Silva Homes Limited (202124594)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124594

Silva Homes Limited

30 June 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Complaint handling.
3. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was an assured shorthold tenant when her tenancy began in 2013. The information seen suggests she became an assured tenant after 12 months. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the 1st floor of a block. It spans an open pedestrian walkway below. The landlord has told us the resident’s household comprises 6 family members. The resident’s correspondence shows the family also have a pet dog.
The tenancy agreement confirms the property is suitable for a maximum of 5 occupants. It also shows the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. This includes gutters, external walls, window frames and plasterwork. The resident is responsible for internal painting and decoration. It confirms the rent was £163.20 per week when the tenancy began. The Ombudsman was unable to find more up to date figures using the government’s average rent tables.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its relevant complaints policy shows it aimed to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aimed to respond within 20 working days. All complaints would be acknowledged within 2 working days.
The family have a number of vulnerabilities relating to their physical and mental health. The resident was in remission from cancer during the timeline. She has limited mobility in her arm and 2 of her children have breathing conditions. The eldest child is autistic. The landlord told us the eldest child was diagnosed with depression in March 2022.

Summary of events

The landlord provided the property’s repair history from 2017 onwards. It shows a damp and mould inspection was completed on 15 February 2017. It also shows a repair order for “minor decorations to bedroom and lounge” was completed within days of the inspection. No further repairs were recorded until 2020.
The next repair order was dated 24 February 2020. Corresponding notes suggest the resident reported damp in the children’s bedroom and on an external window wall. They said there was furry mould on the carpet and furniture was damaged. Though the order was marked complete the same day, the notes did not detail the completed repairs.
In a same day internal email, the landlord said a carpenter should change the handles on the children’ bedroom window. Further, a large “fan light” should be overhauled. It also said there was mould on the bedroom window, which the resident could clean herself. There are no records of any corresponding works in the repair history, and the resident later disputed any works were completed at this time.
In contrast, during its later evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord told us the fan light was overhauled on 23 September 2020. However, it was unable to fit new handles to the windows because the existing fire escape handles were required. As mentioned, the landlord’s repair history spread sheet does not reflect this information.
The resident’s GP wrote to the landlord on 20 November 2021. They said they were struggling to manage one of the children’s asthma diagnosis. Further, they had seen images of mould in the property and there was an association between mould and increased asthma exacerbations.
The repair records suggest the GP’s correspondence prompted the landlord to raise a further inspection. An inspection order raised and completed on 14 December 2021 referenced mould on walls and furniture throughout the property, along with a smell of damp. It also said damp was visible on an outer wall. It was unclear if this wording reflected the landlord’s observations or the resident’s reports. Regardless, no information was seen to show the inspection prompted any further action from the landlord.
A further medical letter was dated 21 January 2022. It referenced: damp in all rooms with the bedrooms especially impacted, cracking to the children’s bedroom ceiling and a hole in the bathroom ceiling.
From the landlord’s internal correspondence and repair records, the following events occurred between 28 and 31 January 2022.
1. A repair order to treat mould on the bathroom ceiling and bedroom was marked complete. (The evidence suggests only an inspection occurred at this time. This is because a damp specialist found mould on the bathroom ceiling within days of the order’s recorded completion date).
2. The same day, the landlord’s inspecting operative said there was “very minimal mould” and all coving was completely safe. Further the carpets were folded back and visible black marks beneath them were from rubber backing and the vinyl below. They said there were “zero issues” at the property and the resident should raise a home insurance claim. However, given the medical information, a damp specialist should complete a further inspection.
3. A repair order to address damaged plaster on the bathroom ceiling and in the children’s bedroom was marked complete. From the information seen, it was unclear whether these repairs were completed at this time.
The damp specialist’s inspection report was dated 1 February 2022. It said mould colonisation was identified in the bedrooms, lounge and bathroom. Further, mould was found under the carpet and on personal belongings. In addition, a bathroom fan was not working correctly. The report also said the mould and condensation were likely caused by a lack of heating and ventilation. The key points were:
1. The specialist recommended replacing the bathroom fan with an upgraded model. It also recommended installing a “whole house” positive input ventilation (PIV) system.
