Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

ForHousing Limited (202202552)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202552

ForHousing Limited

11 October 2023

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould and damp at the property and the associated repairs.
    2. The landlord’s response to the residents’ reports of damaged personal belongings.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The residents live in a property owned by the landlord under an assured tenancy. The property is a one-bedroom bungalow. The residents are both in their seventies and the landlord is aware that one of the residents has Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).
  2. The residents first reported water ingress to the property on 16 November 2020. The landlord carried out a damp inspection on 9 December 2020, which highlighted a number of issues that needed to be addressed.
  3. The residents were unhappy with the progress of repairs and raised a complaint on 24 December 2020. They said that damp and mould was in every room of the property and was affecting their health. They also said the landlord had considerably delayed dealing with a rat infestation issue and related electrical works. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord ever responded to the complaint at this time. The complaint was then brought to the Ombudsman, who raised the issue with the landlord.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 July 2022, apologising for the delayed response. It said that the only open repair at that time was for a roofing repair with a target date of 20 June 2022. However, further works had been identified following an enquiry from their local MP. It said an inspection was carried out which confirmed all of this work had been completed and the damage to carpets and the wardrobe were not raised at the inspection. However, the landlord’s repairs log indicates it was aware of this damage as early as April 2021, and its contractors removed these items for the residents in June 2021. The landlord said it would look at a compensation payment if the resident could provide more details and photos.
  5. The residents contacted the landlord on 18 July 2022 to escalate the complaint to stage 2. They said:
    1. A survey report had shown evidence of rising damp, with problems in the hall and living room, and neither had been dealt with.
    2. Clothes and carpet had to be thrown away as they were mouldy.
    3. The damp issues had to be rectified and they should be reimbursed for new bedroom furniture and carpet, costing more than £3,500.
  6. The landlord sent its final response on 16 September 2022. It confirmed that the roof repair had now been carried out. It said it would arrange a further damp inspection and any further remedial work necessary would be carried out. It offered the resident £150 compensation for delays and upset but did not offer any remedy regarding the items they said had to be disposed of.
  7. The residents contacted this Service on 28 September 2022 to ask for the complaint to be investigated as they remained unhappy that the hallway was still damp and the compensation paid by the landlord did not cover the stress, anxiety and ill health suffered, or the money lost from replacing their clothes, carpet and furniture. Since the complaint was referred to this Service, the landlord has carried out additional damp inspection and remedial work. However, no further damp inspection has been carried out following the final remedial work.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of mould and damp within the property and its handling of the associated repairs.

  1. The residents first reported water ingress in the property on 16 November 2020. Repair notes say that water was coming in at the top corner of the bedroom and it was suspected that guttering was leaking, allowing rainwater to get inside the property. The landlord states that it completed a guttering repair on 25 November 2020, but it has been unable to provide job sheet to confirm this. The landlord’s records shows that a damp survey was completed on 18 December 2020. This confirmed that the gutters should be cleared and flushed as a priority (within 10 working days). It also recommended a new damp proof course in the hallway and bedroom to be completed within 100 working days.  The surveyor recommended that the roof was inspected to check for any leaks or damp insulation.
  2. The residents had also previously reported a potential rat infestation on 11 November 2020, which was highlighted by the lighting tripping. When this was looked into further on 9 December 2020, it was found that there was an open waste pipe in the loft from the toilet, and a hole in the facia near this where rats could be gaining access to the loft. The landlord’s repair notes indicate that bricklaying work was required to stop rats getting in, and the residents needed to arrange pest control to clean out the loft before work was carried out on this.
  3. On 7 January 2021, the landlord’s operative visited and confirmed that rats had infested the loft. They filled the holes in the dividing wall within the loft, but noted that there was an open waste pipe in the loft from the toilet and there was a hole in the facia next to the waste pipe at the front of the property. The operative highlighted that the rats may have been gaining access via this route. They also noted that the neighbour’s garden was surrounded in rubbish. At this stage, the landlord should have taken further action and could have sought assistance or guidance from Salford City Council, given the infestation would likely not have been localised to the property alone. The Council could have taken action to investigate and help prevent the infestation, considering any pest activity in the surrounding public area. The available evidence does not indicate that the landlord took such steps. The landlord’s letter to the residents’ MP dated 22 February 2021 noted that the neighbouring property was now vacant (and presumably the rubbish had also been cleared). However, it is not clear what action was taken, if any, by the landlord in response to the operative’s reports of rat infestation and outstanding issues regarding rat access to the loft. This was unreasonable.
  4. The residents’ MP contacted the landlord about the condition of the property and the landlord responded via letter in February, April and June 2021. The residents were decanted in April 2021 for seven days, and it was agreed that all works relating to damp would be completed whilst they were decanted. The landlord’s repair records show these were completed on 22 April 2021. This is with the exception of the renewal of loft insulation. The landlord has explained that it was unable to complete this work while the residents were decanted due to a number of dead rodents identified in the loft space, which required removal. Despite its previous stance, the landlord arranged an environmental clean of the loft. The insulation and guttering work was completed by 20 May 2021. Additional repairs to replace the soil pipe and roof vent were referred to the landlord’s programme works team.. In response to the survey on 18 December 2020, the landlord has failed to show that it met its 10 working days priority target for guttering work. The other remedial damp works were completed in about 100 working days. However, these works could have been completed much sooner had the landlord taken responsibility for the rat infestation when first reported. Given the age and vulnerability of the residents, the impact of these delays and the inconvenience caused was likely enhanced.
  5. In June 2021, the landlord completed repairs to the roof as some tiles had slipped. There were no reports of water ingress associated with this. The landlord also treated a small amount of mould in the kitchen, removed the fitted wardrobes in the bedroom and striped wallpaper in the hall to enable decoration.
  6. The residents raised a formal complaint in May 2022 as damp issues were ongoing. The landlord’s stage 1 response confirmed that a further damp inspection was carried out on 12 October 2022. The survey identified a small amount of plastering works required to the hall due to the requirement to remove a vent and a potential issue with a window in the bedroom. The vent was removed and the plastering was completed on 28 October 2022. A new double glazed unit was installed on 8 November 2022.
  7. The landlord has provided a copy of its repairs and maintenance procedure (version 1), which was applicable in December 2020. This states:

‘…responsive repairs will be responded to according to their level of priority, such as whether they are an emergency, urgent or routine. Where circumstances are appropriate or necessary, such as a tenant with support needs, a repair may be escalated to a higher priority’.

  1. This indicates that following the surveyor’s inspection in December 2020 and their recommendation that the majority of repairs were routine (to be completed 100 working days), the landlord should have completed an assessment of the residents’ circumstances.
  2. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord took this step. Had it done so, it would have identified that both residents were potentially vulnerable due to their age and one resident had a respiratory condition that was likely to be negatively impacted by damp conditions. For that reason, the damp repairs should have been treated as urgent.
  3. The policy does not stipulate how quickly an urgent repair should be completed, but it is safe to conclude that it would be considerably shorter than 100 working days. For that reason, the landlord failed to action the remedial damp repairs within a reasonable timescale. In addition, the landlord’s decision to take no action in response to the rat infestation caused further delays to the repairs.
  4. The landlord was aware that the loft had a rat infestation in December 2020. Although some preventative repairs were completed in January 2021, additional concerns were highlighted by landlord staff in January 2021, February 2021 and April 2021 and no follow-up action was taken. The landlord insisted that it was not its responsibility to clean up the rat infestation, and thus resolving the matter was static, until it eventually changed its position and undertook an industrial clean in May 2021. However, it had left a vulnerable household to live in a property with a loft littered with dead rats, rat droppings and urine for six months. The resident’s son had reported these conditions and a foul smell at the property to the landlord in an email dated 19 January 2021. The landlord’s letter to the MP dated 22 February 2021 confirmed that a foul smell was noticeable as soon as its operative had recently entered the property.
  5. Given the facts of this case and the seriousness of the failings identified by the landlord’s handling of these repairs, a finding of severe maladministration is appropriate. The landlord has not acknowledged these shortfalls in service and did not take reasonable steps to put them right. These failings have had a severe long-term and detrimental impact on the residents. The landlord’s refusal to take any action in response to the rat infestation exacerbated the situation by delaying repairs and leaving the loft in an unacceptable condition. The landlord’s inaction significantly undermined the landlord/resident relationship. The landlord has caused considerable inconvenience and distress to the residents. The landlord should therefore pay the residents £2,300 in compensation in relation to its handling of damp and mould. This is made up of £800 for the landlord failing to identify the household as vulnerable (particularly to damp) and failing to complete the damp remedial work as an urgent repair. A further £1,500 is due for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the residents caused by the landlord’s failures and unreasonable delays.

The landlord not having provided compensation for the damage caused to the residents’ personal belongings.

  1. Whilst this Service does not investigate or make findings on matters involving liability for damage, we can look at how the landlord responded to the residents’ reports of damaged personal belongings. It is expected that the landlord would signpost the residents to make a claim against their contents insurance, if they have this in place. If not, the landlord should assist the residents with putting in a claim against its own insurance.
  2. The residents explained in their response to the landlord’s stage 1 response that their clothes and carpet were mouldy and contained fungus due to the damp and had to be thrown away. Their built-in wardrobe also had to be ripped out to deal with the damp problem. They asked for the landlord to compensate them for these items. The landlord’s responses asked for more details on the damage, but did not provide any guidance on how they could make a claim.
  3. The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is not responsible for the residents’ personal possessions and strongly recommends they arrange their own contents insurance. Whilst the landlord is not obligated to replace the carpets and other damaged contents, it would have been reasonable to offer assistance to the resident in putting in a claim against its insurance if they did not have their own in place. It should also have conducted the information gathering during the investigation stage rather than as part of its complaint response.
  4. The Ombudsman considers there to be a service failure in its handling of the residents’ request for compensation for damaged items. This is because it has failed to provide the resident with any guidance on how they could claim for these items and failed to gather details about the damage at an earlier stage. An order has been made for the landlord to confirm with the resident whether they have contents insurance. If not, the landlord is to help the resident raise a claim with its insurer.

