account these aspects of the complaint as the Ombudsman will not make findings on something that is in the process, or has been, appropriately responded to elsewhere.
43. The landlord’s response to the resident’s initial reports about damp/mould were reasonable. It accepted its repair/maintenance responsibility and carried out an inspection eight days after these initial reports, during which it identified a requirement to complete remedial works, together with a number of lifestyle issues that might be contributing to condensation which were raised with the resident during the inspection. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to take such investigative action in response to reports about water ingress as a suitably qualified operative will be able to determine responsibility for any identified issues.
44. The landlord’s repair records state that the identified works were completed within a reasonable timeframe (by 27 November 2019). However, the resident’s subsequent reports to the landlord (and this Service) disputed this. In her view, the landlord commenced works but did not complete significant aspects of the works, leaving the property in an uninhabitable condition. In response, the landlord’s stage one and two responses confirmed that, in its view, appropriate works had been undertaken, though elements such as the felt renewal to the roof had not been deemed necessary upon further inspection; it also highlighted that no damp works were required following the resident’s vacation as evidence that the property was in a suitable condition.
45. The Ombudsman’s role is not to make a decision, based upon the balance of probabilities, about whether or not something in dispute did, or did not take place. Instead, the Ombudsman’s more limited role is to conclude whether or not a landlord has responded reasonably to any issues raised, including reliance on suitable evidence where appropriate. In this respect, the landlord has relied upon its contemporaneous records and the expert opinion of suitably qualified staff members to reach a conclusion that it had responded appropriately. As such, the Ombudsman is satisfied with the landlord’s overall conclusion that it acted appropriately in respect of its repair/maintenance obligations and that water ingress issues that resulted following these works were primarily related to condensation caused by lifestyle issues.
46. The landlord relied on the fact that no damp works were required following the resident’s vacation as evidence that the property was fit for purpose. This was a reasonable position to take as there was evidence of only limited works having taken place during the void period, with no explicit reference to damp related works, and it is reasonable to assume that, were the property to have been left with significant repair issues to the structure and exterior of the property, that this would have resulted in more substantive remedial works at this point.
47. The resident has referred to a significant volume of photographic evidence, provided to both the landlord and this Service, as evidence of incomplete works and the poor condition of the property. The landlord responded to this element of the evidence provided by the resident, confirming that, in its view, the photos provided corroborated its position that lifestyle issues were the principle cause of the water ingress issues identified. The Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to challenging this position as this Service is limited in the extent to which it can rely on photos as conclusive evidence of a landlord’s failure to deliver a service. The Ombudsman is not an expert in photographic evidence; it is not possible to determine the location or validity of any photos provided and it is usually not possible to determine to what extent they depict what they are said to depict. In addition, the Ombudsman does not have the expertise to diagnose repairs, irrespective of what evidence might be available. 
48. The landlord’s investigation of the repair issues at the property did, however, identify that it had failed to complete works to airbricks to the exterior of the property in a suitable manner. It confirmed that its use of expanding foam had been inappropriate as it should have used more robust materials, but concluded that this failure would not have had a significant impact on any water ingress into the property itself as any ingress would have been contained within the wall cavity. In the circumstances, the landlord was entitled to rely on the expert opinion of its surveyor in reaching this conclusion and, in the absence of any evidence that this specific issue resulted in the extensive water ingress that the resident complained of, the landlord’s apology is deemed to amount to a reasonable response.

Complaints handling

49. The resident’s original complaint to the landlord did not relate to the damp/mould reports as outlined in the summary of events above. This was an additional issue raised later on in the process (31 October 2019), that the landlord nonetheless identified and accepted a requirement to respond. It acknowledged, when the Ombudsman became involved nearly a year later, that it had failed to respond to this aspect of the complaint and agreed to do so through its complaints process. This was appropriate as the resident had not received the landlord’s formal response on the issue and the opening of a new complaint process provided that opportunity. Having identified this service failure, it was also reasonable that the landlord sought to provide redress through its apology and offer of compensation.
50. Having opened up this new complaint process, the landlord restricted its response to the damp/mould reports that had been received in October 2019. Whilst it was appropriate that this issue was addressed, it is evident that the resident had raised additional issues, including concerns about the termination date for the tenancy, a failure to address ASB issues and the property being unfit for habitation. The jurisdiction section (above) has confirmed why this investigation has not investigated the ASB issues here and the landlord’s notes of 13 November 2020 (also above) suggest that a separate complaint was raised by the landlord in relation to the tenancy termination issue. It is not clear however if this latter issue progressed through the landlord’s process and it would have been helpful, to both the resident and this Service, for this clarity to have been provided. Nonetheless, in the absence of any evidence of this issue having been responded to through the landlord’s complaints process, this investigation will not consider this matter further.
51. In reaching a conclusion that it was reasonable for the landlord to limit its response to the damp/mould issue, it is also relevant to note that this is what this Service requested from the landlord following the resident’s initial contact with the Ombudsman. Having raised the further complaints process, the landlord had effectively acted in accordance with the Ombudsman’s explicit direction and it would therefore not be reasonable to identify a service failure on the landlord’s part for it not having included additional issues as part of its response. However, as the resident had raised concerns about the property being unfit for habitation and as these concerns related to the damp/mould issues, it would have been helpful to the resident to ensure that its complaint response directly addressed these concerns.
52. The landlord acknowledged that it did not respond promptly to the Ombudsman’s request, in October 2019, that it provide its formal response to the complaint. It accepted that it ought to have raised a complaint, despite its understanding that legal/insurance claims might be in process. For this failure, which led to a delay in the case progressing through its complaints process, and for the earlier failure to respond to the damp/mould reports in its complaint response of January 2020, the landlord apologised and offered compensation of £150. In the Ombudsman’s view, taking into consideration the extent of the service failure and this Service’s understanding of similar cases across the social housing sector, this amount is considered both reasonable and proportionate to the detriment experienced.

Determination (decision)

53. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme , there was no maladministration with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about water ingress at the property.
54. In accordance with paragraph 39 a of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about anti-social behaviour is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
55. In accordance with paragraph 55 b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for the service failures identified with its complaints handling.

Reasons

56. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s initial reports about water ingress by inspecting, providing guidance upon identified lifestyle issues and completing identified remedial works. At the culmination of the complaints process, it identified that the property had not been affected by any damp issues upon the resident’s vacation and as such, it is reasonable to conclude that the property was fit for habitation.
57. There is no evidence of the resident having progressed the complaint about ASB to the completion of the landlord’s complaints process.
58. The landlord’s offer of compensation and apology for the service failures identified with its complaints handling offered reasonable redress for the overall delay in the progression of the case through its complaints process.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendation

59. If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the compensation offered to the resident during the complaints process.
60. The landlord to review the complaint handling issues identified and to share its findings with relevant staff within the organisation.