Longhurst Group Limited (202226519)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226519

Longhurst Group Limited

15 March 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks and the associated damp and mould.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord which began on 7 September 2020. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident resides in the property with her partner and 3 children. The landlord was aware 1 of her children was vulnerable.
On 2 November 2022 the resident reported there was a leak coming through her son’s bedroom ceiling. The landlord attended the same day and noted the roof had failed and it required a specialist roofing contractor.
On the same day the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said it failed to make the situation safe when it first attended the property.
On 3 November 2022 the landlord’s contractor attended the property and said there was an uncontainable roof leak, water was running down all the walls and the ceiling looked bowed. It carried out an inspection of the loft and said the insulation was dry, however, there were missing tiles. It said scaffolding was needed to carry out repairs.
The landlord’s records show internal emails were sent on 3 November 2022 discussing whether to decant the resident. It was noted that the resident’s son has asthma, and this needed to be taken into consideration. On the same day the landlord told the resident it would not decant her as the repairs could be completed whilst she was living there.
The resident chased an update about the roof repairs on 4 and 7 November 2022 and she asked for dehumidifiers. She told the landlord that her children were getting ill with chest infections.
On 10 November 2022 the landlord attempted to contact the resident but she did not answer. It left her a voicemail stating it wanted to discuss the start date for the roof works.
The resident chased the landlord for dehumidifiers on 10 and 21 November 2022. The landlord contacted the resident on 23 November 2022 to discuss the outstanding repairs. The resident said the plaster on the walls and ceilings had cracked and there was damp and mould in the property.
On 23 November 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It said it would provide an outcome call and letter within 20 working days.
On 1 December 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and said it was trying to get a roofer out as an emergency.
The roof repairs were completed on 14 December 2022.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on 17 and 19 January 2024.
On 19 January 2024 the landlord’s surveyor attended the property. It reported the front bedroom ceiling needed stain block applying due to black mould. The landlord contacted the surveyor on 27 January 2023 and asked them if it needed to make a referral to a damp specialist.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 1 February 2023 as the landlord had failed to respond to her complaint within its agreed timescales. She said there was on-going damp and mould, the landlord had not kept her updated about the damp specialist and not provided dehumidifiers. She was unable to put her son’s bedroom back to the way it was as it needed replastering and redecorating.
The landlord responded the next day stating the surveyor’s report said that the mould needed treating and stain blocking, but it did not mention a damp specialist was needed. The landlord asked if the resident wanted it to get a new damp and mould survey.
On 8 February 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said its investigation found that although it responded to the roof leak the same day and completed the roof repair, it failed to provide dehumidifiers and had not arranged for the damp to be treated as quickly as it would have liked. It also recognised that it did not reply to the complaint within the time scales required. It said it had offered to carry out another survey of the damp and mould and contact a damp specialist, however, as the resident asked to escalate to stage 2 it will close the complaint.
On 10 February 2023 the resident asked again to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said there was a delay in the landlord resolving the leak, it did not provide dehumidifiers and when she got her own dehumidifiers it did not provide help towards the cost of running them. The landlord did not arrange for a damp specialist even though it told her several times it would. She asked the landlord to replaster the ceilings in all the rooms, pay for the damage to the decoration of the property, and arrange for a damp specialist as soon as possible.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 23 February 2023. It said it would issue a response within 20 working days.
Between 27 February 2023 and 9 March 2023 the landlord contacted the resident several times and discussed what compensation and outcome the resident wanted from her complaint.
On 13 March 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. It could not locate any reports of leaks or damp and mould prior to 2 November 2022 so its investigation will consider events after this date.
2. The resident could approach her home contents insurer regarding any damage to the carpets or contents in the affected bedroom. The insurer may contact the landlord if it feels there was liability.
3. Although its initial attendance to the roof leak was within its target timescales, the final repair took longer than this. It had raised this with its contractor to ensure its service is improved and repairs are addressed within its target timescales.
4. The resident said she had treated the mould herself and a referral to a damp specialist was no longer needed.
5. It’s stage 1 complaint was closed over its target timescale, and the outcome letter was not to the standard it would expect. It apologised and said it had increased the size of the complaint team to deal with these issues.
6. It would offer £732.51 compensation which was broken down as:
  1. £80 to cover the cost of the resident buying dehumidifiers.
  2. £180 towards the cost of running 2 dehumidifiers for 2 weeks.
  3. £50 for the delays in carrying out the roof and associated repairs.
  4. £100 towards the cost of the resident paying for her own remedial mould treatment and redecoration of the affected bedroom.
  5. £50 for its complaint handling failures.
  6. £200 for the inconvenience and distress.
  7. £25 for its late stage 2 acknowledgement.
  8. £47.51 for the loss of the bedroom which is 10% of the rent from 2 November 2022 to 14 December 2022.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaints procedure

