Plus Dane Housing Limited (202234243)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234243

Plus Dane Housing Limited

28 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to repairs including damp and mould.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured non-shorthold tenancy at the property, which is a 3 bedroom semi-detached house. He has lived there since 2007. The landlord has a record of the resident’s vulnerabilities as being mobility problems and a long-term health condition. The resident advised the landlord through its complaints procedure that he had a double lung transplant with ongoing breathing issues and as such was vulnerable to infections.
The landlord’s repairs policy (2019-2023) states as follows:
1. For an emergency repair it will respond within 4 hours to make safe and aim to complete any emergency work within 24 hours.
2. When a repair does not pose an immediate danger, it will carry out the repair within 28 calendar days or outside of this timeframe if agreed by the resident.
3. It may need to carry out a pre-inspection of works. If so it will assess the work and confirm when the work will be undertaken.
4. Major repairs are jobs that require more planning, materials and manpower than responsive work. The target for this type of work is 90 days.
5. If a resident is vulnerable and the repair affects their health and wellbeing, it will provide a more appropriate response time (this is not specified). Where repairs do not have a direct impact on a resident’s vulnerability, an appointment will be arranged in line with the repairs category.
The landlord’s ASB policy states as follows:
1. It defines ASB as conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person. It is likely to consider the following to be ASB:
  1. Intimidation/verbal abuse/threatening behaviour.
  2. Animal nuisance.
  3. Garden related nuisance.
  4. Litter/rubbish/fly tipping.
  5. Drug related nuisance.
2. It will decide if something is ASB on a case by case basis.
3. It will assess how serious a matter is based on the behaviour and the impact it is having.
4. It generally regards noise, animal nuisance, garden nuisance, litter/rubbish/fly tipping as level 3 low risk. Its response time is 5 working days.
5. Verbal abuse and threatening behaviour is categorised as level 2 medium risk. It will respond within 3 working days.
6. All reports are triaged, and any vulnerabilities are identified by way of an early assessment. It will complete a full risk assessment with the person making the complaint. The results will guide the case management response and the steps it takes to support the complainant.
7. Where appropriate it will work with other agencies.
8. It will always take into account the views of the complainant but it is ultimately responsible for agreeing the most appropriate course of action.
9. It seeks to resolve ASB at the earliest possible stage. It has a range of non-legal remedies available, including:
  1. Mediation.
  2. Warning letters.
  3. Acceptable Behaviour Contracts.
  4. Discussion about the impact of the behaviour.
10. Generally, it will close a case if:
  1. It has done everything it reasonably and proportionately can to resolve the complaint.
  2. There has been no report of ASB after 3 months.
  3. Complainants have not worked with it to gather the evidence required to take action.
The landlord’s compensation policy states as follows:
1. Residents are responsible for insuring the contents of their home.
2. It will pay discretionary compensation based on the resident providing satisfactory evidence of the cost or value of the goods affected.
3. Discretionary compensation will not be paid in the following circumstances:
  1. Personal injury or damage to personal belongings (such claims will be handled through insurance).
  2. Where the loss is, or should have been, covered by insurance (such as the resident’s home contents insurance).
The landlord’s complaints and feedback policy states that at stage 1 it aims to respond within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. If further time is required at either stage, it will keep the resident informed.

