Stonewater Limited (202323751)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323751

Stonewater Limited

19 August 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and various works to the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident’s tenancy commenced in October 2004 and she occupies a 3-bedroom house. The resident is disabled and has health conditions including cancer and scleroderma.
4. In September 2022 the resident made reports of damp and mould in the property. On 14 October 2022, the landlord arranged for a mould wash. In late November 2022, following continued reports, it arranged for its contractor to reattend to mould wash two bedrooms. Around November 2022, the landlord contacted the resident about carrying out a retrofit survey of the property to assess its energy efficiency, after which it would advise if the property required upgrades and any expected work would take place over 18-24 months commencing April 2023. The landlord’s contractor carried out this retrofit survey on 14 December 2022 which found the condition of the property was ‘good’. However they found evidence of mould and condensation on the internal walls to a bedroom.
5. On 20 April 2023, the resident asked the landlord asking for an update on the works. In response, the landlord told her it would schedule the repairs. On 27 June 2023, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She said the works identified in the retrofit survey had not been done. She added her bathroom window was not properly fitted, and had gaps, despite previously reporting this. She mentioned the landlord’s contractor advised the window needed to be replaced and that there were gaps around the frame of the back door too. Further, she said that a previous survey in 2022 had found holes in the exterior walls and window areas. She added despite sending pictures nothing had been done and advised how the issues affected her health. As an outcome, she wanted the landlord to carry out the retrofit works.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 October 2023. It said a retrofit survey was carried out in February 2023 but at this point the grant had not been finalised and the project would run for 2 years up to April 2025. The retrofit survey identified energy improvement measures, however found the property to be in good condition throughout. At the time of the survey, there was no mould present but the landlord recognised the resident had provided photographs showing mould growth around a bedroom window reveal. It also noted the resident’s property was flagged on its system as having mould. The landlord added that there would be a number of improvements carried out to her home and that the estimated start date for work was April 2024. It apologised about how long this would take and that this was not clearly communicated from the outset. Further, its contractor had attended to assess the potential cause of any mould and carried out multiple improvement works in July 2023. It added its surveyor would arrange to post-inspect the work and discuss any outstanding issues. It apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint and offered £250 compensation for this. 
7. Dissatisfied with this response, the resident asked to escalate her complaint on 11 October 2023. She said there were still mould and insulation issues despite the landlord having carried out some remedial work. The resident said the windows, back door and roof all needed replacing. She felt these issues were the cause of mould and had led to increased heating costs. The landlord subsequently issued its stage 2 (final) response on 30 October 2023. It apologised that there had been some delays and said it would undertake a specialist damp and mould survey to ascertain whether any works were required to bring the property up to an acceptable standard. It added that it would assess the heating costs following this. It offered £200 compensation made up of £100 for delays to the retrofitting works and £100 for the inconvenience caused by the delays.
8. The resident remained unhappy as she considered the property was not suitable given her medical conditions. She added that the issues with the windows and doors were unresolved. As a resolution, the resident wanted the landlord to resolve the damp and mould, carry out the retrofit works, reimburse her for loss of belongings and further compensation. On 14 May 2024, the landlord issued a revised stage 2 response. It apologised for the distress and how this situation had impacted her vulnerabilities. It awarded further compensation of £2,025 for failings in repairs including delays, distress and inconvenience, communication failures and the time and trouble the resident spent chasing works. It also reassured her the retrofit works would be carried out in the 2024/25 financial year.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident reported damp and mould in the property in 2010, 2018 and 2021. The resident made separate reports in September and November 2022 and made a formal complaint about these matters on 27 June 2023. In accordance with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which was not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. Accordingly, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports from June 2022 up until the landlord’s final responses. This is due to the fact that over time, records are less likely to be available and testimonies become less reliable, and it becomes more difficult to verify accounts.
10. The resident has said that the damp and mould in the property had a negative impact on the household’s health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear of these health problems, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s action (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s health.
11. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will therefore consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy and legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstance.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and various works to the property

