Sovereign Network Homes (202228372)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228372

Sovereign Network Homes

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

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

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. She lives in a ground floor flat with her son who is under 10 years old. She has lived at the property since January 2019.
The Ombudsman has not seen the initial damp and mould report. However, in the resident’s correspondence with the landlord, she said issues with damp and mould in the property began in mid 2020. The landlord has not disputed this information. In an email on 16 December 2020, she said that the landlord previously gave her a leaflet with advice on managing condensation. She said she followed the advice, but the problems persisted. She also said the mould had started to affect her son’s breathing.
The landlord replied on 24 December 2020. It asked a series of questions about the condition of the property. The resident replied on 9 February 2021. This was around 2 months after the landlord’s email questionnaire. She said that she had followed the advice but the mould kept returning.
The landlord inspected the property on 16 March 2021. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the inspection report. However, the following works were subsequently raised:
1. On 25 March 2021, the landlord completed a mould wash in the bedrooms. The notes showed that the paint was coming off the walls.
2. Between 12 April and 30 September 2021, the landlord replaced the extractor fan in the bathroom and installed a new window with a fan fitted in the kitchen.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 October 2022. She said that she had followed its advice for a year, but the damp and mould had not gone away. She also said she was woken most evenings coughing due to the damp and mould in the bedroom. The issue had affected her and her son’s health and she wanted the landlord to investigate the matter urgently.
The parties exchanged emails in October 2022. This led to the following inspections being raised by the landlord:
1. On 7 November 2022, a plumbing contractor checked the mains water leading to the property. It found damp in the kitchen.
2. On 17 November 2022, the landlord found rising damp on the exterior walls in both bedrooms.
The resident contacted environmental health sometime in October or November 2022. On 1 December 2022, environmental health inspected the property. It found several issues that were passed to the landlord for repair. These included:
1. A possible leak to the mains water inlet to the toilet.
2. The carpet and underlay were wet to touch.
3. The extractor fan in the bathroom was not working properly.
4. There was evidence of a leak on the soil stack.
5. The landlord was asked to lift the drain cover and check the pipework for damage.
On 22 December 2022, the landlord repaired the leak from the mains water inlet. It found the bedroom floor was no longer acting as a damp proof membrane. It needed to screed the floor and seal the outer walls.
The resident complained on 11 January 2023. She said she had been reporting problems with damp and mould since “early 2020”. She said:
1. The landlord did not respond to her in 2020. She had to chase the landlord in February 2021 asking it to inspect the property for damp and mould.
2. The landlord had not taken the case seriously. It lacked compassion in its approach and this caused delays. She had called the landlord for updates and timeframes, but these had not been given.
3. Despite following the landlord’s advice, the resident was cleaning up “black sludge like mould” weekly. She was told by the landlord that the mould was normal and to continue following its advice.
4. She was increasingly concerned about the condition of the bedrooms. The damp and mould were affecting her and her son’s health.
5. Environmental health said there was serious rising damp issue in the bedroom. They assessed the flooring and found a high damp reading.
6. The landlord had not addressed the issue causing the damp. It had only sent contractors to wash the areas down.
7. The landlord’s drain contractor said it was not a drainage issue, but there was a large gap between the building and concrete to the rear of the property. It was allowing water into the ground and through the brickwork.
8. She had sought advice about rehousing but was told that she could not exchange because the property was in an unsafe condition. She wanted to know if the property was unsafe and if so, why she should have to remain.
9. She wanted an action plan and breakdown of works before 16 January 2023. She wanted a breakdown of all works that took place on each visit and clear plan to rectify the rising damp in the property.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 25 January 2023. It said that it had included reports from 7 November 2022 onwards. It listed the repairs that had been raised to identify and rectify the cause of the damp. It found that:
1. There was rising damp evident during its inspections.
2. Environmental health had made recommendations that led to repair orders being raised.
3. Further work was booked for 30 January 2023 to apply a liquid damp prevention membrane to the bedroom floor.
4. The resident had declined an appointment because she wanted other works to be conducted beforehand.
5. It apologised for the time taken to complete repairs. It found that there was “no service failure” and that relevant steps were being taken to rectify the issues.
