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

Wythenshawe Community Housing Group (2) Limited (202007860)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007860

Wythenshawe Community Housing Group Limited

15 March 2021


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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of remedial works carried out in 2016, following reports of damp in her property.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property in 2020.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of remedial works carried out in 2016, following reports of damp in her property.
  3. It is noted that the resident raised concerns about the standard of the landlord’s remedial works carried out in 2016, following reports of damp in her property. The Ombudsman expects residents to raise a complaint within a reasonable period of normally within six months of the matter arising and therefore events in 2016 will not be investigated as part of this report. This is because these events did not arise within a reasonable period of the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord of 7 March 2020.
  4. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints that “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that the landlord would be responsible for keeping the structure, exterior and services of the resident’s building in good repair, including drains, gutters and external pipes, roofs, and external brickwork. Moreover, it states that responsive repairs “will be completed by appointment at a time and date agreed with the Tenant at the time of reporting.” Following an assessment of the repair, the policy states that the landlord will:
  1. Raise a work order the same day.
  2. Communicate the deadline with the tenant verbally at the time of reporting the repair.
  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy also states that it has a six-week target for repairs such as roof and gutter repairs and plastering.
  2. The landlord’s discretionary compensation guidance states that it will consider discretionary payments of compensation “where there is a reduction or loss of amenities/services that are the responsibility” of the landlord and where its “service standards have not been met”. The guidance does not stipulate specific amounts of discretionary compensation.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, residing in a two-bedroom, ground-floor flat situated in a building of similar properties.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord’s records detailed the resident’s first report of damp at her property to it in 2020 to have been on 11 February 2020, with the landlord’s surveyor subsequently visiting the resident by appointment on 26 February 2020 in which:
  1. It diagnosed minor work to be completed in the bedroom, but “no damp caused by a property defect was detected at this time”, and it indicated condensation to be the cause of the moisture.
  2. Damp was diagnosed in the living room, and work was scheduled to remove plaster damaged by an external leak from defective roof tiles/gutter, which was repaired to allow for the damaged plaster to be repaired.
  3. Prior to the corona virus national lockdown, it had anticipated completion of the works by 30 March 2020.
  1. The landlord’s above damp survey of the property on 26 February 2020 resulted in a total of 13 repair work orders being raised to address the damp and mould, which included the following:
  1. Investigation works to the roof of the building (planned works to fit a new roof would begin on 3 March 2020).
  2. Plasterwork to the resident’s living room and works to re-seal patio doors.
  3. Painting the skirting boards in the front bedroom and works to seal around the door.
  1. The above repair work orders were logged to be completed within six weeks, this being 25 March 2020.
  2. The landlord’s records stated that work was scheduled to begin on 16 March 2020 to the resident’s living room and front bedroom(p.187) in which the contractor removed plaster from three of the resident’s living room walls, a radiator was removed along with some electrical sockets. The resident called the landlord on that morning to say that she had been informed that the work would only take one day to complete, yet there was an issue with the bedroom floor which needed to be re-sealed. She informed the landlord that she had had to throw away two beds due to the damage caused by the re-seal. The resident called back in the afternoon dissatisfied that the work could not go ahead because the contractor did not have a dehumidifier.
  3. On 17 March 2020, the landlord’s records confirmed a conversation with the resident where a complaint was raised, summarised below:
  1. The landlord apologised for any upset caused and restated that it thought that the damp issue was likely to be condensation.
  2. The resident was dissatisfied that she had been promised a dehumidifier on that day but that it had been unavailable. The landlord advised that this was now booked for the following day; however, the previous resident did not grant access to allow for the collection of the dehumidifier.
  3. The resident also advised that she was unhappy as she had said that she was originally informed that the work to address the damp and mould would only take one day to complete.
  1. On 18 March 2020, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident, and confirmed the following:
  1. It apologised for any distress caused as a result of condensation or damp at the property.
  1. It noted that “extensive works” had been carried out, including an injected damp proof course, dry lining to the walls, the sealing of the floors, and mould treatments.
  2. It also suggested that the building was due a full roof renewal in the coming weeks. In the meantime, a temporary roof repair was scheduled and “should have been completed by the time [the resident] receive[d] this letter.”
  3. The landlord confirmed that it would be happy to install humidity and temperature monitoring data logger equipment if she intended to stay, with the resident having advised that she was looking to shortly transfer properties during a telephone conversation with it on 17 March 2020.
  4. In response to the issues faced by the resident with the dehumidifier that she had been promised for 17 March 2020 not arriving until 18 March 2020, it understood why this was upsetting for the resident. It also highlighted that this was outside of the landlord’s control. It explained that because there had been other cases of a similar nature where there had been a delay in availability, it had secured funding to purchase more dehumidifiers to stop this happening again.
