The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

One Housing Group Limited (202311150)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311150

One Housing Group Limited

22 April 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy on a terraced house owned by the housing association landlord. The tenancy agreement began on 25 January 2021. The resident suffers from anxiety and depression. 
  2. On 17 January 2023, the resident reported a leak in the kitchen area from the boiler. The landlord visited the property on 18 January 2023 and said the condensate pipe from the boiler had burst behind the kitchen units. It said it would raise the job for its multi-trade operatives to remove the kitchen units, treat the mould, and fix the leak.
  3. On 31 January 2023, the resident formally complained to the landlord and said she could not use the kitchen or the washing machine. She said she had been washing dishes bent over her bath despite being in a high-risk pregnancy.
  4. The landlord responded on 16 February 2023 and said:
    1. It had attended the property on 2 February 2023 but could not gain access. It returned later that day and bypassed the leak by connecting a new condensate pipe. It said it would return on 17 February 2023 to remove the kitchen and treat the mould, and it would also leave a dehumidifier in operation for two weeks.
    2. In the evening of 2 February 2023, the resident had reported “a small new leak” which it inspected on 3 february 2023 and placed an order for a replacement part. It would complete this repair on 21 February 2023.
    3. It was sorry for the inconvenience and the impact on the resident. It would hold a review with its customer services staff and engineers to improve the time taken to complete repairs. It offered £50 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience.
  5. The resident responded on 20 February 2023 and said £50 was insufficient to cover the added electricity that the dehumidifier would cost her, nor did it compensate for the distress suffered. She said she had told the landlord she was in a high-risk pregnancy and should not be stressed out and just wanted the landlord to complete the repairs.
  6. The landlord sent its final response letter on 20 March 2023 and said:
    1. The dehumidifier was meant to be delivered on 23 February 2023, but it was delayed, for which it was sorry. The dehumidifier was delivered on 3 March 2023 and kept in operation for 2 weeks. It had returned to the property and completed the repair on 20 March 2023.
    2. It had tried to contact the resident to discuss the complaint in more detail and understand the outstanding issues and the outcome sought, but she had rejected its calls.
    3. It offered a total compensation of £228 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  7. The resident contacted this service on 27 June 2023 and said chasing the landlord to complete repairs was draining her energy and that she should be focusing her time on being a new mum, not chasing the landlord to repair the property. She said the boiler was over 10 years old. She wanted the landlord to replace it. During the course of this investigation, this service was not able to get hold of the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman’s role is to investigate individual complaints that have progressed through the landlord’s internal complaint process, on which the landlord had an opportunity to consider and provide its final response letter. The landlord completed the repairs related to the leaks, damp, and mould on 20 March 2024. The resident reported further issues in May 2024 related to the heat exchanger. There is no evidence the new repairs were related to the leaks, damp and mould, or the actions taken by the landlord in response. The events took place after the landlord issued its final response letter and, therefore, are outside the scope of this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
  2. The tenancy agreement reflects the landlord’s repairs obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to “keep in repair” the structure and exterior of the property. 
  3. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, landlords are required to assess risks and take mitigating action to minimise hazards in their rented properties. Damp and mould are potential category 1 hazards under HHSRS.
  4. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend to emergency repairs and “make it safe” within 24 hours. It will attend all other ‘non-emergency’ or responsive repairs within 28 days.
  5. Following the resident’s reports of a leak on 17 January 2023, the landlord attended to assess the risk on 18 January 2023, which was in line with its obligation under HHSRS. Two weeks later, on 2 February 2023, the landlord returned to the property and bypassed the leaking condensate pipe. This was within the target of 28 days, as set out in its repairs policy. 
  6. On 2 February 2023, the resident reported a new leak from one of the boilers’ valves. The landlord conducted its initial assessment on 3 February 2023 and said it would order a spare part to fix the leak. This job was completed 3 weeks later, on 21 February 2023, within the target of 28 days set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
  7. Having dealt with the leaks, the landlord treated the damp and mould. The resident explained this was behind and inside the kitchen cupboard under the boiler, where the condensate pipe had burst. The landlord’s plan was to remove the kitchen units, clean the mould, and leave a dehumidifier in the property for two weeks before returning the cupboards. It is not disputed that this was scheduled to start on 2 February 2023. However, the dehumidifier was not delivered until 3 March 2023, which caused a significant delay in this case and was not appropriate. 
  8. According to the evidence, the landlord removed the 2 kitchen cabinets on 23 February 2023; therefore, from this date until 3 March 2023, the resident had to live with 2 kitchen cupboards missing, which evidently caused distress and inconvenience as she had pans and pots in her living room. Being heavily pregnant at the time, this would have caused distress and inconvenience.
  9. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it “would respond to all reports of damp and condensation and complete any repair works/measures in line with its responsive repairs policy”. According to the evidence, the landlord ordered the dehumidifier on 2 February 2023, and the contractor had 1 month to deliver it. There is no evidence that the landlord factored in this delay in its communications internally or with the resident. This prevented the landlord from completing the repair in time and in accordance with its damp and mould policy and its responsive repairs policy. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to ensure it can supply dehumidifiers within a shorter length of time to support the overall targets set out in its repairs policy.
  10. The landlord issued its final response letter on 20 March 2023 and confirmed that the work had been completed. However, the resident reported that the mould had returned. The landlord returned to the property on 24 March 2023 to investigate the issue, which was appropriate. Its operatives took pictures inside the kitchen units to confirm there was no damp or mould and that the leaks had been resolved. There is no evidence that the resident reported this issue again.
  11. Overall, there was a delay from 2 February 2023, when the landlord ordered the dehumidifier, to 3 March 2023, when it delivered the dehumidifier to the resident’s property. In its final response letter, the landlord offered £228 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This was equal to 30% of the rent amount paid during the same period. In all the circumstances of the case, this was fair and proportionate and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint reasonably.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in this Service’s opinion, resolves the complaint about leak, damp and mould satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should arrange the delivery of dehumidifiers in a shorter amount of time to support the overall targets set out in its damp and mould and responsive repairs policy.