Stonewater Limited (202224250)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224250

Stonewater Limited

19 January 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 landlords handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Asbestos in the property.
3. The residents associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy for a 1 bed flat which began on 5 March 2018. The landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, including that she has asthma.
The landlord is aware that the resident had requested a reasonable adjustment in place. She required prior notice for appointments so that she would have a female member of the landlords staff or her own advocate present for any home visits or appointments.
The information seen by this investigation shows the landlord carried out an asbestos survey at the property in June 2015 which stated:
1. All asbestos found was a low or very low risk.
2. For most of the asbestos the landlord needed to either ‘manage, monitor and inform maintenance personnel prior to relevant works’ or in some cases ‘conduct further investigation prior to relevant maintenance or refurbishment works’.
3. The asbestos in the ceiling, floor coverings and adhesive in the bathroom should be removed under controlled circumstances.

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman expects that complaints are raised within a reasonable period, which is usually 6 months from the issue occurring. In the 2 years prior to the complaint there were no reports about damp and mould until 17 May 2021. Therefore we have considered the landlord’s response from 17 May 2021 until the final complaint response on 6 February 2023. If the resident is concerned about the landlord’s handling of matters after February 2023 then she should raise this with the landlord as a formal complaint in the first instance.
Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on the residents health or wellbeing. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the resident’s claims that the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Summary of events

On 17 May 2021 the resident reported damp and mould in her bedroom. She told the landlord that she was sleeping in the living room as she was worried it was affecting her breathing.
The resident sent photographs of the damp and mould to the landlord. It reviewed these photographs on 3 June 2021 and attended the property on 22 September 2021. The landlord said it needed a surveyor to assess the cause of the damp and mould.
The landlord’s contractor attempted to carry out an inspection of the damp and mould on 16 February 2022. Its records state the contractor could not gain access to the property. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 February 2022 to say the contractor did not turn up and was told the appointment was rearranged for 11 March 2022. The contractors could not access the property on 11 March 2022 and closed the work order requested.
On 29 April 2022 the resident reported the bathroom fan was broken and there was damp and mould in her bathroom. The landlord arranged for its contractor to visit the property on 11 May 2022. The contractor cancelled the appointment on 11 May 2022 and rebooked for 13 May 2022. The landlord told the contractor it could not rearrange this appointment again as the resident needed to arrange someone to be with her due to the adjustment that was in place. The contractor attended the appointment and fixed the bathroom fan but stated it could not treat the mould. The contractor sent another member of staff later that day to wash and treat the mould in the bathroom.
On 26 June 2022 the resident reported a leak from the property above into her bathroom. On 6 September 2022 she reported her wall sockets were not working. On 3 November 2022 the resident reported the bedroom window was drafty, cracks had appeared in the plaster and that there was damp and mould in the bedroom and bathroom. The resident provided the landlord with photographs of the damp and mould and the cracks in the plaster.
On 3 November 2022 the landlord’s records show an internal note stating although a damp and mould survey was requested in June 2021, this was never carried out. A new request for a survey was submitted. The landlord noted there was a reasonable adjustment in place for the resident. On 8 November 2022 the landlord arranged for its contractor to inspect the property on 1 December 2022. The landlords records show it could not get through to the resident to notify her of the appointment so it left a voicemail. The contractor attended on 1 December 2022, found asbestos, and said an asbestos specialist needed to inspect the property. The evidence provided does not clarify where the asbestos was found in the property.
On 3 December 2022 the resident reported her heating was not working. The landlord requested its contractor attended the property within 24 hours. The landlord told the contractor the resident needed to be called prior to the appointment due to the reasonable adjustment in place. The contractor stated it had logged this on its systems and would call an hour before the appointment.
