Onward Homes Limited (202223799)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223799

Onward Homes Limited

17 May 2024 (amended at review)

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:
1. Damp and mould.
2. Pest control and proofing works.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association. For ease of reading the resident and her partner will both be referred to as the resident in this report. During the relevant time the resident was pregnant and then had a newborn baby.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof, external and internal walls. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Following its repairs policy and handbook it will complete emergency repairs within one day and standard repairs within 20 days. It will complete complex repairs within 90 days. The policy encourages residents to report damp and mould to the landlord but does not set out what actions it will take. The policy handbook also encourages residents to report pest control issues and says it will arrange pest control to treat and investigate the cause of the infestation.
The Housing Act 2004 introduced the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Two of the 29 identified hazards are damp and mould, and pests. Landlords have an obligation to minimise or remove the identified hazards.
The Ombudsman published a spotlight report on Damp and Mould and the landlord has provided a copy of its self-assessment against the recommendations made within that report.
The landlord defines a complaint as per paragraph 1.2 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) under its complaints policy. It operates a 2-stage process. At stage 1 the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days or will keep the resident updated if it needs more time. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 2 working days and will respond within 20 working days or will keep the resident updated if it needs more time.
The Code in use at the time set out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. If it needs a further 10 working days in exceptional circumstances, it must contact the resident to explain this. Any further delay beyond this must be agreed with the resident. It should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.10) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13).

Summary of events

The resident’s tenancy started on 2 September and on 22 September 2021 she emailed the landlord to report damp on an internal wall in the living room and provided photographs. In an internal email the landlord asked for an inspection as the damp was “too much to raise a mould wash”. The landlord inspected the property on an unknown date and carried out a mould wash also on an unknown date. The resident called the landlord on 30 November 2021 and said the mould wash had not worked and the wall was still damp.
On 18 January 2022 the landlord raised a repair to fill holes, or ‘proof’, the loft which was recorded as a no access on 3 February 2022. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 April 2022 and asked when the repairs and damp would be fixed. She emphasised that she had a newborn baby living in damp conditions. She called the landlord again on 5 April 2022 to chase repairs. She said pest control had attended and said brickwork needed proofing to stop rats getting in. The landlord raised a proofing repair and a repair to install new extractor fans.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 April 2022 and said it did not attend for the proofing repair, which it rebooked for 19 May 2022. It also raised a mould wash on 20 May 2022, however, the resident called it on 24 May 2022 and said she was not happy with the work and the proofing had not been completed as the wrong trade had attended. The landlord’s notes say it booked an inspection for 27 May 2022.
On 8 June 2022 the resident emailed her MP, and the MP emailed the landlord to ask it to provide a response. The resident said there was damp in the property since she moved in, the landlord had inspected in March 2022 but had not repaired it. She also said her loft was full of rat droppings, and there were holes in the roof and brick work which she had reported which had not been repaired. The landlord replied to the MP on 20 June 2022 and said it was inspecting the property that day and would manage any repairs found.
The landlord raised a repair to hack off and replaster the living room wall on 4 October 2022 (which it marked as a no access on 25 October 2022). The resident also called the same day and asked the landlord to remove insulation from and clean her loft due to the rat droppings. She called it again on 8 November 2022 to chase the works. The following day the resident emailed her MP and said she still had damp and rat droppings in her loft, which the landlord was not dealing with. Following her email the MP emailed the landlord for an update.
In an internal email on 17 November 2022 the landlord requested a survey of the property. It said the resident had reported damp and that her living conditions were having a negative effect on her. It replied to the MP on 25 November 2022 and said it had inspected the property and raised plaster works for the damp which its records say it completed that day. It also said it had asked for an independent inspection to be carried out. On 8 December 2022 the landlord raised a repair for a mould wash in the bedroom.
The resident contacted this Service and on 16 January 2023 the Ombudsman emailed the landlord and asked it to raise a stage 1 complaint. The complaint was about worsening damp in the property and having rats in the loft with associated pest control issues. The landlord called the resident on 19 January 2023 to acknowledge and discuss the complaint. The landlord’s note says the resident said she has had damp in the property since she moved in, and repairs attempts have not resolved this. She also said she had rats in the loft, which pest control had dealt with but there were still rat droppings in the loft. She was concerned about the impact this could all have on her and her family’s health.
On 30 January 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response and said:
1. It had inspected in March 2022 and installed 2 new extractor fans and renewed plaster on 6 April 2022. It then completed a mould wash and further inspection. It attended again on 23 May 2022 and confirmed damp. It attended on 17 June 2022 but did not do any work as a surveyor was to attend 3 days later. It then raised works and it attended on 5 – 7 July 2022 to complete these (no evidence has been provided to this Service). The resident told it that the plastering work and loft insulation replacement had not been done and it reraised these works.
2. It had arranged proofing works 3 times but had not completed them. It then attended on 23 June 2022 to complete the repairs.
3. It apologised for the multiple repair appointments, had arranged for a further inspection on 3 February 2023, and offered £500 compensation for delays in resolving the repairs.
4. How to escalate the complaint if the resident remained dissatisfied.
The resident emailed the landlord on 31 January 2023 and accepted the compensation offered. She also thanked the landlord for its help in trying to fix the issues. The same day the landlord replied to the MP and said it had completed works for the damp and mould. It also said the resident needed to contact the council about the pest control issues but it would complete any proofing needed.
On 6 February 2023 the landlord raised a recall repair for the plaster works stating the wall was still wet. The resident called the landlord for an update on 3 March 2023 and the landlord said there was an appointment for the plaster works on 7 March 2023 and for the insulation the day before, however it is not clear whether these appointments went ahead.
On 4 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say she had not received an update. She also called the landlord and said she felt like she was being ignored and wanted to escalate her complaint if she did not hear back. The landlord raised a new plastering repair on 15 April 2023 which it marked as completed on its record on a date not known.
The resident emailed her MP again on 25 April 2023 and said she still had damp and rats in the property. She said she called the landlord, but it did not call her back and the experience was “draining the life out of” her. The MP emailed the landlord and asked it to respond. The landlord replied to the MP on 12 May 2023 and said damp works had been issued but not yet completed, and that rats needed to be reported to the council.
Between 15 and 16 May 2023 the landlord and resident exchanged further emails. The landlord apologised for the delay in reply which it said was due to staff absence. The resident asked for an update on the outstanding works as she felt she was not getting anywhere. The landlord said works had been raised for the damp, brick work and roof repairs.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 29 June 2023. She called the landlord on 10 July 2023 to chase a response. In response to the complaint the landlord raised a proofing repair on 25 July 2023. On 26 September 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it said:
1. The damp was caused by failing external pointing (cracked mortar between the brickwork) which had been repaired and replastering of the living room and bedroom wall was booked for 6 October 2023, after which it would reinspect.
2. It had completed some proofing work and replaced the loft insulation. It had arranged for its own pest control company to attend the following day to produce a report.
3. The works had taken longer than they should have, and its communication should have been better. It apologised for this and said it had highlighted its failures within its teams.
4. It had reviewed its compensation offer and offered a further £550 to reflect the further delays and inconvenience caused. It also set out its learning from the complaint in relation to damp.
5. How to contact this Service if the resident remained dissatisfied.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

