Saxon Weald (202303908)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303908

Saxon Weald

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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould caused by guttering not capturing rainwater causing water ingress, draught through the patio door, condensation and soaking carpets.
2. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a one bedroom ground floor flat. The block was built in 2014 and the tenancy began on 19 August 2020.
Section 3.5.3 of the tenancy agreement states the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property including:
1. drains, gutters and external pipes
2. the roof
3. outside walls, outside doors, windows
4. internal walls, floors, ceilings, doors and door frames, door hinges and skirting boards.
Section 4.9 of the tenancy agreement states the resident must ensure that their home is adequately heated and ventilated to prevent condensation.
Section 4.5 of the landlord’s complaint policy states complaints should be made within eight weeks of an event occurring or coming to the complainant’s attention. This is to ensure that the matter is fresh in the complainant’s mind and to assist with it’s investigation. The landlord may exercise discretion where complaints are received outside of this timescale.
Section 4.10 of the landlord’s complaint policy states it operates a two stage complaint process. An acknowledgement of the complaint will be made within five working days of receipt of the complaint. It will respond to the complaint at stage one within ten working days of receipt of the complaint.
For the complaint to be escalated at stage two the resident must inform the landlord of the reasons why within three weeks of the stage one response. At stage two the landlord will respond within ten working days.
Section 4.13 of the landlord’s complaint policy states if the landlord is unable to provide a response or resolution to complaints within the timescales it promotes, it will contact the complainant to explain it’s reasons for the delay. It will also give an indication as to when they can expect to receive a response.
Section 4.2 of the landlord’s damp and mould policy states condensation occurs when the moisture held in air comes in to contact with a cold surface and then condenses producing water droplets. This can take two main forms:
1. Surface condensation arising when the inner surface of the structure is cooler than the room air.
2. Humidity inside the structure (interstitial) where vapour pressures force water vapour through porous materials (e.g., walls), which then condenses when it reaches colder conditions within the structure.
Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the landlord’s damp and mould policy states mould is a natural organic compound that develops in humid conditions and grows on damp surfaces. This is often noticeable and present in situations where condensation is present. Specific conditions that can increase the risk of condensation and mould are:
1. Inadequate ventilation
2. Inadequate heating
3. Inadequate thermal insulation
4. Poor building design and construction
5. Overcrowding
Section 6 of the landlord’s damp and mould policy states the landlord will manage and address damp and mould issues including:
1. Adopt a customer centric ‘no blame’ approach
2. Be proactive in it’s approach to preventing and managing damp, condensation, and mould through establishing and implementing planned programmes of works on properties with known or potential problems.
3. Provide clear and timely advice to help residents manage and eradicate humidity, condensation, and mould effectively.
4. Ensure effective communication with residents affected by damp, condensation, and mould, being clear about the action to be taken, the timescales within which the action will be completed and the aftercare arrangements.
5. Ensure that clear, accurate and reliable records of all damp, condensation and mould issues are kept.
Section 3.4 of the landlord’s responsive repairs procedure states tenants are responsible for draughts to doors and windows, floor coverings e.g. tiles, vinyl, laminates and carpets (except where floor tiles are known to contain asbestos);
Section 5.3 of the landlord’s responsive repairs procedure states repairs are categorised into two categories:
1. Emergency repairs to be completed within 24 hours.
2. All other repairs to be completed within ten working days.

Summary of events

On 19 June 2021 the landlord’s contractor provided the landlord with a damp report following an inspection of the resident’s property at the landlord’s request. The report observed:
1. The areas of concern for the tenant were potential water ingress that occurred to the patio door threshold and to the main window of the bedroom, in the form of free water ponding on the internal windowsill.
2. At the time of its visit, it recorded no obvious issues with current water ingress, historic staining or any significant moisture meter readings to adjacent walls or window/door areas tested.
3. It was likely that free water was appearing as a result of internal condensation issues rather than from external moisture ingress. It made the following observations which would likely be increasing the risk of condensation issues, particularly during the colder winter periods of the year.
