Onward Homes Limited (202122213)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122213

Onward Homes Limited

29 November 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property, and the associated repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a one bedroom bungalow.
A complaint about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould has already been investigated and determined by this Service. A determination on that complaint was made in August 2021, and covered the landlord’s handling of the matter up until June 2021. A new complaint was raised in June 2021, and the resident exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure for that complaint in June 2022. As such, this investigation has focused on the events leading up to the new stage 1 complaint of June 2021, and earlier events have been included for context only. This investigation has not considered matters that have already been determined by this Service.

Summary of events

The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on her behalf on 15 April 2021 and said that the resident was concerned about outstanding repairs to her property and damage to her walls. The landlord responded on 22 April 2021 and said:
1. Following an inspection of the property on 26 January 2021 it had identified and completed the following works:
  1. Installed a ‘positive pressure unit’ to prevent the build up of condensation in the property;
  2. Installed insulated plasterboard in the meter cupboard;
  3. Renewed the plaster in the rear hallway and injected a damp proof course;
  4. Rehung the bedroom door to create better airflow;
  5. Resealed the kitchen worktop;
  6. Refixed the ‘sure stop’ switch in the kitchen.
2. It had attended the property on 26 March 2021 to arrange replastering of walls in the living room, and it was explained to the resident that she would need to temporarily move out in order for it to carry out the works;
3. It had confirmed with the resident that it intended to do the works on 10 May 2021, and it would take 2 weeks to complete;
4. It had “been clear from the outset” that the proposed works would be completed on a “stage by stage” basis. It said that it had ensured the resident was clear about what works it was planning at each stage.
The landlord visited the resident’s property on 29 April 2021 to inspect the wall in the kitchen. The landlord reported that upon investigation it found the wall to be “completely dry and free from any signs of mould/damp”.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 10 June 2021 and reported that it would not carry out certain repairs that had been raised and said:
1. The skirting in the bedroom and hallway were “sound” and did not warrant replacement;
2. The wall in the corridor was at a “lettable standard” and the resident was told that it just needed sanding and filling before painting;
3. The “crack” in the ceiling was “decorative” and only required filling;
4. This was discussed with the resident and she was aware of the landlord’s position in relation to the repairs.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 21 June 2021, concerning damp and mould issues within her property. The contents of the complaint letter have not been seen by this Service. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 7 July 2021 and said:
1. It had inspected the resident’s property in relation to the concerns she had raised about cracks and decided they were “hairline cracks”. The cracks were within an acceptable limit and not “classed as a repair” within its responsibility;
2. It had found no evidence of a failure of the plasterboard and “skim finish”;
3. It had completed a repair to the rear hallway, and its subsequent inspection found the repair was successful. Damp readings taken of the walls and skirting boards were “less than 5% [and] within permitted levels”;
4. It had agreed to replaster the wall in the hallway “in an attempt to resolve” the complaint, and this was completed on 6 July 2021;
5. It found no evidence of dampness or a “failure of the plaster” in the bedroom, and the moisture readings taken were “less than 5% [and] within permitted levels”;
6. It was of the view that the positive pressure ventilation unit it had installed was “lowering the general moisture levels” in the property. It had found that there was no sign of “dampness or decay” in the skirting boards;
7. It was satisfied that “all necessary works” were its responsibility had been completed;
8. It reconfirmed the compensation offer of £660 made during the resident’s previous complaint, which was made up of:
  1. A contribution of £70 per room that needed redecoration, totalling £210;
  2. A contribution towards the resident’s survey costs of £250;
