One Housing Group Limited (202201852)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201852

One Housing Group Limited

27 October 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of damp and mould problems in parts of the resident’s home.
2. The landlord’s contractors not taking covid precautions.

Background

The resident experienced a leak in her bathroom towards the end of 2021. The landlord attended twice to do repairs. A surveyor was requested to inspect for further work.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 November 2021 saying that despite trying to chase the outstanding survey she had not heard anything. She said that damp and mould was increasing in the bathroom and bedroom following the leak repair, which was affecting her breathing. She also reported insects living in mould under the bath.
The landlord’s surveyor attended on 26 November 2021. He raised a range of repair works for the bathroom and hallway. These included works on the bath panel, vinyl flooring, skirting boards, flaking paint, and general redecoration.
The landlord’s contractors attended on 17 December 2021 and completed most of the work. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day. She confirmed the contractors had attended, but said that when they lifted part of the vinyl flooring in the bathroom and hallway the flooring underneath had been “completely destroyed by damp and mould.” She said that since then there had been a nasty smell in the flat, and she wanted the landlord to replace the damaged flooring. She also said that the contractors had not worn face masks, and that she had then tested positive for covid. She asked the landlord to treat her email as a complaint, and said she wanted compensation for the medical issues the damp was causing her, because she was “living in a highly hazardous environment that could cause me to struggle for breath.”
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 21 December 2021. Internal emails for the same date show that because of the resident’s covid, the landlord would not be able to make further appointments to inspect the flooring until January 2022.
The resident arranged for an inspection of the flooring herself, and her surveyor attended on 9 January 2022. He sent a report to the landlord with his observations. He said that he had seen what he believed to be “Black Mould, known as Stachybotrys Chartarum immediately in the entrance hall adjacent to the bathroom door. This position is extremely worrying as it suggests that there may be a far greater spread of the mould across the whole of the floor under the lino.” He also said he had seen evidence of the mould spreading, and that he believed the illnesses the resident had told him about could be the result of breathing mould spores. He said that he felt urgent action was needed to remove the floor coverings and investigate what was underneath. He asked to be involved as the resident’s representative.
The landlord sent its first complaint response to the resident on 14 January 2022. It set out the actions it had taken so far, and confirmed it had received the resident’s surveyor’s report. It confirmed that it would jointly inspect the property with the surveyor and agree on whatever further action was needed. It also acknowledged that its complaint response had been delayed, explained how that had happened, apologised, and offered her £50 compensation.
The landlord operatives and contractors, and the resident’s surveyor inspected the property on 14 January 2022. They agreed to remove laminate and vinyl flooring in the bathroom and hallway and if the under-flooring was found to be in good order they would clean and treat it for mould and re-lay the laminate and vinyl. They also agreed to clean the floor under the bath and refit or replace the bath panel. The landlord’s emails show the landlord liaising with the resident’s surveyor and the resident while making the necessary arrangements. Further actions were to be decided once they knew what was under the floor coverings.
On 19 January 2022 the resident asked the landlord about arrangements for a decant she understood had been agreed for her due to . The landlord explained that a decant had been agreed only if the flooring under the floor coverings was found to be in need of replacement. It referred her to her surveyor for clarification. The resident said she needed to be absent when the floor coverings were taken up because “The spores released when the lino is taken up, will be in every room in my flat, and much much worse than the smell at the moment. I am likely to have severe problems breathing”. She said she would charge the landlord for any costs she incurred arranging accommodation herself. Internal emails from an officer involved with the resident confirmed no decant had been agreed.
The landlord’s contractors attended on 24 January 2022. The landlord subsequently emailed the resident to confirm that her surveyor had also attended, and that he and the contractors had agreed the under-floor was rigid and intact. The agreed works had then been done to clean the under-floor and treat it for mould, leaving a small amount of work incomplete at the resident’s request.
On 30 January 2022 the resident sent the landlord a lengthy and detailed email explaining her dissatisfaction with its actions in regard to the mould and spores, which she alleged were impacting on her health in a wide range of ways. She confirmed the contractors had attended to do the agreed work, but she declined the landlord’s previous compensation offer, and said she had reported her health concerns to the local environmental health team. She said she believed her whole home had become contaminated by spores, and she was being “slowly poisoned by my own home and a landlord who does not follow basic safety protocols when dealing with a toxin like Strachybotris Chartarum, found at such high levels.” The landlord treated the resident’s email as an expression of continued dissatisfaction, and escalated her complaint.
In response to further queries about a decant, the landlord wrote to the resident on 4 February 2022 explaining why the circumstances of the repair work did not warrant a decant.
The resident reported to the landlord on 17 February 2022 that a drainage engineer had attended her home and told her that the smells she had been experiencing was from “stagnant water, and damp and mould under the bathroom floor.” She said landlord should have removed the under-floors damaged by black mould, that the damp problems continued, the smells had been making her sick for a long time, and she should have been decanted.
The landlord sent its second complaint response on 25 February 2022. It again explained the actions it had taken, and said that its treatment of the mould had been in agreement with the resident’s surveyor, who had not raised any concerns about what had been done. It explained that it believed it had acted appropriately to the resident’s concerns and repair issues, and in a reasonable time frame, and said it would arrange a further post-inspection work to confirm the work had been completed satisfactorily. It acknowledged the resident’s health concerns, and that she was exploring them with her GP, but explained that the compensation she had said she was seeking for damage to her health was a personal injury issue and not one that could be addressed in a complaint. It explained how the resident could contact its insurance team for information about making a claim for health damage.
The landlord acknowledged that in her original complaint the resident had raised an issue about its contractors attending without wearing face masks. It noted that it had not responded to her concerns in its first response, and apologised for the omission. It explained that it had queried its contractors about the matter, who had denied the allegations and confirmed that the contractors had not themselves tested positive for covid. It concluded that it could not identify how the resident may have caught it. Nonetheless, it offered the resident a further £50 for not addressing the issue in its first response. It explained that the resident could bring her complaint to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
The landlord attended the resident’s home on 14 March 2022 to conduct a post-work inspection, along with the resident’s surveyor. It wrote to her on 16 March explaining its conclusions. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns that there was mould and water under the flooring which was creating foul smells and insects. It explained that none of the people at the visit, including the surveyor, could smell anything untoward or see any insects. Because of that it did not intend to remove the flooring again, and it was satisfied that the work agreed with her surveyor had been completed appropriately.
Over February and March 2022 the resident raised her concerns about the effect of the mould on her health with her MP, a councillor, and the local mayor. All of them forwarded her concerns to the landlord, who responded with detailed explanations of its actions and plans, including its cooperation with the resident’s surveyor, and its conclusions that the agreed work had been completed as planned, with no remaining actions outstanding.
The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in April 2022. She explained her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s repair actions in relation to her concerns about ongoing mould spores and the impact on her health. She wanted the landlord to either replace the under-flooring, or move her.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

