Sovereign Housing Association Limited (201910574)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910574

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

9 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Mould and damp at the property.
2. Issues with the heating and hot water at the property and its efficiency.
3. Tree maintenance and the provision of a survey report.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a three-bedroom house. The resident is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a Housing Association.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. The policy requires that the resident is kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord aims to formally respond within 10 working days but if the complaint is complicated it may need another 10 days to respond. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a formal review of the decision and a response should be provided within 20 working days, however, for complex cases this can be extended by a further 30 days.
Under the landlord’s repairs policy it is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure and exterior of the home (this includes roofs, chimneys, chimney stacks, flues (but not sweeping), exterior walls, floors, ceiling, window frames, external doors, drains, gutters and outside walls and paths. The landlord also has an obligation to repair kitchen and bathroom fixtures, heating and water heating equipment.
The landlord has a responsibility under the 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.
The resident has an obligation to report any defects, faults or damage to the landlord immediately, particularly anything that might injure someone or damage property. The resident must also allow the landlord access to perform repairs that it is responsible for.
The landlord has the responsibility to attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-urgent repairs within 20 days. An example of an emergency repair is hot water or heating failure or any other incident that could seriously damage the resident’s health (such as risk to life) or the fabric of the property.

Summary of Events

The evidence provided by both parties suggests that there had been ongoing historic mould and heating issues at the property since 2015. The resident complained that there was black mould throughout the property, and this was directly affected by the lack of heating. She acknowledged that in the past the landlord had attended the property and assessed the heating and mould problem and completed specialist mould treatments.
The resident also raised issues in regard to a protected oak tree in the resident’s garden in 2015 and 2018. In August 2015, a professional surveyor advised that the tree was in good health, but the landlord should remove all substantial dead wood and broken or hung-up branches to reduce the risk of injury. It should also complete an annual inspection and monitor the health of the tree given its size and age. Orders for works were raised on 9 October 2018 however it is unclear if they were performed.
On 28 November 2018, the landlord’s contractors conducted a survey in relation to the mould and damp at the property. The survey proposed a new ventilation system coupled with a low temperature comfort heater to resolve the condensation and mould problems being experienced by the resident. It advised that the existing kitchen fan was not suitable and proposed that it be replaced to reduce moisture. A quote was provided to the landlord.
In June 2019, the landlord made an appointment to fit a ventilation system in the property to address the ongoing mould and damp issues at the property however the resident refused access on the day of the appointment.
In September 2019, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about a number of issues at the property including:
1. Mould and damp – she reported that there were ongoing mould issues at the property and that she had to constantly clean the walls, windows, pipes and clothing. She advised that she was not able to use the kitchen cupboards due to mould and had to throw out a number of items and pay the cost of repainting walls.
2. Immersion heating – she stated she had to run the unit constantly and had to reset the unit by hand every morning. She advised that there was ‘little to no’ hot water due to the faulty system and it was not able to service a family of five. She also noted an issue with a leaking showerhead.
3. Cost – she stated that she was not able to afford to constantly heat the property with coal and also pay for the immersion heating. There was not adequate heating and she had to pay additional costs for coal and wood to heat the house.
4. Tree in the garden – that there was a large tree in the back yard which had partially collapsed and was causing a health and safety risk. She had raised the issue with the landlord in the past and nothing had been done. Her children were unable to play in the back yard as she deemed it ‘unsafe’.
On 28 November 2019, the resident contacted the landlord as she had not received a formal response to her complaint (above).
