The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

The Riverside Group Limited (202220159)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220159

The Riverside Group Limited

29 November 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and subsequent claim for compensation.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and previously lived in a one bedroom, ground floor flat. The Ombudsman understands the resident has now moved property but is still a tenant of the landlord.
  2. In late 2020, suspected issues with the drainage and plumbing were reported as a potential cause of the mould in the bedroom. While there is no record of the outcome of these reports, the landlord has saidthat it ordered investigations and found no issues with either the drainage or plumbing. Guttering at the property was cleared in January 2021, and the landlord has said thata damp survey was completed on 5 March 2021, which found the mould was being caused by condensation.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 23 March 2021. On 26 April 2021 a structural visual report concluded that there was rising damp, and recommended that that a damp repair specialist be appointed.
  4. The landlord provided its stage one complaint on 29 April 2021. It apologised for the delay in investigating the damp issues, and said both the damp survey and structural report that had been commissioned identified a ‘condensation control problem’, which meant the mould was caused by condensation, not rising or penetrating damp. It said it had ordered dehumidistat fans to be installed in the bathroom and kitchen, and a mould wash to be completed in the affected areas. The landlord advised the resident on condensation control measures to reduce the amount of moisture generated in the property, such as adequate heating and ventilation.
  5. Unhappy with this response, the resident escalated her complaint to stage two on 6 May 2021. She remained dissatisfied that the landlord denied the presence of damp, and said it had supplied two conflicting reports as supporting evidence. To resolve the complaint, the resident said she wanted compensation for not being able to sleep in her bedroom.
  6. The landlord renewed the condensation control fans in the property in early May 2021. Around the same time the resident arranged her own damp specialist inspection, and the report dated 25 May 2021 said there was no evidence of rising dampness or water penetration. It said that the presence of mould growth in the bedroom indicated condensation due to lack of air circulation and heat.
  7. The landlord provided its stage two response on 9 July 2021. It said it had now confirmed the issue with mould growth was not due to damp, and was caused by inadequate ventilation and heating. The landlord said it commissioned a structural report, carried out a CCTV drainage survey and checked the plumbing and found no issues. To treat the mould issue, it fitted fans to remove moisture from the air and offered mould washes, though noted the resident refused this treatment. The landlord refunded the resident the cost of the damp survey that she paid for, though refused to reimburse the resident for the dehumidifier she had bought, or the additional cost of electricity to run it. The landlord again refused to compensate the resident for sleeping in her living room, concluding this was her personal choice. It said the resident should clean down the affected area thoroughly with mould spray, and that she could have slept in her bedroom after it was identified the issue was not caused by damp.
  8. The resident moved home in late 2021. She informed the landlord at the time that she had left a mould damaged mattress at the property. Following this, the resident raised a further complaint with the landlord, asking it to compensate her £2,500 for the mattress. In its final response dated 30 September 2022 the landlord did not uphold the complaint, and said its insurer had denied the resident’s claim, suggesting she claim on her own contents insurance policy instead. The resident was unhappy with this, and argued her insurance premiums would likely increase if she made a claim. The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation for complaint handling delays.
  9. The resident brought her complaint to this Service on 2 February 2022. She stated she felt the landlord had been unfair in its response to her, and that the damp and mould issue persisted for a prolonged period and caused her considerable distress. The resident said the property had historic damp issues, the landlord denied this but took action to treat the damp after the resident moved out. To put things right, the resident would like compensation for sleeping in her living room for a year and for her damaged mattress.

