Southern Housing Group Limited (202302042)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302042

Southern Housing Group Limited

20 March 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. The complaint.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident has a 6-year fixed term assured shorthold tenancy. The tenancy began on 13 August 2018. The property is a one-bedroomflat, and the landlord is a housing association. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
3. The resident reported damp and mould in December 2019. An order was raised for guttering to be cleared. The next damp and mould report was raised on 4 August 2021. The resident said that damp was coming up through the floorboards throughout the property. The landlord states that there were notes on its repair records that a surveyor was going to attend but there were no further notes and no further reports.
4. The resident raised a complaint in March 2023 as she had no response to reported damp and mould which was impacting her health and damaging her furniture. In May 2023, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It upheld the resident’s complaint due to its service failures and delays. It arranged for a surveyor to attend on 19 May 2023 to investigate the damp and mould. In the meantime, it said the resident could claim on her home contents insurance in respect of the damage to her items. It would oversee any works required and of course review its position once the surveyor had assessed the property.
5. The resident requested a stage 2 escalation. She said she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and wanted the flooring replaced. In its stage 2 response the landlord advised that it had not updated the resident following on from the repairs raised after the survey in May 2023. It provided an action plan for the remaining works required in respect of the damp and mould.
6. It agreed to update the resident weekly moving forwards. It also said that it was in the process of making changes within its repairs department so improvements should be seen in the future. In respect of the damage to her items it reiterated the option to claim through her own content’s insurance. It said if this was not possible then it would review this, but the resident would need to provide evidence such as receipts and photographs.
7. In August 2023, the resident contacted this Service. She said that the work required in respect of the damp and mould had still not been completed. She wanted the repairs done or to be moved. She also wanted compensation for the damage to her belongings and the stress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

8. In the resident’s complaint she explained that her belongings had been damaged. The Ombudsman cannot make the same findings that a court would, and we do not operate in the same way a court does. We do not make binding decisions on matters such as negligence or liability and we do not make orders of compensation in the way that a court may order a payment of damages. Equally, we do not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance.
9. Our focus in this case is therefore on how the landlord responded to the resident’s initial concerns and their complaint and whether this response was reasonable and fair in all the circumstances. This includes consideration of whether the landlords’ actions were in accordance with the landlord’s relevant policies and procedures.
10. The resident has described the effect on her health caused by the length of time it took for the issues to be resolved. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

Legislation and landlord guidance.

11. In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for certain repairs. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case. The landlord’s repair policy states that the landlord will complete routine repairs as quickly as possible.
12. In May 2023, the landlord issued its own damp and mould framework. It said the framework sets out its proactive and resident focused approach to how it prevents and manages damp and mould in its properties. It aims to address damp and mould with a zero-tolerance approach. When damp is reported a case handler should be allocated within 2 working days and an inspection must be undertaken within 10 working days or 5 working days if there is an impact on health. The case handler and the surveyor should formulate an action plan for resolution. Updates should be given to the resident every 3 days. It aims to resolve within 6 weeks if unable to it within this timeframe it will escalate the case to the director of its repairs team.
13. The landlord also has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy.
14. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
    1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
    2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
    3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
    4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.

Damp and mould

15. From correspondence this Service has seen, the resident first reported the damp and mould in 2019 and again in 2021. However, there are no further records until the matter was raised again in March 2023 when the resident raised her formal complaint. This service acknowledges the length of time the resident states the damp and mould has been present and how distressing this would have been. In the circumstances, however, it would have been reasonable for the resident to have raised her concerns sooner so that the issues could have been investigated by the landlord while they were ‘live'”. Given the passage of time, this Service has only investigated the landlord’s response from March 2023 onwards.
16. The evidence provided shows the resident reported concerns in March 2023, but the landlord did not attend to inspect until May 2023. This was delayed and does not evidence a zero-tolerance approach and was a failing. The resident had also already informed the landlord that she had concerns about the impact the conditions were having on her health. At this point it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have looked at its own records to see that there had been a history of damp reports. That it did not shows poor information management.
17. When the landlord did complete its initial survey in May 2023 it is not clear what it communicated to the resident in respect of its findings in the survey and the action it needed to take. The survey report stated that there were no damp readings in the rooms and a minimal damp read in the bathroom. The report provided details of necessary works.
18.  The resident was contacting the landlord’s contractor to try to get works booked in after the survey had been completed. The landlord failed to show that it had provided an action plan to the resident in accordance with its framework which was a failing. The records show that in July 2023 the resident was still chasing up works. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s damp and mould framework which states that the landlord will keep the resident updated every 3 days and it will aim to resolve the issue within 6 weeks.
19. Landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly for residents so their expectations can be managed. In addition, landlords should ensure that any follow up appointments are booked as soon as possible. In this case the landlord has failed to evidence that it had acted reasonably and that it had adhered to its own damp and mould framework. It clearly had not monitored the works to ensure that they were booked in and completed within a reasonable timeframe.
20. The resident had to provide access for a number of appointments and inspections. The evidence shows that she went to significant time and trouble in pursuing the matter with the landlord. It is unknown what information was given to the resident to manage her expectations. The resident considered she was living in unsatisfactory conditions which would have been a source of worry and concern for her.
21. At the point that the landlord issued its stage 2 response there were still repairs outstanding. This was 5 months after the resident raised her complaint and 3 months after the landlord had completed its survey which was unreasonable. The landlord failed to adhere to reasonable and published timescales, failed to create an action plan until its stage 2 complaint response. It failed to communicate appropriately with the resident over many months. This caused the resident to raise concerns about her health. It caused her time and trouble chasing the landlord and its contractors which in turn caused prolonged distress and inconvenience to the resident. The impact on the resident has been considered in the orders below.

