Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202300483)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300483

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited

30 April 2024


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlords handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
    2. The associated complaint that the resident made on 25 January 2023.

Background 

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, the tenancy began on 24 July 1989. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the second floor of a 2 storey end building. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure of the building, which includes, the roof, gutters and outside walls.
  3. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its first stage aims to “resolve complaints with an appropriate remedy that puts the person raising the issue back to where they would have been if they hadn’t had to make a complaint”. A response is normally issued within 10 working days at this stage. If the remedy is not agreed as appropriate at stage 1, the landlord will ask why and what remedy is sought after and agree a timescale for the response at stage 2. The normal response target is 20 working days and a 2 person panel will decide whether or not the remedy was appropriate.
  4. The landlords customer care policy says it will consider the effect on an individual when deciding if a remedy should include a payment. Its guidance says payments of up to £250 can be made when the landlord has full responsibility and the service failure caused disturbance or distress.
  5. The landlord’s repair policy states it aims to complete all repairs on the first visit. When this is not possible the resident will be informed why and will be told when the repair will be completed. The landlord has 2 repair priorities.
    1. Emergencies, which it will respond to within 4 hours. These are repairs needed to safeguard safety or the structure of the building.
    2. Non-emergencies, which it will respond to within 10 working days. These are repairs that do not pose an immediate threat to people or the building.
  6. The landlords damp and mould policy states it has a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. It says when a report is received the landlord will:
    1. Never blame residents for the mould
    2. Remove mould, regardless of what has caused it.
    3. Identify and address the root cause of the problem, including doing repairs to heating and ventilation systems.
    4. Monitor to make sure that the right action has been taken.
    5. Follow-up to make sure mould has not reappeared.
    6. If mould does reappear, take further action and monitor until the problem is resolved.
  7. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 amended the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, with the aim of ensuring that all rented accommodation is fit for human habitation. It required landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy. Section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act states that when considering whether a property is fit for human habitation, regard should be given to various matters including repair and freedom from damp.

Scope of the Investigation

  1. Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. The Ombudsman has accepted that the resident wrote a letter of complaint dated 25 January 2023 which the landlord did not log as a formal complaint. It was not until March 2024 that the landlord logged the resident’s complaint following communication with the Ombudsman. The landlord indicates that they had not received the communications from the Ombudsman about the resident’s complaint sent between April 2023 and July 2023, including a notice of a complaint handling failure order being issued.
  2. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide evidence related to this investigation to assist with the assessment and determination. However, the information it provided contained evidence of activity before the resident’s complaint. It is, however, prudent for some elements of the additional evidence to be considered and referenced in the report; where it provides clarity on activity that is within the scope of this report. Where this occurs, it is noted.