  1. On 19 March 2020, the landlord recorded that the resident had called it to say that she was unhappy with the length of time it was going to take to complete the above works, having been advised that the works could take a further 14 days. She said that the condition of the property was not viable, as there were dust sheets all around the property and her children were having to live and eat in her bedroom. The resident also reiterated that she was previously advised that the work would only take one day to complete.
  2. On 20 March 2020, the landlord issued a further response to the resident, which referenced a visit to her property earlier that day. It also confirmed the following:
  1. It apologised for any distress that the resident had experienced as a result of works at the property. It also confirmed that it was doing all that it could to “make sure your home is in a comfortable and safe condition as soon as possible.”
  1. It explained that the only way to complete the repairs was to dry the walls prior to replastering, which would take 14 days with the dehumidifier that it had provided. It had requested the replastering be completed “as soon as possible after the drying out is completed”. It also confirmed that this would include sealing the gap between the floor and skirting in the front bedroom.
  2. It acknowledged that, as the drying and plastering work had caused significant damage to the decoration in the resident’s lounge, it would arrange the room to be redecorated once the works were complete. No timescales were quoted in respect of these decorating works.
  1. On 2 June 2020, the landlord’s records noted a conversation with the resident which entailed her requesting a call back to discuss the progress of the remedial works for the mould in her property. She said that a dehumidifier was put in the property two weeks before the national lockdown and she wanted to know when the landlord intended to inspect this, as she informed it that she had not been living at the property at all during the lockdown.
  2. The landlord recorded that the resident called it again on 3 June 2020 to request an update on the above repairs.
  3. The landlord’s records of 15 June 2020 showed that the works required to address the damp and mould in the resident’s property were “practically complete”.
  4. The resident called the landlord again on 22 June 2020, according to its records, to ask when the painting of her property was going to be completed, as the plastering work had been finished in the previous week. Its records, dated 23 June 2020, stated that redecoration works had been raised on 22 June 2020 to be carried out at the property.
  5. On 9 July 2020, the resident called the landlord, according to its records, to reiterate that she was not staying at the property due to its condition and that she had not received the compensation vouchers that she reported that she was promised by it.
  6. The landlord’s records, dated 16 July 2020, noted that the resident was dissatisfied with a call with one of its members of staff, reporting that they had been “very rude to her”.
  7. On 10 August 2020, the resident informed the landlord, according to its records, that she was not happy with the decorating following the damp work repairs at her property, and that she was still waiting for a radiator to be put back on the wall.
  8. The landlord’s records, dated 14 August 2020, noted that the resident had called to complain that she had been calling the landlord daily and had not received a response in regard to the repairs at her property. She restated that the condition of the property meant that she had not been living there since March 2020 and that she was “not getting anywhere” despite raising a complaint.
  9. The landlord further recorded on 14 August 2020 that it had visited the resident on 11 August 2020 and had agreed works there. It also noted that it had previously advised her that it was not prepared to pay her compensation for moving out the property because she did not discuss this with it and it did not agree the property was not fit for habitation.
  10. An email from the resident to the landlord, dated 14 August 2020, described her wish to make a further former complaint to it. This said that:
  1. Having investigated the front bedroom following the appearance of slug trails down the side of her child’s bed in March 2020, the resident identified gaps between the skirting board and the floor. An earlier complaint about this from 2016 was also referenced by the resident.
  2. The resident felt that the landlord’s surveyor was “very arrogant” when assessing the issues in the child’s bedroom to have been the result of condensation.
  3. In respect of the issues in the living room, where mould was visible on the living room wall during the landlord’s visit, it had confirmed to the resident that this was as a result of a cracked gutter, but she disputed this because she reported that her upstairs neighbour had never had any issues with damp and that their walls were “completely dry”.
  4. When the resident agreed for the work to repair her living room wall by removing plaster, treating damp and replastering the wall on 18 March 2020, she was told that this would take one day. However, when the landlord arrived it was unable to replaster after removing the plaster as this was “soaking wet”. The resident expressed disappointment that the landlord had not considered this when completing work to the exterior of the same wall. The resident was provided with a dehumidifier, which was initially scheduled for 14 days; however, due to the corona virus national lockdown, this resulted in the resident having had the dehumidifier for 76 days in total.
  5. Due to the living conditions that the resident had been left with at her property, she took her children and stayed at her mother’s home, as the living room and property were “[un]inhabitable”, and the resident then had to wait until June 2020 to contact the landlord.
  6. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had previously discussed compensation for the loss of use of her property when it had visited her, and that she was later advised that it was “doing [the resident] a favour” by redecorating this because of damp rather than her own actions. Its member of staff had also reportedly tried to deny having discussed compensation with her, and after being reminded of the specific detail of the conversation about this, “vaguely” recalled the conversation.
