West Kent Housing Association (202225004)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225004

West Kent Housing Association

26 October 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

The complaint is about:
1. the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. the landlord’s response to a request for temporary rehousing during works.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling including the landlord’s response to a request for compensation.

Background and summary of events

Background

The leaseholder is a shared owner of a 2-bed lower ground floor flat within a converted public house built circa 1926. He purchased the shared ownership lease in January 2021. Part of the property is below ground level.
The resident reported issues with the timber windows in the property in March 2021 and went on to report damp and mould issues in August 2021. In November 2021 the leaseholder made a formal complaint regarding delays in the landlord’s handling of his reports of damp and mould.
The landlord concluded its internal complaint process in November 2022 and offered the leaseholder compensation for damaged items and for the impact of service failures. The leaseholder is unhappy with the amount of compensation offered and that the damp and mould issue has not been resolved.

Scope of the investigation

In accordance with paragraph 42 (g) of the Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. This Service does not determine liability for damages or award damages in the way that a court might and therefore we are unable to determine liability for the damage to the leaseholder’s belongings or health or order compensation for these issues.
The Ombudsman will however consider the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s request for compensation and whether this was handled reasonably and in line with its own policy and procedures.
This Service recognises that this situation has caused the leaseholder to report experiencing severe distress as he has experienced damp and mould in his property over a prolonged period of time. Aspects of the leaseholder’s complaint relate to the impact of his living conditions on the health of himself and his partner. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman accepts that the leaseholder and her partner have experienced health issues, unlike a court however we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts.
Though the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, it will be taken into account when considering the leaseholder’s circumstances.

The lease

The lease obliges that landlord to maintain and repair the roof and structure of the building, pipework and drainage (except those that exclusively serve an individual flat), and common parts.
Under the terms of the lease the leaseholder is responsible for keeping the glass in the windows and the “interior faces” of the walls (plaster and internal wall and floor linings) in good repair. This does not apply if these items are damaged by an act or default of the landlord.

Landlord policy and procedure

The landlord’s maintenance policy states that routine repairs will be completed within 21 days, planned works will be completed within 12 months.
The landlord defines “severe dampness” and repairs to windows as routine repairs. It defines “repairs to external walls” as planned works.
The landlord’s decant policy states that, for leaseholders, it relies on the terms of the lease and any statutory obligations when deciding whether it has a duty to provide temporary accommodation. It goes on to say that it “may consider providing alternative accommodation if we have been negligent or if doing so may help the progress of essential works”.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. The landlord aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that in cases where there has been a service failure which caused a severe impact, it will pay over £700. The policy also states that where the landlord provides a dehumidifier, residents can claim £4 per day compensation to cover extra costs.

