Hyde Housing Association Limited (202009363)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009363

Hyde Housing Association Limited

8 October 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of mould growth and a pest infestation in her property;
2. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant whose tenancy began on 1 November 2010. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the second (top) floor of a three-story purpose-built block.
The resident made the landlord aware at least as early as July 2020 that she and her daughter have asthma and her daughter has mycosis (a skin condition).
The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep the structure of the property in repair, including inside walls. It requires the resident to allow access to the landlord and its contractors and to keep the property in a ‘clean’ and ‘good condition’, including responsibility for decorations.
The landlord has a responsive repairs procedure that shows it is responsible for internal wall repairs and pest control issues. It sets out categories of repairs prioritisation as follows:
1. emergency repairs to be completed within 24 hours
2. anytime repairs to be completed within 20 working days.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or, at the very least, minimising potential hazards. Under this rating system, the landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including damp and mould growth.
The landlord’s website shows it has a ‘preventing damp, mould and condensation’ process. It sets out that where residents report mould, it will ask them to take steps to minimise mould over a period of four weeks. If this is unsuccessful, it says it will conduct an inspection and carry out any repairs required.
The landlord has a pest control procedure that requires it to pre-inspect where necessary, conduct treatment according to the pest involved and block access points. It adds that the ‘best treatment to eradicate mice is by trapping and placing bait into the property’ which ‘should be checked and changed regularly’.
The landlord has a complaints policy that sets out a two-stage process with responses due within 10 working days (at stage one) and 20 working days (at stage two). It states that matters will not be considered through the complaints process where legal action is in process.
The landlord has a compensation policy that allows for it to award financial compensation where there has been ‘loss to a complainant’ but that cases of financial loss, personal injury or damage to possessions should be referred for an insurance claim. It recommends payments of £500 where there has been major impact on a resident due to delays.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s tenancy records show that the resident initially reported damp and mould in the property om 6 March 2020. The landlord recorded that it attended the property on 16 March 2020 and found mould in the bedroom window reveal corners and that a mould wash was needed.
A further report was made by the resident on 29 April 2020 when the landlord noted that she had raised health concerns due to mould affecting her daughter’s mattress and claimed that a contractor had inspected but no further action had been taken.
The landlord noted that it reviewed photographs from the resident on 6 May 2020. It recorded that it advised the resident to wash down between bathroom tiles as mould appeared to have developed due to it not being managed.
The landlord’s internal records show that a building surveyor attended on 27 May 2020 to consider reports of mould to the resident’s bedroom. It recorded that it had witnessed potential condensation and that repair orders were raised over the following four weeks to renew vents, remove kitchen units to allow pest control proofing and support a wall so a radiator could be re-hung.
The landlord recorded that the resident rang on 28 May 2020 and 5 June 2020 to chase the outcome of the inspection and request a property move.
The landlord’s contractor provided feedback on 10 June 2020 that the resident had refused access because she thought she should be decanted to another property The landlord noted contact with the resident on 11 June 2020 when she confirmed she had cancelled an appointment because she was still in the property and thought the landlord was arranging for her to be moved. A further conversation on 12 June 2020 showed that the landlord advised the resident there were no decant arrangements being made so the resident agreed that contractors could now attend.
The landlord recorded that it spoke to the resident on 17 June 2020. It noted that it informed her it could not re-house on overcrowding or medical grounds and signposted her to the local authority to make a housing application with them.
The resident’s solicitors wrote to the landlord on 26 June 2020. They advised that they had inspected the property and believed that the property conditions were prejudicial to the health of the resident and her family, mentioning damp, mould and mouse activity. It advised that the letter was notice of the resident’s intention to bring proceedings against the landlord which it would do if the ‘nuisance’ was not ‘abated’ within 21 days.
The landlord made a request on 2 July 2020 for a pest control contractor to conduct a three-part treatment and proofing work in response to the mice report.
The pest control contractor and landlord exchanged emails on 6 July 2020 – it was recorded that the resident had refused appointments for 8 July 2020 and 13 July 2020 on the grounds she was working and that she should be moved out of the property but an appointment was then agreed for 16 July 2020. However, internal landlord emails exchanged that day show that the resident refused works due to the presence of chemicals in mould wash products.
A condensation specialist inspection was completed on 10 July 2020. The report noted that:
1. there was no damp to the property
2. there was no working extraction so humid air created by washing and cooking was causing condensation
3. advice and a leaflet were given to the resident
4. new kitchen and bathroom extractor fans were recommended as well as a mould treatment.
