Settle Group (202101656)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101656

Settle Group

6 September 2021

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 landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould at the property.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

2. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 24 February 2014 to 9 July 2021.
3. The resident reported issues with damp and mould at the property on a number of occasions throughout her tenancy; in June and December 2014, in January and February 2016, in February 2017 and from November 2020, which is the subject of this complaint.
4. In response to these reports, some steps were undertaken, including measuring the temperature and humidity at the property and some works were carried out which included clearing the guttering and some insulation works.
5. The landlord has a two-stage complaint policy whereby the landlord aims to investigate and respond to a complaint at stage one, within ten working days.  Where a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome at stage one and requests escalation to stage two, the landlord aims to respond to a complaint at stage two, within 15 working days.  Where a longer period of time is needed to respond to a complaint, the landlord will let the complainant know in advance of the deadline.

Summary of events

6. On 12 November 2020, the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of reports of damp and mould at the property from when she moved in.  The resident continued to have problems with damp and mould at the property and she felt that the landlord had not done enough to investigate and remedy the root cause of the problem, which persisted, with saturated carpets and wet walls.
7. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and having spoken with the resident about her complaint, issued its stage one response on 19 November 2020.
8. In its response, the landlord advised that it would install data loggers.  It said that taking this step would provide it with information as to moisture levels in the property and help to address the problems the resident was experiencing.
9. On 7 December 2020, the report from the data loggers indicated that the property was not being sufficiently heated, which led to the resident querying the positioning and accuracy of them on 14 December 2020.
10. Following this, on 29 December 2020, the resident emailed regarding the landlord regarding ongoing issues with damp and mould in the property.  She noted that the landlord had scheduled works to the outside of the property in January and February 2021, but stated that these did not address the issues inside, including saturated carpets.  
11. The resident also noted that the landlord was scheduling a floor hygrometer appointment and she advised she did not want the same operative as previously to attend her property as she did not feel that they had taken the matter seriously or were able to properly advise her.
12. On 28 January 2021, guttering repair works were due to go ahead although it is unclear if they did. Further works to clear the drain were scheduled for 11 February 2021, although these did not go ahead, having been cancelled at the resident’s request.
13. On 1 March 2021, the landlord offered a temporary decant to the resident while it undertook repair works, however she declined this.
14. On 8 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord, requesting escalation of her complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure.  The resident was dissatisfied with its stage one response.  Although acknowledging that the landlord had carried out some repairs over time, she was dissatisfied that it had never established and remedied the root cause of the damp and mould over a period of many years.
15. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request the following day on 9 March 2021.
16. On 17 March 221, the Environmental Health Department of the Local Authority contacted the landlord, having inspected the property itself. The officer was of the view that structural issues were present and causing water to seep up into the floor, rendering the carpets soaked and the walls damp. It requested that action be taken by the landlord to resolve this.
17. On 19 or 22 March 2021, the landlord carried out an inspection at the property and ascertained that the works it had already scheduled to take place was the correct course of action. It again offered the resident a temporary decant the following day which she again declined due to the upheaval and inconvenience of this and the impact it would have on her autistic son.
18. On 25 March 2021, the landlord responded to the complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure. The landlord upheld the complaint, recognising that issues with damp and mould had been reported from 2014 and that despite it monitoring the situation and carrying out some repairs, it had been unable to resolve the issue, for which it apologised.
19. As resolution to the complaint, the landlord advised that it had agreed a permanent housing transfer so as to avoid the disruption and inconvenience of a temporary transfer and it also agreed to pay the resident’s moving costs.  The landlord expressed its concern, however, over the length of time it may take to find a suitable property and suggested the situation be reviewed in five weeks’ time, on 29 April 2021.
20. The landlord advised that as a result of the complaint, it was reviewing its procedures in respect of dealing with damp and mould and would deliver any identified training as a result of learning from the complaint. 