Summary of events

In December 2020 the resident reported gaps in the brickwork above the rear bedroom window (his son’s room). The landlord raised a job to fit a new lintel and rebuild. This work was not completed and in May 2021 the landlord noted that scaffolding would be required to carry out the installation of the window lintel (this was not actioned).
There was a gap in correspondence until 22 April 2022 when the resident advised the landlord that his neighbour had thrown rubbish and human excrement into his garden. He asked for the incident to be logged but not escalated further. He also reported a smell of drugs which the landlord advised him to report to the police.
On 9 May 2022 the resident called the landlord and stated that the neighbour’s garden was a “mess” and there were rodents. He advised he would send in photographs. These were not provided at the time and the landlord took no action. The resident subsequently provided photographs on 12 September 2022. He advised the landlord that he had fallen from his ladder whilst cutting down his neighbour’s overgrown tree. This had resulted in a fractured rib and leg. He stated there were tyres and rats creating a hazard and that drugs were being grown in a shed. He also advised that the neighbour had previously assaulted him (in 2019) and intimidated his family. He explained his medical issues and that the landlord had not responded to his requests to have the neighbours moved (this Service has not seen these requests).
On 3 October 2022 the resident reported rat droppings in a trail from his neighbour’s door. The landlord spoke to the neighbour on 4 November 2022 and noted internally that the neighbour had confirmed they would clear the garden.
On 17 November 2022 the landlord inspected the resident’s property. This Service has not been provided with a copy of its findings.
The resident called the landlord on 18 November 2022 and stated that the landlord had not responded to his reports about his neighbour and reiterated his concerns about the neighbour’s garden.
That same day (18 November 2022) an inspection of the resident’s roof was carried out in respect of a possible leak. The landlord noted internally that there was damp to the rear internal eaves and that fitting insulation could alleviate the issue. It recorded this work as a medium priority and recommended a damp and mould specialist inspect the property.
On 22 November 2022 the landlord visited the resident and noted internally that it had seen the “poor condition” of the neighbour’s garden. That same day it spoke to the neighbour and stated that the tyres and other items in the garden were a fire risk. The neighbour had advised that they would be clearing the garden over the Christmas break.
That same day (22 November 2022) the landlord raised a job to “overhaul” the positive air ventilation unit.
On 29 November 2022 works to the roof were completed (fit insulation, batten the eave and replace damaged tiles). The contractor advised the landlord that a damp specialist should investigate the damp levels in the property.
On 13 December 2022 the resident submitted a complaint and stated as follows:
1. The landlord had failed to inspect his property despite reporting issues for 18 months.
2. The tap water smelt stagnant and was undrinkable. The landlord had failed to investigate this.
3. There was mould in his son’s bedroom. The landlord had promised to repair brick work above the window 18 months ago. He had to run a “portable humidifier” all day in his son’s bedroom which was costly. His son had several chest infections and the landlord had suggested that his son sleep in a different room.
4. There was damp around the house including on the chimney breast.
5. The humidifying system that had been fitted blew out cold air. Contractors had not investigated this.
6. He had undergone a double lung transplant and had terminal illnesses but had been exposed to damp and cold conditions.
7. He and his family had suffered “trauma” due to the landlord’s lack of help in respect of the neighbour. He had contacted the landlord over the years about the “filth, drugs and rats” with no effect. The neighbour’s son was back at the property. He did not want the neighbour’s son near his property.
On 16 December 2022 the landlord asked the resident to send it photographs of the mould. The resident declined to do so as he had sent photos in the past and nothing had been done.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 21 December 2022. It apologised for not having done so within its timeframe and that this was due to an administration error. It advised that it would respond by 12 January 2022 (it appears this should have read 2023).
A heating engineer attended on 22 December 2022. It advised the landlord that the heating was working but that there were issues with mould.
On two occasions in early January 2023 the landlord tried to inspect the neighbour’s garden but could not gain access.
On 6 January 2023 the landlord raised work to replace the sink and basin taps.
The landlord chased the contractor in respect of the mould survey on 6 January 2023. The contractor informed the landlord that it had tried to contact the resident twice unsuccessfully. It agreed to call the resident again.
On 12 January 2023 the landlord responded at stage 1 and stated as follows:
1. It had visited the property on 17 November 2022 and had raised repairs.
2. It had approved roofing works and for a possible leak to be investigated. The contractor would be in contact to arrange this appointment.
3. It had asked a contractor to overhaul the positive air ventilation unit. This would be arranged.
4. It had requested a mould survey and treatment. Due to the number of requests the damp treatment specialist had been receiving there had been a delay. The contractor had tried to call the resident but had not been able to make contact. The contractor would call again to arrange an appointment for 19 January 2023.
5. It would contact him in respect of a date to replace sink and basin taps.
6. It received the first report about the neighbour in April 2022 and the resident had asked for it not to escalate the matter. The resident had contacted it again in May 2022 but did not provide photos as requested. The next report received was from September 2022 when the resident did provide photos. It had spoken to and visited the neighbour regarding their garden and it would keep in regular contact with them to ensure the garden was improved.
