Hyde Housing Association Limited (202100383)

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100383

Hyde Housing Association Limited

31 May 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused and her reports of damp, mould and repairs to the property.
This service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 9 January 2012 and the property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has moved since the events set out in this report and is no longer a tenant of this landlord.
The resident is vulnerable and has a mental health condition which the landlord is aware of. The resident’s son has asthma and has had a recurrent chest infection.
During October 2020, the resident raised concerns to the landlord about black mould in the property. Subsequently on 29 December 2020, the council’s housing enforcement team wrote to the landlord to explain that it had received a complaint on 19 December 2020 about ongoing issues concerning damp and mould, the landlord’s lack of actions, and concerns for her young child. The landlord responded on 4 January 2021 to explain it had instructed its specialist to attend on 7 January 2021 and report back.
It was reported by the surveyor that the issues with damp and mould were due to condensation within the property, this resulted in the landlord instructing its contractors to install a pressure ventilation system during that month. Following this, the resident said to the landlord that she was unhappy with the findings and felt it had not handled the issues effectively, she requested a further inspection be carried out.
On 15 February 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint about severe damp and mould in every room. It explained that it was hoping to provide a response by that day, but needed further time to investigate. Its new timescale was to respond by 2 March 2021.
On 18 February 2021, a further damp and mould survey was conducted. This comprised of a visual inspection of the property and use of handheld moisture detection. The outcome of this investigation was sent to the landlord on 22 February 2021. It explained, at the time of inspection, there was little evidence of mould growth or condensation except for the inside frame to the patio doors and either side on the wall at a low level. The surveyor also noted dampness beneath the laminate floor coverings and in parts of the wall at a low level. This led the surveyor to believe that there was a leak in one or more of the central heating pipes located in the floor screed. The surveyor recognised the landlord’s efforts in having the positive input ventilation unit installed was likely to have improved the conditions in the flat but explained that the source of water ingress needed to be remedied. The surveyor recommended the landlord repair the suspected leaking pipe, apply an antifungal solution to all affected areas with black mould staining to prevent it propagating, and also requested the replacement of the air vent in the living room.
On 2 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident explaining it needed additional time to respond to the complaint, its new timescale was to respond by 17 March 2021.
The landlord arranged for an engineer to repair the leak on 4 March 2021. Further works for re-routing the pipes were also carried out on 25 March 2021. On that day, the council contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf expressing concern over the condition of the property, and that she was not informed during the works that she would be left without hot water or heating for two days. The council had arranged for heaters to be sent to the resident during the period of repairs. The council noted it had been told the dampness could take weeks to dry out with the use of dehumidifiers, it asked the landlord if this warranted decanting the resident until the mould growth was treated and property dried out. The landlord acknowledged the council’s email and passed it onto the relevant team.
Subsequently on 30 March 2021 the resident expressed concern about the repairs to the leak, she said that pipework had not been boxed in which left hot pipes exposed.
On 1 April 2021, an independent surveyor and local councillor attended the property. Their inspection found the following:
1. Black mould on walls, skirting and rear door had not been removed as recommended in the independent surveyor report. They were told by the resident this had been present for over a year.
2. Existing vent in living room not replaced as recommended in independent survey report.
3. Exposed pipes.
4. Floor lifting likely to be due to the moisture content of the floor slab.
5. They were unable to check the extent of damp due to not having a damp meter, and would need to return.
The surveyor proposed four options for the landlord to consider.
1. Option 1 was to temporarily decant the resident, placing all belongings into storage. Works consisted of removing all floor coverings including any floor tiles to expose concrete flooring. If any asbestos floor tiles, these were to be removed by specialist. Plaster to all affected walls to be hacked off back to brick/block. Works would require an intensive period of drying out using infrared heaters to walls and dehumidifiers. Once fully dried out, re-plaster walls and redecorate.
2. Option 2 was as above but works carried out room-by-room with the resident in-situ.
3. Option 3 was to allow the property to dry out naturally with the resident in-situ, provide humidifiers, monitor condition of the internal walls on a monthly basis to check for any mould and measure moisture content (i.e. drying out etc) and then complete any remedial works thereafter.
4. Option 4 was to transfer the resident to an alternative suitable property and complete works as per option 1 whilst void.
On 6 April 2021, the council chased for a response to its previous email dated 25 March 2021. The landlord responded on 7 April 2021, providing it with the recent report which detailed the recommended remedial work required and how the landlord intended to proceed.