The landlord’s pest control contractor recorded that it had conducted the first (of three) treatment(s) on 17 July 2020, having confirmed evidence of mouse activity. It noted that bait had been laid and recommended proofing works behind kitchen units.
The landlord made a note on 23 July 2020 that the resident had refused an earlier mould treatment so it had provided her solicitors with details of the products used, reiterated it would ensure the property was well ventilated and could arrange an overnight hotel stay for the household. It added that it spoke to the resident that day and she said she would provide a doctor’s letter to show the landlord should not complete mould washing while she and her daughter were at the property.
The landlord recorded a ‘no access’ pest control appointment on 27 July 2020.
The landlord completed a disrepair surveyor inspection report on 28 July 2020. This noted that:
1. there was very slight evidence of mould to the living room floor behind a sofa for which a mould wash was recommended (as well as the installation of a humidistat extractor fan to the kitchen)
2. there was slight mould growth to the bathroom (by the bath lay board and underneath the hand basin) due to condensation for which a mould wash and installation of a humidistat fan were recommended
3. there was slight mould growth to bedroom walls for which a mould wash and re-installation of a radiator (that had fallen away from the wall) were recommended
4. the landlord should engage the services of a specialist pest control contractor to eradicate mouse activity that the resident had alleged
5. the landlord had advised it had attempted mould treatment but this had been stopped because the resident had concerns about a detrimental effect on her health from the chemicals used
6. the landlord had advised that pest control operatives had attended on 20 July 2020 and planned to conduct treatment over the following three weeks
7. the mould issue was not ‘too conspicuous’, was a result of lack of ventilation and a decant for the resident was not required
8. other works such as the renewal of kitchen drawer units, re-hanging of kitchen cupboard doors and new loft insulation were recommended.
The landlord noted on 30-31 July 2020 that engineers attended on 30 July 2020 to re-fix the radiator but a builder had failed to attend as planned (and that this was rescheduled for 26 August 2020).
The landlord noted that it spoke to the resident on the telephone on 31 July 2020. It recorded that:
1. the resident said her solicitors had withdrawn their involvement (a letter was provided from them dated 23 July 2020 that showed this was due to the resident not providing property access to the landlord) but the landlord advised her it would keep the disrepair case open
2. the resident said she could not get home from work until the late afternoon which the landlord advised was not enough time for it to carry out pest proofing work
3. it told the resident that it had no medical evidence to indicate that it should not carry out mould washes to the property.
The landlord completed a tenancy support visit on 17 August 2020. It reiterated that the resident needed to bid through the local authority to secure a move and that it was willing to complete repairs. It noted that the resident said she had not seen a copy of the surveyor’s report.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 18-19 August 2020. She advised that she would refuse access on 26 August 2020 and 1 September 2020 for the mould treatment, radiator and pest proofing works.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 August 2020. It provided a copy of the July 2020 inspection report and advised that the resident needed to allow access for the works to be completed. The resident replied to the landlord the same day and advised it that she wished to close her legal claim.
The landlord’s pest control contractor recorded that it conducted the third stage of a mouse treatment on 26 August 2020. It noted that activity was ongoing and made reference to ‘housekeeping’.
The landlord’s records show that it attended the property on 3 September 2020. It noted that it conducted a mould treatment and that appointments had been offered for 15-16 September 2020 and 17-18 September 2020 to allow for the removal of kitchen units and pest proofing.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 September 2020 and said she would take legal action against it as she had not given permission for it to conduct the mould wash and this had impacted her and her daughter’s health. The landlord noted that it had ventilated the area while working and advised the resident to seek medical advice and continue to keep the property ventilated.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 September 2020, advising that it intended to complete works on 15-16 September 2020 and 6 October 2020. The resident replied the same day and said that she would refuse access.
The resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord on 16 September 2020. It said that an unauthorised mould wash had been done by the landlord to a bedroom wall but this had not resolved the issue. It asked the landlord to complete an inspection or carry out works.
The resident chased the landlord on 21 October 2020 about a boiler repair and mentioned that she had been kept awake by the noise of mice in the walls. The landlord noted the following week that it intended to attend on 30 October 2020 to re-hang a radiator to a wall.
The landlord’s pest control contractor recorded that it completed another first treatment (of three) on 10 November 2020. It noted that baits were laid under kitchen units and that they planned to revisit the following week.
The landlord obtained a further inspection report on 12 November 2020. This was carried out by an independent environmental health practitioner who advised she had been instructed by the landlord’s legal department and concluded that:
1. no mouse droppings were apparent inside or on top of kitchen units but there were many underneath units – it was recommended that all droppings be cleared away to get an understanding as to whether the mouse activity was ongoing or not
2. the landlord should lay new bait, conduct a follow-up visit and, if necessary, ‘seal the wall/floor junction properly under the service duct and adjacent wall (window wall) by removing the base units, hacking off the existing expanding foam’ and use gel, wire wool, silicone and mouse stop paste to block all gaps