It should be made clear that concerns about damages to health and personal injury are not issues the Ombudsman can investigate. Those are complex and complicated matters which this Service does not have the skill or expertise to adjudicate on, and are more appropriately dealt with by a formal claim for damages through insurance, or the courts. This investigation will not make a determination on whether the resident’s health may have been affected by the problems she experienced.
In her correspondence with the Ombudsman and the landlord the resident has referred to historic issues, and further issues that have occurred after the landlord sent its final complaint response. This investigation centres on the issues about damp and mould, and contractors’ covid precautions raised in the resident’s 2021 and 2022 complaints only. Any issues arising afterwards should be raised as formal complaints with the landlord before the Ombudsman may be able to consider them.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould problems in parts of the resident’s home.

The landlord has explained that it attended the resident’s home to address a leak problem at the end of October 2021. The attending operatives noted that a survey was needed to assess the full extent of the leak damage. The resident reported to the landlord on 20 November that she had been chasing an appointment for the survey through November without a response. The landlord then attended on 26 November to conduct the survey. While the resident should not have had to chase for an update multiple times, nothing in the evidence indicates this was an urgent or emergency issue, so the landlord’s survey was within its routine repair time frame of 28 days. The landlord should always ensure its tenants are kept up to date on outstanding repair issues, but, nonetheless, its actions at this stage were in a reasonable period of time.
The inspection on 26 November 2021 identified a range of repair, maintenance, and redecoration issues which the landlord promptly arranged with its contractors to undertake. It received a quote from the contractors on 9 December, and work started on 17 December. Most of the work was completed on that date, but was paused at the resident’s request when she became concerned after the floor coverings were lifted. The landlord’s time frames were again within its 28-day guidance, and it was appropriate for it to pause the work in light of the resident’s concerns.
The evidence shows that the landlord subsequently liaised with the resident about her concerns, but that further work was delayed by her contracting covid, and the Christmas period. It was appropriate for the landlord to delay so that it could explore with the resident the concerns she had about the under-flooring.
The resident arranged her own surveyor to look into her concerns about the underflooring, who did an inspection on 9 January 2022. He concluded that there were indications of black mould and damp problems in the under-flooring, and he referred to the mould as possibly being toxic and affecting the resident’s health. He made recommendations to remove the floor coverings to inspect the under-floor, and to act accordingly based on what was discovered. The landlord was not obliged to accept the resident’s surveyor’s report, because it would usually be entitled to rely on its own technical officers’ opinions. In this case the landlord used its discretion to accept the surveyor’s recommendations, and worked with him to agree a work plan. That was a reasonable and pragmatic course of action. It demonstrated that the landlord was conscious of the resident’s serious concerns about the mould, and that it was prepared to adjust its operations to the specific circumstances of her case.
Having inspected again on 14 January 2022 and agreed on what was needed, the landlord’s contractors took up the flooring on 24 January, accompanied by the resident’s surveyor. The condition of the underflooring was found to be sound and not in need of replacement. The contractors subsequently treated and cleaned the under-flooring in line with what had been agreed previously. Most of the work was completed on that day. That was a reasonable process to follow because it was what had been agreed to do if the under-flooring was found in an acceptable condition. It was also prompt, especially in light of the further coordination that had been required with both the contractors and the surveyor.
The resident reported that she had been told by a drainage engineer that the smells and insect problems she was having were due to stagnant flood water, mould, and damp under the under-flooring. The landlord undertook a further inspection on 14 March 2022, again accompanied by the resident’s surveyor, which it reported had not shown any evidence of the smells or insects the resident had experienced. It said that because of that it would not undertake further inspections of the under-flooring. That was a reasonable decision, because no evidence has been seen of a drainage inspection showing water under the floor, and neither the officers nor surveyor were able to witness the same issues the resident had experienced.
The resident was clearly very concerned about the effect she believed the mould was having on her health. She contacted the local authority’s environmental health team about her concerns. No evidence has been seen showing an environmental health team inspection. The resident’s surveyor was concerned that the mould might have been potentially dangerous, but that was informed conjecture, not an established fact, and the landlord promptly carried out the specific work the surveyor said was needed to address what he felt the problem was. The resident explained to the landlord the health problems she was experiencing, but nothing in the information seen in this investigation sets out a meaningful link to the damp and mould to the extent that the landlord should have adjusted its repair plans.
