Saxon Weald (202224256)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224256

Saxon Weald

20 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 handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated survey.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord in a 1 bedroom ground floor flat, in a block. The resident’s tenancy started in March 2017, and he was rehoused by the local authority, in September 2023.The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident’s partner represented him throughout the complaint, and both the resident and his partner were in contact with the landlord. For the sake of clarity, this report refers to both the resident and his partner as ‘the resident’.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 16 November 2022 and raised concerns about damp and mould within his property. The landlord arranged for an internal surveyor to inspect the property on 17 November 2022, and the notes from the inspection state:
1. On entering the property, it was evident the humidity was high, and the windows were closed.
2. The surveyor asked the resident to identify the areas affected by mould, and was told it had been “cleaned off”.
3. On “inspection” it found no evidence of penetrative damp.
4. The extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom were not working “sufficiently”.
5. The window seals in the living room, and bathroom, were “defective”.
6. It raised works to:
  1. Renew both extractor fans.
  2. Renew the window seals.
  3. Remove vegetation from the rear and side of the building.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 November 2022 to make a complaint, as he was unhappy with the outcome the survey, and the proposed works.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 December 2022 to chase its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord sent him its stage 1 complaint response on the same day, and said:
1. It outlined the findings of the inspection (as set out above).
2. It would carry out the works as soon as possible, and expected them to be complete by the “middle of January” 2023.
3. It apologised for the delay in sending the stage 1 response.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 December 2022 and asked his complaint to be taken stage 2, and said:
1. The stage 1 complaint response made no mention of the concerns he had raised about:
  1. Grass growing out of the gutters.
  2. Mortar missing from brickwork.
  3. The bedroom.
2. He had provided photos of the issues described.
3. The surveyor did not spend very long at the property, and did not inspect the bedroom.
4. He had cancelled the proposed works, as he wanted a second opinion on what works were needed.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 11 January 2023, and said:
1. Its stage 1 complaint response stated it would remove ivy, weeds, and vegetation; this included the grass in the gutters. It apologised that this was not clear in its earlier response.
2. It had reviewed the photos the resident, and its surveyor, had sent, and they did not “show any water ingress or penetration”.
3. It was of the view the proposed works of installing new extractor fans, removing vegetation, and replacing the window seals would help reduce moisture within the property.
4. It provided a leaflet with information about the ‘heat recovery’ extractor fans it planned to install.
5. It could arrange the proposed works to take place in February 2023, and would do a “mould clean” once the works were completed.
6. From the photos taken it had enough information to make an “informed decision”, and did not need to inspect again.
7. It apologised for any confusion about a lack of access to the bedroom.

Events after the complaint procedure

The resident contacted the landlord on 3 February 2023 to say he had cancelled the proposed works. The landlord sent him a letter on the same day and encouraged him to reconsider, as it was of the view the works would resolve the issue.
The resident contacted this Service on 26 August 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint, and said:
1. He was unhappy with the landlord’s survey, as the surveyor did not take any damp meter readings.
2. He was unhappy it had refused a further survey, as the mould had come back after it had done the mould wash.
The resident moved out of the property in September 2023.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies, and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the drains, gutters, and external pipes of the property.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The landlord’s damp, condensation, and mould policy states that it will do “effective investigations” into concerns about damp. It says it will do a “speedy and thorough” investigation of the “building fabric”, and adopt a “no blame” approach. The policy states that it will also provide timely advice on how a resident can reduce issues in their property.
The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure states that it aims to complete non emergency repairs within 10 working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a response sent within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints responses will be sent within 20 working days.

