Places for People Group Limited (202127097)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127097

Places for People Group Limited

20 December 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlords response to the residents concerns about the damp and mould in her property.
2. The landlords handling of the residents complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: d. concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.”
The First Tier Tribunal deals with disputes about liability to pay services charges and their reasonableness and is the appropriate avenue for this part of the complaint. In addition, this part of the complaint amounts to a challenge of the level of service charge payable by the resident. Therefore, in accordance with paragraphs 42(d) as set out above, this part of the complaint is not investigated by the Ombudsman.
Therefore this case will only assess the landlord’s response to the complaint about the services (for example the quality or regularity of the services) and whether the response to the complaint was reasonable (for example whether it addressed all the appropriate issues that had been raised and the evidence it was based on).

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property since 1999, the property is a ground floor flat in a purpose built block. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The lease confirms the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building, including drains that do not solely serve the property and the resident is responsible for internal components, including the glazing within the window frames.
The landlord owns the freehold of the property and has an agreement with a management company, which is part of its existing business structure, to provide housing services on its behalf at the scheme. For the purposes of this report this company will be referred to as the managing agent.
The service agreement between the landlord and the managing agent is dated 1 April 2018. This agreement states that the landlord is the owner of the properties and the managing agent will perform services at the properties.
Section 20 of this agreement states the managing agent will register as a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Any complaint in respect of this agreement and work carried out by the managing agent may be made in writing in accordance with the managing agents complaint procedure.
Schedule 1 of the agreement, section 4 states the landlord will provide support to the managing agent in achieving targets by meeting on a quarterly basis.
The landlords complaints policy states “Where we use a contractor to deliver a service on our behalf, we recognise that we remain responsible and accountable for ensuring that the services provided meet Affordable Housing’s standard.”
The landlords compensation policy states “Compensation may be offered in addition to other methods of resolving complaints and not as a substitute. Compensation is not payable merely because something went wrong, but for failure to put it right”. This policy says compensation can be paid when it has “failed to provide a service covered by a tenancy/lease agreement or service charge to the agreed specification (or standard) and this has previously been highlighted by the customer to a colleague/team and not resolved”.
The landlord at the time of providing information for this case, did not have a separate policy on damp & mould, but advised it was currently working on updating the process but had nothing in writing as yet.
The landlords repairs policy states it provides ongoing advice and triage of issues raised by customers and implement remedies and ongoing monitoring to ensure it eliminates wherever possible, the impact and effects of damp, mould, and condensation in customers’ homes.
The managing agent has a customer charter which commits to respond to written enquiries, including emails within 2 working days.
The managing agents complaint procedure says its formal complaint process has 2 stages and all complaint correspondence will be acknowledged within 3 working days of receipt. The first stage is called Resolve and customers can expect a response within 10 working days. The second stage is called Review and it will aim to provide a response within 10 working days.
It should be noted that the managing agent and landlord has reviewed its complaints policy and procedure since it dealt with this complaint. The landlord now reviews stage 2 complaints when stage 1 is dealt with by the managing agent. This case, however, will be investigated considering the policy and procedure in place at the time.

Scope of investigation

The resident states that she had been in regular contact with the landlord over several years, concerning damp and mould. However, in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which “were not brought the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising”. This investigation focuses on the landlord’s actions and transactions between January 2019 and December 2022. This being 6 months prior to the formal complaint being made, up until the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted. Any information provided by the resident and landlord outside of this period, is outside of the scope of this investigation.