On 7 June 2023 the resident reported on-going damp and mould in the front bedroom and bathroom.
The landlord carried out an inspection on 24 July 2023 and raised works to treat and repair the ceilings and walls.
In September 2023 the landlord fitted new loft insulation, carried out a mould wash, and repainted the bedroom.
From 3 to 13 October 2023 the resident asked to make a further complaint as the landlord had not carried out the damp and mould treatment from her previous complaint. She was using dehumidifiers 24 hours a day, the windows were wet, their clothes smelled of damp and they had thrown belongings away. The health visitor advised her that her newborn baby should not be living in the property.
On 23 October 2023 a roofing specialist inspected the roof and said the company that fitted the new roof did not insulate the eaves which had caused damp and condensation and there were no air vents which was against regulations.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This Service recognises that the situation has caused the resident significant distress as she experienced leaks and damp and mould in the property over a prolonged period. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the living conditions had on the health of her and her family. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issues or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. Equally, we do not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the roof and the plaster on the walls and ceilings.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord was required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs within 4 hours and make safe. The policy states emergency repairs are defects or faults which put the health, safety, or security of a resident at immediate risk or causes harm to the structure of the property. This includes rain penetration through the roof. Its target response time for urgent repairs is 7 calendar days, and routine repairs within 28 calendar days. The policy states condensation, damp, and mould will be dealt with as a routine repair.
The landlord’s safeguarding policy states it will ensure risk assessments and management procedures are in place to ensure predictable risk is mitigated within an ethos of positive risk taking.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It states it will acknowledge a complaint and contact the resident within 5 working days of a complaint being made. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation procedure states it will pay a one-off payment of £10 for the first day after its target timescale to complete a repair. It will then pay £2 per day while the repair continues to be outstanding (up to a maximum of £50). For service failure it will award compensation in line with the Ombudsman remedy guidance. The policy states it will pay 10% of the rent for the loss of a bedroom for a 2-bed property. It also states it will pay towards the cost of running a dehumidifier at £12.24 per day.

The landlord’s handing of the resident’s reports of leaks and the associated damp and mould

