Walterton and Elgin Community Homes Limited (202220044)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220044

Walterton and Elgin Community Homes Limited

16 July 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 response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and request for windows to be replaced.
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The landlord has no registered vulnerabilities recorded in respect of the resident. The resident did however inform the landlord during the complaint process that she was on medical leave from work and that her child was autistic. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
  2. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She said that in February 2022 she had reported that her windows needed to be replaced. She said that she was experiencing black mould throughout her property. She said the landlord attended in March 2022 and concluded that the windows needed to be replaced. A quote was provided by the landlord, and she also obtained independent quotes. She said that she was willing to contribute 25% of the cost.
  3. She was led to believe that the works would go ahead but on 30 June 2022 she was told that she had to contribute 50%. No explanation was provided as to why and she did not consider this was in accordance with her lease. She was provided with a document that stated she was responsible for internal frames and windows. She said this was not part of the lease when she purchased the property. If it was, she wanted to know why she had not been advised of this earlier.
  4. The landlord responded it said that it was responsible for replacing the frames. The resident was responsible for replacing the glass. It had inspected the property and concluded that works were required to 2 window frames. The resident had asked the landlord to carry out works to all windows in the property including the replacement glass. The landlord agreed but it asked the resident to pay 50%. This option was a good will gesture. It said this was because the resident was responsible for the glass and works were not required to all windows. It provided the relevant clauses of the lease.
  5. It did not uphold her complaint but provided the following options to try to resolve the matter.
    1. It could go through the s20 process to complete the works to all the properties in the block. This would mean the resident would be liable for 25% of the total works. This would be considerably more than the 50% for works to the resident’s property.
    2. The resident could pay 50% charge for the works to be caried out to her property alone. As works were not required to all windows in the property this was a good will gesture.
  6. The resident requested a stage 2 complaint. She disagreed with the landlord. She said that works were required to all windows. She wanted to know why she had not been advised that only 2 windows required replacement. She said she was willing to pay 25% towards replacement of her windows in accordance with her lease.
  7. The landlord responded it said. Only 2 out of the 7 frames in the flat required maintenance. It had previously offered to refurbish 3 of the frames but the resident had declined. It had also tried to send an independent contractor to complete an assessment, but the resident had refused. It understood that she had declined the offer to her to pay 50%. It agreed that was the best approach. The only appropriate approach now was that it would refurbish the external frames which need work,
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as she believed that all windows required replacement to alleviate the mould and drafts in the property.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has a responsibility under 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.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) highlights the potential harm that damp and mould can cause. It provides recommendations for landlords. This includes adopting a zero-tolerance approach and proactively reviewing the homes and buildings landlords manage or lease.
  3. It is noted that the resident has stated that she considers that the issue has exacerbated her and her child’s health. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the actions or inaction of the landlord and any medical conditions. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her and her child’s health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
  4. The landlord’s maintenance procedures manual states that in most cases it has no obligation to undertake work within a leaseholder’s property, but leaseholders have an obligation to contribute to the cost of any work that affects the structure of their block.
  5. The lease states that the leaseholder is responsible for the internal joinery, the glass furniture and mechanisms of the window. It states the landlord is responsible for the main structure and exterior. It should also maintain, repair, redecorate, and renew the external window frames.
  6. The lease also states that the leaseholder should pay the landlord the specified proportion of the estate service provision. It goes on to state that a specified proportion in relation to the Service Charge means 25% but in relation to the estate service provision it means such proportion as is in the reasonable opinion of the surveyor.
  7. The landlord explained that its proposals in respect of the windows were outside of the terms of the lease and offered as a gesture of good will. This Service is unable to determine the reasonableness of the landlord’s offer to replace some or all of the windows. This Service will however consider whether the landlord has responded appropriately to the issues raised by the resident. We will consider whether it has done enough to try to resolve those issues. Also, whether it has acted in accordance with its obligations, policies, procedures and what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  8. In March 2022, the landlord inspected the windows. This was in response to the resident raising several concerns in February 2022 about damp and mould on the windows and in the property. She said she considered the windows needed changing as they let in a lot of cold air and were not energy efficient.
  9. This Service has recently contacted the landlord again and asked for a copy of the relevant inspections. The landlord has not responded. This is a record keeping failure. Furthermore, the records do not show whether any inspections were shared with the resident. Inspections should ideally be shared even when the resident is a leaseholder. Sharing inspections helps residents understand the findings and be clear on next steps. This also ensures that the resident’s expectations are managed.