On 28 November 2019, the landlord contacted the resident to organise a home visit that day to discuss the issues that she had been experiencing but was unable to reach the resident.
On 10 December 2019, the landlord contacted the resident and asked if it could visit the property and that it had previously been advised by the resident’s husband that it could ‘pop around’. The landlord attended the property, but the resident was not home.
On 11 December 2019, the landlord provided this Service with an update regarding the mould and mildew at the property, noting that its contractors were having issues gaining entry to the property. The resident advised that the landlord had turned up multiple times unannounced and then blamed her for not being at home. An appointment was booked for 21 January 2020.
On 22 January 2020, the landlord inspected the resident’s property and advised that it believed that the damp and mould issues were due to the humidity levels in the property. It highlighted that the resident had previously refused a ventilation system and said that it wanted to install one to manage the humidity levels. It also advised that:
1. A job had been raised to inspect the loft and identify the cause of damp in the top corner of the bedroom, as well as to repair a leak on the shower hose in the bathroom. Work was to be carried out in February 2020.
2. A condition survey would be carried out on the oak tree in the garden.
3. It would pass along a message to the Housing Team about the resident’s struggles with the heating.
4. The resident rebook a chimney sweep and service with its Gas Team, reiterated that it was her responsibility to report repairs and that it would discuss her complaint with the Resolution Team.
On 23 January 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that she did not want her complaint closed. She highlighted that she was not happy with the landlord’s proposed resolution, and the landlord was trying to blame her and her family for the mould issue. She raised that there been ongoing issues at the property since 2013 and that the following issues had not been resolved:
1. That there was inadequate heating at the property as the thermostat provided inaccurate readings.
2. That the hot water system was not big enough for a five-person family and she had to run it 24 hours a day and reset it every morning.
3. That the landlord had not previously explained how a new ventilation system would work and that was why she refused its installation. She was now happy for the system to be installed.
4. That she was not able to afford to constantly heat the property with coal and also pay for the immersion heating. She informed the landlord that it was ‘impossible to have all of the windows open to ventilate the property and continue to heat the property’.
5. She asked the landlord for the correct people to call in relation to the chimney sweep and service as she was having issues getting in contact with anyone.
6. She reminded the landlord about the issues with the tree in 2018 and how ‘a branch the size of a car’ had fallen in the yard which made it unsafe for her children to play. She advised that it had taken more than a year for the landlord to get someone out to survey the problem.
7. She supplied the landlord with 75 pages of complaint correspondence and that nothing had been done. She acknowledged that she stopped reporting issues to the landlord as nothing was sorted and she was mentally unable to cope.
On 30 January 2020, the resident provided the landlord with a summary and update of events and a list of goods that were damaged by the mould at the property.
On 9 March 2020, the landlord scheduled a visit to the resident’s property however the resident had to cancel due to a medical emergency. It advised that it would reschedule when she felt better.
On 18 March 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and asked if they could perform a three-way call to try and establish the best way forward. T
On 2 April 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and advised of the deteriorating issue of mould at the property and highlighted that the kitchen cupboards were ‘covered in mould’.
On 3 April 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and advised that it would visit the property to assess the required works. The resident responded and asked for it to send over the options for a potential transfer. The resident highlighted that she was having further issues with the mould and had to throw out her daughters’ bed due to mould damage. She asked that the underlying issues be addressed before she bought more furniture as it would just be ruined again.
On 28 April 2020, the landlord agreed to carry out the following repairs if the resident agreed to be decanted from the property for one month:
1. Install the positive input ventilation system.
2. Perform an Energy Performance Certificate survey to see the Standard Assessment Procedure rating of the property and implement changes to make the property more efficient.
3. Fit a new heat pump to replace the old solid fuel back boiler system.
