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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (201910352)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910352

Hyde Housing Association Limited

30 September 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. This complaint is about the redress offered by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged delays and failures whilst handling damp and mould repairs.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has raised the following concerns:

    a. the property remains unsuitable for his family on health grounds

    b. the amount of redress the landlord has offered does not account for the impact of the situation on his family’s health and wellbeing, or

    c. the damage caused to the family’s property

  2. The resident is an assured tenant and the tenancy began on 8 July 2019. The tenancy agreement describes the property as a four bedroom, six bed space, ground floor flat.
  3. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the resident is responsible for ‘small repairs’ as set out in the Residents’ Handbook.
  4. The handbook can be accessed online and sets out the following as a responsibility of the tenant:

‘Maintain and renew of internal decoration, including cleaning up condensation and mould caused by poor ventilation or insufficient heating’

The handbook shows the landlord is responsible for ‘Structural repairs to walls floors, ceiling, stairs and bannisters’.

  1. The handbook states, if a damp, mould or condensation problem is reported, the resident will be asked to follow the advice in the landlord’s ‘keeping your home free from damp and mould’ leaflet for a period of four weeks. If there is no improvement the resident should contact the landlord again, after a further discussion, to ensure the leaflet guidance has been followed. A property inspection will be carried out with a view to resolving the issue. No further timescales are provided in relation to the above.
  2. The landlord’s repair history gives a timeline of any works or maintenance completed on the property. It also includes a notepad to record any related comments. A comment from 24 November 2020 shows the landlord is aware that damp and mould issues are ‘quite common’ in the block, and that other residents have previously raised concerns about the problem.
  3. Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS.

    Local authorities do have powers to act under HHSRS, but enforcement is seen as a last resort. Typically, landlords and local authorities work together, and a programme of improvement works is usually the starting point. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.

  4. The tenancy agreement confirms the resident is responsible for ‘insurance cover for your own fixtures, fittings and contents…’.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy excludes insurance claims on the basis these are dealt by a separate insurance policy.
  6. The tenancy agreement confirms the tenant’s right to swap homes with another tenant of Hyde or of another registered social landlord or local authority. This process is referred to as mutual exchange.
  7. The landlord has a two stage formal complaints procedure, which can be found online. At stage one the landlord aims to respond to complaints within ten working days. If additional investigation time is needed the complainant will be notified and given a response date. In this event it will not take longer than a further ten working days for a response to be issued. At stage two the landlord ‘aims’ to resolve complaints within 20 working days.
  8. The resident’s family is comprised of two adults and six children. The resident takes medication for anxiety and depression, and one of the children suffers from Epilepsy. English is not the resident’s first language. The resident has told this service the condition of the flat has been a source of tension in his household.
  9. The resident has provided information which includes numerous photographs, several letters from various medical professionals, and an audio recording.
  10. The landlord has provided information which includes the tenancy agreement, its complaints and compensation policy statement, internal records which include a repair history for the property, and correspondence related to the complaint.

Summary of events

  1. On 13 October 2019 the resident notified the landlord of his concerns around damp and mould issues in his flat.
  2. On 18 December 2019 the resident was decanted to alternative accommodation whilst the landlord commenced repairs to resolve the issue.
  3. Ten months later, on 26 October 2020 the landlord contacted the resident to give notice that works to the flat were complete. Around this time the resident arranged to visit the flat prior to returning with his family. It is unclear when this visit took place but on 30 October 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint based on the quality of the repairs.
  4. On 12 November 2020 the resident and his family returned to the flat but remained unhappy with its condition.
  5. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 3 February 2021. The response shows the Resolution Officer agreed the repairs could have been completed faster. The letter references ‘persistent delays’ and shows, in total, £400 compensation was awarded to the resident based on £250 for delays in carrying out necessary repairs, £100 for distress and inconvenience and £50 for the time taken to complain, via calls and emails.