  1. The property layout meant that both the kitchen and bathroom areas were integral with no window openings for purge ventilation options to help moisture removal.
  2. Ventilation and moisture control was however provided via a whole property ventilation system but with no secondary trickle ventilation provided to any of the window units.
  3. It was unclear whether the unit also reacted to humidity levels and provided any boosting levels. It was understood that the tenant frequently switched off the ventilation system as it was noisy in the background and used it more on demand.
  4. The property was heated by gas central heating with radiators. It noted that the radiators were, in general, positioned against internal dividing walls rather than the colder perimeter walls, and within the living area, the radiator was blocked by the position of setting furniture. The position and size of radiators would affect each area and how the heat was distributed, and a significant imbalance could increase the risk of higher internal relative humidity levels.
4. The report recommended that the situation was monitored, in particular with regards to potential moisture ingress into the structure throughout the seasons. It stated any evidence of water ingress noted should be inspected and dealt with and repair the defects as required.
5. The report stated the following should also be considered:
  1. The whole property ventilation system must be used as designed and assumed should be run in a consistent manner.
  2. The tenant should also be aware of internal moisture they produced and methods that could have helped reduce those during day to day living.
On 4 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and reported a broken leaking down pipe at the front of the property causing water to come in through the door and mould growing up the internal wall. A repair was logged by the landlord.
On 12 January 2023 the landlords operatives attended the residents property and completed works stating it had gone through all of the downpipe and made sure it was working fine.
On 23 January 2023 the resident reported the gutters and downpipes had been cleared by another company, but water was still falling from the roof straight onto the patio of her property and was getting into the property.
On 26 January 2023 the landlord logged for an inspection of the patio door to establish if water was coming through and look around the seal of the doors where water was reported as getting into the property. The appointment was made for 30 January 2023.
On the same day a repair was logged by the landlord to renew a foam strip around the patio door to ensure it was wind and waterproof.
On 27 January 2023 the landlord’s records show it logged that:
1. There were reported issues with rainwater entering the patio door of the resident’s property causing damp and mould.
2. The issue had been ongoing for two years with water cascading from guttering down the downpipe and into the patio doors.
3. The resident had called numerous times and said nothing had been done.
4. The resident was worried about the spread of damp and mould and asked for a manager to call her. The landlord raised a complaint on the same day.
On 30 January 2023 the landlord attended the resident’s property and investigated the reports of water ingress from the patio doors. A water test with a spray bottle was carried out and no water ingress was evidenced. The landlord agreed to return on 3 February 2023 with a hose set up to carry out further tests.
The inspection took place on 3 February 2023 and after testing for water ingress around the door and windows there was no evidence of water ingress. The landlord felt the issue with water internally was condensation. The landlord stated it offered a dehumidifier to the resident.
On 6 February 2023 the landlords records state the resident declined the dehumidifier as she would be unable to move it around her flat, the flat was small, as dehumidifiers needed to be positioned away from a wall she did not know where it would be positioned and would prefer for the engineers to deal with the real issue which a dehumidifier would mask. The landlords records state it suggested for a surveyor to inspect the internal parts of the property to reduce condensation.
On the same day the landlord discovered that a report that was produced in June 2019 determined the cause was condensation. The landlord stated it would still ask for a surveyor to attend to see if anything could be done to improve the condensation within the property.
On 17 February 2023 the landlords records state it visited the resident to see what other options could help. The issues were around condensation on the barrel of the rear door lock which had caused staining on the floor and an area needing decorating on the ceiling in the bedroom. The gutters were reported to overflow. The landlord advised the resident that the gutter was to be checked and soakers to be added to the roof around the window bay to divert any water away. The external grill for the ducting was to be checked.
The landlord stated that during this visit the resident mentioned a draught from the patio doors. It inspected the door and determined the draught was due to the door not being sealed correctly. The landlord demonstrated to the resident how to seal the door by lifting the door handle to create the seal.
