The Guinness Partnership Limited (202313653)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313653

The Guinness Partnership Limited

29 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:
    1. Damp and mould in the property.
    2. A mite infestation.
    3. The complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 2-bedroom house. She lives in the property with her adult son. The resident has reported that she has arthritis and fibromyalgia. She said her son has obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), autism, and dyspraxia.
  2. On 26 July 2023, the resident contacted an executive director within the landlord staff. She said she had to lodge a complaint due to mould mites and damp and mould in her property. She said she also had rising damp which was crumbling the brickwork on the outside walls. The resident said she had complained at the end of January 2023, however, the issue spanned back over 6 years. She said she had been unable to use her kitchen for weeks and this was due to the mould mites. She said she had not been offered compensation for buying her own food and she could not afford to keep doing so. She said she felt the landlord had been cutting corners which had resulted in the problems she was currently experiencing.
  3. On 1 August 2023, the landlord logged a formal complaint from the resident for the reasons outlined above. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 29 August 2023. It stated the following:
    1. The resident initially reported the damp and mould on 30 November 2022. It attended on 9 December 2022, but it found the resident had already cleaned the mould and treated it with antifungal paint. It then carried out a routine survey of the property on 16 January 2023 in which mould was identified in the kitchen. It said it arranged a further visit on 10 March 2023. It acknowledged that the visit was outside of its usual timescales and apologised.
    2. It confirmed that at the visit it was noted that the home would benefit from a specialist inspection. The specialist inspection took place on 17 June 2023, which it again acknowledged was outside of its usual repair timescales. It said the inspection reported that the property would benefit from a positive input ventilation unit to be fitted in the loft and a sealed fan unit in the kitchen. It also advised that damp and mould treatment was required in the living room and kitchen. It said it completed the damp and mould treatment on 7 August 2023.
    3. A comprehensive survey of the home was carried out on 23 August 2023. It said no active damp and mould was found. However, further works would be carried out to prevent any further mould. This included clearing the guttering, patching the hallway ceiling, repointing external brickwork, and applying paint in the living room and kitchen. It was also agreed that the resident would be issued with £150 in decorating vouchers following completion.
    4. The resident reported the mites on 14 July 2023 and it arranged for its pest contractor to attend on 1 August 2023. The contractor carried out initial treatment but needed to return once the mould had been treated. It was sorry to hear that the resident had not had use of her kitchen. It acknowledged that her son had OCD and would refuse to eat anything from the kitchen.
    5. It said the resident was offered a temporary kitchen pod which she had refused. It said they discussed potentially moving her into a temporary hotel, but it would not be suitable due to her son’s needs and her pets. It said the contractor had provided reassurances that the mites were not harmful to humans. It said as it had offered reasonable alternatives, it would not compensate the resident for the takeaway food she had paid for but offered a goodwill gesture of £150.
    6. It upheld the complaint and acknowledged there had been a delay in carrying out the mould works from the time it was initially reported. It apologised and said it had provided feedback to its maintenance team. It outlined the future actions it would take and offered £425 in compensation. This was broken down as £25 for the delay in responding to the complaint, £250 for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience, and the £150 goodwill gesture outlined above.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 31 August 2023. She said it felt like the landlord was taking so long to do anything about the issues. She referred to missed appointments by the pest contractor and that not enough had been done to address the damp and mould. She further explained why the decant and the kitchen pod were not suitable options for her. The resident felt she should have been offered compensation or food vouchers for not having use of her kitchen facilities.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 October 2023 which outlined the following:
    1. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about rising damp and stated that its service manager had confirmed there was no rising damp. It said the damp and mould in the home was consistent with condensation. It said the visit on 23 August 2023 showed no concerns with the readings. It said alongside treating the mould it was completing additional repairs to prevent excess moisture. This included the positive input ventilation (PIV) system and repointing to the external brickwork.
    2. It said the pest contractor assessed the infestation and never advised that the kitchen was not safe to use. They advised that as long as food was kept sealed and areas were wiped regularly, then there was no risk to the resident’s health. It noted that on its inspection there were no visible signs of the mites. It acknowledged that the resident did not want to use the portable cooking amenities in her living room, it said she felt it would lead to the spread of mites. It said its pest contractor advised that that would not be the case as mites feed on mould. It confirmed that as reasonable alternatives were offered it would not be reimbursing the resident for the costs of eating out. It referred to the goodwill gesture offered in its stage 1 response.
    3. It provided an update on the outstanding repairs which included the PIV, lead capping on the roof, and the repointing of brickwork. It confirmed that these would be arranged with the resident.
    4. It upheld the complaint due to the repairs taking longer than they should have done. It apologised for the distress caused and offered an additional £75 in addition to the previous £425 offered at stage 1. It said the £75 was for the additional delays in completing the repairs. It said it would look to conduct a review of its internal processes to learn from its failures.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident said she wanted all the works to be completed properly and the landlord to investigate the rising damp and brickwork. She said she wanted compensation for the food she had to throw away and damage to her belongings. She said the landlord had treated her in a disgusting way which had not helped with her own and her son’s health.

