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

MHS Homes Ltd (202011237)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011237

MHS Homes Ltd

21 April 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 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The property is a one-bedroom flat, situated on the first floor of a building comprised of similar properties.

Summary of events

  1. On 27 September 2020, the landlord attended an out of hours, emergency appointment “due to power loss issues” in the property’s building. Its internal records confirmed that this was reported to the electricity network that attended and changed the fuses for the communal electrical board there, which then “began to smoke”. The landlord then identified a water leak coming from the resident’s property after inspecting this. It noted that it therefore isolated the shower tray from the fuse board, so that this was out of use, and raised a further work order to “reinstate tray and shower door and install aqua boards and renew flooring”.
  2. The resident subsequently emailed the landlord on 28 September 2020, to lodge a stage one formal complaint. He mentioned that, when he initially viewed the property with the lettings agent, they both identified a smell of damp in the bathroom. However, the agent advised the resident that this was due to the property being vacant for a long period of time and that it should improve with heating and ventilation. Furthermore, the resident advised that an “electrical safety test took place on 9 September 2020” and queried “why a health and safety issue like this [had] been missed”.
  3. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the above incident, as his daughter was using the shower the same day as the power issues so that he was concerned for her safety from water affecting the property’s electricity. Additionally, the resident advised that he had been admitted to hospital recently and queried the nature of the checks and works carried out during the property’s void period that was completed on 29 July 2020.
  4. On 29 September 2020, the landlord carried out an inspection at the resident’s property, determined that “the leak was not obvious” and decided “to remove all affected areas”, replace “the shower tray”, “latex the floor and fit non-slip flooring”.
  5. On 1 October 2020, the landlord recorded that its complaint investigator contacted the resident by telephone and discussed the following:
    1. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that the landlord “did not check for a leak initially”. It advised that this would not be “standard procedure” for it to do so by lifting floorboards, to which he agreed.
    2. The resident advised that both he and the lettings agent had identified a smell of damp and mould during the initial viewing of the property. It queried whether he had reported this it, to which he confirmed that he did not.
    3. The resident “raised concerns” regarding the health and safety implications of the link between the leak and electricity issues at the property.
    4. The resident advised of the impact that the damp and mould had on his health.
    5. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the loss of income incurred by the fact that he could not attend work in order to allow access to the property for remedial works to be carried out.
    6. The landlord requested for the resident to provide it with “medical evidence” and a copy of his “wage slip”, for compensation purposes to enable it to consider this.
    7. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff, who had attended the property during the above inspection, over how they had subsequently spoken to him on 1 October 2020.
    8. The landlord agreed to investigate the resident’s complaint and report back to him within ten working days.
  6. The landlord attended the property on 1, 2, 5 and 6 October 2020 to carry out remedial works and test the moisture levels in the affected areas. Furthermore, it confirmed on 6 October 2020 that, as per its internal records, the above works were completed, but that further drying was required there in order to carry out the remaining works at the property and that a communal electrical intake cupboard ceiling, light fitting and smoke detector had to be removed for this. It noted that the remaining works to the property were completed by 9 October 2020.
  7. On 22 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to request for his complaint to be escalated to the next stage of its complaints procedure on the basis that the stage one complaint response that he had recently received, which was not provided to this Service, both omitted and misinterpreted certain points that he had raised. Furthermore, in respect of the damp and mould issue at the property, he raised concerns regarding the fact that a moisture test was not carried out from the beginning of his tenancy there and that a large damp patch had not been picked up by its void works, disputing its proposed damp-proofing works as risking his health and querying outstanding bathroom extractor fan works.
  8. The resident also complained that the landlord did not confirm whether this issue had been reported before, and queried why he was asked to supply it with a GP’s letter that cost him £20, confirming the impact that the damp and mould had on his health, when it could not compensate him for this. As an outcome, he advised he was looking for reimbursement for the days that he did not attend work so that he could allow it access to the property, and for the cost incurred by obtaining the GP’s letter along with compensation for the inconvenience that he had experienced.
  9. On 3 November 2020, the landlord issued the resident with a stage two final complaint response, in which it addressed the queries raised in his stage one complaint and appeal and it:
    1. Advised that, to carry out a repair, it would need for the resident to report this; however, it apologised that it did not further explore the smell of damp and mould during the property’s void period and confirmed the steps taken to ensure that this would not happen again by asking that the lettings agent make any repair or damp and mould reports to it as a priority, as well as encouraging the resident to do so.
