Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202221259)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221259

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

31 October 2023

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. Handling of repairs to the roof of the resident’s property.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. Handling of the resident’s reports of inappropriate staff conduct.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

The resident and landlord have an assured shorthold tenancy agreement. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord employs a contractor to complete some repairs.
The resident reported a “hole” in their roof on 12 April 2022. The contractor attended the resident’s property on 7 June 2022, but was unable to repair the roof as scaffolding was required for access. The contractor or landlord did not raise a request for scaffolding at the time.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 June 2022 regarding staff conduct. The resident said staff had been “very rude” and “not very helpful”.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 6 July 2022 to chase the outstanding repair. They told the landlord that the issue with the roof may have been causing damp and mould to manifest throughout the property. The resident mentioned “black mould” being in their bathroom, and on walls and ceilings. They also highlighted health concerns for them and their children.
The resident continued to contact the landlord regarding the outstanding roof repair and subsequent damp and mould throughout July and August. The landlord recorded a complaint from the resident which it subsequently discussed internally on 2 September 2022. The landlord noted the resident stated the damp and mould within the property was getting worse and there was “black mould” in the bathroom. The resident highlighted their concerns around the state the property was having on their and their children’s health.
The resident also complained about the conduct of staff who previously visited the premises, describing them as “very unprofessional”. The resident claimed the visiting staff member had said “you don’t look very depressed”. This was in response to them sharing that the problems with the property were effecting their mental health.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 6 September 2022. It said that the concerns relating to staff conduct had been passed to the relevant manager and would be dealt with in line with “policies and procedures”. The landlord also said it had contacted the contractor regarding the outstanding roof repair, and that it will be in touch “shortly”. The landlord said the complaint had been upheld and would therefore be closed.
After a job had been raised on 13 September 2022, the contractor fixed the roof tiles on 28 October 2022. However, the resident continued to report issues with damp and mould throughout their property. They subsequently contacted the landlord on 18 November 2022 and said:
1. They would like their complaint to be escalated to stage two of the process.
2. Although the roof tiles had been fixed, daylight was still coming through.
3. They had received no contact regarding the treatment of the damp and mould.
4. They had to move one of their children out of the property, due to health concerns linked to the damp and mould.
5. The outstanding issues were really affecting their health and mental wellbeing.
6. They were no longer able to use any of the bedrooms due to damp and mould, which meant sleeping on the sofa and living room floor.
On 23 and 25 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again to report that the leak had worsened and requested an update. The landlord provided a stage two complaint response on 30 November 2022. The response outlined the events that had occurred leading up to that date, and said:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of staff conduct at stage one of the complaint process was correct and, therefore, the complaint point was not being upheld.
2. The landlord had visited the property on 18 November 2022 and found that the felt below some of the new roof tiles had ripped. This would be raised with the contractor.
3. The landlord had completed a “mould wash” of the ceiling on 25 November 2022 and had identified the damp and mould to be from condensation, and not a leak.
4. The resident should keep “trickle vents” open at all times to prevent condensation.
5. The resident was listed for a new roof, due to be completed in April/May 2023.
The landlord apologised for the delays the resident had experienced and the lack of communication. It also mentioned it had arranged an appointment for 5 December 2022 to complete a survey of the property, with a view to installing additional ventilation.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 19 January 2023 to express their continued dissatisfaction with the landlord. The resident said the landlord had refused to complete mould washes since February 2022, but it had started doing them monthly after the Ombudsman’s involvement in the complaint. They also said that the damp and mould issue remained outstanding, and an independent surveyor had expressed their “great concern” about the health of the resident and their family.
The repair log shows the landlord fitted an extractor fan in the resident’s kitchen on 24 February 2023. The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord fitted a new roof as planned, however the landlord and resident have confirmed the damp and mould issues remained outstanding as of 25 October 2023. To resolve their complaint, the resident requested an investigation into the cause of the damp and mould, and a permanent solution to be found.