7. It could not disclose information in respect of the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s son. It advised the resident to contact the police if he believed there was criminal activity occurring.
8. It concluded that the complaint was partially upheld as, following its inspection in November 2022, it had not carried out the actions agreed. It apologised for this.
The resident escalated his complaint on 13 January 2023 and stated as follows:
1. He did not wish for any works to be carried out until an independent surveyor had investigated the property.
2. He had suffered due to the landlord’s “incompetence” at making the property habitable.
3. It had not addressed the undrinkable water. It was the pipes not the sink that needed replacing.
4. Contractors had attended to fix the loose brickwork above his son’s bedroom on 3 occasions and each time the landlord had failed to put scaffolding in place.
On 19 January 2023 a damp survey was carried out at the property.
Following contact from the resident, the local council contacted the landlord on 9 February 2023 about the outstanding works. The landlord advised the council the following day (10 February 2023) as follows:
1. The resident had removed the fuse from the positive air ventilation unit as he felt it had been lowering the temperature of the house.
2. The works to replace the sink and basin taps had not been assigned. It had emailed its scheduling team to request this be done. It had not seen anything wrong with the taps.
3. Works to replace roof felt and battens at the eaves and the installation of ventilation had been completed on 9 February 2023.
4. Its surveyor had found no obvious problems with the chimney.
That same day (10 February 2023) a damp specialist advised the landlord that following its inspection on 19 January 2023, it had found as follows:
1. A small amount of black spot mould in the rear bedroom. Condensation was noted on the window of this room.
2. No other damp or mould was present and the plaster was dry.
On 16 February 2023 the council wrote to the landlord and advised it had visited the resident’s property (it is not clear when) and stated as follows:
1. There was loose brickwork above the rear bedroom window and a crack to the reveal.
2. The resident had queried the water quality.
The council contacted the landlord again on 24 February 2023 and expressed concern that the resident was suffering from a severe infection which the resident believed was due to damp and mould. It asked if it could meet with the landlord to draw up a schedule and following that it would put the works into an Improvement Notice. This joint inspection took place on 14 March 2023.
The landlord chased the mould treatment contractor on 22 March 2023.
On 23 March 2023 the council advised the landlord as follows:
1. The temperature reading in the hall had been 13.5 degrees.
2. The humidity in the property was too high and as a result:
  1. It was difficult to see if there were any fabric failings to the property.
  2. Mould was occurring in 3 rooms.
  3. Condensation was occurring on internal glazing on 4 windows.
  4. The resident was turning off the heating when his budget was reached.
  5. The wall in the rear dining room was damp to the touch.
  6. It smelt and felt damp in the hall.
3. It requested that the landlord install humidistat fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
4. It had advised the resident to heat the property sufficiently and it had made a referral to its income support team to see if it could assist him.
On 13 April 2023 the resident advised the landlord that the mould treatment contractor had not attended that day as planned.
The landlord noted internally on 26 April 2023 that the resident had stated he did not want the fans changing (as per the council’s request) as he considered them to be “useless”.
On 28 April 2023 the landlord advised the council as follows:
1. Roofing work had been completed on 9 February 2023.
2. The resident had declined the humidistat fans.
3. Its Neighbourhood Engagement team had contacted the resident in respect of a fuel payment. He had advised that as he paid by direct debit this would not help. It had therefore offered him a food voucher to offset a fuel payment and he was going to consider this.
A survey was completed by a heating contractor on 5 May 2023 and the following was noted:
1. Condensation and mould had been found in bedroom 1, bedroom 3, the downstairs toilet, the hallway/landing, the kitchen and the lounge.
2. Moisture levels in all rooms was between 54% and 60%.
3. The rooms were between 16 and 18 degrees.
4. There was evidence of washing drying indoors.
5. To reduce thermal bridging, it recommend that insulation be reviewed to meet current guidelines.
6. The positive input ventilation system required servicing.
7. The bathroom fan was working effectively.
On 23 May 2023 the landlord advised the resident that it had been unable to locate his escalation request. It asked him to forward a copy so that it could respond. The resident responded the same day and stated as follows:
1. Following a mould survey on 22 December 2022, the works had not been carried out until 17 April 2023. This delay meant that he had to suffer with damp and mould over another winter, which had led to very serious illnesses. This had also damaged the flooring, skirting, curtains, decorating, blinds and kitchen units.
2. The whole property needed plastering as the damp and mould was in the plaster work.
3. The windows were out of line and draughty.
4. Brickwork above the rear bedroom window had not been completed for 3 years.
5. The property had damp and mould for over 3 winters.
6. The damp contractors had not tried to contact him. This work was still outstanding.
7. A contractor had installed a “humidifier” through the loft but this did not heat the air.
8. Having the heating on higher did not warm the property. After 2 years and 3 visits, the heating contractor had concluded that the heating system within the loft was faulty. He was waiting for this to be serviced.
9. He had not asked for the sink to be replaced but the tap which the landlord had refused to do.
10. The neighbour’s garden was still the same and the landlord had done nothing about the smell of drugs.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 1 June 2023 and stated it would aim to respond at stage 2 by 29 June 2023.