2. Various recommendations were made to the resident including: leaving gaps behind furniture; avoiding drying clothes on radiators; checking guttering and reporting leaks; cleaning mould from floors and carpets and redecorating as required.
The resident completed the landlord’s compensation form on 2 February 2022. She asked for £650 in compensation to address beds, carpets and a wardrobe damaged by damp and mould. The next day, the landlord asked her for relevant receipts and the background to the claim. The resident replied she had waited 4 months for repairs and, while her husband slept on the sofa, she was sharing a small room with 3 children. She raised affordability concerns about running the PIV unit. She also said she may not have all the requested receipts.
The Ombudsman has seen several undated images which the resident submitted with her compensation claim. They appear to show a bed frame with damp patches and mould on the slats; the rear panel of a wardrobe marked with mould spots and black mould on the underside of a carpet as well as the floor below. The landlord later told us the resident provided receipts totalling £616.51 in support of her damage claim.
On 4 February 2022 the resident completed the landlord’s online complaint form. She said she reported damp and mould repairs in November 2021, and nothing had changed despite numerous inspections. She reiterated a bedroom was unusable and said the situation was impacting the family’s physical and mental health. She felt the family should be immediately moved to a “liveable” property. However, she said, the landlord was failing to take the situation seriously.
A same day email to the Ombudsman provided further details. The resident said mould and wetness under the carpet prompted the family to stop using a bedroom. However, there was also mould in the small bedroom which lacked space. The resident also said the landlord’s operatives were not qualified to assess damp and mould. In contrast, an independent advisor had recommended professional cleaning, but they also advised mould prevention equipment was expensive to run. Her main points were:
1. The property’s bedrooms needed damp proofing given the property’s location above the walkway. However, the resident lacked confidence that the landlord would complete any repairs to required standards.
2. The resident’s young daughters were suffering from croup, skin rashes and frequent asthma attacks. Her eldest was also struggling to adapt to the family’s new living conditions. This was because she lacked a safe space in which to reflect.
3. The situation was making the children anxious, and the family were unable to have visitors. The amount of damage to their belongings and furniture was upsetting and the resident could not afford to keep replacing items.
4. The resident had submitted a rehousing application on medical grounds through the local authority’s bidding process.
The Ombudsman has seen an undated summary from the resident’s inspecting contractor. The summary was not a formal survey report. It said the property was not a safe environment to live in. This was based on poor ventilation and damp throughout the property. The summary also said there was a “definite issue with the concrete floor”, which needed to be taken up and sealed.
On 17 February 2022 the landlord issued a stage one response. This was 9 working days after the resident’s formal complaint. It said feedback had been passed to management in relation to the resident’s reported communication issues. It included a summary of the specialist’s findings along with a link to information about treating condensation and mould. The main points were:
1. Extractor fan repairs were scheduled for 2 March 2022. While this was currently the earliest available date, the landlord would bring the repairs forward if possible. It would replace both the property’s fans and ensure the new models were operating correctly.
2. Once the works were complete, the landlord would contact the resident to ensure she was satisfied with the repairs. However, it was unable to consider awarding compensation because its inspection reports attributed the mould to the family’s lifestyle. Further, the landlord was also replacing the extractor fans.
3. The resident could register for the local authority’s choice-based lettings system using the contact number provided. Alternatively, she could apply for a mutual exchange using the Home Swapper service.
The resident responded over two emails the same day. She said the family were constantly cleaning mould. Further, there was no point decorating given it was likely to return. In addition, brickwork was clearly damp and the family were already following most of the prevention advice given. Other advice was impossible to implement due to the lack of space. She felt, after 5 months, she had been advised to deal with the situation herself. Her main points were:
1. One of the landlord’s operatives had advised there was no damp proofing in the walkway below the property, which was mouldy. This construction issue was impacting the family and the children’s belongings were ruined.
2. The heating was on and the windows were open. Further, the resident had been told not to touch the bathroom ceiling, due to asbestos, and not to rip the carpets up. In addition, she reported the gutters in December 2021 and the landlord failed to check them.
The parties exchanged emails on 22 February 2022 after the landlord issued a stage 2 acknowledgement. The resident said her own contractor had checked the children’s bedroom. Further, the floor “was going mad” when tested with moisture detection equipment. On that basis, she said, the damp would keep reoccurring and cleaning was inadequate. She also said she had been quoted around £2K to repair the bedroom alone.