  3. £200 for the inconvenience caused.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 September 2021 to report ongoing damp and mould issues in her kitchen. Following an inspection of the kitchen, the landlord wrote to the resident on 17 September 2021. The landlord said it had investigated the “damp staining” reported by the resident. It had removed the back panels of the kitchen units and inspected behind and found “no sign of any damp or moisture”. It had also inspected the plumbing in the kitchen and it was “free from any form of leak”. It concluded that the staining was likely caused by a previous spillage and had been “soaked up” by the back panels, and it would attend to replace the panels on 22 September 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 October 2021 and said that she was unhappy with how her complaint had been handled. She stated that she was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered. It is unclear how the landlord responded to this concern.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 January 2022, and asked it to inspect her property again, as the wall was still “wet through” and smelled damp. She reported that skirting boards were rotting due to the damp conditions. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 13 January 2022, and advised her that it would not raise any works as the wall was “perfectly fine” and not damp.
The resident contacted this Service on 21 February 2022 and said that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in her property. She said that the quality of the works, in relation to the damp and mould, was poor. This Service contacted the landlord on 1 March 2022 and advised it to raise a new stage 1 complaint in relation to concerns raised by the resident, which were:
1. Its decision not to replace the resident’s skirting boards, following an inspection;
2. The quality of plastering done in the resident’s property;
3. That it had not “followed up” on an inspection of the resident’s kitchen, and had not explained to the resident why it would not do any works.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 2 March 2022, and said it would respond within 10 working days. This Service has been provided with a complaint response letter, dated 16 March 2022, although it is not clear when the response was sent to the resident. The letter said:
1. Outstanding repairs to the resident’s skirting boards were raised on 4 June 2021, but were cancelled following an inspection on 7 June 2021. This was because the landlord found “no issue” with them. It apologised that this information was not given when the resident called;
2. On 13 January 2022, it had inspected the plasterwork it had completed, and found that a small section had become “de-bonded”, but this did not warrant a replacement. It advised that hairline cracks and small holes could be filled and painted and did not need replacing;
3. In relation to the “damp in the kitchen” it raised a repair to the kitchen units and the repair was completed on 3 February 2022;
4. It “partially” upheld the resident’s complaint, as the skirting board repair was raised when it should not have been, and apologised for the incorrect information given by its contact centre;
5. It advised how the resident could take her complaint to the next stage if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident contacted this Service on 1 June 2022 and said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. The resident advised that she had asked the landlord, by phone, for her complaint to be escalated, but was concerned that it had not done this. It is not clear, from the evidence available, when the resident contacted the landlord to ask her complaint to be escalated to stage 2.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 27 June 2022, and said:
1. It had completed works to rectify the issues identified in the hallway, behind the kitchen unit, and the lounge floor in May 2021;
2. It was satisfied that no further works were needed to the kitchen units or skirting boards, and reiterated its previous offer of £660 in compensation;
3. It had reinspected the resident’s property in January 2022, following further reports of damp in the kitchen, and found no damp or mould;
4. It had agreed to install a larger radiator in the bedroom, as the resident found it “constantly cold”, this was completed on 1 March 2022;
5. It had inspected further reports of defective plaster, and damp in the skirting boards in April 2022 (although the letter incorrectly referred to July 2022). It had found no evidence of “any damp” anywhere in the property, including the skirting boards. It raised a repair to “patch” the plasterwork;
6. It was of the position that “areas of damp” were now “resolved” and there was “no evidence of dampness or mould within the property”. It advised that it would not replace the skirting boards as they were “not defective”;
7. It advised the resident on how to escalate the complaint to the Ombudsman, if the resident was dissatisfied with its response.