On 12 June 2023 the positive input ventilation system was serviced. That same day the resident advised this Service that the sensor that told the heater to work had failed. This had been replaced but he had been blamed for not heating the property.
The landlord arranged to fit humidistat fans on 22 May 2023. This was rearranged to the following day due to sickness. It was further rearranged to 7 July 2023 (it is not clear why) when the fans were installed.
On 19 June 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that he had needed to call an ambulance and when it arrived the neighbour’s son had started banging on the ambulance shouting abuse. He contacted the landlord again on 21 June 2023 and added that the neighbour’s son had been intimidating and was letting his dog out to goad him. He stated he was terminally ill and was “sick and tired” of the neighbours “making his life hell”. The landlord called the resident on 23 June 2023 and arranged to visit him.
On 26 June 2023 the landlord advised that it required longer to respond at stage 2. It stated this was due to a staff member having been on annual leave and it aimed to respond by 5 July 2023. That same day the resident advised this Service that his illness had worsened and he did not feel he would survive another winter.
On 28 June 2023 the landlord visited the resident in response to the ASB reports. It noted internally as follows:
1. The resident had advised there had not been any direct threats made.
2. The resident felt he could not sit in the garden as he could hear the neighbour’s son swearing. He believed the neighbour’s son had broken into his shed but did not have evidence.
3. It advised him to use the incident diary and the noise app and that it would speak to the neighbour.
On 30 June 2023 the landlord and the council carried out a joint inspection of the property. The landlord noted as follows:
1. Header bricks formed what would usually be a lintel near the rear bedroom window. It raised a job to rake out and re-point the brickwork, remove foam and repoint as an alternative to putting a lintel in. This work was scheduled for 30 November 2023.
2. The water mains and communication pipes were the responsibility of the utility supplier. The landlord was only responsible from the external stop tap.It advised the resident that it would not replace the water supply as no repairs were required.
3. Some “minor” mould was found near the front bedroom window, in the box room and in the dining room.
4. It requested a cavity inspection following reports that the property was cold.
5. It requested that a fan be fitted in the bathroom (at the request of the resident).
6. The fan in the kitchen required servicing.
7. The kitchen window needed sealing and the mechanism renewed.
8. Seals to the rear bedroom window needed checking.
9. The rear gulley needed repairing.
On 5 July 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2 and stated and follows:
1. It had visited the property on 17 November 2022 and had raised a number of jobs as detailed in its stage 1 response.
2. It had raised a job for mould treatment in November 2022 however the contractor had not been able to gain access on 14 December 2022. The mould treatment was therefore not completed until 17 April 2023. It advised that its contractors had been managing an unprecedented number of requests which had impacted on how quickly it could attend. It acknowledged that the delay was not acceptable and it had not kept the resident up to date with the timescales. This aspect was upheld.
3. To assess mould damage to items it had arranged a visit on 30 June 2023. It apologised for the delay in the visit being arranged and noted that the damage had not been raised within the original complaint.
4. In respect of windows allowing air in and a repair to the brickwork not having been completed, these were not raised at stage 1. These matters had been noted during the visit on 30 June 2023 and would be actioned.
5. There was a difference of opinion in respect of its damp specialist contacting the resident. It was not able to ascertain whether such attempts had been made, however the contractor could not evidence having done so. In addition, the contactor had not advised the landlord that it had been unable to contact the resident until 5 January 2023. As such this aspect was upheld.
6. In respect of the positive air ventilation unit not working as it should, its surveyor had advised the resident that the fan did not change the temperature of the air. Following the resident’s concerns and him having removed the fuse, an inspection was done on 25 April 2023 and the fan was found to be working. It would arrange for the unit to be serviced. Both the landlord and a surveyor from the council had advised the resident to increase the temperature of the heating. It had offered vouchers but these had been declined. It advised that this offer was still open.
7. It had raised a job in January 2023 to replace taps however this had been cancelled by the resident as he stated he did not need a new basin. It advised there may have been a misunderstanding about this. It apologised if the wording used had been misleading and re-scheduled this for 4 July 2023.
8. It had visited the neighbour the week before and due to the lack of progress made with the garden, it had opened a case with its Community Safety Team. It would keep the resident informed of this.
9. It concluded that the timescale for the mould specialist to complete the work had been unacceptable and it had failed to keep the resident updated. In recognition of this it offered £100 compensation.
10. It had delayed visiting the property to assess damage to items and to assess the brickwork in the rear bedroom. In recognition of this delay it offered £50 compensation.
11. There was no evidence that its damp contractor had tried to contact the resident and it had not informed the landlord of its inability to contact him. It would discuss this with the contractor and offered £50 compensation.
On 6 July 2023 the resident referred the matter to this Service and stated:
1. He felt “extremely belittled, worthless, humiliated and disappointed” with the stage 2 response. The compensation offered felt like an “insult”.
2. He was terminally ill and his son had left the property as he had been waking up tasting mould.
3. He requested that his tenancy be changed from an assured tenancy to a secure tenancy to enable him to carry out repairs and purchase the property in time.
4. He requested compensation for the damage caused by mould including to the flooring, skirting, curtains, blinds and decoration.

