Onward Homes Limited (202010926)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010926

Onward Homes Limited

26 August 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 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 resident complains about:
1. How the landlord handled repairs needed at the property, primarily to address damp and mould, from September 2017 to June 2018.
2. How the landlord handled repairs needed at the property, primarily to address damp and mould, from July 2018 onwards.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: how the landlord handled repairs needed at the property from September 2017 to June 2018.
Under paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
There is evidence that on 28 June 2018, the landlord responded to a Stage one complaint from the resident about its handling of repairs to the property including damp issues up until that date. There is no evidence that this complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure therefore it is not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. The scope of this investigation is therefore limited to July 2018 onwards.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of a one-bedroom bungalow (the property) owned by the landlord.
On 28 June 2018, the landlord responded to a complaint from the resident about its handling of repairs to the property including damp issues. The landlord ordered various works in response to the complaint.
Following this, the resident reported various further repairs needed at the property, including:
1. On 17 December 2018, the resident reported the hallway flooring becoming wet when it rained. The landlord arranged an inspection.
2. On 2 January 2019, the resident reported damp coming through into kitchen cupboards. The landlord arranged an inspection.
3. On 21 March 2019, the resident contacted the landlord about this issue again stating that she had received a letter advising her that the issues stemmed from not putting the heating on, but when her gas contractors had attended recently they were unable to move the gas meter due to dampness.
4. The landlord agreed to replace the kitchen, but this could not take place until the gas meter was moved by the electricity providers. Work took place to replace the kitchen in September and October 2019.
5. On 22 October 2019, the resident reported that damp was appearing again in the kitchen. The landlord raised an inspection and then a repair to re-seal the kitchen window and apply stain block.
6. On 11 May 2020, the resident reported that there was possible subsidence and ongoing water damage.
7. On 9 June 2020, the resident reported that the walls were drying out following leaks and flooding but some plaster in the bathroom and hallway needed repair. She also chased up the subsidence issue.
8. On 16 June 2020, the resident reported the property being wet due to floods and water was not “going down the pipes”.
9. On 24 June 2020, the resident chased up a call back referring to an inspection the previous week and informed the landlord that if it did not resolve the issue she would employ a surveyor and take legal action. She called again on 26 June 2020 and spoke to the relevant landlord employee.
10. On 29 June 2020, the resident reported that the person who attended said plastering works would be raised but there is no evidence of this. The landlord advised at that time that jobs were having to be prioritised due to COVID 19.
On 11 August 2020, the resident obtained her own surveyor’s report. The findings included:
1. The property had suffered from settlement but there were no indications of recent movement or that movement was ongoing.
2. The lounge flooring slopes and there was low-level rising dampness to front and internal side wall.
3. Low–level rising dampness in the meter cupboard in the porch, to the side and rear wall in hall, and to the side wall of bedroom.
On 27 August 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to complain that dampness had continued since the 2018 works and had worsened. She said that she had reported it many times but although inspections had been completed, little had been done. She complained that staff informed her that the dampness was condensation and nothing could be done, therefore she was forced to obtain a professional report. She provided medical evidence to say that she suffered from mental health issues and that the issues in the property were making this worse.
On 16 September 2020, the landlord responded to the complaint stating that it had undertaken various works to the property but given her concerns it agreed for a surveyor to attend the property on 24 September 2020.
The findings of the surveyor included:
1. The backboards to the kitchen units showed signs of black mould which was evidence of damp conditions behind the units. A test was needed to determine the cause.
2. The living room flooring showed signs of salting and “potential heave”.