Summary of events

  1. From the evidence provided, the landlords repair records show an issue with damp on the bedroom external wall as early as 2010. The resident made a formal complaint on 29 April 2020 about the ongoing damp issues she had experienced. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 10 June 2020 and confirmed works had been raised, which included running a dehumidifier in the bedroom for a number of months.
  2. The landlords repair records show it visited on 31 July 2020 following completion of the works and noted there was no damp in the property, the relative humidity was at good level and there was no moisture in the air.
  3. On the 4 January 2022, the landlords repair records show an order was raised for external guttering being broken and leaking outside the front room of the resident’s property. These notes indicate a contractor attended on the 14 January 2022 and reported scaffolding was required to complete any works.
  4. On the 23 March 2022, an inspection took place and a surveyor inspected the bedroom of the resident’s property due to an external leak from the guttering. Details of this inspection note:
    1. In the bedroom the surveyor identified slight mould appearing through the right-hand side painted wall.
    2. The external wall was cold, no furniture was against the wall.
    3. The wall was dry according to a damp meter.
    4. In the rear living room, the surveyor identified slight mould along the bottom of the window seal.
    5. Externally the surveyor identified ivy on the wall affecting pointing and the gutters needed cleaning. A new ventilation fan in the hallway was also not working.
  5. On the 12 April 2022 a further inspection was raised for damp and mould in the bedroom of the resident’s property. An appointment was made for a surveyor to visit on the 19 April 2022. This inspection noted:
    1. The external bedroom wall was cold but not wet.
    2. There was a suspected leak into the living room from the roof, no leak was visible at the time of inspection.
    3. Scaffolding was needed to investigate further.
    4. The fan in the hallway needed to be reinstated to help control condensation.
    5. No mould was visible at time of inspection, but small marks of staining were noted on the wall and furniture.
  6. On the 1 August 2022, the landlords repair notes show an order was raised to carry out roof repairs to resolve the leak affecting the resident’s property. This job was completed on the 9 January 2023. Scaffolding was installed on 15 September 2022 to inspect and complete the work and 21 meters of gutter was replaced October 2022.
  7. On the 10 March 2023, the landlord repair records show an order was raised for mould in the bathroom and a leaking overflow. An appointment was booked for the 15 March 2023. The contractor repaired the toilet cistern and reported no mould in the bathroom but condensation on the cistern.
  8. On 4 April 2023, the resident approached the Ombudsman and stated she had written a letter of complaint on 25 January 2023 following advice from the Ombudsman, the resident could not provide a copy of the letter and stated she had not had a response. The resident said damp had been present since 2019, caused by guttering. The resident sought compensation for the length of time the matter had been ongoing and for the stress and worry caused.
  9. On the 7 August 2023, the landlords repair notes show an order was raised to install scaffolding and carry out remedial repairs to the roof and guttering. These works were completed on the 10 November 2023. It was noted that the “box gutter” had been damaged by a squirrel therefore was replaced.
  10. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 23 February 2024. The landlord advised at this point it had not received any past communications from the Ombudsman and did not receive the resident’s letter of complaint. It therefore escalated the resident’s complaint to a stage 2 complaint on 1 March 2024. An acknowledgement was sent to the resident via email on this day also.
  11. On the 5 March 2024 a surveyor inspected the property and confirmed all works to the roof, guttering and internal drain were completed. No damp or water ingress were identified at this inspection. To improve the thermal efficiency of the bedroom a new works order was raised to thermos-board and decorate the external wall in the bedroom.
  12. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 March 2024. In its response, the landlord:
    1. Explained it had escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 as it did not take her report dated 25 January 2023 as a complaint.
    2. Apologised for the way it had handled her complaint, the delays and miscommunication she had experienced.
    3. Confirmed it had visited the resident on 5 March 2024 and additional concerns were raised. These included:
      1. Time taken for the roof and guttering works to be completed.
      2. Works were not inspected after they had been completed.
      3. Concerns about mould and damp returning.  The resident explained that the bedroom furniture has not been put back because she was worried that the outside wall and the pipe behind the wall were still wet.
      4. A picture in the hallway had become discoloured because of damp.
      5. The impact on the residents mental and physical health.
      6. Lack of response to written correspondence.
      7. Radiator efficiency and cracks to living room wall.
  13. The landlord continued and addressed these concerns individually in its stage 2 complaint response, it said:
    1. After reviewing the repairs history since 2019 for the roof and guttering, it acknowledged whilst a series of investigations and repairs had been organised, the number of visits and surveys exceeded what it considered to be reasonable.
    2. It acknowledged the works should have been investigated and scheduled in a different way to minimise the time and impact on the resident. It apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused by this and offered £750 compensation in recognition of the time taken, the lack of post inspections and the impact it had in the residents ability to enjoy her home.
    3. It confirmed the roofing works, which were completed on 10 November 2023, were not post inspected but confirmed the surveyor who attended the property on 5 March 2024 carried out an inspection. No concerns were noted with the work and there was no signs of damp or mould in the property.
    4. It acknowledged that the lack of post inspection resulted in the resident being worried the damp and mould would return and therefore had not moved her furniture back against the wall. It apologised for the upset caused and said it would look to improve its process around post inspections.
    5. It confirmed the picture on the wall was inspected and although some marks were noted near the top of the frame it was not damaged by damp. No damp or mould was confirmed behind the picture.
    6. It used a device to take moisture readings at the visit on 5 March 2024 and found no areas of damp. The outside wall was also inspected and showed no signs of water ingress.
    7. It acknowledged the impact the delays, uncertainty, not receiving timely updates and felling ignored had on the resident. It apologised that this had happened.
    8. Its investigation could not “conclusively determine” why it had no records of the resident’s complaint letter dated 25 January 2023 but it assumed the letter was not passed onto the complaints team to log as a complaint.
    9. It acknowledged the Ombudsman had contacted it on 23 May 2023 and asked the complaint to be logged but due to technical issues it did not receive the details of the resident’s complaint.
    10. It acknowledged that following received contact from the Ombudsman on 20 November 2023 it should have contacted the resident directly about her complaint.
    11. As it had failed to log the resident’s complaint in line with its policy it offered £250 compensation in recognition of the impact this had on the resident.
    12. It confirmed a discussion about the radiator efficiency in the bedroom and that a works order had been raised to fit thermal boarding to improve the temperature of the room. It also confirmed works for plastering repairs in the hallway and kitchen.
    13. It concluded by advising it upheld the resident’s complaint as:
      1. The time it took to complete the works to the roof and guttering was not reasonable.
      2. It had not communicated with the resident in a timely way.
      3. It did not log her complaint.
      4. It did not carry out a post inspection once the works were completed.
  14. The landlord advised as a result of the resident’s complaint it would:
    1. Review its post-inspection process.
    2. Provide staff with refresher training on the importance of identifying and logging complaints.
    3. Provide staff with refresher training on the importance of maintaining regular communication with residents.
    4. Review its current processes for complex works involving multiple staff and contractors with a view to improving accountability and communication.
  15. In an update to the Ombudsman on 3 April 2024 the landlord advised a number of the referenced communications from the resident fell within the Covid period, where services were mainly focussed on emergency repairs due to restriction on contact. This meant letters which may have been received by post during this time, either didn’t arrive or were not passed onto the relevant teams as resources were light on the ground. It was not made aware of damage to a mirror or belongings prior to the Ombudsman getting in touch with it. A recent visit to the property included a thorough check of all affected areas and no evidence of damp, mould or damage was found.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.