12. The landlord has an obligation under the tenancy agreement to maintain and repair the structure and outside of the property, including the roof, outside walls, outside doors, window sills and frames, and internal walls. Its responsive repairs policy dated July 2021 adds that it aims to deliver all non-emergency repairs within 28 days from receiving the resident’s report. With respect to planned improvements, the landlord will carry out a programme of planned works to maintain and improve the residents home. Each year, it plans which homes would need components replaced due to their age and condition and uses information held on its stock condition database. Its repairs policy adds that vulnerable residents living in general needs housing who receive support, are given priority appointment times.
13. On receiving reports of damp and mould, the landlord should arrange an inspection, investigate to determine the cause, carry out a risk assessment and, if necessary, undertake remedial repairs within a reasonable timescale that will deal with the cause and consequences of damp and mould – not simply treat the symptoms. The resident made reports of mould as early as September 2022. In response, the landlord arranged for mould washes to take place in the affected areas. While this was an acceptable initial approach, it should have sought to address the root causes. However, following continued reports in November 2022, it took no further action other than mould washes.
14. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord undertook mould treatments/washes various times between 2022 and 2024, and when used in conjunction with good practice to manage moisture levels, this can be an effective tool to prevent the spread of mould. However, landlords must also deal with the cause and consequences of damp and mould, not simply treat the symptoms. With this said, the landlord arranged for the retrofit assessment in December 2022 which found the property to be in generally good condition though they noted there was mould in bedroom 3. This re-confirmed that the resident was experiencing a mould issue and at this point the landlord should have taken steps to address the issue, however there is no evidence that it did so.
15. In June 2023, the resident made a formal complaint about the condition of her property. She added the windows and doors were not fitted properly and while the landlord had previously checked these and were aware of her vulnerabilities, nothing had been done. The resident said the windows, back door and roof all needed replacing as she felt the issues were the cause of the mould and increased heating costs. It was apparent the resident felt the works identified in the retrofit survey were needed urgently. However, the landlord did not appear to address this assertion and simply stated that the retrofit works would likely take place in spring/summer 2024. This was failing on the part of the landlord as it should have responded to the resident’s claims.
16. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it acknowledged that the resident showed photographs of the window in bedroom 3 which showed some mould growth around the window reveal, but there was none present at the time of the survey. Additionally, it recognised that the resident’s property was flagged in their records as having mould. This should have triggered the landlord to resolve the issues with more urgency.
17. The landlord’s submissions about repairs often lacked sufficient detail and were unclear. The landlord’s stage 1 response incorrectly indicated that the retrofit survey was carried out in February 2023. In fact, the survey was carried out by a retrofit assessor in December 2022. Additionally, while the landlord stated it had carried out repair and improvement works in July 2023, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of these in the landlord’s repair records or submissions. In line with our Spotlight Report of May 2023 entitled “Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) – on the record”, the landlord should have a robust record-keeping system to ensure appropriate recording of, handling of, and responses to complaints and its delivery of operational service. This likely indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping, and a recommendation has been made below.
18. It is concerning that the landlord did not carry out a risk assessment in this case given the repeated reports of damp and mould and the fact the landlord was aware of the household’s health conditions. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, damp and mould growth is classified as a hazard and it is the case that, the longer it is left untreated, the more damaging it can be to a person’s health.
19. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould additionally outlines that ‘Landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of residents and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner’. It continues that ‘landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to manage resident’s expectations’. In this case, the resident was left exposed to damp and mould for a prolonged period because of the landlord’s inability to coordinate necessary remedial works satisfactorily. These remedial works included filling holes in brick work, installing a new damp proof course and sealing and damp-proof painting window reveals. Despite her reports in September 2022, it was not until July 2023, January 2024, and then April 2024 that remedial works took place. This was a substantial amount of time. Further, the adverse effect caused to the resident by these delays was likely to be more significant due to her health issues.
20. Furthermore, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord considered the available options to it to combat the damp which would have been a sensible approach before undertaking remedial works. It should have also arranged remedial works after the damp survey of November 2023 promptly, however it only carried out some works in late 2023. It is noted further works were not completed until April 2024. Between this time, the landlord commissioned another survey with another contractor in January 2024 and the works in April 2024 were likely a result of this. It is unclear why these works were not identified sooner having previously completed a specialist damp survey in November 2023.
21. While it was reasonable to arrange a specialist damp and mould survey, given the resident’s disability and her repeated concerns, the landlord should have acted with more urgency than it did. It should have taken more robust action at an earlier stage to try and identify the cause of the damp and mould before its damp survey of November 2023. In this respect, the remedy offered at stage 2 was inappropriate. It offered £200 compensation for the delay to the retrofitting works and the inconvenience caused by the delays. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests awards of up to £1,000 where there had been a significant failure in service which has had a serious detrimental impact on the resident. In this case, a vulnerable resident was left in damp conditions for a prolonged period of time and remedial works were not carried out with the necessary urgency.
22. At the heart of the resident’s complaint, she felt the works identified as part of retrofit assessment were urgent and could not wait until spring/summer 2024 as the landlord had said in its stage 1 response. The landlord advised that retrofit works were on its schedule for the 2024/25 financial year and explained it was awaiting final designs and confirmation from the planning authority which had been a lengthy process. It added once approved, the retrofit works would include improvement measures to external wall insulation (EWI), loft insulation, new windows, and insulated doors.
23. However, it did not appear to update the resident about the scheduled retrofit works amidst the various works in 2023 and 2024. This would have been a suitable approach to adequately manage the resident’s expectation. The landlord also noted that it carried out interim repairs to bring the property up to an acceptable standard while waiting for retrofit works to take place and added these were not able to be completed in line with its responsive repair timeframes as they needed to be organised in a similar way to planned works. While the landlord arranged a number of surveys between December 2022, November 2023, January 2024, it failed to co-ordinate these necessary interim repairs to make the property ‘retrofit ready’, and did not keep the resident updated throughout. Having formally complained about damp and mould issues as early as June 2023, works were not completed until April 2024 – around 10 months later. This was a substantial amount of time.
24. From the evidence the Ombudsman has seen, the landlord only seemed to contact the resident after being contacted by her. This suggested a lack of proactive strategy for tackling damp once it was aware. This was also not in keeping with its repair policy objectives which states it would maintain clear and continuous communication with the resident. This did not happen and may have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who may have felt her concerns were not being taken seriously.
25. Following the resident’s escalation request, the Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord discussed internally the best way to proceed with the resident’s requests for repairs and gave thought to whether this could be resolved through the newly made damp and mould team. It identified that the property was on the retrofit schedule and considered the repairs would be met but was unable to say exactly when. It added that from the inspections the roof looked in good condition and that as it was not looking at solar panels, it would not consider a roof replacement at this stage but may need to alter the eaves detail to facilitate the EWI.
26. The resident recently advised the Service that a contractor attended the property on 30 July 2024 and erected scaffolding. The resident said the landlord’s operative found that the timbers below the roof tiles were rotten and affected the guttering. She added that the scaffolding was dismantled and no work to the roof took place. While this was after the landlord’s final response and out of scope of this investigation, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident about this.
27. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said her belongings and furniture were affected by mould and as such, she wanted to be reimbursed. While this did not appear to be raised as part of the initial complaint or escalation request, as the landlord has since been made aware, it should signpost the resident to its liability insurer who can consider the resident’s claim. A recommendation has been made below.
28. Additionally, the resident explained to this Service that the gaps in the window and doors caused draughts which led to increased heating costs. Despite the landlord acknowledging this as part of her escalation it simply stated, on completion of the damp and mould survey, it would have a better understanding of the impact the issues were having on her heating costs. However, it is unclear if it followed up on this. This was a missed opportunity to explore whether any support could be offered to the resident. It would have been reasonable, where a damp and mould problem is perpetuated by property conditions for the landlord to assess how any gaps found impacted the resident’s ability to efficiently heat the property and whether immediate action was needed. It should also consider if appropriate referrals for possible support or financial assistance needed to be made. This did not appear to happen. In view of this, a recommendation has been made.
29. It is also unclear if the resident was offered priority appointments. Given the resident’s considerable vulnerability and health conditions, it should have considered if its “vulnerable customers” section in its repairs policy was relevant in this case. However it did not appear to do so. This is concerning given the landlord fully aware of the resident’s circumstances at the time. The landlord did not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this case. Indeed, in its revised final response of May 2024, it acknowledged that its communication was poor and that it did not manage expectations at the outset and that it had not paid due regard to the household vulnerabilities. This was a serious failing as the resident repeatedly explained how she felt that the situation had affected her living and health conditions. Additionally, the landlord had known there had been historical issues with damp but still did not take prompt action.
30. Overall, the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and various works was poor. While it carried out a mould treatment shortly after the initial reports, it failed to monitor the situation and put the onus on the resident to continue to report concerns and chase matters. The landlord missed several opportunities to reassure the resident that having completed its inspections and remedial interim works that the retrofit works were to be completed in 2024/25 financial year and that it would proactively monitor the situation and maintain an open dialogue with her. Additionally, as emphasised in our Spotlight report, ventilation together with sufficient heating and appropriate mould treatments where necessary is essential for the prevention of mould in properties. In this case, the landlord did not offer any alternative solutions to mitigate the damp conditions. 
31. While the landlord has since made a revised stage 2 compensation offer of £2,025 for the distress and disruptions she experienced, this level of compensation should have been considered in its final response in October 2023. This amount of compensation offer now adequately reflects the level of detriment to a vulnerable resident living with damp and mould for a prolonged period, however given its poor communication surrounding the retrofit works an order has been made below.
32. The landlord appears to have undertaken a further review after the issue had been brought to the Ombudsman for investigation. This Service expects the landlord to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage 2. Had this been done, the landlord may have identified its failings at an earlier time and had the opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage. As it did not, however, the Ombudsman has determined that there was maladministration. The Ombudsman is content that the landlord has now made a fair offer of redress and so will not be seeking to make a further compensation award, however the adverse finding in this case and orders made should encourage future learning for the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

33. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1, it aims to provide a response within 10 working days. In exceptional circumstances where this may take longer, it would notify the resident of the timeframe for a response. If the resident feels the complaint was not satisfactorily resolved at stage 1, they may escalate their complaint to stage 2. The landlord aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
34. The resident’s initial complaint was made on 27 June 2023. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 10 October 2023. This was a timeframe of 75 working days and contrary to its complaints policy. While the landlord’s internal contact records suggest a ‘complaint extension’ letter was sent to the resident, the Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this letter and there is no evidence the resident was notified of any delay as required by its policy. The landlord missed several opportunities to respond to the resident’s complaint earlier and these delays may have caused frustration to the resident who would have likely felt the landlord was not taking her complaint seriously.
35. Following the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 11 October 2023, the landlord acknowledged it slightly outside its 2 working day timescale. This was a shortcoming. Nevertheless, it appropriately advised the resident that it would aim to provide its response within 20 working days and acted fairly by following through on this. It issued its stage 2 response on 30 October 2023 which was 19 working days after the escalation request and in line with its policy.
36. Overall, the landlord failed to provide its stage 1 response within its policy timescales. However, the landlord acknowledged its oversights and offered the resident £250 compensation for its complaint-handling failures. This reasonably reflects what this Service would have ordered for the service failings and the distress and inconvenience these will have caused to the resident. In addition, in its stage 1 response, the landlord highlighted learning from this complaint and a recommendation has been made below to reinforce this.