On 23 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and said she was living at her mother’s house as she had a low immune system and other medical issues which were being affected by the cold, damp and mould in her property. An internal email was sent asking for someone to contact the resident to advise her when the damp and mould issues would be resolved. No evidence was provided to this service that the landlord contacted the resident.
On 27 December 2022 the resident made a complaint stating she had been waiting 4 years for the damp and mould issues to be resolved. She could not use her bedroom and it was affecting her health and wellbeing. She was temporarily living with her mother whilst recovering from a chest infection. The resident asked for the works to be carried out or to be moved to alternative accommodation. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 3 January 2023 and said it would respond within 10 working days.
On 3 January 2023 the landlord arranged for its contractor to inspect the damp and mould on 5 January 2023. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 January 2023 for an update as the contractor had not attended the appointment. She was told the contractor would attend the property that day. The contractor noted the resident had started to remove several layers of wallpaper which had revealed patches of blown plaster and the walls could not be re decorated. The contractor advised the resident it could not undertake any unforeseen work and the landlord’s surveyor would need to assess the extent of the work required.
On 10 January 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It apologised for the delay in completing the repairs. The landlord listed all the work orders it had raised and what action it had taken. It stated that it would arrange to attend the property to treat and take photos of the damp and mould and assess the asbestos.
The landlord’s records include a survey completed by a damp and mould specialist on 10 January 2023. The survey stated a 3 stage mould treatment needed to be applied to all rooms in the property.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 17 January 2023. She raised concerns that:
1. The landlord said in its stage 1 response there was asbestos in her property and she had not been made aware of this.
2. There were outstanding repair issues including: damp and mould and damage to the bathroom ceiling from leaks.
3. The contractor refused to carry out the plastering until the wallpaper was removed which she does not want to continue doing now she is aware there is asbestos in her property.
4. A workman attended without prior notice when she had notified the landlord she needed to arrange for a female associate to be with her.
On 18 January 2023 the landlord requested the works from the survey dated 10 January 2023 to be completed.
The landlord acknowledged the residents request to escalate her complaint on 23 January 2023 and said it would respond within 10 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 February 2023. It stated:
1. An asbestos survey was completed in 2015. The asbestos is safe in situ. When carrying out works that might disturb asbestos, it adopts a zero-risk approach. Its contractors will employ specialists to remove the asbestos safely before it undertakes the work needed. The landlord gave the resident details for its surveyor in case she had further questions.
2. It was advised of the damp and mould on 22 September 2021 by its contractors. It tried to attend the property in February and March 2022 but was unable to gain access. On 13 May 2022 the bathroom fan was fixed and walls were washed and treated. It attended the property on 1 December 2022 but works had to be paused due to asbestos. The landlord visited on 6 January 2023 once the wallpaper had been removed. It had commissioned a damp and mould specialist and is exploring options to improve insulation.
3. Following the residents request the landlord would appoint a female surveyor and she would meet with the resident to agree a programme of works. It stated it would send appointment letters when possible to improve the residents experience and its communication.
4. It acknowledged its communication was not effective at times and there had been a start-stop approach to managing the issues reported. It apologised for the delays and poor communication and offered £450 compensation. This was broken down as £250 for delays in completing the repairs and £200 for poor communication.
5. It was working with its contractors to improve communication and how to view cases where contractors cannot access a property. It had put in place an improved process for damp and mould cases so the resident would see a change in its support.
The resident approached the Ombudsman as she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response.

