The Guinness Partnership Limited (202208547)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208547

The Guinness Partnership Limited

24 July 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 response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background and summary of events

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord between 2010 and 2023. The property was a mid-terrace, two-bedroom house. The resident lived in the property with her two children and the landlord had it recorded that the resident and her children were asthmatic. The landlord is a housing association.
The records provided show that the resident had been reporting damp and mould in the property since 2017. In response to this the landlord raised at least ten inspections and works orders to investigate and address the damp and mould between 2017 and 2021.

Legal and policy framework

The resident’s tenancy agreement said that the landlord would maintain the outside and the structure of the property, which included internal walls.
Under Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has an obligation that the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy in relation to freedom from damp.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says:
1. It will take responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould in a timely and effective way, where it results from issues that require repair.
2. It will undertake a comprehensive risk assessment which might result in a range of actions, including providing dehumidifiers, the installation of ventilation systems, dry lining walls or applying mould resistant coverings.
3. It will keep residents informed of any property inspections, diagnosis of issues and the timetabling of required works.
4. For more complex cases, and especially where more intrusive building work is required and/ or there is a serious health risk to the resident or a member of their household, it may require them to move out of the property, either on a temporary or permanent basis. It will carry out appropriate checks at the property to ensure it is suitable for the resident to return to.
5. Any repairs that are required will be carried out in accordance with its responsive repairs policy
In the landlord’s damp and mould self-assessment for 2022-2023 it says that it will:
1. Complete a thorough inspection and conduct repairs for all reported cases of damp and mould.
2. Follow up on completed repairs to ensure any issues do not return.
3. Carry out a damp and mould checklist during each resident visit to ensure root causes and complex cases are identified.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out two repair categories:
1. Emergencies – repairs to address an immediate health and safety risk, which it will complete or temporarily make safe within 24 hours. If made safe, it will return in a “reasonable” timeframe to complete the repair.
2. Routine – repairs which are not emergencies, which it aims to fix within 28 calendar days.
The landlord’s decant policy identifies major work to remove extensive damp as a reason for temporary rehousing.
The landlord’s allocations policy says that it may agree a management move for a resident when serious damp and mould conditions are present in a home and previous attempts to get rid of it have failed.