3. the property was ‘not affected in any significant manner by mould at all, with only a little to the mastic sealant around the end of the bath tiles and a couple of almost invisible spots behind large piles of stored boxes and other belongings on the bedroom wall’
4. there was no evidence of damp or water penetration or that the property had caused the resident or her daughter any medical conditions
5. there was ‘no work to be completed other than possibly the removal of the existing mastic and its renewal’ and the bathroom extractor fan was found to be working despite the resident’s comments
6. in summary, it did ‘not agree that the conditions are as claimed in relation to damp and mould – further investigations are required in relation to the mouse activity claim’.
The landlord’s pest control contractor carried out second and third stage treatments for mouse activity on 17 November and 1 December 2020. It noted on the final visit that no new activity was seen and no further treatment was needed albeit it had previously recommended proofing works to the kitchen.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 December 2020. It advised that:
1. pest control treatments were complete and it had enclosed a pest control report as confirmation of this
2. it had enclosed an environmental health report to show there was no prejudice to health as a result of mould
3. it wished to complete the works recommended in the July 2020 report but would need three days of access to the property to do so and asked the resident to confirm availability
4. although it had evidence that the resident had refused access and contributed to the mice problem, it would offer £1400 as settlement of her claim, made up of £400 for delays in re-hanging a radiator and £1000 for pest treatment delays.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 9 December 2020. It asked the landlord to contact the resident about the complaint and suggested it provide a complaint response to her.
The landlord’s pest control contractor reported that the resident had refused access for a treatment on 17 December 2020 and had told them she did not wish for them to return.
The landlord advised this Service on 9 February 2021 that it would not consider the damp and pest infestation matters through the complaints process as the resident had engaged a solicitor and all repairs were being handled through the legal disrepair protocol.
The landlord’s pest control contractor recorded that it had attended the property on 19 February 2021 and found evidence of new mouse activity. It noted that new bait had been laid and that proofing works were required. It completed further reports on 10 March 2021 and 15 March 2021 to show that the second and third stages of the treatments had been completed on those days with no evidence of fresh mouse activity.
The landlord’s records show that it completed works at the property on 16-17 March 2021, including new loft insulation, taking out and re-fitting of kitchen units and pest control proofing (using wire wool, a rodent barrier and metal plates).
The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 1 April 2021. This advised that:
1. its contractors had advised it that they had completed all of the works recommended by their surveyor in July 2020, including loft insulation
2. a post-inspection would be conducted in the following few weeks to check they were satisfied with the works
3. further inspections would be undertaken to check the pest control treatment and that all access points had been filled
4. there was no significant mould in the property and any condensation mould – such as to the bathroom sealant – could be cleaned by the resident
5. a £1400 compensation settlement payment would be made against the resident’s rent arrears in ‘full and final settlement’ of her claim.
The landlord’s records show that it carried out a post-inspection on 13 April 2021 that found that:
1. there was minor condensation-related mould to window reveals in the bathroom and bedroom
2. the property was not well ventilated
3. there was no evidence of a mouse infestation but a separate pest control visit was due that day.
The landlord noted that it spoke to the resident on 14 April 2021. She reported that mice had got into the property again but that she could not take more time off work for further proofing or ventilation works.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 April 2021 – she asked for it to write off her rent arrears and said £5000 damage had been caused to her possessions.
The landlord recorded that it reviewed the case on 15 April 2021 and noted it had completed works during 16-17 March 2021 but that pest control contractors had found an alternative potential point of mice entry to the property on 13 April 2021 (partly due to a new toilet that had been installed in March 2021). It added that it had found records of pest control reports by the resident twice in 2014, twice in 2015 and once in 2018.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 April 2021. It advised that:
1. its surveyor was of the view that damaged possessions witnessed in the communal area outside of her property had deteriorated due to age rather than mould or mice
2. it would compensate the resident £4500 through a credit to her rent account and payment of any additional amount to her direct, if the resident was willing to accept this amount (presumably replacing its previous offer of £1400)
3. it would like to send a contractor to complete a mould wash and suggested it do so when the resident’s daughter was staying with her grandparent
4. its contractors would approach the resident about air vent and pest proofing works still to be done.
The resident replied to the landlord on 19 April 2021. She said the compensation offer was not enough for her to buy back her belongings and that she could evidence that mice had damaged her sofa, beds and flooring.
The landlord’s pest control contractor reported back on 17 May 2021 that it had contacted the resident that day while on the way to her property for a pre-arranged appointment but that she had said she was not available to offer access.

