Stonewater Limited (202334622)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334622

Stonewater Limited

28 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

The complaint is about:
1. the landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the property.
2. the level of compensation it offered to the resident in its response to her complaint.

Background

The resident occupies a 2-bedroom house under an assured tenancy agreement. The resident lives at the property with her two daughters.
On 23 October 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that there was damp and mould affecting both bedrooms and the bathroom on the first floor of the property. On 6 November 2023, the resident complained that the mould had returned following the landlord’s previous mould wash. She said the recurring mould had damaged the decorations, her furniture and clothes. She told the landlord she wanted compensation to replace the damaged items.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 November 2023. In this the landlord explained that:
1. its contractor assessed that the damp and mould were caused by the ventilation and lack of insulation in the loft of the property
2. it would arrange for a further mould wash to take place following the repair
3. it acknowledged that the resident had told it she had redecorated the bedrooms several times previously but the mould had reoccurred. The landlord offered the resident £300 in recognition of her needing to redecorate and for the time and trouble of making a complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint on 21 November 2023 as she did not consider the offer of £300 was sufficient. In particular, she said the landlord’s offer did not recognise that she had needed to replace clothes and other personal property damaged by the mould.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 2 February 2024. In this it:
1. accepted there was a delay in it acknowledging and providing its response at stage 2 and that the quality of the stage 1 response was poor. It apologised and offered the resident a total of £175 for its handling of the complaint.
2. said that its surveyor attended to inspect on 19 January 2024 following the work to reinsulate the loft and considered the primary cause of any returning damp and mould was due to condensation. The landlord acknowledged that the surveyor had recommended the landlord carried out follow-up work to rule out any structural issues. It said it would work to address this work.
3. in response to the resident’s request for compensation to replace her damaged personal items the landlord said that it was unable to reimburse her for this.
4. re-offered the £300 it offered at stage 1 to reimburse the resident for the cost of redecorating.
The resident says she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation and that it has not offered to reimburse the damage to her personal belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope

In her complaint to this service, the resident told us that the issues with damp and mould on the first floor of the property began in 2019. She told us that she contacted the landlord by phone to report this on several occasions but was told that she needed to heat and ventilate her home more and no-one from the landlord attended to inspect. She says she chose not to complain at the time, and she tried to follow its advice. However, she told us she decided to complain after the landlord identified a lack of insulation in the loft in November 2023, as she considered this was the cause of the issues she had experienced since 2019.
Whilst we acknowledge the resident’s explanation, from the available records we have not seen evidence that the resident reported concerns to the landlord about damp and mould on the first floor of the property before 23 October 2023. Therefore, while the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint this investigation focuses on events from November 2022, which is 12 months prior to the formal complaint being made.
The resident also told us that the damp and mould in the property negatively affected the health of her younger daughter, who was frequently unwell. Often when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of medico-legal reports. This will give an expert opinion on the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This will be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation. If the resident wants to pursue the impact on the health of her family further, she should seek independent legal advice. The Ombudsman will still consider distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s actions.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould

The landlord’s responsive repair policy says that it will:
1. deliver all emergency repairs, those which pose a threat to the customer or their home, within 24 hours of being notified of the repair request
2. deliver non-emergency repairs within 28 days of being notified of the repair request.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy describes that:
1. it assigns reports of damp and mould into categories depending on the level of intervention required:
  1. stage 1 is support and guidance to the resident or low-level interventions such as damp and mould wipe downs
  2. stage 2 is minor repairs or replacements of components, such as additional ventilation
  3. stages 3 and 4 are larger scale repairs such as new roofs or largescale plumbing works
2. in all circumstances, the landlord will contact the resident within a maximum of 6 months to see if the intervention has been successful and arrange any additional actions.
From the available records we have not seen that the resident reported issues with mould from November 2022 until 23 October 2023. The landlord records that the resident reported an uncontrollable roof leak on 15 November 2022, which was causing damp patches, but mould was not mentioned. The landlord attended the following day to fix the roof leak. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the landlord’s responsive repair policy for emergency repairs.
Following the resident’s report of damp and mould on 23 October 2023, the landlord attended on 1 November 2023 to carry out a mould washdown. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, considering the level of intervention required was not known at this point, this was a reasonable first step for the landlord to take in line with its damp and mould policy. This also happened in an appropriate timescale in line with the landlord’s responsive repair policy.
On 6 November 2023 the resident reported that the damp and mould had returned following the mould wash. The landlord reopened the repair request to treat the mould.
The landlord attended on 14 November 2023. In its repair log it recorded:
1. it considered the cause of the mould was that the soffits (the underside of the roof edge) were allowing too much airflow into the loft space
2. it increased the insulation to limit the airflow and prevent further condensation and dampness building up
3. if the problem persisted, it may need to adjust the vents on the soffits
4. it had arranged for another mould wash to take place on 22 November 2023
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the actions the landlord took were reasonable in line with its damp and mould policy, considering the stage 1 intervention had not resolved the problem. The landlord also carried this repair out in line with the timescales in its responsive repair policy.
The resident told the landlord on 13 December 2023 that the mould in her bedroom appeared to be returning. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property. Due to the resident’s availability and the Christmas period, the first appointment the landlord could offer was 29 December 2023. The resident told the landlord on 29 December 2023 she would have to cancel the inspection that day due to needing to take her daughter to a hospital appointment.
The landlord rescheduled the surveyor’s inspection to take place on 18 January 2024, 36 days after the resident reported the further damp and mould. Though this was outside of the timescales for non-emergency repairs, the Ombudsman’s opinion is that, in all the circumstances, the landlord did not unreasonably delay carrying out the inspection.
The landlord’s surveyor attended on 18 January 2024. They recorded the following from the inspection:
1. loft insulation had recently been increased which should have addressed the cause of the damp and mould but as mould has reoccurred in the rear bedroom of the property there may still be an issue to address
2. a new extractor fan has been installed in the bathroom and the resident was given advice about using this to effectively reduce condensation
3. the resident said the issue with mould in the front bedroom had improved since the landlord adjusted the insulation. The surveyor noted small patches of mould in the corners of the room which they considered were the result of condensation. They gave the resident advice about preventing this.
4. there was a patch of mould in the back bedroom which may be due to an ongoing structural problem but there was also a condensation issue in the room. The resident was given further advice about this.
5. the surveyor recorded that externally, there appeared to be a gap between the roof tiles and guttering on the rear corner of the property which should be investigated
6. the resident had asked about decorations and compensation. The surveyor noted there were redecoration issues as the anti-mould paint the landlord’s contractor had applied had caused the paint to peel away from areas of the ceiling of the resident’s bedroom. The surveyor told the resident that they cannot make a decision about reimbursement but would ask the landlord to consider this.
The surveyor concluded that the mould in the property was manageable and they had given the resident advice on adjusting heating and ventilation to prevent further condensation. The surveyor recommended the landlord carry out further work to re-inspect the insulation and detailing of the roof at the rear corner to confirm there were no structural issues. The landlord created a repair request for this the following day.
The landlord completed the further work recommended by the surveyor on 16 February 2024. It records that it removed and refixed the loose roof tiles and fitted another ventilation unit to the roof. This was appropriate in line with the timescales in the landlord’s responsive repair policy.
On 3 May 2024, the landlord emailed the resident to ask whether she had experienced any further issues with damp and mould since the surveyor’s attendance. It asked her to respond within a week and provide further details and photos if there were ongoing issues with damp and mould. The resident did not respond, so the landlord closed the case on 10 May 2024 and noted it would review this within 6 months. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the landlord’s damp and mould policy.
In summary the Ombudsman’s opinion is that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reports of damp and mould. The landlord acted in line with its policies when deciding on the type of intervention to make in response to the damp and mould and delivered this in appropriate timescales.