4. Survey report to see if there were any underlying factors leading to the mould and damp.
5. Mould wash and decorate rooms.
On 15 May 2020, the resident was decanted for a period of one month for the landlord to perform the required repairs at the property.
On 21 May 2020, the landlord provided the resident with an update about her compensation claim. It advised that it would be getting the survey report tomorrow and would provide a full review in time.
On 2 June 2020, the landlord updated the resident about the repairs and advised that the resident would be back in her home by 12 June 2020.
On 8 and 9 June 2020, contractors performed mould and ventilation surveys at the property. The reports were provided to this Service, and it was highlighted that there was mould growth at the property due to inadequate construction detailing and maintenance as well as lifestyle issues.
On the 11 June 2020, the landlord provided an update to the resident about works that were completed at the property. These included:
1. Tree survey – no concerns were raised about the condition of the tree.
2. Cavity wall inspection – there were no issues with the cavity wall or insulation at the property.
3. A new heating system installed throughout, ventilation system installed, electrics checked and LED lights installed, smoke detectors upgraded, plumbing checks carried out and full professional clean performed.
4. Assessed sub floor condition and ventilation – no issues found.
5. Loft inspection – no leaks or issues found but it evenly relayed insulation.
6. Mould treated, stopcock leak repaired, cold water downpipe cleaned and insulated, windows cleaned and mastic applied, carpet relayed in bedroom one, window sills filled.
On 12 June 2020, on return to the property the resident raised issues that the property was ‘covered in dirt and filth’ and had not been professionally cleaned. She claimed that there was still mould in the kitchen cupboards and dirt in the bathtub and non-structural damage to an internal door. She stated that she did not believe that the landlord had carried out the tree survey and asked for copies of the surveys performed at the property.
On 15 Jun 2020, in consultation with the resident the landlord agreed to strip wallpaper and remove mould, remove carpets, paint bedroom one and two and the living room chimney. The landlord agreed to replace the living room door, mould wash the kitchen cupboards and perform a professional clean throughout.
On 1 July 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord about the ongoing issues at the property and stated that she would be willing to accept a compensation amount of £4000 for the ‘distress, neglect, disrepair, lack of care, mental and physical health issues, the inconvenience and terribly poor standard of living we have been forced to endure’. She also stated that the landlord should reimburse her for the cost of her damaged belongings.
On 8 July 2020, an internal email from the landlord demonstrated that it had inquired with its Data Protection Team about releasing copies of the surveys performed during the decant period to the resident.
On 9 July 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its final response, it advised that it had taken surveys of the resident’s property and the works outlined had been rectified. It said that its insurers would investigate the resident’s compensation claim as the amount was higher than it could authorise. It advised that the insurers could not consider its service failures and therefore offered the resident £150 as a form of compensation for the occasions where it displayed a level of service failure.
On 13 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and expressed her dissatisfaction with its final response and the amount of compensation offered. She highlighted that she was yet to receive any of the surveys performed at the property during the decant period.
The landlord responded on 14 July 2020 and asked the resident to contact the insurance company for the surveys she required. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the response and asked it to provide her with the documents.
On 14 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and stated that she had still not been provided with a copy of the tree survey. The call note provided by the landlord expressed the resident’s distress regarding the situation.
On 24 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and stated that the tree had completely split in two and had been left in the garden for more than a week. The resident stated that it had damaged her property and expected to be compensated.
On 10 September 2020, the resident raised further issues regarding a leak in the bathroom and that she was yet to receive a tree survey.
On 12 October 2020, the resident accepted an offer of £3,500 from the landlord’s insurer as settlement for the damage to her belongings from mould damage. The resident signed a Form of Discharge that the amount was a full and final settlement of all claims for damage to domestic contents and personal property arising from mould and damp.