Post complaint

21. Correspondence between the resident and landlord continued after the conclusion of the complaint and on 26 March 2021, the landlord agreed to pay compensation for damage to the resident’s belongings (belongings that could not be cleaned) as a result of mould.  It specified that it would cover the cost of cleaning of any items that could be cleaned.  The landlord asked the resident to provide it with a list of items and any photographs of damage caused.
22. On 31 March 2021, guttering works were carried out at the property.
23. On 6 April 2021, a damp report that the landlord commissioned, took place.  The inspection for this found a number of structural issues and made recommendations to resolve the issue.  Issues included the absence of weep holes, defective guttering and the depth between the hardstanding and damp proof course being too shallow.  It recommended too, that the underground drainage should be investigated.
24. On 12 and 15 April 2021, the landlord offered to carry out a fungicidal wash and deep clean of the property which was declined by the resident.
25. On 6 May 2021, the landlord suggested to the resident that it carried out works to the outside of the property and reiterated its offer too, of a temporary decant. It re-offered this on 3 June 2021.  The resident did not respond.
26. Around three properties were offered to the resident and declined by her based on the distance from her son’s school, however, on 14 June 2021, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had given her high priority on the housing register to enable her to immediately bid.
27. On 9 July 2021, the resident commenced a new tenancy at a different property. The landlord covered the costs of disconnections, reconnections and the redirection of mail, as well as the cost of moving.  It had also offered assistance with packing and agreed to clear the property of unwanted damaged items, rather than the resident having to remove of these herself.
28. Additionally, the landlord offered to pay for the cost of new beds and mattresses, carpets and curtains and ultimately transferred a total of £2247.67 to the resident’s bank account for beds, mattresses and carpets.  There is no information as to compensation for other items.