Post internal complaints process

  1. On 18 July 2024, the landlord wrote a letter to the resident. It said that during the process of preparing the information for the Ombudsman it had identified failures in how it handled the complaint and apologised for that. It stated that it was not empathetic towards the resident in its complaint responses and failed to address the impact on her son’s health. It said following the outcomes provided there were further delays in completing the repairs and it should have reviewed the offer of compensation. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had made further reports of damp and mould, it said there were delays, and evidence of it taking no action. It offered further compensation of £1,150 and outlined changes it had made to improve its services.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has stated that she has had damp and mould over a lengthy period of time, which likely caused considerable distress and inconvenience. However, paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme outlines that we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. As the resident raised her formal complaint in August 2023, the investigation will not consider the historical complaints. However, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould from August 2022 onwards.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property

  1. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), 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 mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident made a report related to damp and mould in the property on 30 November 2022. The landlord attended on 9 December 2022 but found that the resident had already cleaned and treated the mould with antifungal paint. It was reasonable for the landlord to then arrange for a survey of the property in January 2023.
  3. It was not disputed in the landlord’s complaint responses that there were delays in it carrying out the repairs to address the issue. However, the repair notes from the inspection in January 2023 stated that there was “severe damp/mould in kitchen” and said “HHSRS SEVERE”. The records also show the resident chasing an appointment following the inspection on numerous occasions. The landlord initially provided the resident with an appointment date for 28 February 2023, but it is unclear why it did not go ahead.
  4. Given the findings of the inspection in January, the delays were not acceptable. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with the report from the inspection. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have shown how it assessed the habitability of the home, considered any risks to the household, and to have outlined what action was required to remedy the issue. It is a failing that it does not appear to have done so.
  5. The next visit did not take place until 10 March 2023 and it was decided that the property required a specialist inspection. Given the concerns raised in the previous inspection, the landlord should have identified this sooner. The specialist inspection took place on 27 June 2023, 5 months after the landlord recorded that there was severe damp and mould in the property. While the landlord acknowledged its delays in its complaint responses, it did not provide the reasons why. It is concerning that despite the resident chasing the landlord, little action was taken within that time.
  6. The landlord’s record’s show that on 13 July 2023, the landlord replaced all silicone on the windows, cleaned the mould on all windows, and renewed loft insulation where required. While these were positive actions to take, these were not the actions identified in the specialist inspection.
  7. The specialist inspection identified that the property would benefit from a PIV and a sealed fan unit in the kitchen. It advised that damp and mould treatment was required in the living room and kitchen. Again, it was positive that remedial actions were identified. However, the PIV and fan works remained outstanding at the time of the stage 2 response in October 2023, which was not appropriate. The resident reported mould mites in July 2023, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s poor handling of the damp and mould likely attributed to the infestation.
  8. While damp and mould treatment was carried out on 7 August 2023, this was not within the landlord’s repair timescales, and it should have been a priority following the reported mites. The resident reported that the treatment was not sufficient, and the landlord carried out a further survey in the home on 23 August 2023. The survey concluded that no damp and mould was found in the property at the time of the visit. However, it identified that works to the guttering, hallway ceiling, repointing brickwork, roof works, mould resistant paint in the living room and kitchen were required to prevent mould in the future.
  9. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that it had cleared the gutters on 13 September 2023 and applied the paint. However, all remaining repairs were outstanding with no specified dates for completion, which was not appropriate. It stated that it had completed the necessary repairs, however, this was not accurate for the reasons outlined above.
  10. Where there are acknowledged failings and remedies are awarded for these by a landlord, the role of the Ombudsman is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances of the case. The determination takes into account whether its offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  11. In this case, the landlord acknowledged that there were delays in its handling of the resident’s reports and her complaint. In view of this, it apologised and offered a total of £350. It said it would look to conduct a review of its internal processes. While the landlord took some steps to put things right for the resident, it did not go far enough.It is concerning that by the stage 2 response, most of the required works remained outstanding with no clear plan for when they would be actioned. It is also concerning that in the letter sent to the resident following the stage 2 response, the landlord did not appear to have learnt from the outcome. This is evident in it stating that it did not respond to further reports of damp and mould and that the issue was ongoing.
  12. The landlord’s poor handling of the damp and mould in the property, likely caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. This is evidenced in her having to chase the landlord and referring to the impact it was having on both her and her son. For these reasons, and the failures identified, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property. Orders will be made with the aim of putting things right for the resident.