Determination

37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and various works to the property.
38. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves concerns about the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

39. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Carry out a further property inspection and satisfy itself that it has correctly identified the causes of the damp and mould issues in the property and resolved them. If further works are needed, the landlord must provide a schedule with the anticipated completion dates and should keep the resident updated until the work is completed.
    3. Provide the resident with a start date for the retrofit work. The landlord must provide a schedule of works and anticipated completion dates to both the resident and the Ombudsman.
    4. Pay the resident a total of £2,475 made up of:
       1. £250 as offered in its stage 1 response for its complaint handling failures, if it has not done so already.
       2. £200 as offered in its stage 2 response for the delay and inconvenience in respect of completing the retrofit works, if it has not done so already.
       3. £2,025 as offered in its revised stage 2 response of May 2024, if it has not done so already.
40. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

41. The landlord should:
    1. Review its record-keeping practices to ensure appropriate recording, handling of and responses to complaints and delivery of operational service including non-emergency repairs, and consider, if has not done so already, implementing a Knowledge and Information Management Strategy. This is discussed in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).
    2. Contact the resident to establish if there are still gaps around the windows and door frames causing draughts. If there are, it should resolve these in a reasonable time. It should consider signposting the resident to additional support or financial assistance, and also request evidence of her increased utility bills to consider reimbursement, where appropriate.
    3. Contact the resident and provide details of its insurer so she may commence a claim for the damage to her belongings.
    4. Contact the resident following her reports to this Service that the roof timbers were rotten and consider inspecting this. If works are required, it should discuss an appropriate way forward.
    5. Review its staff training needs regarding their application of its repairs, complaints, and compensation policies, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, to ensure that repairs as in this case are promptly and properly carried out, and to prevent its poor complaint handling in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.