Summary of events

The leaseholder first reported issues with rotten window frames on 3 March 2021. The landlord’s repair history shows that a repair was completed on 6 April 2021.
A further repair was logged for “window frames” on 5 July 2021. This repair shows as being cancelled in April 2022.
The leaseholder telephoned the landlord on 24 August 2021 and stated that the outside of his bedroom window was “rotting/cracking” and that he had been advised this would be repaired. The landlord checked its repair records and noted that a repair had been raised for this previously. The leaseholder advised the landlord that following heavy rain the living room windowsill was “bowing” and the plasterboard underneath the window was damp and cracking.
On 25 August 2021 the landlord raised a further repair order for “window – timber – repair”, the landlord’s repair history shows that this was completed on 31 August 2021.
The landlord wrote to the leaseholder on 1 September 2021 to advise that a damp survey would be completed on 14 September 2021.
On 14 September 2021 the landlord’s damp surveyor carried out an inspection of the leaseholder’s living room and found 2 areas of water ingress. Photographs from the inspection show that damp meter readings were taken from the damp areas around the living room window, these measured 99.9. The photographs show damp patches to the paintwork and black mould to the walls surrounding the window.
On 16 September 2021 the landlord’s repair history shows that a repair job was raised for an external wall inspection. This is shown as completed on 7 October 2021. This Service has not seen any reports associated with this inspection.
The landlord raised a repair job for replacement of the pebble dash on 19 November 2021.
The leaseholder raised a formal complaint on 30 November 2021 regarding the damp and mould in his property and the length of time it was taking the landlord to address the issue.
On 13 December 2021 the landlord telephoned the leaseholder to acknowledge his complaint. The leaseholder emailed the landlord back and attached photographs which showed mould on the back of his bedside cabinets and on the wall and skirting boards behind his bed.
The landlord’s internal emails demonstrate that works to repair pebble dash to the front and side of the property, repair a crack on an archway by the front door, repair a floor level crack near the down pipe were completed on 14 December 2021.
The landlord emailed the leaseholder on 22 December 2021 and stated that due to staff sickness there would be a delay in providing its stage 1 complaint response. It stated that a response would be provided by 6 January 2022.
Internal landlord emails of 4 January 2021 show that there were outstanding repairs to repair, fill, and re-seal window frames.
On 6 January 2022 the leaseholder sent the landlord a list of items that he would need to replace due to damage by damp and mould. The items included bedroom furniture, soft furnishings, clothing and shoes.
On 10 January 2022 the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. The landlord:
1. Provided its understanding of the complaint.
2. Explained what evidence it had considered in its investigation.
3. Provided a repairs history for the damp and mould issue.
4. Acknowledged that there had been a delay of 8 weeks in raising the follow on works to repair the pebble dash to the front and side of the property, repair a crack on an archway by the front door, and repair a floor level crack near the down pipe.
5. Stated that, having taken advice from a damp surveyor, the damage to the leaseholder’s belongings was caused by “high levels of moisture within the property”. While the delays to the repairs “may have been a contributing factor” to the moisture levels, “they are not the overall cause of the damage”.
6. Said that there was no evidence that the 8-week delay caused the damage and all other appointments were completed within the target timeframe.
7. Stated that therefore, it was not able to provide compensation to replace all damaged items.
8. Offered the leaseholder £150 in compensation for the failure to ensure that follow-on works were raised at the right time.
The leaseholder requested an escalation of his complaint on 13 January 2022. The landlord acknowledged the request the following day and stated it would provide a stage 2 complaint response by 10 February 2022.
The landlord’s complaint team emailed the surveyor for information regarding the damp and mould issue on 19 January 2022. On 4 February 2022 it chased the surveyor again for information required to provide its complaint response to the leaseholder. It stated that a lot of time had been ‘lost’ and that there was “no reason to extend” the complaint response timeframe.
On 8 February 2022 the landlord sent and internal email and asked that an order be raised a damp survey to be carried out by an external consultant.
On 3 March 2022 the external consultant carried out a damp survey, the report is dated 8 March 2022. The report stated:
1. There is a raised garden above damp-proof course (DPC) level and the DPC was also “fouled” by raised planting areas.
2. There were a number of defects to the render to the excavated lightwell which “could be allowing moisture ingress”.
3. There was no drip detail to above the head of the window.
4. There was visible dampness to the north wall evident through “defective finishes, mould staining and tide marks on the wall”.
5. Further mould staining was found in localised areas of bedroom 1, bedroom 2 and the hallway.
