Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Penge Churches Housing Association Limited (202008022)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008022

Penge Churches Housing Association Limited

17 June 2022


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of condensation in her property.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is in an assured tenancy where she has been for two years.
  2. The landlord has a repairs policy where it classifies unexpected day to day repairs such as leaks as ’responsive repairs’. Responsive repairs are categorised dependent upon the urgency or severity of repairs. The categorisations are as follows:
  1. Priority A (Emergency repairs) should be responded to within 24 hours and “made safe” within four hours if that is required.
  2. Priority B (Urgent) repairs should be responded to within three working days.
  3. Priority C (Next available appointment) – for these types of repairs the landlord aims to make an appointment with the resident within two working days and have the repair complete within 30 working days.
  1. The landlord has a two-stage complaints process, at stage one it aims to respond within ten working days of receiving a complaint. If the complaint is escalated to stage two the landlord aims to respond within a further 20 working days from the date the complaint was escalated.
  2. The landlord has a compensation policy that allows it to consider awarding compensation to residents where it has been responsible for a delay in resolving an issue or loss of facilities outside of its target timescales.

Summary of events

  1. In October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to report that there was a considerable amount of condensation within the property.
  2. On 21 October 2020, the landlord suggested that an internal door be fitted to the kitchen to separate it from the other rooms. This was in order to contain any condensation; the resident declined this offer.
  3. On 27 October 2020, the landlord sent a surveyor to the property to investigate the issues raised by the resident. The surveyor then provided their report which, in summary, stated the following findings:
  1. Localised above average moisture content meter readings consistent with the effects of condensation were obtained from the wall surfaces to the two front bedrooms, the rear entrance hall, the sitting room and the kitchen.
  2. The presence of black mould was noted on many internal surfaces, which it said was undoubtably linked to condensation.
  3. Ventilation levels required improvement as there was a positive pressure ventilation system in place that was not working which it said would be of considerable benefit if it could be made operational.
  4. The fitting of Passyfier vents to the bedrooms and the sitting room was recommended to promote ventilation and condensation control.
  5. A new controlled extractor fan needed to be fitted to the front wall to the kitchen.
  6. After the Passyfier vents were fitted, the mould affected arears should be given a fungicidal wash.
  1. On 3 November 2020, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about how it had handled her reports of excess condensation at the property.
  2. On 4 November 2020, the landlord carried out works to install an extractor fan in the kitchen and wall vents in the bedrooms and lounge.
  3. As the condensation issues continued, on 11 November 2020, the landlord attended the property to inspect the mould. It decided to further investigate issues with a faulty extractor fan near the entrance of the property, as well as possible window seal leaks (in the lounge). It also raised again with the resident the possibility of having a kitchen door fitted to help contain the condensation which the resident declined.
  4. During this period, the landlord was experiencing similar issues with another one of its properties for which it was carrying out intrusive works to investigate the cause. On 11 November 2020, the landlord decided that it would use the results from the works on that property to inform the plan of action for the resident’s flat. The landlord also decided that an internal inspection of the resident’s flat should be carried out by the contractor it had working on the other property.
  5. On 23 November 2020, the landlord instructed its contractor to carry out the inspection and the landlord received the contractor’s findings, which were:
  1. The bathroom and kitchen fans need to be upgraded to humidistat fans. The bathroom fan was to be controlled by the light switch to ensure it came on when the bathroom was in use. The kitchen fan was to be hardwired to ensure that it remained functional and could not be unplugged.
  2. Further drylining should be undertaken to the door wall in the single bathroom.
  3. The landlord should provide improved rotary dryers in the outside communal area to encourage residents to dry clothes outside.
  4. Bricks should be removed from the flank wall to confirm the presence of cavity wall insulation.
  1. The report also stated that the resident should take the following measures to prevent condensation:
  1. When drying family washing in the lounge, good levels of ventilation must be created with the opening of windows and if the rotary dryers in the communal area could be improved, then the usage of these was encouraged.
  2. When steam-producing cooking was being undertaken in the kitchen or any other steam producing activities such as ironing, ventilation must be increased.