On 27 February 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the outcome of it’s visit. The landlord advised it would visit on 10 March 2022 for two hours for the work to be completed. The works that it had identified included:
1. Seal the threshold next to the shoot bolt – a small gap which during high winds may allow water to ingress between threshold and the door cill.
2. Check guttering levels to ensure the appropriate fall was correct.
3. Installing soakers on the roof above to divert rain to allow any water during adverse weather to be diverted away into the centre of the guttering.
4. Small stain block to patch in bedroom.
The resident responded to the landlord and confirm that she was happy with the works being planned and the date that was given. The resident thanked the landlord that it could see her issue with the water ingress which the landlord had previously denied.
On 10 March 2023 the landlord’s records stated it visited the resident after several other visits from it’s operatives that said there was no leak but the resident had reported the carpet getting wet.
On arrival it looked around the door and checked all seals and components. It said these were working and engaging with the frame correctly. The resident pointed out markings on the carpet and the landlord after looking at the door concluded it believed it to be condensation build up on the aluminium threshold. It explained to the resident that replacing the door would not get rid of that issue as being a mobility threshold they were all in aluminium, but it could put in a wooden or plastic seal to protect the carpet. The landlord stated the resident declined this offer. The landlord noted there was a small bit of silicone missing on the left hand side of the patio doors which it sealed up and it stained blocked a small area in the bedroom that was from a previous leak which had previously been repaired, but had faintly come back through.
The landlord’s records showed that there were some guttering issues which it initially thought was a cause but when it’s operative previously tested with pressure spray around the door, no water gained access, and the landlord believed the guttering was being rectified.
The landlord issued its stage one response to the resident on 14 March 2023. The landlord stated:
1. Upon receiving the complaint, the resident spoke with it’s customer support team. During this call she provided further details to her complaint. Following this call, it arranged for dehumidifiers to be delivered to the resident’s home. However, the resident did not wish to use them as she was concerned that they might become a trip hazard.
2. At that time, it also arranged for an operative to attend who carried out tests. The operative was unable to replicate the issues the resident had been experiencing.
3. A further visit was arranged for 10 March 2023 and it carried out a stain block in one of the bedrooms and checked the guttering. It confirmed with the resident that there was no water ingress coming into the home, and that the issue was due to condensation. It discussed the ways for how that could be managed, and that extractor fans provided prior to it’s investigation had also helped with the situation.
4. It would close the complaint as it believed it’s actions had resolved the resident’s complaint.
On 27 March the resident requested that her complaint was escalated to stage two. The resident stated:
1. She had declined the acceptance of a dehumidifier due to lack of space, her limited mobility, she would not have been able to empty it and the trip hazard with the cable.
2. There was proof of mould on the inside wall by the patio door and she had showed the landlord photographs of the stains on her lounge carpet and the mould and pool of water on her bedroom windowsill which the landlord had said was due to condensation.
3. She always had the small bedroom window open on the lock at night and the same with the small window in the lounge. She also kept the extractor switched on 24 hours a day.
4. Any condensation was coming from the metal base of the double glazing unit onto the threshold and then subsequently onto her carpet.
5. The lock of the patio door was metal, which caused condensation to drip down onto the carpet. She had told the landlord that she kept rolled up towels by the patio door and window but didn’t use them on the 10 March 2022 when the landlord visited as she wanted the landlord to see it as it really was. The resident said the landlord did say it would be able to replace that lock or provide a cover for it.
6. She did not feel the stain blocking had been looked into properly. The resident asked where the water was coming from as no one had been able to tell her.
7. On the landlord’s last visit, it said it would arrange for fittings and something that would help limit the amount of rain coming straight down onto her patio and patio door. The landlord also said it would do something to the small metal fitting on the patio very close to the patio door.
8. There was the issue of the draught coming in via the patio door which it said could be fixed by adjusting the seal around the door but had not given her a date for those jobs to be done.