Between 5 and 26 October 2023, the resident reported further rat activity to the landlord and it:
1. Inspected the property for further proofing and considered whether a noise emitting device could be installed to prevent rats.
2. Devised a plan for further pest control, to remove the loft insulation and carry out more proofing.
3. Received a report from the resident about maggots falling from the ceiling into her bathroom. It agreed to temporarily decant, or move, her and arranged for pest control to attend. It removed a dead rat and the insulation from the loft and carried out further proofing works.
The resident emailed her councillor, and the councillor emailed the landlord on 27 October 2023 about the pest control situation. The landlord replied the same day to confirm it had decanted the resident, treated the property, agreed to continue pest control treatment for 4 weeks and to inspect the roof. On 2 November 2023 the landlord also raised a repair to fix holes in the roof felt.
In reply to a further email from the resident on 31 October 2023 the landlord also said it would look for other access points but would not cut into walls to do this. The resident emailed it on 10 November 2023 and said she was not happy that it had ruled out fully investigating the wall cavity for the rats’ point of entry.
On 15 November 2023 the landlord provided an ‘updated’ stage 2 response letter to include further compensation. The letter, which remained dated 26 September 2023, was updated to offer further compensation of £50 for decorating costs and £700 for the length of time taken to carry out repairs.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 April 2024 to ask what it was going to do to resolve the ongoing rat problem. She said the rats were coming from the wall cavity and there were still rat droppings in the loft, which had been left without insulation over the winter. The landlord replied and said it had been contacted by this Service, the complaint had been closed and was now for the Ombudsman to consider. It said the Ombudsman was not likely to order further compensation based on our remedies guidance. It also said it “was wondering if you would consider withdrawing your complaint to the housing ombudsman and we can work together to resolve and discuss additional redress. There is absolutely no pressure to withdraw”.
The resident has told this Service that she still has rats and damp. She said the landlord is planning to install thermal boards to resolve the damp and she is happy with this. However, she said the landlord has sent various roofers to inspect for entry points for the rats but has refused to investigate the cavity wall. She said she can hear rats all the time in her bathroom wall cavity crawling up into her loft. This was having a negative effect on her life, and she had concerns for her young child. She also said the landlord had previously called her and “begged” her to withdraw her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould

When the resident first reported damp on 22 September 2021 the landlord agreed to inspect in line with its repairing obligations under the tenancy agreement and legislation. It was correct to do this before carrying out a mould wash which it did after the inspection. It is not known whether the landlord completed this within its 20 working day repairs timeframe as it has failed to provide evidence to this Service of the inspection and works. However, this was completed before 30 November 2021 when the resident reported the issue again.
The landlord failed to take any further action in relation to damp until 5 April 2022 when it raised a repair for new extractor fans which was an unacceptable delay and failing. Although the resident had chased the repairs there is no evidence of any action taken before this date. It raised a further mould wash in May 2022 which also failed to resolve the damp. It is not clear what, if any further investigation the landlord had carried out into the cause of the damp at this time which was a further failing. While the landlord’s note say it booked an inspection for 27 May 2022 there is no evidence of whether this took place or any report from an inspection which was a further failing. In response to an MP enquiry it arranged to inspect the property again on 20 June 2022, but again has failed to produce an inspection report. It also did not provide details of the works it said it completed between 5 – 7 July 2022.
As the previous works were not successful it raised a further repair which it marked as a no access. It is not clear whether the resident was aware of the appointment as she chased the landlord following this to complete the works. It inspected again and carried out further plaster works in November 2022. By this point over a year had passed since the resident first reported damp. The landlord had not completed repairs to resolve the issue within its policy timeframe for complex repairs and the delay was a failing.
Within its stage 1 response the landlord accepted that it had taken too long to complete repairs and offered £500 compensation (for all repair delays). It also arranged to inspect the property again on 31 January 2023. It recalled the plaster repairs but failed to complete these leading to it raising the job again on 15 April 2023. By this time over 18 months had passed since the resident first reported the damp, which had still not been resolved, which was a continuing failing. By 12 May 2023 the landlord confirmed the work had still not been completed which was a further unacceptable delay.
On 26 September 2023 in its stage 2 response, 2 years after the resident reported the damp, the landlord diagnosed the cause of the problem and said it had repaired it. It also said it had further plaster works to do in October 2023 which was a continuation of its failing to resolve the issue within its policy timeframe or a reasonable time. It offered a further £550 in compensation for delay in all repairs and increased this by £750 in November 2023.
In relation to the failures identified, 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 in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
While the landlord accepted responsibility for resolving the damp and initially acted promptly, it failed to correctly diagnose the cause of the damp or repair it for an unreasonable amount of time. While it inspected on various occasions, it failed to produce surveyor’s reports or detail its investigation into the cause of the damp. It breached its repairs policy timeframe and allowed a hazard under the HHSRS to persist in the property with a newborn baby/very young child living in damp conditions. This caused distress and worry, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident who had to consistently chase the landlord to carry out repairs over a 2-year period. There was severe maladministration, and an order has been made that the landlord pay additional compensation of £1,500 to the resident to reflect the impact its failings had on her.