6. It would be monitoring the repair orders to ensure they were attended and scheduled promptly.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She asked to escalate the complaint on 26 January 2023. She reiterated many of her pervious concerns and said:
1. The landlord/its contractors had failed to identify the cause of the rising damp.
2. Environmental health found high damp readings and water rising from the ground during their inspection. The carpet and underlay were wet to touch.
3. The landlord had mould washed the main bedroom only. The mould returned within a few days.
4. The attempts to repair the mains water inlet to the property were unsuccessful.
5. The landlord sent contractors who did not understand the problem, or why they had been asked to attend.
6. The landlord wanted to send another surveyor, which the resident felt was unnecessary.
7. Since reporting the damp and mould in 2020 her son had problems with his health. She had a medical log of all his absences from school throughout this time.
8. She wanted the property to be made habitable and compensation for her damaged belongings/items.
The landlord’s contractor screeded the floors on 30 January 2023. The resident complained to the landlord about the workmanship. She felt that water would continue to penetrate the walls on the same day. She sought an update on her compensation request and said that she was having to live and sleep in one room.
The landlord issued a stage 2 acknowledgement on 31 January 2023. It said that it was going to issue a stage 1 follow-on response, rather than escalate the complaint to stage 2. It set out details of its complaint policy for the resident.
On 6 February 2023, the resident said that the landlord, its contractor and environmental health attended the property the week before. She said they agreed to replace the flooring, provide vouchers for decoration, and issue compensation for the damage to her belongings. However, she had since received a follow on call from the contractor who said that the landlord would no longer be issuing decoration vouchers or flooring vouchers. She said her living arrangements were “bleak” as all her furniture was piled into one room. She asked the landlord to respond with its reasoning.
The resident chased her complaint on 8 February 2023. The landlord said it would respond by 14 February 2023.
On 14 February 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 follow on response. It set out the findings from the environmental health visit in December 2022. It went on to say:
1. It would only review jobs from the previous 6 months. It apologised that the resident felt the condition of the property contributed towards her child’s ill health and school absence.
2. It had raised repairs following the environmental health visit.
3. The mould wash should have been done throughout the property. The landlord was sorry its contractor had not completed the required work.
4. There were issues with communication from contractors. They did not contact the resident before attending appointments for the mains water inlet and the extractor fan. It apologised that incorrect information was given to the resident, which meant that the contractor did not complete the work on time.
5. The contactor had told the resident on 17 January 2023 to adjust the extractor fan in the kitchen while the cable was live. This was not what it expected of its contractor and it would not advise residents to do this work.
6. A repair was raised for a liquid damp membrane to the kitchen and outer walls of the property.
7. A repair was raised to the gap between the external wall and pavement in December 2022.
8. An inspection from a technical surveyor was required to diagnose repairs. Where mould is present, it conducts a mould wash in the first instance.
9. It apologised for the time taken to resolve the issue. It was sorry that the resident felt the previous response lacked “human welfare and compassion” towards her and her household.
10. It offered £115 compensation and directed the resident to its insurance team for damages.
The resident responded the same day. She felt the response was “disappointing”. She did not accept the offer of £115 and said it was “insulting”. She felt the landlord was not taking the issue seriously. She had been running a dehumidifier for weeks and the floor was still not dry. She was told by the landlord that the additional electricity costs would be covered for the dehumidifier. It had promised redecoration vouchers and new flooring. She had not been given either of these. She felt misled by the landlord and wanted it to escalate the complaint.
The landlord acknowledged her escalation request on 17 February 2023. The resident called the landlord the same day. She asked for a joint meeting with the landlord, its contractor and environmental health. After some discussion, the landlord asked the resident to provide an agenda for the meeting, which she did. The landlord said that it could provide responses to the resident’s requests in writing by email or in its final response. The resident reiterated her request for a meeting.