The repair history shows a repair order to overhaul extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom was marked complete on 2 March 2022.
On 21 March 2022 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. This was around 22 working days after the resident’s escalation request. It addressed damp and mould in both bedrooms, a hole in the bathroom ceiling, outstanding gutter repairs and a fan installed in the wrong place. It restated the specialist’s prevention advice to the resident. No failures were identified and the landlord did not attempt to address any distress or inconvenience. On that basis, the response resembled an update rather than a complaint resolution. The main points were:
1. A new kitchen fan was installed on 7 March 2022. Its specification exceeded the specialist’s recommendations. Though the existing bathroom fan was overhauled at the same time, the landlord wanted to install a new fan. It was awaiting the resident’s availability for the works.
2. Based on the resident’s preference, the landlord had not installed the recommended PIV unit. However, it could provide further information about the system and its running costs. The resident should notify the landlord if she changed her mind about installing the unit.
3. A post inspection on 18 March 2022 considered the resident’s concerns about moisture levels in the bedroom floor and the quality of repairs to the bathroom ceiling. A plan was subsequently agreed to explore dampness to the concrete floor and the bathroom ceiling.
4. The same day, the landlord’s contractor removed 2 sections of the ceiling in the communal walkway. The landlord would assess the level of insulation in the ceiling and report its findings to the resident. The landlord agreed repairs to the bathroom ceiling were not “aesthetically pleasing”. It would recall the repairing contractor to ensure the finish matched the existing artex.
5. The following additional repairs were identified during the post inspection: guttering works, missing rendering on an exposed lintel outside a bedroom, resealing to the lounge window due to possible water ingress and outstanding bathroom fan upgrade. Guttering works would be prioritised. The landlord was awaiting the resident’s availability after she rescheduled an appointment booked for 22 April 2022.
6. There were small quantities of mould by the front door and on the lounge ceiling. These would be addressed with mould washing works. A small hole next to the lounge window also needed filling. This was “very minor” but the hole would be siliconed. An appointment was booked for 29 March 2022 but the resident had postponed the works. The landlord would contact her to rearrange an appointment.
The following events occurred between 22 and 24 March 2022:
1. The resident told the Ombudsman her own contractor recommended removing the flooring to install epoxy. However, the landlord’s own inspections were brief did not involve damp testing. Further, repair visits had been booked at the last minute with little notice given.
2. She subsequently told the landlord it should be prioritising the bedroom repairs. Further, she would not be removing carpets and cleaning until the damp had been resolved. She also said she was paying full rent for a property that lacked a bedroom.
3. In further email updates, the resident told us the situation had been ongoing for 7 months and she was fed up with inspections. In addition, the family were “desperate” to resolve the situation. She said the landlord had failed to inspect the insulation and it often failed to return phone calls. Further, the children had been mentally, physically and emotionally impacted and the property did not feel like a home.
On 5 April 2022 the landlord’s damp specialist completed a leak detection survey. The corresponding report confirms it was tasked with identifying any leaks affecting the bedroom. Further, that thermal imaging equipment was used during the survey. No water staining was noted in the underpass area and no leaks were identified. Although the report made no recommendations, it noted high moisture readings were taken to some areas of the bedroom floor.
On 9 May 2022 the resident’s legal representative notified the landlord about a disrepair claim. Its letter referenced water ingress into living room, hallway and children’s bedroom with flooring wet to the touch. It also mentioned defective plaster and mould throughout the property. It said the landlord was notified about these problems in 2016, but the issues were still ongoing. Around 10 days later, a works order to repair guttering was cancelled. No cancellation reason was recorded and no subsequent gutter repairs were raised.
In an email update to the resident on 19 May 2022, the landlord said it had scheduled the outstanding repairs to take place over a single day on 1 June 2022. This was on the basis a one-off appointment would minimize any inconvenience to the resident. The update contained an itemised list of eight separate repairs. It list included the works detailed in the landlord’s stage 2 response as well as: a small hole to be filled next to the lounge window, sealant to be renewed around a bathroom window, defective hallway plaster and mould washing.