Summary of events

On 22 July 2022 the resident reported damp and mould in her property. The landlord raised a job to treat this and attended on three occasions over July and August 2022 to carry out works, including checking the roof and gutters, fitting a vent in one of the bedrooms and carrying out a mould treatment.
On 25 July 2022 the resident complained to this Service about the damp and mould in her property. This Service contacted the landlord and requested action under its complaints procedure and on the same day the landlord contacted the resident to acknowledge her complaint.
On 29 July 2022 the landlord contacted the resident for more detail about the issues. She responded three days later and said:
1. She had suffered with damp and mould for years, caused by the next door property. She had reported it and temporary repairs had been carried out but these never resolved the problem.
2. The damp and mould was affecting her and her children’s health. All of them suffered with asthma and needed inhalers. Her children were struggling to sleep due to the itching, coughing and wheezing.
3. She asked to be moved to another property.
The resident chased a response on 5 August 2022 and on 8 August 2022 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response, which said:
1. On each occasion she had raised issues with damp and mould, it had attended and completed the repairs that it could to try and resolve the issue.
2. The source of the issue was the property next door, which was owned by the council and it was unable to fully resolve this until the council completed the works required in its property. It had contacted them on multiple occasions to make them aware of the issues.
3. The complaint was not upheld as the issues originated from the property next door and it was unable to repair these.
The resident contacted the landlord twice in August 2022 and asked to escalate her complaint. She said that the landlord had not attended to inspect the property or assess the living conditions and that custody of her children was at risk as their other parent was not happy with the living conditions. The landlord confirmed on 20 August 2022 that her complaint had been escalated to stage two.
On 10 August 2022 the resident said to the landlord that it had given her no support and that her and her children were “not coping well”. On the same day the landlord raised a works order and confirmed that an inspection had been booked for 25 August 2022 to assess the damp and mould.
On 25 August 2022 the landlord inspected the resident’s property and noted that it wanted to knock through the hallway wall to investigate the damp and mould in the neighbouring property. This was booked in for 19, 20 and 21 September 2022.
On 1 September 2022 the resident asked to be moved out of the property while the works to the adjoining wall were done and the landlord agreed to look into this. It contacted her again on 7 September 2022 and agreed to reinstate an old transfer application and asked her to submit medical evidence for a review of the banding.
On 12 September 2022 the landlord visited the resident’s property and took pictures of the damp and mould. The landlord noted on the system that this was for “inspection and works to be carried out”. On the same date the landlord noted that the job booked for 19 September 2022 would be moved because it was a bank holiday. The following day the resident said she did not feel the landlord was taking the health and safety of her family seriously.
On 20 September 2022 the landlord provided its stage two complaint response, which said:
1. It was unable to address the root cause of damp and mould, as it believed this to be the property next door, which had been abandoned. It said that the council were trying to resolve this by taking legal action to “acquire” the property, but this would take some time.
2. An inspection had been carried out on 25 July 2022 and found signs of “significant” damp and mould. It had agreed to treat the dividing wall and the job was booked for three days in October 2022.
3. It could not agree to moving her temporarily while the works were done but her transfer application had been reinstated and she was to provide medical evidence for a review of the banding.
4. The complaint was not upheld.
On 23 September 2022 the landlord said in an internal e-mail that a temporary move for the family was “not required”. It noted that it attempted to call the resident that day but there was no answer.
On three occasions in September and October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and requested a call back. There is no record that the landlord responded to these requests.
In October 2022 the resident provided copies of a GP letter and medical notes and the landlord increased the banding of her transfer application following a review of the evidence provided.
On 5 October 2022 the resident asked for a full risk assessment to be carried out as she wanted to be sure her and her children would not be in danger by staying in the property when the proposed works were carried out. Two days later there was an internal e-mail exchange by the landlord querying if a risk assessment was available to provide to the resident. It also said “given pushback do you think it’s worthwhile just agreeing to the decant?”. The same day the landlord told the resident that it was safe for her to remain in the property while the works were carried out.
On 18 October 2022 the landlord confirmed in an internal e-mail that a temporary move for the resident had been agreed. The resident was contacted on 20 and 25 October 2022 about this.
Between 26 and 29 October 2022, the resident was temporarily moved from the property and works were carried out. The records provided do not confirm what works were carried out.
Between 7 November and 1 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord four times regarding the damp and mould and said that the property was no longer liveable. She reported that the works completed in October 2022 had made things worse and that the property was freezing and would not heat properly. An emergency works order was raised on 1 December 2022 and the landlord attended the following day to carry out a mould treatment. It also arranged to carry out a further inspection on 5 December 2022.
On 2 December 2022the landlord tried contacting the resident to discuss welfare concerns and a fuel top up. It noted that the call was not answered so a text message was sent requesting a call back. On 6 December 2022 the landlord noted “hardship raised for food and fuel”.
On 5 December 2022 the landlord inspected the property. Following this, it agreed a second temporary move for the resident while further works were completed. The proposed works included fitting thermal lined wallpaper, painting, clearing gutters and a mould wash. The landlord advised the resident of this on 9 December 2022 and that it was still exploring options for a permanent move for her.
Between 11 and 24 December 2022 the resident was temporarily moved out of the property and works were completed. From the records provided, it is not clear what works were carried out.
On 4 January 2023 the landlord noted that the resident’s banding had been upgraded to reflect that a management move had been approved for her. The resident was contacted the same day and told this; however, in April 2023 the resident moved out of the property after finding her own alternative accommodation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said that she has had problems with damp and mould in the property for 13 years. The Ombudsman will not investigate historical events in detail and so this investigation has focused on the period beginning 22 July 2022. A summary paragraph of the history going back to 2017 has been included in the background for context, however, this has not been assessed as part of the complaint due to this having taken place over twelve months prior to the resident bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman; meaning it falls outside of the scope of this investigation.
The resident has said that the damp and mould in the property had a negative effect on her and her children’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health or that of her children has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