On 21 February 2023, the landlord replied to the resident. It said that it was “under no obligation to arrange a meeting” if it did not think it was an effective use of its resources. It wanted the resident to clarify what information she sought from the meeting.
On the same day, the landlord’s contractor visited the property. It found cracks by the back door and lounge. It noted that its dehumidifier had been in the property running constantly for over a month and was still collecting large quantities of water daily. The recently screeded floor was not dry (it should have been). It also noted the resident was frustrated. It asked the landlord to consider compensating her for the additional costs incurred running the dehumidifier.
On 24 February 2023, the resident asked the landlord to include the following points in its response:
1. Details of how the core issues would be resolved. This was to include a breakdown of what works and investigations were to take place to identify the cause of the damp/mould issue. This would be followed with a detailed timeline of proposed works/investigations. Including how the landlord would keep her informed of progress.
2. If the issues could not be resolved, would the landlord review the risks to her and her son’s safety by remaining at the property.
3. How the landlord would compensate her for loss and damage to her possessions, utility bills, and loss of earnings. She provided a list of costs incurred because of the damp and mould.
4. Assurance that the complaint would not be held against her.
On 23 March 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. This was around 27 working days later. It said the resident had contacted the landlord to report damp and mould in October 2020 and February 2021. It had inspected the property in April 2021 and told the resident to monitor and check for condensation. After her reports in October 2022, works began to identify and resolve the causes of the damp and mould. The landlord said:
1. It apologised for not including some details in its stage 1 response.
2. It was unable to find evidence of reports from the resident that she says were made in early 2020. The resident was given advice in an email on 12 April 2021 on managing condensation in the property. The landlord had no record of calls between April and October 2022 where the resident said she was given assurances that mould was normal. The landlord asked her to send evidence of the contact during that time for review.
3. The resident told the landlord that its surveyor had apologised for missing some of the issues found in the property. The landlord discussed the case with the surveyor who did not recall apologising. It said the surveyor would not have had the same equipment used by environmental health to check for damp in 2021. Its surveyors had since been provided new damp meters which were more comprehensive.
4. It listed the repairs conducted since February 2023.
5. It did not offer compensation for loss of amenity (use of rooms). It did consider distress and inconvenience.
6. It had offered £160 separately for the costs incurred running dehumidifiers. The resident had not confirmed if she accepted this payment. It offered to review the amount once the resident provided evidence of her energy usage over the period.
7. If offered £615 compensation for the resident’s distress, time and trouble. The compensation covered the 13 week period between 7 December 2022 (1 calendar month after the repair was first reported on 7 November 2022) to 6 March 2023 (the last date repairs were conducted in the property). It set this out as:
  1. £130 for delay.
  2. £260 for distress.
  3. £65 for time and trouble.
  4. £160 for additional electricity costs.
8. It offered to review the compensation if evidence was provided of poor information given or a lack of response to calls between April 2021 and October 2022.
9. It asked the resident to discuss the claim with her home contents provider and provide evidence of excess she may have had to pay.
On 31 March 2023, the resident sent the landlord copies of her mobile phone bills as evidence of calls made to it in 2020 and 2021. She said that she had sent “countless photos and emails” across the timeline and offered to send them again.
The resident chased the landlord for a response on 19 April 2023. The landlord replied on 24 April 2023 and said that it had reviewed its call records in correlation to the bills sent by the resident. It set the notes it had for each call and said that none referred to reports of damp and mould. It found one call on 20 February 2020 that had no notes attached. It said that it had investigated the reports from the resident and the earliest report for damp and mould was in December 2020. It offered to review the compensation award if the resident provided further evidence.
On 10 May 2023, the resident disputed the landlord’s timeline and the offer of compensation. She wanted the landlord to consider awarding compensation from 16 December 2020.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 10 July 2023. She said that the landlord had not accounted for the impact the damp and mould had on her and her son. In addition, the landlord had sent “countless contractors” to inspect the property but had only recently conducted any work to rectify the issues.