Assessment and findings

Mould and damp at the property.

The resident raised a number of historic mould and damp issues at the property from 2015 and acknowledged that in the past the landlord had attended the property and assessed the mould problem, recommended the installation of a ventilation and heating system and had completed specialist mould treatments. Due to the historic nature and the amount of time passed this Service will not assess the historic mould matters but the information has been used for background and context. The assessment will focus on the September 2019 complaint that has completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This Service will not comment on the full and final settlement of all claims for damage to domestic contents and personal property arising from mould and damp.
Mould and damp can be caused by external factors such as a water ingress, or by internal factors such as condensation. Condensation can be caused and prevented by the way a resident uses the property, such as lack of heating and ventilation. It is important to assess the cause of damp in order to determine the remedy, and whether any damp or mould issues are the responsibility of the landlord or the resident, or both. The landlord is required to consider whether the mould amounts to a hazard as defined by the HHSRS and whether it needs to take any steps to reduce it.
The resident made a formal complaint about the issues of mould and damp at the property in September 2019. The landlord had an obligation under its repairs policy to inspect and complete routine repairs within a 20-day period. There was a significant delay in the landlord assessing the issues, with evidence provided by the landlord suggesting that it unsuccessfully tried to make contact with the resident to inspect the property on 28 November 2019 and 19 December 2019. It would have been reasonable to expect that due to the ongoing nature of the issues that the landlord would have taken a more resolution focused approach and inspected and completed repairs at the property in line with its repair’s obligations.
The landlord inspected the property on 22 January 2020 and advised that it believed the damp and mould was caused by environmental factors and the resident’s unwillingness to install extractor fans in 2018. A subsequent mould and ventilation survey performed in June 2020 highlighted that the mould growth at the property was due to inadequate construction detailing and maintenance as well as lifestyle factors. There was a significant delay between the landlord assessing the property itself and having a professional surveyor inspect the mould issue, which was not in line with its repair’s obligations. It is apparent from the evidence provided by both parties that this caused the resident inconvenience and distress as the issues with the mould and damp remained ongoing.
The resident appropriately agreed for the ventilation system to be installed and it is accepted by both parties that there was a delay in the works at the property due to the resident’s poor health and the landlord agreed to further inspections at the property when she was well.
The landlord suitably agreed to perform the mould works at the property and decanted the resident whilst the works were performed. Works at the property commenced on 28 April 2020 and were completed within the one-month period as advised by the landlord. Upon returning to the property on 12 June 2020 the resident raised issues with the mould works performed by the landlord. The landlord appropriately raised further works and these were completed within a reasonable period in line with the landlord’s repairs obligations. The landlord offered the resident £150 financial compensation for occasions where it displayed a level of service failure in relation to its handling of the mould issue which was appropriate to compensate for the acknowledged initial failures in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
Overall, there was a significant delay in the landlord initially addressing the resident’s complaints of mould and damp at the property. When the resident made a formal complaint in September 2019 there was an eight-month delay until the works were completed. It is accepted by this Service that there were unavoidable delays due to the resident’s health issues and the landlord having to initiate the decant process, however it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to keep the resident updated and informed as she had made further complaints regarding the mould issue. The landlord however offered the resident £150 compensation for its service failure which was appropriate to compensate for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and is fair and reasonable in the circumstances and in line with what the Ombudsman would expect in relation to its remedies guidance.

Issues with the heating and hot water at the property and its efficiency.

The role of the Ombudsman in this situation is not to determine if there was a fault with the heating and hot water at the property or if the cost and efficiency of electricity at the property was too high. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess if there was an issue with the heating and how the landlord responded to such reports. In accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for making sure all fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, space and water heating are kept repaired and in working order. It was therefore accepted that it was necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports about issues with the heating and hot water system at the property.
The resident made a formal complaint about the heating and hot water at the property and the cost of running the system in September 2019. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, it states that it should complete emergency repairs to heating and hot water within a 24-hour period. The landlord failed to send out a contractor to assess the operation and efficiency of the system and only acknowledged that it would pass along a message about the resident’s struggles to its Housing Team on 22 January 2020. This was a significant unacceptable delay however it should be acknowledged that the system was still partially working and still producing heat and hot water, but there is evidence produced by both parties that it caused noted distress and inconvenience to the resident.
On 28 April 2020 the landlord agreed to fit a new system to replace the old solid fuel back boiler system. This represents a significant delay from when the resident first made the landlord aware of the issue. The landlord’s failure is more significant as the heating would have had a direct impact on the amount of mould that was accumulating at the property. The landlord was advising the resident to adequately heat the property whilst at the same time not addressing the underlying issues with the heating. The landlord failed to apologise or compensate the resident for the delay in addressing the heating and hot water at the property, which was not appropriate or in line with best practice.