The landlord’s handling of the residents’ complaint

  1. A member landlord is required to have a formal two-stage process, as set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Stage 1 complaints should be responded to withing 10 working days, and stage two complaints within 20 working days. At both stages, if these timescales cannot be met, an explanation and a date by when the response should be received should be provided. This should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code became applicable on 1 April 2022. The landlord’s own policy prior to this date used the same timescales at stage one and a maximum of 21 working days at stage two.
  2. The resident first complained about damp on 24 December 2020. However, the email was sent to an incorrect email address for the landlord. As such, it was not received. The resident complained on 19 January 2021 via email. The residents’ MP also contacted the landlord on 29 January 2021. The landlord provided three responses in February 2021, April 2021 and June 2021. These do not appear to have been handled as formal complaints, despite the residents’ raising a clear expression of dissatisfaction. The landlord’s first response was also outside the 10 working day timescale.
  3. The complaint was again raised on 31 May 2022. The landlord contacted the resident on 14 June 2022 to confirm that its response would be delayed until 24 June 2022. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 14 July 2022, 30 working days after the complaint was received. The resident escalated the complaint on 18 July 2022. It sent its final response on 16 September 2022, 44 working days after the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated.
  4. The landlord failed to address its handling of the residents’ reports about the rat infestation in either of its responses. It also did not provide details of how it had considered the residents’ vulnerabilities and health condition.
  5. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint. It has not responded to either stage of the complaint in line with its own policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and failed to keep the resident regularly updated with reasons for the delays. It failed to address all of the residents’ complaint points and did not appear to consider the residents’ vulnerabilities.
  6. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for higher compensation for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings “and/or made no attempt to put things right.” The landlord’s delay in dealing with the residents’ complaint had an adverse effect on them, failed to timely recognise the complaint or address it in full. So, an order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation to the residents of £500 to reflect the time and trouble caused to them.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould and damp and the associated repairs.
    2. Maladministration in its handling of the residents’ complaint.
    3. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the residents’ request for compensation for damaged items.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered, within four weeks of the date of this report, to:
  2. Provide evidence to this Service of what specific steps it has taken to improve its services. It should also additionally review the case and send a summary to this Service and the resident setting out what went wrong and identifying any further learning. This should include confirmation of the:
    1. Review and learning it has identified in relation to monitoring outstanding repairs, particularly related to damp and mould, including reviewing working practices regarding repeated repairs, quality checking and feedback from contractors.
    2. Staff training it will undertake in order to give consideration to issues raised by vulnerable tenants.
    3. Staff training it will undertake in order to recognise and respond to complaints in a timely manner.
  3. Arrange for a senior member of staff to apologise for the failures identified in this report, with a copy of this written apology to be provided to this Service.
  4. Carry out a further damp inspection to ensure the remedial work has fully repaired the cause of the damp. The landlord to provide a copy of its findings to the residents and this Service.
  5. Confirm with the residents whether they had contents insurance in place at the time of the water ingress. If not, the landlord to assist the residents in making a claim under its insurance.
  6. Ensure it has a clear pest control policy that enables it to identify instances where the scale of infestation and/or the vulnerability of its residents require it to take pest control action itself or coordinate action with the local authority to ensure the health and safety of residents and neighbouring properties.
  7. Pay the residents £2,800 in compensation (this is inclusive of the £150 already offered to the residents by the landlord). This is comprised of:
  1. £800 for failing to identify the household as vulnerable (particularly to damp) and failing to complete the damp remedial work as an urgent repair.
  2. £1,500 for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the residents caused by the landlord’s failures and unreasonable delays.
  3. £500 for the time and trouble caused to the residents as a result of its complaint handling failures.
  1. With respect to the above orders, the landlord is required to evidence compliance to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is to review the BSI’s consumer vulnerability standard: ‘Requirements and guidelines for the design and delivery of inclusive service’ (BS ISO 22458) and consider creating its own vulnerable persons policy.
  2. The landlord is to consider amending its repairs and maintenance policy to implement a requirement to undertake a health and vulnerability assessment for the household as part of its property inspections in order to prioritise essential works.