The landlord’s handling of pest control and proofing works

The resident first reported rats to the council who sent a pest control company to the property. Under its policy handbook the landlord was responsible for pest control as well as the structure of the property, and it correctly raised repairs to proof the loft when asked to. Its appointment in February 2022 was marked as a no access. It is not clear whether the resident was aware of the appointment or what process the landlord followed when it did not gain access, as this is not included within its repairs policy or handbook. However, it did not appear to try to re-book with the resident which is a failing as it was aware the repair needed to be completed.
After the resident raised the issue again, upon advice from pest control, the landlord raised a new proofing repair, but it failed to attend. It sent the wrong trade on a new appointment which was a further failing. By this time 4 months had passed, and this was a breach of the landlord’s repair policy timeframe, and it was a further month before the repair was completed in June 2023.
Throughout this time the resident continued to tell the landlord that she had rats in her loft with droppings contaminating it. She had been working with the council and the landlord had advised her to report further rats to the council, although it should have arranged pest control itself under its policy and so that was a failing.
Within its stage 1 and 2 responses the landlord offered compensation for delays with all repairs, which it increased in its ‘updated’ stage 2 response in November 2023 (as set out above). As part of its stage 2 response, it also agreed to arrange its own pest control company to treat the property and it removed the contaminated loft insulation. However, by this time the rat infestation had been ongoing for 20 months which was an unacceptable amount of time to have rats in the property.
Following the stage 2 response the resident asked the landlord to further investigate the rats’ entry point. She told it this was likely to be via a wall cavity and she reasonably asked it to look into this. The landlord said it would but only if there was an access panel, which there was not. The resident has told the Ombudsman that she believes she knows where the rats are getting in, and where they are travelling through the wall cavity and up into the loft. The landlord has carried out proofing works, but this has not resolved the problem. It would have been reasonable to have cut out a small section of plaster board to have further investigated the suspected entry point.
The resident still has a rat infestation at the date of this report and has described the mental and emotional impact this has and continues to have on her. She is legitimately fearful for the potential hazards of having rats and droppings in her loft and when considering she has a young child this is even more a worry for her. She has been left to live in a property with a second HHSRS hazard present which is a substantial failing. This has caused additional distress, worry, and inconvenience for the resident. Considering the failings, and the redress offered by the landlord, there was severe maladministration. The landlord has not been fair or put things right. An order has been made that the landlord pay additional compensation of £1,500 to reflect the impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The resident raised her complaint via the Ombudsman on 16 January 2023 and the landlord acknowledged this 3 working days later, slightly outside of its policy timeframe. It provided its stage 1 response on 30 January 2023 which was within 10 working days in line with its policy and the Code. It correctly identified and apologised for its failings and offered redress.
When the resident first raised that she was considering escalating her complaint, on 4 April 2023, it was not clear that she had at that time. It was reasonable for the landlord to wait until the resident said that she did want to escalate.
On 29 June 2023 the resident escalated her complaint, but the landlord failed to acknowledge this in breach of its policy. It did not provide its stage 2 response until 26 September 2023, which was 63 working days after escalation. This was an unreasonable delay in breach of its policy timeframe and paragraph 5.13 of the Code. Despite the resident having chased the response the landlord had also failed to request an extension of time.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord failed to acknowledge, explain, apologise for, or offer any redress for its delay in response which was a further failing. The landlord did not learn from its complaints handling failing or say how it would prevent similar failings occurring.
The landlord provided an ‘updated’ or second stage 2 response on 15 November 2023. Although it did this to offer further compensation this was not in line with its complaints policy.
There was maladministration which caused the resident further inconvenience, time and trouble in pursuing her complaint. To reflect this impact, in line with our remedies guidance, an order has been made that the landlord pay £300 compensation to the resident.
Following the resident bringing her complaint to this Service the resident has told the Ombudsman that the landlord called her and “begged” her to withdraw it. The landlord also emailed the resident on 11 April 2024 and asked her to consider withdrawing her complaint so that it could continue to work with her. It is not acceptable to ask a resident to withdraw an Ombudsman complaint. Such an approach is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, nor does it demonstrate that the landlord’s complaint process is operating effectively.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damp and mould.
2. Pest control and proofing works.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

There was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of damp and mould as it failed to resolve the damp issue within its policy timeframe or a reasonable amount of time. It left the resident and her young child to live in the property with damp for over 2 years. It did not demonstrate it had effectively investigated the cause of the damp and was slow to act in carrying out repairs.
There was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of pest control and proofing works as it failed to carry out proofing works within its policy timeframe for repairs or within a reasonable time. While it did some proofing work this did not solve the problem. It also refused to investigate the wall cavity which the resident strongly suspected was the point of entry.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling as it failed to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint or reply within its policy timeframe or in line with the Code. It also failed to recognise, apologise for, or remedy its failings and did not demonstrate it had learnt from these.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from the chief executive for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident additional compensation of £3,300 made up of:
  1. £1,500 for the distress and worry, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling the damp and mould.
  2. £1,500 for the distress, worry, and inconvenience, caused by its failings in handling the pest control and proofing works.
  3. £300 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its repairs handling failing.

R A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223799

Onward Homes Limited

17 May 2024

Our approach

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damp and mould.
2. Pest control and proofing works.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association. For ease of reading the resident and her partner will both be referred to as the resident in this report. During the relevant time the resident was pregnant and then had a newborn baby.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof, external and internal walls. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Following its repairs policy and handbook it will complete emergency repairs within one day and standard repairs within 20 days. It will complete complex repairs within 90 days. The policy encourages residents to report damp and mould to the landlord but does not set out what actions it will take. The policy handbook also encourages residents to report pest control issues and says it will arrange pest control to treat and investigate the cause of the infestation.
The Housing Act 2004 introduced the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Two of the 29 identified hazards are damp and mould, and pests. Landlords have an obligation to minimise or remove the identified hazards.
The Ombudsman published a spotlight report on Damp and Mould and the landlord has provided a copy of its self-assessment against the recommendations made within that report.
The landlord defines a complaint as per paragraph 1.2 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) under its complaints policy. It operates a 2-stage process. At stage 1 the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days or will keep the resident updated if it needs more time. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 2 working days and will respond within 20 working days or will keep the resident updated if it needs more time.
The Code in use at the time set out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. If it needs a further 10 working days in exceptional circumstances, it must contact the resident to explain this. Any further delay beyond this must be agreed with the resident. It should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.10) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13).