When the resident reported the damp and mould in July 2022, the landlord attended on multiple occasions, to complete a number of works. While appropriate that it carry out works to address the damp and mould, it is not clear from the records provided how the landlord identified what works were required on this occasion and so it would have been more appropriate to arrange an inspection of the property to properly assess the issue. When the resident made further contact about the issue in August 2022 and December 2022, the landlord did arrange to carry out inspections to assess the issue.The records provided of these inspections are limited and do not give any indication that these were thorough inspections or that it carried out a risk assessment on either occasion, as is committed. There is also no record that it considered carrying out a specialist damp and mould survey, which considering the history and length of time it had been going on for, would have been appropriate. From the evidence provided and considering the circumstances of this case and the length of time the issue had been ongoing, it is the opinion of this Service that this case should have been classified as a “complex case”; however, there is no record that it was, or that the landlord gave any consideration to this.
Following the inspection in August 2022, works were scheduled for the following month, but these had to be moved due to an unexpected bank holiday, which was understandable. This resulted in a delay of around five weeks to the works taking place. As the works were scheduled for three days, it is understandable that the new dates might have been the first available timeslot to reschedule these. However, there is no record that the landlord assessed the urgency of the works or whether there were any other actions it could carry out in the interim, e.g. additional mould washes or providing de-humidifiers.
In August 2022 the resident told the landlord that her and her children were “not coping well”. In response to this, the landlord arranged an inspection of the property; however, there is no evidence that it gave any consideration around what additional support it could provide or had a discussion with the resident about this, which would have been appropriate. In December 2022 the records show that it identified “welfare concerns” and provided support with food and fuel. In addition to this practical support, it would have been appropriate to consider any other support that may have been required, e.g. emotional support, to identify any possible signposting or referral opportunities for the resident.
The landlord was aware that the resident and her children suffered with asthma, and she repeatedly raised concerns about the deteriorating health of her and her children; which she said was caused by the condition of the property, from at least July 2022. While it considered medical evidence as part of the transfer application banding review, there is little evidence that it considered this throughout its overall handling of the issue. This risk of harm should have been given greater consideration by the landlord and better used to inform its overall response to the issue. Its failure to do this amounts to maladministration and will have resulted in the resident feeling ignored and like the health of her and her children did not matter. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on this issue, taking in to account guidance contained within the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould.
The landlord explained why it could not fix the underlying cause of the damp and mould and what it had done to try and resolve this, which was reasonable. It was realistic in terms of how quickly a final resolution to the issue could be achieved, which was appropriate. While reasonable and appropriate to communicate this to the resident, there is no evidence that it considered whether it could or should do anything more, e.g. moving her until the underlying cause was addressed. It is understandable that a landlord would want to try and resolve damp and mould issues before moving residents. However, in this circumstance, due to the landlord’s limitations in being able to resolve the underlying cause and considering that it had tried a number of actions to resolve the issue but had been unsuccessful as well as the impact this was having on the resident and her children; it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that it should have taken steps to progress a management move for her at an earlier stage and its failure to do so amounts to maladministration. The records provided show that the resident first asked to be moved in July 2022 but the landlord did not acknowledge or respond to this until further requests from her in September 2022; and it was a further four months before her management move was approved.
In September 2022 the landlord stated that a temporary move was “not required” and in October 2022 it told her that it was safe for her to remain in the property while proposed works were carried out; however, it is not clear how it reached these conclusions. While visits and inspections had been completed there was no record of any risk assessment or checklist having been completed as committed. Even when the resident, asked for evidence that a risk assessment had been completed, there is no record that one was. The landlord’s policy says that a temporary move may be needed where more intrusive building work is required. As the works proposed in October 2022 included taking down a large adjoining wall, this was likely to have been intrusive to the resident and her family and so should have been considered as part of the landlord’s decision making; however, there is no evidence that it was. While the landlord did agree a move the following month, it is again, not clear how this decision was reached. The Ombudsman has noted a comment made in internal e-mail on 7 October 2022 suggesting that the decant be agreed because of the resident’s “push back”. This is a significant concern as it suggests that the landlord’s decision may have been based on the resident’s persistence, rather than on a formal risk assessment of the situation. An order has been made below for the landlord to review its decant policy in respect of how it makes and documents its decisions for both temporary and permanent decants and then provide staff training on its updated policy.
