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

Housing For Women (202008719)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008719

Housing For Women

14 December 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 resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of leaks, damp and mould at the property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy of a two-bedroom, upper floor flat where she lives with her two young children. The tenancy commenced on 27 February 2012.
  2. Prior to the current complaint the resident raised a complaint in February 2019 regarding mould in the kitchen and bathroom and a leaking pipe in the toilet. This complaint was closed on 9 July 2019 following a mould wash and a quote request for cost of replacing the windows in the bathroom and kitchen. The windows were not replaced nor has any evidence been provided to show that they were added to any schedule of replacement.
  3. On 9 October 2020, a crack appeared in the kitchen that ran across the length of the ceiling and water was leaking from the flat above. The kitchen light stopped working as a result. The resident reported the leak and two weeks later an electrician attended and fixed the light. The resident stated that she was advised that a plumber was needed urgently to remedy the pipe issue. The landlord’s records show that it raised an order to clean the mould in the bathroom and make safe the kitchen light on 21 October 2020.
  4. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 11 November 2020. She stated she had made several attempts to contact the landlord to arrange repairs. Her email refers to her home as ‘mould infested.’  The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 13 November 2020 asking it to respond to resident’s complaint within 15 days.
  5. The landlord’s records show that the complaint was closed on 19 November 2020 with follow on works ordered. It is not known what these works were and there is no record of any formal response to the complaint.
  6. By 16 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord again. She stated that the flat was full of damp and mould, that this was affecting her children’s health and referred again to the leak and crack in the ceiling and the lack of action taken by the landlord. She provided copies of letters from her GP which confirmed that the children were suffering from wheezing, itchy red eyes and needed to use their inhaler more frequently. The GP asked that the landlord address the mould issues at the property.
  7. The landlord’s chronology for the panel states that on 16 December 2020 orders were raised to install a new bath, complete a mould wash, regrout the tiles and to make good and fix the leaking toilet. It is not known if this was the leak reported in February 2019 or whether there was a new leak around the toilet. The work is marked as complete in January 2021 on the repair records.
  8. A job was also raised to overhaul the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom which was marked as complete on February 21 on the repair records. The chronology records that all works to remedy the leak and mould were completed by 7 January 2021, although further entries in March 2021 also state that this was the date when all works were complete.
  9. According to the chronology in April a surveyor raised concerns about possible overcrowding and emailed the landlord asking for support to be given to the resident regarding dealing with condensation and mould. This raises questions as to whether all the works had been completed to a satisfactory level as clearly the landlord’s own evidence suggests that the problem continued.
  10. Due to the difficulties in gaining a response from her landlord the resident contacted her MP for assistance. Her MP chased the landlord for a response to the issue on the following dates: 29 April, 11 May, 28 May, 08 June, 08 July, 09 August, and 10 September 2021. There is no evidence of any response.
  11. The resident contacted the Ombudsman again in October 2021, complaining about black mould in every room. She stated that the only action taken by the landlord had been to clean the mould from radiators and paint over the mould twice in a ten-year period. She confirmed that the mould simply grew back 3-weeks after the repainting. She described the health issues that the family were experiencing and the water pooling in the bathroom.
  12. On 20 October 2021, the property was inspected by the local council who wrote to the landlord advising that there were hazards at the property that required repair and/or improvement. The letter informed the landlord that works should commence within 14 days and be completed within 4 weeks. The following works were listed:
    1. Undertake a damp assessment report and provide a copy to the council.
    2. Treat according to the recommendations set out in damp assessment report
    3. Install a thermostat at the property
    4. Check all extractor fans are working to peak efficiency
    5. Clean and remove mould spoors and monitor to see if return
  13. There is no evidence that this work was undertaken within the timescales requested.
  14. The complaint was finally responded to on 13 December 2021. By this point the property had been inspected and a schedule of works identified. The initial complaint response offered to paint area of the kitchen ceiling affected by the leak as a good will gesture and asked for the resident to make an appointment for further assessment of the windows. No mention was made of the works recommended by the local council. The complaint was not upheld.
  15. The matter was considered by a panel in January and a final decision was sent to the resident on 17 January 2022. The panel identified the works it would undertake. These reflected the recommendations of the local council but included the use of a humidifier which the landlord would contribute towards the cost of use until the windows were replaced. This would then be gifted to the resident. The landlord also offered the works to be undertaken during the school holidays and to contribute towards a short trip away for the family, or a hotel stay. Alternatively it would look at ways to work around the family should they prefer to stay at the property.  It explained that the family had been added to the transfer list, but that given the small size of the association it was likely to be a significant period before a suitable property became available.
  16. The landlord recognised that the resident had experienced ongoing issues with condensation and mould in her home and that she had received conflicting information regarding her options for temporary re-housing. She was initially told that she would be decanted for a few months whilst works were undertaken (windows replaced) but this changed to an offer of a temporary decant over Christmas to provide momentary respite with a further decant later. It offered compensation of £1,000 to redress these failings.