Tree maintenance and the provision of a survey report.

The resident raised concerns about tree maintenance on a number of occasions and made a formal complaint in September 2019. The landlord failed to provide a response to the complaint until 22 January 2020, four months after the initial complaint. Whilst the landlord was in contact with the resident about the other issues during this period, this does not negate the need for it to properly address issues with the tree maintenance and take appropriate action. The landlord provided this Service with a quote for a tree survey in January 2020 demonstrating that it had taken practical steps to obtain a tree survey report however it was unclear if the survey was undertaken at the time.
The landlord updated the resident about the tree on 11 June 2020, nine-months after the resident raised her formal complaint, to advise that the tree was in good health. The resident asked the landlord for a copy of the survey report on 12 June 2020, and it is clear from the evidence provided that the resident was still waiting for a copy of the survey report in September 2020, even after multiple requests. The delay in the landlord providing the report to the resident caused documented distress and inconvenience as the resident would not allow her children to play in the yard for fear of injury. The landlord did state that the resident could ask the insurance company however the landlord should have provided the survey reports and done more to keep the resident updated and her expectations managed.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There has been confusion by the resident in relation to this matter as she made a complaint straight to this Service before the issues had completed the landlord’s complaints process. This Service had to instruct the landlord to issue a final response which caused a delay in the complaints process.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy: if the resident made a complaint at the first stage the landlord should formally respond within 20 working days for complex cases. The documentation provided shows the initial complaint by the resident was made in September 2019, the resident did not receive a response from the landlord and therefore this Service asked the landlord to provide a response to the resident by 11 December 2019. The landlord supplied a response on 22 January 2020 which represents a four-month delay, the landlord failed to communicate with the resident about this delay.
The resident asked for a review of the decision on 23 January 2020 and the landlord progressed the complaint and provided its stage two final response on 9 July 2020. This represents a five-month delay in the landlord providing the resident with its stage two response. It is accepted that there were some delays due to the landlord waiting for repairs to be completed and the large number of issues that needed to be addressed. The landlord should have communicated any delay with the resident as the length of time that passed was not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and caused the resident noted distress and inconvenience.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about mould and damp at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the:
1. Issues with the heating and hot water at the property and its efficiency.
2. Tree maintenance and the provision of a survey report.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There was a significant delay in the landlord initially addressing the resident’s complaints of mould and damp at the property however it offered the resident £150 compensation for its service failure which was appropriate to compensate for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s reports about issues regarding the operation and efficiency of the heating and hot water system at the property in line with its policies and procedures. The landlord should have taken a resolution focused approach and inspected the system and made the required repairs. It is acknowledged by this Service that the system was still partially working which reduces the severity of the failure.
There was a significant delay in the landlord initially addressing the resident’s complaints regarding the condition of the tree at the property. The landlord should have had contractors inspect the tree especially if it posed a health and safety risk. The landlord should have also supplied the resident copies of the survey reports inline within a reasonable timeframe inline with best practice.
The complaint handling by the landlord was not inline with its internal policies at stage one or two of the landlord’s complaints process. It is accepted that there were delays due to the landlord waiting for repairs to be completed and the large number of issues that needed to be addressed, however the landlord should have kept the resident informed during the complaints process.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £600 comprising:
1. £300 for the delay in addressing the issues with the heating and hot water at the property and its efficiency.
2. £150 for the delay in addressing the tree maintenance and the provision of a survey report.
3. £150 in respect to delay in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord is to make this payment to the resident within four weeks and to update this service when payment has been made.

Recommendations

That the landlord reoffers the resident the £150 previously offered for its service failure in relation to its handling of the mould and damp issue.
If it has not done so already, provide the resident with a copy of the surveys performed at the property and complete any outstanding repairs in line with its repairs guidelines.
The landlord to discuss the resident’s request to be rehoused with the resident directly.