  1. The resident has stated the damp and mould has had a detrimental 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 the complaint and the resident’s physical or mental 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.
  2. It does not seem to be in dispute that the resident reported damp and mould issues at her property and that she claimed some of her personal belongings were damaged by the damp and mould. However, it has been difficult to establish whether the landlord acted appropriately in the early stages of this case due to the poor records relating to its contact with the resident between January 2022 and March 2024. It is unclear precisely when the resident raised her concerns. While the landlord has provided copies of repair records between 2022 and 2024, the Ombudsman has not seen full records which clarify when the issues were reported by the resident and when, the works were completed. The landlord is therefore unable to evidence it responded to the resident’s reports appropriately and investigated the issues she raised in a reasonable manner and in line with its policies.
  3. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors.
  4. From the evidence provided the landlord inspected the property twice in 2022, first on 23 March 2022 and then again, a few weeks later on 12 April 2022. There is no evidence of an explanation as to why 2 inspections took place and so close together, this was unreasonable and would have caused unavoidable inconvenience to the resident having duplicate inspections in such a short space of time. Furthermore, it is not clear what action the landlord took following these inspections. Its repair notes show a roof repair was raised in August 2022 and subsequently guttering replaced in October 2022. No further repairs were recorded until August 2023.
  5. Overall, there is evidence of unexplained and likely avoidable delay in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould. This is not appropriate however, based on the evidence seen by the Ombudsman, the level of damp and mould within the property was limited, which in turn fortunately reduced the consequential impacts of the avoidable delay. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response of 18 March 2024, the number of visits and surveys exceeded what it considered to be reasonable, the works should have been investigated and scheduled in a different way to minimise the time and impact on the resident. It apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused by this and offered £750 compensation in recognition of the time taken, the lack of post inspections and the impact it had in the residents ability to enjoy her home. Therefore, a finding of service failure has been made for the concerning lack of clear, detailed records which show the landlord’s investigation of the issue and its communication to the resident.