In a same day reply, the resident said the landlord’s proposed the date was unsuitable. This was because it was half-term and her autistic daughter would not be able to cope. She also said the list failed to mention any flooring repairs. When the landlord asked her for an alternative date, the resident said it should contact her solicitor.
On 4 July 2022 the landlord chased the resident for a suitable date. The resident responded she had no upcoming availability due to holidays, medical appointments and school commitments. In a subsequent update to the Ombudsman on 19 July 2022, she reiterated her concerns about the scope of the repair works and the ongoing lack of a second bedroom. She said the repairs should take place within school hours to avoid overwhelming her daughter with visitors. She also said she would not remove the carpets due to the risk of ruining more furniture.
During an internal update on 28 July 2022, the landlord said the resident had refused access for replacement bathroom fan works. Further, a new appointment had been booked for 20 September 2022.
On 24 August 2022 the resident told us one of the children had experienced a significant eczema flare-up. She said medical professionals advised it may relate to the mould in the property.
On 5 September 2022 the resident’s solicitor proposed a settlement to the disrepair claim. It was based on the landlord: completing its list of eight outstanding repairs within 56 days, investigating and repairing the damp bedroom floor and making a compensation payment of around £4.9K. The investigation proposal was based on the moisture findings in the April 2022 leak detection survey. The repair history shows a works order for mould washing works to the lounge ceiling and around the front door was marked complete within days of the proposal.
The repair history shows repair orders to replace the bathroom extractor fan and fill a small hole near the lounge window were marked complete on 20 September 2022.
The landlord’s call notes from 2 November 2022 show the resident had called in relation to an inspection that occurred the previous day. Subsequent correspondence between the parties’ legal representatives also referred to this inspection. The call notes said the resident was still sharing a room with her children. Further, she reported most of the family’s belongings were in the lounge due to ongoing water ingress issues from the property’s guttering.
The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the inspection report referenced above. We have seen undated handwritten notes which the landlord said related to the inspection. The notes were a bullet point list of actions which were broadly similar to the landlord’s previous list of repairs. They were not detailed and made no reference to the family’s living conditions.
On 30 November 2022 the landlord’s solicitor made a counter offer. It said, to fully settle the claim, it would pay the resident £1K in compensation and complete the following repairs within 21 days: repair missing render on the exposed lintel outside one of the bedrooms; reseal the lounge window; replace the bathroom fan; carry out damp and mould washing to the front door and lounge ceiling and fill a small hole next to the lounge window. This indicates damp in the bedroom was broadly attributed to the missing render on the exposed lintel.
The resident’s solicitor accepted the landlord’s offer on 5 December 2022. The timeline shows the solicitor abandoned its efforts to have the bedroom floor investigated in the interests of reaching a settlement. It also shows the agreement overlooked any guttering repairs or plastering works.
The repair history shows sealing works to around lounge and bathroom window were completed on 18 January 2023. This was around 44 days after the settlement was agreed.
The repair history shows the landlord completed cement works to a lintel above the bedroom window on 18 April 2023. This was around 19 weeks after the settlement was agreed.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 2 June 2023. She said she received a compensation payment of around £700, after legal fees, in respect of the disrepair claim. Nevertheless, the situation was ongoing because the landlord failed to comply with the settlement’s repair deadline and key works were outstanding. Further, her solicitor was now unable to make contact with the landlord. Her main points were:
1. Bedroom floors were still impacted and mould was ongoing. Outstanding repairs to the property included guttering and window works. The resident felt the same issues were likely to continue reoccurring.
2. The resident was sleeping on the floor having disposed of a damaged bed. Her youngest daughter was taking strong asthma medication.
3. The landlord offered the rehouse the family in December 2022. However, the proposed accommodation was still not ready.
4. The landlord had failed to respond to the resident’s complaints about an unrelated fire safety issue. This issue related to a recent fire safety inspection.
Following our subsequent request for further information, the landlord told us it understood all outstanding works to the property were completed by mid-April 2023. It said, in response to our notification the mould was ongoing, it had instructed its damp specialist to contact the resident to arrange an inspection.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident and her family. The timeline confirms it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience and loss of amenity. Unlike a court we cannot establish liability or award damages. In other words, we cannot determine whether conditions in the property were responsible for the family’s health issues.