  7. The resident therefore did not feel that she had been treated fairly by the landlord and escalated the damp and mould complaint that she had previously made to it. The landlord had highlighted to her that it did not tell her to leave the property, but she felt that she had evidenced, via photographs, that she could not have lived at the property with two children.
  8. The resident had experienced increased stress as a result of this and was still unable to return to the property because she was waiting for the radiators to be put back on the wall and for the replacement of the electrical sockets.
  9. The resident felt disappointed in the landlord and wanted somebody to investigate further.
  1. On 19 August 2020, the resident called to find out when the above radiator would be re-fitted at her property. The landlord confirmed that this was booked for 24 August 2020. The resident was unhappy with how long she had had to wait, despite making a formal complaint.
  2. On 7 September 2020, the landlord’s records confirmed a discussion with the resident which resulted in the escalation of the complaint, summarised as follows:
  1. It advised that the resident was dissatisfied with the above response from it.
  1. It advised that the resident felt that the landlord was rude and dismissive, and had not conducted a full and proper investigation into the issues that she had raised since the beginning of her case. Furthermore, the resident felt that the landlord “hasn’t been truthful with her regarding repairs” following the response in March 2020.
  1. On 18 September 2020, the landlord acknowledged the escalation of the resident’s complaint. It confirmed the following:
  1. It advised that it needed additional time to complete its investigation, and its response would be delayed to 25 September 2020.
  2. It also requested the photographs that she had previously mentioned that she had of the state of her property, or alternatively it offered to arrange to visit her to view the photographs.
  1. On 24 September 2020, the landlord provided its final stage two complaint response to the resident, detailing the following:
  1. It confirmed its records’ description of the events in the resident’s case on 11 and 26 February 2020 above at paragraph 10.
  2. It apologised for the impact that the delay to the works that it had diagnosed at the resident’s property on the above dates had caused to her enjoyment of the lounge there.
  3. It referenced comments within the resident’s complaint that she had felt the landlord’s surveyor was “arrogant” during their inspection of her property on 26 February 2020. It confirmed it had dealt with the issue, and apologised if the surveyor came across in this way. The landlord was assured the resident that this was unintended, and it apologised for any upset that this may have caused.
  4. The landlord confirmed that it had discussed the resident’s concerns with her regarding conversations with its member of staff and how it “made [her] feel”. It confirmed that upon investigation, the member of staff could only vaguely remember the conversation. As a result, the landlord was happy to accept the resident’s description of the events. It apologised if the conversations had a negative impact on the way that the resident felt. Furthermore, its member of staff assured the landlord that this was unintentional and was sincerely concerned that this had a negative impact upon the resident.
  5. During the landlord’s visit of 24 September 2020, it had found the work to have been completed to a “very good” standard, with the exception of a small area of wallpaper. It was agreed that it would arrange for these to be glued down. It apologised for the fact that the small areas had lifted “slightly”.
  6. In respect of the resident’s view that the property was uninhabitable due to the partial completion the replastering work, the landlord highlighted and supported its earlier view that the plastering work did “not constitute or require alternative living accommodation”. It did “fully appreciate” the delay and impact on the resident’s enjoyment of the lounge, however. It also apologised for the length of time taken to complete the repairs, which it highlighted was excessive, but outside of its control.
  7. In an attempt to resolve the complaint, and given the circumstances, it offered 25% discount on the rent for the 18-week period that the resident was inconvenienced, totalling £360. In addition, it offered a further £100 compensation for “the impact this has had, and for any service failures experienced during the [corona virus] pandemic”, including her not being kept fully informed through visits to her home.
  1. On 23 October 2020, the resident’s complaint was referred to this Service to consider via her local MP acting in the capacity of her designated person, in which she reiterated her above dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in her property. She also explained that she was unhappy that a more vulnerable person than her would have been unable to progress their case with the landlord in the same circumstances and with the level of compensation that it had offered her. The resident said that this was in light of her and her children having to be away from their home for five months because of the condition of the property, with her young child’s ill-health being at risk from the damp, and their ongoing payment of bills and ruined furniture there during this period.

Assessment and findings

  1. The first record on the landlord’s system regarding the reported damp was a telephone conversation on 11 February 2020, with the report being raised by the resident.
  2. As per the landlord’s responsive repairs policy above at paragraphs 6 to 7, roof and gutter repairs and plastering are considered “six week repairs”, and are carried out in situations which “do not pose a risk to health, safety and security…and/or specific/specialist materials may be required”. The six-week period for this repair ended on 25 March 2020.