3. They agreed with the resident’s surveyor’s report of:
  1. Low level rising dampness in meter cupboard.
  2. Signs of salting to slow level plaster in rear hallway so there could be water ingress on the kitchen side of the wall (possibly due to failed damp proof course (DPC)).
  3. The property is of an age where the DPC can fail. It was recommended to install chemical injection DPC to affected areas.
On 5 November 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord requesting that the landlord set out in writing the proposed course of action. On 27 November 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident listing the repairs that had been agreed following the inspection in September 2020.
On 11 December 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord stating that various repairs were outstanding including a damp patch in the kitchen; the damp proof course was ineffective; dampness to the doorway between the kitchen and living room and the living room carpet; and exterior defects.
The landlord arranged a further inspection for 21 January 2021 which concluded that various works were outstanding including:
1. An inspection was required (removing back panel of base unit) to consider report of black mould and damp behind kitchen units.
2. Due to signs of damp to rear hallway wall, repairs required included hacking of plaster and inserting new DPC.
3. Some condensation mould in lounge therefore recommendation to install Positive Pressure Ventilation Unit (PPU) to reduce condensation.
4. Salting to wall in consumer unit cupboard. Recommendation to install insulated plasterboard.
5. Replace some brickwork externally.
On 26 January 2021, the landlord provided a final response to the complaint acknowledging that the recent inspection identified that the previous work had not resolved the issues. The landlord acknowledged that the repairs to rectify the dampness in the rear hallway were substandard and had failed. The landlord agreed to address the works identified in the recent inspection. In conclusion, the landlord upheld the complaint acknowledging that there were outstanding issues that it had failed to rectify in full. The landlord offered a goodwill gesture of £100 for the inconvenience caused.
In February 2021, the landlord discussed the complaint with the resident who explained that she was seeking compensation of £5000 to address issues at the property since she moved in in September 2017, and the cost of replacing carpets, white goods, and other personal belongings.
In February and March 2021, various works were completed in the property including the installation of the “Positive Pressure Unit” and damp proof works and plastering to the rear hallway and meter cupboard. In May 2021, the resident moved out of the property while replastering in the lounge and works to the lounge floor took place. The landlord also agreed to discuss the compensation further once the works were complete.
The landlord has provided evidence of its contractor’s findings dated 29 April 2021 which states that there were no signs of damp or mould behind the kitchen units, there was “staining”, but this was a spillage and not condensation marks.
During the Ombudsman’s mediation process, the resident requested the landlord take the following steps to resolve the complaint:
1. Renew skirting boards in the bedroom and hallway.
2. Plastering/repair work to address black wall in kitchen.
3. Repair crack in hallway ceiling.
4. Offer an increased compensation figure.
In June 2021, the landlord inspected the property and discussed the resident’s outstanding concerns but did not agree that further works were required. The landlord did not agree to renew the skirting boards stating that they were not defective; it said there was no evidence of dampness to the wall in the kitchen; and that the crack in the hallway ceiling was a hairline crack which was the responsibility of the resident. It agreed to skim the hallway wall. The landlord has provided the notes from an inspection of 9 June 2021 which evidence its findings in relation to the hallway, bedroom skirting and the crack in the rear hallway. The landlord also increased the compensation as follows:
1. It offered to contribute £70 per room towards decoration of the lounge, hall and porch, totalling £210.00.
2. It agreed to contribute £250 towards the cost of the resident’s survey acknowledging that its communication could have been better.
3. £200 for inconvenience caused.
The resident was dissatisfied with this offer. She considered that the landlord should have compensated her for the cost of carpet and damaged belongings including appliances and the full cost of the surveyor’s report, which totalled £1866.
The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the dampness behind the kitchen cupboards has recently returned and she considers this is coming through the outside wall when it rains. She also states that the kitchen floor still needs repair.

