Settle Group (202234776)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234776

Settle Group

24 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 the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
2. Complaint handing.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured non-shorthold tenancy and has lived at the property which is a 3 bedroom house, since June 2011. The resident’s weekly rent in 2023 was £128.54. She suffered a heart attack in March 2023 and was subsequently diagnosed with Takosubo Cardiomyopathy, which was noted in the landlord’s record. Prior to this the landlord had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states as follows:
1. An emergency repair includes any fault which threatens harm to residents or the property. An example being a continuous leak. Such repairs will be made safe as quickly as possible, and always within 24 hours of being notified.
2. An appointed repair (routine repair) is a fault which is not considered to cause an immediate risk but requires repairing. It aims to complete these within 28 days. An example is an isolated roof repair causing water ingress.
3. Planned responsive repairs are bigger jobs that are likely to take longer than 28 days to complete. It aims to complete these within 90 days. Example are window replacement, roof replacement and installation of thermal boarding. It also includes jobs where scaffolding is required.
4. It encourages residents to have contents insurance and has a discounted rate available via a third party provider.
The landlord’s damp and mould procedure (from September 2021) states that following a report of damp and mould it will:
1. Book an inspection of the damp and mould. It aims to carry out such an inspection within 10 working days of the report.
2. Where there is evidence of unmanageable mould growth it will arrange for a mould wash. It aims to complete this within 5 working days of the inspection.
3. When all repairs have been completed it will contact the resident to make sure that the problem has been resolved.
4. It will demonstrate an understanding that damp and mould can impact certain groups of people in different ways. It will consider any vulnerabilities in its assessment and actions.
The landlord’s compensation policy states as follows:
1. It will consider compensation where:
  1. It has caused damage to a resident’s property or belongings by its direct actions or inaction.
  2. It failed to meet a service standard which has resulted in inconvenience or distress to a resident.
2. It will not consider compensation in the following circumstances:
  1. Where a resident has taken time off from work resulting in a loss of earnings.
  2. Where damage or loss of belongings was caused through no fault of the landlord.
  3. Where a fault was repaired within the target time and to a good standard.
  4. Where repairs result in unavoidable minor damage.
  5. Where it is more appropriate that cases are dealt with through its insurance procedure.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. At stage 1 it will respond within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. If more time is required at either stage it will keep the resident informed.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should “adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this”.

Summary of events

The resident reported damp and mould in the bedrooms of the property on 26 October 2021. The landlord arranged for the property to be inspected on 9 November 2021. Following the inspection, a mould wash was requested and works were identified as required to the roof.
On 19 January 2022 a roofing contractor inspected the property and advised the landlord that there was a “huge amount” of mould to the front and rear bedrooms. They advised that they thought it was due to the dorma windows still having the original asbestos sheet roofs. They advised that a specialist contractor would be required to remove the original sheets, insulate, deck and felt. A fungicidal wash would also be required.
On 25 January 2022 the resident submitted a complaint and stated as follows:
1. She had reported damp and mould but had not been taken seriously by the landlord.
2. It was affecting her mental health.
3. She was having to share mattresses with her children in the living room as the mould had taken over the bedrooms. One of her children was asthmatic.
4. She requested to be decanted until the works had been carried out.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 27 January 2022 and she reiterated that she was disappointed with the lack of action.
On 8 February 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it was waiting for its roofing contractor to confirm a date for the works. It advised that due to this it could not resolve the complaint straight away, however it would contact her by 22 February 2022.
That same day (8 February 2022) the landlord enquired internally when the resident’s windows were due to be replaced and found this was due in 2043. It requested a stock condition survey of the property to see if this could be carried out earlier. This survey was arranged for 24 February 2022.
On 9 February 2022 the landlord completed an energy fund referral for the resident as she was struggling to heat the property.