Events following completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process

On 16 February 2023 the landlord visited the property to assess what works were needed to resolve the damp and mould issues. On 13 July 2023 the landlord received the contractors quote for the agreed works. On 17 July 2023 the landlord requested the contractor to complete the agreed works. The landlord chased an update from the contractor on 31 July 2023.
On 1 August 2023 the landlord instructed an asbestos survey to be completed. This was carried out on 22 August 2023. The report stated if the bathroom ceiling is in a poor state of repair or was going to be disturbed during any planned works then it must be removed. It stated all other asbestos would need to be inspected every 12 months to monitor its condition.
On 15 September 2023 the resident chased an update on the works, the landlord chased the contractor. The contractor attended the property on 26 September 2023. It stated it was unable to carry out the works due to the condition of the property and the resident must be decanted before works could be carried out.
On 10 October 2023 the landlord sent internal emails asking for the resident to be supported to remove belongings and clean the property. On 25 October 2023 the landlord’s internal emails state the resident will not be decanted until the property has been cleared and it had a start date from the contractors. It said there was around a 6 week wait for the contractor to be available.
The Ombudsman spoke to the resident on 28 November 2023 and she confirmed the works had not been completed and she was still residing in the property.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are:
1. be fair
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy.
The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, 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 damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that its target response time is 24 hours for emergency repairs and within 28 days for a non-emergency repair.
The landlord has an asbestos management plan. In summary, the landlord will:
1. Take reasonable steps to assess if asbestos is present.
2. Record the location, type and condition of the asbestos.
3. Assess the risk of anyone being exposed to the asbestos.
4. Prepare a plan on how to manage the risks.
5. Put the plan into action, monitor it and keep it up to date.
6. Provide information to anyone likely to work on, or disturb, asbestos containing materials (ACM).
The plan states that identified ACM will be reinspected in domestic areas where there is a low or very low risk every 60 months. It states the landlord will consider a reinspection where something could give rise to fibre release, an example given is where moisture/water damage is causing the breakdown of the material.
The landlord’s asbestos policy states that residents will be provided with information via welcome packs and a dedicated page on its website. This will be in the form of basic information on ACM’s and likely locations as well as informing residents of measures they can take themselves to reduce the risk of disturbing any ACM’s in their homes.
The landlord’s decant policy states each resident should be subject to a tailored support package, alongside an equality impact assessment that assesses their needs and the effects that the decant may have on the individual (particularly if they have additional support needs). This support could include help with packing, unpacking and removals, disconnection and reconnection of whitegoods and appliances, connection of telephone lines, and accompanied viewings.
The policy states the cost of the above assistance will be deducted from any eligible disbursement payments. However, the landlord does award discretionary compensation to cover:
1. Cost of removal firm (vulnerable tenants can also claim for packing of belongings).
2. Disconnection and reconnection of domestic appliances, telephone lines and extensions, television aerials or satellite dishes.
3. Redirection of post for up to 3 months.
4. The uplifting and refitting of existing carpets.
5. Re-provision or refitting of disability aids and adaptations.
6. Payments to cover additional travel expenses to work or in continuing their normal routines for a maximum period of 3 months.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It states it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days, and it aims to respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will refund a percentage of the rent when a resident cannot occupy part of their property. It states for loss of belongings a claim can be submitted to the landlord’s insurers.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The resident reported damp and mould in her bedroom on 17 May 2021. It was reasonable that the landlord organised an inspection of the property. The inspection was carried out on 22 September 2021, this was 91 working days after the resident’s initial report. This is significantly longer than the 28 working day timescale given for non-emergency repairs in the landlord’s repairs policy.
There is no evidence the landlord made enquiries into whether the reported issue needed to be treated as an emergency as per its repairs policy. The landlord was aware the damp and mould was an on-going issue in the property and of the residents vulnerabilities. It should have communicated with the resident about any risks and carried out a risk assessment. The landlord failed to meet its agreed service level agreement and communicate effectively with the resident.
The resident’s vulnerabilities were relevant factors to inform the nature, tone, and communication of the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould. When the resident told the landlord the damp and mould was causing her health issues and she had moved in with her mother temporarily, these were escalations. The landlord should have reviewed its response in terms of the level of detriment being caused to the resident and agreed a clear communication strategy and action plan with the resident to seek to understand the extent of the damp, its cause and works required. We would also expect to see the landlord assess the level of risk at these clear escalation stages and evidence it had considered all options available to it to support the resident though this time such as a decant assessment and signposting to appropriate tenancy support services.