Assessment and findings

Roof tiles, damp and mould

The Ombudsman understands that damp and mould issues over a prolonged period would have been distressing for the resident. We acknowledge the resident’s comments about the effect damp and mould had on their health and wellbeing. It is generally accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. However, it is outside the role of the Ombudsman to determine if there was a direct link between any action or inaction of the landlord and any specific damage to the resident’s health. Matters of legal liability for damage to health are better suited to a court or liability insurer to decide. The Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced caused by any landlord errors, as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about their health, as well as the health of their children.
The tenancy agreement between the landlord and resident provides details about contractual obligations for both parties. The agreement states the landlord will keep in good repair “the structure and exterior of your [the resident’s] home and building of which it forms a part, including roofs, walls and ceilings.” Therefore, the issues reported by the resident were the responsibility of the landlord. This meant the landlord’s repair policy was applicable, including the timescales.
The landlord’s repair policy categorises repairs depending on the type of repair reported, and the associated urgency. Each category has an allocated timescale for a response. These are:
1. Emergency – attended to on the same day, where feasible, but always within 24 hours.
2. Responsive – attended to within 28 calendar days on a “right first time” basis. Responsive repairs are also prioritised on “health and safety, urgency of the work, and the availability of the resident”.
The timescales set out in the landlord’s repair policy suggest it would have been reasonable of the resident to expect their reported issues to be attended to and fixed within 28 days. However, the landlord did not address the issue with the resident’s roof until 199 days after it had been reported. The damp and mould issue has been outstanding for 454 days and continues to impact the resident. The landlord’s lack of action demonstrated a substantial failure to provide appropriate repairs within the repair policy timescales.
While the Ombudsman has determined the resident experienced significant delays, it has also considered what action, if any, the landlord had been taking during this period. The landlord/contractor identified the need for scaffolding on 7 June 2022, however it failed to make a request for it at the time. The failure to make a timely request for scaffolding contributed to the considerable delays the resident experienced and meant rainwater would have continued to penetrate the property, which could have added to the growing damp and mould issues.
When a landlord uses a contractor to complete repairs, it should also act as a representative for the resident and communicate on their behalf. The landlord should ensure any relevant updates or communication from the contractor are promptly provided to the resident. The Ombudsman expects the landlord to manage its relationships with its contractors to ensure that they have minimal negative impact on a resident. The resident in this case had been regularly contacting the landlord, requesting repair updates, and informing the landlord of how the issues with damp and mould were worsening. The Ombudsman has not been provided with satisfactory evidence to show that the landlord maintained regular or appropriate communication with the resident.
The landlord had a responsibility to keep open communication with the resident, particularly when the delays with the outstanding repairs occurred. The failure to fulfil this responsibility meant the resident had to spend time and effort in finding out the status of the repairs, while living with the issues. This likely added to the significant distress and inconvenience the resident had already experienced.
The resident mentioned that the landlord had suggested that it completes regular mould washes of the affected areas of the resident’s property. While it can be reasonable of a landlord to attempt repairs or preventative measures, rather than arranging a replacement or permanent fix in the first instance, the landlord should make timely decisions in determining when these are ineffective. By suggesting regular mould washes as an ongoing course of action, the landlord failed to permanently address the damp and mould, which the resident states is still present. It would be reasonable for the landlord to have completed one or two mould washes, but when the mould persistently returned it should have investigated and sought a permanent prevention of the issue.
A landlord is also responsible for investigating the source of reported issues, particularly damp and mould. Those investigations should be done within a reasonable timescale and with the purpose of identifying and completing a permanent repair. The failure to do so is likely to contribute to the worsening of an issue and, in this case, meant the resident continued to live with damp and mould for at least 15 months. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord took some preventative action by replacing the roof and installing additional ventilation. However, despite these interventions the resident is still reporting damp and mould 15 months later. This highlights a significant failing by the landlord to address one of the resident’s substantive issues.
In line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) guidance, damp and mould are potential hazards, and as such, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that demonstrated the landlord was exploring every possible solution to try to resolve the issues with damp. The available evidence shows that the landlord was aware that damp was evident in the property, but failed to investigate the source of the issue. Therefore, the landlord failed to follow the HHSRS guidance and its own repair policy.
The resident mentioned damp and mould was impacting their ability to use the bedrooms in their property. This had a significant impact on the resident and their family, having to seek alternative arrangements by sleeping on the living room sofa/floor. The Ombudsman has considered whether compensation based on the resident’s weekly rent is appropriate because of this and has made a determination later in the report.
The resident detailed the impact the outstanding repairs were having on them and their family on several occasions. The resident made it clear that the damp and mould was contributing to ill-health, and that having to manage the outstanding issues was taking a significant toll on their mental wellbeing. While the landlord acknowledged these details during internal communication and within the stage two complaint response, the lack of action and support it offered fell short of providing a reasonable level of service. These actions, or lack thereof, meant the resident continued to feel the impact having to live with damp and mould, an outstanding roof repair and the stress associated with having an ongoing complaint.
The landlord understood the damp and mould to be “really bad” and throughout the bedrooms in the resident’s property, as per its repair log. It was also aware of the ongoing impact the outstanding issues were having on the resident. This meant a decant (move to temporary accommodation) should have been a reasonable consideration for the landlord at the time, and whether a decant would have been appropriate while it undertook an investigation and carried out subsequent permanent treatment of the damp and mould. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to suggest a decant was considered by the landlord at any time. This, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was another failure to appropriately handle the resident’s situation.
The failures identified in this report are significant and continued. The resident experienced substantial delays in the handling of the reported issues and continues to live with damp and mould throughout their property. The Ombudsman has therefore determined that the landlord must act to put things right.
The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance, published on our website. The guidance suggests that awards of £600 to £1000 may be appropriate for cases where the landlord has made an error which had a significant impact on the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge those failings. The Ombudsman has found the solution the landlord offered to have fallen short of being proportionate to the substantial delays the resident experienced when requesting the repair of their roof and addressing the damp and mould. Therefore, this service has determined £1000 compensation to be fair and proportionate to the substantial delays, poor communication, failure to consider a decant and the continued impact the issues had on the resident.
The Ombudsman has also considered whether compensation based on rent is appropriate. The resident was unable to make full use of their property, namely the bedrooms, due to damp and mould. The Ombudsman considers that a 45% (15% per bedroom) rent rebate is appropriate for 48 weeks. The number of weeks has been calculated by taking the date the resident informed the landlord of the bedrooms being unusable (18 November 2022) and the fact the damp and mould issue remains outstanding as of 25 October 2023. The calculation is based on the net weekly rent set out in the tenancy agreement, which is £123.70. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £2,671.92 compensation based on rent.
The Ombudsman has acknowledged the landlord’s action following the exhaustion of its internal complaint process. The landlord’s subsequent offer of £900 has been considered when determining the total compensation amount ordered by the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman has also ordered the landlord to permanently address the resident’s damp and mould issues.