On 16 February 2022 the landlord noted internally as follows:
1. External works would continue on 17 and 18 February 2022, weather permitting.
2. The window on the side elevation should be assessed.
On 21 February 2022 the landlord responded at stage 1 and stated as follows:
1. Roofing work had begun on 17 February 2022 but had to stop due to weather conditions. It would continue when it was safe to do so.
2. It had arranged for a mould wash to be carried out on 21 April 2022. It acknowledged the delay but advised that the building needed to dry after the roof was repaired before the treatment could be carried out. It advised that it would try to bring this forward if the weather conditions allowed.
3. It had arranged for the windows to be inspected on 24 February 2022.
4. It had requested that a contractor check the radiators and heating system.
5. It had arranged for 500 litres of oil to be purchased for the resident using its hardship fund to help with heating costs.
6. It offered £150 compensation for the delays in booking the outstanding works.
7. It advised that it was in the process of implementing new software to help its trades teams work in a more efficient way.
8. It provided details on how to escalate the complaint.
The window inspection took place on 24 February 2022. The contractor noted that the windows were 7 to 8 years old and were in good working order. It stated that the main problem was damp and mould and recommended a damp and mould survey.
That same day (24 February 2022) a heating contractor attended and found that a valve was leaking on the hallway radiator and needed replacing. It called the resident and sent a letter the following day and asked her to arrange an appointment for the valve to be replaced. The resident did not respond.
On 15 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and stated as follows:
1. The landlord had closed the complaint but there was still mould in all the bedrooms. As a result her and her family were still sleeping in the front room.
2. A heating engineer had attended and carried out some works. Following this some of the radiators no longer worked.
That same day (15 March 2022) the landlord contacted a different heating contractor and explained the resident’s concerns. It requested a survey of the radiators.
On 16 March 2022 the new heating contractor attended and advised the landlord that the radiators were approximately 30 years old and had been over painted. The pump was approximately 15 years old and was noisy and the room thermostat was obsolete. It recommended a full replacement.
On 17 March 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it had escalated her complaint to stage 2. On 14 and 20 April 2022 the landlord advised that it required longer to respond to her complaint.
The installation of new radiators was completed on 3 May 2022.
On 10 May 2022 the landlord responded at stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. The roofing works had been completed as planned when first instructed.
2. As the resident had been unhappy with the original heating contractor it had instructed another heating contractor to carry out a heat loss survey. The installation of a new room thermostat, pump and 8 radiators had been completed.
3. A contractor had attended on 21 April 2022 for a mould wash as planned. The contractor had “not been allowed access” on the day. It was trying to rearrange a date for this to take place.
4. It reiterated that it had purchased oil for the resident to help with heating costs.
5. It offered a further £50 compensation for the delays in the booking of the outstanding works. This brought the total compensation offered to £200.
There was a gap in communication until 10 November 2022 when the resident advised the landlord that mould was growing rapidly and that she did not believe the previous works had been carried out correctly. The landlord advised her that same day that it had requested a damp and mould inspection to be carried out.
The landlord met with the resident on 11 November 2022 and noted internally as follows:
1. A damp and mould inspection had been booked for 14 November 2022.
2. The resident wanted to be moved to alternative accommodation over the weekend. It had enquired about this but the resident needed to wait for the outcome of the inspection. It suggested that the resident could stay with friends or family.
3. The resident had stated that it was impacting her family’s health.
The damp and mould inspection was carried out on 14 November 2022. Works were identified as follows:
1. Thermal board and plaster the bedroom walls and ceilings.
2. Renew the kitchen extractor fan.
3. Remove ivy from outside the property.
On 17 November 2022 the landlord noted internally as follows:
1. Despite previous works, the mould had returned and was worse than before especially in the son’s bedroom and his bed was covered in mould.
2. The damp and mould surveyor had advised that there could be issues with the windows and the walls downstairs were wet to touch.
3. Works were due to commence the following week.
4. It had advised the resident to keep the heating on at a low level. The resident had advised that she could not afford to do so.
