Silva Homes Limited (202225552)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225552

Silva Homes Limited

29 February 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould problems in the resident’s home.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. At the time of the complaint she lived in a flat, with her partner and children, and she had been bidding on new properties to move to for several years. She has explained that she has experienced long running mould problems in her home.
3. The landlord has stated that the resident started reporting damp and mould problems in in her home in September 2022. It arranged a survey of the problem, which was done by an external contractor on 23 November 2022. On the same day of the inspection one of the landlord’s officers emailed the resident following a visit she had made. The officer acknowledged that the mould was “extremely bad”, and that the resident’s belongings were being damaged. The officer said she would arrange mould wash urgently while the landlord waited for the survey report.
4. The landlord informed the resident on 1 December 2022 that it had the report, which was with its repairs team. It would consider its findings and decide the necessary next steps. It subsequently gave brief updates, but did not say what it planned to do about the problem, and declined the resident’s requests to see the report for herself, saying it was for internal use only.
5. The resident formally complained to the landlord on 30 January 2023. She said she was living in unacceptable conditions, her belongings had been damaged, and there had been no indication of remedial action by the landlord.
6. The landlord sent its complaint response on 13 February 2023. It confirmed it received the survey report in December 2022, and said it had been attempting to find contractors to carry out the work, which had been taking longer than expected. It apologised for the delay, and assured the resident that it appreciated the importance of the problem. It explained the survey had recommended cleaning the mould and redecorating throughout the property, a replacement extractor fan for the bathroom, adjustments to the existing PIV system (positive input ventilation, an air ventilation system that draws in fresh, filtered air into a property from outside), assessing the heating system, insulating exposed pipes in the kitchen, repairing gutters, and external masonry repairs around windows. It said it was still assessing the work but would provide an update by mid-March.
7. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 February 2023. She was dissatisfied with the scope of work the landlord had set out, that she had not been given the report, that the landlord had not considered the impact on her and her family, and it had not addressed the damage caused to her belongings. She explained in detail the great extent to which the mould was affecting her family, and the property.
8. The landlord sent its second complaint response on 22 March 2023. It explained its processes regarding the survey report and why it had not shared it. It apologised for not being able to provide timescales for the remedial work in its previous response, due to its difficulties finding contractors. It said that work on the gutters and external parts of the property was now being scheduled for completion in April, and that its own repairs teams had been instructed to conduct the mould wash, replace the bathroom extractor fan, and insulate the pipes. However, it said it had still not been able to hire appropriate contractors for the remaining work. It said it had appointed a new officer specifically to coordinate damp and mould repairs, who would contact the resident to discuss the further work when the landlord found suitable contractors. The landlord explained how the resident could make a claim against its insurers for the damage caused to her belongings, and apologised for not explaining this previously. It acknowledged the ongoing distress being caused to the resident by the delays, but hoped the works already scheduled would partly alleviate the problem in the interim before the full work could be done. It offered her £200 compensation for the delays.
9. The landlord’s operatives attended on 6 April 2023 to do the work on the pipes, bathroom extractor fan, and mould wash. The resident later told the landlord the pipe insulation was placed over mould covered pipes without cleaning them first, and the operative who attended to do the mould wash had not had time to do the majority of the affected areas.
10. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 May 2023. Its letter states it included the original survey report. It confirmed the works completed so far, and said it was rescheduling the mould wash and making plans for the guttering and brickwork around the windows. It also referred to having done a further inspection that day and was waiting for its findings.
11. Later in May the resident wrote to the landlord confirming what work had been done and what was outstanding. She described the black mould in her home and the sources of damp, and her own efforts to combat it. She referred to a new damp and mould survey the landlord was arranging, and said she preferred that to be done before any more remedial work was scheduled.
12. The new survey was done on 1 June 2023. The landlord’s records state it identified the need for a drain outside the property, an extensive mould wash throughout the property, installing an extractor fan in the kitchen and overhauling all of the windows.
13. The drain was completed in June 2023, and the windows in August. Contractors were appointed to work on the extractor fans, replace the PIV system, and do the mould wash and treatment. At the end of August the resident sent the landlord information from her GP explaining the impact her living conditions were having on her and her family. The landlord did not acknowledge the information, but later confirmed it had received it.
14. The contractors arranged a further survey for 13 September 2023 to assess the work, at which they identified additional issues to be addressed. They told the resident that she might need to move out of the property while the works were done.
15. The landlord inspected again and agreed to the further works. The contractors confirmed they could start the necessary work by the end of October 2023, but the resident and her family would need to be decanted for two weeks during it.
16. Discussions and meetings between the landlord and the resident and her family about the decant went on until the end of November 2023. The arrangements were complicated by the specialised needs of one of the resident’s children with autism. By this point the resident was being represented by a friend because of the distress the situation was causing her (the representative is referred to in this report still as ‘the resident’). The resident told the landlord she did not want work to proceed until after Christmas to avoid distress to her family, and queried whether a two-week period was sufficient to complete all the necessary work.
17. On 29 November 2023 the landlord told the resident it had reviewed the information she provided (presumably the information about her family’s health), and in light of the current situation it was recommending a permanent move to a house which would be available in early 2024.
18. On 6 December 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident. It acknowledged the “less than satisfactory” experience she had had with its attempts to resolve the damp and mould. It said it had reviewed its handling and agreed it was not of the standard the resident should have expected, and that its remedial work had taken too long, with a resulting impact on the resident and her family. It apologised, explained what it had learned and changes it had made to its repairs service, and offered a full rent refund from November 2022 (£6848.65). It also offered £2000 for the resident’s damaged items, £1000 for its poor service, and promised no repeat of damp and mould problems in the new property.
19. The landlord attempted to do the mould wash on 6 December 2023. That was then rescheduled to the following week due to the short notice and the scope of the work not being explained to the resident.
20. The resident has confirmed that she and her family moved into the new property in early February 2024.

