The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited (202011705)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011705

Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited

2 March 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:
    1. repair work in respect of mould and damp in the resident’s property.
    2. the associated formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has reported damp and mould in the property on several occasions since the beginning of his tenancy in 2007. On 10 March 2020, he reported that a bedroom had mould and that he had recently redecorated it. The landlord arranged for an inspection to be carried out.
  2. A specialist carried out the survey on 26 June 2020 and recommended that two and three stage mould treatments be carried out in the bedroom, bathroom and a wardrobe unit. He stated that this was only to treat visible mould and could change if more was found upon undertaking the treatment. The specialist returned on 24 July and 2 September 2020 and carried out the work. Certificates confirming the treatment were provided to the landlord.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord following the mould treatment (no copy provided to the Ombudsman). In the landlord’s response of 8 October 2020, it apologised for the delay, and advised that it was not its policy to take responsibility for redecorating following repairs. However, it offered the resident £100 towards the cost of redecorating in recognition of the impact the condensation and mould had had on him.
  4. The resident responded the same say declining the offer as he felt it would not cover the cost of a decorator or the necessary materials. He expressed his dissatisfaction that he had not had responses to three call back requests he made regarding his complaint. He believed that the landlord was responsible for the problems he had experienced as its surveyors had not done the work correctly and he wanted the property fully decorated as compensation.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage one of its formal complaints process and said that it would provide a response by 23 October 2020. In the absence of a further response by that date, the resident sent a chasing email on 27 October 2020. The landlord then responded the following day, apologising for the delay and advising that, when investigating complaints, it might take longer than the timeframe set out in its complaints policy. It would therefore chase the investigating team for a likely timeframe.
  6. On 29 October 2020, the resident queried the complaints process and said that for years the landlord’s surveyors had told him that the mould that caused damage was a result of condensation. He said that he had sent pictures of damage caused by this on several occasions but had never received any compensation.
  7. The landlord issued its stage one response on 2 November 2020 and apologised for the delay in doing so. It had reviewed the records for the property which showed a documented condensation issue which was not related to the construction of the property but was, instead, a life-style problem aggravated by poor heating or ventilation. It said that the surveyors did not find any damp in the property. It reiterated that the decoration of the property was the resident’s responsibility and that its previous offer of £100 was a good will gesture. It then made an increased offer of £200 compensation in recognition of the delay in providing a complaint response.
  8. In the resident’s response later that day, he disputed the landlord’s conclusion and said that there had been mould in his property as it had arranged for this to be treated by a specialist. He also said that he had arranged for a specialist to attend who had confirmed that there was no insulation in the brickwork which was the cause of the mould, which the landlord’s specialist had failed to identify.
  9. The landlord issued a stage two response on 6 November 2020. It reiterated that there was a documented history of condensation issues at the property but that this was not related to the construction of the property. It also said that the surveyor’s inspection had not found any damp in the property. It acknowledged that there was no insulation in the cavity wall, advised that this was a construction technique employed for many years, and explained that, whilst no longer used, it would not cure damp as suggested by the resident. It reiterated that the decoration of the property was the resident’s responsibility and declined to increase the goodwill gesture of £100 it had previously offered towards this. It said that it was satisfied that the cause of the mould was condensation and reiterated its offer of £200 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Mould and damp