The resident had informed the landlord of her fear of males. There is no evidence to show a risk assessment was completed. The landlord failed to consider what adjustments, support or sign posting may have been required to assist the resident to effectively navigate visits to her property from male staff. The evidence showed the landlord did on many occasions inform its staff and contractors of the residents fear of men, however, there were times it failed to do this. The landlord did offer a female surveyor, which was positive, but this should have happened much sooner in the process. Had an effective assessment of risk been undertaken at the time of the initial report, this may have been agreed then and supported the resident more effectively, making sure that she had felt heard. The evidence shows the landlord failed to notify the resident when its contractors rescheduled appointments. It also showed the contractor told the landlord it would give the resident 1 hours’ notice before an appointment which it accepted, when the resident had already informed it this was not enough time for her to get a female associate to attend. There is a lack of evidence of a clear approach and adjustments in place to support the resident, which caused her distress and inconvenience.
Following the inspection on 22 September 2021, the landlord instructed an external contractor to assess the cause of the damp and mould. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer the matter to a specialist contractor to allow it to correctly identify and address the issue. The contractual obligation remains between the landlord and the resident. The landlord was therefore responsible for updating the resident, setting expectations of when visits will take place, and notifying the resident if delays were expected. The landlord did not do this which led to the resident chasing updates. The landlord acted unreasonably by failing to communicate with the resident when the contractor closed the work order due to no access. The landlord was aware of the residents vulnerabilities, therefore we would have expected to see it act proactively and seek to understand from the resident why no access was given and agree next steps. Due to the poor communication and lack of ownership this led to the resident living in a property with damp and mould for an extended period of time.
On 29 April 2022 the resident reported damp and mould in her bathroom. On 13 May 2022 the contractor attended the property and washed and treated the mould in the bathroom. Although the Ombudsman has not considered events that occurred prior to May 2021, the landlord was aware the damp and mould was an on-going issue in this property. It was reasonable to expect the landlord to draw from its previous records to ensure it had a holistic view of previous investigations and works. It did not do this and failed to recognise the survey had not been completed to assess the cause of the damp and mould. Instead it opted to default to works that it had carried out before. This is not resolution focused and the landlord failed to ensure they understood the root cause of the matter before carrying out works.
From June to November 2022 the resident continued to report issues with the property, including leaks, wall sockets not working, damp and mould and cracks in the plaster. On 3 November 2022 the landlord raised a note on the residents case that the damp and mould survey it requested in September 2021 had not been carried out. This was 372 days after the resident initially reported the damp and mould. This was an unreasonable delay which left a vulnerable resident living with damp and mould and sleeping in her living room for a prolonged period. This was a significant failing which caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
If a landlord knows there is going to be a delay with a repair it must make an assessment of risk, looking at what impact the delay will have on the resident. A landlord must consider loss of amenity and what interim measures could be considered and put in place. This could include dehumidifiers, support from local services, or a decant. Interim measures may not always be possible, but a landlord must show they have explored all options and explain to the resident why such measures may not being put in place. There is no evidence the landlord investigated or communicated with the resident about whether interim measures could have prevented the damp and mould from getting worse. It was unreasonable the landlord left the resident living with the damp and mould for over 2 years with no consideration of any interim measures.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. Throughout this investigation the Ombudsman’s work has been impacted by the landlord’s poor-quality records. For example the landlord’s repair logs and records of internal communication often gave conflicting dates and information. These failures in knowledge and information management have caused significant delays and frustration, distress and inconvenience to the resident.
There is evidence of a lack of learning from the landlord. Post the internal complaints procedure the landlord’s records show continuing poor communication with the resident and its contractors. The record keeping has remained poor and has led to the landlord obtaining several surveys which recommend works that contradict each other. To date the agreed works have not been carried out and the landlord said it would not consider a decant until the resident removed her belongings and cleaned the property. No evidence has been provided to show what support the landlord has offered in the removal of the residents belongings and whether it has considered financial assistance or discretionary compensation as per its decant policy.
In summary there were significant delays, poor record keeping and communication with both the resident and its contractors. The landlord failed to carry out a risk assessment, it did not effectively consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and the reasonable adjustments needed. It did not effectively consider any interim measures or offer support. To date the landlord has not completed the works and there is no evidence it has learnt from the outcome of the complaint. Whilst the landlord acknowledged the delays and poor communication and offered £450 compensation, this offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation and it did not go far enough to demonstrate that it understood the detriment caused to the resident.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds serve maladministration for the multiple failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £2340 in compensation. This is broken down as £1540 which is 20% of £89.49pw rent for the loss of the use of the bedroom from 21 May 2021 to 6 February 2023 and £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord implemented a damp and mould policy in April 2023 and created a damp, mould and condensation team who monitor and manage cases where there are issues with damp and mould. Whilst the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould was published during the life of this investigation, it is positive to see these changes made by the landlord. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to review its current position to ensure it aligns to good practice set out by the spotlight report. This a positive step to the landlord improving its response to damp and mould.