9. Why on 22 March 2023 did an engineer attend from a guttering contractor unannounced.
10. The issues were not resolved. She still had rain pouring onto her patio and nothing had been done about it.
11. Asked for advice about how she should proceed to a stage two complaint. She did not agree that stage one had been agreed and finalised.
A job was raised by the landlord on 27 March 2023 for lead soakers either side of the dormer to be installed at the resident’s property. The landlord’s records state this was completed by its contractor on 28 March 2023.
The landlord’s records state that the resident called and spoke with the landlord. During this call she explained she had had the landlord’s contractor attend who carried out works to the gutters above her flat window. The resident said she was dissatisfied with the work carried out and that it had not resolved the issue as there was still rain pouring on her patio.
The landlord held an internal meeting regarding the reported issues on 28 March 2023. The landlord determined that:
1. After extensive investigation over multiple visits attended directly after downpours there was no sign of damp or leaks. It had ran a hose on the patio door and no leaks were found.
2. The patio door skirting board met the door and a cold spot produced a small mark. The draft appeared to come in when the door seal was not closed and it showed the resident how to turn up the handle to close the seal.
3. Lead soakers were installed to the roof to divert rain away from the patio door.
4. The lock cover did have condensation.
5. It completed a stain block on the ceiling for reassurance it would not get any worse.
6. It checked the gutter levels design. The guttering was fit for purpose.
7. The surveyor and lead operative determined condensation and not water ingress.
8. It had offered to put timber edging by the door to stop soaking to the carpet but was declined by the resident.
On 5 April 2023 the landlord stated it called and spoke with the resident. It went through her concerns and advised her that currently it was not able to see that there was anything wrong with the fabric of the building and the condensation was normal. As a member of it’s staff who was involved in the repairs was on leave and due to it being Easter, it would extend the complaint response time to 28 April 2023 and an email was sent to the resident confirming this.
On 7 April 2023 the resident re–sent her email to escalate the complaint to the landlord.
On 12 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and stated rain water was still pouring down onto her patio and it had got worse since the landlord and its contractor had fitted panels to divert the water away.
On the same day the landlord spoke with the resident about the complaint regarding noise from rain and the guttering not being fixed. When it asked the resident when engineers had been out she advised a couple of weeks ago.
The landlord issued it’s stage two response regarding damp and mould in her home on 28 April 2023. The landlord stated:
1. It had tried to call the resident to discuss her concerns on the 27 April 2023 and 28 April 2023 and it was sorry that it had not been able to reach her. It would address each raised matter individually.
2. Guttering – It had installed soakers as part of remedial works to deflect the rainwater. It was aware that there were areas of the scheme guttering that needed adjusting and realignment to ensure rainwater was removed as it should be. It was in the process of obtaining quotes to carry out that work. If the guttering above the resident’s home was found during the work to be damaged or distorted it would be replaced. If the correct positioning could not be achieved, then alternative solutions would be considered. The design of the building did not permit guttering all the way along, and rain fell on to the resident’s patio, which disturbed her. It could remove the patio slabs and replace with shingle to reduce the noise. However, there were concerns that this would not be a stable surface for her to walk on. If she would like the immediate slabs removed and replaced with shingle, to let it know and it could arrange for it to be carried out for her. It was sorry that it would appear the guttering was faulty, and the resident had its assurances that it was looking to resolve this.
3. Draughts – Several operatives attended the resident’s home to look at the patio doors, it had not been able to detect a draught. When visiting on one occasion the patio door handle had not been pushed up to activate the locking mechanism to create a seal and prevent a draught.
4. Condensation – all reports indicated that condensation in the resident’s home was typical and due to a person living in the property. Condensation in any home was normal and unavoidable, especially in kitchens and bathrooms. It could remove a small section of the carpet in front of the patio door and place alternative flooring such as tiles or vinyl so if water did form in that area, it could easily be cleaned. If the resident wanted for that to be carried out, it would be happy to organise it.