5. The resident had stated that she could not afford to replace items damaged by mould or to redecorate after the works were completed. She stated that the landlord had previously advised her verbally that it would help with an additional payment for fuel, clean the carpets, provide decorating vouchers and pay for damaged items (shoes, clothes, wardrobe).
6. 3 of her children were sleeping in the same room as her because their rooms were uninhabitable. Her other 2 children were sleeping amongst the mould as they wanted privacy.
On 21 November 2022 the landlord noted internally that it had completed works that day to hack off the apex of the ceiling and wall, thermaboard and skim.
The following day (22 November 2022) the landlord noted internally that environmental health had visited the property that day and had found as follows:
1. The kitchen extractor fan was not working. (The landlord noted internally that it had raised a job for this to be repaired or replaced.)
2. A window was blown.
3. There was a lot of ivy growing on the outside of the property.
On 23 November 2022 the resident submitted a complaint in respect of the damp and mould having returned. That same day the landlord requested that a contractor attend the property as soon as possible and inspect the roof above the side bedroom as the eaves appeared to be rotten.
On 24 November 2022 the landlord acknowledged the complaint and advised that it aimed to respond within 10 working days.
The landlord noted internally on 29 November 2022 as follows:
1. It had booked a job for the kitchen extractor fan for 12 December 2022.
2. It was carrying out plastering to the other 2 bedrooms that week. The skirting would be fitted the following week.
3. The ivy against the house was being cut down the following week.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 30 November 2022 and asked her to send pictures, details and receipts for the damaged items. She advised she would email the details over.
On 5 December 2022 the landlord raised the following jobs:
1. Carry out a heat loss survey.
2. Remove radiators, skirting and window boards.
3. Prepare walls and ceilings, fix plasterboard and thermaboard and skim.
4. Fit new skirting and window boards, refix radiators and pipework.
On 7 December 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and stated as follows:
1. Following previous repairs, the resident had not made any further contact until 10 November 2022.
2. It had previously provided oil to help her heat the property.
3. It had inspected the property on 14 November 2022 and arranged for plastering works to take place, a new kitchen fan to be fitted, skirting to be fitted, and for ivy to be removed. Most of these works had been completed.
4. It had spoken to the resident on 30 November 2022 and she confirmed she was happy with the progress of the repairs.
5. It understood that multiple items had been damaged by mould. It advised the resident to try and clean these. It was not in a position to compensate for damaged items as it had not failed to respond to the report of damp and mould. It would review this if the resident could provide information, such as when the damage occurred, pictures of damaged items and receipts.
That same day the resident responded and stated as follows:
1. Following the earlier damp and mould (in October 2021) the landlord had promised to pay for her carpets to be cleaned, decorating vouchers and oil for heating. None of this had been honoured.
2. Although work to the walls had been done, she had been left with plastered walls and damaged property including carpets, blinds, beds, clothes and shoes.
3. Being present for appointments had caused her a loss of earnings.
4. The matter had impacted on her and her children’s wellbeing.
On 13 December 2022 the landlord noted internally that the bathroom fan was due to be renewed on 4 April 2023 and other bathroom works would follow including plastering.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 6 January 2023 and stated as follows:
1. The ivy had not been removed.
2. It had been suggested that a vent on the outside of the property be removed. She had heard nothing further in respect of this.
3. There was mould in the bathroom and bathroom works had not been carried out.
The landlord acknowledged this on 9 January 2023 and asked the resident for more details. She responded on 15 January 2023 as follows:
1. Works were carried out in November 2022 but some issues raised by the environmental health team had not been addressed by the landlord.
2. The landlord had advised during a telephone call that it was at fault for the ongoing mould and that it would help her replace damaged items and redecorate. The landlord had not upheld this.
On 16 January 2023 the landlord noted internally as follows:
1. Environment health had closed the case and were happy with the works carried out.
2. It had arranged for works to the ivy to be carried out on 18 January 2023.
3. The kitchen extractor fan had been repaired on 12 December 2022.
4. 2 sets of plastering works had been completed (in November and December 2022).