The landlord’s handling of asbestos in the property

The resident’s concerns and anxiety about the finding of asbestos materials within her home are noted. However, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to investigate the level of asbestos or the risks involved, but to provide an independent review of the landlord’s actions in its response to the resident’s concerns.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) confirms that asbestos can be found in any building built before 2000. It confirms that if asbestos materials are in good condition, and in a place where they are unlikely to be disturbed, then they should not cause any harm. It is only when the materials are damaged or disturbed, that asbestos can become a concern.
The HSE states that asbestos in poor condition must be sealed or removed. Ordinary paint or wallpaper is not an adequate seal. When asbestos is sealed, it should be labelled and the tenant informed of its presence and the risk if asbestos dust is released through DIY or other work. The HSE recommends that if asbestos is likely to release dust and cannot be easily repaired and protected or is likely to be disturbed during routine maintenance work, then it must be removed.
The landlord was fully aware of the asbestos in the property when the resident moved into the property in March 2018. We have not been provided with any evidence the resident received a welcome pack outlining the ACM in her property and the potential risk as per the landlord’s asbestos policy. The resident states she only became aware of the asbestos when the landlord mentioned it in its stage 1 complaint response. This service has not been provided with enough evidence to determine whether the landlord acted appropriately at the time the resident moved in.
When the landlord was put on notice of the damp and mould and possible disrepair we would have expected the landlord to keep and have clear records of the site and type of asbestos. And for this to be shared with the resident and its contractors to ensure anyone entering the property was aware of its presence and agree the correct mitigation required when undertaking inspection or works on the property. The landlord failed to do this.
The asbestos survey dated 2015 stated the bathroom ceiling and floor tiles should be removed, there is no evidence the landlord did this. On 29 April 2022 the resident reported her bathroom fan was not working and there was damp and mould on the bathroom walls and ceiling. On 26 June 2022 the resident reported a leak from the upstairs property into her bathroom. The landlord’s asbestos management plan states the landlord will consider a reinspection where something could give rise to fibre release, an example given is where moisture or water damage is causing the breakdown of the material. There is no evidence the landlord considered whether it needed to reinspect the asbestos, or that it discussed the asbestos with the resident or its contractors when repairs were carried out. The landlord acted inappropriately by not considering the potential risks of the asbestos to both the resident and its contractor before works were carried out in the bathroom.
On 1 December 2022 a contractor found asbestos in the property and stated the landlord needed to carry out an asbestos survey before works could be completed. The landlord did not instruct this survey until 1 August 2023, this was 8 months after the asbestos was found. This was an unreasonable delay. The landlord’s records do not state where the contractor found asbestos in the property. At the time the landlord was notified of this asbestos there is no evidence it assessed the potential risk, communicated this to the resident or considered all available options and appropriate mitigation measures whilst it instructed a new survey. This was a significant failing.
On 17 January 2023 the resident raised concerns that removing wallpaper had revealed cracks in the plaster and she was unsure if this had disturbed any asbestos. The landlord failed to take appropriate steps to address her concerns. We would have expected the landlord to contact the resident and provide her with information on the location of the ACM’s in her property and the measures she could take to reduce the risk of disturbing any ACMs. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord stated it wanted to ease the residents worries about asbestos and it was safe in situ. However, it did not respond to the residents concern that she had disturbed asbestos by removing wallpaper. This caused the resident unnecessary distress.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of asbestos in the property was poor. It failed to consider its own surveys, follow its asbestos policies and procedures, take appropriate steps to assess the risk and consider wider appropriate measures for mitigation. This was a serious failing and as such it missed opportunities to alleviate the resident’s concerns about the asbestos. The landlord did not acknowledge these failings in its complaints responses and has failed to put things right or learn from its failings. No evidence has been provided to the Ombudsman that the landlord has communicated the location of the asbestos and what action it is taking with the resident.
It is acknowledged the above findings may worry the resident. It is important to explain the recent asbestos survey conducted by the landlord in August 2023 confirmed the asbestos should not cause harm if left in situ and not damaged. This is in line with the Health and Safety Executive’s position. As such, the failing here is the landlord’s response to reports of asbestos, which was not appropriate.
This cumulative impact alongside on going damp and mould concerns and the landlords prolonged delays and poor communication had a significant impact on the resident. She was left with no clear action plan of a resolution and no clear understanding of any risk that the asbestos may or may not have posed. This caused her significant detriment and impacted the residents ability to have any enjoyment of her home.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the landlord’s handling of asbestos in the property

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

The resident made a complaint on 27 December 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and stated it would respond within 10 working days in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 January 2023, which was within its 10 working day response timescale. The Code states a landlord should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. It also states when communicating with residents landlords should use plain language.
The landlord failed to do this in its stage 1 response. The landlord listed its work order numbers but failed to state on all of them what reported issue the work order related to, what action had been taken and what steps it was taking to put things right. The landlord failed to acknowledge the concerns the resident raised about the impact the damp and mould was having on her health, the fact she could not use her bedroom and that she had temporarily moved into her mother’s property. The landlord acted inappropriately by not addressing all the residents complaint issues and not seeking to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity.
The resident escalated the complaint on 17 January 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and stated it would respond within 10 working days in line with its complaints policy. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident to ask what resolution she wanted and offered to arrange a call to discuss the complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 February 2023, this was within its 10 working day response timescale. The landlord addressed the damp and mould issues and said it would appoint a female surveyor and would send appointment letters when possible to improve communication. However, the landlord failed to address all the resident’s complaint issues in its stage 2 response. It failed to acknowledge or respond to the residents’ concerns about the asbestos on her health and when an asbestos survey would be carried out. The landlord’s response left the resident feeling frustrated and that her concerns had not been taken seriously.
In summary the landlord did not meaningfully engage with the resident’s complaint and did not provide detailed responses to the issues raised. It failed to fully consider the impact of the damp and mould and asbestos on the resident, and it failed to acknowledge the health concerns raised by the resident in its complaint responses. The landlord did not acknowledge any of these failings or offer suitable redress to the resident.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the landlord’s complaint handling.

