MHS Homes Ltd (202215054)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215054

MHS Homes Ltd

15 December 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:
1. reports of repairs needed to the roof.
2. reports of damp and mould and lack of insulation.
3. the related complaint.
The complaint is also about impact of damp and mould on the resident’s family’s health.
The Service has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident says damp and mould at the property may have had a negative impact on her family’s health. While the resident’s concerns about this are acknowledged, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. This is a matter which is most appropriately decided by a court following a claim for damages. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer, and it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how she can make such as claim.
Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme stats that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
It follows that the resident’s complaint about this matter is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider in line with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme. However, this investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health and well-being when considering her complaint. We have also considered any distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has lived in the property since 2003. She lives with her husband and 2 children. The property is a Cornish unit house, which is a prefabricated non-standard construction.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof, chimney and walls.
The landlord’s repairs policy does not provide timescales for repairs, however its service standards, available on its website, state that it will:
1. attend an emergency repair within 24 hours.
2. attend an urgent repair in 5 working days.
3. agree appointments for non-urgent repairs with the resident.
4. confirm the work it will carry out and how long it will take.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy of January 2022 states that it will provide and maintain “a comfortable, and healthy home, free from damp, mould, or disrepair”. It says it recognises that mould issues in a home can be distressing and that it will be supportive in its approach and provide effective communication throughout.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould of October 2021 included recommendations for landlords. In November 2022 the Ombudsman asked that landlords self-assess against these recommendations. The landlord did so in January 2023 and set out recommendations aimed at improving its responsiveness to customers presenting damp and mould issues.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider compensation if a resident is out of pocket as a direct result of its failings. It also outlines that it will consider compensation for delays and distress. It says that where it is fully responsible for this, it will consider compensation of:
1. £50 for low impact.
2. £250 for medium impact
3. £500 for high impact.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 7 working days. It aims to respond at stage 2 within 15 working days.
The landlord told the Service that it had vulnerability indicators on the resident’s account, but it was unable to locate information about this. It said it does not hold case records noting disabilities or health issues for the resident or her family.

Summary of events

Information provided by the resident shows the landlord wrote to her in September 2013 about its attendance at the property following reports of mould. It said the mould was due to poor levels of insulation, and that it would put the resident forward for an insulation scheme. No records have been seen about any outcome of this.
In January 2014 the resident sent the landlord an email asking about when her property would be insulated. She said trickle vents had been fitted to windows but that walls in her child’s bedroom were so wet that wallpaper hung from the wall. This correspondence is not included in the landlord’s records and there is no evidence it responded.
On 16 November 2016 the resident sent another email to the landlord about condensation and mould in the main bedroom of the property. She attached photos and said that condensation ran down the walls if she did not use a dehumidifier 24 hours a day. Again, there is no record of this correspondence on the landlord’s file or of it responding.
The landlord’s records show that on 4 June 2021 the resident sent it an email about repairs she considered were needed to the property (that are not subject of this complaint). In this the resident said she was still waiting for the property to be insulated.
On 7 April 2022 the resident sent the landlord a message requesting that it complete an inspection of her roof. She said a tile was missing following a storm and there was movement in the tiles when it was windy. There is no evidence of a repair being raised at this time or of further contact until July 2022.
On 4 July 2022, following contact from the resident about the roof, the landlord raised an urgent inspection. It noted internally that there had been confusion about whether the resident’s earlier repair request had been logged with its contractor.
The same day the landlord wrote to the resident. It apologised that a roof issue had not been raised as a repair. It said it had now raised an urgent inspection to establish what work was needed. In responding to the landlord that day the resident said she also had issues with damp and black mould at the property. She asked whether she could be placed on an insulation programme. She said she had been “rejected from the last few programmes”.
Later the same day the landlord completed a damp and mould triage form with the resident. In this the resident said:
1. black mould affected the living room and every room upstairs.
2. the issue came back each winter.
3. she had reported issues of damp and mould to the landlord each year for 18 years.
The landlord’s repair records note that it completed a repair to re-position a roof tile on 12 July 2022.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 14 July 2022. At this time, he noted:
1. surface mould in the main bedroom due to cold bridging and no cavity wall insulation.
2. no mould in the other 2 bedrooms, but that the resident had said these had recently been redecorated.
3. surface mould to the bathroom.
4. all bedrooms and the bathroom suffered with mould each year due to a lack of cavity insulation.