5. A window contractor was booked for the following day (17 January 2023) to look at the blown unit. The contractor had missed the email the landlord had sent to it on 24 November 2022.
On 30 January 2023 the landlord advised the resident that the ivy works had been completed. It had attended to look at the damp and mould in the bathroom on 23 January 2023 however, it had been unable to gain access. It had rearranged this for 3 February 2023.
On 1 February 2023 the resident stated as follows:
1. The ivy had been removed but she was “not convinced” that it had been done satisfactorily.
2. The appointments on 23 January 2023 for the damp survey and the window had not gone ahead. She was not available for the rescheduled appointment but provided alternative availability.
Due to outstanding works the landlord extended the complaint response date to 20 February 2023.
On 13 February 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. It reiterated the works it had completed following the report of damp and mould in October 2021. It stated the roofing works had been completed in March 2022 and other works to rectify the damp and mould were completed in June 2022. (No details were provided as to what this work was).
2. Following the report of damp and mould from 11 November 2022, works to remove the apex ceiling, thermal boarding and plastering were completed on 23 November 2022.
3. The environmental health team had raised recommendations (on 22 November 2022) for the landlord to complete. These works were to repair the kitchen extractor fan, replace a blown window and remove ivy.
4. The extractor fan was repaired in December 2022.
5. It had attended again on 30 November 2022 and raised works to fit plasterboard and thermal board, plaster, fit new skirting and window boards, prepare walls and ceilings and re-fit radiators and pipework. These works were completed in December 2022.
6. The first stage of the ivy removal was completed on 18 January 2023. This would be completed once the remaining ivy had died.
7. The window contractor had attended as advised on 23 January 2023 but had been unable to gain access.
8. The damp and mould in the bathroom had not been raised prior to the stage 2 complaint. Its contractor had attended as arranged on23 January 2023 but had been unable to gain access.
9. It reiterated its advice that it required details about the damaged items before it could consider this further.
10. Following the earlier complaint it had compensated the resident £200 for delays with the roof works. It noted that the works raised by environmental health had not been fully addressed and a new damp and mould concern needed to be addressed. It acknowledged that it should have progressed repairs more quickly. It offered additional compensation of £100 for the time and trouble experienced.
That same day (13 February 2023) an inspection of the bathroom was completed. The following works were raised:
1. Remove panel behind toilet, insulate and replace.
2. Replace toilet.
3. Renew extractor fan.
4. Repair or replace door and repair the frame.
The landlord was unable to contact the resident to schedule the bathroom works. In March 2023 the resident subsequently advised she had suffered a heart attack and was recovering. As a result, the works were postponed.
The landlord raised a job to clean the carpets in February 2023. It cancelled this in April 2023 as the resident had advised she did not want the carpets to be cleaned.
On 11 April 2023 the resident referred her complaint to this Service and stated as follows:
1. Ivy had only partly been removed.
2. A mould wash had been carried out, however the damp and mould had returned and was growing on belongings and beds. Mould was now in her daughter’s room which had been replastered.
3. There was still mould in the bathroom. The only works completed in the bathroom was a new extractor fan.
4. The landlord had not supported her with decoration costs or the cost of replacing damaged items.
5. The landlord had not replaced the window.
6. She had suffered a heart attack the week before which had been caused by stress from the situation. She also suffered from anxiety.
7. Her 7 year old son had asthma which had been getting worse due to the damp and mould.
8. She wanted to move to alternative accommodation.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

The landlord arranged a follow-on inspection for damp and mould for 23 June 2023. The resident advised the landlord that she was unlikely to answer the door for this appointment due to her anxiety and mental health.
On 6 October 2023 the landlord noted internally that the resident’s tenancy support worker had attended the property. The resident had stated that she wanted to move closer to her children’s school. It noted that the resident had pointed out issues with mould and the bathroom and unpainted walls. She stated she could not paint due to her health conditions.
Following the involvement of this Service the landlord advised this Service as follows:
1. It had agreed to decorate the bathroom, lounge and all bedrooms in recognition of the resident’s health and the issues she had experienced.