Complaint handling.

22. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure under which it is required to provide a stage one response, within 10 working days. The resident raised her formal complaint on 29 March 2023. The landlord responded on 12 May 2023. This was 30 days after the request which was not in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and its own timescales which was a failing.
23. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response lacked learning. The landlord’s comments that it had now scheduled a surveyor to attend did not show a meaningful assessment of how the failings had occurred. It said it upheld the complaint due to its service failures and delays. It did not explain the failings and it was silent on what it would do to prevent similar happening again. It referred to a merger and that changes and improvements had been made but did not explain how this related to the failings in this case. This was a further shortcoming in its handling of the issue.
24. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising concerns about the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould, without receiving a detailed response. The landlord did however agree to monitor the works moving forwards and agreed a point of contact to try to ensure a resolution which was reasonable in the circumstances.
25. The landlord failed to investigate the complaint in line with its policies and good practice. It failed to offer an appropriate apology and demonstrated a dismissive and disrespectful approach to the resident. The evidence shows that it failed to implement any learning had it done so it could have prevented the resident further time trouble and distress.
26. The resident requested an escalation to stage 2 on16 May 2023. 59 days later on 15 August 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 response. This was not in accordance with its own 20-day timescale set out in its policy. This was a failing which made the complaint process unduly long for the resident. The landlord did not explain or consider the impact of its complaint handling delays within its responses.
27. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response went some way to acknowledging its failings. It agreed that repairs had been outstanding since May 2023 and that the resident had made multiple contacts to try to get the works completed. It failed however to consider the delay in inspecting the damp and mould and failed to investigate against its commitments set out in its policies. It stated that it was sorry to hear that the resident had not received updates. This apology lacked meaning which was inappropriate given the failings found. It also failed to acknowledge that it had not overseen the works as it said it would in its stage 1 response.
28. It failed to consider how its failings impacted the resident and, on that basis, and in accordance with its compensation policy whether compensation was appropriate in the circumstances. It did address the resident’s concerns about the damage to her items and offered to review this if she provided the relevant receipts and photographs. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
29. The landlord set out when the remaining works would start, but still failed to show detailed learning about its handling of the damp and mould reports up to that point. This was unsatisfactory and a further failing in its handling of the complaint.
30. This Service considers the above complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. At both stages of the complaint there was a failure to respond within timescales of the complaint. The responses demonstrated a lack of investigation and curiosity. The complaint response failed to put things right, consider redress or a meaningful apology. The landlord failed to learn from its mistakes. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Determination (decision)

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of damp and mould.
32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders.

1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
   1. A senior manager should write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified by this investigation.
   2. Pay the resident £950 compensation broken down as follows:
      1. £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
      2. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
   3. Confirm in writing to the resident the plan for monitoring the effectiveness of the works it has completed or is still carrying out in the property and the next steps should the works prove unsuccessful in resolving the damp and mould problem with timescales attached. The action plan and timescales should be approved by a named senior manager.

33. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 6 weeks:
    1. Review its handling of the damp and mould issues in this case and implement any necessary remedial action to ensure that the same issues do not arise again. This review should include consideration of how it can ensure that it is implementing its own framework for damp and mould. A copy of the review’s report should be provided to this service also within 6 weeks.
    2. Considering the complaint handling failings in this case, the landlord should take steps (in the form of a refresher course or workshop, based on the contents of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code) to remind its relevant staff of their complaint handling responsibilities and the best practice approaches. The landlord is to provide confirmation to this Service that this has been completed also within 6 weeks.

Recommendation.

34. The landlord to review and share with all staff the Ombudsman’s report on attitude, respect, and rights – relationships of equals which was published in January 2024.