  3. In response to the resident’s reports of damp, from 16 March to 15 June 2020 the landlord repaired the defective area causing the damp and scheduled a full roof renewal. Due to the impact of the damp, the landlord removed the affected plaster from the resident’s lounge wall. It provided a dehumidifier from 18 March 2020 to speed up the drying process, which was required in order for it to replaster and redecorate the wall after a further 14 days. This work was therefore going to exceed the landlord’s six-week target for such repairs, and as such it would be expected to provide the resident with its next steps and expectations, including timescales for works to be completed, in line with its responsive repairs policy’s requirement for it to do so above at paragraph 6.
  4. It is recognised that there was a delay of one day from 17 to 18 March 2020 in the resident receiving the dehumidifier from the landlord, which was due to it experiencing issues in gaining access to the previous tenant’s property to collect this. The landlord evidenced learning from complaints to improve its service on 18 March 2020 by securing funding to purchase more dehumidifiers for the future to stop this happening again, which was appropriate.
  5. As a result of the corona virus national lockdown in March 2020, the replastering and redecorating at the property was understandably further delayed. The replastering was “practically complete” according to the landlord’s records on 15 June 2020 and the redecorating works raised on 22 June 2020 were confirmed during the landlord’s visit to the resident on 24 September 2020 to have been completed satisfactorily, with the exception of one area of wallpaper that it suitably agreed to remedy.
  6. While it is acknowledged that the resident found the situation distressing and upsetting, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord ultimately took reasonable steps to meet its obligations. It undertook repairs to the roof, with this having been identified as the cause of the damp by its damp survey of 26 February 2020, and to arrange for the removal of affected plaster, replastering, and redecoration of the resident’s living room. This fell within its remit to complete under its responsive repairs policy and, while the cause of the damp was disputed by the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its surveyor’s assessment as to the cause of this and the presence of damp at her property and there was no expert evidence to the contrary.
  7. While there was a further delay in the completion of the replastering and redecoration at the property until 15 and 22 June 2020, the landlord recognised this delay and offered £100 compensation for the impact of this complaint, and any services failures experienced by the resident.
  8. Furthermore, it is recognised that the resident felt that the property was uninhabitable due to the above replastering work being outstanding there for five months. The landlord relied on the findings of its qualified staff and contractors during their above attendances at her property, who deemed that the property was not uninhabitable following the removal of plaster that suggested that it was not required to reimburse her bills for her property while she stayed elsewhere because of this. However, in view of the circumstances, it offered her a 25% discount being £360 on the rent for the affected 18-week period. The total compensation offered to resolve the resident’s complaint was therefore £460.
  9. As per the landlord’s complaints, comments and compliments policy, consideration would be given to remedies including:
  1. an explanation and apology
  2. a demonstration that it has taken the complaint seriously
  3. financial compensation.
  1. The landlord has acknowledged that the delay in its service did not reflect its usual service standards and was impacted by issues outside of its control. In evidence of it acting in line with its complaints, comments and compliments policy, it has evidenced the following:
  1. It informed the resident of the actions that it had taken and would be taking in order to address the concerns raised and offered suitable apologies from itself and its staff.
  2. It took the resident’s complaint seriously by acting on the reports of damp and the conduct of its staff and communicated the outcome of its investigations to the resident.
  3. In recognition of the delays experienced by the resident in redecorating her lounge, it offered financial compensation.
  1. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Omdudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging the above delays and apologising to the resident. It put things right by fixing the roof causing the leak into the resident’s property, and replastering and redecorating the resident’s lounge, and offering compensation which was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.
  3. Although the resident is dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered to her by the landlord, its discretionary compensation guidance above at paragraph 8 did not oblige it to award her an increased amount of compensation as this gave it a choice as to how much compensation it offered her. While it is of concern that she also reported that she was unhappy with this because of her young child’s ill-health being at risk from damp and her ruined furniture, its complaints, comments and compliments policy expected her to insure her home’s contents and would not compensate her for items that could reasonably have been covered by this. The landlord’s discretionary compensation guidance additionally excluded personal injury claims that were to be forwarded to its own insurer.
  4. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint about its response to her reports of damp and mould in her property in 2020 satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acted on the initial reports of damp and mould and arranged both temporary and long-term work to address these issues. Although it could have provided a dehumidifier sooner, it sought to learn from this and purchase of further units for the future.
  2. It has evidenced a fair investigation into the resident’s concerns and has recognised and offered fair compensation for its failures.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. If it has not yet paid this, re-offer the resident the £460 compensation that it previously awarded her in recognition of its failings in her case.
    2. Provide the resident with details as to how to submit claims for her ruined furniture and for personal injury for it to forward to its own insurer.
  2. The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendations.
  3. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.