On 6 April 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to explained that it needed further time to review the complaint. It aimed to provide a full reply by 21 April 2021. It explained that it had arranged for a new surveyor to inspect the property to discuss and arrange plans to put right the damage caused. An appointment was booked for 23 April 2021 however this needed to be rescheduled due to the resident being unwell. The contractors attended the property on 7 May 2021 however access was refused as the resident claimed she had not been notified of the appointment.
During May 2021, the resident informed the landlord that she did not think the leak had been resolved. She also stated that she wished to be compensated for dehumidifier costs and requested for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
On 11 May 2021, the landlord arranged for the mould wash to be applied to the walls, it also provided the resident with a dehumidifier and £50 compensation for additional electricity charges. However, it did not agree to escalate the complaint to stage two as it stated the resident had delayed works by not allowing access.
On 12 May 2021, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two, however the landlord refused this request.
The landlord further wrote to the resident on 13 May 2021, explaining it needed more time to provide her with a full reply, it explained it was aiming to respond by 28 May 2021. Subsequently on 18 May 2021 another inspection took place. The recommendations from this inspection were:
1. To replace the wall insulation with thermal boarding.
2. To install fans for any condensation issues.
3. To Install boxing around the pipes.
4. To arrange an asbestos inspection.
Following this visit, it was confirmed that the wet walls were not due to a leak, but as a result of thick wallpaper, which would take longer to dry. It was recommended an asbestos survey take place before any works commencing.
On 28 May 2021, an asbestos survey took place, however due to this being completed incorrectly another survey was needed. On 1 June 2021, the landlord further apologised for the delays in providing a full response and explained it would aim to do so on 15 June 2021.
An asbestos survey was completed on 28 June 2021. This confirmed asbestos within the property, and stated works would take 10 days and the resident would need to be decanted during this time. The landlord relayed this information to the resident, however she refused for the works to be completed and requested to be moved permanently.
On 16 June 2021, the landlord apologised for the delay in providing the resident with a response to her complaint. It explained it would aim to provide a full response by 1 July 2021. It also had contacted its surveyor to confirm when the works would be able to take place.
The landlord again apologised for the delay on 2 July 2021 and said it would aim to provide a full response by 23 July. It acknowledged that the asbestos survey had taken place and it was now in the process of making arrangements for the works to be done.
On 23 July 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to apologise for the delays. It confirmed work to the walls had been booked for 25 August 2021, it was still awaiting confirmation for works to the asbestos, remedial works and to box in the pipes.
On 28 July 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming the complaint had been escalated to stage two of the complaints procedure, it explained that a full response would be issued by 26 August 2021.
During August 2021, the landlord planned to decant the resident from 20 August 2021 for 10 days in order to have the required works completed. However, this was refused by the resident, who was seeking a permanent move. The resident had also informed the landlord that she had instructed solicitors and no longer wanted to communicate with it about the complaint.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 8 September 2021. It recognised the resident’s complaint to be about the ongoing issue with damp and mould within the property and how it handled those reports. The landlord acknowledged its slow progress when dealing with the resident’s complaint and offered total compensation of £1,050. This reflected £500 for the time and trouble in pursuing the matter and £550 for the distress and inconvenience.
After the final complaint response and following an inspection on 8 October 2021 the landlord explained that, whilst the resident was adamant she wanted to be rehoused, she had agreed to allow it to carry out the following remedial works:
1. Asbestos removal to all affected areas.
2. Bedroom 1- Replace plaster and redecorate.
3. Kitchen – Redecorate, mould wash, stain block and replace any missing kitchen unit doors and drawers.
4. Bathroom – replace bath tub, tiles and flooring.
5. Hallway – Replace 3 internal doors and make good walls.
6. Lounge – remove sempatap, add thermal boarding and redecorate.
7. Flooring – replace laminate flooring to lounge, hall and bedroom as a goodwill gesture.
8. Box in pipes.
The resident confirmed these repairs were completed in 2022. She also notified us that she is no longer house with the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The resident has said that the property condition has impacted her mental health, it is also noted that her son had a recurrent chest infection and asthma. Whilst we have noted this as context, the Ombudsman cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s service failure or maladministration has contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and /or mental health. We cannot assess medical evidence and do not make findings on matters such as negligence. However, the Ombudsman does carefully consider what a resident tells us about how they have been affected by the issues in their complaint, including the overall impact on them, and may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by a particular service failure by a landlord.