Review of policies and practice

The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving damp and mould, repairs and complaint handling. Some of these cases, and findings, are set out below:
1. 202213498 we found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
2. 202201718 we found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress and damp on his kitchen ceiling.
3. 202214459 we found maladministration in relation to the landlord complaint handling
The Ombudsman has several complaints awaiting investigation, where residents have complained about similar issues. We have therefore decided to issue a wider order under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified in this determination, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter. We have set out the scope of the review below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of asbestos in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

There were significant delays in the landlord obtaining a survey on the cause of the damp and mould, there was evidence of poor record keeping and poor communication with both the resident and its contractors. The landlord failed to carry out risk assessments, it did not effectively consider the resident’s vulnerabilities or the reasonable adjustments in place, and it did not consider any interim measures or offer her support. To date the works are still outstanding and there is no evidence the landlord had learnt from the outcome of the complaint.
The landlord failed to consider its own asbestos surveys, follow its asbestos policies and procedures, take appropriate steps to assess the risk, it did not assess the condition of the asbestos when the resident and contractors raised concerns, and it failed to evidence that it had considered a decant whilst it instructed a new survey. The landlord did not recognise the distress caused to the resident, did not account for its failings and has not demonstrated learning from the incident.
The landlord did not meaningfully engage with the resident’s complaint. It failed to fully consider the impact of the damp and mould on the resident and acknowledge the health concerns raised by the resident. The landlord failed to acknowledge these failings in its complaints responses and it did not offer suitable redress to the resident.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident. A member of the senior leadership team must provide the apology to the resident.
2. In addition to the compensation awarded in the stage 2 response, the landlord must pay the resident a further £2990 compensation. This is broken down as:
  1. £2340 for the loss of the use of the bedroom, as well as the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould
  2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of the asbestos
  3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.
3. Based on the most recent survey results the landlord is to review the matter with its asset and tenancy management teams and provide a clear action plan with the resident to bring the works to completion. This should include but is not limited to:
  1. an assessment of risk to the resident
  2. agree any appropriate support measures with the resident
  3. assessment of habitability of the property, taking into account the residents vulnerabilities and consider if a decant is required
  4. consider financial assistance or discretionary compensation in line with its decant policy.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme, the landlord must carry out a review of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to damp and mould. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. The review must be carried out within 12 weeks and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. an exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred, including;
  1. Why the resident continues to live in a property with significant repair issues more than 2 years after these were first reported to the landlord.
  2. Why no risk assessments were carried out throughout the life of this case and reasonable adjustments were not considered and implemented at an early stage.
  3. Its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident.
  4. its record-keeping practices and responses to repairs taking longer than 28 days. If it has not done so already, consider implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
  5. Consider as to whether, on the basis of the findings of this report, further compensation is due for loss of enjoyment of home, further delays, distress and inconvenience and time and trouble from 6 February 2023 to the date of this report. The landlord’s decision is to be signed off by the senior member of staff carrying out the above ordered review. The landlord is to then to write to the resident and this Service to confirm its position with an explanation.
2. Complete a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s damp and mould spotlight report and review its current policy and processes against this.
3. Identification of all other residents who may have been affected by similar issues, but not necessarily engaged with its complaint procedure, for a period from May 2021 to present. This includes looking at whether other residents in the building also have issues with damp and mould and have been notified of asbestos.
4. A review of its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers:
  1. respond to requests for repairs appropriately and progresses works orders involving more than one contractor in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures
  2. respond to formal complaints appropriately. Responses must address all issues raised by the resident. It should ensure all relevant officers do so in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
Following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
1. the findings and learning from the review
2. recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future
3. the number of other residents who have experienced similar issues
4. the steps it proposes to take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include consideration of compensation commensurate to the level of detriment a particular resident has experienced if caused by a failing on the part of the landlord.
The landlord should embed the recommendations in the report within its wider transformation programme, to inform practice in other areas of service delivery, where relevant, with appropriate oversight.
The landlord should provide a copy of the final report to its governing body and member responsible for complaints, if appointed, for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the review.
The landlord should also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should commit to revisiting the issues 6 months after the report has been finalised to check whether changes in practice have been embedded.