In October and December 2022 the landlord carried out works at the property. The records provided include what works were proposed, which appeared reasonable in the circumstances. However, the records provided were not clear on what works were actually completed and so the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord kept to its commitments and acted reasonably. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to review its repair records to identify whether it can record details of what works were carried out in relation to induvial works orders.
The landlord commits that it will carry out checks to ensure a property is suitable for the resident to return after a temporary move; however, there is no record that this happened on either occasion in this case. This is particularly concerning as the resident reported after the works in October 2022 that these had made the situation worse. She contacted the landlord four times before action was taken, meaning it was a further month before the landlord reinspected the property and carried out an additional mould wash and almost two months before she was temporarily moved out again for further works to be completed. Similarly, there is no record that the landlord proactively followed up with the resident to check that the works had resolved the issues, as is committed. The records provided indicate that it was the resident making further reports and chasing the landlord for action that prompted follow up. While there is evidence of some updates by the landlord, these appear sporadic, with no evidence of regular updates being provided.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord has a detailed damp and mould policy, which makes commitments on how it will manage cases; however, in this case, there is no evidence that it complied with a number of the commitments made. This meant that inspections were not carried out thoroughly, risk assessments were not completed, follow up and checks were not done and the resident was left chasing the landlord for updates. All of this meant that the resident was left living in a property with “significant” damp and mould for an extended period of time, which was distressing for her and potentially impacted the health of her and her children. While understandable that the landlord was limited in what it could do to address the underlying cause of the issue, it delayed in progressing a management move for the resident, which would have been appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord’s decision making process around temporary moves for the resident was unclear with no evidence of any formal risk assessments being completed. It failed to properly address the resident’s need for additional support, even after she reached out for help and it did not properly consider the risk of harm to the children’s health from the damp and mould, despite her repeatedly raising this. All of this would have caused significant upset and distress to the resident and her children and ultimately resulted in her sourcing her own alternative accommodation. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its handling of this matter, pay £1000 compensation, made up of £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused and £300 for the time and trouble taken in chasing the landlord for action. A further order has also been made for the landlord to provide staff training on its damp and mould policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the residents reports of damp and mould.

Reasons

The landlord failed to comply with a number of its commitments within its damp and mould policy, meaning it failed to properly risk assess the situation and left the resident chasing the landlord for updates. The landlord did not properly consider temporary and permanent rehousing options for the resident and the evidence indicates that it was the resident’s persistence that resulted in the moves progressing, rather than formal risk assessments. The landlord failed to identify and address welfare concerns, despite the resident repeatedly telling the landlord how this issue was impacting her and her children.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide staff training on safeguarding in respect of damp and mould cases, making reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, which can be found here Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
2. Review and update its decant policy in respect of how it makes and documents its decisions for both temporary and permanent decants.
3. Apologise to the resident for its handling of this matter.
4. Pay the resident £1000 compensation, made up of:
  1. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to her reports of damp and mould.
  2. £300 for the time and trouble taken in repeatedly reporting and chasing the landlord for follow up on this issue.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this service within four weeks.
Within six weeks the landlord is ordered to provide staff training on its updated decant policy and damp and mould policy.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this service within six weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its repair records to identify whether it can record details of what works were carried out in relation to individual works orders.
The landlord to notify this service of its intentions in respect of the above recommendation within four weeks.