The parties exchanged emails on 1 September 2023. The resident said that she had been contacting the landlord and had no response. The landlord apologised for the delay but said that its decision to consider compensation from 7 December 2022 had not changed. It wanted the resident to provide evidence of contact between April 2021 and October 2022 and energy bills from January to March 2023 and 2022 for comparison.
The resident reported a return of damp and mould in the property on 7 November 2023. Between this date and 2 February 2024, there were further emails exchanged by the parties. The landlord arranged to survey the property and there was discussion around the offers of compensation.
On 1 February 2024, the landlord issued a revised offer of compensation. This was around 10 months after its stage 2 response. It made a total offer of £4,187 calculated as:
1. £200 for complaint handling failure at stage 2 (response time).
2. £370 for 37 weeks x £10 per week for delay.
3. £740 for 37 weeks x £20 per week for distress.
4. £185 for 37 weeks x £5 per week for time and trouble.
5. £160 for additional electricity costs.
6. £2,372 for damaged items.
There was correspondence between the parties on the 2 February 2024. In which the landlord offered to raise a new complaint for the repairs reported on 7 November 2023. The resident replied to say the repairs had not been completed as the damp issue was ongoing. The damp in the property had not changed throughout the timeline and was “progressively worsening”. Her complaint was regarding the landlord’s inaction to identify the cause of the damp and mould in the property. The length of time it took for the landlord to take any suitable action. The issues were affecting both her and her son’s health.
The resident said she felt the landlord was dismissive of the impact the damp and mould had. She felt she had not been taken seriously throughout the process. The landlord did not know the cause and the mould that was “growing around [her] daily”. The complaint was “far from being resolved” as the resident was still “asking for help” to make the property “safe”.
The resident said she had “suffered for 4 years with the constant back and forth with what’s happening next to stop the extent of the mould and damp in the property”. Contractors who have attended the property across this period had been “unreliable” and “uneducated with the history of the issues”, so most of the visits were “void” and caused further delays.
An inspection report regarding the damp/water ingress to the property was produced following a visit to the resident on 21 December 2023. It confirmed there were still elevated levels of condensation in the property. The contractor wrote that the “situation requires further investigating prior to possibly starting extensiv[e] remedial works”. There were recommendations made to the landlord that included:
1. Conducting further damp readings on the bedroom floor to get a trend of moisture levels.
2. Break out a small area of the bedroom floor to inspect for water ingress.
3. Remove the floor screed in the bedroom and install an impervious damp sheet membrane.
4. Renew the bottom 1.2m of external wall plaster.
5. Line external walls with thermal plasterboard.
6. Install a system to improve ventilation/air flow in the property.
There was a further damp inspection on 23 February 2024. The inspection report included a detailed analysis of all internal and external parts of the property. All rooms inspected in the property were graded to be either “poor”, or “very poor” condition. Windows were recorded to be “soaked with condensation”. “Extreme condensation” and damp were recorded in the bathroom and bedroom. There was damp and condensation all around the bedroom and ceilings. There were signs of walls cracking in the hallway and the rear external wall. The camera used to survey the insulation came out sodden and covered in insulation material.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The landlord’s offer of compensation on 1 February 2024 included £2,372 for damaged items. This element of the compensation offer has not been considered as part of this investigation as the offer for damages is not within the Service’s authority or expertise.

Policy and Procedures

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that where there are complex repairs it will provide residents with an estimated completion date. It aims to complete complex and planned repairs within 90 days.
The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy (effective from December 2022) states that it will investigate and diagnose the cause of damp and mould. It would remain in “regular and effective” communication with residents once reports had been made. It provides residents with comprehensive advice and guidance to manage damp, mould and condensation.
The landlord’s compensation policy calculates awards by the detriment or impact to residents. It categorises these into low, medium and high impact and offers varying payments dependent on these categories. Broadly, payments vary between £5 and £20 per week for delay, distress, and time and trouble.