Summary of events

According to the resident, she first reported an issue with damp in January 2015.
On 8 February 2018, a specialist damp contractor emailed a surveyor appointed by the managing agent, with the following recommendations and findings from a recent report on the property:
1. “The surrounding ground levels to the flat were high in relation to the property’s internal floor level. This was bridging the existing damp proof course.
2. They recommended the ground levels to be lowered; 150mm below DPC level or install a soakaway channel.
3. The mould problems were caused by internal environmental issues. In effect this was an internal air quality matter. It was not due to rising damp or penetrating rainwater.
4. They recommended that 3 decentralised constant running fans with boost facility be installed in the kitchen and bathroom. To ensure maximum benefit of the performance of the fan, it was recommended that the fans were ducted straight through the wall.
5. It was also recommended to keep the property warm, where possible reduce water production and ensure any window trickle vents are left open”.
On 17 January 2019, the resident emailed the managing agent to chase up the issue regarding the damp. No evidence has been seen that this was responded to.
The resident first complained on 2 July 2019. It is not clear from the letter itself who this was addressed to but the letter was sent to the landlords head office recorded delivery, date stamped by the landlord on 3 July 2019 and the contents suggest it was addressed to the landlord. Within this letter the resident:
1. Advised when she purchased the property, it had wooden windows with extractor fans fitted in the glazing, in both the bathroom and kitchen, she had no window in her lounge but the patio door did have a trickle vent.
2. Advised the landlord fitted UPVC double glazing about 15 years ago, she advised her windows were done as a priority due to the frames being rotten due to “penetrating damp”.
3. Both extractor fans and the trickle vent were lost due to this upgrade and she understood the landlord had refused to replace these.
4. The resident advised the flat had “several issues with damp”, tanking and a damp proof course had been recommended. Lowering the garden and upgrading the insulation had also been mentioned in the past.
5. The resident referenced a meeting in 2009, where an officer from the landlord said the issue of ventilation since the extractor fans were removed would be looked into. The resident advised minutes had been sent to the managing agent.
6. The resident said the landlord should replace the ventilation as it had removed it after she purchased the property and although it was not the cause of the damp it was not helping.
7. The resident advised she had got advice from the Ombudsman and wished for her letter to be treated as a “formal complaint”.
The managing agent responded to the residents complaint at stage 1 on 16 July 2019. It confirmed that the landlord had passed the residents letter to them as they were the managing agents for her property and her concerns were raised at the “resolve stage” of their complaints procedure. The managing agent confirmed:
1. According to the lease the responsibilities of any maintenance at the site fall to the service charge not the landlord and therefore any replacement of ventilation would fall to the service charge, not the landlord directly.
2. The window replacement was carried out in line with the lease which stated the frames and ironmongery to be the responsibility of the management company but the glazing which contained the fans was not.
3. Although the glass was replaced there was no requirement in the lease to provide a “like for like replacement”.
4. If a vent was required it would be for the individual leaseholder to source.
5. The landlord would have consulted with residents on the works through a Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This would have included the opportunity to raise any concerns about the removal of the ventilation.
6. The managing agent concluded by stating it appreciated this would be frustrating for the resident especially due to the ongoing damp work repairs that were ongoing at her property.
On 8 August 2019, the resident wrote to the managing agent advising she was unhappy with its response. The managing agent acknowledged this letter on 15 August 2019 and advised her complaint had now been raised at the “review stage” of its process. It said a response would be issued within 10 working days.
The managing agent emailed its stage 2 response on 23 August 2019. Within this it said:
1. Its property manager would be happy to view historical correspondence from 2004 about the window replacement works as it did not have this information and without this it could only assume that residents were consulted.
2. Section 5 (4)(b) of the lease allowed the landlord to make alterations to alter the services in the building and therefore remove the vents.
3. Since 2017, works had been completed to the building to try and combat the cause of the damp, this included external damp proof coursing. It advised there had been snagging issues with this and the surveyor was working with the contractor to resolve.
4. Whilst ventilation was recommended, it could not go through the service charge.
5. It appreciated the frustration experienced with the lack of updates from its surveyor, which had been addressed internally, but it was reluctant to replace them at this project to avoid further delay.
6. It confirmed the property manager would arrange face to face visits to “set down clear timescales for when the external works would be completed”.
The resident referenced a meeting held in September 2019, with the managing agent, in later correspondence. She stated that at this meeting it was agreed for “tanking” to be done on every external wall and two internal walls, excluding the bathroom and kitchen external walls. The DPC first mentioned in 2016 would be done and the external walls treated. The managing agent also suggested some ventilation should be fitted. Internally, it was agreed that the lounge, hallway and both bedrooms would be replastered and redecorated. The resident understood she would be moved out while the work took place.
On 8 November 2019, the resident emailed the managing agent for an update on the progress of the works. Within this email she said her doctor would send a letter about the impact the situation was having on her health. She also mentioned that she had not heard anything following the documents she had sent in in September about her formal complaint.