Reports of damp, mould and repairs to the property.

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Section 11 implies repair obligations for landlord tenants. It states, ‘In a lease to which this section applies (as to which, see sections 13 and 14) there is implied a covenant by the lessor— to keep in repair and proper working order the structure and exterior of the dwelling and building containing the dwelling. Therefore, when the landlord was notified of the damp and mould issues to the resident’s property it was required to carry out repairs within a reasonable period of time.
The resident said she had experienced damp problems within the property for over 9 years and had previously mentioned a possible leak. In the landlord’s internal communication, it does not specify the length of time it thought that the issues had been occurring, but stated in previous inspections from surveyors that the leak coming from the boiler which was causing damp on the walls had been missed.
Whilst we have noted this to provide context, the information which we have considered dates back to October 2020, which was in the period immediately before the resident raised this complaint. Therefore, we have considered the circumstances surrounding the time of the resident’s recent report and complaint and the landlord’s actions thereafter.
The landlord stated the resident had made a report to them in October 2020, subsequently the council contacted it in December 2020 and the resident raised a formal complaint in January 2021. The evidence suggests that, despite the resident’s reports to the landlord in October 2020, it was delayed in attending to the matter which resulted in the resident having to chase further and also seek help from the council.
We recognise that at this time, the covid-19 pandemic was affecting the landlord’s service, however it would have been best practice to respond to the resident and provide her with an update. We have not seen that this was done.
When surveyors attended the property, it was reported that the issues concerning damp and mould were related to condensation. As a way to alleviate the conditions, the surveyor recommended the installation of a ventilation system and fans. The evidence shows that this work was then done within a reasonable period of time.
The landlord’s procedure when damp and mould is reported is to have a survey conducted to assess the extent of the issue and identify what works are needed. Therefore, it was proactive for the landlord to take this approach when dealing with the resident’s concerns. Where the surveyor reported that the cause of dampness was due to condensation, it was appropriate for the landlord to take the advice of a specialist and focus on reducing the level of condensation within the property.
Following this report and home improvement, the resident disputed the cause of damp and requested a further survey be conducted. The evidence shows the landlord had then arranged within a reasonable period of time for a further independent inspection to be carried out. Following this inspection, it was found that the cause of damp was not due to condensation but may be the result of a hidden leaking pipe.
We recognise how frustrating it would have been for the resident to receive conflicting information. The Ombudsman also recognises that sometimes it is challenging for landlords and contractors to diagnose the cause for damp and mould. In such circumstances the Ombudsman expects that landlords are actively seeking for a way to resolve the problem and are in reasonable communication with residents throughout the process. In this instance we recognise the initial inspection conducted in January 2021 was not sufficient as it missed the opportunity for the landlord to identify the issues concerning the leaking pipe sooner. This is of concern to the Ombudsman as missed opportunities result in issues remaining unresolved and cause a further detriment to residents.
The landlord’s repairs policy states repairs will be conducted within 20 working days. In this case the leak was correctly identified as the cause of damp on 22 February 2021, and then on 4 March 2021 contractors were sent out to fix the leak and redo the pipe work on 25 March 2021. This was within the landlord’s expected timeframes.
It is understood that when the surveyor attended the property, on two occasions he did not have the correct equipment to complete damp meter readings and therefore a visual inspection was done instead. We expect that third parties sent to investigate resident’s reports attend with the correct tools to prevent any further delays. In instances where surveys are not adequate because of a lack of equipment, the landlord should raise this with the surveyor. Therefore, we will be making a recommendation regarding this.
This service has seen images of black mould on several areas of the home, we are unable to confirm the date of these images, however it is understood that the landlord had cleaned and repainted the walls after these photos were taken. The images were of concern considering the resident’s vulnerabilities and her son’s health conditions. Nonetheless the subsequent inspections since then support little evidence of condensation or mould growth.
The evidence shows when the surveyor attended the property on 1 April 2021, he reported that several works as recommended in the independent report had not been completed. We can see the landlord then attempted to attend to the matter on 23 April 2021 and 7 May 2021 but was unable to gain access. Whilst we recognise the landlord states the resident had delayed access on two occasions, it is evident there was a delay between the independent report in February 2021 until its first attempt in April to have the mould wash completed. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the length of time was unreasonable and considering the resident had a child within the property and multiple areas were affected, the landlord ought to have dealt with the matter sooner.
The evidence shows that during April 2021 the surveyor had ordered a dehumidifier for the property to help the water dry out of the walls. However due to no access it was unable to give this to the resident sooner than 11 May 2021 when the next appointment was scheduled. The evidence shows that when the resident explained that she would not be able to pay for the extra costs of running the dehumidifier, the landlord offered her £50 compensation and informed her that she could also complete a compensation form for any extra usage. This service has not seen evidence of the resident submitting a compensation form for further costs associated from using the dehumidifier. Given the circumstances, the landlord’s actions to provide the resident with a dehumidifier were appropriate and fair.