Assessment and findings

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

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair- treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. Put things right, and;
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  3. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will ‘undertake effective investigations and implement all reasonable repair solutions and improvements to eliminate damp including managing and controlling condensation’. The policy differentiates between rising damp, penetrating damp and condensation damp, highlighting issues that may increase the risk of condensation. It further states that residents have a responsibility to report issues and allow access.
  4. The landlord has stated that the drainage inspection and CCTV drain survey carried out at the end of 2020 found no issues with the property, although the Ombudsman has not been provided with copies of these reports. The landlord attended the resident’s property again on 25 January 2021 and again acknowledged there was mould in the bedroom. The resident reported concerns about damp in her bedroom on 1 February 2021 and the landlord ordered a damp survey, which was completed on 5 March 2021. The records indicate that the survey found that the mould was caused by condensation, although the Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy. It was appropriate for the landlord to order a survey in response to the resident’s concerns and this was completed within a reasonable time frame.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 April 2021, advising she was contacting it out of ‘sheer desperation’ as the mould issue had been ongoing since she moved in 18 months previously. She said she felt nothing was being done in response to the mould, and she felt the situation was affecting her health after suffering from a stroke. She informed the landlord she was advised not to use her bedroom by her GP, therefore she had been sleeping in her living room. The resident said the mould was worsening and she had purchased a dehumidifier that was collecting 3 pints of water per day, and causing an increase in her electricity costs.
  6. In response to the resident’s ongoing concerns, the landlord arranged the structural visual report, and also fit dehumdistat fans in the property to try and address the condensation issues. Again, the landlord acted reasonably here to try and address the resident’s reports of ongoing problems. The recommendations made by the structural report were then followed, as a further damp specialist inspection was carried out, which concluded there was no rising damp and the issue was caused by condensation, along with a further drain survey, which also found no issues.
  7. Having said this, the landlord did acknowledge there had been some delays in investigating the damp reports, and it is unclear why dehumdistat fans were not considered sooner, given that the issue had been ongoing for a number of months by this time.  However, overall, the landlord took reasonable steps during this period, in line with its damp policy, to investigate and address the resident’s concerns. While (as is addressed below) it appears that further works were identified once the resident had moved out, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the conclusion of both its and the resident’s specialist contractors during this period.