Assessment and findings

29. Having been notified of an issue with damp and mould at the property, the landlord was responsible for carrying out an inspection and arranging for any works or specialist actions to take place thereafter. The landlord was required to do this within a reasonable period of time and in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy and in law.
30. While there is evidence of the resident reporting issues with damp and mould since 2014, the latest report (prior to the complaint in November 2020) was made almost four years earlier, in February 2017.
31. The landlord was therefore unaware of continued issues with damp and mould at the property as there were no continued reports of this and there had not been for some time. In the absence of reports of an issue, a landlord is unaware and consequently is unable to carry out any investigation or works, nor is responsible to do so.
32. The historic reports dating back to 2014 cannot be considered by this Service as there is no direct evidence of the landlord being made aware that it had carried out repairs which failed – the passage in time between reports would give rise to the understanding that the issues had been remedied each time, as there were no continued reports of issues.
33. Moreover, the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to investigate historic matters, that is, issues which did not take place within six months of the formal complaint being made.  This is because where an issue arises, the landlord should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to remedy it in the first instance.  Where it does not, or a resident is dissatisfied with any action taken or not taken by the landlord, there is then option of making a formal complaint, which allows a fair and thorough investigation of current issues at the point in time they are occurring.
34. Where matters are complained of many months or years later, the landlord has not had the opportunity to investigate and put right matters at the time and the gap that has since occurred, means that evidence, systems and personnel pertinent to the investigation, are often no longer available.
35. Therefore, this Service is considering the landlord’s actions from the point that it became aware of the issues with damp and mould at the property by way of the complaint made on 12 November 2020. 
36. That is not to say, however, that the landlord is unable to consider a reported repair – or issues with damp and mould in this case – in the wider context of reports made over time.  Where an issue is repeatedly raised – even where there are large gaps in time – this could be indicative of a structural or more serious issue and the landlord should be alive to this fact when reports of a similar nature are repeatedly raised.
37. Having been made aware of the issue on 12 November 2020, the landlord appropriately spoke to the resident about the issues.  This was appropriate because in doing so, it sought to clarify the situation, which should inform its next steps.
38. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not carry out an inspection at this point, however.  In the absence of an inspection, it was unable to ascertain the gravity or seriousness of the situation and to identify appropriate next steps.  It was insufficient for the landlord to arrange for the installation of data loggers, in the absence of an inspection of the property at that point in time; an inspection would inform whether data loggers were the most appropriate next step. 
39. Further, it missed an opportunity to consider the wider context of the situation which would have better informed its next steps, given a greater appreciation of the situation and the fact that it may be more complex than it appeared and in turn, prevented any unnecessary delay. 
40. In terms of the stage one complaint, the landlord did not investigate and respond to the complaint as it should have done, in accordance with its policy and its obligations as a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
41. Responding to a complaint, is a chance for a landlord to demonstrate it has heard and understood the issues raised and an opportunity to take steps to put things right.  There was no investigation by the landlord at stage one; its very brief stage one response noted it had arranged for data loggers to be installed.  This was simply notification of actions it would take rather than an investigation into the complaint.
42. Moving on from its stage one response, it is not clear of the basis on which the landlord decided to schedule works to the drain and guttering or its decision around the further humidity meters.  Moreover, these were scheduled for two and three months following notification of the issues, which was not within a reasonable period of time, particularly given the time of year and nature of issues reported.
43. The landlord’s response to the issues (as well as its complaint response) understandably left the resident feeling unheard in her concerns and that the matter was not being taken as seriously as it needed to be.  The internal issues with saturated carpets and damp walls would have been witnessed, had an inspection been carried out and enabled the making of an action plan to appropriately address all matters pertaining to the report of damp and mould in the property.  Living with saturated carpets in winter is a serious issue, which should have been addressed by the landlord as a priority and was not. 
44. Having identified works, however, the resident was obliged to permit these works to be carried out, in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement, which she did not do.  The landlord responded reasonably, therefore, in its response to this, having taken on board the resident’s reasoning. As well as concerns about Covid-19 and her and her son’s vulnerability status, the resident raised concerns about her son’s autism and issues with noise and disturbance. This was similarly the case in terms of a temporary decant. 
45. Notably, the resident had also lost faith in the landlord by this point, given the history of the matter and did not believe that going through the upheaval of moving temporarily in order to get the works identified carried out.
46. The landlord’s actions post the conclusion of the complaint, were notably different in terms of demonstrating an understanding of the resident’s concerns and its expression of sensitivity and empathy in its responses to her and the offers it made – financially and practically – to satisfactorily resolve the complaint. 
47. These offers, which included help with packing, covering moving costs and reimbursing the resident for damaged possessions and offering to clean other possessions, were reasonable in all of the circumstances.  The landlord was not obliged to make these offers and in doing so, it evidenced genuine attempts to put things right for the resident, who had clearly been living in very difficult circumstances.
48. Compensation for damaged possessions is different, however, to offering compensation for recognition of service failures in its handling of the situation – this has not been addressed by the landlord either as part of its complaints procedure or thereafter.
49. The damp report which was commissioned after the formal complaints procedure noted a number of issues which had not previously been identified, including from its March 2021 report a short time earlier. The landlord took too long to commission this specialist report, which pointed to potential root cause issues as well as issues which could be further investigated and/or remedied as appropriate.
50. The landlord reasonably assisted the resident in permanently moving out of the property and into a new one, which was in an area suitable for her and her son, with the resident having declined earlier property offers.  Although the landlord has remedied the situation with damp and mould by way of facilitating a move elsewhere, this did not address the handling of the issues at the time and the associated impact. 

Determination (decision)

51. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

52. There was maladministration by the landlord insofar as it did not take the situation seriously enough at the time it was reported, failing to quickly carry out an initial inspection or to thoroughly investigate the issues early on. 
53. The landlord did not take steps to resolve the saturated carpet in the winter months and did not commission a specialist damp survey until after the conclusion of the complaint, causing unnecessarily delay in identifying the root causes or potential root causes of the problem.
54. Additionally, the landlord did not investigate the complaint at stage one; its response to the complaint comprising of notification of installation of data loggers.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

55. The landlord to pay the resident £650 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £500 for the maladministration identified in its response to the report of issues of damp and mould at the property, and;
    2. £150 for its complaint handling failures.
56. The landlord to provide evidence to the Ombudsman of the lessons learned exercise it said it would carry out as part of resolution of the complaint at stage two of the complaints process.  The landlord to evidence the review (and any change) in damp and mould policies and any training subsequently delivered.
57. The landlord to draw up a programme to carry out complaints handling training to all complaint handling staff.
58. The landlord is to confirm compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

59. The landlord to fulfil the offers originally made to the resident as below, if not already done so:
    1. Compensation for other damaged goods which could not be cleaned as a result of the mould (resident to provide a list of items and any photographs of damage caused) as per paragraph 21
    2. Compensation for redirection of mail
    3. Compensation for the cost of moving