2. The resident had declined the compensation offered and had declined for her carpets to be cleaned.
3. It had submitted a tenancy support referral in October 2023 and it was working with the resident to provide additional support.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Following the completion of the internal complaint procedure on 13 February 2023, the resident subsequently raised a further aspect of complaint in respect of the bathroom works not having been completed. As this issue did not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that this Service can investigate at this stage as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to have this matters resolved. The resident may then approach the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied. A recommendation has been made in this regard.
It is noted the resident raised the issue of items being damaged by damp and mould, the impact of the mould on her children’s health and that the situation had led to her suffering a heart attack. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, this Service will consider the landlord’s response to the damaged items, its handling of repairs and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused. This Service would expect the landlord’s response to consider the resident’s reports on how the issues were impacting on the health of the household. Such issues reflect the detriment experienced as a result of potential failures by the landlord.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The mould was first brought to the landlord’s attention on 26 October 2021. It acted in line with its damp and mould policy and arranged for the property to be inspected within 10 working days (on 9 November 2021).
A roofer attended on 19 January 2022. Although not stated by the landlord, it is reasonable to conclude that roofing work would require the erection of scaffolding and, as such, a reasonable timeframe for the roof repair would be 90 days as per the landlord’s repair policy. The timeframe for the roofer attending (58 days) was therefore reasonable. On that occasion, due to the presence of asbestos it was determined that a specialist contractor would be required.
Although the roofing works could not be carried out at the time due to asbestos, the roofing contractor had advised the landlord that there was a huge amount of mould in the property. The resident lived with her 5 children, one having asthma and she had described the bedrooms not being usable due to the mould. Given that the roof repair had been unable to take place, the landlord should have considered the particular vulnerabilities of the household in its subsequent action and should have taken steps to expedite the roofing repair or offer a decant which the resident had requested at the time.
Despite being aware of the significant mould and the impact it was having on the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property, there is no evidence that the landlord sought to reduce the mould present in the meantime. It is noted that within the stage 2 response to the second complaint (complaint B) in February 2023, the landlord stated that it had raised a job for a mould wash in December 2021. This information was not provided in either response to the 2021 complaint (complaint A). In addition, there is no evidence the mould wash was carried out at all or within the 5 working days as per its damp and mould policy. The landlord should have taken action to try to lessen the impact of the mould despite the repair not having been carried out. It could also have provided dehumidifiers to reduce the dampness in the property. This would have demonstrated a proactive approach to try to put things right. There is no evidence that it considered any such steps.
Given that the resident had advised that the bedrooms were unusable and her and her 5 children were sleeping on a mattress in the front room, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered a temporary decant. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this, despite the resident’s reports of how the situation was affecting the household and despite her specific request that it consider this. If the landlord did not consider that a temporary decant was required, it should have confirmed this to the resident and explained why. This would have provided the resident with clarity about the landlord’s decision and given her the opportunity to respond. By not doing so, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had considered her concerns fairly and potentially meant that it had not acted in accordance with its obligations under the HHSRS in taking steps to reduce potential risks for the resident.
It must be noted that the landlord did take some action to support the resident such as the energy fund referral as the resident had advised she was struggling to heat the property. It also arranged for a stock condition survey to investigate the condition of the windows to identify if this was contributing to the damp and mould. These actions were appropriate and demonstrated a resident-focused approach. Following the window inspection (24 February 2022) which identified no issues, the surveyor recommended a damp and mould survey. Given the significant mould, the landlord should have been proactive and arranged such a survey when the mould was first identified to ensure the source was appropriately identified.
A leaking radiator valve was subsequently identified on 24 February 2022 and works to the radiators were undertaken. The resident subsequently informed the landlord that she was not happy with the works carried out to the radiators. The landlord responded appropriately and asked a different contractor to survey the heating system the following day. This demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns about the heating contractor seriously. The full replacement of the system was recommended and this was carried out on 3 May 2022, in line with the landlord’s planned responsive repair timescale of 90 days.