Post Complaint

The resident contacted this service on 25 September 2023 and said that scaffolding for guttering and roof repairs had been in place for two weeks and she had been assured the necessary works had been done. However, on 21 September 2023 heavy rain had occurred and resulted in more water pouring onto her property. The resident made the contractors aware of this who said they were taking down the scaffolding as the essential works had been done but agreed to leave scaffolding up where her patio was affected until she had sorted it out with the landlord.
It is not clear from the landlords records if any further works took place but the landlord internally stated the guttering works at the block had been completed and signed off on 14 December 2023. It found the quality of work completed met the standard expected.
The landlord has stated the issue with the roofing above the resident’s property had been dealt with and consisted of redressing the leadwork saddle around the Dorma window and adjusting the guttering to meet the felt on the leading edge of the tiles. The repair of that build defect prevented rain water tracking back under the roof and into the soffit by channelling the flow of water into the gutter.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould caused by guttering not capturing rainwater causing water ingress, draught through the patio door, condensation and soaking carpets

The resident in her complaint referred to multiple issues causing damp and mould to the landlord which the landlord subsequently investigated and in its final complaint response addressed three potential issues individually, these were the guttering, draught from the patio door and condensation forming on the patio door.
The resident reported the guttering was not capturing rain water causing the water to hit the patio and enter the property. Noise from the water hitting the patio was also intrusive including affecting her sleep.
The resident had raised the issue directly to the landlord on 23 January 2023. the landlord should have ensured it investigated the resident’s concerns and attempt to address her issue with the guttering from that date which it has evidenced it did.
The landlord identified that due to the design of the building and there being a dormer window above the resident’s property that there would be some rain coming off the roof that would not go into the guttering and would fall onto the patio. It installed soakers to deflect the rain water. It also identified that there were areas of the block where the guttering needed adjustment and realignment and informed the resident that it was in the process of obtaining quotes. These were positive steps taken by the landlord.
Following works completed in March 2023 the resident informed the landlord that the works had not resolved the issue and the water was still pouring onto her patio. The resident stated she had not been happy with the work carried out by the contractor in March 2023.
The stage two response issued in April 2023 stated the landlord was gathering quotes for the entire building due to the required adjusting and realignment. The landlord went onto say if the guttering above the resident’s home was found during the work to be damaged or distorted it would be replaced and if the correct positioning could not be achieved, then alternative solutions would be considered. The landlord did not provide an anticipated timescale to the resident for this to be completed. The stage two response was issued one month after the resident had informed the landlord it’s latest attempt to solve the issue had not worked and three months after the resident first reported the guttering.
The landlord had established at this point that the guttering was not a cause of any water ingress, however, as it acknowledged that water would pour onto the resident’s patio and the resident had stated it caused her a disturbance, it was not reasonable for the landlord to state the resident had to wait for the entire building to be inspected to have repairs without providing a timescale to her.
The landlord has provided an invoice dated October 2023 for works completed. The invoice stated it was in relation to works that were quoted in April 2023 and the resident confirmed works took place in September 2023. There is no evidence provided why it took from April 2023 to September 2023 for the works to be completed. Given the landlord was aware of issues at the resident’s property and there is no substantiated reason for any delays, the landlord has not evidenced there were appropriate reasons for the time taken.
As the landlord acknowledged water was pouring from the guttering onto the patio it has demonstrated that it took an appropriate approach to investigate the reports of water ingress through the patio door. The landlord initially attended with a spray bottle to identify if there was any water ingress and none was found. It however took a further step of using a hose on the patio door which would have provided a substantial increase of water against the door. This test also provided no evidence of any water ingress. The landlord has therefore demonstrated that it had appropriately investigated the resident’s report of water ingress
The landlord has failed to fully evidence the actions it took at each visit or copies of any records of assessments or works carried out. This Service is therefore unable to determine the standard of each of the inspections that took place or if it acted on any recommendations made.