On 19 November 2019, the resident emailed the managing agent and stated, “it would be good if this could be settled without going back to the ombudsman”. Within this email the resident described a white substance, “like salt”, which was coming through the carpet and could not be vacuumed up. On this same day, the Surveyor emailed to advise they had struggled with finding a reliable contractor but another had been sourced with the view to visit the property the coming week.
On 27 November 2019, a contractor emailed the surveyor with their findings following a site visit. They advised of a few issues resulting in the damp which included high external ground levels. However, this contractor advised it felt the main damp problem was condensation as a result of “sustained high humidity levels within the property”. It recommended to lower the external ground levels around the property and install ventilation.
In July 2020, there was a drainage issue at the property, on 17 July 2020, the managing agent raised a job to “assess drainage and groundworks”. The resident has stated 2 contractors attended with a camera, both of which said the drain had collapsed.
A further damp survey report from a different contractor on 29 September 2020, recommended:
1. “Installation of DryZone DPC.
2. Sealing of the Floor/wall junction.
3. Hack off and re-plaster.
4. Waste disposal.
5. Removal and storage of furniture for 4 weeks.
6. Removal of all carpets and relay after works are carried out.
7. Supply and install 2 extract fans using the existing electrical circuits to the kitchen and bathroom.
8. Supply and install 3 air bricks to the lounge and both bedrooms.
9. Redecorate the lounge/hallway and both bedrooms.
10. All woodwork will require prime coat and glossing”.
The resident referenced a meeting held in September 2020, with the managing agent, in later correspondence. She stated that at this meeting it was agreed for the same works agreed a year ago were required with the addition of 2 electric extractor fans. Work would take approximately 4 weeks and the resident understood she would be moved out for the works to take place. The resident stated it was agreed that the works would be done in November 2020.
According to the resident, external roofing work took place in December 2020. Whilst on site, the contractors damaged her kitchen window which left it “difficult to open”.
A further damp survey report from a different contractor on 20 May 2021, recommended:
1. “Customer to not use portable gas heater.
2. Install extract units in bathroom and kitchen.
3. Install door closer on bathroom door.
4. Removal of damp plaster.
5. Decoration”.
On 28 May 2021, the resident emailed the managing agent twice as she had received 2 notifications that jobs regarding “damp work” had been closed down. Within her emails the resident said the only job that had been done was a window repair and there has been “no work, no workmen, absolutely nothing” for several months.
The resident logged a further complaint on 26 June 2021 to the managing agent and landlord. This complaint reiterated her previous complaint about the history of the damp issues and the lack of works undertaken. She stated in this letter that no work had been completed since December 2018, but more surveys had taken place. The resident also questioned the damp report in May 2021, as it had said a cause of the damp was due to a butane heater that she stated had not been used for years. The resident stated the “whole experience has been exhausting”, she felt “overwhelmed, confused and very let down” by her landlord and the managing agent.
On 23 July 2021, the managing agent emailed the resident with a stage 1 response to her complaint. It confirmed that the landlord had passed the residents letter to them as they were the managing agents for her property and her concerns were raised at the “resolve stage” of their complaints procedure. The managing agent confirmed:
1. It considered the matter about the replacement windows closed and referred the resident back to the response in July 2019.
2. Its most recent damp survey was unable to detect evidence to confirm a problem of “true rising or penetrating dampness”.
3. Whilst it did not believe that the collapsed drain outside the property was causing the damp, it is an item that the landlord was responsible for repairing and the work had been scheduled for the coming weeks.
4. The butane heater was one of many factors listed as a potential cause.
5. 3 specialists had confirmed that the problems were down to “environmental issues”.
6. It acknowledged the issue had been open for “quite some time with no clear resolution”.
7. It was not a damp specialist so had to rely on “appropriately competent third parties” to assess and advise on any cause and remedy.
8. Its most comprehensive report provided a series of recommendations, all of which were the responsibility of the leaseholder to progress.
9. It appreciated that the resident may have been expecting more extensive works to have been undertaken on behalf of the landlord following previous reports.
10. It offered the resident a payment of £100 due to the amount of time the investigations had taken and in light of the inconvenience caused.
11. It concluded by advising of a delay in the manufacturing of the replacement kitchen window. However it had been confirmed that a replacement was required due to the window mechanism corroding which suggested it was “down to age/weathering rather than accidental damage”.
The resident responded on 23 July 2021 and said she did not want the £100 for living in damp conditions since 2015 and she did not consider any part of the matter closed.
On 6 August 2021, the resident emailed the managing agent again and requested to escalate her complaint. Within this escalation request the resident:
1. Said no evidence had been provided to show that the landlord consulted appropriately on the removal of the ventilation when the windows were replaced.
2. Said she had previously been told the damp was due to the drainage issues so she did not understand how this is different now. She referenced 2 reports in 2019 which both stated genuine evidence of rising and penetrating damp.
3. Requested copies of all surveys and reports that had been done as she could not agree the most recent was most comprehensive as she had not seen all the reports.