Staff conduct

The Ombudsman’s role is not to consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by individual members of staff, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings or employment matters. This service, when investigating a complaint about a landlord, will consider the response of the landlord as a whole, and will only comment on the actions of individuals only in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than the individual.
The resident first raised concerns about landlord staff conduct on 9 June 2022, stating that staff had been “very rude” and unhelpful. The resident later made allegations that landlord staff had commented on their mental health when visiting their property. Given the seriousness of those allegations, the Ombudsman expects that a landlord would carry out a thorough investigation into the concerns and, if appropriate, take reasonable steps in order to prevent any future instances. The landlord would also be expected to provide a reasonable explanation of the steps it planned to take and the outcome of any investigation, without breaching confidentiality.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response mentioned having passed the resident’s concerns to the relevant manager and that “policies and procedures” would be considered. The landlord’s stage two complaint response refers to the stage one response and does not provide any more information or outcome for the resident. It remains unclear what the outcome of the resident’s complaint regarding staff conduct was. Therefore, this is likely to have added to the distress the resident had already been experiencing and demonstrated the landlord’s failure to provide closure for the resident.
The Ombudsman has found that the landlord missed the opportunity to explain that it had found no evidence of misconduct, or that it had taken appropriate action against relevant staff. The failure to provide an outcome to this part of the resident’s complaint means the landlord must act to put things right.
The resident said the landlord had said “you’ll be alright” when responding to the resident’s suggestion that their property was cold, and that they were worried about the temperature during winter months. If this was something the landlord had said, in conjunction with the other comments mentioned, this would have understandably upset the resident. And, regardless of context, gave the impression the landlord was unsympathetic to the resident’s concerns for themselves and their family.
The remedies guidance mentioned earlier in this report states awards of £100 to £600 may be appropriate for cases where the landlord has made an error which adversely affected the resident and the steps the landlord took to put things right did not go far enough in resolving the situation for the resident. Therefore, this service has determined £200 compensation to be fair and proportionate to the landlord’s failure to appropriately address the resident’s concerns regarding landlord staff conduct.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy refers to the Ombudsman’s definition of a complaint. This is “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.” Therefore, it would have been reasonable of the resident to expect their comments regarding staff conduct on 9 June 2022 to have been considered a complaint. However, it was not until the resident’s telephone call in September 2022 that the landlord acknowledged it as a complaint.
This failure to acknowledge the resident’s complaint earlier contributed to the overall time it took to address their concerns, and the landlord’s opportunity to put things right sooner.
The remedies guidance mentioned earlier in this report states awards of £50 to £100 may be appropriate for cases where there has been service failure, which the landlord has not appropriately acknowledged. Therefore, this service has determined £100 compensation to be fair and proportionate to the landlord’s failure to acknowledge the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction sooner.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has found severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the roof of the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of inappropriate staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has found service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay £3,971.92 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this report, made up of:
1. £1,000 for the substantial delays in handling the resident’s repairs, poor communication, failure to consider a decant and the impact the landlord’s lack of action had on the resident.
2. £2,671.92 compensation, calculated using rent as a basis, as detailed earlier in the report.
3. £200 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct.
4. £100 for the landlord’s failure to acknowledge the resident’s complaint sooner.
If the landlord has already paid the resident the £900 compensation it offered after its internal complaint process was exhausted, it should deduct that amount from the total compensation set out above.
The landlord must complete a case review of this complaint. The review should be carried out by a senior member of staff at director level. It should consider what lessons it can learn, with a view to improving its handling of reports of damp and mould. The landlord must complete this review and share its findings with the resident and Ombudsman within 8 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord is ordered to discuss a schedule of work with the resident to complete a permanent repair of the damp and mould at the property within 28 days. The landlord should share a copy of the schedule of work with the resident and the Ombudsman. The landlord should also consider whether a decant is appropriate for the resident and their family, while the repair work is carried out.
The landlord is ordered to write to the resident to provide a senior management-level apology for the failures identified in this investigation, and within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the above required timescales.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman has been provided with evidence which shows the landlord is aware of and understands the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould (available to view on our website). The landlord should review the report and consider incorporating some of the recommendations made in the report into its damp and mould policy/framework. For example:
1. Reducing over-reliance on residents to report issues by landlords being proactive identifying properties with, or at risk of having, damp and mould.
2. Adopting a “zero-tolerance” approach to damp and mould.
The landlord should run refresher training with all relevant staff on complaint handling, particularly identifying complaints when they are made.