The draught in the patio door was determined by the landlord to be due to the door handle not being pushed up to activate the locking mechanism and create a seal to prevent drafts. There was no evidence that this conclusion was incorrect or of any further issues being reported after the resident was informed.
There was a hole in the patio door seal that was identified by the landlord and sealed during the same visit. From the evidence provided this, along with the instructions how to create the door seal with lifting the handle solved the issue with the draft. The landlord has therefore demonstrated that it had appropriately investigated the resident’s report of draughts from the patio door.
A surveyor confirmed the level of condensation was within expected amounts, advised condensation from the lock barrel on the patio door was dripping onto the carpet and was the probable cause of water on the carpet. The lack of evidence that there was water ingress into the property would appear to support this conclusion. The landlord has demonstrated that following this assessment it provided advice to the resident regarding wiping down the barrel and offered solutions including removing a section of the carpet and replace it with alternative flooring that could be easily cleaned to avoid the carpet becoming soaked or a wooden or plastic seal to protect the carpet. These were appropriate and suitable solutions offered to the resident.
The evidence provided shows the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Although the landlord inspected, assessed and provided solutions to the patio door and reasons for the condensation occurring, the landlord acknowledged that it appeared the guttering was faulty in the stage two response and made a commitment to resolving it. However the landlord failed to resolve the issues with the resident’s guttering within an appropriate timescale. The guttering repairs took significantly longer than the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. This is maladministration by the landlord and the landlord should pay the resident £150 for the delays in repairing the guttering.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The stage one response was issued after 33 working days. This was 23 working days over the timescales stated in the landlord’s complaint policy. There is no evidence the landlord was in contact with the resident to inform her of any delay or discuss an extension for the response to be issued. From the evidence provided there was no substantive reason for the delay to occur.
Although there was a delay in issuing the stage one response there was no apology to the resident or offer of redress.
The stage two response was issued after 23 working days. As with the stage one response, this was outside the landlord’s stated timescale of 10 working days. The landlord had agreed with the resident that the response date would be extended. However, the landlord in its acknowledgement of the escalation to stage two informed the resident that it would extend the response period due to a staff member who had issued the stage one response being on annual leave.
The landlord should ensure that it has appropriate notes and records of staff member actions to ensure it can respond to resident queries or complaints in line with it’s policies without relying on a particular member of staff to be available. This would be especially important if the member of staff concerned was on long term sick leave or no longer worked for the landlord.
Although it agreed to extend the response date, the landlord failed in the stage two response to acknowledge the response had been delayed and as with the stage one response failed to apologise or offer redress to the resident. The delays in issuing the complaint responses at both stage one and stage two is considered to be Service failure by the landlord and the landlord should pay the resident £75 for this Service failure.
It is noted that the landlords complaint policy states complaints are to be made within eight weeks of the matters occurring and it would use its discretion for complaints received outside of this timescale. The landlord is reminded that under this Service’s complaint handling code, the Ombudsman would consider complaints brought to the attention of the member within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. A recommendation is made for the landlord to review it’s complaints policy to avoid residents being potentially prevented from making a complaint to the landlord due to the wording of the policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould caused by guttering not capturing rainwater causing water ingress, draught through the patio door, condensation and soaking carpets.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did inspect and provide solutions to the resident’s reports of water ingress and damp and mould when it inspected the patio door and interior of the property. It failed however to complete repairs to the resident’s guttering within the timescales set out in its repairs policy with no significant reason for the delay.
The stage one and stage two responses were both issued outside the landlord’s state timescales, the landlord failed to apologise in either response for those delays.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £150 for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould caused by guttering not capturing rainwater causing water ingress, draught through the patio door, condensation and soaking carpets.
2. Pay the resident £75 for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord reviews it’s complaint policy and consider it against this Service’s complaint handling code which states landlords must accept a complaint referred to it within 12 months of the issue occurring or the resident becoming aware of the issue unless it is excluded on other grounds. Landlords must consider whether to apply discretion to accept a complaint made outside this time limit where there are good reasons to do so.