One Housing Group Limited (202233848)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233848

One Housing Group Limited

30 July 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 damp and mould
2. reports of noise from a neighbouring property
3. request to be rehoused

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord.
On 10 January 2017, the resident wrote to the landlord via a solicitor, who highlighted problems in the property relating to damp and mould. The solicitor explained the resident has been experiencing this since 2009. The solicitor also explained they wrote to the landlord on 29 October 2012 about the same issues. The solicitor also explained that the landlord completed a survey and some works were carried out in 2012. The works completed by the landlord did not resolve the damp and mould. Following this, the resident explained she gave up for some time in trying to resolve the issues. Although the matters were raised via a solicitor, they did not progress to court.
In February 2020 the resident sent the landlord an inspection report completed by a retired Environmental Health Officer who was supporting the resident in a voluntary capacity. The report summarised the resident’s experiences of damp and mould and the landlord’s attempts to historically address it. The report suggested that a more detailed investigation of the external perimeter wall and cladding was completed. It is unclear what follow up action the landlord took after this.
On 13 April 2023, the landlord completed a further survey of the property. the landlord has not provided any specific evidence of this survey being completed. However, the resident has provided a detailed account of the survey and text messages confirming the appointment. The resident did not receive any outcome of this survey nor what follow up actions the landlord intended to take.
In addition to the damp and mould, the resident has explained she has been experiencing noise from a neighbouring property. She first reported the noise to the landlord in 2010. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports on 19 February 2010 and summarised the issues which included noise from the flat above, and rubbish being thrown into the resident’s garden. It is unclear what action the landlord took following these reports. The resident met the landlord in 2011 and following this meeting it spoke to her neighbours. The neighbours agreed to try and control the noise transference issues.
There is no evidence of further noise reports until April 2016 when the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord. The MP said the resident wished to be rehoused due to noise. It is unclear what action the landlord took in follow up to this letter based on the evidence seen by this service.
The resident reported ASB issues to the landlord again in 2020 and the landlord referred the matter to its managing agent. The managing agent followed up with an email to the resident and provided the resident with an action plan, risk assessment, and diary sheets.
In January 2021, the landlord confirmed it would consider the historical context as well as any recent ASB and noise issues.
Due to the gaps in the records provided, it is unclear if any new reports were made from March 2021 onwards.
On 10 June 2022, the landlord received the resident’s management transfer application. The resident drew attention to the historical noise and reports she had made in her application.
In response, the landlord made new enquiries with is managing agent to understand what progress had been made and spoke with the resident. On 28 June 2022, the landlord confirmed it would close its case because the managing agent was responsible for handling ASB cases.
On 31 March 2023, the landlord contacted its managing agent to understand if there had been any further reports of noise. The managing agent responded to the landlord on 5 April 2023 and explained it had received no further reports of noise since 24 June 2022.
On 14 June 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. The complaint explained the resident’s issues relating to damp and mould and the noise from the neighbour. The resident also drew attention to the delays in dealing with the reports. The resident sought to be rehoused.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 26 June 2023. In the response, the landlord explained it had attempted to contact the resident on 22 June 2023 to discuss the complaint but there was no answer. The landlord also noted that it had tried to contact the resident on earlier occasions in March 2023 to arrange a visit to check the damp and mould and discuss the resident’s noise complaints. The landlord followed up on this by email but did not appear to receive a response. The landlord recognised it could have been more proactive in ensuring it was able to contact the resident. It offered £100 in compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord also provided advice around rehousing.
The resident was dissatisfied with the explanation in the stage 1 and escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 11 July 2023. The landlord attempted to call the resident to discuss her complaint on 14 July 2023. The landlord emailed in follow up to summarise the complaint and check what outcome the resident was seeking.
On 25 July 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and explained it had tried to contact her. In the response the resident said it had tried to call her on the wrong number again. She provided the new number and explained she has already provided this to the landlord. The resident said she was not happy with the condition in the flat. The landlord acknowledged this email and confirmed it had now updated the number.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 9 August 2023. The landlord explained a surveyor would call the resident on 10 August to arrange temporary repairs whilst it did a more comprehensive survey into the damp and mould. The landlord also explained it had tried to contact the resident to address the noise but did not appear to have received any response to the emails it sent. The landlord also explained the advice provided in stage 1 about finding alternative was accommodation was correct. It reiterated its offer of £100 of compensation. The landlord asked the resident to confirm availability for the survey, but we have not seen evidence that she confirmed this.
The resident replied to the stage 2 response on 4 September 2023 and said:
1. The resident believed the property has inadequate insulation which means the property was cold and enabled mould to form.
2. The sound insulation in the property was insufficient which was contributing to the noise issues she and the family were experiencing and she had not received a follow up call to discuss the noise issues as promised in the stage 2 response.
3. The resident did not receive responses to emails she sent to 2 separate surveyors following correspondence and the survey from April 2023.
On 30 April 2024, the local authority contacted the landlord and explained it had been asked to look into issues relating to noise transference. The landlord provided the local authority with the contact information for its managing agent.
Since the complaint has been made to this service, it is noted that on 14 June 2024, the landlord has completed a new damp and mould survey of the property. The survey has identified some works to be completed which include an additional damp and mould wash, redecoration of the living room, and an investigation to assess an external facing wall.
The resident has brought the matter to this service to investigate. She is seeking for the landlord to complete the damp and mould works to the property and to be permanently moved to alternative accommodation. The resident is also seeking for the landlord to address the reports of noise from a neighbouring property.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s approach