4. Did not agree that all the recommendations were her responsibility as some of these were structural.
5. Questioned how the £100 offered was funded and if other such costs had ever been passed onto Leaseholders.
6. Said the reason the kitchen window would not open was due to a hinge that had snapped, she acknowledged that part of the window was corroded.
7. Said the managing agent had ignored the previous claims that DPC works were required.
8. Questioned why the agreed work in September 2020 did not go ahead.
The managing agent acknowledged the residents escalation request on 9 August 2021 and advised a full response would be issued within 10 working days.
The managing agent issued its stage 2 response to the resident on 19 August 2021. This response gave a breakdown of costs incurred in relation to the damp issue and stated:
1. As the windows were replaced in 2004 and before the managing agent was appointed it could not comment further.
2. The lack of consistency of previous reports, in addition to the delays with the surveyor and the residents lack of confidence in them led to the most recent survey being instructed.
3. The latest report supported a number of findings from previous reports.
4. The surveyor was not a damp specialist nor a structural engineer and a number of professional opinions were obtained which supported the primary cause to be environmental.
5. The £100 offered previously was in light of the length of time taken to reach this point and was funded by RMG not recovered through the service charge.
6. It had been let down by the contractor on the window replacement and would provide an update as soon as one was available.
7. It had not ignored previous claims but had sought further expert opinions which had taken into consideration previous findings as well as their own independent inspection.
8. Works were initially delayed due to the onset of the pandemic and the availability of the contractor.
9. It understood the DPC was first raised as a potential issue in September 2017 but was not included in the scope of works undertaken in 2018. It was then considered as part of the works in 2020 which was ultimately put on hold.
10. The most recent report concluded environmental factors were at play and with no evidence for rising damp it indicated the DPC is not the issue.
The managing agent sent the resident copies of the reports and surveys she had requested on 25 August 2021.
On 1 September 2021, the resident emailed the managing agent to say she believed the response to be “limited”. She asked for evidence to back up the claims it had made to say the landlord followed correct procedure for the window replacements, she stated she had not received all the reports conducted and a number of the reports mention penetrating damp. The resident also raised:
1. The contractor on site stated they were repairing a liner, not the drain. She requested the landlord check the drain has indeed been fixed.
2. The recommendations on points 5-9 of the report included structural works.
3. She disputed the statement that the managing agent had worked “diligently” throughout the process.
4. She did not agree with contractors continuing to get work when they cause damage on jobs or show incapabilities.
5. She listed a further 5 points she requested yes or no answers to and requested minutes or notes of any meetings about the damp that took place.
The managing agent called the resident on 15 September 2021 to give an update on the replacement kitchen window.
On 20 October 2021, the managing agent responded to the points raised by the resident in her email following its stage 2 response. Within this email it said:
1. It had raised the issue around the window replacements with the landlord as it could not comment further on this.
2. It had forwarded all copies of the reports it held.
3. With regards to the drains it understood a repair was undertaken with the application of a drain liner. The contractors had said the problem had been resolved but it was liaising with then to check no further work was required.
4. The point about the butane heater had been interpretated differently, however any use of this would be a “contributory factor”.
5. It apologised for any confusion caused by the appointment of the surveyor, however it could not see any correspondence that it suggested they were a damp specialist or structural engineer.
6. The recommendations at points 5-9 dealt with internal remediation required to wall surfaces. These were not structural in nature and all such works were “demised elements of the property”.
7. It had faced a number of difficulties in sourcing a replacement kitchen window and for this it apologised.
8. The performance of contractors was regularly reviewed and whilst it acknowledged that issues had arisen on a job, it was not cause to not utilise the contractor moving forward.
9. It could only apologise for the delay in the excavation being infilled.
10. It acknowledged the damp issue started prior to the pandemic, the works were due to commence in Spring 2020 and were then delayed by the pandemic and contractor.
11. With regards to the ventilation, as its installation was not the responsibility of the landlord, its inclusion in investigations were not required and therefore ceased to allow for further investigation.
12. At no stage was the scheme without a property manager.
13. It disagreed with the residents view that it had not advised why the works were put on hold and ultimately cancelled. It had advised the works were put on hold when it was determined that the property would not be habitable during the works. At this stage it consulted with the landlord in relation to alternative accommodation, this was not however the reason the works were cancelled. This was due to a review of the reports which were found to be “inconclusive” and required further assessment to move the matter forward.
14. It had a duty to ensure that monies were spent appropriately and therefore if it felt reports were inconclusive, further assessment would be undertaken to ensure work was not carried out unnecessarily.
15. It acknowledged the residents living conditions were “less than ideal at present” and was keen to reach a resolution with the resident.
16. It suggested a meeting to discuss the latest report and recommended damp works.