Following the completion of the roofing repairs in March 2022 and other works to rectify the damp and mould in June 2022, there was a gap in correspondence until 10 November 2022 when the resident reported that the mould had returned. She advised again that she was having to sleep in the same room as 3 of her children and the other 2 children were sleeping in a bedroom with mould present. The landlord acted appropriately in meeting with the resident the following day and arranged a damp and mould inspection for 14 November 2022. This timeframe was appropriate and in line with its damp and mould policy.
The resident again requested a temporary decant, however the landlord advised that this could not be considered before the inspection had taken place. It is not clear why this was the case and a copy of the landlord’s decant policy was not provided to this Service nor was it available on the landlord’s website. The spotlight report on damp and mould recommends that landlord’s take measures to mitigate risks and consideration of a temporary decant would have been a reasonable consideration in the circumstances. The landlord therefore could not demonstrate that it had fully considered this option and it provided no reason for not considering this, given the seriousness and the extent of the mould.
The inspection on 14 November 2022 identified works required and the landlord carried out these works as follows:
1. Thermal board and plaster the bedroom walls and ceilings – completed 21 November 2022.
2. Renew the kitchen extractor fan – completed 12 December 2022.
3. Remove ivy from outside the property. Stage 1 of removal was completed on 18 January 2023.
Despite the landlord being aware of the works required, it did not reconsider the resident’s request for a temporary decant following the outcome of the inspection. These works were however completed in line with the timeframe in the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord also noted, following another roof inspection (the date of which is not clear) that the eaves appeared to be rotten. It is not clear whether the ivy was likely to have been a contributing factor at the time of the earlier reports, nor whether the roof eaves were also rotten at that stage and could have been identified earlier.
Within her second complaint (November 2022) the resident raised the issue of items having been damaged by mould. In its stage 1 response (7 December 2022) the landlord advised that it would not consider compensation as it considered that it had responded appropriately but would reconsider this if the resident could provide further details of the damage and receipts. As issues with the rotten eaves and ivy were not identified when the issue was first reported, the landlord initial assessment of the issue may not have been sufficiently thorough. This may have led to the return of the mould growth. Given this possibility, this Service considers that progressing the case through its insurer, or offering some level of compensation in relation to her reports of damaged goods would have been fair in all the circumstances of the case.
When a failure is identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord acknowledged some of its failings during the internal complaints procedure and offered redress as follows:
1. For the first complaint (complaint A) it offered a total of £200 compensation to acknowledge the delays with the works. It also advised that it was implementing new software to help its trades teams work in a more efficient way.
2. For the second complaint (complaint B) it acknowledged that it should have progressed repairs more quickly and offered £100 compensation for the time and trouble.
Following the referral of the complaint to this Service it also offered as follows:
1. To decorate the bathroom, lounge and all bedrooms.
2. To clean the carpets (this was declined by the resident).
The landlord’s offer of decoration and cleaning the carpet was reasonable however this should have been offered during the internal complaints procedure. It is not clear if these offers would have been made had this Service not become involved.
It is clear from the correspondence in this case that the resident did not have full use or enjoyment of the 3 bedrooms in the property due to significant mould for periods of time between 2021 and 2023. Whilst the exact dates are not clear, it can reasonably be concluded that the resident and her children were sleeping in the front room from around 26 October 2021 until around June 2022 (when the landlord stated the works were completed). This was a period of around 30 weeks. When the resident reported further mould in November 2022 and that she was again sleeping in the front room, it took around 2 weeks for the works to the walls to be completed. It can therefore reasonably be assumed that the resident and her children did not have the full use or enjoyment of the bedrooms and lounge for around 32 weeks between 2021 and 2023.