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. Put things right, and
3. Learn from outcomes

Scope of investigation

Under paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. Therefore, whilst the historical events provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment prioritises events from June 2022 onward, which is 12 months prior to the formal complaint being made.
Our investigation is therefore focused on the resident’s reports of noise during the period up to the landlord’s final complaint response rather than more recent reports. However, we acknowledge that the issue is still ongoing for the resident.
As the landlord referenced it would complete a further damp and mould survey at stage 2 of the resident’s complaint, this investigation will, focus on the most recent survey the landlord completed in June 2024. This is because the offer of a survey was part of the landlord’s attempt to resolve the resident’s complaint and is not a new issue which arose after the complaints process ended.
The resident has also referenced how the landlord’s failure to adequately respond to the reports of damp and mould, and address the noise, has impacted the health and wellbeing of her family. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her family’s health and wellbeing and recognises this has been a challenging time for them. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health, particularly for those with respiratory problems or a weakened immune system. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurance as a personal injury claim. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. This is an accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, or other tribunal procedure. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

The landlord’s handling of the damp and mould

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), 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 is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy outlines how the landlord will ensure its properties are protected from deterioration and damage from damp, mould and condensation. The policy confirms that the landlord will undertake a property inspection when a repair is reported or suspected to involve damp and mould and ensure the resident is informed of its findings following a survey. This includes what remedial works and actions are required and the timescales for completion.
On 13 April 2023, the landlord completed a damp and mould survey of the property. The resident received a text message confirming this appointment. The resident also said she followed up with an email to the surveyor after this visit. However, the Ombudsman has not seen the outcome of this survey despite requests for the landlord to provide it.
The landlord did not communicate the outcome of this survey to the resident and did not provide a timeline of works to address the damp and mould. The landlord should have taken action following this survey. The failure of the landlord to follow up on this survey breaks what it says it will do in its repairs policy as outlined above.
In its final response to the complaint, the landlord explained that a surveyor would contact the resident to arrange a temporary damp and mould wash and schedule a new survey so more comprehensive investigations could take place to identify the causes of the damp and mould. The landlord also recognised it previously had difficulty in contacting the resident and did not update its systems with the correct contact number.
The resident was understandably dissatisfied to be offered a further damp and mould wash, particularly given the historical reports and similar repairs being completed. However, the landlord is entitled to follow the opinions of its suitably qualified staff and contractors regarding the type of repairs needed to resolve an issue. Therefore, it was reasonable to suggest carrying out a mould wash in the first instance to control the problem while more detailed investigations took place. A mould wash would not solve the damp and mould, it would only control it, so it was reasonable to suggest a survey to identify the root cause of the problem as well.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 September 2023 to chase the outcome of the survey which took place in April 2023. The landlord failed to respond to this request. This failing in communication would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident as she was left not knowing what recommendations the surveyor had made to resolve the damp and mould.
On the balance of probability, this service considers that the April 2023 survey did take place, although the landlord has not confirmed this. This is because the resident had a text message confirming this appointment, a name of the surveyor, and the resident followed the survey up with the landlord. The landlord should have either implemented the surveyor’s recommendations or explained to the resident why it could not do so and provide alternatives to resolve the damp and mould.
A new repair was arranged for 12 October 2023 to treat visible signs for damp and mould at the property. the resident cancelled this repair. It is unclear if this was the temporary repair which was identified after the stage 2 response or as a result of a new survey. In line with the tenancy agreement, the resident must allow the landlord access to the property to carry out repairs. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident feels that the proposed repairs are not adequate, but the landlord should be given the opportunity to put things right by completing the works. Until the works have been completed and monitored, the landlord is unable to determine whether further works are required. If the scheduled repairs do not resolve the damp and mould, the landlord should look at what further works are needed to resolve the issue.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports. This is based on the delays, poor communication and poor record keeping shown by the landlord’s failure to provide a copy of the April 2023 surveyor report. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident an additional £500 in compensation in recognition of the ongoing distress she experienced, and continues to experience, in trying to resolve this and the lack of ownership by the landlord in addressing the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The compensation ordered is in addition to what the landlord has already offered and is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance available on our website which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where there are failings by the landlord which caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.