The landlord’s handling of a mite infestation

  1. The HHSRS refers to pests and the hazards which could result from their access into a dwelling. Mould mites feed on mould and the hazards related to damp and mould are outlined above.
  2. The landlord does not have a specific pest policy. However, its estate and neighbourhood management policy states that it is responsible for managing the infestation of vermin when the cause is a result of a defect to the building. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s delays in resolving the damp and mould would have likely contributed to the infestation, and therefore the landlord had a responsibility to manage the issue.
  3. The resident first reported the issue on 14 July 2023 and the landlord confirmed that she had sent it a video of the mould mites too. The resident said her son would not eat anything in the kitchen and she would have to buy his food. Pest control attended the property on 1 August 2023 but said nothing could be done until the damp and mould was treated. The damp and mould was treated on 7 August 2023. Pest control did not attend again until 12 September 2023 and there were no further reports of mould mites following that appointment. The Ombudsman finds that there were unnecessary delays in resolving the issue.
  4. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that following the resident’s initial report, the landlord should have prioritised an appointment to treat the damp and mould in the property. In an email dated 19 July 2023, the landlord was made aware that pest control would not be effective until the issue with the damp and mould was dealt with. It is a failing that the landlord did not then action this sooner.
  5. While it was positive that the landlord requested a welfare check for the resident, it is not clear what the outcome of that visit was. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to have carried out a risk assessment in line with the HHSRS and following the resident’s reports that the kitchen was not usable. This would have assisted the landlord in determining whether the home was habitable, any additional support required, and whether a temporary decant was necessary. In the inspection report dated 23 August 2023 it was noted that there was no further damp and mould and it stated that the property was habitable. However, there was no reference to the mould mites.
  6. In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that it had discussed potentially moving the resident into a hotel until the treatment was carried out. It said a temporary decant would not have been suitable due to her son’s needs and her pets. It said it had offered reasonable alternatives to the resident and that was why it would not compensate her for her food expenses. It is unclear what options were discussed with the resident and whether the landlord had considered whether it could meet the needs of the household. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered this in line with both its decant policy and reasonable adjustments policy.
  7. In an internal email dated 3 October 2023, the landlord stated that it would not have decanted the resident and her son as the mites were not harmful to humans. The landlord’s responses regarding the decant were therefore confusing. While it referred to the possible decant in its stage 1 response as an alternative solution, it did not do so in its stage 2 response. This makes it difficult for the Ombudsman to conclude whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances.
  8. On 17 August 2023, the landlord contacted the pest contractor to query whether the resident’s kitchen was usable with the mites in place. The contractor responded and said it was as long as the surfaces were cleaned, and food was in sealed containers. In the stage 2 response the landlord stated that the pest contractor never said the kitchen was not safe to use. The Ombudsman has seen differing opinions from the landlord’s staff regarding the usability of the kitchen. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have clarified what was communicated to the resident and when. The Ombudsman has not had sight of such communication and therefore it is again difficult to determine whether the landlord’s response was reasonable.
  9. The landlord has made reference to both a “kitchen pod” and a “mini-hob” as an alternative which was offered to the resident. It is unclear which one was discussed with the resident. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that she believed she was offered a 2-ring electric hob, which she felt was a health and safety hazard as she had nothing to place it on in her living room. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged the resident’s son’s OCD, and that the kitchen pod would have allowed the resident to cook in the property. If the landlord was offering a “kitchen pod” over a hob, then that may have been a reasonable solution. However, it does not appear that this was fully explained to the resident and as such, the issue remained.
  10. The landlord also stated that the resident felt the mites would be attracted to the food. However, there are 3 recorded occasions where the resident explained she was concerned the use of a kitchen pod/hob would exacerbate the damp and mould in the living room. The resident’s concerns were valid, and the landlord did not do enough to address her concerns. The response regarding the mites being attracted to mould, not food, did not evidence that the landlord had understood the impact on the resident.
  11. Overall, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the mould mite infestation. There were delays in resolving the issue and the landlord did not fully assess the risks and the impact on the resident. In not doing so, the landlord’s decision making was not always clear or empathetic to the situation. While the landlord offered a goodwill gesture of £150 towards the food costs, it did not go far enough to support the resident during the period where she had reported a mite infestation. The Ombudsman finds it reasonable to award further compensation for the resident’s loss of use and enjoyment of her kitchen.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered

  1. There were delays in the landlord’s complaint responses at both stage 1 and stage 2, which were not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. While the landlord acknowledged its delays in its stage 1 response and offered £25, it did not acknowledge the delays at stage 2. Similar to its stage 1 response, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer further compensation. It would also have been reasonable for it to have outlined what it would do differently in future to ensure it does not repeat the same mistakes.
  2. In the apology letter dated 18 July 2024, the landlord acknowledged its poor complaint handling and offered a further £150 in compensation. It also outlined the improvements it had made since the resident’s complaint to improve its complaints services, which was appropriate. The Ombudsman therefore finds the landlord’s overall redress and total compensation of £175 in relation to its complaint handling was reasonable.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 response provided on 3 October 2023 confirmed that the resident had exhausted its internal complaints process. The resident remained dissatisfied with the response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. The landlord then sent a letter to the resident on 18 July 2024 in which it said it had identified failures in how it handled the resident’s complaint at the time. It also noted further failings in its handling of the damp and mould after the stage 2 response. We encourage landlords to keep working with residents to resolve complaints, even after the matter has gone to the Ombudsman. However, to ensure transparency and consistency, the Ombudsman does not encourage landlords to revise responses and compensation on the basis that residents have approached the Ombudsman.
  4. As already identified, the landlord’s complaint responses lacked empathy with the resident’s situation. It is positive that this was acknowledged in its letter dated 18 July 2024. It outlined the learning and changes it had made in line with its failings, which was appropriate. This included a new training programme for complaint handlers, a new complaints policy in April 2024, and a new identification process for damp and mould. The landlord also offered further compensation to account for the impact on the resident and her son for its delay in resolving the repairs. It is positive to see the changes which had been made and the landlord’s recent learning. However, it is concerning that these were not identified in the stage 2 response.
  5. Overall, the landlord offered £1,650 in compensation which was broken down as follows:
    1. £500 it offered in its stage 2 response.
    2. £150 for its poor complaint handling, offered in its apology letter.
    3. £1,000 for the time trouble and inconvenience caused by its delay resolving the repairs in the home and the impact it had on the resident and her son.
  6. The compensation for the time, distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. However, the Ombudsman finds it reasonable to award an additional £210 in compensation. This is to account for the resident’s loss of use and enjoyment of her kitchen for 8 weeks while waiting for the infestation to be properly resolved. This is calculated at approximately 25% of the resident’s rent (£105.69) at the time.
  7. The resident also referred to wanting to be reimbursed for damaged belongings in her kitchen which she said were a result of the infestation. It is unclear whether this was reported to the landlord at the time, however, an order will be made for the landlord to provide the resident with its insurance details. This is to enable the resident to make a claim for her damaged belongings, should she wish to do so.
  8. The Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a mite infestation.
    3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman has had sight of a recent damp and mould inspection report dated May 2024. The landlord must provide a schedule of works for all the outstanding actions from the report and any other actions it has since identified, with defined timescales for the work to be completed. A copy of this report must be shared with the Ombudsman and the resident.
  2. The landlord must pay the resident a total £1,860. This is inclusive of the £1,650 it previously offered.
  3. The landlord must provide the resident with its insurance details.
  4. The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.