    2. Apologised that the resident had experienced multiple attendances by it since the original emergency call out on 27 September 2020, for which it should have instead addressed mould prior to commencing any resealing or bathroom reinstatement works.
    3. Explained the actions taken to improve its service in the areas that the resident advised were problematic by quality monitoring its out of hours calls, training staff to address situations appropriately including by addressing mould before other works, emphasising the need to listen to and take on board information provided by residents, and looking to improve its own communication and information.
    4. Confirmed that it should not have requested copies of the resident’s payslips or a GP’s letter from him, and that it had these disposed of.
    5. Advised that moisture tests were not always required when investigating reports of damp and mould, and that these were usually carried out once repair works had started.
    6. Confirmed that it had attended three separate reports of leaks in the shower area of the property since 2015, stating that it could not be certain that this was the same issue that caused the leak that the resident experienced but that it should have had a more joined up approach and identified previous reports of a similar nature by more thoroughly checking the job history.
    7. Advised that it would not be able to accommodate his request for compensation; however, in light of the information provided, it decided to reimburse the resident for the £20 cost of the GP’s letter and offered him compensation of £100 for one working day that it identified as an unnecessary delay.
    8. Requested that a post works inspection be carried out to assess whether the works completed were effective and whether a replacement bathroom extractor fan was required at the property.
  10. The landlord wrote to this Service on 5 January 2021, following an enquiry from us at the resident’s request, to confirm that all of the follow-on works for damp and mould at the property were completed, along with the post works inspection, and that no further repairs or signs of damp and mould were identified. Additionally, it confirmed that its offer of compensation of £120 was still available, should he wish to accept this, and advised that he had made a further report of damp and mould in the property on 29 December 2020, which was being investigated under its damp and mould process.
  11. The landlord’s internal records confirmed the above and showed that it attended the property again on 8 January 2021, assessed the reported affected area, measured the humidity level, and found this to be within normal levels with the area that the resident was concerned about being a dry dirty mark. It also noted on that date that it had completed works to replace the ceiling of the communal electrical intake cupboard below the property.
  12. The landlord subsequently informed this Service on 28 January 2021 that would overhaul its damp and mould process to improve transparency, resilience and customer engagement and introduce a lead assistant delivery manager to manage all works through to completion and engage with all teams throughout. It also stated that it would ensure follow up inspections on a great proportion of its completed works to ensure that these had resolved the issues raised, empower its caretakers to identify and raise repairs particularly in communal areas and improve clarity, outcomes, communication, quality monitoring and training for its complaint investigations.
  13. The resident complained to this Service, however, that he had experienced a large number of days off due to repeatedly poor workmanship by the landlord requiring duplicate visits that he sought £1,360 in lost earnings for from it. He also requested £300 each from it for the loss of washing facilities at the property for approximately two weeks and for being originally let the property when this was not up to standard and had a leak that was known to it before moved in.
  14. The resident additionally asked that the landlord confirm why a recently boxed-in rusted protective layer on the structural steel in the communal electrical intake cupboard had not been repaired, if there were meant to be live wires touching this and when follow-up works would be completed to his bathroom extractor fan.
  15. The landlord subsequently confirmed to this Service that it had previously received a photograph of an invoice for one week’s gross earnings of £956 from the resident that did not evidence his daily pay. It stated that this and his £27,000 annual earnings on his application form to it upon signing his tenancy agreement meant that it had decided to offer him £100 compensation for one day of missed work that it felt could have been avoided if it had a more joined up approach to the repair.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident has asked for further outcomes to his complaint in the form of compensation from the landlord for a reported breach of his personal data by it, for it to pay other medical expenses incurred by him, and either alternative accommodation from it on a secure tenancy or a reduction in his rent of up to 50 per cent backdated to the start of his tenancy. However, these matters are outside of the scope of this investigation to consider because the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another complaint-handling body or that concern matters where outcomes are sought that are not within our authority to provide.
  2. Complaints about breaches of personal data fall properly within the Information Commissioner’s Office’s and not this Service’s jurisdiction to consider. Moreover, it is not within our authority to provide medical expenses, accommodation or rent reductions as outcomes to complaints because we do not have the necessary expertise and legally binding authority to do so in the way that a court or tribunal might.