  3. Ideally the level of furniture and personal effects in the bedroom environments should be reduced or, as a minimum, should be kept clear of external walls to allow enhanced air movements cured by the works carried out.
  1. The landlord emailed the resident on 27 November 2020, with the surveyor’s findings and to say that it would carry out the recommended works.
  2. On 17 February 2021, the landlord sent the resident its stage one response to the complaint in which, in summary, it said the following:
  1. In October 2020, the resident reported concerns regarding condensation and mould on her walls.
  2. As there was no history of excess condensation and mould in the property, the landlord immediately instructed an investigation.
  3. As a result of that investigation repair works were recommended which were carried out on 4 November 2020.
  4. As a tumble dryer in the kitchen may be contributing to the condensation it suggested fitting a door to separate the two rooms. This suggestion was put to the resident on 21 October 2020 and again on 9 November 2020 and 11 November 2020 but the resident rejected this suggestion on all occasions.
  5. On 11 November 2020, the landlord visited the property and found evidence of damp and mould on the walls, issues with a faulty extractor fan at the entrance, and a possible leaking window seal which it agreed to investigate.
  6. It was investigating similar issues in another flat and so agreed to use information from the investigation on that flat to inform measures it should take in the resident’s flat. It also wanted the surveyor working on the other flat to carry out an inspection on the resident’s flat, which she agreed to.
  7. On 11 November 2020, it instructed the surveyor to attend the resident’s flat, it received their report on 27 November 2020. It shared the findings with the resident, explaining what further work it would carry out. It also gave the resident detailed advice on what she could do to minimise condensation on a day to day basis.
  8. It has carried out two detailed surveys with different independent surveyors and carried out the suggested works which included the following:
  1. Adding three Passyfier wall vents
  2. Adding an electric extractor fan to the kitchen
  3. Inspecting and cleaning the extractor fan in the bathroom
  4. Replacing the window trickle vents that were not working effectively
  5. Repairs/replacement of window panes and seals throughout the property
  6. Investigating the fault with the extractor fan in the hall. This remained outstanding and a part required to complete the repair was on order.
  1. In response to the resident’s claims that it had not responded to the resident since her contact with this Service, its records showed that it had been in contact with the resident in person, by email, or by phone three times in October 2021, once in November 2021, four times in December 2021, once in January 2022, and once in February 2022.
  2. The resident says she was unhappy with the lack of response from a member of staff to messages she sent via WhatsApp. The member of staff was on annual leave and the messages were not picked up as they were sent to her directly. It had advised the resident in an email sent on 18 January 2022, as it had done previously, that it was best to send emails to the landlord’s collective email address rather than to individuals directly to ensure they got dealt with immediately.
  3. It did not uphold the complaint as it was always the landlord’s intention to complete the works required. The landlord said it was still awaiting the report from the intrusive works carried out to the other flat and once it had this it would be able to provide the resident with a detailed plan of action.
  4. At this point, it was not in a position to consider compensation payments, but should it turn out that the landlord had been negligent or at fault for any of the issues caused then it was a possible option.
  1. On 8 March 2021, the landlord issued instructions for and started the completion of the works listed in the surveyor’s report in November 2020. It left the walls to dry out before it could continue further work.
  2. As the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, she escalated the complaint to stage two on 13 March 2021.
  3. On 10 May 2021, the landlord discovered that the walls were still wet and so it asked the surveyor to carry out another inspection and report.
  4. On 11 June 2021, the landlord issued its final response which, in summary, largely agreed with what it said in its initial response on 17 February 2021. In addition, it said the following:
  1. Following the surveyors report on 27 November 2020, there was a delay in getting quotes and the order was not issued for the works to be completed until 8 March 2021, which was unacceptable and for which it apologised.
  2. It had already agreed to redecorate the areas affected by the condensation as a gesture of goodwill.
  3. Although it did not believe it was negligent it accepted things took longer to do than it would have liked and offered £300 as a gesture of goodwill in order to resolve the complaint.
  4. A member of staff would be in contact once the works were completed and it said it would carry out monitoring inspections of the work on a monthly basis for six months post completion.
  1. On 18 August 2021, the resident informed the landlord that she was not willing to accept the compensation offered as it was not sufficient to cover the cost of items she had to dispose of due to damp issues.
  2. On 24 September 2021, the resident referred the complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