The resident emailed the managing agent on 4 November 2021, she stated she had to chase numerous times and involve her MP to get a response 7 weeks later and she still found the response to be “limited”. She continued to advise:
1. She had repeatedly had to ask for all the surveys and reports, she had also asked for minutes or notes of meetings but had not received any of these.
2. She asked if the landlord had provided the documentation about the removal of the windows.
3. She questioned the charges which had been broken down in the correspondence dated 19 August 2021.
4. She did not think the collapsed drain had been fixed, as there was not enough drain left “complete” for a liner to fix.
5. She had been verbally told that the surveyor appointed was an expert in damp and a structural engineer.
6. She questioned why it was only now she was told that points 5-9 were her responsibility.
7. She confirmed the kitchen window had eventually been fixed, although it had not been replaced as a different contractor was able to repair the hinge.
8. The works were cancelled in September 2020 for the DPC, which was first proposed in 2016, therefore there is no explanation why it was not completed sooner.
9. She would agree to a meeting at the property as she felt it would benefit the managing agents director to experience the conditions, she had been living in for 6 years.
The resident emailed the managing agent on 22 November 2021 and noted she still had not received one of the reports she requested and had not yet received a response to her email of 4 November 2021.
The managing agent acknowledged the residents email on 22 November 2021 and advised she would receive a further response in the next 2 – 5 working days.
On 1 December 2021, the resident emailed the managing agent as she had still not received a response.
The landlord was notified of a press release about the residents living conditions on 14 March 2022. Following this a complaint was logged for the managing agent to respond. The landlord asked to be kept up to date with the progress.
On 25 March 2022, the managing agent emailed the landlord to advise it was under review but this would require a solicitor to review the position that had been taken and therefore required more time. It asked the landlord to advise all parties that a 7 day extension was required.
On 5 April 2022, the managing agent issued a stage 1 response and emailed the response to the landlord as well as the resident. It stated that the correspondence was to address some of the concerns the resident had and update her on the ongoing investigations. In its email it said:
1. With respect to the historic alterations to the property it was clear the alterations were made with the full knowledge of all leaseholders and the removal of ventilation was included in the specification of works as part of the consultation documents. It also noted that this work took place a “considerable amount of time” prior to damp being present at the property. It maintained that ventilation remained the responsibility of the leaseholder to address.
2. The landlord had recently engaged with a legal representative to review this particular issue on its behalf as it was keen to “assist in any way” but without “overreaching” its legal obligations.
3. The lease stated the internal of the property was the leaseholders responsibility and the issues raised within the reports fell within the definition as per the lease.
4. The most recent report was instructed following conflicting causes of damp identified in earlier reports. This report was very clear that there was no evidence of penetrating or rising damp.
5. All of the recommendations in its view, fell under the remit of the demised premises and was therefore the responsibility of the leaseholder to address.
6. It listed works orders that had been completed between the dates of November 2015 and 21 May 2021, some of which were surveys.
7. It concluded by saying it believed it had “acted in good faith at all times” and although it believed the resident was responsible for the recommended works, the landlord had committed to:
  1. A legal review of its position following the works which removed the ventilation system in 2004.
  2. It was suggested if the resident instructed her own report and the findings were different than what had been already provided, the landlord would cover the cost of the surveyor.
8. It noted it would update the resident once the legal review had completed.
On 12 April 2022, a local MP wrote to the managing agent on behalf of the resident. The MP then proceeded to chase the managing agent for a response on 27 April 2022 and 30 May 2022.
On 24 June 2022, the managing agent responded to the local MP with an explanation of the survey and the work already carried out. It said it was “naturally concerned by the living conditions” the resident was experiencing and was “committed to undertaking any works that the landlord has an obligation for under the terms of the lease”. It said it would be happy to meet to discuss the problems identified.
The local MP called the managing agent on 13 September 2022 in regard to a meeting they had attended about the residents property. The managing agents system notes show this was completed on 19 October 2022 but no further detail was provided.
On 19 October 2022, the resident emailed the managing agent to say that despite being assured by the managing agent in July 2022 at a meeting they attended with the local MP, that they would be in contact, the resident had not heard from them since and was entering into her eighth winter living in “terrible conditions”. She stated that it was admitted in the meeting that there was structural problems, the drain had still not been fixed and the investigation into the new window installation had also not been completed.
In November 2022, following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord asked the managing agent to investigate the residents concerns. The managing agent emailed the resident on 4 November 2022. It advised:
1. It was currently in discussions with surveyors about the best course of action. It said it appreciated it was taking longer than anticipated, however it needed to be sure the works proposed would be the most suitable to resolve the ongoing damp issue as well as be the most cost effective as it would be funded through a service charge.
2. That the ventilation was removed 10 years prior to the damp being an issue and therefore could not be the cause.