Correspondence following the involvement of this Service

On 18 July 2023 the landlord noted internally that the mould works had been completed. That same day it spoke to the resident to agree an ASB Action Plan which would include contact with the neighbour. The resident advised that he did not want the landlord to continue with ASB action as there had been no further incidents and he asked for the case to be monitored. The landlord agreed to do so for a month. The resident spoke to the landlord again that same day and stated he had forgotten to report that the neighbour’s son had been staring at him and asked that this be recorded.
On 20 July 2023 a survey was carried out at the property which recommended cavity wall insulation. In addition, loft insulation should be topped up.
The resident reported in August and September 2023 concerns about a smell of drugs and he had informed the police. The landlord advised him to complete incident diaries.
On 14 September 2023 the landlord called the resident who advised that the damp and mould had returned as the brickwork had not been fixed.
On 6 November 2023 the resident advised this Service as follows:
1. The condition of the property had worsened and it was impacting his health.
2. There was damp and mould. The landlord had treated the walls but this had not resolved the issue.
3. Brickwork had not been repaired, allowing water ingress.
4. Cavity wall insulation work had not been done.
5. The landlord had not addressed the condition of the windows which were contributing to the cold/damp issue.
6. The landlord had not resolved the undrinkable water.
7. The landlord had not done anything about the condition of the neighbour’s garden.
On 30 November 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and stated that it had further reviewed his complaint. It stated as follows:
1. It apologised for the complaint handling failures, including its failure to escalate the complaint to stage 2 in January 2023. It had reviewed its complaint handling which had led to changes to its systems, processes and additional training.
2. A contractor had attended that day to repoint the brickwork above the bedroom window. This work had been completed.
3. The window replacement programme at the property was due to be completed by March 2025.
4. Despite reviewing the resident’s concerns about the tap water and liaising with the council and utility company, it had not responded to this aspect within its stage 2 response. It had requested an independent expert test the water and provide a written report.
5. An insulation contractor had met with the resident that day to create a plan for wall insulation works to be completed and to top up the insulation within the loft. This work would be arranged.
6. It reiterated its offer to work with the resident to maximise his income and signpost him to organisations that could provide support.
7. It had reviewed the compensation offer made at stage 2 had increased this from £200 to £650. This was made up as follows:
  1. £150 in recognition of the complaint handling failures.
  2. £300 for the handling of the repairs. This consisted of the £200 offered at stage 2 and an additional £100 for the handling of the brickwork repairs.
  3. £200 for its poor communication.
That same day the landlord advised this Service as follows:
1. Based on photographic evidence the level of mould (minimal) had not been deemed to be a category 1 hazard.
2. During the COVID-19 pandemic it operated an emergency only repairs service. Since then it had not met its timescales for non-emergency repairs. It had recently invested in a “Catch-Up Repairs task force” to tackle this.
3. There was not a consensus amongst its contractors about what was causing the mould, therefore a number of works had been carried out.
4. The resident had not provided evidence of items damaged by mould.
On 4 December 2023 the resident advised this Service that he had declined the landlord’s offer of compensation.
The landlord advised the resident on 15 December 2023 that it could not change his tenancy to a secure tenancy. It also confirmed that he was not eligible to buy or acquire the property.
On 26 January 2024 the landlord advised the resident that his tap water had been analysed. It confirmed that the water supply was within the normal range and was safe to drink. The resident queried this and said the test had not been carried out correctly.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Following the completion of the internal complaint procedure on 5 July 2023, the resident subsequently raised further aspects of his complaint. As these issues did not from part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that this Service can investigate at this stage as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these reports. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to have these matters resolved. The resident may then approach the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied. A recommendation has been made in this regard. The following aspects have not been investigated within this report:
1. The landlord’s response that it could not change the tenancy type.
2. The landlord’s repose to ASB reported after 5 July 2023.
3. Cavity wall insulation after July 2023.
4. The water analysis.
It is noted the resident has stated that the situation in respect of the damp and mould impacted on his health. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Response to repairs including damp and mould

For clarity, the resident’s concerns about repairs have been addressed separately.