  1. In accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the internal structure of the property, which may include issues resulting in damp and mould. It was therefore necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of mould in his property and to take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified which fell within its repairing obligations. However, when investigating the presence of mould, the parties must also be mindful that the tenancy agreement and responsive repairs policy confirm that the resident is responsible for some minor repairs within his property, including mould treatments due to condensation.
  2. It is therefore necessary to ascertain the cause of the mould before determining who is responsible for resolving the issue. The resident submits that the issues are caused by damp, that this is the landlord’s responsibility to resolve, and that it has failed to adequately address the matter over a prolonged period. Conversely, the landlord submits that the issues are caused by condensation which is a life-style issue that the resident must resolve himself.
  1. The Ombudsman has received a copy of the repair’s records for the property dating back to 2008, which note a number of reports of mould between 2008 and 2020. On each occasion the landlord has carried out work to treat the mould, which suggests that it accepted some degree of responsibility and sought to address the issues the resident was experiencing. Despite this, the landlord now submits that there is a documented history of condensation issues in the property which fall within the resident’s repairing obligations.
  2. However, there is nothing in the records to indicate that any investigations into the cause of the mould have been carried out and, if so, what the findings were. From the evidence provided, it is not possible to say whether the mould was caused by damp or condensation and, as a result, it is not clear what the landlord has relied upon in concluding that condensation was the issue. Whilst the specialist’s report of 26 June 2020 confirms the presence of mould and does not make any reference to damp, it also does not provide any other conclusions on the probable cause of the mould. In fact, the section of the report which specifically refers to this is, notably, left blank.
  3. Given that the specialist who inspected the property has not provided details of the probable cause of the mould, and that the landlord has carried out work to address the mould on a number of occasions since 2008, the Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord has reasonably evidenced that the cause of the mould was condensation on this occasion. This Service can only base its decisions on the documentary evidence provided to the investigation and, in this case, the landlord has failed to adequately support its actions, or lack thereof. 
  4. Further, under the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, the landlord should clear up after a repair and leave the decoration as close as possible to how it was before work was done. The repairs records show that redecoration work was carried out following each of the previous times the landlord completed work in respect of mould. As a result, it is not clear why the landlord refused to accept responsibility for the redecoration on this occasion, when the circumstances appear to be much the same.
  5. The landlord’s initial complaint responses indicated that it offered a £100 goodwill gesture towards the cost of carrying out decoration works following the mould treatments. However, the resident submitted that this was insufficient to cover the cost of the necessary works or even the required materials. Given that the landlord has not sufficiently justified or explained its conclusions with regard to the mould and has previously carried out redecoration works at its own cost, this Service finds that the £100 goodwill gesture did not adequately resolve the complaint. As a result, an order is made for the landlord to now complete the necessary redecoration work or, if this has already been completed by the resident, to reimburse him the actual cost of the works.

Complaints handling

  1. The resident has said that he had to chase the landlord on several occasions for a response to his complaint and that he made several requests for call backs which were never received. Whilst the landlord has apologised for the delay in providing the complaint response as part of its informal and stage one investigation, it has not addressed the resident’s points regarding the missed call backs.
  2. Included in the information provided to this Service are internal emails which mention that the resident had chased the complaint response on three occasions. In view of this, and as the landlord has not responded to this point, the Ombudsman is satisfied that this was service failure on the landlord’s part.
  3. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation in respect of the delays in responding to his complaint. Under the landlord’s compensation policy, it allows for a discretionary compensation payment of up to £50 for failure to adhere to published service standards which the Ombudsman considers includes the complaints handling timeframe. Therefore, by offering £100 in that regard, the landlord has exceeded its own policy provisions and genuinely sought to redress the identified failings. Whilst it remains that the landlord has not addressed its failure to return the resident’s calls, this Service is satisfied that the elevated compensation award for complaints handling adequately reflects all of the service failings.
  4. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. This Service will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress, as it has in respect of its handling of the formal complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repair work in respect of mould and damp.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that the cause of the mould was condensation. The records it has provided show that it has attended on a number of occasions since 2008 to treat mould but no cause was listed. The specialist report it has provided has left the section regarding probable cause of the mould blank and makes no mention of condensation or damp throughout.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that it will carry out redecoration work to restore the area to as close to it was prior to the work. The records also show that on each previous occasion work regarding mould has been completed, the landlord has also carried out decoration works to the treated areas.
  3. The landlord has acknowledged that there were delays in providing its complaint response, but it has not addressed the resident’s points about not receiving call backs as requested. However, the compensation it has offered for the delays is higher than what is set out in its compensation policy. Therefore, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the higher amount reasonably reflects all service issues regarding the complaint handling.

 

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. arrange for redecoration of the areas treated for mould in line with its responsive repairs policy and previous repairs; or
    2. if the resident has arranged for the redecoration work to be done privately, reimburse his actual costs incurred (upon receipt of reasonable evidence from the resident);
    3. pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the uncertainty around the redecoration works (regardless of whether point (a) or (b) is followed);
    4. arrange a specialist survey of the property to investigate and report on the probable cause of the mould, with a written report provided to the resident.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should:
    1. reoffer to the resident the £100 compensation offered during the complaints process, in respect of its complaints handling, if this has not already been paid. This recognised genuine elements of service failure and the sufficient redress finding is made on that basis;
    2. review its complaints handling process to include notifications in the event of delayed responses and to ensure that all points of complaint are addressed.