Summary of events

The resident’s tenancy started on 2 September and on 22 September 2021 she emailed the landlord to report damp on an internal wall in the living room and provided photographs. In an internal email the landlord asked for an inspection as the damp was “too much to raise a mould wash”. The landlord inspected the property on an unknown date and carried out a mould wash also on an unknown date. The resident called the landlord on 30 November 2021 and said the mould wash had not worked and the wall was still damp.
On 18 January 2022 the landlord raised a repair to fill holes, or ‘proof’, the loft which was recorded as a no access on 3 February 2022. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 April 2022 and asked when the repairs and damp would be fixed. She emphasised that she had a newborn baby living in damp conditions. She called the landlord again on 5 April 2022 to chase repairs. She said pest control had attended and said brickwork needed proofing to stop rats getting in. The landlord raised a proofing repair and a repair to install new extractor fans.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 April 2022 and said it did not attend for the proofing repair, which it rebooked for 19 May 2022. It also raised a mould wash on 20 May 2022, however, the resident called it on 24 May 2022 and said she was not happy with the work and the proofing had not been completed as the wrong trade had attended. The landlord’s notes say it booked an inspection for 27 May 2022.
On 8 June 2022 the resident emailed her MP, and the MP emailed the landlord to ask it to provide a response. The resident said there was damp in the property since she moved in, the landlord had inspected in March 2022 but had not repaired it. She also said her loft was full of rat droppings, and there were holes in the roof and brick work which she had reported which had not been repaired. The landlord replied to the MP on 20 June 2022 and said it was inspecting the property that day and would manage any repairs found.
The landlord raised a repair to hack off and replaster the living room wall on 4 October 2022 (which it marked as a no access on 25 October 2022). The resident also called the same day and asked the landlord to remove insulation from and clean her loft due to the rat droppings. She called it again on 8 November 2022 to chase the works. The following day the resident emailed her MP and said she still had damp and rat droppings in her loft, which the landlord was not dealing with. Following her email the MP emailed the landlord for an update.
In an internal email on 17 November 2022 the landlord requested a survey of the property. It said the resident had reported damp and that her living conditions were having a negative effect on her. It replied to the MP on 25 November 2022 and said it had inspected the property and raised plaster works for the damp which its records say it completed that day. It also said it had asked for an independent inspection to be carried out. On 8 December 2022 the landlord raised a repair for a mould wash in the bedroom.
The resident contacted this Service and on 16 January 2023 the Ombudsman emailed the landlord and asked it to raise a stage 1 complaint. The complaint was about worsening damp in the property and having rats in the loft with associated pest control issues. The landlord called the resident on 19 January 2023 to acknowledge and discuss the complaint. The landlord’s note says the resident said she has had damp in the property since she moved in, and repairs attempts have not resolved this. She also said she had rats in the loft, which pest control had dealt with but there were still rat droppings in the loft. She was concerned about the impact this could all have on her and her family’s health.
On 30 January 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response and said:
1. It had inspected in March 2022 and installed 2 new extractor fans and renewed plaster on 6 April 2022. It then completed a mould wash and further inspection. It attended again on 23 May 2022 and confirmed damp. It attended on 17 June 2022 but did not do any work as a surveyor was to attend 3 days later. It then raised works and it attended on 5 – 7 July 2022 to complete these (no evidence has been provided to this Service). The resident told it that the plastering work and loft insulation replacement had not been done and it reraised these works.
2. It had arranged proofing works 3 times but had not completed them. It then attended on 23 June 2022 to complete the repairs.
3. It apologised for the multiple repair appointments, had arranged for a further inspection on 3 February 2023, and offered £500 compensation for delays in resolving the repairs.
4. How to escalate the complaint if the resident remained dissatisfied.
The resident emailed the landlord on 31 January 2023 and accepted the compensation offered. She also thanked the landlord for its help in trying to fix the issues. The same day the landlord replied to the MP and said it had completed works for the damp and mould. It also said the resident needed to contact the council about the pest control issues but it would complete any proofing needed.
On 6 February 2023 the landlord raised a recall repair for the plaster works stating the wall was still wet. The resident called the landlord for an update on 3 March 2023 and the landlord said there was an appointment for the plaster works on 7 March 2023 and for the insulation the day before, however it is not clear whether these appointments went ahead.
On 4 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say she had not received an update. She also called the landlord and said she felt like she was being ignored and wanted to escalate her complaint if she did not hear back. The landlord raised a new plastering repair on 15 April 2023 which it marked as completed on its record on a date not known.
The resident emailed her MP again on 25 April 2023 and said she still had damp and rats in the property. She said she called the landlord, but it did not call her back and the experience was “draining the life out of” her. The MP emailed the landlord and asked it to respond. The landlord replied to the MP on 12 May 2023 and said damp works had been issued but not yet completed, and that rats needed to be reported to the council.
Between 15 and 16 May 2023 the landlord and resident exchanged further emails. The landlord apologised for the delay in reply which it said was due to staff absence. The resident asked for an update on the outstanding works as she felt she was not getting anywhere. The landlord said works had been raised for the damp, brick work and roof repairs.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 29 June 2023. She called the landlord on 10 July 2023 to chase a response. In response to the complaint the landlord raised a proofing repair on 25 July 2023. On 26 September 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it said:
1. The damp was caused by failing external pointing (cracked mortar between the brickwork) which had been repaired and replastering of the living room and bedroom wall was booked for 6 October 2023, after which it would reinspect.
2. It had completed some proofing work and replaced the loft insulation. It had arranged for its own pest control company to attend the following day to produce a report.
3. The works had taken longer than they should have, and its communication should have been better. It apologised for this and said it had highlighted its failures within its teams.
4. It had reviewed its compensation offer and offered a further £550 to reflect the further delays and inconvenience caused. It also set out its learning from the complaint in relation to damp.
5. How to contact this Service if the resident remained dissatisfied.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

Between 5 and 26 October 2023, the resident reported further rat activity to the landlord and it:
1. Inspected the property for further proofing and considered whether a noise emitting device could be installed to prevent rats.
2. Devised a plan for further pest control, to remove the loft insulation and carry out more proofing.
3. Received a report from the resident about maggots falling from the ceiling into her bathroom. It agreed to temporarily decant, or move, her and arranged for pest control to attend. It removed a dead rat and the insulation from the loft and carried out further proofing works.
The resident emailed her councillor, and the councillor emailed the landlord on 27 October 2023 about the pest control situation. The landlord replied the same day to confirm it had decanted the resident, treated the property, agreed to continue pest control treatment for 4 weeks and to inspect the roof. On 2 November 2023 the landlord also raised a repair to fix holes in the roof felt.
In reply to a further email from the resident on 31 October 2023 the landlord also said it would look for other access points but would not cut into walls to do this. The resident emailed it on 10 November 2023 and said she was not happy that it had ruled out fully investigating the wall cavity for the rats’ point of entry.
On 15 November 2023 the landlord provided an ‘updated’ stage 2 response letter to include further compensation. The letter, which remained dated 26 September 2023, was updated to offer further compensation of £50 for decorating costs and £700 for the length of time taken to carry out repairs.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 April 2024 to ask what it was going to do to resolve the ongoing rat problem. She said the rats were coming from the wall cavity and there were still rat droppings in the loft, which had been left without insulation over the winter. The landlord replied and said it had been contacted by this Service, the complaint had been closed and was now for the Ombudsman to consider. It said the Ombudsman was not likely to order further compensation based on our remedies guidance. It also said it “was wondering if you would consider withdrawing your complaint to the housing ombudsman and we can work together to resolve and discuss additional redress. There is absolutely no pressure to withdraw”.
The resident has told this Service that she still has rats and damp. She said the landlord is planning to install thermal boards to resolve the damp and she is happy with this. However, she said the landlord has sent various roofers to inspect for entry points for the rats but has refused to investigate the cavity wall. She said she can hear rats all the time in her bathroom wall cavity crawling up into her loft. This was having a negative effect on her life, and she had concerns for her young child. She also said the landlord had previously called her and “begged” her to withdraw her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould

When the resident first reported damp on 22 September 2021 the landlord agreed to inspect in line with its repairing obligations under the tenancy agreement and legislation. It was correct to do this before carrying out a mould wash which it did after the inspection. It is not known whether the landlord completed this within its 20 working day repairs timeframe as it has failed to provide evidence to this Service of the inspection and works. However, this was completed before 30 November 2021 when the resident reported the issue again.
The landlord failed to take any further action in relation to damp until 5 April 2022 when it raised a repair for new extractor fans which was an unacceptable delay and failing. Although the resident had chased the repairs there is no evidence of any action taken before this date. It raised a further mould wash in May 2022 which also failed to resolve the damp. It is not clear what, if any further investigation the landlord had carried out into the cause of the damp at this time which was a further failing. While the landlord’s note say it booked an inspection for 27 May 2022 there is no evidence of whether this took place or any report from an inspection which was a further failing. In response to an MP enquiry it arranged to inspect the property again on 20 June 2022, but again has failed to produce an inspection report. It also did not provide details of the works it said it completed between 5 – 7 July 2022.
As the previous works were not successful it raised a further repair which it marked as a no access. It is not clear whether the resident was aware of the appointment as she chased the landlord following this to complete the works. It inspected again and carried out further plaster works in November 2022. By this point over a year had passed since the resident first reported damp. The landlord had not completed repairs to resolve the issue within its policy timeframe for complex repairs and the delay was a failing.
Within its stage 1 response the landlord accepted that it had taken too long to complete repairs and offered £500 compensation (for all repair delays). It also arranged to inspect the property again on 31 January 2023. It recalled the plaster repairs but failed to complete these leading to it raising the job again on 15 April 2023. By this time over 18 months had passed since the resident first reported the damp, which had still not been resolved, which was a continuing failing. By 12 May 2023 the landlord confirmed the work had still not been completed which was a further unacceptable delay.
On 26 September 2023 in its stage 2 response, 2 years after the resident reported the damp, the landlord diagnosed the cause of the problem and said it had repaired it. It also said it had further plaster works to do in October 2023 which was a continuation of its failing to resolve the issue within its policy timeframe or a reasonable time. It offered a further £550 in compensation for delay in all repairs and increased this by £750 in November 2023.
In relation to the failures identified, 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 in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
While the landlord accepted responsibility for resolving the damp and initially acted promptly, it failed to correctly diagnose the cause of the damp or repair it for an unreasonable amount of time. While it inspected on various occasions, it failed to produce surveyor’s reports or detail its investigation into the cause of the damp. It breached its repairs policy timeframe and allowed a hazard under the HHSRS to persist in the property with a newborn baby/very young child living in damp conditions. This caused distress and worry, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident who had to consistently chase the landlord to carry out repairs over a 2-year period. There was severe maladministration, and an order has been made that the landlord pay additional compensation of £1,500 to the resident to reflect the impact its failings had on her.

The landlord’s handling of pest control and proofing works

The resident first reported rats to the council who sent a pest control company to the property. Under its policy handbook the landlord was responsible for pest control as well as the structure of the property, and it correctly raised repairs to proof the loft when asked to. Its appointment in February 2022 was marked as a no access. It is not clear whether the resident was aware of the appointment or what process the landlord followed when it did not gain access, as this is not included within its repairs policy or handbook. However, it did not appear to try to re-book with the resident which is a failing as it was aware the repair needed to be completed.
After the resident raised the issue again, upon advice from pest control, the landlord raised a new proofing repair, but it failed to attend. It sent the wrong trade on a new appointment which was a further failing. By this time 4 months had passed, and this was a breach of the landlord’s repair policy timeframe, and it was a further month before the repair was completed in June 2023.
Throughout this time the resident continued to tell the landlord that she had rats in her loft with droppings contaminating it. She had been working with the council and the landlord had advised her to report further rats to the council, although it should have arranged pest control itself under its policy and so that was a failing.
Within its stage 1 and 2 responses the landlord offered compensation for delays with all repairs, which it increased in its ‘updated’ stage 2 response in November 2023 (as set out above). As part of its stage 2 response, it also agreed to arrange its own pest control company to treat the property and it removed the contaminated loft insulation. However, by this time the rat infestation had been ongoing for 20 months which was an unacceptable amount of time to have rats in the property.
Following the stage 2 response the resident asked the landlord to further investigate the rats’ entry point. She told it this was likely to be via a wall cavity and she reasonably asked it to look into this. The landlord said it would but only if there was an access panel, which there was not. The resident has told the Ombudsman that she believes she knows where the rats are getting in, and where they are travelling through the wall cavity and up into the loft. The landlord has carried out proofing works, but this has not resolved the problem. It would have been reasonable to have cut out a small section of plaster board to have further investigated the suspected entry point.
The resident still has a rat infestation at the date of this report and has described the mental and emotional impact this has and continues to have on her. She is legitimately fearful for the potential hazards of having rats and droppings in her loft and when considering she has a young child this is even more a worry for her. She has been left to live in a property with a second HHSRS hazard present which is a substantial failing. This has caused additional distress, worry, and inconvenience for the resident. Considering the failings, and the redress offered by the landlord, there was severe maladministration. The landlord has not been fair or put things right. An order has been made that the landlord pay additional compensation of £1,500 to reflect the impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The resident raised her complaint via the Ombudsman on 16 January 2023 and the landlord acknowledged this 3 working days later, slightly outside of its policy timeframe. It provided its stage 1 response on 30 January 2023 which was within 10 working days in line with its policy and the Code. It correctly identified and apologised for its failings and offered redress.
When the resident first raised that she was considering escalating her complaint, on 4 April 2023, it was not clear that she had at that time. It was reasonable for the landlord to wait until the resident said that she did want to escalate.
On 29 June 2023 the resident escalated her complaint, but the landlord failed to acknowledge this in breach of its policy. It did not provide its stage 2 response until 26 September 2023, which was 63 working days after escalation. This was an unreasonable delay in breach of its policy timeframe and paragraph 5.13 of the Code. Despite the resident having chased the response the landlord had also failed to request an extension of time.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord failed to acknowledge, explain, apologise for, or offer any redress for its delay in response which was a further failing. The landlord did not learn from its complaints handling failing or say how it would prevent similar failings occurring.
The landlord provided an ‘updated’ or second stage 2 response on 15 November 2023. Although it did this to offer further compensation this was not in line with its complaints policy.
There was maladministration which caused the resident further inconvenience, time and trouble in pursuing her complaint. To reflect this impact, in line with our remedies guidance, an order has been made that the landlord pay £300 compensation to the resident.
Following the resident bringing her complaint to this Service the resident has told the Ombudsman that the landlord called her and “begged” her to withdraw it. The landlord also emailed the resident on 11 April 2024 and asked her to consider withdrawing her complaint so that it could continue to work with her. It is not acceptable to ask a resident to withdraw an Ombudsman complaint. Such an approach is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, nor does it demonstrate that the landlord’s complaint process is operating effectively.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damp and mould.
2. Pest control and proofing works.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