    The response also confirmed the surveyor had already raised a works order, following an inspection on 2 February 2021, to address several outstanding issues. The works order included re-plastering the external wall, installing insulated thermal boards and shaving the internal doors to improve air circulation. The surveyor had been instructed to oversee progression of the works, by completing three monthly follow up inspections from 3 May 2021 until
    3 December 2021.

  6. The resident gave a detailed reply to the stage one response on
    19 February 2021. The resident requested alternative accommodation, on either a temporary or permanent basis, and raised concerns relating to the health and wellbeing of his family. The resident also disputed the level of compensation awarded based on an itemised, and costed, list of damaged belongings for which he was seeking a total of £6790. The resident also raised objections about the appointed surveyor.
  7. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 28 May 2021. The response confirmed the landlord had changed its decision. It now concluded it had acted ‘appropriately and responsibly’ in its overall response to the complaint. The response said the resident was ‘adequately housed’ and, given the landlord ‘does not operate its own transfer list’, the resident would either need to explore the option of mutual exchange, or approach their local authority, if they still wished to move home.

    The response stated the resident’s damaged items were not covered by the landlord’s compensation policy, and that the resident would either need to notify his own insurance provider or make a legal claim for damages with the landlord’s insurance team. The response confirmed that the appointed surveyor was changed due to the resident’s objections, and the landlord’s offer of £400 compensation remained valid.

  8. On 14 June 2021 the resident advised this service that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response and confirmed the core complaint issues remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

  1. In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

    a. Be fair

b. Put things right

c. Learn from outcomes

This service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

  1. The resident is seeking alternative accommodation on the basis the condition of the property should be considered a ‘statutory nuisance’. The task of detecting statutory nuisances is usually delegated to Environmental Health Officers and, from the evidence seen by this service, there is no indication the resident’s flat has been deemed unsuitable by a party with the relevant expertise to make such a decision.
  2. It is noted that the first medical document seen by this service is dated
    23 February 2021, which is over a year since the problem was first reported. Accordingly, the resident’s medical evidence has had a limited impact on the landlord’s response to the situation.
  3. The resident is seeking additional compensation for the impact of the issue on his family’s mental and physical health. Unlike a court, this service is unable to establish a causal link between reports of health issues experienced by complainants and the actions of landlords. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about the situation given the court system has the authority to reach a decision on these matters.
  4. It is noted that the landlord’s repair history shows a history of mould and damp reports within the resident’s building. However, the evidence shows the landlord has scheduled a programme of improvement works to the property, in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, in line with the recommendations set out in the HHSRS guidance. The programme includes internal and external works and is broad in scope. It is noted there have been issues with some of the works completed, while the resident was decanted, but the evidence shows the landlord has taken reasonable steps to rectify any problems. This represents appropriate action on the part of the landlord.
  5. The period between the resident’s initial report, of mould and damp, to the landlord and the date his family were decanted was just over two months. All parties agree that several inspections took place during this time, which is supported by the evidence seen by this service. Given that necessary works needed to be identified and alternative accommodation needed to be sourced, this timescale represents a reasonable response on the part of the landlord. It is also noted that the Resident’s Handbook says the ‘keeping your home free from damp and mould’ guidance should be followed for one month before a further property inspection will be considered. This suggests the landlord is aware that mould and damp can present an issue in the building and that it took the resident’s concerns seriously by taking prompt action to try and prevent the situation from worsening.
  6. Further, a system of ongoing monitoring has also been put in place, which is due to run until December 2021. Monitoring is taking place under the supervision of a qualified professional and, the evidence suggests that, during this process, it was a professional opinion which decided a further decant was unnecessary. It is noted that the landlord granted the responsibility for supervision to a senior surveyor in response to concerns raised by the resident. These actions were appropriate measures on the part of the landlord.
  7. In April 2021 the senior surveyor confirmed the resident’s family are ‘adequately housed’, which is reflected in the landlord’s stage two response dated
    28 May 2021. This response details the options available to the resident if they wished to arrange alternative accommodation.