Assessment and findings

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.

Mould & pest infestation

The resident initially reported mould growth at her property in early March 2020 and the landlord was aware of a potential pest control problem at the property at least as early as May 2020 (albeit the landlord had already been aware of this problem in previous years). In response, the landlord took the following appropriate steps in line with its repairs and pest control procedures:
1. conducted a property inspection within 10 days of the first report followed by further inspections in late May 2020, two in July 2020 (including by a condensation specialist) and a final one (by an independent expert) in November 2020
2. diagnosed at each of these visits that there was minor mould growth that could be treated by a mould wash and completion of condensation-related works and recommended pest proofing in the kitchen plus pest treatment
3. made evidence-based decisions, based on professionally qualitied expert inspections, that the property was habitable and a decant was not necessary
4. attempted to offer reassurance to the resident during June 2020 by providing her solicitor with details of the chemical make-up of mould wash, assuring her that it would use the mould wash responsibly, offering to consider any medical evidence that she could provide about the potential impact of a mould wash and proposing to place her in overnight accommodation for one night
5. completed the mould wash in September 2020 and made attempts to carry out the other recommended works, including pest proofing, during September-October 2020 (to which the resident refused access)
6. completed three pest treatment programmes during July-August 2020, November-December 2020 and February-March 2021 (on the two most recent occasions, the final visit reports demonstrated that the mouse activity had been stopped).

These actions demonstrate that the landlord was resolution-focused and made various attempts to reduce the return of mould and remedy the pest control problem.

However, there was also service failure on the part of the landlord as it:
1. did not attempt to conduct any condensation-related works (such as the mould wash) between March-June 2020
2. delayed between August 2020-November 2020 in continuing pest control treatment despite being aware that mouse activity was ongoing
3. failed to progress works such as renewing vents, pest proofing, re-hanging a radiator and insulating the loft between July-August 2020 and November 2020-February 2021.

This meant that the landlord acted outside of its 20-working day timescale for ‘anytime’ repairs in its repairs procedure, did not in accordance with its HHSRS responsibilities on mould and failed to block access points as its pest control procedures required. It was aware of mould growth in several rooms from March 2020 and pest activity from at least May 2020 but contributed to delays in completing related works up to March 2021 – this was inappropriate.