The landlord’s offer of compensation in respect of the impact of its handling of the repairs, totaling £300 was not sufficient. Its offer did not take into account the lack of use of the bedrooms for a prolonged period, the distress this caused to the resident and the vulnerabilities of the household. Additionally, the landlord did not consider offering a temporary decant during complaint A to mitigate the risk for the family. Due to the issues identified later in respect of rotten eaves and ivy, it is possible that the landlord did not do enough during the initial investigation or proactively considered other contributing factors. There were some significant oversights and the steps to provide redress were inadequate. There was therefore severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to damp and mould.
As a result of the damp and mould 3 bedrooms and the lounge were impacted as a result of mould. The Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance states that when determining compensation it can be helpful to consider the amount of rent paid by the resident over the period of time to acknowledge the impact on the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property. The resident’s rent in 2021 and 2022 has not been provided to this Service however her weekly rent in 2023 was £128.54.
In the circumstances, given the resident’s reports of loss of use of the rooms as detailed above, compensation has been calculated to reflect her inability to use essential parts of her home. The compensation order will therefore include an element based upon the 2023 rent level – 10% of the rent for each lost room (so 40% for 3 bedrooms and the front room). In summary the 40% rent refund calculation recognises: the severity of the mould, the impact this had on the household and the vulnerabilities of the household. The rent figures and timeframe have been used as a guideline only and are not intended to amount to an exact calculation.
The rent based calculation is as follows:
1. 40% of £128.54 = £51.41
2. £51.41 x 32 (weeks) = £1645.12 compensation.
Additional compensation has been ordered in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance as follows:
1. £250 to acknowledge the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures.
2. £200 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failure to consider compensation for damaged items or signpost the resident to its insurer. This figure is not meant to compensate for the damage itself.

Complaint handing

The landlord did not respond to either of the resident’s complaints in line with the timeframes set out in its complaints policy (10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2).
For complaint A (submitted 25 January 2022) the landlord took 20 working days to respond at stage 1 and 45 working days at stage 2. For complaint B (submitted 23 November 2022) the landlord took 11 working days to respond at stage 1 and 27 working days at stage 2.
The landlord had advised the resident that the complaint responses would be late as it was waiting for contractors to confirm and carry out appointments. This was not in line with the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the Code) which states that a complaint response must not be delayed whilst outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed.
The landlord did not acknowledge the delayed responses, apologise for this or offer any redress to acknowledge the impact of this on the resident. This was not reasonable and amounts to maladministration. To acknowledge the impact of the complaint handling failures on the resident, compensation of £150 has been ordered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord responded to the roof repair in line with its repairs policy, it did not take steps to help reduce the mould whilst the resident was waiting for the works to be completed. It did not consider a temporary decant despite being aware that the resident and her 5 children (1 being asthmatic) had been unable to sleep in their bedrooms due to significant mould. Recurrence of the mould in 2022 led to the landlord identifying further possible contributing repair issues such as rotten eaves and ivy on the property. These issues may have been able to have been identified at an earlier stage. The landlord acknowledged some if its failings, however its offer of £300 compensation was not sufficient and did not recognise that the resident had lost the use and full enjoyment of 4 rooms in the property for a prolonged period or the impact of this on her and her vulnerable household. Additionally, it failed to consider the resident’s request for damages or support an insurance claim.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaints in line with its complaints policy. It delayed its complaint responses pending contractor action. This was contrary to the Code. It did not acknowledge its failures or the impact this had on the resident. It did not offer any redress to acknowledge the impact of this on the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. The landlord’s Chief Executive is to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
2. Pay a total of £2245.12 compensation (this is inclusive of the £300 offered within the internal complaints process, if not already paid,) made up as follows:
  1. £1645.12 to acknowledge the loss of use of full use and enjoyment of rooms in the property.
  2. £250 to acknowledge the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  3. £200 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failure to consider compensation for damaged items or signpost the resident to its insurer.
  4. £150 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the complaint handling failures.
Reconsider compensation for damaged items, or alternatively signpost the resident to the insurance process and take a proactive role in clarifying how this process will progress and assist the resident throughout.

Recommendations

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