  10. There is no evidence to show that the landlord had completed any risk assessments in respect of the damp and mould. It had been put on notice in February 2022 that there was damp and mould and concerns about drafts within the property. The resident had expressed her personal concerns that the damp and mould was posing a health and safety risk as well as the financial strain of higher energy costs.
  11. By not completing a detailed inspection the landlord failed to show that it had identified whether it had any responsibilities to repair. The landlord took the resident’s belief that the windows were the cause of the damp and mould. While she may have been correct there is no evidence to show that any professional assessments had been completed to confirm this. This does not evidence a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. An order has been made in respect of this below.
  12. Within its stage 1 response the landlord set out its position in respect of its responsibilities to maintain the window frame under the lease. It also explained that its inspection had concluded that works were required to only 2 window frames. This Service had not had sight of any inspections to agree or disagree with this finding. The landlord did however provide options outside of the terms of the lease as a good will gesture. This was reasonable and showed that the landlord was trying to resolve the issues with the windows.
  13. The landlord failed however to show how it had communicated its proposals with the resident. In particular the outcome of its inspection and next steps. The records do not provide any evidence to show that it had explained its proposals clearly to the resident prior to its stage 1 response. If it wished to depart from the terms of the lease, it should have made this clear. The landlord’s poor communication was a failing in its handling of the matter.
  14. The correspondence provided clearly shows that the resident did not understand why she was required to contribute 50%. The resident had spent considerable time and effort over a 5-month period gathering quotes, facilitating access and providing information on request. Her expectations had not been managed by the landlord. This was inappropriate and did not foster a good landlord and tenant relationship.
  15. The landlord reiterated its position within its stage 2 response. It said that it had sent out an independent contractor to do an independent assessment, but this had been refused. It is unclear what this assessment was for. It withdrew its original offers made in its stage 1 response based on the resident’s refusal to accept. It said that it was still willing to refurbish the relevant window frames where it had identified that repairs were required. It said this was in accordance with its obligations under the lease. The resident disputed the landlord findings as she considered that all the windows required replacement.
  16. In summary the landlord failed to show that it had investigated the reports of damp and mould to determine whether it was responsible for any repairs. It failed to communicate with the resident in a sufficient manner in respect of its proposals to replace windows. This led to distress and inconvenience to the resident. The resident was concerned that the damp and mould was impacting her health. The landlord was unable to show that it had done all it could. This Service has therefore found maladministration in its handling of the matter.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy gives ten working days for a stage one complaint response, and 20 working days for a stage two response. In this case, the stage one response took 11 working days which was only slightly outside of its own timescales.
  2. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to address all of the issues raised by the resident. In particular the resident’s concerns about damp and mould. It also failed to investigate how it had communicated with the resident in respect of the inspections and next steps. This was a failing but also a missed opportunity to put matters right at a much earlier stage. The complaint handling failings caused the resident time and effort having to pursue her complaint further.
  3. The stage one complaint response did provide clarity in respect of the landlord’s position regarding the window replacement. It also sought to find a resolution as it offered options to the resident. This showed that it was trying to get the matter resolved.
  4. The stage 1 complaint response however lacked learning particularly in respect of its communication. It was also silent on what it would do to prevent similar happening again. This was a further shortcoming in its handling of the issue. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising concerns about the landlord’s handling of the issues, without receiving a detailed response.
  5. The stage 2 response reiterated its position. It then departed from the original options it had provided. It explained that this was because the resident had declined the options it had provided. The evidence also confirmed that the resident had declined. Its decision to withdraw the options was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. This Service considers the above complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. The responses demonstrated a lack of investigation and curiosity into all elements raised by the resident. The complaint response failed to put things right, consider redress or an apology. The landlord failed to learn from its mistakes. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and request for windows to be replaced
  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 this determination the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay directly to the resident a total of £400. The compensation is broken down as follows:
    1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the windows to be replaced.
    2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
  3. Within 8 weeks the landlord should assess the damp and mould to establish whether it has any repair obligations. The landlord should then set out the findings of the inspection in writing to the resident and this Service also within 8 weeks. The findings should clearly set out the landlord’s obligations (if any) in respect of any remedial action.