The landlord has a decant policy which states it will consider decanting a tenant “when a property is in need of major repairs work or needs to be refurbished or modernised. Decants are also necessary when a property needs to be rebuilt or disposed of…[or] Where an unexpected event has caused a property to become uninhabitable.” The resident told the landlord that she should have been offered a decant while the flooring was lifted, because the exposed mould spores would further affect her health. At several points she also explained that she believed spores had spread and contaminated her home. The concerns she expressed were totally understandable, in the circumstances, especially with the general public understanding of how black mould can sometimes be dangerous. Nonetheless, her situation did not meet the criteria set out in the landlord’s decant policy, and the landlord had not been given any meaningful supporting evidence (such as advice from a GP to not be present during the repair work, or environmental health report) which might have obliged it to consider offering a decant, nor was there any actual evidence of the presence of toxic spores. In the circumstances, the landlord’s decision, and the explanations it gave, were supported by the evidence and its decant policy.
In her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident said she had to buy a dehumidifier to help dry out the bathroom. The evidence shows that the resident asked the landlord to provide a temporary dehumidifier on 21 December 2021, and she has explained to her Councillor that the contractors attempted to deliver one, but could not do so due to her having covid. The Councillor passed that information to the landlord to respond to. The resident provided a receipt to the landlord showing she then purchased one herself on 22 December. It is not apparent from the evidence whether the landlord believed the dehumidifier was required, or the resident asked for it on her own initiative. It is also not clear why, having agreed to provide one, no suitable arrangement was made to deliver it in a manner which ensured the safety of all involved from covid. The issue was not specifically raised in the resident’s escalated complaint, although she did ask the landlord to reimburse her for “my losses”, which presumably included the dehumidifier. This was clearly not the primary focus of her complaint, which was detailed and focused on her health concerns. Nonetheless, it would have been helpful if the landlord had considered why the dehumidifier was not provided. This matter, on its own, is not significant enough to be considered a service failure, but a recommendation is made below for the landlord to consider.
The resident explained in her complaint to this Service that the landlord’s contractors were not specialists. However, it is clear from the evidence that neither the landlord nor the resident’s surveyor had any concerns about the contractors’ abilities to undertake the scheduled work.
Overall, the actions taken by the landlord reflected the views of it operatives and contractors, and the resident’s own surveyor. It’s actions were undertaken in reasonable time, which were in line with the landlord’s repair time frames. There were minor delays, but these were caused by the resident’s covid, and the busy time over the Christmas break. The landlord’s decision not to undertake further work to the underflooring was supported by the advice and recommendations of both its own operatives and contractors, and the resident’s surveyor.

The landlord’s contractors not taking covid precautions

The resident reported and complained that the landlord’s contractors had attended for repairs and not worn face coverings. She tested positive for covid on the same day, and alleged that the contractors were the cause. The landlord did not initially respond to the point, which it appropriately acknowledged later was a failing. In its second complaint response it explained that the contractors said they had been wearing masks, and they had not tested positive for covid after the visit. It concluded that there was no independent evidence supporting or refuting either account of events, and therefore it could not make a finding to either uphold her complaint or not. That was a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns because, as the landlord explained, without supporting evidence no meaningful conclusions could be drawn as to how the resident contracted covid.
As it acknowledged, the landlord should have answered this issue in its first complaint response. It apologised for the omission, and offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused. While this was a fundamental error, the matter had not been raised again in the resident’s escalation complaint, and there was no apparent impact. Because of that, the landlord’s acknowledgment, apology, and compensation reasonably remedied its failing.

Determination

In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in regard to its handling of damp and mould problems in parts of the resident’s home.
In line with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its contractors not taking covid precautions.

Recommendations

As noted above, the resident purchased a dehumidifier after the landlord’s contractors were apparently not able to deliver one to her due to her covid illness. The resident raised the issue of reimbursement for her purchase indirectly in her complaint, and provided receipts. The landlord is recommended to consider the matter and respond to the resident’s request following receipt of this report.