Assessment and findings

Tenancy terms and landlord policies

Under section 11 of the landlord and tenant Act 1985, there is an implied term in the tenancy agreement that the landlord will (in summary):
1. Keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property;
2. Keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the property for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation; and
3. Keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water.
Under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, there is an implied term in the tenancy agreement that the property is fit for human habitation when the tenancy is granted and for the duration of the tenancy.
In determining whether a property unfit for human habitation under the Act, the key question is whether a property is “not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition” because of various factors, which include freedom from damp and ventilation.

How the landlord handled repairs needed at the property, primarily to address damp and mould

The resident reported dampness in the hallway on 17 December 2018, and damp in the kitchen on 2 January 2019. On 21 March 2019, the resident reported dampness again. While the landlord agreed to arrange inspections, there is no evidence of it completing any works at this time. The Ombudsman has not been provided with the findings of the landlord’s inspections at this time therefore there is no evidence of exactly what works were required, but it is possible that there was a delay by the landlord in taking action to address dampness in the property between December 2018 and March 2019. The landlord did then agree to replace the kitchen, and the subsequent delay between March and September 2019 was due to the landlord waiting for the utility supplier to move the gas meter, which was outside of the landlord’s control.
The landlord’s repair records evidence that while works were completed to the kitchen in September and October 2019, the resident reported on 22 October 2019 that damp was appearing again in that room. In response to this, the landlord raised an inspection and a repair to re-seal the kitchen window. There is no evidence of the landlord being made aware of ongoing issues in the kitchen after this and until the resident complained in August 2020, therefore this issue was at least temporarily resolved by the landlord’s actions. On balance, the evidence confirms that the landlord acted appropriately in response to the report of 22 October 2019, by inspecting and carrying out repairs for which it was responsible.
On 11 May 2020, the resident reported possible subsidence and ongoing water damage. On 9 June 2020, the resident chased up plastering works and the subsidence issue. On 16 June 2020, the resident reported the property being wet due to floods. The landlord attended the property. On 29 June 2020, the resident chased up plastering works and the landlord advised at that time jobs were having to be prioritised due to COVID 19. On 27 August 2020, the resident complained that dampness had continued since the 2018 works and she had been forced to obtain her own surveyor’s report.
Following the resident’s reports in May and June 2020, the landlord agreed to inspect which was appropriate, but there is no evidence of any works being carried out prior to the resident obtaining her own surveyor report on 11 August 2020. It is acknowledged that between 28 March 2020 and 1 June 2020, landlords were advised by the government that access to properties was only proposed for serious and urgent issues due to the COVID 19 pandemic. On 1 June 2020, the guidance was amended to advise that “where workforce is available and resources allow, landlords or contractors are now able to visit more properties to carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs…”. Given the restrictions faced by the landlord in the previous month, its explanation to the resident that plastering works were delayed due to its need to prioritise outstanding works was reasonable and it would not be fair to criticise the landlord for any delay in May and June 2020 given that there is no evidence to confirm that the works were urgent.
However, given the number of times the resident called, the landlord should have communicated clearly to the resident any repairs it had identified and the reasons for any delays to repairs. It is unfortunate that there was no further communication between the landlord and the resident about the works until she obtained a surveyor’s report as the resident appears to have lost confidence that the landlord would address the outstanding issues and incurred the costs of her own expert.
When responding to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged that its communication could have been better at this time and offered a payment of £250 towards the surveyor’s costs. This was disappointing for the resident who had spent significantly more than this. However, it is noted that during the call of 29 June 2020, the landlord noted that it advised the resident of the delay due to COVID 19 and noted that the resident “was fine but said she would like the jobs to be done sooner rather than later”. Given that there is no evidence of the resident chasing up the issue following the landlord’s explanation of 29 June 2020 and before incurring costs, it was reasonable for the landlord to refuse to refund the full costs of the surveyor’s report since it was not made aware of her intention to do so.
It is acknowledged that the resident has informed the Ombudsman that on 26 June 2020, the landlord refused to obtain a surveyor’s report which led her to obtain her own, but the Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence to confirm this. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that the landlord’s offer was reasonable to address this aspect of the complaint.