Events after the complaint procedure

The resident arranged for an independent surveyor to inspect the property. This was completed on 15 July 2022. The surveyor’s report dated 11 August 2022 stated:
1. There was low level rising damp in the “front wall”, up to a height of 150mm, and the plasterwork had “lost its adhesion”;
2. Rising damp was present in the “side (party) wall” up to a height of 400mm, and the skirting board had a “sufficiently high moisture content to sustain decay”;
3. There was low level rising damp and high moisture content in the skirting board in the “side (internal) wall”, and in places the timber was “soft” indicating that “decay may” have started;
4. It concluded that “attempts to remedy the problems of dampness” were not successful;
The resident contacted this Service on 7 September 2022 and said that she was still having issues with damp and mould in the property, and was running 3 dehumidifiers that were costing her a lot of money. The resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint.
The landlord arranged for an independent surveyor to conduct a ‘habitation survey’ at the property on 29 September 2022, and issued a report on 10 October 2022, which said:
1. The interior of the property was noted to be in “reasonable condition” and the temperature and humidity levels were within “acceptable tolerances”;
2. The property was “suffering from issues of rising damp” to the rear and adjacent internal walls;
3. The ventilation at the property was “quite limited” and the external vent within the bedroom had been “blocked” by the external wall insulation system;
4. The fans installed in the kitchen and bathroom along with the window vents provided adequate ventilation, as such no works to increase ventilation were recommended;
5. The “moisture ingress” to the internal and external walls were the result of a lack of damp proofing to the floor slab and walls;
6. It recommended “essential remedial works” of:
  1. Undertake a drainage survey to identify works required to repair the drains;
  2. Clear drainage systems to prevent “flooding” at the rear of the property;
7. In addition to the essential works it recommended:
  1. The installation of a “retrofit damp proof membrane and damp proof course” to the property;
  2. Appointing a specialist to complete “drilling and damp probe testing”.
The landlord contacted the resident on 26 May 2023 to outline its “agreed way forward” in respect of the “outstanding repairs”, and said:
1. It had decided to offer the resident £5,500 in compensation for the “cost of items damaged” due to the repairs issue, and the “inconvenience” experienced by its handling of the matter;
2. It planned to commence works in August 2023, and the resident had agreed to stay with family for a 6 week period, while it completed works. The offer of compensation included a refund of rent for this period;
3. The resident had refused the offer of compensation, and its position was that it considered it fair and reasonable, in line with its ‘redress guidance’ , and it would not increase its offer;
4. Following a ‘housing health and safety rating system’ (HHSRS) report, it planned to remove the plaster and render from all walls to inject a damp proof course;
5. Following the proposed works it would relay carpet and conduct “make good” decorations “as required”;
6. It apologised for the delays and inconvenience “as a result of the ongoing repairs issues” the resident was experiencing.
The resident contacted this Service on 20 June 2023 and said that she had now accepted the landlords offer of £5,500 in compensation.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 August 2023 and said that it would start the proposed works on 4 September 2023, and the works would be completed by 13 November 2023.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure states that it has 3 categories of repair which are:
1. Emergency: which it aims to attend within 4 hours;
2. Urgent: which it aims to attend within 5 working days;
3. Routine: which it aims to attend within 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will issue stage 1 and 2 complaint responses within 10 working days. It states that complaint responses must detail how it intends to put any identified failings right, and if the resident explains they are unhappy with a stage 1 complaint response, it will escalate the complaint to the next stage. The policy also states that it will “acknowledge receipt” of complaints at each stage.