Damp, mould, and the associated survey

The resident asked this Service to investigate his complaint, in August 2023. When he did so, he raised a concern that the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould had impacted on his daughter’s health. He reported that the damp conditions they were living in “played a very big part” in her being unwell. The serious nature of this is acknowledged, and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit.
The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if he considers that members of his household’s health were affected by any action, or lack thereof, by the landlord.
The resident also raised a concern with this Service that his carpet was damaged, as a result of the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould. It is not the role of this Service to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is, however, the role of this Service to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
When the resident first raised concerns about damp and mould in his property, in November 2022, the landlord attended to inspect the property the next day. This is evidence that, in the first instance, it appropriately applied its damp and mould policy, and attended promptly. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and evidence that landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously.
The evidence available indicates that the landlord’s inspection, of November 2022, was not a thorough investigation of the “fabric” of the building, as set out in its policy. The notes from the visit do not reflect any recordings of damp levels within the property or evidence of a “thorough” investigation of the resident’s concerns. The notes reflect that on “inspection” there was no evidence of rising damp. There was no detail included on what the inspection entailed or what methods the landlord used to come to that conclusion, this was inappropriate.
The notes from the inspection do not indicate the landlord did any investigation of the “fabric” of the building, at the visit. This was not in line with its policy, or the approach recommended in our spotlight report on damp and mould that states landlords must be “willing and able to properly inspect […] to identify root causes”. It is noted that the landlord did identify issues with ventilation and condensation, for which it raised appropriate works. However, the evidence shows that there was a lack of proper investigation into the resident’s concern that there was rising damp in the walls. This was a failing in its handling of the matter that caused the resident distress, as he felt it was not taking his concerns seriously, doing the appropriate level of investigation.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it should adopt a “no blame” approach to damp and mould. The notes from the visit indicate that it failed to apply this aspect of its policy. While the notes do not solely blame the resident for the conditions, the tone of the notes indicate his use of the property was exacerbating issues. The second comment in the notes was that the windows were closed, and later gave advice about the need to ventilate the property during the winter months. While in line with its policy to give advice about condensation, this approach, compounded with its lack of thorough investigation, was inappropriate.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of December 2022, failed to assess its actions in relation to the issue. It was appropriate to outline the works it planned to do that it thought would resolve the matter. However, it failed to assess its actions up to that point, which was inappropriate. The resident had raised a specific concern about the inspection. Therefore, to not outline its position on that issue was unreasonable. This caused the resident an inconvenience of not having his concerns addressed as part of the complaint.
The failure to address specific concerns in the stage 1 complaint response, and the frustration this caused the resident, is apparent from the content of his stage 2 escalation request. In his escalation request the resident asked for a further explanation about its handling of the survey. The lack of explanation at stage 1 evidently caused an inconvenience, as the resident had to raise these concerns at stage 2, in order to get them addressed.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of January 2023, went some way to putting right the above failing, by outlining its position in relation to the inspection. However, its assessment was inappropriate. The resident raised a concern that its inspection was silent on the mortar joints, and it had not inspected the bedroom. The notes from the inspection support the resident’s conclusion. Given it was evident the initial inspection was not thorough, and the landlord appeared to accept it had not inspected the bedroom, to refuse a further inspection was unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response appeared to rely on photos to support its view that it did not need to do a further inspection. This was inappropriate and supports the conclusion there was a lack of engagement with the resident’s concerns. To suggest a photo could prove or disprove water ingress is concerning, and suggests the landlord’s approach to the resident’s concerns lacked the appropriate thoroughness. Indeed, the landlord’s own ‘learning log’ after the complaint investigation found that its initial inspection was lacking. It stated: “it would be helpful if surveyors entering the property take photos and complete a report and take notes”.
The landlord’s approach went against the recommendations set out in its policy and those in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. Given its acceptance it had not inspected the bedroom, it is unclear why the landlord was unwilling to arrange a further inspection. That it did not do so was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
It is noted that the landlord was proactive in trying to progress with the works it felt would address the issues with condensation. While further investigation would also have been appropriate, the landlord’s approach to the repairs it identified, was reasonable. The evidence shows that it sought to encourage the resident to agree to the repairs, and it wanted to complete them within its policy timeframes. It advised the resident that agreeing to the repairs would not stop him bringing his case to this Service, or prevent it from addressing the issue in the future. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and shows it sought to manage the resident’s expectations, while being proactive with the repairs.
It is apparent the resident did not agree for the works to take place, as he wanted a second opinion. For the reasons outlined above, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to do a further survey. However, the resident’s refusal to progress with the works identified impacted on the landlord’s ability to resolve the matter.
The initial survey the landlord conducted was not thorough and did not inspect the “fabric” of the building, as set out in its policy. The lack of appropriate investigation into the resident’s concerns caused an inconvenience, and he was evidently distressed by the conditions in his property. While not explicitly blaming the resident, the tone of its notes indicate it did not adopt a “no blame” approach. Given the lack of appropriate investigation initially, its refusal to do a further inspection was unreasonable. Its reliance on photos without a further inspection was also inappropriate. As such, series of orders are made below.
Had the resident not moved out, we would have ordered the landlord to instruct and appropriately qualified damp surveyor to inspect the property to identify any possible works needed. Instead, we have made a recommendation to this effect.

