Onward Homes Limited (202327821)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327821

Onward Homes Limited

30 August 2024

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident about:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. A request for rehousing.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, and the tenancy commenced in March 2021. The property is a 2-bedroom first floor flat. The resident is disabled and has a PEG-J abdominal feeding tube.
  2. The resident moved into the property in March 2021. In October 2021, she raised issues with damp and mould, and between then and January 2022 the landlord completed works in respect to the roof, gutters and window seals.
  3. In mid-October 2022, the resident raised concern that damp and mould was continuing, her windows were constantly wet, and she suspected there was a roof leak. The landlord raised a repair for windows to be resealed and said that the contractor would report a follow on repair if they noticed any issues. In late October 2022, the resident reported the contractor had attended and said there may be an issue with the gutters. She also said that the issue was causing infections to her and her feeding tube, damaging her belongings, and affecting her and her carer’s ability to stay in the property, and she expressed a desire to be rehoused. Following this, the landlord arranged for contractors to attend for the gutters on 1 November 2022, arranged a mould wash for 11 November 2022, and advised how to send in a GP letter.
  4. In early November 2022, the resident emailed a GP letter, which said that the resident felt damp was affecting her health, and said that she felt that the flat was uninhabitable, and asked for these to be taken into consideration for rehousing. The resident was advised to register with the local choice based lettings scheme to transfer or mutual exchange, and was later allocated a medium priority based on information she provided. The resident was told by staff that they would not immediately look at rehousing her, as they needed an opportunity to rectify the issue. They suggested for the mould wash to go ahead, and if the resident still experienced problems, the GP letter could be sent to the relevant team. The contractors were subsequently unable to attend for the mould wash and this was rearranged.
  5. In mid-November 2022, the resident reported that damp and mould and leaks were continuing after works to the gutters, and a surveyor raised further repairs for the gutters, an overhaul of a bathroom fan, and checks of the roof, loft and flashing. In late November 2022, the resident expressed frustration that works were getting mixed up, and that an operative had attended to inspect the gutters and not the loft and flashing as she had been told. In early December 2022, the resident reported that mould was returning in the bathroom and living room, and the landlord raised another mould wash.
  6. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 19 December 2022.
    1. It detailed the repairs and contact chronology since 2021, and noted actions taken since October 2022 in respect to gutters, roof, mould washes and a bathroom fan. It noted that a roof repair was scheduled for 19 January 2023. It acknowledged that there had been a lack of communication between it and contractors and this had caused delays and inconvenience to the resident. It apologised for its poor service and awarded £200.
    2. It noted the resident requested to be rehoused due to the impact on her health. It noted the resident was informed that it would not be able to arrange this and that she would need to register for a transfer. It noted that the issue had been discussed with a relevant team which said that the criteria for a management move was not met as the property had not been identified to be unhabitable by the repairs team.
  7. The resident escalated the complaint. She was unhappy that the response did not refer to her GP letter that said she could not stay in the property as it was negatively impacting her health. She also said that the compensation did not cover damage caused to the property and her belongings.
  8. In early January 2023, the landlord’s surveyor inspected and around this time, the resident noted that the only outstanding identified works were some repairs to relay loft insulation. This was scheduled for 3 February 2023 after the resident was initially told this would be done on 19 January 2023.
  9. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 31 January 2023.
    1. It noted that at an inspection on 9 January 2023, a bathroom fan was working more effectively to remove excess moisture, and the resident was given advice on ventilating areas where mould had been removed to help prevent it from returning. It noted that it identified at the inspection that works for loft insulation, eaves trays and porch roof flashings were not complete due to no access. It apologised for the delay completing repairs prior to 9 January 2023 and increased its compensation award to £300.
    2. It noted that the resident said she had a medical condition and requested to be rehoused, and said it had discussed this with a relevant team. It said that the level and extent of the mould did not render the property uninhabitable, and because of this it was not necessary to consider an emergency management move at that time. It asked the resident to let it know if she continued to experience a problem with damp and it would reassess the situation.
  10. In February, March and April 2023, repairs were raised to relay loft insulation, and a repair was also raised in April 2023 for a mould wash. In March 2023, the resident was told that contractors had not been able to make an appointment for insulation, and the appointment was rearranged with her for 4 April 2023. In early May 2023, scaffold was erected for roof works, and an appointment for insulation and a mould wash was rescheduled with the resident for 22 May 2023. The information provided advises that roof and insulation works were completed by the end of May 2023. The following month, the landlord provided advice after the resident enquired about how to change her banding for the choice based lettings scheme.
  11. Post the complaint, the resident has continued to report issues, and further mould washes were raised in August 2023 and February 2024, and some roof works were raised in November 2023 and February 2024.
  12. In February 2024, the resident made a disrepair claim and in March 2024 she obtained a further GP letter. This said that the resident’s living conditions were having a significant adverse impact on her physical and mental health, as she reported frequent infections that she believed was caused by extensive mould, and her home environment caused her anxiety which in turn worsened her health condition. The same month, an independent surveyor inspected and found that there was no structural dampness or statutory disrepair, recommended for the resident (who said she used heating once or twice a week) to adequately heat and ventilate the property, and recommended some minor repairs.
  13. In May 2024, the landlord’s surveyor inspected and noted that that there were no signs of water ingress, and atmospheric moisture was caused by issues such as drying of clothes inside and poor ventilation from sealed trickle vents and switched off fans. They recommended works that included mould removal, redecoration with anti-mould paint, and installation of positive input ventilation, which were scheduled for 15 July 2024. On 31 July 2024, the landlord carried out an inspection, noted it was satisfied works were completed, and noted that £150 would be paid to the resident in lieu of decorating. The resident confirms that the works were mostly completed and she had agreed to arrange decoration herself, but a quote she obtained was too expensive.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes that damp and mould issues have been raised between 2021 and 2024. This investigation mainly focuses on events from October 2022, as before the resident complained in December 2022, there is no evidence of reports about damp and mould for the 9 month period between January and October 2022. This investigation also mainly focuses on events up until May 2023, 3 months after the landlord’s January 2023 final response, as this is when it is understood that repairs identified during the complaint were completed. While helpful background to the complaint, events that pre and post-date these timeframes are mainly referenced for contextual purposes only.
  2. The Ombudsman notes that the resident says damp and mould have affected her mental and physical health and caused damage to her belongings. The resident has been informed that we cannot determine if a landlord is liable for the impact on health or belongings, and that only an insurer or the courts can determine liability and any claim for damages. She has the option to seek independent advice for this aspect. However, we can assess if the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably.