Damp and mould and the associated repairs

Following the landlord completing works in an attempt to resolve damp and mould issues in early 2021, the resident reported further concerns about damp and mould in the property. The landlord attended promptly to inspect the area of concern, the kitchen, which was appropriate in the circumstances. The evidence provided indicates that the landlord attended within 20 working days of the resident’s reports. This suggests it identified the repair as ‘routine’ which was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations about perceived repair issues in the property in June 2021. It provided the resident with a detailed explanation against each of her concerns and sought to explain its responsibilities. This was reasonable in the circumstances, as it took the resident’s concern’s seriously, inspected, and then sought to manage her expectations that the perceived repair issues could be remedied by decoration and were the resident’s responsibility.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of July 2021, sought to manage the resident’s expectations around damp and mould further. Its response gave detailed information about damp recordings in the walls and skirting boards, and explained these were at an acceptable level. This was appropriate, as at the time the landlord was of the view that there was no damp and mould in the property, and it communicated this position clearly to the resident. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response also sought to reiterate its offer of compensation to assist with redecoration and costs the resident had incurred. This was reasonable in the circumstances, as it sought to remind the resident its previous offer of compensation remained and outlined its position relating to any further repairs.
However, it is concerning that only 3 months after the landlord reported that there was no damp present in the resident’s property, a surveyor commissioned by the resident found rising damp. Also the skirting that the landlord reported as being in satisfactory condition, had high levels of moisture that could lead to decay. The surveyor commissioned by the landlord, following concerns raised by the resident’s own survey, also found issues with rising damp. It is possible that the condition of the property could have deteriorated. However, given the length of time that the resident had raised concerns about damp in the property, it is reasonable to conclude, on the balance of evidence, that the defects were likely to be present in April 2022.
The landlord’s decision to commission an independent survey of the property to investigate the damp and mould was appropriate, given what the resident’s surveyor had found. However, the length of time the issue had been ongoing before it commissioned such a survey was unreasonable. The resident had been reporting issues about damp and mould for a significant period of time, and was cost time and trouble of commissioning her own surveyor to investigate the damp and mould thoroughly, due to the landlord’s failure to investigate thoroughly. It is reasonable to expect that if the landlord had sought independent advice or carried out proportionate investigation earlier, this would have assisted it in identifying the cause of damp and mould sooner. The result for the resident was the distress of living in a property with damp and mould present, compounded by the landlord only conducting cursory investigations into her concerns.
The resident also suffered the inconvenience of being required to move out for a second time, to enable the landlord to complete the appropriate works. Had the landlord instructed an expert to inspect the resident’s property sooner, this may have been avoided.
The landlord wrote to the resident to outline what works it would do in May 2023, which was 7 months after it received the report from the surveyor. Given the amount of works proposed, it is not reasonable to expect the landlord to complete such works within the 20 day timeframe for routine repairs set out in its procedure, but a 7 month wait was unreasonable. It is not clear, from the evidence available, why it took this long to confirm the works with the resident. The result for the resident was further distress of living in a property suffering from issues with damp and mould. Given the length of delay outlined above, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have sought to manage the resident’s expectations and provide periodic updates about its progress with the proposed repairs. This Service has seen no evidence of such communication, and the landlord’s failure to manage the resident’s expectations about the repairs was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
The landlord told this Service that it planned to start the proposed works in September 2023, and complete them by November 2023. This is a further 4 months after it wrote to the resident to explain what works it planned to complete. The 4 month delay in starting the works, once it had formally identified and outlined them, is well outside of the 20 working day timeframe set out in its repairs procedure. This is a further failing in its handling of the issue, and an unreasonable delay in starting works that were first identified over a year before.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate and reasonable. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s letter in May 2023, apologised for the inconvenience the issue had caused, which was appropriate. However, it did not identify any failings it had found, or why its position had changed significantly since it issued its stage 2 complaint response in June 2022. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated it was of the view there was no damp in the resident’s property and offered £660 in compensation, but also did not identify what learning it had done. It later increased this offer significantly and was proposing extensive works to the resident’s property. It is therefore reasonable to expect the landlord to explain to the resident the learning it had done and why it was increasing the offer of compensation so significantly.
The landlord’s letter in May 2023 did apologise for the inconvenience the resident experienced, but did not acknowledge or apologise for the evident distress the resident had experienced living in a property with damp and mould. It also did not acknowledge the time and trouble the resident experienced in commissioning a surveyor. Neither did the landlord apologise for the delay in communicating the works it was proposing. At the time that the landlord offered the £5,500 in compensation, the substantive issue of the resident’s complaint was outstanding, and the proposed works were yet to start. For the above reasons, the amount of compensation offered by the landlord did not fully put things right for the resident, as such relevant orders have been made below. The resident is due to experience further inconvenience of having to move out of her property for a further 2 months while the landlord completes the proposed works.