3. It also confirmed the survey had found no evidence of rising damp so therefore, regardless of its condition, the drain could not be a contributing factor.
The landlord spoke to the resident on the phone on 9 November 2022. The landlord followed this up with an email the next day to thank the resident for the documentation she had sent through and that someone would be in contact shortly to discuss her complaint. It also said that it had contacted the managing agent to provide her with details to escalate her complaint with them to the property ombudsman.
Internal emails show on 10 November 2022, the landlord advised it had now logged a stage 2 complaint for the resident following contact from the Ombudsman. It asked its managing agent to reissue its stage 2 response to the resident with the escalation process and referral information for the property ombudsman. A further email on 16 November 2022 was sent to the managing agent to chase up its request.
According to the notes provided by the landlord, the managing agent provided a stage 2 response to the resident on 18 November 2022 with referral information for the Property Ombudsman.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 14 December 2022. Within its response, the landlord defined the residents complaint as “the lack of effective action taken” by the management agent “to address the damp and mould at your property” and the length of time the situation had been going on. The landlord advised it had upheld the residents complaint and detailed its findings as below:
1. Despite the managing agents several attempts, the situation remained unresolved. It clarified the following works had been undertaken:
  1. In 2015, a leaf guard was installed to prevent gully blockages.
  2. In 2016, the main door was adjusted and a draught strip was installed due to water ingress.
  3. In February 2017, the resident experienced damp in a bedroom, subsequently a soak away was fitted outside the property in April 2017.
  4. In September 2017, the resident reported further damp issues, subsequently, in December 2017 a specialist survey was conducted and recommended some external works.
  5. The works recommended from the survey were completed in December 2018.
2. The landlord clarified the property continued to experience damp issues and in 2020 its managing agent instructed an investigation to identify the causes of dampness in the property. This report, dated 29 September 2020 identified the following:
  1. “Installation of DryZone DPC
  2. Sealing of the Floor/Wall junction
  3. Hack off and re-plaster.
  4. Waste disposal.
  5. Removal and storage of furniture for 4 weeks.
  6. Removal of all carpets and relay after works are carried out.
  7. Supply and install 2 extract fans using the existing electrical circuits to the kitchen and bathroom.
  8. Supply and install 3 air bricks to the lounge and both bedrooms.
  9. Redecorate the lounge/hallway and both bedrooms. Including wallpaper to the lounge and hallway.
  10. All woodwork will require prime coat and glossing”.
3. The landlord confirmed that although these works were verbally agreed with the resident its managing agent did not instruct the works to start. The managing agent then, in May 2021, instructed another surveyor to conduct an assessment. The recommendations from this survey included:
  1. “Customer to not use portable gas heater.
  2. Install extract units in bathroom and kitchen.
  3. Install door closer on bathroom door.
  4. Removal of damp plaster
  5. Decoration”.
4. The landlord advised the main reason the works recommended by the report in September 2020 were not instructed, was largely due to a change in personnel within its managing agent.
5. It confirmed although efforts were made between 2015-2020, a service failure occurred when no works were instructed to start, “despite clear recommendations”. The landlord confirmed its managing agent should have issued a section 20 consultation notice to commence the consultation on the recommended works, but this did not happen.
6. The landlord concluded by apologising for the distress the situation had caused and for the length of time the situation had been going on.
7. It had asked its managing agent to ensure thorough handover notes are shared when colleagues leave the business or move into new positions.
8. To resolve the complaint the landlord said it had agreed with the managing agent that they would issue the section 20 consultation with the recommended list of works from September 202 to take place thereafter. It confirmed the resident would need to be decanted from the property for the works to take place but its managing agent would liaise with the resident direct about this.
The resident responded to the landlord on 15 December 2022 with comments and queries to its response. She listed the following as outstanding items:
1. As the work agreed was a few years old the damage caused was now affecting more of her property.
2. The carpets would need replacing not relaying.
3. Details of the alternative accommodation was not clear.
4. The work proposed in September 2020 was the same as what was proposed in 2019 but no explanation had been given as to why this was not carried out.
5. The cost of the alternate accommodation had been questioned and the managing agent had advised after consulting with the landlord a review was required. The resident asked if this was true.
6. There had been no mention about the historical upgrade to the windows and therefore the residents queries remained outstanding.
7. The resident asked if the works would be funded by the reserve fund.
Further correspondence has been provided following the conclusion of the landlords complaint process, including section 20 information for proposed works and communications between all parties. It is clear from this that the resident remains dissatisfied.
As a resolution, the resident has advised the Ombudsman, she would like a full investigation into the mismanagement of her scheme, an investigation into their inadequate record keeping and she would like compensation, to take into account her living conditions, the effect on her health and the damage to her carpets, clothes, furniture and décor.
The landlord advised in its notes that it provided with information on this case that the resident had never requested compensation and refused the offer made by the managing agent in its stage 1 response. They have also advised that no mention of damages has been identified throughout its communications with the resident.