5. the property urgently needed to be insulated as there was cold bridging to all exterior walls.
6. The property was structurally dry.
The surveyor also noted 2 separate issues he had identified, that:
1. repointing was needed at the side of the property where an old boiler had been positioned.
2. new guttering was needed to the dormer windows.
That day the landlord logged the repairs, noting it was major work and that these had a target completion date of 9 September 2022.
On 10 August 2022 the resident sent an email to her MP. She said she had experienced issues with black mould since moving into the property. She said:
1. she had been put on programmes for insulation installation but rejected from each.
2. since the surveyor’s inspection, contractors had attended but had said holes in the roof needed to be resolved before internal work started.
3. the landlord was still to provide a plan for the repairs.
On 16 August 2022 the resident’s MP sent the landlord a letter about damp and mould at the property. At this time the landlord noted internally that the target for repairs was September 2022 and that it was arranging to install cavity wall insulation.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 August 2022 following its surveyor’s attendance at the property. It said it had found the cause of damp and mould to be a build-up of condensation at the property. It outlined the following work had been raised:
1. treatment in the main bedroom to remove the signs of damp and mould on the ceilings, and skim and plaster.
2. treatment in the bathroom to remove the signs of damp and mould.
3. work to the airbrick in the lounge to ensure it was not blocked.
4. treatment to remove the signs of damp and mould in the lounge.
5. guttering and repointing work.
The landlord said its contractor would contact the resident direct to arrange repairs.
The landlord noted internally on 22 August 2022 that the work orders had been raised with its contractors but had not been booked in. It said these were major works so had a 40–day target. It said it was separately arranging insulation of the property.
On 24 August 2022 the landlord noted internally that the property did not qualify for cavity wall insulation under a previous government grant scheme. It said that it hoped the property, and the insulation works required, would be covered by a new government grant scheme.
The resident contacted the landlord again about her roof on 26 August 2022. She said a roofer had attended to complete a repair to the roof tiles, but she did not believe this had been completed correctly. She asked for a report of the inspection. The landlord’s repair records show it logged a further roof inspection on 30 August 2022. That day the landlord told the resident it did not have a report of roof work of July 2022 as the job appeared to have been abandoned. It said it had booked a roof inspection for 6 October 2022.
On 21 September 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. She outlined a longstanding issue with damp and mould at the property. She said:
1. she had been told in 2013 that the property would be insulated.
2. she had consistently chased this, mostly by telephone.
3. water would run down the walls if she did not run a dehumidifier for 6 months of the year.
4. she had requested a roof check due to tiles falling from the roof. Following this, in July 2022 an operative had replaced a tile with silicone, which a contractor had since said was the incorrect method to use.
The resident said that the contractor was due to start work on 4 August 2022 to address mould issues. However, when attending it said issues with the roof needed to be addressed first. The resident said she had received the landlord’s letter of 19 August 2022 but was disappointed to see this did not mention repairing or investigating the roof or insulating the property.
The resident said the “escalating degradation” of the property had caused her “enormous distress and financial outlay”. She said her family had experienced medical issues which she considered may be due to the effect of black mould. She also said she had needed to spend money redecorating and there had been a continual cost in running a dehumidifier. The resident also questioned when her boiler would be replaced as she said it was 19 years old.
On 28 September 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It said its contractor would attend the property on 4 October 2022 with a surveyor to confirm what further work was required.
The landlord responded to the resident’s MP on 3 October 2022. It said work to the property was being undertaken and that it was investigating whether it was possible to complete insulation to reduce condensation. It said it had booked a roof inspection for 6 October 2022.
On 4 October 2022 the landlord recorded internally issues it was experiencing finding a contractor to complete cavity wall insulation. It noted that it was specialist work which its repairs contractor could not complete. The same day it noted its contractor had tried to book damp and mould work in following the survey in July 2022 but that the resident had refused as she believed more work was required.
On 5 October 2022 the landlord’s surveyor sent an internal email about his attendance at the resident’s property the previous day. He noted that he had requested a quote from the repairs contractor for insulation work. He said the situation had worsened since his last visit, and set out the following work to be completed:
1. renewal of plasterboard in the main bedroom and redecoration.
2. mould washing and redecoration of the other 2 bedrooms.
3. mould washing and redecoration in bathroom and wall tiles renewed.
4. work orders were to be raised for several issues identified with the roof.