The resident expressed concerns that she was not certain that the cause of the damp and mould had been resolved, and felt the only option was for the landlord to permanently rehouse her. The evidence shows that the landlord had an inspection conducted following the repair to the leak. The surveyor reported that he observed no mould to the walls except for a defective area which showed signs of flaking. He also noted that the wall appeared to be getting wetter and spreading slightly, however he explained this may be a result of it needing to further dry out and may take a while. It was later confirmed that the leak had been resolved and the damp on walls was due to the thick wallpaper needing to dry out. The landlord then arranged for the wallpaper to be stripped out and then once dried would then arrange to replaster and redecorate. The landlord’s actions to address the resident’s concerns of the leak not being resolved were appropriate in this case, it was correct to have a further specialist inspect the issue. We have not seen evidence to suggest that a further leak was found, and it appears that the leak was repaired. On this basis the landlord’s decision not to permanently rehouse her the resident was reasonable.
Whilst we recognise the landlord’s attempts to put things right for the resident in apologising and offering compensation, there have been clear service failings which the resident and her son have had to live with, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the compensation offered by the landlord was not reflective of the distress and inconvenience caused. Therefore we will be making a further order for compensation.
With regards to the resident’s concerns about how the landlord handled repairs to the damp and mould, the inspection report dated February 2021 had recommended the landlord replace the air vent in the living room. However the evidence shows that the landlord failed to have this done, which resulted in the surveyor further chasing this on 1 April 2021. Whilst we recognise this was recommended and therefore not an obligation, given the circumstances it would have been appropriate for the landlord to adhere to the recommendation within a reasonable period of time.
On 25 March 2021 contractors attended the resident’s property to replace the pipework. On the day, the resident told the council she was upset that she had not been informed that she would be without running hot water or heating for two days. We understand that after raising her concerns, heaters had been provided by the council. We have reviewed the available correspondence between the landlord and resident, and we are not satisfied that the resident was made aware she would be without hot water or heating through this period. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord should have handled this matter with care, ensuring she understood how the schedule of works may impact her. It should have also considered how it could have accommodated her during this time, by means of supplying heating itself or alternative accommodation. There is no evidence that these options were considered.
On 30 March 2021, following repairs to the leak in March 2021, the resident reported that the contractors had failed to box in the pipes and remedial works were needed. The evidence shows the landlord arranged for an inspection in April and a second inspection took place in May, subsequently on 24 May 2021 the following repairs were raised again by the surveyor.
In accordance with the landlord’s timescales for urgent repairs which threaten health, safety or security, the landlord is expected to make safe within 24 hours of the report. For non-urgent repairs it is required to attend to the issue within 20 working days. In this instance, the landlord was delayed in having this attended to. This service has seen that during October 2021, the repairs had still not been completed. Whilst we recognise the resident refused repairs, this was not until 5 months after the initial request.
On 24 May 2021, repairs were also raised for the following:
1. To strip damp patch wallpaper back to plaster in living room next to door and in resident’s son’s bedroom.
2. Following strip, assess condition of plaster for damp and if deemed damp, hack plaster back to block work. Allow drying time and monitor.
However, it was then stated that an asbestos survey would need to be carried out first. Following this survey in June 2021, asbestos traces were found in several areas of the property which therefore meant this needed to be removed before any repair work could be conducted.
The evidence shows that planned repairs were due to commence on 20 August 2021 and the resident was due to be decanted. Considering the type of repair and the resident’s vulnerabilities, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider a decant, however this should have been considered sooner.
The evidence shows the resident refused a temporary decant for the required remedial works to take place, as she was seeking a permanent move. We recognise the resident’s frustration with the landlord’s delay in resolving the issues, however the landlord has since attempted to have the works completed.
Whilst we recognise the resident’s stance would have caused further delays in the remedial works being completed sooner, it is evident that overall the landlord’s failings resulted in delay in having repairs completed within a reasonable period of time.
In its stage two response the landlord acknowledged its service failings, it also recognised the long delays in completing the works and apologised for the inconvenience. The landlord considered its compensation policy and awarded the resident £500 for time and trouble in pursuing the matter and £550 for the distress and inconvenience caused. Whilst we recognise the landlord’s attempts to put things right for the resident, we are not satisfied the amount reflected the service failings and impact to the resident. We acknowledge that part of the delay was because of the resident cancelling appointments and refusing a decant to have the remedial works completed. However, there were several times when the landlord was also delayed, and its service did not meet its guidelines or what the Ombudsman would expect to see in such situations. Therefore, this service will be ordering further compensation.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