The associated complaint that the resident made on 25 January 2023.

  1. While the resident has not provided evidence that supports her statement of writing to the landlord on 25 January 2023, the Ombudsman would not necessarily expect residents to be able to do so, not having access to the resources and systems that a professional body such as the landlord has. In its complaint response dated 18 March 2024, the landlord did not dispute the resident’s statement and assumed the letter was not passed onto the relevant department.
  2. The landlord reported issues with receiving communication from the ombudsman also, a new portal was introduced in 2023 so some implementation issues could be expected. However, the landlord was issued, by post, a complaint handling failure order in July 2023 by the Ombudsman. It is of concern that it did not also receive this. Although it cannot be wholly held responsible, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to review how it handles incoming mail to ensure a clear audit can be documented.
  3. The landlord could not have reasonably known the detail of the resident’s original complaint if it did not receive it however once it had received the detail it acted in an appropriate manner. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s 18 March 2024 stage 2 response letter to be particularly clear in setting out its findings, acknowledging where it had gone wrong, and offering a resolution for this complaint. The compensation in total, of £250 was proportionate in the circumstances of the case and in line with its policy. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took proportionate action to “put things right” for the resident. Further, the landlord clearly set out what steps it would take to learn from the complaint and try to ensure similar mistakes were avoided in the future, demonstrating that it had “learned from outcomes”.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) there has been service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has provided “reasonable redress” which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Reasons

  1. There is evidence of unexplained and likely avoidable delay in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould. This is not appropriate however, based on the evidence seen by the Ombudsman, the level of damp and mould within the property was limited, which in turn fortunately reduced the consequential impacts of the avoidable delay. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response of 18 March 2024, the number of visits and surveys exceeded what it considered to be reasonable, the works should have been investigated and scheduled in a different way to minimise the time and impact on the resident. It apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused by this and offered £750 compensation in recognition of the time taken, the lack of post inspections and the impact it had in the residents ability to fully enjoy her home. Therefore, a finding of service failure has been made for the concerning lack of clear, detailed records which show the landlord’s investigation of the issue and its communication to the resident.
  2. Once the landlord had received the detail of the resident’s complaint, it acted in an appropriate manner. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s 18 March 2024 stage 2 response letter to be particularly clear in setting out its findings, acknowledging where it had gone wrong, and offering a resolution for this complaint. The compensation in total, of £250 was proportionate in the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took proportionate action to “put things right” for the resident. Further, the landlord clearly set out what steps it would take to learn from the complaint and try to ensure similar mistakes were avoided in the future, demonstrating that it had “learned from outcomes”.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £250 for the failures identified for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
  2. This amount is in addition to the £1000 already offered by the landlord, if it has not paid this amount to the resident already, it should pay the resident £1250.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above order within 6 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord advised as a result of the resident’s complaint it would:
    1. Review its post-inspection process.
    2. Provide staff with refresher training on the importance of identifying and logging complaints.
    3. Provide staff with refresher training on the importance of maintaining regular communication with residents.
    4. Review its current processes for complex works involving multiple staff and contractors with a view to improving accountability and communication.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord provide an update to the Ombudsman on its timeframe to carry out the above actions.
  3. It is recommended the landlord review how it handles incoming mail with the view to implementing a system which it can be satisfied provides a clear audit trail of all incoming mail and its actions.
  4. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman an update with its intentions to the above recommendations within 6 weeks of this determination.