Complaint Handling

The evidence indicates that the resident made his initial complaint over the phone, and the landlord appropriately logged his expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord formally acknowledged the complaint, which was a failure to abide by its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Both the landlord’s complaint policy, and the Code, state that complaints must be acknowledged within 5 working days. That the landlord did not do so means the resident missed an opportunity to ensure it had the correct understanding of his complaint, and was left not knowing when, or if, it would respond.
The resident experienced an inconvenience in chasing a response to the complaint, as it was not sent on time. This cost him time and trouble and created an, albeit slightly, protracted complaints process.
The landlord sent the stage 1 complaint response 20 working days after it was made. It appropriately apologised for the delay. While not a lengthy delay, it caused the resident an inconvenience. As such, it would have been appropriate to offer the resident appropriate redress for the delay. The lack of learning shown about why there was a delay, or what it would do to prevent similar delays occurring again, was a further shortcoming in its complaint handling.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response lacked transparency about its handling of the substantive issue of the case. The appropriateness of its response is assessed in detail above. From a complaint handling perspective, it is concerning that the stage 2 complaint response found no failings in its handling of the inspection, yet the learning log reflected it found the inspection had fallen short. This indicates the landlord failed to abide by the complaint handling principles set out in the Code. The Code states “accountability and transparency are integral to a positive complaint handling culture”. The lack of transparency about its own views on the inspection created an unfair complaints process for the resident.
There was an, albeit minor, delay in the landlord sending its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord appropriately apologised, but failed to show learning or offer appropriate redress. The stage 2 complaint response, while giving a better assessment of its actions than at stage 1, lacked transparency. The landlord had internally sought to learn from outcomes, but that it did not communicate its learning in the complaint response was unreasonable. The resident was inconvenienced by a delayed complaint response, and a final response that lacked the appropriate level of learning, and transparency. As such, an appropriate series of orders are made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated survey.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The initial survey was not thorough and did not inspect the “fabric” of the building, as set out in the landlord’s policy. The lack of appropriate investigation into the resident’s concerns caused an inconvenience, and he was evidently distressed by the conditions in his property. While not explicitly blaming the resident, the tone of its notes indicate it did not adopt a “no blame” approach. Given the lack of appropriate investigation initially, its refusal to do a further inspection was unreasonable. Its reliance on photos without a further inspection was inappropriate.
There was an, albeit minor, delay in the landlord sending its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord appropriately apologised, but failed to show learning, or offer appropriate redress. The stage 2 complaint response, while giving a better assessment of its actions than at stage 1, lacked transparency. The landlord had internally sought to learn from outcomes, but that it did not communicate its learning in the complaint response was unreasonable. The resident was inconvenienced by a delayed complaint response, and a final response that lacked the appropriate level of learning, and transparency.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £500 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £350 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Review its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and identify points of learning to prevent similar issues happening again. The review should focus on:
  1. The thoroughness of its initial inspection.
  2. Its own damp and mould policy.
  3. The recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould.
2. Conduct training with its complaint handling staff, with a particular focus on:
  1. The importance of a thorough, and transparent, complaint investigation.
  2. Issuing complaint responses that genuinely reflect the landlord’s learning about any failings identified.
  3. Offering appropriate redress for admitted failings.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord instructs an appropriately qualified damp specialist surveyor to inspect the property in question. This is to identify any possible works needed in relation to damp and mould.