The landlord’s offer of compensation

The landlord’s compensation policy says that:
1. where damage to a customer’s personal belongings occurs, the customer should submit a claim through their contents insurance. If the damage is due to a service failure on the landlord’s part, it may pay the policy excess.
2. where a customer does not have contents insurance, has lost essential items and cannot afford their replacement, the landlord will offer support with grant applications.
3. if its contractor causes damage due to neglect when undertaking repair works, the landlord will attempt to remedy this and this may include a payment to the customer directly.
On 1 July 2014, shortly after her tenancy began, the resident signed a disclaimer with the landlord about home insurance. The disclaimer stated:
1. the landlord had explained to the resident about the importance of insuring her home
2. it is the resident’s responsibility to arrange home contents insurance
3. if she does not arrange home contents insurance the landlord would not compensate her if her home contents were ‘lost, stolen or damaged in any way’.
As set out previously the landlord refused to provide compensation for damaged personal belongings in its stage 2 response. In this it:
1. advised that in line with this service’s guidance on remedies the landlord does not consider it should provide financial redress for items that should have been covered by insurance
2. advised the resident to make a claim through her home content insurance for the damage to her personal items
3. gave the resident details of an organisation that may be able to provide a grant to replace items if the resident did not have home contents insurance
It is perhaps important to point out that contents insurance will only usually cover sudden and unexpected damage. There is often a standard exclusion called the ‘gradually operating cause’ exclusion. The Financial Ombudsman Service’s website states:

“Policy exclusions will explain under which circumstances you won’t provide cover – these often include damage that’s been caused gradually.

Gradual damage is also called a ‘gradually operating cause’ exclusion in policies.”

“Some damage to a home or its contents happens gradually over time. For example, mould isn’t usually something that suddenly appears.”

That means even if the resident had a contents insurance policy, the claim for damaged contents and clothes may not have been covered. The landlord should have considered the damaged clothes or considered referring the matter to its liability insurer.
If the damage had been caused due to an unreasonable delay in the landlord resolving the damp and mould in line with its repair obligations then it should have considered providing compensation to reflect this.
In terms of redecoration at stage 1 the landlord offered the resident £300 as reimbursement in recognition that the resident said she had needed to repaint the bedroom multiple times at her own expense. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the stage 1 offer was reasonable based on the information available to it at the time.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did not change the offer of £300 as reimbursement for redecorating costs. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was not reasonable. Between the stage 1 and stage 2 responses, the landlord’s surveyor noted that there were further redecorating issues. Namely that its contractor’s use of anti-mould paint had caused the paint on the ceiling of the resident’s bedroom to peel away.
In line with its compensation policy, the landlord should have considered the damage caused by its contractor and offered to remedy this for the resident or reimburse her for the new costs of redecorating. There is no evidence the landlord did this, which is a failing.
In summary, there was a service failing as its offer of reimbursement did not fully reflect the detriment to the resident because the landlord failed to consider the further damage to the decorations. The landlord failed to consider that damage caused by mould would not be covered under a contents policy and should have considered this under its discretionary compensation policy or allowed the resident to raise a claim with its liability insurer.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for compensation.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of this determination:
1. contact the resident to confirm the redecorations to the ceilings will be covered if it has not already
2. if the redecoration has not been completed the landlord must offer to redecorate the damage caused by its contractor. It must complete this within 28 days of this determination.
3. if the resident has already redecorated the landlord must consider from the resident’s costs an appropriate offer to reimburse her for this expense. The landlord is only obliged to do this where the resident provides a receipt confirming the amount paid for the decorations damaged by the contractor. The landlord must ensure any payments are made within 28 days of the date it receives proof of payment from the resident.
4. the landlord must reconsider the damaged contents. It must consider whether it will offer a contribution under its discretionary policy or provide details to the resident of its liability insurer. It must write to the resident within 28 days of the date of this determination setting out how it will handle the claim for damaged contents.
5. provide evidence to the Ombudsman of its compliance with the Orders above.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the resident the £475 it previously offered her if it has not already done so.