The landlord is also ordered to ensure it comprehensively follows up on the works and recommendations identified in the survey report completed in June 2024 to address the damp and mould. If the landlord is unable to follow any of the recommendations, its should clearly explain the reasons for this and suggest alternatives where appropriate.

The landlord’s handling of the noise reports

The landlord has a contract in place with a managing agent to provide housing management services. This includes reports of anti-social behaviour. The resident’s tenancy agreement also outlines this relationship.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on “Landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents” available on our website, sets out how the Ombudsman considers managing agents to be an extension of the landlord itself. Therefore, the landlord is responsible for the managing agent’s actions and the Ombudsman will assess the complaint on this basis.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy defines ASB as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person or conduct capable of causing a serious or housing-related nuisance. This aligns with the definition of the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
The policy states that it will not consider all instances of nuisance to be ASB. This may include living or domestic noises but it will consider the circumstances of each case.
The policy confirms the landlord will contact the resident within 3 working days after it has received a report and develop an action plan with the resident around what options and actions can be taken.
On 10 June 2022, the landlord received a management move application which outlined the resident’s experiences of noise from a neighbouring property. In follow up to this, the landlord spoke with the resident on 13 June 2022 to discuss the noise. The resident maintained that the main issue for her was the noise and she had previously provided noise recordings and reports to the landlord.
The evidence seen by this service, shows that the landlord was aware of the noise in the years prior to June 2022 and was working with the resident to develop an action plan as a result of her earlier reports. For example, it is noted that an action plan was produced on 11 December 2020, however it is unclear based on the evidence seen by this service how this later progressed and what specific actions the landlord took after this.
It is noted that the landlord asked the resident to sign a consent form so that it could contact her neighbours at the time. No evidence has been seen of the signed consent form being returned to the landlord. It is also noted that the landlord’s managing emailed the resident on 27 April 2022, explaining that it had not received this form, but it had received the resident’s noise app recordings.
On 28 June 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to explain it was closing the case and the resident should contact its managing agent directly to progress the reports. It was appropriate for the landlord to close the noise case in 2022 because it had not received the resident’s consent form. The landlord was limited in the actions it could take without having the resident’s signed consent.
Following the management transfer application, when the resident had provided consent, the landlord followed its transfer policy and contacted the resident within its published timescales. However, there is no evidence which confirms what course of action the landlord’s managing agent took after this. This contravenes the landlord’s ASB policy which confirms that an action plan should be produced. Irrespective of whether the landlord or the managing agent would produce the action plan, the landlord should have been certain that the case was progressing with its managing agent before closing it. The landlord is ultimately responsible for the actions of its managing agent. It is therefore appropriate to make a finding of maladministration with respect to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from June 2022 onwards.
The resident maintains the noise is not being caused with intent by the neighbours, instead the resident has stated she feels the issue is related to noise transference and the property not being suitable or potentially lacking adequate sound insulation. If the noise is not deliberate and instead relates to the design or layout of the building then the landlord would not be expected to take any informal or formal tenancy enforcement action against the tenant who was causing the noise. Instead, the landlord should look at whether it should make any improvements to the insulation in the building. The landlord would not generally be expected to make improvements to a building, it is only expected to maintain it. Sound proofing would generally be regarded as an improvement so the landlord would not be expected to provide this. However, it should explain to the resident why it will, or will not, install insulation. The landlord should also give the resident the option of applying for permission to install soundproofing in her own property if she wishes to. The landlord should not unfairly deny permission for such a request.
In responding to the stage 1 complaint on 26 June 2023, the landlord explained it attempted to contact the resident by telephone to discuss the noise complaint on 1 March 2023. The landlord explained the telephone number it had did not connect and instead sent an email on the same day requesting the resident contact it to progress. In the stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it received no further correspondence from the resident after the email. However, evidence seen by this service shows that the resident did respond to the landlord on the same day to confirm the correct contact telephone number.
The landlord recognised its failures to update its records with the correct contact number for the resident. It offered £100 in compensation at stage 1 as a result of this. It also reiterated this offer at stage 2. Whilst this was a reasonable offer to make in recognition of this specific failure, the complaint response did not sufficiently address the resident’s concerns relating to the noise.
Based on the evidence submitted to this service, it is clear that the landlord’s managing agent was aware of the resident experiencing noise as early as 2011. Throughout the tenancy, the resident and her representatives reported the noise to the landlord and its managing agent at different intervals. Evidence seen by this service demonstrates a level of uncertainty by the landlord in knowing what the managing agent deals with.
The landlord is responsible for managing its relationship with the agent to ensure that staff in each organisation know their responsibilities and share information effectively.
The resident’s most recent report of noise, highlighted through the management transfer request in June 2022 was not handled effectively by the landlord. The landlord referred the case to its managing agent and based on the evidence seen by this service, it appears the managing agent has not taken any new action which is not in line with the landlord’s approach in its anti-social behaviour policy. This would have been both frustrating and distressing for the resident, who would have felt the landlord was not taking her reports seriously, particularly when considering the length of time the resident has been reporting this.
There was maladministration by the landlord in considering the resident’s reports of noise from June 2022, up until issuing its final complaint response. In March 2023, the landlord tried to contact the resident to discuss the noise but was unable to get through. It followed up by email, to which the resident replied, but did not receive any further contact. Whilst this service can see that the issue is still ongoing for the resident, as a result of the contact from environmental health to the landlord in April 2024, we are not assessing the landlord’s actions for this element as the contact was after the landlord’s complaints process had finished.
However, in recognition of no new action being taken by the landlord or its managing agent at the June 2022 report of noise and the challenges it faced in recording the correct telephone number, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £100 in compensation. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above.
In addition to this, the landlord is also ordered to contact the resident in partnership with its managing agent, to follow up and investigate the resident’s reports of noise, paying due consideration to the historical reports that she has made and actions the managing agent has previously taken. The landlord or its managing agent should respond in writing confirming the next steps and the reasons for any decisions the landlord has made in relation to the noise complaint.
It is also recommended that the landlord considers training its staff on the role of its managing agents, to ensure that where there landlord has such a relationship in place, responses to reports of noise/ASB or wider tenancy matters are not delayed for its residents.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused

Following the resident’s management move request on 10 June 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident and explained she did not meet the criteria to be offered a management move. The landlord’s policy on management moves specifies that they are only considered in emergency or crisis situations. The policy provides examples of situations which may constitute a management move such as domestic abuse, violence, or a serious medical and health need which means it is impossible for a tenant to safely occupy the property. A health need would generally be supported by evidence from medical confirming that the resident could not safely use their current property due to their health and the property could not reasonably be adapted for their needs.
The landlord also operates its own transfer list for existing residents. This is detailed on its allocations policy. The landlord has confirmed to the resident that the household are registered on the transfer list with their housing need reflected in their banding and should place bids on suitable properties. This was confirmed in its stage 1 response.
However, the landlord did not formally communicate the outcome of the resident’s management move application in writing. No evidence has been seen that the landlord provided the outcome of this application to the resident in writing where it clearly explained its position. This constitutes a service failure. This service is therefore making the order that the landlord communicates the criteria and process to be considered for a management move so the resident has a clear understanding of how this process works and the reasons for the banding she has been allocated.
The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s reasons for wanting to move. However, the Ombudsman would not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants wanting to move who may have an even higher priority than the resident for rehousing, such as people facing homelessness, fleeing domestic violence, or experiencing severe anti-social behaviour involving threats of violence.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with respect to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. reports of noise from a neighbouring property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £700 compensation comprised of the following:
1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould.
2. £100 already offered at stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process, unless this has not already been paid
3. An additional £100 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by errors in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise.
Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any potential rent arrears.
Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to follow up on the June 2024 damp and mould survey and clearly communicate the outcome(s) to the resident in writing including a timeline of works where applicable.
Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident, in partnership with its managing agent, to discuss her reports of noise and confirm the next steps in its response to this, ensuring appropriate attention is paid to the historical reports and progress made.
Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident in writing to formally communicate its process and criteria for management move applications including the reasons for its decision on the resident’s banding.
The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with these orders.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers staff training on the relationship between the landlord and the management agent which covers the responsibilities of both parties in relation to ASB and noise complaints.
It is recommended that the landlord considers additional staff training around the way in which it captures contact details and preferred contact methods of its residents and ensures these are kept up to date.