6. Damp readings were taken and there was a “very high level of internal moisture throughout the property”. The high humidity and dew point were causing condensation to cold spots within the building.
7. Natural ventilation within the property was limited. The windows had no trickle vents and there were no additional natural wall vents.
The damp report recommended that the landlord:
1. Seek a guarantee for damp-proofing works and details (from installation details and drawing) of how moisture build up behind the tanking was designed to be dealt with.
2. Undertake a CCTV survey of drainage routes.
3. Install drip detail to the head of the window.
4. Remove the internal window cill and linings to determine the area of water ingress and tank detailing.
5. Hack off and replace defective render.
6. Investigate window apertures for source of moisture penetration.
The landlord reviewed the external consultant’s recommendations following the damp survey on 21 March 2022 and raised the works recommended in the report.
On 29 March 2022 the leaseholder responded to a request from the landlord for an updated list of items that had been damaged by damp and mould. In addition to the items previously listed, the leaseholder stated that some additional clothing, books, and collectibles had been damaged.
The landlord emailed the leaseholder on 7 April 2022 and advised that it had raised works to:
1. hack off the defective render
2. investigate the window apertures for sources of moisture penetration
3. remove the north windowsill and linings to investigate the water ingress
4. remedy the defective internal detailing
5. Install drip detail to the north window
6. Undertake a CCTV drainage survey
7. Deliver a dehumidifier.
On 18 April 2022 the leaseholder emailed the landlord and stated that he was unhappy with the conduct of its surveyor when he had attended the property within the past week. The leaseholder said that the surveyor kept saying that the issue was “just condensation” and that he kept saying that they were “doing it cheap” and that the leaseholder would have to pay for all the work as they were leaseholders. The landlord replied to the leaseholder on 20 April 2022 and apologised that the leaseholder had experienced this and had requested that the surveyor mentioned by the leaseholder no longer worked on this case.
On 26 April 2022 an external contractor carried out a CCTV drainage survey as recommended in the damp report. The drainage survey found no visible damage to the drainage system.
On 11 May 2022 internal landlord emails show that its contractor carried out further inspections following the damp survey. It found that in some areas, the property’s windows were flush to the wall which caused water to run down the wall and into the window frame. The contractor was investigating ways to route water away from the window which were in keeping with look of the building.
The landlord’s complaint team emailed its legal team on 26 May 2022 stated that it was aware that it had failed in its service to the leaseholder as it “did not attend jobs within the target date and did not complete follow on works”. It also stated that “if [the complaint] were to go to the [Ombudsman] we would not be in a good position so I’m trying to keep this just at stage two”. The landlord stated that it had offered to place the leaseholder’s belongings into storage but that the leaseholder had refused this offer and was now stating that further items had been damaged and that their health was being impacted by the damp and mould. The legal team responded that the leaseholder would be required to “take reasonable steps to mitigate their losses” which would include accepting an offer of storage to prevent further damage to their belongings. The legal team also stated that “There is no provision contained within the lease that requires the landlord to re-house the leaseholder” and advised that the leaseholder contact his insurer for guidance on coverage in respect of temporary accommodation.
On 29 May 2022 the leaseholder provided the landlord with an invoice for rental of a storage unit and receipts for storage boxes.
The landlord emailed the leaseholder on 20 June 2022 and advised that it had raised orders to:
1. re-render the soffit under the external staircase
2. remove 2 windows and replace rotten timber frames
3. remove the window in the master bedroom, replace the defective timber, and re-fit and re-seal the window, add ‘drip detail’ to the head of the bedroom window
4. investigate the soil stack in the bedroom and bathroom for leaks and insulation.
The leaseholder contacted the landlord on 24 June 2022 to confirm that he had installed an extractor fan in the kitchen as advised. He attached a photograph to evidence this.
On 28 June 2022 the landlord offered the leaseholder £1,500 compensation for the damage to his belongings. The leaseholder was unhappy with the offer.
On 10 August 2022 the leaseholder stated to the landlord that he was concerned that the landlord was trying to ‘bodge’ the works “as cheaply as possible” rather than completing them property. He stated that he had been advised by a contractor that the window frames needed replacing in full rather than just the rotten pieces of wood being replaced. The landlord replied the following day and assured the leaseholder that it was trying to carry out the best actions to resolve the damp and mould.
This Service has seen evidence that the landlord paid the resident a total of £3,260 on 16 August 2022. The invoice states that this comprised:
1. £3,000 for “– issues caused with damp and mould money for belongings that have been damaged”
2. £260 “dehumidifier payment”.