Water supply

When the resident raised his complaint in respect of the tap water not being fit to drink (December 2022), the landlord did not appropriately address his concerns and instead stated it would replace the taps. This caused confusion to the resident who had been clear that it was the water itself he was concerned with. The landlord subsequently advised him (on 30 June 2023) that it was not responsible for the pipework prior to the external stop tap and that the water supply was the responsibility of the utility supplier. It is not clear why it took the landlord 6 months to clarify this. This delay was unreasonable and caused frustration for the resident. It is noted that the landlord did apologise at stage 1 for the misunderstanding about the taps/basin being replaced however it did not apologise for the delay in this aspect being addressed. This was not appropriate.
It is also noted that the landlord failed to address this aspect of the complaint at stage 2 and did not acknowledge this failure until the involvement of this Service. This was not appropriate and the landlord missed the opportunity to fully investigate the resident’s concern via its internal complaints procedure.

Rear bedroom window brickwork

It is noted from the records provided by the landlord that the resident reported an issue with the brickwork of the rear bedroom window in December 2020. This work was not actioned appropriately and the landlord noted in May 2021 (5 months later) that scaffolding would be required for the work. Despite being aware of this, the landlord took no further action to complete this work at the time. The inspection with the council over 2 years later (30 June 2023) highlighted that this repair was still outstanding. Despite this, the work had not been completed by the time the resident referred his complaint to this Service in July 2023.
The resident stated in his complaint that the landlord had suggested his son sleep in a different room (due to the issue with the window brickwork). This Service has not seen evidence of this, however given that the resident had also reported water ingress via the brickwork and damp and mould, the landlord should have responded to this repair in line with its repairs policy. In addition it should have prioritised this repair given the resident’s significant vulnerabilities. Instead this repair was still outstanding 2 and a half years after it had been raised. This was not reasonable.
In respect of the failures in how the landlord responded to the bedroom window brickwork, it acknowledged the delay to this work within its stage 2 response (from July 2023) and offered £50 compensation. Following the involvement of this Service, it re-evaluated this offer and offered a further £100 compensation. It is not clear whether the landlord would have reconsidered the compensation had this Service not become involved. Irrespective of this, the total offer of compensation of £150 for a delay of over 2 years was not commensurate with the significant delay or the impact this had on the resident in light of his vulnerabilities.