Assessment and findings

The resident has said she considers that the process she has been through and had to live with throughout the past several years has had an adverse impact on her wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the residents comments. However, it is beyond the authority of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between this case and the resident’s wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any errors by the landlord.

The landlords response to the residents concerns about the damp and mould in her property.

In this case the landlord had little to do with the management of the repairs at the residents property as its housing management services are contracted out to a management company. In such cases where, managing agents directly appointed by landlords to discharge their duties, are considered by the Ombudsman to be an extension of the landlord itself, and as such we would expect landlords to monitor performance and take appropriate action to address poor performance as if the service was in house.
Although the Ombudsman can only investigate the actions of a member landlord, in this case, the managing agent is a company which is part of the landlords business structure therefore it of the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord remained responsible for the actions of the managing agent and therefore this has been investigated in this report. Although it is noted that this investigation has been hindered slightly by the lack of repairs records provided to show the actions of the managing agent.
The service agreement between the landlord and its managing agent states that the managing agent will register as a member of the Housing Ombudsman Service. Evidence has been provided that shows the managing agent as a member of the Property Ombudsman, therefore a recommendation has been made to update this agreement.
Section 4 of this agreement also states the landlord will provide support to the managing agent in achieving targets by meeting on a quarterly basis. Information was provided to this service of the reports taken to these meetings. These reports show high level monitoring of key performance indicators however it is important to remember the human element of issues such as in this case and a recommendation has been made for the landlord to review more operational monitoring.
The lease agreement confirms the landlord’s responsibility to maintain and repair the structure and exterior of the property, reflecting its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord has an obligation to maintain the property in reasonable condition and good repair, this includes resolving issues of damp and mould that is the result of problems with the fabric of the property. It is acknowledged that, damp and mould can also be the result of condensation from the resident’s use of a property. This can sometimes be resolved through changes in the resident’s activities, although not always given the layout and design of a property. Where there are reports of damp and mould the Ombudsman would always expect the landlord to undertake appropriate investigations to determine the cause of damp and mould. If it is determined that it is being caused by problems with the fabric of the property, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to take thorough and effective steps to resolve the issues as per the recommendations in this Services spotlight report, damp and mould, it’s not lifestyle, October 2021. Where it is a problem caused by the resident’s use of the property that the resident cannot reasonably change the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to work with the resident to provide solutions to resolve the issue.
It is not disputed that the property has issues with damp and mould or that this issue has been ongoing for some time and would have caused the resident a huge amount of distress and inconvenience. According to the resident she first reported an issue with damp in January 2015, the landlord detailed a list of works undertaken since this date in its complaint response on 14 December 2022. Numerous works were undertaken to try and resolve the cause of the damp between 2015 and 2018. Following this, 3 separate survey reports have been provided, the first in 2018, second in 2019 and a third in 2020. It is not clear from the evidence provided if any remedial works took place during these 3 years or if any internal remedy was offered to the resident, a dehumidifier for example. Although it is expected for a landlord to rely on the opinion of appropriately qualified experts, the lack of action following each of these reports was not appropriate.
These reports coincided with each other to say that the damp and mould inside the property was due to an internal air issue. Additionally these reports also recommended external issues which could be contributing to the damp issue. It would have therefore been appropriate for the managing agent to act on these recommendations on behalf of the landlord, as external factors could have been contributing to the damp issue. The landlord acknowledged this in its complaint response, which is commented on later in this report, however it is clearly unreasonable that 3 surveys were undertaken with no work being carried out.
A further report was provided from 2021, which the managing agent advised was instructed, in its complaint response in August 2021, due to the lack of consistency of previous reports and delays. It is noted that the COVID-19 pandemic would have disrupted services and caused some delays however it is the Ombudsmans view that this is not the reason works were not carried out. The landlord advised in its complaint response in December 2022 that the works recommended in 2020 did not go ahead “largely due” to a change in personnel, which is not acceptable and caused an unreasonable delay for the resident to resolve this issue.
It is not clear from the evidence provided why no works were undertaken since 2018, in correspondence with the resident the managing agent has stated works were placed on hold when it was determined the property would be inhabitable. According to the resident it was discussed she would need to move out at a meeting in 2019, therefore it is not clear if this is when works were placed on hold. In any case where a decision is taken to postpone works it is expected that residents be advised of the decision and informed when a further inspection will take place. Where repair work is overdue, residents should receive regular updates clearly explaining the reasons for delay and expected date of completion. No evidence has been seen that the resident was kept up to date with the progression of the proposed works, leading her to spend time and trouble chasing the managing agent for updates, pursuing numerous complaints and experiencing a huge amount of distress and inconvenience in doing so.
A key issue raised by the resident was the historical window upgrade that the landlord carried out about 15 years ago, where the ventilation was removed. Due to the timeframe on this the Ombudsman is not able to determine whether or not this upgrade followed correct procedure at the time. However the managing agent had advised the resident that it had raised the issue with the landlord in October 2021, no evidence has been seen to substantiate this statement and the resident has provided evidence to show this issue was still outstanding for her. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to clarify this point to the resident.
Further repairs are mentioned throughout the process by the resident which would have contributed to the overall damp issue she was experiencing. The drain repair underneath her property and the kitchen window repair. It would have been appropriate for these works to be prioritised due to the ongoing issues the resident was experiencing. Failure to prioritise such repairs would have exasperated the damp issue for the resident.
The resident made the managing agent aware of the impact the situation was having on her health in November 2019. She made them further aware that she found the process to be exhausting and was overwhelmed in June 2021. No evidence has been seen to show the managing agent acknowledged either of this correspondence from the resident which is not appropriate.
The resident disputed the managing agents findings and raised further formal complaints. Under these circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to complete its own investigation and consider any outcome of the managing agents investigation. Although the managing agents investigation did not conclude that the damp and mould was the result of a structural external defect. The landlord has not considered these findings and accepted responsibility for completing further repairs identified as necessary following the report in 2020. At the time of writing this report, the resident has advised that work commenced in November 2023. Overall, the timeframe of 11 months is not appropriate, the landlord, in its complaint response in December 2022 advised the works recommended from the report in September 2020 would be instructed to be carried out.
Whilst the Ombudsman notes the resident’s concerns about the scope of works, it is not possible to determine whether the repairs will be successful until they have been attempted. If the resident remains unhappy with the quality of the works completed by the landlord, she may raise a formal complaint regarding this.
In summary, from the evidence provided no works have been carried out to rectify the damp and mould issue since 2018, this is an unacceptable timeframe for cases which concern damp and mould. Although the landlord has provided its self-assessment from January 2023 against the 26 recommendations of the Ombudsmans spotlight report, its lack of involvement in this case should highlight further service improvements with its management of its managing agents actions in cases like this. A finding of severe maladministration has been made due to the length of time the resident has had to endure living in damp conditions.