Section 5 of the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code sets out what is expected of landlords when responding to residents’ complaints. It explains that a two-stage complaint procedure is ideal. In this instance the landlord has two complaint stages and provided the resident with two formal responses.
We have reviewed the landlord’s complaints policy, it states for stage one and stage two, it aims to provide a response within 20 working days. If it is unable to do so it will inform the resident of the new timescales.
In this instance the resident complained to the landlord during January 2021, however, did not receive a stage one response. On 12 May 2021, the resident requested the complaint to be escalated to stage two however the landlord refused this request. Subsequently on 28 July 2021 the landlord escalated the complaint. The evidence shows the landlord had written to the resident on several occasions between February and August 2021 apologising for the delay and informed her of the extended timescale. It later explained the resident should receive a stage two response by 26 August 2021, however it provided this on 8 September 2021.
The landlord was proactive in writing to the resident monthly to apologise for the delays and inform her of the new deadlines. However several months had passed when the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated, and considering the circumstances, the landlord ought to have escalated the complaint in May when requested. The landlord’s refusal to escalate the complaint resulted in further delays, inconvenience, and distress for the resident. There were several service failings in how the landlord handled this complaint and it did not follow the correct procedures as per its policy and the complaint handling code.
The landlord’s stage two response does not refer to its delays in complaint handling. Therefore, whilst we recognise it offered compensation, we are not satisfied this took into consideration its service failings in relation to complaint handling. Therefore, this service will be ordering the landlord to pay £300 compensation for its complaint handling failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused and her reports of damp, mould and repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

Despite the resident’s reports to the landlord the leak went undetected for some time within the property which impacted on her living conditions. Once the leak was detected the landlord was prompt in resolving this, however we are not satisfied the resident was fully made aware of how the repairs would further impact her. Given the circumstances, it was unreasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to go without hot water and heating, particularly without making her aware that this would be the case. Whilst we recognise compensation was offered, we are not satisfied this amount is reflective of the delays which the resident has experienced.
The evidence shows that the landlord updated the resident often with regards to its complaint response and the expected timeframes, however this was over a long period of time. It was inappropriate for the landlord to refuse the resident’s request to escalate the complaint. The landlord did not address its delays in complaint handling within the stage two response, therefore we are not satisfied this was taken into consideration when awarding compensation.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay its previous offer of £1,050 compensation to the resident within four weeks of the date of this letter.
The landlord to pay an additional £500 for service failures when responding to the damp, mould and repairs to fully reflect the inconvenience and distress caused.
The landlord to compensate her £300 for its complaint handling failures within four weeks of the date of this letter.

Recommendations

The landlord to contact its contractors to ensure they are aware of what is expected of them when inspecting a property for damp and mould, including use of a damp meter. Contractors should ensure they have the correct tools to fully evaluate the condition of the property to prevent further delays.
The landlord to make sure that residents are provided with a schedule of works prior to works commencing. Should the works significantly impact on the resident’s day to day living, they should be made aware. The landlord should always consider whether a decant is viable especially in circumstances where the resident is vulnerable.