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for repairing the structures of its properties together with their electrical supplies, extractor fans, plumbing, showers, and leaks.

The landlord’s service standards

  1. The landlord’s website’s service standards state that a resident would not wait for “more than 10 calendar days for any standard repairs to be completed”.

The landlord’s lettings standards

  1. In its website’s lettings standards, the landlord commits to “making sure” that the property is “clean, safe, secure, and meets current health and safety legislation.” It also states that the property “will be clear of mould” and “free from leaks”.

The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure confirms that “if an investigation finds that you have been left out of pocket we’ll make sure your costs are covered, subject to evidence being provided.”

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property

  1. The landlord identified the leak coming from the resident’s property on 27 September 2020 and it was made safe on the same day. While investigating the leak, the landlord found that damp and mould had developed in the bathroom, for which the resident raised a complaint on 28 September 2020. On 29 September 2020, the landlord carried out an inspection and decided to carry out remedial works for the damp as well, replacing the shower tray and bathroom flooring, which were completed on 6 October 2020. This was in line with both the landlord’s above responsive repairs policy because it accepted responsibility for the repairs, and with its above website’s service standards because it completed the repair works within ten calendar days.
  2. The landlord also went on to do so by finding on 6 October 2020 that further drying was required at the property in order to carry out the remaining works there for damp and mould and that a communal electrical intake cupboard ceiling, light fitting and smoke detector had to be removed for this. As it noted that the remaining works were completed by 9 October 2020 and therefore within ten calendar days of its above inspection of 29 September 2020, this similarly complied with its website’s service standards’ ten-calendar-day timescale for it to carry out these works.
  3. Additionally, the landlord acted in a reasonable manner because it carried out tests to measure the moisture levels found in the affected area at the property, including on 1, 2, 5 and 6 October 2020, despite advising the resident that this would not always be the case when investigating damp and mould and that they would usually be done once repairs works had started.
  4. It is noted that the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that the landlord did not identify the leak and presence of damp and mould while the property was void until 29 July 2020, when he complained to it on 28 September and 1 October 2020. Considering that the damp and mould had developed under the bathroom flooring, the landlord acted reasonably in advising the resident that it would not be standard procedure to carry out such checks by lifting floorboards during the void period as there was no indication at the time that such intrusive checks were required.
  5. The landlord nevertheless issued a stage two final complaint response to the resident on 3 November 2020, in which it apologised for not investigating the smell of damp and mould more in depth during the void period in light of the lettings agent, as well as him, smelling this at the time. It also identified failure on its part due to a delay to the property’s repairs for a working day for which it considered that it had unnecessarily arranged works, awarded him compensation of £100 for the unnecessary delay, and explained the steps it would take to improve its service.
  6. By taking the above into account, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns because it carried out investigative and remedial works, apologised to him, and offered compensation for the failure identified. It also explained to this Service that it had calculated the compensation from a photograph of an invoice for one week’s gross earnings of £956 from him, which did not evidence his daily pay, and his £27,000 annual earnings on his application form to it upon signing his tenancy agreement. This was reasonable for the landlord to calculate in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary of the resident’s financial losses from this.
  7. This was additionally in line with the landlord’s above complaints policy and procedure that required such evidence for it to pay the resident’s out of pocket expenses. Although he has sought £1,360 in lost earnings from it due to his report that he experienced a large number of days off due to repeatedly poor workmanship requiring duplicate visits, it was not obliged to compensate him for this as it was not provided with evidence of such losses at the time. The landlord has therefore been recommended below to invite the resident to submit this to it for its consideration, together with details and any evidence of the loss of washing facilities at the property for approximately two weeks that he seeks further compensation for, as he did not provide these or request this from it at the time.
  8. Moreover, the landlord acted appropriately and in accordance with the complaints policy and procedure by agreeing on 3 November 2020 to reimburse the resident for the £20 cost of the GP’s letter that it confirmed that it should not have requested from him. It has therefore also been recommended below to re-offer him the £120 total compensation that it previously awarded him, if he has not received this already. The landlord additionally demonstrated that it took suitable learning from the outcome of the resident’s complaint by confirming that, in light of this, it would overhaul its damp and mould process, introduce a lead assistant delivery manager, increase follow up inspections of its completed works, empower its caretakers and improve its complaint investigations.
  9. It is nevertheless of concern that the resident has queried why a recently boxed-in rusted protective layer on the structural steel in the communal electrical intake cupboard had not been repaired, if there were meant to be live wires touching this and when follow-up works would be completed to his bathroom extractor fan. The landlord has therefore been recommended below to contact him to answer these queries.
  10. It is also concerning that the resident has complained that the landlord let him the property when this was not up to standard and had a leak that was known to it before moved in. This is particularly because it confirmed to him on 3 November 2020 that it had attended three leaks there since 2015, for which it acknowledged that it should have checked the job history more thoroughly, and stated that it should have explored the damp and mould smelt during the void period there by the lettings agent. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered compensating the resident for his distress and inconvenience as a result of this, which was inappropriate, and so it has been ordered to so below in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for compensation for service failure resulting in some impact on the resident, as well as recommended to review its staff’s training needs in relation to compensation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.


Reasons

  1. The landlord: investigated the report of damp and mould; carried out investigative and remedial works; addressed the resident’s concerns; offered compensation for the failure it identified that caused him to lose a working day, which was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance; offered to reimburse him for costs incurred by obtaining a GP’s letter; apologised; and advised of steps it would take to improve its service. It nevertheless failed to consider compensating him for his distress and inconvenience as a result of its other acknowledged failings regarding its records of the property’s previous leaks and the damp and mould smelt there by the lettings agent, which was contrary to our remedies guidance.

Order

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £250 further compensation within four weeks in recognition of any distress and inconvenience that he experienced as a result of its failure to thoroughly check its records for previous leaks at the property or explore the damp and mould smelt during the void period there by the lettings agent.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Re-offer the resident the £120 compensation that it previously awarded to him, if he has not received this already.
    2. Contact the resident to invite him to provide it with evidence and details of the £1,360 in lost earnings and £300 for the loss of washing facilities at the property for approximately two weeks that he has sought from it for it to consider offering him further compensation for these items.
    3. Contact the resident to answer his queries about an outstanding repair to a boxed-in rusted protective layer on the structural steel in the communal electrical intake cupboard, if there are meant to be live wires touching this, and when follow-up works will be completed to his bathroom extractor fan.
    4. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to compensation, which should include consideration of this Service’s remedies guidance at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/e-learning/, if this has not been done recently.
  2. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order and whether it will follow the above recommendations.
  3. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.