Assessment and findings

21. All the evidence confirms that from the start the mould problems in the resident’s home were severe. The original survey found mould throughout the property, and one of its recommendations was a mould wash. The visit by the landlord’s officer on the same day gave the same verdict, the mould was extensive, it was causing damage, and a mould wash was recommended in the interim while the landlord considered the survey report. Despite the clear urgency, nothing in the evidence shows an effort by the landlord to do a wash until April 2023. A thorough wash would have at least addressed the problem in the short term, and allowed time to remedy the damp issues causing the mould. That initial delay was clearly a major failing by the landlord.
22. After April 2023 the landlord made several attempts to arrange a wash. Its first effort was unsuccessful because it did not allow sufficient time or resources. Its subsequent efforts to rearrange the appointment were unsuccessful. It explained that at times it had not been able to contact the resident to arrange appointments. Its records confirm that its contractors had told it that. The resident disputed the allegation, and explained how she had always been contactable. Even if it had experienced problems contacting the resident it is clear from the records that the mould problem was severe enough to warrant the landlord doing everything it could to expedite the wash urgently. The evidence shows some efforts by the landlord, but not the sense of urgency needed in the circumstances.
23. The landlord has explained to this Service that demand for damp and mould specialists was far greater than availability at the end of 2022 and into 2023. This was due to the publication of news about the inquest into a child death attributed to mould in the home in November 2022, and the resulting public concerns. It said that the contractors used for the original survey had not been able to do the necessary work due to their own commitments elsewhere. That is an accurate description of the situation at the time the resident’s own problems were identified. However, the landlord only explained this to the resident after she had complained, and not to the level of detail given for this investigation. There is no evidence of the landlord attempting to manage her expectations about the possible delays before she complained, even though the landlord must have had at least some reason to think delays could occur.
24. The wide range of additional remedial work needed to address the damp and mould problems proceeded through 2023 at a very slow pace. It is evident from the evidence seen in this investigation that the landlord was attempting to arrange the necessary work, that it was aware of the importance, was hampered by the lack of specialists, and was itself frustrated by the delays. However, the evidence also shows a failure to act in a coordinated manner between the different repair teams and contractors which led to confusing communication with the resident about the landlord’s plans and schedule.
25. Part of the confused communication related to the original survey report. The resident asked repeatedly to see it, and the landlord refused to do so until May 2023. It did provide an accurate summary in its complaint responses, but there is no apparent reason why it could not have been shared with the resident, and doing so may have allowed her some reassurance.
26. In August 2023 the resident provided medical information and GP opinions to the landlord directly linked to the damp and mould her family were living in. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to it until a meeting several weeks later. While it is not apparent what further steps the landlord was in a position to take at that point, not responding to the resident showed a lack of the empathy that was required from the landlord at that stage in its handling of the issue.
27. The resident made her complaint early in 2023. In the face of the clear delays and poor communication with her even by that early stage it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its poor service, apologised, and explained its difficulty finding contractors. It acknowledged the frustration caused to the resident and explained some of the work it had been able to schedule. The complaint responses might have been broadly appropriate at the time, if the necessary works had been carried out in a reasonable timescale afterwards. However, as the year progressed more issues were discovered, work was done piecemeal, further surveys were needed, and specialist contractors were not found until September 2023. In the circumstances of the problems not being resolved following the complaint, the clear impact on the resident’s family, and the increased scope of work, it was appropriate for the landlord to further review its handling.
28. Following its review the landlord concluded that it had failed to provide a good service, and acknowledged this had had a direct impact on the resident and her family. It explained changes it had made to its services, such as recruiting a dedicated damp and mould coordinator, and training to properly assess the seriousness of mould reports at the time they are received. It significantly increased its compensation, and gave reassurances that its poor service would not be repeated. These were reasonable remedies, and in line with those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Reimbursing the resident £6848.65 for all the rent she had paid for the year (November 2022 to December 2023) was proportionate to the scale of the unresolved mould problems which had affected the whole property and the family’s use of it. The additional £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where a landlord’s failures have had a significant impact on a resident, which clearly was the case here.
29. The landlord also offered £2000 towards the resident’s belongings damaged by the mould and damp. This was partially reasonable, given that such damage is more properly considered as an insurance claim where a fair and full assessment of the value of damaged items is made, but the landlord did not explain how it calculated that amount, or what factors it took into account. The resident has explained that she never made a claim on the landlord’s insurance after it recommended she do so. Insurance assessments are not in the Ombudsman’s remit to make, and so such a claim now would allow the resident to be sure that she has been compensated appropriately for her damaged belongings. An order is made below to ensure the option remains open to her.
30. The permanent move offered to the resident was also a remedy. The offer was understandably a surprise to the resident, and not made in ideal conditions given the landlord only had one property it could offer at the time which matched her needs, and she could not be offered a different one if she declined. Nonetheless, it was relevant in the circumstances that she had been seeking to move for a long time without success, and the arrangements for a temporary decant were proving to be problematic.
31. As stated, on the face of things it was reasonable for the landlord to conduct a review of its further handling following the end of the complaints process. However, the evidence shows that before it did so it made comments to the resident which could be interpreted as an effort to encourage her to withdraw her complaint. This Service told the landlord on 15 November 2023 that we were about to proceed with our investigation. In an email on 30 November the landlord told the resident we had requested evidence, and asked if there was a resolution she was seeking which could resolve her complaint. In a second email, on 4 December, the landlord wrote to her asking if, now that a permanent transfer had been offered, she intended to proceed with her Ombudsman complaint, and whether any further remedies could be agreed to resolve the complaint before our investigation.
32. In response the resident noted that the landlord’s suggestions were akin to a bribe to stop her Ombudsman complaint, and were “shocking and concerning.” It may be that the landlord had not intended its queries to be taken in the manner in which they were received, but the resident’s interpretation and reaction was wholly understandable. She was entitled to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman after completing the landlord’s complaints process, and any effort to interfere with or dissuade from that would be unacceptable.