There was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of damp and mould as it failed to resolve the damp issue within its policy timeframe or a reasonable amount of time. It left the resident and her young child to live in the property with damp for over 2 years. It did not demonstrate it had effectively investigated the cause of the damp and was slow to act in carrying out repairs.
There was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of pest control and proofing works as it failed to carry out proofing works within its policy timeframe for repairs or within a reasonable time. While it did some proofing work this did not solve the problem. It also refused to investigate the wall cavity which the resident strongly suspected was the point of entry, without explaining its reasons for the refusal to the resident.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling as it failed to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint or reply within its policy timeframe or in line with the Code. It also failed to recognise, apologise for, or remedy its failings and did not demonstrate it had learnt from these.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from the chief executive for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident additional compensation of £3,300 made up of:
  1. £1,500 for the distress and worry, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling the damp and mould.
  2. £1,500 for the distress, worry, and inconvenience, caused by its failings in handling the pest control and proofing works.
  3. £300 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its repairs handling failing.

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223799

Onward Homes Limited

17 May 2024

Our approach

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damp and mould.
2. Pest control and proofing works.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association. For ease of reading the resident and her partner will both be referred to as the resident in this report. During the relevant time the resident was pregnant and then had a newborn baby.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof, external and internal walls. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Following its repairs policy and handbook it will complete emergency repairs within one day and standard repairs within 20 days. It will complete complex repairs within 90 days. The policy encourages residents to report damp and mould to the landlord but does not set out what actions it will take. The policy handbook also encourages residents to report pest control issues and says it will arrange pest control to treat and investigate the cause of the infestation.
The Housing Act 2004 introduced the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Two of the 29 identified hazards are damp and mould, and pests. Landlords have an obligation to minimise or remove the identified hazards.
The Ombudsman published a spotlight report on Damp and Mould and the landlord has provided a copy of its self-assessment against the recommendations made within that report.
The landlord defines a complaint as per paragraph 1.2 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) under its complaints policy. It operates a 2-stage process. At stage 1 the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days or will keep the resident updated if it needs more time. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 2 working days and will respond within 20 working days or will keep the resident updated if it needs more time.
The Code in use at the time set out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. If it needs a further 10 working days in exceptional circumstances, it must contact the resident to explain this. Any further delay beyond this must be agreed with the resident. It should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.10) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13).

Summary of events

The resident’s tenancy started on 2 September and on 22 September 2021 she emailed the landlord to report damp on an internal wall in the living room and provided photographs. In an internal email the landlord asked for an inspection as the damp was “too much to raise a mould wash”. The landlord inspected the property on an unknown date and carried out a mould wash also on an unknown date. The resident called the landlord on 30 November 2021 and said the mould wash had not worked and the wall was still damp.
On 18 January 2022 the landlord raised a repair to fill holes, or ‘proof’, the loft which was recorded as a no access on 3 February 2022. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 April 2022 and asked when the repairs and damp would be fixed. She emphasised that she had a newborn baby living in damp conditions. She called the landlord again on 5 April 2022 to chase repairs. She said pest control had attended and said brickwork needed proofing to stop rats getting in. The landlord raised a proofing repair and a repair to install new extractor fans.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 April 2022 and said it did not attend for the proofing repair, which it rebooked for 19 May 2022. It also raised a mould wash on 20 May 2022, however, the resident called it on 24 May 2022 and said she was not happy with the work and the proofing had not been completed as the wrong trade had attended. The landlord’s notes say it booked an inspection for 27 May 2022.
On 8 June 2022 the resident emailed her MP, and the MP emailed the landlord to ask it to provide a response. The resident said there was damp in the property since she moved in, the landlord had inspected in March 2022 but had not repaired it. She also said her loft was full of rat droppings, and there were holes in the roof and brick work which she had reported which had not been repaired. The landlord replied to the MP on 20 June 2022 and said it was inspecting the property that day and would manage any repairs found.
The landlord raised a repair to hack off and replaster the living room wall on 4 October 2022 (which it marked as a no access on 25 October 2022). The resident also called the same day and asked the landlord to remove insulation from and clean her loft due to the rat droppings. She called it again on 8 November 2022 to chase the works. The following day the resident emailed her MP and said she still had damp and rat droppings in her loft, which the landlord was not dealing with. Following her email the MP emailed the landlord for an update.
In an internal email on 17 November 2022 the landlord requested a survey of the property. It said the resident had reported damp and that her living conditions were having a negative effect on her. It replied to the MP on 25 November 2022 and said it had inspected the property and raised plaster works for the damp which its records say it completed that day. It also said it had asked for an independent inspection to be carried out. On 8 December 2022 the landlord raised a repair for a mould wash in the bedroom.
The resident contacted this Service and on 16 January 2023 the Ombudsman emailed the landlord and asked it to raise a stage 1 complaint. The complaint was about worsening damp in the property and having rats in the loft with associated pest control issues. The landlord called the resident on 19 January 2023 to acknowledge and discuss the complaint. The landlord’s note says the resident said she has had damp in the property since she moved in, and repairs attempts have not resolved this. She also said she had rats in the loft, which pest control had dealt with but there were still rat droppings in the loft. She was concerned about the impact this could all have on her and her family’s health.
On 30 January 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response and said:
1. It had inspected in March 2022 and installed 2 new extractor fans and renewed plaster on 6 April 2022. It then completed a mould wash and further inspection. It attended again on 23 May 2022 and confirmed damp. It attended on 17 June 2022 but did not do any work as a surveyor was to attend 3 days later. It then raised works and it attended on 5 – 7 July 2022 to complete these (no evidence has been provided to this Service). The resident told it that the plastering work and loft insulation replacement had not been done and it reraised these works.
2. It had arranged proofing works 3 times but had not completed them. It then attended on 23 June 2022 to complete the repairs.
3. It apologised for the multiple repair appointments, had arranged for a further inspection on 3 February 2023, and offered £500 compensation for delays in resolving the repairs.
4. How to escalate the complaint if the resident remained dissatisfied.
The resident emailed the landlord on 31 January 2023 and accepted the compensation offered. She also thanked the landlord for its help in trying to fix the issues. The same day the landlord replied to the MP and said it had completed works for the damp and mould. It also said the resident needed to contact the council about the pest control issues but it would complete any proofing needed.
On 6 February 2023 the landlord raised a recall repair for the plaster works stating the wall was still wet. The resident called the landlord for an update on 3 March 2023 and the landlord said there was an appointment for the plaster works on 7 March 2023 and for the insulation the day before, however it is not clear whether these appointments went ahead.
On 4 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say she had not received an update. She also called the landlord and said she felt like she was being ignored and wanted to escalate her complaint if she did not hear back. The landlord raised a new plastering repair on 15 April 2023 which it marked as completed on its record on a date not known.
The resident emailed her MP again on 25 April 2023 and said she still had damp and rats in the property. She said she called the landlord, but it did not call her back and the experience was “draining the life out of” her. The MP emailed the landlord and asked it to respond. The landlord replied to the MP on 12 May 2023 and said damp works had been issued but not yet completed, and that rats needed to be reported to the council.
Between 15 and 16 May 2023 the landlord and resident exchanged further emails. The landlord apologised for the delay in reply which it said was due to staff absence. The resident asked for an update on the outstanding works as she felt she was not getting anywhere. The landlord said works had been raised for the damp, brick work and roof repairs.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 29 June 2023. She called the landlord on 10 July 2023 to chase a response. In response to the complaint the landlord raised a proofing repair on 25 July 2023. On 26 September 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it said:
1. The damp was caused by failing external pointing (cracked mortar between the brickwork) which had been repaired and replastering of the living room and bedroom wall was booked for 6 October 2023, after which it would reinspect.
2. It had completed some proofing work and replaced the loft insulation. It had arranged for its own pest control company to attend the following day to produce a report.
3. The works had taken longer than they should have, and its communication should have been better. It apologised for this and said it had highlighted its failures within its teams.
4. It had reviewed its compensation offer and offered a further £550 to reflect the further delays and inconvenience caused. It also set out its learning from the complaint in relation to damp.
5. How to contact this Service if the resident remained dissatisfied.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