It is unclear when the landlord increased its compensation offer from £1,500 to £3,000.

The landlord emailed the leaseholder on 19 October 2022 and advised that it had raised two “final” repair orders for the windows in the kitchen and bedroom 2 to be eased, and for redecoration around the window in bedroom 2. The landlord stated that when the repairs has been completed it would carry out a final visit before providing a final complaint response.
On 4 November 2022 the landlord emailed the leaseholder regarding available appointment dates to inspect the damp and mould at his property.
The leaseholder emailed the landlord on 6 November 2022 and attached photographs which showed water pooling on the internal windowsills. He sent further photographs on 7 November 2022 which show dark patches on the leaseholder’s painted walls, the patches appear to be areas of damp.
The leaseholder emailed the landlord on 8 November 2022 and stated that he had been dealing with the damp and mould issue for nearly 2 years. He said that the physical and mental health of he and his partner were being impacted and their belongings damaged. The leaseholder also stated that, due to the condition of the property, they had put their plans to start a family on hold.
The landlord responded to the leaseholder on 9 November 2022 and advised that it was sorry for the frustration and stress her and his partner were experiencing. It said that it needed to visit to review the work that had been completed and had asked its consultant to carry out a further damp survey.
On 24 November 2022 the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response. It stated:
1. There had been failures in its management of the repairs and communication with the leaseholder. The landlord had not met its standards or followed its processes correctly, the level of service the leaseholder had received was not acceptable.
2. The landlord has failed to raise follow-on works on time and correctly in March 2021 and September 2021.
3. There had been poor communication between the landlord and its contractor which caused confusion and the wrong contractor to attend.
4. The landlord had appointed an external consultant. He visited the property in March 2022 and carried out a full inspection and made recommendations.
5. On 13 June 2022 the landlord visited and raised a number of repair works. These works had been completed but the leaseholder advised the damp and mould problem was not resolved.
6. The leaseholder stated that his partner was “becoming ill” due to the damp and mould and asked to be moved out temporarily until the works had been completed.
7. The landlord’s litigation lawyer advised that there was “no provision contained within the lease that requires the landlord to re-house the leaseholder”. It suggested that he review his insurance provision in respect to temporary accommodation. This advice was provided in May 2022.
8. The landlord had awarded the leaseholder its highest level of compensation due to the severe impact on him. It had made a goodwill payment of £2,500 for damaged goods, and £500 for “severe discretionary”.
9. The landlord had also been paying the cost of keeping some of the leaseholder’s items in storage to protect them from damp and mould from 29 May 2022 to September 2022.
10. Dehumidifiers were provided on 8 April 2022 and the landlord had made payments of £2 per day for the usage of these.
11. The landlord wanted to visit along with its external consultant to review the works and make further recommendations. The leaseholder had advised he was unavailable due to changing jobs.

Events after the final response letter

The landlord’s damp consultant who had carried out the damp survey in March 2022 visited the property again on 8 December 2022 and reported that the issue remained “broadly the same” as at the time of his previous survey. He recommended that the leaseholder leave the bathroom extractor on at all times and leave all internal doors and window trickle vents open to ventilate the property. He advised the landlord that there was a potential issue with the tanking system and recommended that the landlord install a ventilation system that allowed for input of dry air as well as extraction of damp air.
On 14 December 2022 the landlord requested design and quotes for ventilation systems and a quote for the property to be tanked. It also updated the leaseholder and advised him that an issue with the tanking system had been identified and that it was seeking quotes for different options to resolve the issues.
Between 12 January 2023 and 16 January 2023 the landlord communicated via email with a ventilation contractor. The contractor stated that there was not sufficient room in the property for mechanical ventilation heat recovery (MVHR). It also stated that positive input ventilation (PIV) “certainly won’t overcome any existing tanking issues, no ventilation system will” and advised that any damp and mould issues would need to be resolved prior to it installing a ventilation system.
On 6 February 2023 a further damp survey was carried out by a different external consultant. The report is dated 17 February 2023 and stated:
1. There was damp and mould around the windows in the living room, kitchen and both bedrooms. There was also damp and mould growth around the flat entrance door, behind the bed and the wardrobe in bedroom 1, and behind the sofa in the living room.
2. Higher than normal damp readings were observed in the front entrance hall, bedroom 2, and to the right of the kitchen window
3. Since the last damp survey trickle vents had been retrofitted to the windows and extractors installed to the kitchen and bathroom.
4. There was no vertical moisture barrier between the brickwork of the building and raised planter beds to the north and east elevations. Direct contact between the earth and brickwork could be introducing moisture to the brickwork. Installation of a vertical moisture barrier was recommended.
5. There was no heat source in the front entrance hall. This was likely assisting condensation forming. Installation of a radiator in the entrance hall was recommended.
6. The PVCu windows had “reached the end of their lifespan” and required replacement. It was recommended that all external windows and doors be renewed.
7. The new windows should include a suitable drip detail and defective external timber windowsills should be replaced.
8. There was a void under the window board which required insulation.
9. As a precautionary measure, the laminate flooring should be lifted to check there was no moisture present within the floor.
On 4 April 2023 the landlord emailed the leaseholder and stated that it was obtaining quotes for a ventilation system, creating a works schedule for the recommended repairs, and considering window replacements for the property.
The landlord updated the leaseholder on 15 June 2023. It said that it had obtained quotes for additional ventilation and for external damp proofing works. It said that it was still in discussions with the local authority regarding the type of windows it could install and would need to submit a planning application for this.