Damp and mould

The Housing Ombudsman published a spotlight report on damp and mould in October 2021 which stated that landlords should “adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould”. The report sets out that landlords should take “proactive interventions” in their approach to diagnosing damp and mould issues within properties.
Landlords are also required to consider the condition of a property using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards such as damp and mould. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring by landlords is expected.
The landlord visited the property on 17 November 2022 (this Service has not seen a record of this visit) and found damp to the rear internal eaves. Following this it arranged works as follows:
1. It requested a mould survey and treatment (the date of this request is not clear). This took place on 19 January 2023 and identified a “small amount” of black mould and condensation on the window in the rear bedroom.
2. It raised jobs to overhaul the positive air ventilation unit in November 2022 and January 2023. The unit was serviced on 12 June 2023.
3. It completed roof works (fit insulation, batten the eave and replace damaged tiles) on 29 November 2022.
4. It arranged for a heating engineer to attended on 22 December 2022 when the heating was confirmed as working.
5. It carried out further works to the roof (replacing felt and battens) on 9 February 2023.
6. It took part in a joint inspection with the council on 14 March 2023.The council requested that the landlord install humidistat fans. These were installed on 7 July 2023.
7. Mould treatment was carried out on 17 April 2023.
8. A survey was completed on 5 May 2023. Condensation and mould was found in a number of locations including bedroom 1 and bedroom 3. The survey recommend that insulation be reviewed.
9. A joint inspection with the landlord and council to assess mould damage was carried out on 30 June 2023. Minor mould was found.
The mould survey took from 18 November 2022 to 19 January 2023 to be carried out and the subsequent mould treatment was not completed until 17 April 2023. This was a delay of 5 months in the mould being removed. The landlord relied on its contractor being busy with other requests and the contractor not having been able to make contact with the resident as an explanation for this delay. Given the resident’s significant vulnerabilities, the landlord failed to appropriately prioritise this survey and treatment in line with its repairs policy. It also failed to demonstrate that it had been proactive in ensuring this appointment was arranged and carried out within an appropriate timeframe.
Following the identification of damp to the internal eaves (18 November 2022) the landlord acted appropriately in categorising this work as a medium priority and completed this work in line with its repairs policy on 29 November 2022. Following this, it responded to a further report of a possible leak (12 January 2023) and further roof works were completed on 9 February 2023. This repair was completed appropriately and in line with the repairs policy timescale of 28 days.
The damp and mould specialist had advised the landlord in January 2023 that there was black spot mould in the rear bedroom and condensation on the window. Following this finding however, there is no evidence that the landlord took steps to advise the resident on steps to take to prevent such condensation from occurring. Providing resident’s with information on how to tackle condensation is something which was recommended within the spotlight report. In failing to do so the landlord missed an opportunity to provide the resident with appropriate advise to minimise a reoccurrence of this in the future.
To assist with the damp and mould, the landlord raised jobs to overhaul the positive air ventilation unit, however this took 7 months to be completed (November 2022 to 12 June 2023). This delay was not reasonable or in line with its repairs policy. The resident advised this Service that the unit had not worked and did not heat the air. There is no evidence that the landlord explained the function of the unit to the resident or took steps to manage his expectations following his complaint about it not heating the air. This was a missed opportunity to clarify the purpose of the unit to the resident and aid his understanding.
The landlord did appropriately advise the resident to increase the temperature of his heating and it demonstrated a resident focused approach in offering to assist him with vouchers towards the cost of this. This was appropriate advice given the findings of the survey that the ambient temperature had been 13.5 degrees.
It is noted that the installation of the humidistat fans took from March 2023 to July 2023. It is acknowledged however that the resident initially declined these and that installation was further delayed due to sickness. However the reason for the installation having taken 4 months is not clear. Given the resident’s ongoing concerns and his vulnerabilities, this unexplained delay was not reasonable.
The survey on 5 May 2023 found mould in a number of areas of the property including two of the bedrooms. As such it recommended that the landlord review the insulation. As of 5 July 2023 (2 months later) when the resident referred his complaint to this Service, this review had not been carried out. No explanation was provided for this delay and the landlord failed to prioritise this work given the resident’s vulnerabilities which was not reasonable.
The landlord stated that the purpose of its visit on 30 June 2023 had been to assess the mould damage caused within the property and to the resident’s possessions. Despite mould being noted, there was no record of its finding as to any damage caused. The landlord should have accurately recorded its findings of this visit as it had assured the resident it had attended for this purpose. It is noted that the landlord expects resident’s to have contents insurance to cover damage caused to items. There is no evidence however that the landlord considered whether damage (if any was present) had been caused by its failure to appropriately respond to the reports of mould. It therefore failed to consider whether any such damage was its responsibility. This was not appropriate.
When considering the landlord’s response to repair issues including damp and mould, it failed to act in accordance with its repairs policy and did not demonstrate any prioritisation of the works in light of the resident’s significant vulnerabilities, or of his health conditions potentially placing him at an increased risk from damp and mould. In addition, it was not proactive in monitoring the completion of the works or the actions of its contractors.
When failures are identified, as in this case, 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. The landlord acknowledged that the timescale for the mould specialist to complete the work (November 2022 – April 2023) had been unacceptable and it had failed to keep the resident updated. In recognition of this it offered £100 compensation at stage 2 (it having offered no compensation at stage 1). In addition it offered a further £50 to acknowledge the issue with its contractor making contact with the resident.
The landlord’s final offer of compensation of £300 in respect of its failings in handling the repairs (£150 in respect of the window brickwork and £150 in respect of mould) was not reasonable and did not acknowledge the impact of the significant delays on the resident. It did not sufficiently acknowledge the impact caused to the resident in light of his particular vulnerabilities. There was therefore maladministration in how the landlord responded to the repairs and damp and mould.
To acknowledge the impact the landlord’s failings had on the resident, an additional order of £400 compensation has been made. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidelines for when a resident has been impacted by failings of the landlord over a significant period of time.