Between 5 and 26 October 2023, the resident reported further rat activity to the landlord and it:
1. Inspected the property for further proofing and considered whether a noise emitting device could be installed to prevent rats.
2. Devised a plan for further pest control, to remove the loft insulation and carry out more proofing.
3. Received a report from the resident about maggots falling from the ceiling into her bathroom. It agreed to temporarily decant, or move, her and arranged for pest control to attend. It removed a dead rat and the insulation from the loft and carried out further proofing works.
The resident emailed her councillor, and the councillor emailed the landlord on 27 October 2023 about the pest control situation. The landlord replied the same day to confirm it had decanted the resident, treated the property, agreed to continue pest control treatment for 4 weeks and to inspect the roof. On 2 November 2023 the landlord also raised a repair to fix holes in the roof felt.
In reply to a further email from the resident on 31 October 2023 the landlord also said it would look for other access points but would not cut into walls to do this. The resident emailed it on 10 November 2023 and said she was not happy that it had ruled out fully investigating the wall cavity for the rats’ point of entry.
On 15 November 2023 the landlord provided an ‘updated’ stage 2 response letter to include further compensation. The letter, which remained dated 26 September 2023, was updated to offer further compensation of £50 for decorating costs and £700 for the length of time taken to carry out repairs.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 April 2024 to ask what it was going to do to resolve the ongoing rat problem. She said the rats were coming from the wall cavity and there were still rat droppings in the loft, which had been left without insulation over the winter. The landlord replied and said it had been contacted by this Service, the complaint had been closed and was now for the Ombudsman to consider. It said the Ombudsman was not likely to order further compensation based on our remedies guidance. It also said it “was wondering if you would consider withdrawing your complaint to the housing ombudsman and we can work together to resolve and discuss additional redress. There is absolutely no pressure to withdraw”.
The resident has told this Service that she still has rats and damp. She said the landlord is planning to install thermal boards to resolve the damp and she is happy with this. However, she said the landlord has sent various roofers to inspect for entry points for the rats but has refused to investigate the cavity wall. She said she can hear rats all the time in her bathroom wall cavity crawling up into her loft. This was having a negative effect on her life, and she had concerns for her young child. She also said the landlord had previously called her and “begged” her to withdraw her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould

When the resident first reported damp on 22 September 2021 the landlord agreed to inspect in line with its repairing obligations under the tenancy agreement and legislation. It was correct to do this before carrying out a mould wash which it did after the inspection. It is not known whether the landlord completed this within its 20 working day repairs timeframe as it has failed to provide evidence to this Service of the inspection and works. However, this was completed before 30 November 2021 when the resident reported the issue again.
The landlord failed to take any further action in relation to damp until 5 April 2022 when it raised a repair for new extractor fans which was an unacceptable delay and failing. Although the resident had chased the repairs there is no evidence of any action taken before this date. It raised a further mould wash in May 2022 which also failed to resolve the damp. It is not clear what, if any further investigation the landlord had carried out into the cause of the damp at this time which was a further failing. While the landlord’s note say it booked an inspection for 27 May 2022 there is no evidence of whether this took place or any report from an inspection which was a further failing. In response to an MP enquiry it arranged to inspect the property again on 20 June 2022, but again has failed to produce an inspection report. It also did not provide details of the works it said it completed between 5 – 7 July 2022.
As the previous works were not successful it raised a further repair which it marked as a no access. It is not clear whether the resident was aware of the appointment as she chased the landlord following this to complete the works. It inspected again and carried out further plaster works in November 2022. By this point over a year had passed since the resident first reported damp. The landlord had not completed repairs to resolve the issue within its policy timeframe for complex repairs and the delay was a failing.
Within its stage 1 response the landlord accepted that it had taken too long to complete repairs and offered £500 compensation (for all repair delays). It also arranged to inspect the property again on 31 January 2023. It recalled the plaster repairs but failed to complete these leading to it raising the job again on 15 April 2023. By this time over 18 months had passed since the resident first reported the damp, which had still not been resolved, which was a continuing failing. By 12 May 2023 the landlord confirmed the work had still not been completed which was a further unacceptable delay.
On 26 September 2023 in its stage 2 response, 2 years after the resident reported the damp, the landlord diagnosed the cause of the problem and said it had repaired it. It also said it had further plaster works to do in October 2023 which was a continuation of its failing to resolve the issue within its policy timeframe or a reasonable time. It offered a further £550 in compensation for delay in all repairs and increased this by £750 in November 2023.
In relation to the failures identified, 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 in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
While the landlord accepted responsibility for resolving the damp and initially acted promptly, it failed to correctly diagnose the cause of the damp or repair it for an unreasonable amount of time. While it inspected on various occasions, it failed to produce surveyor’s reports or detail its investigation into the cause of the damp. It breached its repairs policy timeframe and allowed a hazard under the HHSRS to persist in the property with a newborn baby/very young child living in damp conditions. This caused distress and worry, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident who had to consistently chase the landlord to carry out repairs over a 2-year period. There was severe maladministration, and an order has been made that the landlord pay additional compensation of £1,500 to the resident to reflect the impact its failings had on her.