The landlord’s response to the resident about reports of damp and mould

  1. The evidence shows that when the resident has reported issues, the landlord has appropriately raised a number of repairs that have included mould washes, gutters and flashing. However, the management of the repairs and communication to the resident was sometimes poor, with her being misinformed about the purposes of some visits and with multiple instances where the contractor rearranged appointments due to their being unable to attend. The landlord was therefore appropriate to acknowledge that the resident experienced issues with communication and delays, and the £300 it awarded was positive.
  2. The landlord does not supply the basis for conclusions during the complaint that the property was habitable, which indicates issues with its recordkeeping, but it is noted that 2024 inspection reports, including an independent surveyor’s, found that there was no structural damp or statutory disrepair and that minor mould present was due to condensation and issues with adequate ventilation and heating. The landlord’s recent action to replace a bathroom fan and install a positive input ventilation system in the property is in line with good practice, and shows it is taking reasonable action within its power to try to minimise condensation that could lead to damp and mould. However, aspects of its response was not satisfactory.
  3. The landlord acknowledged issues with communication and delays, but it did not take impactful steps to improve service. These continued after the complaint response, which also missed an opportunity to clarify when identified outstanding repairs for the loft, felt, eaves and flashing would be completed. The roof works not being completed until around the end of May 2023 represents a further delay of 4 months after the stage 2 response, which seems to have been due to further poor management and communication.
  4. The resident was told insulation works would be done on 19 January 2023, however she was later told this was an error and the works would be done on 3 February 2023. This did not happen. The landlord informs the Ombudsman that the insulation works were cancelled after no access on 7 and 8 February 2023 and 1 March 2023, but it does not show why the works did not occur on 3 February 2023 as agreed with the resident. The insight provided by her WhatsApp chats with the landlord, and by a March 2023 appointment that was rearranged by the contractors to April 2023, shows that the landlord or its contractor have been responsible for a number of visits that did not go ahead.
  5. The landlord’s recordkeeping is poor, as indicated above, and repairs logs often do not match up with information in the resident’s WhatsApp chats with the landlord or provide a clear picture of the progress of a repair. The landlord has been unable to provide a report for an inspection on 9 January 2023, when it should be able to provide the information used as the basis for its complaint responses. While not the focus of this investigation, a supplied July 2024 works inspection report mainly comprises photos and lacks sufficient textual detail about the status of all the works, including why some works were not completed such as a redecoration with anti-mould paint. The resident was given £150 as an alternative to the decorating but it is understood this does not cover a quote she obtained.
  6. The resident raised concern that damage was caused to her belongings, including in her complaint escalation. The landlord’s policy says that customers should make a claim against their own insurance if it and its contractors are deemed not at fault, or against the landlord’s insurance policy for claims above £500. The Ombudsman’s insurance guidance says that landlords should initially consider if it is at fault for claimed damage, and if a landlord disputes fault it may then be reasonable to refer a complainant to their own or the landlord’s own insurer to establish negligence and liability. The landlord did not investigate and address the resident’s claimed damage to belongings during its complaint response. While it is unclear that the landlord is liable for damage to the resident’s belongings, it is not satisfactory that it did not follow due process for this.
  7. Overall, while the landlord was positive to acknowledge communication issues and delays and award £300, there were further issues as identified above. Its communication about the works outstanding at the time of the stage 2 response was poor, and these took a further 4 months. Its records about what happened with various works should be clearer. It failed to consider and set out its position on the resident’s damaged belongings in line with its policy and our insurance guidance. This leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s response about reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s response to the resident about a request for rehousing