ASB

The resident reported the condition of the neighbour’s garden in April 2022 however the landlord did not take action following this report as the resident did not provide it with photographs. Its ASB policy categorises garden nuisance and rubbish as level 3 low risk, with a response time of 5 working days. The ASB policy does not state that photographs have to be provided before it will take action. As such the landlord did not respond appropriately to the resident’s report.
Following another report on 3 October 2022 of rat droppings, it took the landlord a month, (4 November 2022) to speak to the neighbour. No explanation was provided for this delay and this was not in line with its ASB policy. There is no evidence that the resident’s vulnerabilities had been considered by the landlord as outlined within its ASB policy. This was not appropriate.
When the landlord could not gain access to the neighbour’s garden in January 2023, it took no further steps to address the issue despite having acknowledged the poor condition of the garden. There is no evidence that the landlord followed its ASB policy in considering any subsequent action against the neighbour. It was not appropriate for the landlord to have discontinued its investigation on the basis that it could not gain access to the garden.
Following reports on 19 and 21 June 2023 of a different nature (threatening behaviour) the landlord spoke to the resident on 23 June 2023 and arranged to visit him. It is noted that the response time was 1 working day outside of the ASB level 2 response timeframe. It is not clear if the landlord acknowledged this, however its subsequent advice to complete an incident diary and log such incidents via the noise app were appropriate in order to evidence such behaviour. In addition, it spoke to the neighbour and opened a case with its Community Safety Team. The landlord had also signposted the resident on contacting the police. These were appropriate actions by the landlord in light of the behaviour reported.
In summary, the landlord did not follow its ASB policy in responding to the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s garden. It delayed investigating the reports and did not take action to resolve this following the unsuccessful access attempts. The landlord did not acknowledge this failing in its complaint responses. This amounts to maladministration. To acknowledge the impact the delay had on the resident, compensation of £150 has been ordered in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidelines for maladministration which had a temporary impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord took 19 working days to respond at stage 1, 9 working days outside of its 10 working day timeframe. It did not acknowledge or apologise for this delay within its stage 1 response.
The resident escalated his complaint on 13 January 2023 (this request has been seen by this Service). It is not clear why, however the landlord misplaced this email. Even when the resident resubmitted his escalation on 23 May 2023, it took the landlord a further 30 working days to respond. It stated this was due to annual leave. In total, it took the landlord over 6 months to respond at stage 2 to the resident’s escalation request (13 January to 5 July 2023). This caused frustration for the resident and significantly delayed his ability to refer his case to this Service.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that landlord’s should respond to each aspect of a complaint. As noted above, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s concern about the quality of the tap water within its stage 2 response.
Following the involvement of this Service, the landlord re-evaluated its response to the resident’s complaint and provided a further stage 2 response (30 November 2023). The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to address the water quality at stage 2. In respect of its complaint handling failure it offered £150 compensation. It also advised that a review had been carried out which had led to changes to its systems, processes and additional training for colleagues for complaint handling. This demonstrated a willingness to learn from mistakes and put things right.
As the increased offer of compensation was made several months after the landlord’s formal stage 2 response, it is not clear that the landlord would have changed its position had the resident not referred the matter to this Service. This Service expects landlords to fully and fairly address complaints during the internal complaints procedure irrespective of whether the resident then refers the matter to this Service.
In summary, the landlord failed to appropriately respond to the resident’s complaints via its internal complaints procedure. Given the complaint handling failures and the impact of these on the resident, this Service would have ordered £150 compensation. As the landlord offered this amount with its further complaint response, this is considered to be a reasonable remedy for the failings identified. There was therefore reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord has been ordered to reoffer this amount.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to repairs including damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not respond to the repairs issues in line with its repairs policy. It did not consider the resident’s significant vulnerabilities or his health conditions in order to prioritise the works. When works were arranged the landlord was not proactive in monitoring the completion of the works or the actions of its contractors.
The landlord did not follow its ASB policy in responding to the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s garden. It delayed investigating the reports and did not take action to resolve this following the unsuccessful access attempts.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in line with the timeframes of its complaints policy. It did not offer sufficient compensation in respect of this through its internal complaints procedure however it increased its offer of redress following a reconsideration of its stage 2 response. Its final offer of £150 compensation in respect of its complaint handling failures was reasonable.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
2. Pay a total of £1000 compensation (this is inclusive of the £300 offered within the internal complaints process, if not already paid,) made up as follows:
  1. £400 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failings in its handling of the repairs.
  2. £150 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failing in responding to the ASB reported.
  3. £150 compensation as offered within its internal complaints process in respect of its complaint handling failures, unless already paid.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord clarify with the resident if there are any further aspects of complaint to be responded to via its internal complaints procedure.