The landlord’s handling of pest control and proofing works

The resident first reported rats to the council who sent a pest control company to the property. Under its policy handbook the landlord was responsible for pest control as well as the structure of the property, and it correctly raised repairs to proof the loft when asked to. Its appointment in February 2022 was marked as a no access. It is not clear whether the resident was aware of the appointment or what process the landlord followed when it did not gain access, as this is not included within its repairs policy or handbook. However, it did not appear to try to re-book with the resident which is a failing as it was aware the repair needed to be completed.
After the resident raised the issue again, upon advice from pest control, the landlord raised a new proofing repair, but it failed to attend. It sent the wrong trade on a new appointment which was a further failing. By this time 4 months had passed, and this was a breach of the landlord’s repair policy timeframe, and it was a further month before the repair was completed in June 2023.
Throughout this time the resident continued to tell the landlord that she had rats in her loft with droppings contaminating it. She had been working with the council and the landlord had advised her to report further rats to the council, although it should have arranged pest control itself under its policy and so that was a failing.
Within its stage 1 and 2 responses the landlord offered compensation for delays with all repairs, which it increased in its ‘updated’ stage 2 response in November 2023 (as set out above). As part of its stage 2 response, it also agreed to arrange its own pest control company to treat the property and it removed the contaminated loft insulation. However, by this time the rat infestation had been ongoing for 20 months which was an unacceptable amount of time to have rats in the property.
Following the stage 2 response the resident asked the landlord to further investigate the rats’ entry point. She told it this was likely to be via a wall cavity and she reasonably asked it to look into this. The landlord said it would but only if there was an access panel, which there was not. The resident has told the Ombudsman that she believes she knows where the rats are getting in, and where they are travelling through the wall cavity and up into the loft. The landlord has carried out proofing works, but this has not resolved the problem. It would likely have been reasonable to have cut out a small section of plaster board to have further investigated the suspected entry point.
The resident still has a rat infestation at the date of this report and has described the mental and emotional impact this has and continues to have on her. She is legitimately fearful for the potential hazards of having rats and droppings in her loft and when considering she has a young child this is even more a worry for her. It appears she continues to live in a property with a second HHSRS hazard present which is a substantial failing. This has caused additional distress, worry, and inconvenience for the resident. Considering the failings, and the redress offered by the landlord, there was severe maladministration. The landlord has not been fair or put things right. An order has been made that the landlord pay additional compensation of £1,500 to reflect the impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The resident raised her complaint via the Ombudsman on 16 January 2023 and the landlord acknowledged this 3 working days later, slightly outside of its policy timeframe. It provided its stage 1 response on 30 January 2023 which was within 10 working days in line with its policy and the Code. It correctly identified and apologised for its failings and offered redress.
When the resident first raised that she was considering escalating her complaint, on 4 April 2023, it was not clear that she had at that time. It was reasonable for the landlord to wait until the resident said that she did want to escalate.
On 29 June 2023 the resident escalated her complaint, but the landlord failed to acknowledge this in breach of its policy. It did not provide its stage 2 response until 26 September 2023, which was 63 working days after escalation. This was an unreasonable delay in breach of its policy timeframe and paragraph 5.13 of the Code. Despite the resident having chased the response the landlord had also failed to request an extension of time.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord failed to acknowledge, explain, apologise for, or offer any redress for its delay in response which was a further failing. The landlord did not learn from its complaints handling failing or say how it would prevent similar failings occurring.
The landlord provided an ‘updated’ or second stage 2 response on 15 November 2023. Although it did this to offer further compensation this was not in line with its complaints policy.
There was maladministration which caused the resident further inconvenience, time and trouble in pursuing her complaint. To reflect this impact, in line with our remedies guidance, an order has been made that the landlord pay £300 compensation to the resident.
Following the resident bringing her complaint to this Service the resident has told the Ombudsman that the landlord called her and “begged” her to withdraw it. The landlord also emailed the resident on 11 April 2024 and asked her to consider withdrawing her complaint so that it could continue to work with her. It is not acceptable to ask a resident to withdraw an Ombudsman complaint. Such an approach is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, nor does it demonstrate that the landlord’s complaint process is operating effectively.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damp and mould.
2. Pest control and proofing works.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

There was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of damp and mould as it failed to resolve the damp issue within its policy timeframe or a reasonable amount of time. It left the resident and her young child to live in the property with damp for over 2 years. It did not demonstrate it had effectively investigated the cause of the damp and was slow to act in carrying out repairs.
There was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of pest control and proofing works as it failed to carry out proofing works within its policy timeframe for repairs or within a reasonable time. While it did some proofing work this did not solve the problem. It also refused to investigate the wall cavity without providing an explanation as to why this could not be completed (if that were the case) which the resident strongly suspected was the point of entry.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling as it failed to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint or reply within its policy timeframe or in line with the Code. It also failed to recognise, apologise for, or remedy its failings and did not demonstrate it had learnt from these.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from the chief executive for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident additional compensation of £3,300 made up of:
  1. £1,500 for the distress and worry, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling the damp and mould.
  2. £1,500 for the distress, worry, and inconvenience, caused by its failings in handling the pest control and proofing works.
  3. £300 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its repairs handling failing.
3. The landlord must conduct a further inspection of the bathroom to see if it would be possible to conduct a further inspection of the wall cavity. In the event it is not possible to complete these inspections for any reason, the landlord should provide evidence of this to both this Service and the resident. In those circumstances, it must also outline what action it intends to take to bring about a permanent resolution to the issues the resident has reported.
4. Offer to reinstall new loft insulation once order c. has been complied with.
5. Produce a surveyor’s report on the damp in the property, to include the repairs undertaken and planned to resolve this and provide a copy to this Service.
6. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to conduct a senior management review of the case and provide a copy of the report to its senior executives and this Service. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. Consideration of producing a policy on proofing works and pest control investigation.
2. How it ensures it responds to complaints within policy and Code timeframes.
3. Offer to reinstall new loft insulation once order c. has been complied with.
4. Produce a surveyor’s report on the damp in the property, to include the repairs undertaken and planned to resolve this and provide a copy to this Service.
5. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to conduct a senior management review of the case and provide a copy of the report to its senior executives and this Service. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. Consideration of producing a policy on proofing works and pest control investigation.
2. How it ensures it responds to complaints within policy and Code timeframes.
3. aise an inspection of the cavity wall in the bathroom where the resident suspects the rat’s entry point to be. The landlord is to undertake works to open up the wall cavity, inspect, fill any entry points found, and make good the wall following this.
4. Offer to reinstall new loft insulation once order c. has been complied with.
5. Produce a surveyor’s report on the damp in the property, to include the repairs undertaken and planned to resolve this and provide a copy to this Service.
6. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to conduct a senior management review of the case and provide a copy of the report to its senior executives and this Service. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. Consideration of producing a policy on proofing works and pest control investigation.
2. How it ensures it responds to complaints within policy and Code timeframes.