It may help to explain that this assessment is focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint. This is broadly reflected in the above timeline. In the first instance, the resident’s fire safety concerns will need to be addressed as a new complaint with the landlord. Since the resident reported having difficulty getting the landlord to respond to these concerns, we will make a recommendation below to help her progress matters.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The timeline suggests the landlord initially adopted a dismissive and inappropriate approach to the resident’s reports. For example, despite 2 reports that damp was visible on an external wall, in February 2020 and November 2021, no information was seen to show it attempted to investigate any external issues until around 18 March 2022. It was noted that guttering works and missing render were confirmed at this time, which was more than 2 years after the resident’s initial report of external damp. This was inappropriate given the circumstances.
Further, the timeline suggests it took separate interventions from medical professionals, in November 2021 and January 2022, before the landlord finally referred the property to its damp specialist. Again, this referral took around 2 years. This was an inappropriate response given the situation’s potential health implications. Based on the lack of additional monitoring, it was also contrary to the approach required under HHSRS. It was noted the resident said the landlord failed to take the situation seriously. The timeline supports this conclusion.
The landlord’s correspondence from around the time of the referral also supports her assertion that its operatives were not sufficiently qualified to assess damp and mould. This is because they failed to recognise mould growth on carpets, which was later confirmed by the damp specialist. In contrast to the landlord’s previous inspections, the specialist also confirmed the property’s bathroom fan was barely functioning. Despite the specialist’s nuanced findings, which referenced a lack of ventilation as well as heating, the landlord appears to have used its report as a basis for blaming the resident’s lifestyle.
It is widely acknowledged within the social housing sector that overcrowding can significantly increase the likelihood of damp and mould occurring. On that basis, a reasonable level of engagement with the family’s situation should have prompted the landlord to mitigate the risks. For example, it should have checked the operation and suitability of property’s fans at a much earlier stage of the timeline. It is reasonable to conclude that addressing inadequate ventilation is a comparatively inexpensive way to improve conditions in an overcrowded property.
Though it agreed the specialist’s recommended repairs, the landlord ruled out considering compensation a lifestyle basis. This lifestyle approach persisted at stage 2 even though the landlord was aware of external repairs at this point. The resident’s subsequent correspondence confirms she found this approach both upsetting and unfair. Further, she felt insufficient urgency was shown to complete the bedroom repairs given the landlord was aware of the family’s living conditions, and the situation’s impact on their vulnerabilities.
The landlord has not disputed the loss of a bedroom, or the resident’s consistent descriptions of the family’s living conditions. That said, it has not directly acknowledged their situation either. The landlord’s failure to establish the details surrounding the reported room loss made it difficult for the Ombudsman to quantify the overall delays. Nevertheless, the timeline suggests repairs were noted to an external window wall on 24 February 2020. It also indicates these works were ultimately completed on 18 April 2023. The Ombudsman considers 1 month a reasonable timescale in which to complete a routine repair.
The above identified period amounts to around 38 months. The timeline also suggests the family lost the use of a bedroom around November 2021 and the situation is still ongoing. Further, an identified guttering repair is outstanding. Based on the timing of this assessment, this period amounts to around 20 months. Nevertheless, the timeline shows there were some delays that did not relate to the landlord’s actions. For example, it suggests the landlord was unable to schedule repair appointments on a number of occasions between 29 March and 5 September 2022.
Further, this was based on the family’s commitments and the resident’s concerns about her eldest daughter’s welfare. Whilst the resident’s reasons for postponing various repairs were understandable, it cannot be fairly said that the landlord lacked urgency during this period of around 5 months. A guttering repair was cancelled during this time. It was also noted that the resident’s solicitor failed to include the guttering repair in its December 2022 settlement agreement.
Though the parties agreed a settlement at this point, which included a £1k compensation element. The above identified timeframes suggest the settlement reached was disproportionate given the length of the inappropriate delays, along with the resulting impact to the resident and her family. It was also noted the landlord failed to comply with its 21-day repair deadline, and no information was seen to show the settlement was endorsed by a court. On that basis, the Ombudsman will amend the settlement based on the information seen.
Having deducted 6 months from each of the above identified delay periods, to account for the landlord’s routine repair timescale and delays it was not responsible for, the evidence points to inappropriate delays of 32 months and 14 months for the lintel repairs and bedroom loss respectively. This because, given the circumstances, the landlord should have ensured the identified guttering repair was completed. There was no evidence pandemic restrictions contributed to any delays. For example, the timeline shows the landlord did not confirm external repairs were necessary until around March 2022.