The resident first reported a leak on 2 November 2022. The landlord acted appropriately by attending the property within its target timescale. It was reasonable for the landlord to instruct a roofing contractor to investigate the cause of the leak and rely on its recommendation that scaffolding was needed before any temporary or permanent repairs could be carried out.
The repairs to the roof were carried out on 14 December 2022, this was 30 working days after the resident’s initial reports. This was outside the landlord’s target timescales; however, this Service recognises that delays may be unavoidable when scaffolding needs to be erected to investigate and complete repairs. The landlord was responsible for updating the resident, setting expectations of when visits will take place, and notifying the resident if delays were expected. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to do this, which led to the resident chasing updates.
There was evidence of poor communication from the landlord throughout this investigation. The lack of communication from the landlord left the resident in a position where she did not know if or when the leaks or the damp and mould was going to be resolved. This led her to reporting the same issues several times and repeatedly chasing updates. This caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
From January 2023 the resident repeatedly reported on-going damp and mould issues in the property. In February 2023 the landlord asked the resident if she would like a new survey of the damp and mould, there is no evidence this was carried out until July 2023, 5 months later. It was reasonable to expect the landlord to draw from its previous records to ensure it had a holistic view of previous investigations and works. Instead, when the resident told the landlord the damp and mould had returned it opted to default to works that it had carried out before. This is not proactive, or resolution focused. The landlord acted unreasonably by failing to ensure they understood the root cause of the leaks which led to the resident and her family living with damp and mould for a significant period.
Once a landlord has completed repairs it must take action to monitor the effectiveness of those repairs. It was unreasonable for the landlord to put the onus on the resident to request a further survey to assess the effectiveness of the repairs and to see if any further measures were needed. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said the resident had completed her own damp and mould treatment and no longer needed a damp specialist. This Service would have expected to see the landlord monitor and carry out checks to ensure the damp and mould issues had been resolved. The landlord failed to take a proactive approach to the repairs and damp and mould. Conducting follow up checks can help landlords to quickly identify when matters have not been resolved without residents having to report the same issues again.
Landlords should maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The landlord failed to maintain adequate records, which caused delays in works being carried out and impacted this Service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation. For example, the landlord did not provide clear repair logs and records of internal communication, therefore it was unclear when works were carried out or what advice its surveyors and contractors gave. These failures in knowledge and information management caused delays and frustration, distress, and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities within the resident’s household. There was no evidence it communicated with the resident about any risks or carried out a risk assessment. The resident told the landlord the damp and mould was causing her family health issues. No evidence was seen that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns showing a lack of empathy towards the resident. This Service would have expected to see the landlord assess the level of risk at these clear escalations and evidence it had considered all options available to it to support the resident though this time. No evidence was seen that the landlord was proactive in its response, or that it made any attempt to mitigate the worry that the resident had in this regard. The landlord failed to meet its agreed service level agreement and communicate effectively with the resident.
If a landlord knows there is going to be a delay with a repair it must make an assessment of risk, looking at what impact the delay will have on the resident. A landlord must consider loss of amenity and what interim measures could be considered and put in place. This could include dehumidifiers, support from local services, or a decant. Interim measures may not always be possible, but a landlord must show they have explored all options and explain to the resident why such measures are not being put in place. The resident repeatedly asked for dehumidifiers and alternative accommodation due to concerns for her children’s health. Although the landlord’s records state that a decant was refused, it failed to fully evidence that it considered the vulnerabilities of the household and the level of risk they were exposed to. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord recognised it had forgotten to provide dehumidifiers. The landlord acted unreasonably by leaving the resident and her household living with leaks, and damp and mould, for a significant amount of time without any interim measures or appropriate support.
A landlord who has an obligation to repair should also rectify damage to decorations as a result of the repair work. This includes damage that occurred because the landlord failed to carry out repairs, and damage caused by the repair work itself. The landlord acknowledged it had failed to carry out the roof repairs within its target timescale, however, it did not consider whether it had an obligation to rectify damage to the decoration of the property and left the resident to manage this herself. This was a failing that caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
There is evidence of a lack of learning from the landlord. Post the internal complaints procedure the landlord’s records show continuing poor communication. It carried out further mould wash and treatments without investigating the cause of the on-going damp and mould. The landlord did not instruct a roofing specialist to investigate the cause of the damp and mould until October 2023, this was 9 months after the resident told the landlord that the roof repairs carried out in December 2022 had not resolved the damp and mould.
In summary the leaks and damp and mould remain an on-going issue at the date of this report. There was poor communication and record keeping. The landlord failed to carry out risk assessments and consider the vulnerabilities in the household. It also failed to carry out agreed actions as per its complaint’s responses, there was a lack of empathy to the resident’s concerns about her family’s health and it failed to put temporary measures in place or offer effective support. The landlord acknowledged the delays and poor communication and offered £657.51 compensation in its stage 2 complaint response for failings relating to the leaks and damp and mould. However, this offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation and it did not go far enough to demonstrate that it understood the detriment caused to the resident and her household.
Based on the above the Ombudsman finds severe maladministration for the landlord’s handlings of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated damp, and mould.
It is noted the landlord carried out an assessment against the Ombudsman’s damp and mould spotlight report in March 2022. An update was reported in December 2022 and then an assessment of progress in September 2023, in which it said its next step was to create a standalone damp and mould strategy. This would be a positive step to the landlord improving its response to damp and mould.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The resident submitted a complaint on 2 November 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 23 November 2022, this was outside its target timescale of 5 working days. The landlord said it would respond to the complaint within 20 working days, this is not in line with its complaint policy which states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to adhere to the response times in its own policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code).
The lack of communication from the landlord led to the resident repeatedly chasing an update about her complaint. The resident also asked to escalate her complaint before she had received the stage 1 response. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to effectively communicate with the resident and manage her expectations.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 8 February 2023, this was 60 working days after the resident made a complaint. This was a significant delay which was outside the landlord’s target response time of 10 working days.
In its stage 1 response the landlord failed to show it fully investigated the issues the resident raised in her complaint. It failed to consider its actions when it inspected the emergency repair and whether it carried out the roof repairs within a reasonable timescale. It acknowledged that it failed to provide dehumidifiers, resolve the damp and mould, and respond to the complaint within its target timescales, but it did not set out the actions it had already taken, or intended to take, to put things right. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to resolve the complaint at the earliest possible opportunity.
The resident escalated her complaint on 10February 2023. The landlord failed to acknowledge the escalation within its target timescale of 5 working days. The landlord contacted the resident several times to discuss the complaint and its offer ofcompensation. This is good practice and shows the landlord wanted to understand the complaint and what outcome the resident wanted.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 13 March 2023, which was just over its 20-working day target response time. Although the landlord recognised, apologised, and offered redress for its failings. The landlord should have been proactive and told the resident how it was going to monitor the issues to ensure they did not happen again.
In summary, landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case there were delays in the landlord acknowledging and issuing its complaint responses, it failed to fully investigate the complaint at stage 1, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations and there was a lack of communication. The landlord did acknowledge, apologise, and offered £75 in compensation for these failings. It also told the resident what changes it had made to prevent these issues happening again. It is the view of this Service that the offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation.
Based on the above the Ombudsman finds service failure for the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. The landlord should apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. The landlord must pay the resident a total of £1050 in compensation. This is in addition to the £732.51 compensation offered by the landlord in its stage 2 complaint response. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation compromises:
  1. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the leaks and associated damp and mould in the property.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident by the failures found in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Based on the survey results in October 2023 the landlord is to review the issues with the roof with its asset and tenancy management teams and provide a clear action plan with the resident to bring any works to completion. This should include but is not limited to:
  1. an assessment of risk to the resident
  2. agree any appropriate support measures with the resident
  3. assessment of habitability of the property, considering the resident’s households vulnerabilities and whether a decant is required
  4. consider financial assistance or discretionary compensation
  5. Once any necessary works are completed to the roof consider whether a referral to a damp specialist is required.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must complete a case review on the issues identified in this report and its overall failures. The landlord must provide a copy of the case review to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord considers reviewing its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers:
1. Respond to requests for repairs appropriately and progress work orders in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures.
2. Are keeping relevant records up to date and making sure information is accessible to all relevant departments.
3. Respond to formal complaints appropriately. Responses must address all issues raised by the resident. It should ensure all relevant officers do so in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
It is recommended that the landlord completes a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s knowledge and information management spotlight report and review its current policy and procedures against this.