Amount of redress

  1. We can assess whether we think the level of compensation a landlord has awarded is appropriate given the particular circumstances of a case. This assessment has therefore considered whether the compensation offered was appropriate for the failings acknowledged by the landlord.
  2. It is acknowledged that the resident is dealing with some difficult personal circumstances and that the issues of mould and damp have not helped the situation. It is also noted that the issue has been ongoing since October 2019.
  3. That said, the evidence shows the resident was decanted to alternative accommodation between 18 December 2019 and 12 November 2020. It is reasonable to conclude that, during this time, the situation was mitigated since no records relating to similar issues at the alternative accommodation have been presented. Given the resident’s complaint broadly refers to the condition of the property, rather than the amount of time he spent in alternative accommodation, it follows that the impact, on the resident, of any delays in this period was minimal.
  4. In its offer of compensation, the landlord acknowledged the length of time taken to arrange repairs, as the stage one response refers to ‘persistent delays’. This is further evidenced by the landlord’s stage one acknowledgement letter, which states the landlord will investigate why the repair ‘took so long’. It is recognised that the landlord has considered the length of time taken to resolve the situation, along with its impact on the resident and time involved in pursuing his complaint. This approach is in line with the landlord’s own compensation policy.
  5. It is noted that the resident was dissatisfied with the delay in receiving the landlord’s stage two complaint response and it’s clear the response was issued outside the landlord’s suggested timescale. However, the evidence shows that landlord kept the resident informed with the progress of its investigation and issued updated target resolution dates accordingly.
  6. When considering this service’s internal guidance, in conjunction with the amount of compensation offered, it is noted that the landlord’s offer of compensation totalling £400 is in line with our expectations for instances where a ‘failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs…’ has taken place.
  7. In relation to the damage to the resident’s property, the tenancy agreement confirms the resident is responsible for arranging his own insurance to cover his personal contents. The landlord’s complaints policy, which sets out the details of its compensation procedure, confirms that insurance claims are excluded.
  8. Establishing grounds for negligence or culpability on the part of the landlord is likely to determine whether the resident can make a legal claim on the landlord’s insurance for the damage to his property. Whilst this is a matter for the legal system to decide, the landlord has set out how the resident can pursue this option in its stage two response.
  9. Given the above, this assessment finds that the landlord has offered an appropriate level of redress to resolve the resident’s complaint. In relation to the resident’s claim for £6790 of damaged items, it was appropriate for the landlord to direct the resident towards his own insurer, or the landlord’s insurer through its legal team. This is because the landlord’s compensation policy excludes insurance claims, such as damage to property, and the tenancy agreement shows personal contents cover is the responsibility of the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress in regard to his complaint about its handling of damp and mould repairs.  

Reasons

  1. The landlord has put things right in an appropriate manner by taking proactive steps to address the occurrence of mould and damp at the resident’s flat over time. It has acknowledged that there were delays and failures in its handling of the repairs. However, it has offered proportionate redress to put them right. The landlord acted swiftly in the first instance, arranged a schedule of works to address the problem and put in place ongoing monitoring. There is evidence it has engaged with the resident’s concerns, and it has signposted the resident towards actions that could help his situation.

    Whilst the situation will understandably have been frustrating for the resident, it can take time to resolve issues relating to mould and damp whilst different treatments are explored.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to ensure it offers appropriate advice about making insurance claims at the earliest opportunity.
  2. The landlord to contact the resident and provide an additional explanation as to why it considers the property to be safe and habitable. Include an update on the results of ongoing monitoring and confirm whether, or not, the landlord considers the repair works to have been successful. Give details of any further works that may be required to maintain the property in an appropriate condition.
  3. The landlord should confirm its intentions regarding these recommendations to this service within four weeks of the date of this report.