The landlord’s service recovery policy set out how it would manage and respond to complaints. It said that it would acknowledge all complaints and requests to escalate within 5 working days. It responded to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints in 20 working days. It allowed for instances where it could issue a follow-on response instead of logging a new complaint or escalating to stage 2. These were issued when there was “little merit of starting the process over” or the landlord decided it could deal with the matter quickly and to the residents satisfaction.
The landlord could refuse to escalate a complaint to stage 2 until it had attempted to resolve a repair within a reasonable timeframe. This was likely to be when an issue could be fully resolved in one attendance. If after it had attended the repair the issue persists, then it would escalate the complaint accordingly. This policy was later amended by the landlord when it reviewed its service recovery policy in August 2023.

Handling of reports of damp and mould

Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair, and to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation throughout her tenancy. Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards.
Damp and mould are potential category 1 hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. They are expected to conduct additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. There is an increased risk of harm to the resident, as the damp and mould were present in the bedrooms of the property.
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. “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”.
3. “Ensure they treat residents reporting damp and mould with respect and empathy. The distress and inconvenience experienced by residents in this area is some of the most profound we have seen, and this needs to be reflected in the tone and approach of the complaint handling”.
The landlord refers to the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould to adopt a zero-tolerance, data driven, risk-based approach in its damp, mould and condensation policy.
The landlord said that it would get a building condition report done during a visit on 29 December 2022. There are no records that show a building condition report was complete until December 2023. This was an unreasonable delay to conduct this report. The landlord should have arranged a full building condition report much sooner, if it had done it may have been able to identify the causes of this damp and reduce the impact to the resident.
The records show that the landlord had not fully assessed the risk the damp and mould posed to the resident. It only began these more detailed assessments in December 2023 and February 2024. The resident asked the landlord to say whether the property was unsafe on 11 January 2023. There was no acknowledgement of this request by the landlord. When she said that she had been advised against seeking a mutual exchange because of the condition of the property, the landlord found no evidence it gave this advice. It should have considered the habitability of the property, in light of the elevated levels of damp and frequent visits to conduct repairs.
The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy require it to maintain regular and effective communication. The timeline shows the resident frequently contacting the landlord asking for a clear action plan. She explicitly asked for an action plan when she submitted her stage 1 complaint on 11 January 2023. She asked again on 17 February 2023 when she tried to arrange a face to face meeting. She reiterated this when she asked the landlord to consider additional information at stage 2 on 24 February 2023. Each time, the landlord failed to provide a clear action plan to the resident. The evidence shows that there was a failure to communicate with the resident proactively and effectively.
The landlord’s responses to the resident’s requests to meet on 17 and 21 February 2023 were unreasonable. It made onerous requests of the resident for an agenda. It then sent a dismissive response saying it was “under no obligation” to meet and that it would have been a poor use of its resources. There was little consideration to the impact this situation had on the resident. It should have treated the resident with more respect and empathy. It should have taken the opportunity to arrange a meeting with all parties and produce a plan to manage the risk to the resident.
The landlord acted on the reports provided by environmental health and its own surveyors. It conducted works to improve the damp proof membrane around the property and replaced flooring in the bedrooms. It sought to identify the source of the rising damp and instructed specialist contractors to survey the drains and conducted repairs to water mains to the property. Despite the actions taken by the landlord, the resident continued to report a continuation of damp and mould in the property. The landlord did not consider that the faults exposed the resident to a significant risk of harm. The resident said throughout that the damp and mould impacted her and her son’s health. The landlord should have regularly assessed the risk to the resident.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had been reporting damp and mould since April 2021. It said that its surveyor did not do a full damp survey in 2021 because of the equipment it had access to. It said that in March 2023 it had better equipment. The landlord should have arranged for the building condition survey at this point. Instead, it listed the repairs it had undertaken but did not produce an action plan to resolve the matter altogether.