The landlord’s handling of the subsequent insurance claim

  1. The Ombudsman’s ‘guidance on complaints involving insurance’ sets out that a landlord should initially at least consider whether there is any evidence that it has been at fault for any claimed damage to property / belongings and not refer residents straight to an insurer. If the landlord disputes that it has been at fault, it is reasonable for it to follow its policy for such claims and refer to its own insurers. This is because an insurance claim will establish negligence and / or liability to pay.
  2. In December 2022 the resident informed the Ombudsman that she had found out that her old neighbour had been asked to move out so the landlord could carry out works to address damp, and that works were also being carried out in her former property. She felt that this indicated that there had been a damp issue, and that the landlord was ‘liable’ for the damaged mattress.
  3. The evidence available shows that in internal emails from 25 October 2021, the landlord refers to an issue of damp ‘again’ in the block of flats. It states a damp survey carried out suggested an air recycling unit be installed, which was rejected by the landlord. This appears to relate to the March 2021 inspection that was carried out at the resident’s home.
  4. In March 2022, the landlord stated it was reviewing ‘3 reports on what is causing inadequate heat and ventilation/ cold spots within the 3 ground floor flats’. The landlord said positive input ventilation (PIV) vents were being installed in the upper floor flats as a response, but had not yet been installed.
  5. In its stage 1 response to this matter, the landlord advised the resident that “Surveys have revealed the ground floor flats suffer the most from an adequate circulation of heat and air. We are in the process of installing Flat Masters (a low energy positive input ventilation system with heater) in each of the ground floor flats to overcome this problem.” In its September 2022 stage 2 it explained that once the resident had vacated the property it had carried out investigatory work, which confirmed that there was no damp. However, to assist with increasing the ventilation into the property an air brick was installed.
  6. These responses appear somewhat contradictory. While it may be the case that no damp was found, it is clear that following on from the resident’s first complaint, it had been discovered that there was an issue with the resident’s former property that required addressing with a positive input ventilation system and air bricks. In light of this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to at least consider whether there was any evidence that it has been at fault for the claimed damage. There is no indication that it took into account the recent findings of circulation issues at the resident’s former home and whether this contributed to the damaged mattress. However, given that it disputed that it was at fault, it was reasonable that it referred the matter on to its insurer.
  7. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged the fact that an issue had now been found with circulation, which may have contributed to the resident’s prior reports of damp/mould. It could have addressed this in the response and apologised that it was not identified sooner. While, as stated above, the landlord did carry out a number of investigations at the time and it was reasonable for it to rely on the outcomes of those, it is understandable that the resident felt frustrated that such matters had only been identified once she had moved, and the lack of acknowledgment form the landlord likely exacerbated this. In light of this, a finding of service failure is made, and an order for compensation as a remedy to the resident’s frustration.
  8. Regarding the insurance claim for the resident’s damaged mattress, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that: ‘(We) do not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance’. Matters of insurance therefore fall outside the Ombudsman’s remit and therefore we cannot comment on any potential liability claim any further in our investigation. The landlord acted reasonably in facilitating the resident’s claim to her insurers, and signposting her to her own contents insurance policy when this was denied.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states a ‘resolution timeline’ should be agreed with the resident, and a resolution plan should be communicated with the resident within 5 working days of the investigation being completed at stage one. At stage two, the policy states the landlord will provide a response within 10 working days.
  2. It is worth noting the ambiguity of the language used at stage one of the complaints process, and lack of clarity for the resident. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that landlord’s should, as a rule, provide written responses to complaints within 10 working days at stage one, and within 20 working days of receiving a request to escalate to stage two. Recommendations are made below for the landlord to consider simplifying its policy, to prevent further ambiguity.
  3. Regarding the resident’s initial complaint from 23 March 2021, the landlord responded on 29 April 2021, which was 26 working days later. This exceeds the timescales set out in the complaint handling code, and constitutes an unreasonable delay in providing the resident with a response. This was a failing on the part of the landlord.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 May 2021 and the response was provided on 9 July 2021, 45 working days later. As above, this exceeds the timescales set out in the complaint handling code, and constitutes an unreasonable delay in providing the resident with a response. This was a failing on the part of the landlord.
  5. Furthermore, though it is unclear when the landlord recorded the resident’s additional complaint about her request for compensation, given the definition of a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction’ given in its complaint policy, it reasonably ought to have registered a complaint on 25 February 2022. The stage one response for this complaint was provided on 31 March 2022, 24 working days later, which again exceeds expected reasonable timescales. This was a failing on the part of the landlord.
  6. The resident requested this complaint be escalated to stage two on 1 April 2022, and the response was provided 125 working days later. This was a failing on the part of the landlord. The Ombudsman acknowledges the offer of £250 compensation in the stage two response from 30 September 2022, for the time taken to complete the investigation and in recognition of the failure to log a stage two complaint when requested. The Ombudsman’s considers this to be reasonable redress in the circumstances.
  7. While the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, we will take this into account when considering the resident’s circumstances. We recognise that some of our residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s physical and mental health conditions) could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
  8. In light of this, when the resident informed the landlord she had been advised by her doctor not to sleep in her bedroom due to the mould posing a risk to her health, the landlord did not treat the resident appropriately or sympathetically. In the stage two response from 9 July 2021, the landlord stated this was a ‘personal choice’, and “if (the resident) advised your doctor there was damp in your bedroom they would naturally advise you to avoid spending a long length of time in that room until resolved. It was initially confirmed in the first report…on 2 February 2021 that damp was not present. From this point onwards (the resident) could have slept in the bedroom”. This was unreasonable from the landlord, and represents a disregard for the resident’s health concerns.
  9. Overall, there were significant delays in the landlord providing a response to the resident’s complaint, which contributed towards her overall distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble. Compensation is ordered below, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and subsequent claim for compensation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay the resident £300 compensation (made up of £150 for the failings in relation the claim for compensation, and £150 for the complaint handling failings).

 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider adjusting the wording of its complaints policy, to ensure the expected response timescales are clear and unambiguous. This should be in line with the timescales set out in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.