Determination (decision)

33. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

34. Overall, the damp and mould problems the resident experienced were clearly extreme, and had an understandable impact on her and her family. The landlord faced problems obtaining appropriate specialist contractors which were outside its control, and it clearly made attempts to undertake the necessary remedial work through much of 2023. However, it delayed unreasonably with a mould wash from the start, and its remedial works were disorganised. Its communication with the resident was at times poor, demonstrated by, amongst other things, its reluctance sharing the report, and not responding to her medical information. Given how much had changed since it issued its complaint responses it was reasonable for the landlord to review its further handling, and the remedies it offered were proportionate and relevant. However, even at that stage it showed poor judgement in its correspondence with the resident about her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Orders

35. In light of the further poor service and poor communication with the resident following the landlord’s consideration of her complaint it is ordered to pay her compensation of £500.
36. This is in addition to the compensation already offered by the landlord in its complaint responses, and in December 2023, which should also now be paid if it hasn’t been.
37. This compensation must be paid within 4 weeks of this report, and evidence provided to this Service.
38. Also within 4 weeks, the landlord must confirm to the resident that she remains entitled to make a claim on its insurance for the items damaged by the damp and mould during the period of this complaint. It must explain how she can make such a claim.
39. In light of the landlord explaining that it has overhauled its repairs service so that the resident’s experiences will not be repeated, within 8 weeks it must prepare a report setting out how the changes it made would avoid the same delays and poor communication experienced by the resident. It should include in its explanation how it would now deal with a shortage of specialised contractors in the face of severe damp and mould problems.