The timeline shows that between 7 November 2022 and 5 March 2023, there were around 20 visits to the property to conduct repairs related to damp and mould. Although the repairs were necessary, the resident took considerable time and trouble to attend these visits and they caused distress and inconvenience.
The resident said that the amount of damp in the bedrooms was causing her to wake at night coughing. She said that it had severely impacted her son’s health. She reported having to live in one room of the property for extended periods, because the rest were so severely impacted by damp and mould. This was exacerbated by the repairs, which also left her staying in on room for around 3 months after the visit by environmental health in December 2022. There was no acknowledgement of the impact of this in the landlord’s complaint response.
It is evident from the reports made by contractors that the amount of moisture in the air was exceptional. The landlord screeded the floors in January 2023. A dehumidifier was put in the property to help dry out the floors once the works were complete. The contractor recorded that it could not collect the dehumidifier on the agreed date. It had to leave the dehumidifier running in the property for “more than a month” before the floor was dry. The landlord should have considered these reports and assessed the impact and risk to the resident.
The landlord’s contractors and other visitors to the property reported how serious the problem of damp and mould in the property was. The records show that the landlord identified issues with rising damp in November 2022. Environmental health inspections suggested that there was a problem with water penetrating the property in December 2022. Contractors were concerned about the level of moisture present in the property in February 2023, after it had screeded the floor. These suggest that hazards were present and persisting. It is difficult to conclude that this issue was the same in December 2020, as the landlord had not identified the issue in the following inspection in April 2021. However, it is reasonable to find that the resident and her young son were at an increased risk of harm an unreasonable amount of time.
The damp and mould were present primarily in the bedrooms of the property. This meant that the resident and her son were exposed to a higher risk than if other rooms were affected.
The resident said that she asked the landlord for advice regarding rehousing. The records show that she asked on 11 January 2023, but they do not show any clear advice given to the resident. The landlord should have considered whether a decant was necessary, given the duration of time the issues had been ongoing and the impact these had on the resident.
The landlord identified that there had been failings in its final response to the resident. It was reasonable to apologise to the resident for the inconvenience caused by the issues at the property. Its offer of £615 compensation was made in line with its compensation policy. It considered the impacts to the resident for distress and time and trouble to be high, and delay to be medium. It was fair to make an offer, and to allow the resident an opportunity to evidence additional delays. However, the landlord did not fully account for the impact on the resident. It did not address the potential risk to her and her son’s health. It did not consider the time she was unable to use her bedroom. The landlord’s response was not proportionate to the severity of the impact on her family.
The Ombudsman notes the landlord reevaluated its position some time after its final response. This was following the resident’s referral of the complaint to the Ombudsman. The landlord made a revised offer of compensation that was extensive and covered costs for damage to the resident’s property. It considered additional time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience. The new offer (excluding the award for damages) totalled £1,815. It was awarded to reflect the additional period between 16 April 2021 and 30 September 2021 that had been excluded from its calculations at stage 2.
The Ombudsman welcomes and encourages landlords to proactively revisit opportunities for the resolution of a complaint. However, given the time that had elapsed and the circumstances in which this offer was made, it has not been considered as part of this investigation. Instead, this investigation has focused on the landlord’s actions at the time of its complaint response.
The Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould. The landlord has failed to fully address the impact its delays have had on the resident. It has failed to resolve the water ingress or complete repairs to resolve the issues present in the property. The landlord did not act with a sense of urgency and did not consider whether the property was habitable in view of the vulnerability of the occupants. It did not effectively manage the repairs and it failed to keep the resident updated throughout. It did not recognise the severity of the impact the issues had on the resident. The landlord acknowledged some of its failings, but its compensation offer was insufficient given the circumstances of the case. Its revised offer in February 2024 considered a further period for which the resident was impacted by the damp and mould, but still did not fully account for impact this issue had on the resident.