It is of concern that the landlord failed to arrange for the proposed ventilation works to be completed when it had access to the resident’s property in March 2021, that it identified further potential pest access points in April 2021 and that these issues remain unresolved. Based on evidence seen by this Service, this may be partly due to the resident’s further refusal of access in April 2021 but recommendations have been made in this regard below.
The landlord has acknowledged that there was service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports and made an offer to pay the resident compensation of £4500 in April 2021. This was a significant level of compensation and in excess of what the Ombudsman recommends in its Remedies Guidance as appropriate for occasions where there has been maladministration by a landlord that has caused ‘a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both‘. The landlord did not provide a breakdown of this figure but, given the distress caused to the resident by the continuation of mould and pest control reports over a period of 12 months, the level of compensation it offered was proportionate.
In summary, although there were occasions when the landlord was unable to gain access to the resident’s property, it delayed unreasonably over a 12-month period in its handling of the resident’s concerns about mould growth and mouse activity. These will inevitably have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family. However, the steps it took to complete works to the property in March 2021 and its compensation offer in April 2021 represented reasonable redress for this service failure.

Complaint handling

The resident was represented by solicitors who wrote to the landlord in June 2020 and September 2020. The initial correspondence from the resident’s solicitor advised that the resident intended to take legal action against the landlord on the grounds of the mould and pest problems.
The landlord decided not to log a complaint for the resident between June 2020 and April 2021 despite being aware that the resident was dissatisfied with its handling of the mould and pest control issues. Although it did conduct property inspections and continued to maintain contact with the resident, the landlord did not offer any formal response to the resident until 1 April 2021 when it advised what works it had completed and reiterated a previous compensation offer. This was not in accordance with its complaints policy that says it defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction’ and that it cannot consider matters where ‘legal action is in progress’ – the resident only ever indicated that there was an intention to undertake legal proceedings and the landlord’s decision not to investigate the matter as a complaint was therefore inappropriate.
Further, the ‘Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims’ sets out that landlords and residents should consider alternative dispute resolution options such as the landlord’s own complaints process. There is no evidence that the landlord explored the potential of using the complaints process as an alternative dispute resolution option even after the resident told it that she wished to close her legal disrepair claim in August 2020 and when this Service approached it in February 2021 – this was unreasonable.
When the landlord did provide a response in April 2021 that signposted the resident to this Service, it offered a compensation payment. However, it did not include any explanation for this, apologies for any service failures it had identified, a decision on what aspects of her complaint it had upheld or comments on lessons it had learned from the outcome of the resident’s case – this was unreasonable and not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
The resident made reports at least as early as April 2020 that mould had affected her possessions and claimed in April 2021 that £5000 of damage had been caused. The landlord rejected this suggestion in April 2021, based on its observations at a site visit, but its compensation policy sets out that such claims should be referred for an insurance claim. Evidence seen by this Service indicates that the resident was not advised to make an insurance claim or signposted to make a claim against the landlord’s liability insurance – this was inappropriate.
In summary, the landlord failed to handle the resident’s concerns in line with its complaints process. Although it did conduct inspections, carry out works and offer compensation, it failed to review its handling of the resident’s concerns and advise her of its decision – this meant that the resident had no clarity on whether the landlord had upheld her complaint and the landlord lost an opportunity to learn lessons from the case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the service failures identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of mould growth and a pest infestation in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord contributed to delays over a 12-month period in completing works to the property in response to the resident’s mould and pest control reports. However, the steps it took to complete recommended works and offer a significant compensation award were appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord failed to log a complaint for the resident which meant that it did not provide a full complaint outcome to her.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to:
1. apologise for the service failures identified in this report;
2. signpost her as to how she should make a claim for damage to her possessions.
The landlord to pay compensation to the resident of £150 in recognition of the time and trouble and inconvenience caused to her by its service failure in the handling of her complaint.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £4500 that it proposed in April 2021.
The landlord to write to the resident to:
1. renew its offer to complete the ventilation works at the property that it initially proposed in July 2020
2. renew its offer to carry out the additional pest proofing it identified in April 2021 and, if necessary, conduct further pest treatment programmes in the meantime.
The landlord to review its handling of this case to:
1. ensure it has procedures in place to enable it to consider complaints through its complaints process where a resident has mentioned that they may take legal disrepair action but has not yet done so;
2. identify potential learning points in its handling of future mould and pest control reports from residents, particularly where it encounters problems in gaining access.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations to this Service within six weeks of the date of this report.