It is reasonable to conclude the resident’s enjoyment of the property was reduced during the combined delay period of around 46 months. This is based on her concerns about the property’s condition on the family’s medical conditions and her consistent reports of room loss. The timeline shows she made considerable efforts to progress the repairs. For example, she involved third parties such as medical and legal professionals. It is reasonable to conclude this was both avoidable and inconvenient. It also shows she facilitated multiple repairs and inspections. Further, a contractor had to be recalled, over quality issues, on at least 1 occasion.
Given the above there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This is because the landlord’s dismissive and inappropriate approach failed to treat a potential health hazard seriously. Contrary to HHSRS and best practice in the sector, the landlord failed to engage with the family’s circumstances and instead sought to blame their lifestyle. The evidence shows its £1k legal settlement, reached outside of the landlord’s formal complaints process, was disproportionate given: the severity of the failures, the length of the delays and the prolonged period of distress the resident was caused.
The Ombudsman will increase the previous settlement to account for the above information. Our compensation order will include a rent reduction element based on 5% percent for the period prior to the loss of a bedroom, and 10% for each bedroom thereafter. This recognises the delay period overlapped and that the impact was more severe when the family lost the use of a bedroom. The rent figures have been used as a guideline only and are not intended to amount to an exact refund. The remainder of the compensation ordered will address the resident’s distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline points to issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, whilst its responses were broadly issued in line with the landlord’s timescales, a delay of around two days was noted at stage 2. The timeline indicates it stemmed from a failure to promptly escalate the resident’s complaint. An apology would have sufficiently redressed a delay of this length. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to acknowledge the delay or apologise accordingly. This was inappropriate. The landlord should routinely consider its own complaint handling during its investigations.
More significantly, the landlord failed to engage fully with the resident’s concerns at stage 2. For example, her escalation request referenced a failure to act on reports of defective gutters in December 2021. However, the landlord’s response failed to explore this issue. When a problem was identified, in the case of a defective ceiling repair requiring a contractor recall, the landlord failed to consider whether the problem amounted to a failure on its part. In contrast, a reasonable level of engagement should have confirmed it was.
For example, the landlord was responsible for its contractor’s actions. Further, it was reasonable to conclude that failing to complete repairs to a satisfactory standard resulted in at least one avoidable follow-up visit. In turn, this unwarranted visit would likely cause the resident additional distress and inconvenience. On that basis, the landlord should have recognised its error and considered a proportionate offer of redress. Instead, it overlooked both its error and the resulting inconvenience.
The above aspects of the landlord’s complaint handling were contrary to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) as published in July 2020. Section 3.14 of the Code said, “Landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions…”. Section 5.2 said, “Landlords should acknowledge and apologise for any failure identified, give an explanation and, where possible, inform the resident of the changes made…to prevent the issue from happening again.
Similarly, despite the resident’s frequent references to repairs delayed by several months, the landlord failed to investigate whether it was responsible for any avoidable delays. This was inappropriate given the resident had explained the family were living in difficult conditions due to the floor in the children’s bedroom. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s lack of engagement with key complaint issues decreased its chances of resolving matters through its own internal complaints procedure.
In this case, the timeline shows both parties incurred legal fees that could have reasonably been avoided if the landlord had shown an increased willingness to conduct a thorough investigation, acknowledge errors and put things right for the resident. In contrast, its inappropriate approach likely undermined the resident’s confidence in its complaint handling. For example, at stage 1 the landlord partially justified its decision not to consider awarding compensation on the basis it was paying to upgrade the property’s fans.
Overall, the above identified failures demonstrate an inappropriate lack of engagement in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. This amounts to maladministration on the landlord’s part. Key aspects of the landlord’s complaint handling were contrary to the Code.

The landlord’s record keeping

The timeline also points to significant problems with the landlord’s record keeping. For example, its 24 February 2020 repair records failed to capture details of repairs completed that day. Its same day internal email indicates the record may refer to an inspection visit. In that case, it is reasonable to conclude the purpose of the visit should have been clearly recorded in the repair history. While a same day internal email recommended fan and window repairs, the repair history shows no related works orders were subsequently raised.
