Swan Housing Association Limited (202234533)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234533

Swan Housing Association Limited

18 December 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould problems in his home.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord in a two-bedroom flat. At the time of the complaint he lived in the flat with his partner and five children. It is not apparent if the resident still resides in the property at the time of this report.
3. The landlord’s records show that its contractors attended the resident’s home multiple times in 2021 and 2022 to do mould treatments to parts of it, and replace an extractor fan. Email correspondence refers to there having been similar mould problems in previous years, which had now returned despite the treatments. Internal notes in July 2022 show the resident was concerned about there being underlying problems giving rise to the repeated mould growth.
4. Over the same period, the resident was using multiple home-search services (the landlord’s and the local authority’s) to bid for larger properties to move to.
5. The resident contacted the landlord in February 2023 explaining that the mould had returned to the bathroom and both bedrooms. He said that there was no window in the bathroom (and therefore a lack of ventilation), and the mould treatments had not resolved the problem. He sought a further mould wash, and a permanent solution to the issue. The landlord treated this as a complaint.
6. Internal correspondence between the landlord and its contractor discussed the possibility that the reoccurring mould was due to overcrowding in the property.
7. Contractors attended to conduct a further mould wash immediately after the resident’s report, but it appears they could not complete the work. The landlord discussed the overcrowding issue with its housing team, who confirmed they were already working with the resident, but the property type he needed was rarely available.
8. The landlord sent its complaint response on 23 February 2023. It set out the history of its efforts to treat the mould, and confirmed that a further mould wash was scheduled for early March. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the cause of the mould, and said it was arranging a surveyor to inspect and investigate.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied, and escalated his complaint. He explained that the mould kept coming back, despite the landlord’s efforts, and he believed the problem lay with the building structure and design, part of which was that there was no window in the bathroom. He raised his concerns about the impact on his children’s health, and said he wanted to move.
10. After a visit by one of the landlord’s officers, and attempted visits to do further mould washes, the landlord sent its second complaint response on 27 March 2023. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the design and structure of the flat, explained why installing a window was not feasible, but confirmed that a new extractor fan had been installed. It also acknowledged the resident’s concern about the constant return of the mould, and the direct impact he feared it was having on his family’s health. It arranged for an external ventilation specialist to inspect the property and identify further steps the landlord could take. The landlord set out its understanding that the resident had been unsuccessfully bidding on properties for many years in an attempt to move to a bigger home. It explained how difficult it was for any tenants to find homes to move to, especially larger ones such as he needed. Nonetheless, it said it had arranged for its housing team to contact him to discuss possible options and confirm he was on the correct banding. It concluded by referring the resident to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
11. As arranged, the landlord’s housing team contacted the resident to further discuss his needs, and actively help him bid.
12. The resident brought his complaint to this Service because of his concern that while the landlord was treating the mould when it appeared, he did not believe it was doing enough about the underlying causes, which he felt were the overcrowding and ventilation.
13. The ventilation specialist attended to inspect the resident’s property in May 2023. It confirmed evidence and observations of condensation, damp, and mould, and made recommendations for a range of new ventilation systems in the property (for which it provided a quote). The landlord rejected these findings because of the costs, and it believed the systems already in place were appropriate.
14. In June 2023 the resident told the landlord that he no longer resided at the property, but that is family still did.