In response to the resident’s report and complaint, the landlord arranged its own inspection of the property (on 24 September 2020), which was appropriate. However, as evidenced by the findings of the landlord’s further inspection on 21 January 2021, the landlord had not appropriately addressed all the issues complained of by this date. While the landlord had carried out some work to the hallway in late 2020, it acknowledged that this was substandard and had not been successful. A substantial number of the issues that the resident had originally complained of remained outstanding including the dampness in the consumer unit cupboard, mould behind the kitchen unit and dampness in the hallway. There was also a delay between 24 September 2020 and 27 November 2020 in the landlord updating the resident in writing as to the works proposed, which was frustrating for the resident.
In terms of the compensation offered by the landlord, this comprised of £210 for decorating costs; £250 towards the surveyor (addressed above at paragraph 32); and £200 for the inconvenience caused.
The landlord acted appropriately in acknowledging that the work it completed in late 2020 had not resolved the issues. However, given the length of the delay, that is, between 27 August 2020 until work started in February and March 2021, the Ombudsman is concerned that the level of compensation for inconvenience does not proportionately reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s shortcomings in this period. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance refers to the following compensation awards:
1. Awards of £50 to £250 – for instances of service failure which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome, for example, repeated failures to reply to letters or return phone calls.
2. Awards of £250 to £700 – for instances of considerable service failure or maladministration, for example, failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy, for example, to address repairs.
3. Awards of £700 and above for instances where the maladministration has had a severe long-term impact on the resident, for example, long stay in temporary accommodation due to mishandling of repairs.
In the light of this guidance and taking into account the inconvenience of living in a damp property for an additional four-five months and that the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerability in terms of her age and mental health, the Ombudsman is of the view that the landlord has failed to fully recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays between 27 August 2020 until work started on February and March 2021, and its offer of £200 for this element was not proportionate to the failings identified.
Between February and May 2021, the landlord completed various works at the property including a period during which the resident was decanted. While this was inconvenient for the resident, the landlord acted appropriately in completing repairs which were identified in its January 2021 inspection and there is no evidence of an unreasonable delay by the landlord during this period.
In response to the resident’s request for further works and increased compensation during the Ombudsman’s mediation process, the landlord acted appropriately by completing inspections. However, it did not agree that further repairs were required. The landlord has provided evidence of its inspections and conclusions of its inspections of 9 and 23 June 2021, therefore the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has acted fairly in considering the issues raised by the resident and relying on its own findings of the inspection. While the resident disagreed, it is not for the Ombudsman to assess whether further repairs were required but whether the landlord’s response was reasonable. In its letter of 7 July 2021, the landlord provided reasonable explanations for not agreeing further works at this time based on its findings from the inspections, which was fair.
However, given that the resident has reported that the dampness in the kitchen has recently returned and she does not consider that the landlord has satisfactorily resolved this issue, the Ombudsman has included a Recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident and investigate this issue.
In addition to this, the resident wished to claim for damage to her white goods and other items. The landlord refused to compensate for these items. It is not within the role of the Ombudsman to determine liability for such items as this decision would fall to the landlord’s insurers. However, given that the landlord had identified some service failure, the landlord should have advised the resident how she could make a claim to its insurers for the items so that this claim could be considered. There is no evidence to confirm that the resident has been given this opportunity, which is of concern.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint about how the landlord handled repairs needed at the property, primarily to address damp and mould.

Reasons

At times the landlord acted appropriately by arranging inspections and completing repairs to the property. The landlord offered a reasonable contribution towards the costs of the surveyor’s report. However, the landlord’s offer of compensation for distress and inconvenience was not proportionate to the impact on the resident given the delay in appropriately addressing damp repairs between August 2020 and February to March 2021. The landlord also failed to appropriately advise the resident how she could make a claim to its insurers in relation to damaged belongings.

Orders

The landlord to apologise to the resident and pay the resident compensation totalling £1000 (inclusive of the offer of £660 previously made) (within four weeks of the date of this Order), comprising:
1. £210.00 for decoration costs (if it has not already paid this).
2. £250 towards the surveyor’s costs (if it has not already paid this).
3. £540 for the distress and inconvenience caused (inclusive of £200 offered previously if it has not already paid this).
The landlord to write to the resident to confirm its position in relation to her claim for damaged belongings and advise her if and how she can make a claim to its insurers for these items (within six weeks of the date of this Order).

Recommendations

The landlord to contact the resident to give her an opportunity to explain her concerns about the current signs of dampness in the kitchen and investigate these reports. The landlord to report back to the resident and the Ombudsman with its findings within six weeks of the date of this Recommendation.