Assessment and findings

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

The landlord accepts that there have been service failings in its handling of the leaseholder’s reports of damp and mould. It acknowledges that it delayed in correctly raising follow-on works in March 2021 and September 2021. It has also acknowledged that it has failed to communicate effectively with the leaseholder and with its contractor.
The leaseholder first reported damp under his bedroom window in August 2021 having already raised 4 months earlier than the timber window frames were rotten.
This Service accepts that in some circumstances the cause of a repair issue will not be clear and that investigations will need to be carried out to identify the cause. In this case, the landlord carried out reasonable and proportionate investigations by having its own damp surveyor carry out an inspection, and then following this with inspections by external damp specialists and a ventilation specialist.
The first damp survey carried out by the landlord’s surveyor in September 2021, only inspected the living room of the property. As the leaseholder had reported damp in the bedroom, it was a failing that the damp survey was limited to the living room.
Six months after the first damp survey, the landlord commissioned a further report by an external damp specialist. The report recommended several works. The landlord raised some, though not all, of the recommended works 2 weeks later. It is acknowledged that the landlord had to consider the detail of the report however this Service considers that it would have been preferable for the works to have been raised in a timelier and more complete manner.
The landlord then did not provide the leaseholder with an update until almost 3 weeks later in April 2022. More timely communication would have lessened the frustration and distress felt by the leaseholder and this was a failing.
In April 2022, 8 months after damp was reported, the leaseholder was provided with a dehumidifier. This Service considers that it would have been reasonable and proportionate to have provided the dehumidifier earlier to limit the damage caused by the damp and control the development of mould.
The leaseholder raised concerns with the landlord having overhead comments from the landlord’s surveyor that the issue was “just condensation” and that the repair work was being carried out “on the cheap”. This Service cannot evidence that these comments were made however the landlord has accepted the leaseholder’s account and apologised.
It was not until 20 June 2022 that the landlord ordered works to replace the defective render, replace rotten window frames, and install drip details to the windows. As these issues were raised following the damp survey in March 2022 this was an unreasonable delay.
In December 2022 the first external damp specialist returned and suggested a possible issue with the property’s tanking system and recommended that the landlord explore installing a ventilation system. On discussing this option with a ventilation specialist the landlord ascertained that installing ventilation would not resolve the problem if the tanking was defective.
In April 2023 the landlord advised the leaseholder that it was in the process of obtaining quotations to install a ventilation system to the property. This Service considers that it was unreasonable that 4 months after first exploring the option of a ventilation system, it had still not secured quotations.
It is of concern that the landlord appears to have pushed ahead with the option of ventilation despite being advised by a specialist that this would not resolve the damp and mould if there was an issue with the tanking system. An order has been made for the landlord to obtain a specialist opinion regarding whether the tanking at the property is adequate and on the suitability of a ventilation system to address the issue.
In June 2023 the landlord advised that it was in communication with the local authority’s planning department regarding installing new windows to the property. Again, as the windows were identified as being at the end of their lifespan in February 2023, this Service considers that this process should have been started sooner. This was a failing.
Overall, the landlord has carried out reasonable and proportionate investigations into the damp and mould in the leaseholder’s property. It has not however resolved the damp and mould issue which has been ongoing for more than 2 years. The landlord has repeatedly delayed in logging and carrying out works and did not communicate effectively with the leaseholder. The landlord also delayed by 8 months in providing a dehumidifier. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.

The landlord’s response to a request for temporary rehousing during works

The landlord was within its rights to refer to the terms of the lease to determine whether it was obligated to provide the leaseholder with temporary accommodation. The landlord took legal advice on the matter and determined that it was not obligated to re-house the leaseholder. This was reasonable.
The landlord signposted the leaseholder towards his insurer to ascertain whether his policy contained provisions for temporary accommodation. It was fair that this landlord did this.
The landlord’s decant policy does allow it to consider providing temporary accommodation for leaseholders where there is no provision within the terms of the lease. The policy does not state that the landlord must provide temporary accommodation but this Service considers that the landlord should have demonstrated that it considered this option and provide a reasonable explanation of why it decided not to follow this route.
Overall, the landlord was not obligated to provide the leaseholder with temporary accommodation and it was within its rights to decide not to provide this. A recommendation has been made that the landlord provide an explanation of why it has decided not to provide temporary accommodation through the discretionary provision in its decant policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling including the landlord’s response to a request for compensation.