  1. When the resident raised her concerns about condensation in October 2020, the landlord sent a surveyor within seven days to investigate. The surveyor’s report found multiple issues and made recommendations on actions that could be taken to help alleviate the issues. The landlord agreed to carry out the full recommendations of the surveyor’s report which it did in November 2020.
  2. The landlord’s evidence shows that it responded promptly to the resident’s concerns. It asked its surveyor to carry out an investigation and undertook all of the recommendations made by the surveyor in a timely manner. Therefore, at this stage, it acted in accordance with its repairs policy and took appropriate measures to address the resident’s concerns.
  3. When it was found later in November 2020, that the condensation issues had not been solved, the landlord visited the property. It suggested further work to fix an extractor fan and address possible leakage from some of the window seals. It also wanted to wait for the results of investigative works being done on another property in the block suffering similar issues to inform its response to the condensation in the resident’s flat. It arranged a visit from the surveyor working on the other property who made recommendations for further works which the landlord committed to undertaking.
  4. Condensation problems can often be difficult to resolve as there can be many varying and contributing factors. The landlord decided to use the information gained from a similar investigation being carried out on another flat in the block, which is a reasonable approach. It is therefore also reasonable that the landlord decided to wait for some of the results from works at the neighbouring flat to ensure that the solutions it was putting in place in the resident’s flat were the correct ones. The landlord’s actions show that it was willing to take further action, including committing to completing further works, to try and resolve the condensation issues the resident was experiencing. It was appropriate that the landlord obtained further recommendations and considered the results of a similar problem elsewhere in its housing stock when it became apparent that its initial efforts had been unsuccessful.
  5. The landlord does not dispute that there were some failings on its part. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
  6. Although the landlord had committed to completing further works, there was a delay from 27 November 2020 till 8 March 2021, when no works were completed. The landlord says this is because it delayed in getting quotes and in instructing the works to start. This represented an unreasonable delay of around three months.
  7. The landlord has apologised to the resident and agreed to compensate her £300 for the delays and to redecorate the areas affected by mould. Whilst there were delays which should not have happened, there has been no evidence presented to this Service to show that the delays caused significantly more damage than would have otherwise occurred, especially considering that some work to help reduce the levels of condensation had already been completed. Even if that had been the case, the landlord has agreed to redecorate the affected areas to rectify damage caused by the mould. The amount of compensation offered, along with the undertaking to redecorate areas affected by any mould, demonstrate that the landlord has taken steps to try and resolve the complaint. The level of compensation offered is within the range that the Ombudsman recommends for failure over a considerable period of time to deal with a repair, which reflects the circumstances of this case. Having considered the available evidence, the Ombudsman is of the view that the compensation offered by the landlord is reasonable.
  8. Regarding the landlord’s contact with the resident, the resident first made contact with this Service at the beginning of November 2020. This Service has seen evidence that the resident was contacted by the landlord on a monthly basis by email between November 2020 and February 2021, as well as its in person visit on 11 November 2020. Therefore, the landlord’s level of contact was reasonable and appropriate. Regarding the WhatsApp messages the resident sent to a member of staff, the landlord has explained that this member of staff was on leave at the time the messages were sent and therefore did not respond. Further, it had explained to the resident that correspondence should be sent to the landlord’s group email address instead, as that would enable more than one member of staff be able to respond.
  9. The explanation the landlord has given for its inability to respond to the resident’s WhatsApp messages is a rational one. The resident was given other contact methods by which to reach the landlord to enable her to ask questions or raise any concerns she had. Also, the landlord forwarded on the surveyor’s findings as soon as it obtained them. Therefore, the Ombudsman does not find any fault in the level of communication offered to the resident by the landlord.
  10. The resident has mentioned that she has had to throw away items due to the damage caused by mould from the excess condensation build-up. Whilst the resident is understandably upset at having to dispose of damaged items, this Service has not seen any evidence suggesting that the excess condensation in the flat was originally caused by any fault of the landlord. This Service also notes that the landlord’s records show that it offered to fit a kitchen door to help reduce the condensation which was rejected three times by the resident. In any event, the landlord has provided the resident with the details of its insurer should she wish to try and make a liability claim for any losses she feels she has suffered and this is a reasonable approach by the landlord.
  11. In summary, the landlord initially responded appropriately to the resident’s condensation reports by inspecting and completing works in accordance with a surveyor’s findings. When it became apparent that this had not fully resolved the problem, it established further works were needed. It delayed in completing these works but a combination of the compensation award and offer to carry out redecoration works offered reasonable redress for this failure.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of condensation in her property.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s total compensation offer was fair and offered sufficient redress for the delays caused by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint about condensation in her property.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident the compensation of £300 that it proposed in June 2021.