It is particularly concerning that, following a determination made by this Service in August 2021, the landlord has failed to show learning from the outcomes of the previous complaint. Similarly to the previous case, there were delays in investigating the resident’s concerns about damp and mould, and works it completed did not resolve the issue. The detriment to the resident has been furthered by the fact the landlord did not show appropriate learning from the previous outcomes, and made similar mistakes in its handling of the matter. A finding of severe maladministration has been made.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 7 July 2021, referenced a letter the resident sent, to make the complaint, on 21 June 2021.This Service has not seen evidence of the letter from the resident, or a complaint acknowledgment. As part of this investigation, this Service asked the landlord for a copy of the resident’s letter and any complaint acknowledgment. This was to enable this Service to assess whether the landlord had responded to the concerns raised in the resident’s complaint letter. This Service also sought to assess whether the landlord complied with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) by formally acknowledging the complaint. The landlord was unable to provide the resident’s letter or an acknowledgment for the complaint. This is evidence of poor record keeping.
It is of particular concern that when this Service asked for evidence relating to the stage 1 complaint response of 7 July 2021, the landlord was unable to locate the complaint response letter. This is further evidence of poor record keeping on the part of the landlord. It is noted that the landlord told this Service that is has completed training with its staff to remind them of the importance of storing and retaining all complaint correspondence.
The resident contacted the landlord in October 2021, and said that she was unhappy with the offer of compensation, and how the landlord had handled her complaint. The resident expressed a dissatisfaction with its stage 1 complaint response, it is therefore reasonable to expect the landlord to have opened a stage 2 complaint investigation at that time. This Service has seen no evidence that it raised at stage 2 complaint at the time, which is a further failing in its complaint handling. The landlord unreasonably obstructed the resident in progressing through its complaint procedure, which was a further inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord opened a new stage 1 complaint in March 2022, as requested by this Service. The resident contacted this Service on 18 March 2022 to express a concern that the landlord had not responded to the complaint. The landlord told this Service on 14 April 2022 that the stage 1 complaint response was “started but never finished or sent”. It remains unclear when the stage 1 complaint response was sent to the resident, but this was evidently well outside of the 10 working day timeframe set out in its procedure. This was a further failing in the landlord’s complaint handling, and the resident was cost time and trouble in needing to seek assistance from this Service in order to get a response to her complaint.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, dated but not sent on16 March 2022, identified a failing that it booked a repair that it should not have. The resident suffered a disappointment of the landlord not completing a repair that it said it would. The landlord appropriately identified and apologised for this failing. However, it did not offer the resident any redress to try and put things right, which would have been reasonable in the circumstances. This was a further failing.
The resident told this Service, on 1 June 2022, that she had been unable to escalate her complaint with the landlord. This Service does not dispute the resident’s claim, but has seen no evidence that the she attempted to escalate her complaint prior to making contact with this Service on 1 June 2022. The landlord had poor record keeping in relation to the resident’s complaint, and had previously failed to escalate a complaint when it could reasonably have been expected to. It is therefore reasonable to conclude, on the balance of evidence, that there is no reason to doubt the resident’s version of events, and that the landlord failed to escalate the complaint.
Following contact from this Service, it does not appear that the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint acknowledgment, after this Service asked it to open a stage 2 complaint. This was a failure to adhere to its complaints policy and the Code, which states complaints must be acknowledged and timeframes for responses given. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the resident’s complaint at stage 2 was an inconvenience to the resident as she was left not knowing when or if her complaint would be considered by the landlord.
The landlord’s complaint responses at stage 1 and 2 did give detailed explanations of its position in relation to damp and mould and works. It clearly outlined what works it had completed or was proposing, which was appropriate. However, its complaint responses were cursory in how it addressed the detriment the resident had suffered, as a result of its identified failings. It reiterated its previous offer of compensation in attempt to put things right, but it failed to address the distress its admitted failings had caused in a meaningful way. As outlined above, it also failed to identify what learning it had done. The result was a complaints process that lacked empathy for the experiences of the resident and any meaningful engagement in how it planned to improve handling of similar cases in the future. As such, relevant orders have been made below in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property, and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not complete a thorough investigation into the causes of the damp and mould. There was an unreasonable delay in commissioning an expert to inspect the property, which resulted in the resident experiencing prolonged distress of living in a property with damp and mould. The evidence does not indicate that the landlord would have arranged for its own survey had it not been for the resident employing an independent surveyor. There was an unreasonable delay in communicating what works the landlord would complete, following the survey, causing further detriment. The compensation the landlord offered did not fully put things right for the resident.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of July 2021, did not tell the resident how to escalate her complaint to stage 2. When the resident expressed dissatisfaction with its stage 1 complaint response, it did not open a stage 2 complaint investigation. The landlord’s record keeping in relation to the complaint was poor, and its complaint responses lacked empathy, failed to identify learning, and did not give the appropriate consideration to the detriment experienced by the resident.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report;
2. Pay the resident £7,000 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £5,500 it offered for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould (if has not already done so);
  2. A further £1,000 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould;
  3. £500 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to complete training with its complaint handling staff, with a particular focus on:
1. The importance of effective record keeping when handling a complaint;
2. How to appropriately acknowledge complaints and identifying learning, when a complaint investigation has found failings;
3. When to offer redress, when a complaint investigation has identified failings.
The landlord should share the date and content of the training with this Service, also within 8 weeks.

Recommendations

It is recommended that, when making future offers of compensation, the landlord should give a breakdown of how it has reached the figure of compensation being offered, and identify what failings it has found in its service.