This Service recognises that this situation has caused the leaseholder severe distress as he has experienced damp and mould in his property over a prolonged period of time. As previously explained, this investigation does not seek to determine liability for damages or award damages in the way that a court might for damage to personal belongings for to impact on health. It does however consider the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s request for compensation and whether this was handled reasonably and in line with its own policy and procedures.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response was not within the timeframe specified in its complaint policy. Although the landlord did contact the leaseholder to advise that its response would be delayed, it did not do so until it was already outside of timeframe. The stage 1 complaint response was provided 26 working days after the formal complaint, this was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Compliant Handling Code (the Code) operated at the time and this was a failing.
The stage 1 complaint response provided a clear outline of the landlord’s understanding of the complaint and of the actions carried out. It was transparent in acknowledging that there had been a delay of 8 weeks in raising follow on works and that this was unacceptable. This was good practice and demonstrated openness.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response stated that, based on advice from a damp surveyor, the damage to the leaseholder’s belongings was caused by “high levels of moisture” and that, while the delays to the repairs may have contributed to the moisture levels, they were not the “overall cause” of the damage. The landlord’s position on this point changed prior to the stage 2 complaint response as the damp issue continued.
The leaseholder requested that his complaint be escalated on 13 January 2022. The landlord did not provide a stage 2 complaint response until 24 November 2022, more than 10 months later.
In its stage 2 response the landlord was again clear that there had been failures in its management of the repairs and its communication with the leaseholder. The landlord clearly stated that it had not met its standards or followed its processes correctly and that the level of service the leaseholder had received was not acceptable. The landlord was open and transparent and this demonstrated a positive approach to complaint handling.
The stage 2 response detailed the failings that had led to the delays in resolving the damp and mould issue.
The landlord awarded the leaseholder a “goodwill payment” of £2,500 for damage to his belongings and goods, and a further £500 for “severe discretionary” due to the impact on the leaseholder. This amount is in line with the landlord’s policy. This Service does not consider however that £500 provides proportionate compensation for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the leaseholder for a prolonged period of more than 2 years.
The complaint process cannot be described as providing reasonable redress to the leaseholder as it failed to bring about a resolution to the substantive issue of complaint. The leaseholder continues to experience damp and mould.
It is acknowledged that the landlord also paid the cost of keeping some of the leaseholder’s items in storage to prevent further damage from damp and mould. This was a positive action but it is unclear why these payments were only made from 29 May 2022 to September 2022 when the damp and mould issue continued after this date.
The landlord paid the leaseholder £2 per day for the extra costs associated with the use of dehumidifiers. This calculation was not in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which states that £4 per day is payable in such circumstances. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to make a payment of further compensation for the use of the dehumidifier.
Overall, there were significant delays in the landlord’s complaint handling and it failed to bring about a resolution to the issue of complaint. The compensation paid for the extra costs associated with the use of the dehumidifier was not in line with the landlord’s policy. The compensation offered for the distress and inconvenience of the repair failings was not proportionate to the length of the delay and significant impact on the leaseholder. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property;
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to a request for temporary rehousing during works;
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling including the landlord’s response to a request for compensation.

Reasons

The landlord has accepted that there were failings in its handling of the repairs to remedy the damp and mould to the leaseholder’s property. The leaseholder continues to report damp and mould and the landlord has failed to resolve the issue.
The landlord was within its rights not to provide the leaseholder with temporary accommodation as it was not obligated to do so by the terms of the lease or by any statutory requirement.
The landlord’s complaint handling was slow and failed to resolve the substantive issue of complaint. The landlord failed to provide proportionate redress for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the leaseholder or the time and trouble in bringing the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to pay the leaseholder £710 comprising:
1. £250 for distress and inconvenience caused by the handling of the leaseholder’s reports of damp and mould.
2. £260 for time and trouble associated with its failure to calculate the compensation for additional costs associated with the dehumidifier in line with its policy.
3. £200 for time and trouble caused by complaint handling delays.
4. The compensation amounts ordered are in addition to any compensation already paid by the landlord.
Within 2 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to provide the resident and this Service with an update regarding progress of its planning application to replace the windows at the property.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to instruct a survey of the property’s tanking system by a suitably qualified expert. The landlord must share the results of the survey with the leaseholder and this Service within 2 weeks of the date of the survey along with its intended course of action with regards to works to the tanking and/or ventilation.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to provide an explanation of why it has decided not to provide temporary accommodation through the discretionary provision in its decant policy.