The landlords handling of the residents complaint.

This investigation has considered all communications about the complaints the resident made and although it is noted that the landlord has since updated the managing agents policy so it now reviews and responds to stage 2 complaints, this investigation focuses on the policy in place at the time.
The resident first complained to the landlord in July 2019. This was sent to the landlord directly however once received at the landlords head office was forwarded on to its managing agent to respond. The information provided for this case suggests at the time of the residents complaint the landlord had no involvement in the complaints process if a residents property was managed by its managing agent. This was not appropriate, the landlord should be aware of any risks associated with contracting out its services and complaint management should be one of them.
The managing agents response to this complaint demonstrated it did not carry out any investigation into the residents complaint at the initial stage. The resident complained about a historical window upgrade which resulted in the ventilation to her property being removed. The initial complaint response said this upgrade was carried out in line with the lease and would have followed the correct procedure. When the resident continued to challenge this the managing agent in its stage 2 response admitted it made presumptions on how this upgrade was carried out as it did not have the information available to substantiate its claim. This was not appropriate, the purpose of a complaints procedure is to provide a framework and process for landlords to resolve complaints. However, in this case it did not consider the residents complaint fully, investigated what might have gone wrong and sought any possible learning opportunities. Due to the lack of substantiated investigation the resident remained unhappy with its stage 2 response and had no resolution to the issues of her complaint.
Communications continued between the resident and managing agent over the damp issues at the property, as noted above further surveys were instructed but no works took place.
The resident logged a further complaint on 26 June 2021 and sent this to both the managing agent and landlord. This complaint reiterated her previous complaint about the history of the damp issues and the resident stated the “whole experience has been exhausting”, she felt “overwhelmed, confused and very let down” by her landlord and the managing agent. This complaint again was passed to the managing agent to respond. The resident was sending her complaint into the landlord as the landlord is who she has a contract with, being passed back to the managing agent consistently would have caused frustration for the resident. It is noted that the agreement the landlord has is that the managing agent dealt with such complaints however it should have adequate monitoring processes in place to ensure its general oversight of operational matters.
The second complaint dealt with by the managing agent acknowledged the length of time this issue had been ongoing for and offered the resident £100. It used this response to confirm no works would be undertaken externally as 3 specialists supported the issue to be caused by environmental factors but it “appreciated” she may have expected more works due to previous reports. Furthermore this response mirrored its previous stage 1 response about the historical window upgrades, even though the managing agent had said it did not have the information in a previous stage 2 response. After escalating this complaint the resident received a further stage 2 response which took an unapologetic stance on the issue and had no empathy for her living situation.
It is also noted that the same director provided both stage 2 responses to the resident, although an amount of time had lapsed it would have been appropriate to have an independent party review the subsequent complaint at the second stage.
Further communication was evidenced following the resident remaining unhappy with this response. The managing agent emailed the resident in October 2021, within this correspondence the managing agent apologised for any confusion about the specialist knowledge a surveyor had and the delay in a hole being filled in. No apology was given for the amount of time this had taken, or the impact this situation was having on the resident.
The landlord became directly involved in the residents situation following a press release in March 2022, 7 years after she first reported an issue with damp. This timeframe is clearly not appropriate and an order will be made for the landlord to review its lack of involvement in this case. However following this press release a complaint was raised by the landlord but yet again this was passed to the managing agent for investigation and response. This was the third complaint in as many years that was raised about the same issue for the resident.
Within this third complaint the managing agent sent the landlord a copy of its response in April 2022. Within the response it stated that the resident would be updated on the outcome of a legal review by the landlord about the historical window upgrade where ventilation was removed. No evidence has been seen that the resident was updated on this point. Furthermore, communication after this response was sparce, even with involvement from a local MP there seems to be a gap in communication between July 2022 and October 2022.
When the Ombudsman contacted the landlord in October 2022, there was a further 2 complaints raised, one dealt with by the managing agent and another by the landlord itself. It is not clear from the evidence provided why the landlord chose to respond at stage 2 but due to the length of time involved in trying to reach a resolution to this it would be reasonable to conclude it did so in agreement with the resident.
The resident received a further 2 responses from the managing agent before receiving a final response from the landlord on 14 December 2022. Since her first complaint the resident received in total 8 separate responses to her complaint about the damp and mould in her property. This chaotic, unduly long process caused the resident a large amount of time and trouble in her pursuit to resolve the issues she was experiencing. The Ombudsman expects complaints to be dealt with in a timely manner and although these responses cover separate recorded complaints over a number of years, the substantive issue remains the same and the time and trouble experienced by the resident to try and reach any resolution was excessive.
Furthermore it took until the landlords response in December 2022 to receive any form of apology for the distress caused by this situation. This is not appropriate, the resident advised the process to be exhausting and that she felt let down in June 2021, this should not have gone ignored for 18 months. The lack of empathy shown towards the resident is not reasonable and would have further damaged an already strained resident and landlord relationship.
In summary, upon reviewing the complaint the landlord responded in an appropriate manner and advised that works would be instructed. The landlords failure to have oversight of the actions or lack of, in this case, its managing agent is a serious failing which caused a huge amount of distress to the resident. When a landlord acknowledges that something went wrong, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to put things right and offer a proportionate level of redress for the circumstances of the case. The landlord did not offer any form of financial redress to the resident which was not appropriate and a relevant order has been made to reflect this. Due to the multiple complaints the resident has endured over several years with no resolution a finding of severe maladministration has been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the residents reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the residents complaint.

Reasons

The landlords lack of adequate oversight of its managing agents actions resulted in a prolonged process for the resident, leaving her to live in a damp property for a number of years. The multiple damp surveys conducted with no action being taken following this was not appropriate. Taking the above and the length of time involved in this case into consideration constitutes a finding of severe maladministration.
The resident submitted multiple complaints to the landlord, the landlords failure to have oversight of its managing agents complaints is a serious failing which caused a significant amount of distress to the resident. Despite multiple complaint investigations and responses, suitable resolution was not achieved. Evidence of investigations carried out for the complaints was limited and this was also experienced with poor records being kept about this issue. The landlord did not offer any form of financial redress to the resident which was not appropriate in the circumstances of this case. By not being involved in the complaint process the landlord missed the opportunity to identify any shortcomings and take action to improve the service. Taking the above and the length of time involved in this case into consideration constitutes a finding of severe maladministration.

Orders and recommendations

Within the next 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for the chief executive to apologise in person for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £3,500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in the handling of the residents reports of damp and mould.
3. Pay the resident £1,500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor complaint handling identified within this determination. This amount is in addition to the landlord’s previous offers of £100 for compensation related to the complaint.
4. Confirm to the resident and the Ombudsman what work is required, when this will be carried out, what the arrangements will be for the resident during this time and where the funding will come from.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must initiate and complete a strategic management review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this Service outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. Its intention and a timescale to review its oversight of operational processes with its manging agent with a particular focus on how cases such as this could be highlighted earlier, and effective timely interventions ensured. Identified improvement must be brought into its operations within the same timescale.
2. Its intention and a timescale to complete a self-assessment, with particular focus on its managing agent records, using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023). Identified improvement must be brought into its operations within the same timescale.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord:
1. Update its agreement with the managing agent to detail correct member status and include relevant complaint referral routes.
2. Provides the resident with a conclusion to its position regarding the historical window upgrade where ventilation was removed.
The landlord should advise this service of its intentions for the above recommendations within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.