  1. The resident raised concern about damp and mould at the property affecting her and her carer’s health, which included causing infections to her abdominal feeding tube, and requested to be rehoused.
  2. The landlord provided details about registering for the local choice based lettings scheme, which facilitates transfers and mutual exchanges. The information shows that the resident was subsequently awarded a Band C / Medium priority. It is not in the Ombudsman’s expertise to make definitive determinations about banding, but the above indicates that this aspect has been handled reasonably. The lettings policy says that Band C is a band for increased medical priority, therefore evidence the resident provided such as GP letters will have contributed to this banding.
  3. The landlord makes emergency transfers in exceptional circumstances where it is no longer safe for a customer to continue living in their home, such as serious damp and mould cases, or if medical conditions merit this. The landlord has set out its position that the resident did not meet the criteria for a management move as the property had not been identified to be unhabitable by the repairs team. Its handling of this aspect was not entirely satisfactory.
  4. The resident was invited to send a GP letter to a centralised email for a move to be considered, but when she did so the recipients of the email said they could not rehouse her. The landlord’s internal notes say it told the resident it would not look at rehousing, it raised jobs, and it needed an opportunity to rectify the damp and mould issue before forwarding her GP note to the relevant team. It subsequently suggested for a mould wash to go ahead, and if problems were still experienced the GP letter could be sent to the relevant team.
  5. The landlord’s approach that it should be given the opportunity to resolve issues is reasonable. However, the resident will have found it frustrating to be told to send a GP letter to a certain email address, only to be told that the letter would not be sent to the relevant department at that point in time. The landlord had an unnecessarily ‘gatekeeper’ approach, and it should have simply ensured that the resident’s rehousing request and GP letter reached the relevant team for consideration and response.
  6. The information shows that appropriate staff later considered the rehousing request, but no direct evidence of their consideration of the request is provided. The landlord should be able to supply the information used as the basis for its complaint responses, to show its decision-making, but it is unclear to what extent it considered the resident’s GP letter. This is not satisfactory, as medical conditions can be a reason for an emergency transfer, and it should have showed it considered if the resident was eligible for a move based on her medical conditions as well as on the property condition. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had health issues, but it was unhelpful to not clearly provide its position on the GP letter she supplied.
  7. The Ombudsman does not make definitive decisions about rehousing, but the evidence is not clear that the landlord was wrong to not rehouse the resident, or that its handling resulted in a more significant detriment to her. It is not clear that the property and the resident’s health were impacted to an extent to meet the circumstances for an emergency move. The recent independent survey findings of minor mould and no structural issues, and allocation of a Band C during the timeframe of the complaint (which will have taken into account medical evidence), confirm this.
  8. However, the issues identified above are not satisfactory. The landlord mismanaged the resident’s expectations when it provided details to send in a GP letter and later made forwarding of the GP letter to a relevant team conditional on it doing work first. This was an unnecessarily ‘gatekeeper’ approach. It does not provide evidence for its consideration of an emergency transfer, and does not clearly show it considered if the resident was eligible for a move based on her medical conditions as well as the property condition. This will have led her to feel that her medical issues were not being given sufficient regard to, and undermined her confidence in the landlord. This leads the Ombudsman to find service failure in the landlord’s response about a request for rehousing.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about reports of damp and mould.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident about a request for rehousing.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks:
    1. pay the resident £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling. This is in addition to the £300 it previously awarded, which it should pay if it has not already. This comprises £300 for its handling of the damp and mould, and £50 for its handling of the rehousing request.
    2. liaise with the resident to consider evidence such as a 2024 GP letter, and provide a written position and explanation on whether the property condition and/or her medical conditions make her eligible for an emergency transfer.
    3. provide the resident with details of its insurer.
  2. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. offer for its contractor to carry out any outstanding mould and decoration works. If the resident agrees it should arrange a suitable date with her, then confirm this in writing with the details and any actions she needs to take before the works to ready the property for them.
    2. review the case, in respect to improving the journey and communication for repairs and minimising the times that contractors rearrange repairs.
    3. review its record-keeping and our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, and consider improvements to its repair and complaint record-keeping.
    4. ensure that damages claims are considered and addressed in line with its policy, including during its complaints procedure.
    5. take steps to ensure that:
      1. requests and medical evidence for emergency rehousing are referred to the relevant team on receipt to consider and respond.
      2. consideration of emergency rehousing requests includes clear consideration of a transfer on medical conditions, not just the property condition.