Assessment and findings

  1. The tenancy agreement with the resident confirms the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property, including the external and internal walls, floors, and ceilings. The landlord is also responsible for the installations at the property, including those in the bathroom and kitchen.
  2. The landlord must also ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard.  This was updated in 2006 to take account of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which lists damp and mould as a potential hazard.  According to the Standard, for a home to be considered ‘decent’ it must:
    1. Meet the current statutory minimum standard for housing
    2. Be in a reasonable state of repair
    3. Have reasonably modern facilities and services, and
    4. Provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.
  3. There is no doubt that the resident and her family were living in damp and wet conditions for a considerable amount of time. In addition, the resident has had to spent considerable time and trouble to get her complaint heard.
  4. The landlord failed to make any formal response to the complaint raised in 2019, or when it closed the more recent complaint in November 2020. This was a failure to comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.  As a result the landlord missed the opportunity to put a plan in place to deal with the problems at the property. This resulted in further deterioration in conditions for the family, and by 2022 the damp problems were causing problems for the flat underneath. Had the landlord acted earlier, this and the problems experienced by the resident, may have been avoided.
  5. When the landlord did finally issue a response to the complaint on 13 December 2021 it offered to provide re-painting to the area in the kitchen affected by the leak as a good will gesture. The landlord’s repairing obligation under s11 Landlord & Tenant Act includes making good damage to decorations caused by disrepair, and to clear up afterwards (Bradley v Chorley (1985)). Such work must be of a good standard with good quality materials. (Vukelic v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC [2003] EWHC 188, LAG Nov 03). The offer of this work as a goodwill gesture was not appropriate. It was work that the landlord was legally obliged to complete.
  6. Following the complaint in 2020 there is evidence that the landlord was taking some action. However, the efficiency of its action is questionable: 
    1. windows were identified as in need of replacement as early as May 2019, but no action was taken to add these to a schedule for replacement until 2022. This left the resident with windows that were rotting and in one room a window fell off.
    2. Extractor fans were renewed in February 2021 but by January 2022 these were found to be ineffective by the damp specialist.
    3. The bath was replaced in January 2021, but the damp specialist found issues with waterproofing to the seal and tiling in January 2022.
    4. The flooring throughout the bathroom and kitchen was found to be wet yet there is no evidence that this was identified as a problem by the landlord despite the number of leaks reported by the resident.
  7. It is also of concern that the landlord only took proactive steps following the involvement of the local council.  There is no evidence of any detailed response to the resident’s MP during the seven months chasing letters were sent. Similarly, there is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging or responding to the health concerns raised by the family, until the stage 2 panel hearing. It is also noted that the action taken to adhere to the recommendations of the local council was not within the requested timeframe.
  8. The landlord has acknowledged that the resident experienced ongoing issues with condensation and mould in the property and that conflicting information was given to her regarding her options for moving out whilst works were undertaken. It offered £1000 compensation by way of redress.
  9. This offer goes someway to providing redress to the resident, but it fails to fully recognise the number of missed opportunities for the landlord to put things right, its poor communication and complaint handling throughout and the detrimental impact of the living conditions for the family. Damp and mould were reported from May 2019 onwards, with proactive action only commencing in January 2022. The resident was entitled to expect the problems to have been actioned within 6 months and a plan put in place to resolve the problem. In this case it took 2 years 8 months for the landlord to take proactive steps to resolve. The resident remained liable for full rent throughout, despite the conditions in the flat. Of the five rooms in the property, two were wet and damp (kitchen and bathroom) with mould on the windows and belongings in the bedrooms. The Ombudsman is not satisfied that the offer of redress fully resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  10. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides that it will order the sum of £100 to £600 for situations where the landlord “has acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and/or the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.” As this report has identified that the total amount offered by the landlord did not adequately consider all its failings this case, a further amount in compensation has been ordered in recognition of the finding of maladministration by the landlord.

 

Determination (decision)

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

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s offer of redress does not fully recognise the number of missed opportunities for the landlord to put things right, its poor communication and complaint handling, and the detrimental impact of the resident. There is also no evidence of any plan to proactively monitor and prevent the problems from reoccurring for the resident or her neighbours.

Orders

  1. That the landlord pays an additional £1,300 compensation to the resident. This will bring the total compensation payable to £2,300 (including the £1,000 offered by the panel) which comprises:
    1. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its missed opportunities to put things right.
    2. £200 for communication failures.
    3. £300 for delays in complaint handling.
  2. That the landlord undertakes an inspection of the property and confirms to the resident and this Service that all works approved by the complaints panel are completed, or provide a schedule of works that remain outstanding and a timetable for completion.
  3. That the landlord issues the resident a written apology for its failures in this case.
  4. The landlord should confirm its compliance with the orders in this case to this Service within four calendar weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. That the landlord reviews its current approach to damp and mould, including its approach to diagnosing; actions to remedy; effective communications and aftercare, including monitoring.
  2. That the landlord’s next stock survey includes assessing and identifying any damp and mould issues at each property and that this information is then used to formulate a strategy and programme for dealing with damp and mould