Assessment and findings

15. The landlord operates a banding system for its housing allocations. Band 1 is for “ those with the highest level of housing need and an urgent need to move.” Band 2 is for “those with a high level of housing need.” Its policy states that “Band 1 priority will only be given if it is evidenced that the applicant’s current accommodation is having a severely detrimental effect on their medical condition.”
16. The landlord has an extensive and detailed process for responding to a report of damp and mould, including when there is information that people with vulnerabilities are living in the affected property. The process came into effect in December 2022.
17. The evidence provided for this investigation clearly shows that the landlord responded promptly to each report of mould problems from the resident. The work it undertook varied, but included mould washes and treatment, fixes to sources of damp (such as slow drip leaks), skimming affected surfaces, replastering, installing a new extractor fan, and redecorating works to areas affected by the treatment. In general terms, the landlord’s responses were reasonable and appropriate in line with basic good practice when there are serious mould problems.
18. The resident did not specifically raise issues of complaint about the actions the landlord had taken to respond to his reports. His concern was that despite these efforts the mould kept returning. The landlord and contractor’s records for 2021 onwards reflect the same growing awareness, that they were returning on a semi-regular basis, and that while some problem sources were being found and addressed (such as leaks), the underlying problem could be related to non-repair issues of overcrowding and poor ventilation (as there was no natural ventilation in the bathroom, which was one of the worst affected areas). It was appropriate for the landlord to start to consider wider factors in the circumstances of the regular return of the mould, but it is not evident what actions it could have taken at that point (mid-2022) in regard to its suspicions.
19. The landlord’s new damp and mould policy came into effect in December 2022. Soon after, in February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord again reporting the mould had returned and expressing his frustration. Again, the landlord acted speedily to arrange an inspection and new mould washes. At the same time it started to concentrate on the potential underlying issues by ensuring the resident was receiving the appropriate level of assistance in his home bidding. The landlord took a range of initial steps at this point which were appropriate and proportionate, in line with both the resident’s circumstances and the landlord’s detailed policy process, which called for: a prompt inspection, identification of repeat occurrences, logging the property on the landlord’s damp and mould register, and escalation to a higher management level.
20. After receiving the landlord’s first complaint response the resident escalated his complaint at the end of February 2022 on the basis that he did not feel sufficient efforts were being made to either address the ventilation and structure of his flat, or to help him move homes. He clearly set out that he had grave concerns for the health and welfare of his children in the current situation. Another family member wrote to the landlord early in March explaining that one family member had recently been in hospital with symptoms thought to be related to the mould in the home. It is not wholly apparent from the evidence whether this aspect of the problem had been raised with the landlord previously. In the circumstances of a repeat damp and mould issue with no clear resolution available, the landlord’s process calls for further escalation and monitoring at weekly operations meetings. No evidence has been provided showing such regular monitoring. Furthermore, the process calls for consideration of a decant for tenants if there are concerns about a potential risk in relation to the housing health and safety rating system. No evidence of such a consideration has been seen. There is no indication whether a decant for the resident and his family would have actually been possible, or practical. Nonetheless, in the circumstances of the landlord’s process, the resident’s stated desire to move, and the health concerns he was raising, not at least considering the possibility was a failing.
21. As part of its efforts to address the underlying problems the landlord attempted to assist the resident with his bidding on homes, and offering advice. It confirmed that he was registered with the local authority, and with the relevant house bidding schemes. It also confirmed that he was on band 2 for his bidding priority, which was the second highest available. However, the landlord’s policy states that band 1 (the highest priority) is potentially suitable for tenants facing urgent medical circumstances, and who can support their application with appropriate evidence showing their home situation was impacting on medical vulnerabilities. It is not apparent if such formal evidence was provided by the resident. However, there is also no indication that the landlord suggested the possibility, or explained what types of evidence it would need to see to make such a banding change. That was a lost opportunity which potentially could have given the resident better chances at making a successful home bid.
22. As part of its stage two complaint investigation the landlord arranged an inspection of the property ventilation by an external company. That was good practice, in line with the landlord’s processes, and the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould. However, the company it used was also a commercial ventilation supplier, and its inspection report suggests more an effort to commission new business than provide an unbiased assessment of the situation. The landlord’s internal correspondence following receipt of the report (and quote for works) indicates it was of a similar view. It concluded the recommended works were not cost effective, and that the ventilation system already in place was new and appropriate. Given that there are professional organisations available who can provide impartial survey and consultation services but are not involved in actual building work, this exercise appears to have been a missed opportunity to independently review the situation and the landlord’s actions, and consider if anything more might reasonably be done.
23. Overall, much of the landlord’s efforts in response to the resident’s reports and concerns demonstrated good practice, especially in its prompt responses to treat the damp and mould when it reoccurred. The resident’s complaint was more focussed on the underlying causes, which appear to centre on the fact that the property is overcrowded. The landlord clearly appreciated that problem and the resident’s predicament, and took important steps to address the wider issues. However, some steps called for by both the alleged impact on the resident’s family’s health, and the landlord’s processes, were not taken. These were the lack of consideration of a decant, lack of advice and assistance with potentially changing the resident’s banding, and the missed opportunity to arrange an unbiased independent external damp and mould assessment. There is no certainty that any of these might have made a difference to the resident’s situation, but the circumstances called for them to be considered and tried.

Determination

24. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Orders

25. In light of the missed opportunities to provide further advice and support to the resident and his family, the landlord is ordered to pay him compensation of £250. This payment must be made within 5 weeks of this report, and evidence provided to this Service.
26. The landlord is also ordered to review how it uses its damp and mould process and, most importantly, how it documents that the process has been followed or why certain steps in it have not been followed. Evidence of this review must be provided to this Service within 8 weeks of this report.
27. Within 5 weeks of this report the landlord must provide evidence of it working with the resident and his family to consider whether they may be able to improve their banding, and how that might be achieved, or whether a decant for the family might be a suitable short-term solution. Alternatively, the landlord must clearly explain why these options are not relevant, or possible.

Recommendations

28. Given the inconclusiveness of the external ventilation inspection, the landlord should consider commissioning a new inspection of the property by an appropriate and impartial damp and mould consultancy service. This will provide reassurance to both the resident and his family, and the landlord, that all reasonable actions have been taken, or identify options that may not yet have been considered.