Though it told us a repair was completed in September 2020, the resident disputed the landlord’s version of events. The timeline shows the landlord was unable to evidence its actions in relation to the recommendations. These actions should have been appropriately captured in the landlord’s primary repair record.
More significantly, the landlord’s own inspection records were of a poor quality overall. For example, the February 2020 and January 2022 records lacked detail or supporting images. This was inappropriate given the potential health implications of the reported mould. Generally speaking, images would likely help the landlord, and the Ombudsman, to later gauge the severity of any potential hazards. In this case, the first images postdate the initial report by around 2 years. Whilst the November 2022 inspection record was more detailed, it was an image of a hand-written list of bullet points.
Further, as mentioned previously, the evidence suggests the landlord failed to document the family’s living conditions over a number of inspections. This was key information that should have been reflected in the landlord’s repair records. Had it established the facts, it could have directly acknowledged their reports of a lost bedroom. This may have improved both its repairs response and its subsequent complaint handling. Alternatively, the landlord could have later used its records to dispute the resident’s room loss timeline.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses inspections and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors or managing agents.
Overall, the above shows the landlord’s record keeping was inappropriate on several occasions. Given the health and wellbeing implications of the omitted information, the failures identified amount to maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord’s dismissive and inappropriate approach failed to treat a potential health hazard seriously. Contrary to HHSRS and best practice in the sector, it failed to engage with the family’s circumstances and instead sought to blame their lifestyle. The evidence shows its £1k legal settlement, reached outside of the landlord’s formal complaints process, was disproportionate given: the severity of the failures, the length of the delays and the prolonged period of distress the resident was caused.
Several aspects of the landlord’s complaint handling were contrary to the Code. The landlord failed to engage with key complaint issues, acknowledge errors or redress the resident accordingly. Given the circumstances, the landlord was unlikely to resolve matters through its own internal complaints procedure.
The evidence shows the landlord’s record keeping was inappropriate on several occasions. It was unable to evidence repair actions and it failed to capture information with significant health and wellbeing implications.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to arrange for a senior member of its staff to apologise to the resident within 4 weeks for the failures identified within this report. The apology should acknowledge the landlord’s dismissive and inappropriate approach, that it unfairly attributed the problem to lifestyle factors, that third party intervention was necessary to progress matters and that the situation remains unresolved.
The landlord’s surveyor to inspect the property and the gutters within four weeks and swiftly action any identified repairs. The timeline indicates window and plastering repairs are likely outstanding. The inspection report should be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman. In line with the landlord’s recent update to the Ombudsman, the landlord should also provide both parties with a copy of its damp specialist’s new report.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £4,369.60 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £913.92 rent reimbursement for any loss of enjoyment caused by the landlord’s above identified delays and failures between 24 February 2020 and 1 November 2021 (calculated as 5% per month over 20 months – 6 months for reasonable delays).
2. £3,655.68 rent reimbursement for any loss of enjoyment caused the landlord’s above identified delays and failures between 2 November 2021 and 29 June 2023 (calculated as 10% for each affected bedroom over 20 months – 6 months for reasonable delays). This is the period in which the resident consistently reported the loss of a bedroom.
3. £500 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. £300 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by above identified issues with the landlord’s complaint handling.
5. A £1k deduction to reflect the £1k payment previously agreed by the parties solicitors. The resident has confirmed she already received this payment. It was noted the payment covered her damaged items. (The overall total including this figure is £5369.60)
The landlord to conduct a senior management review into the key issues highlighted during this report. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should include: the delay in referring to its damp and mould specialist; it operative’s failure to identify mould; its failure to record the severity of the mould or establish the family’s circumstances; its lifestyle approach; its complaints department’s failure to engage with key issues, acknowledge errors or offer redress and its failure to resolve matters after a disrepair settlement was agreed. Identified improvements should be cascaded to relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.

Recommendations

The landlord to update the resident about its progress preparing the family’s new accommodation as offered in December 2022.
The landlord’s complaints team to contact the resident about her fire safety concerns. This is with a view to ensuring her concerns are captured and logged as a formal complaint accordingly.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendations within 4 weeks.