In deciding an appropriate level of redress in this complaint, the Ombudsman has considered the resident’s level of rent, the landlord’s failures and the inconvenience and distress caused. The property is two-bedroom flat and the rooms affected were the kitchen and both bedrooms. While the rooms were not entirely out of use, the resident could not have full enjoyment of them. As a result, the Ombudsman will order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Our calculation will consider compensation to reflect her loss of use of the rooms, along with a separate award to address the resulting distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman has considered the period April 2021 to February 2024 in our calculation. This additional compensation is awarded in recognition of the inconvenience caused to her and her family by not having full use of the property. It is not a rent refund or intended to be an exact calculation of rent paid for that period. It comprises of:
1. £4,300 which is around 25% of the rent for the period.
2. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord has also been ordered below to learn from the outcome of her case, in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. It should conduct a case review to identify why the failures found by this investigation occurred. It should propose how it will prevent them from occurring again in the future.

Complaint handling

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure, good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in the Service’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.
The evidence shows the landlord’s complaint responses were issued broadly in line with the timescales set out in its policy and procedures. It issued its stage 1 and follow on responses each within 10 working days. However, there was a delay of around 7 working days to issue its stage 2 response. The landlord should have notified the resident that there would be delay issuing its response at stage 2.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 26 January 2023. The landlord made the decision to review her complaint as a follow on response. This process is outlined within the landlord’s procedure. The use of this follow on response sought to rectify some of the issues raised by the resident. It referred to repairs that had been raised and its plans to identify the cause by conducting a further survey. However, in this case it effectively added an additional stage into its complaint handling process.
The residenthighlighted serious concerns regarding the habitability of the property and the impact on her and her son’s health. The landlord’s apology that the resident “felt” the property was affecting her and her son’s health demonstrated that it had not recognised the severity of the situation.
The landlord’s stage 2 response recognised that it had not considered all reports within the scope of its investigation at stage 1. It showed that its complaint handling was more effective at stage 2. It sought to address the substantive issue by setting out the repairs that had been conducted. However, it too failed to produce a clear action plan or recognise the impact the issues had on the resident.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The complaints procedure was not used as an effective tool in resolving the substantive issue for the resident. Its stage 1 and 2 responses were inadequate and did not demonstrate that the landlord had taken full ownership of the problems experienced by the resident. It listed repairs each time but did not demonstrate how it planned to resolve the wider issues.
The landlord did not consider the household vulnerabilities highlighted by the resident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider the impact on the resident and her family. The landlord missed opportunities to remedy the substantive issue, address and resolve the wider aspects of the resident’s complaint, show empathy, and improve the landlord tenant relationship. The landlord should pay the resident £250 for its complaint handling failures.
Determination
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide an apology to the resident from a member of the senior leadership team for the failings identified in this report. A copy of the landlord’s call summary or letter to be sent to the Ombudsman.
2. Arrange for a surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. The surveyor must produce a report identifying the cause of the leak(s)/water ingress, recommendations to remedy this and a schedule of works. A copy of this report must be shared with the Ombudsman and resident.
3. Complete an inspection to establish whether the property is habitable for the resident and her family. It should consider the resident’s circumstances and conduct a risk assessment. It should consider if a decant is necessary and share the findings with the resident and the Ombudsman.
4. Provide a schedule of works which sets out when works should be started. It should allocate a single point of contact to the resident who can provide regular updates on a frequency agreed with her.
5. Pay the resident compensation of £5,250. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous compensation awarded in February 2024 and excludes the offers relating to damages. If the landlord has already paid the resident compensation set out at stage 2, this should be deducted from the compensation ordered. This is separate from the award made for damages by the landlord in February 2024. The compensation is comprised of:
  1. £4,300 for the partial loss of use of some of the rooms in the property.
  2. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family.
  3. £250 for its complaint handling failures.
Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Conduct a case review by a director independent of the service area and findings shared with the governing board. It should consider whether previous actions (such as the approach to complex cases) are sufficient to prevent similar failings in future. A copy of this review to be shared with the Ombudsman.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within the timescales set out above.