The landlord’s repair records noted that an inspection of the resident’s roof was completed on 6 October 2022 but does not record any further details of this.
On 13 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord’s contractor about the outstanding work. The contractor said that it was looking to complete:
1. guttering work on 14 October 2022.
2. repointing of brickwork on 18 or 19 October 2022.
3. roof work on 18 or 19 October 2022.
4. main bedroom walls between 19 to 25 October 2022. It said it would need someone to be at the property when this work went ahead.
In response the resident said she would prefer as much of the work as possible to be completed in the week starting 22 October 2022, when she would be away on holiday. She said her “autistic daughter was struggling with the situation”. She said she could arrange for another daughter to stay at the property to provide access.
On 19 October 2022 the surveyor emailed the resident. He said that:
1. work could not be completed while the resident and her husband were away. He said that any issues that arose during the work needed to be relayed to the resident the same day.
2. the contractor would liaise with the resident to complete work on dates that suited her.
3. he would visit the property the following day to discuss the work and speak about the resident’s availability and that the landlord would “work around” her.
On 31 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord’s surveyor following her return from holiday. She queried when the roof/chimney repair would be completed as she thought it was to be done while she was on holiday. In response he said the chimney was still to be inspected and the remaining internal work would be booked after this.
On 14 November 2022 the major works team set out internally that it was having problems with a contractor who had tendered for the insulation work. It said it had set up meetings with a different contractor. The same day the landlord noted it had been in contact with a contractor, and it hoped it may be able to start insulation work in early–2023.
On the same day the landlord’s complaints team sent an email to the repairs contractor to check what work was outstanding. It queried whether the roof tiles would be checked as the resident had reported a temporary repair had been completed using silicone. The repairs contractor responded that day. It said:
1. it was completing work to the bedroom and the bathroom at the property the following day.
2. work to the main bedroom was to start after chimney work was completed later than week.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the complaint on 21 November 2022. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to provide a response. It said it had been waiting to hear from its major works team what work was still outstanding. It said:
1. following the inspection on 14 July 2022, its surveyor had said insulation should be arranged as soon as possible as this was contributing to mould growth.
2. it had requested quotes from its contractor and another contractor for cavity wall insulation at the property.
3. it was not obliged to provide cavity wall insulation, but recognised this should have been arranged sooner due to the age of the property.
In respect of the resident’s concerns that damp and mould issues were affecting her health, the landlord said:
1. it would only review the impact of mould growth over the last 12 months, in line with its complaints policy.
2. the resident had reported damp and mould in July 2022 and following this it had arranged a surveyor inspection which took place on 14 July 2022.
3. the surveyor found the property was structurally dry and that the main cause of mould was condensation from cold bridging.
4. it was sorry the resident and her family had been affected by mould growth and it was committed to completing repairs and insulation to prevent condensation.
The landlord said its contractor had confirmed that the majority of the internal works had now been completed. It said that, following recent chimney and roof repairs work in the main bedroom had been arranged. In respect of the resident’s request for her boiler to be replaced the landlord said that repairs to this would continue until it was due for renewal.
The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. the survey had identified that insulation was needed urgently to prevent ongoing issues with condensation.
2. it took several months to refit roof tiles after the issue was reported by the resident in April 2022.
It offered the resident £250 in compensation for the length of time it had taken for insulation to be agreed.
The resident responded to the landlord on 18 December 2022. She said:
1. she had reported the issue of persistent damp and mould “every few years”.
2. she wanted to know why it had taken the landlord 15 years to start mould repair work.
3. she had to “struggle and fight” to get any repairs to the property.
4. she had asked for a thorough roof inspection as damp conditions were getting worse.
5. even though the inspection of July 2022 had said the property was structurally dry, it was later found that there was a leak around the chimney. She said this had soaked the roof beams and stained and cracked the ceiling and chimney breast in the bedroom.
6. while repairs to the chimney were now complete there was no mention of checking the condition of the roof beams.
7. she had overheard the contractor refer to her as “awkward” as there were only certain days she could allow them to work at the property due to working from home, and as she was going on holiday.
On 20 December 2022 the landlord’s major repairs team noted internally that the repairs had taken a long time as the resident only allowed access for short periods of time.
On 22 December 2022 the landlord responded to the resident. It said:
1. its surveyor and contractor had inspected the loft in October 2022, and it had agreed that further investigation was needed of the roof and chimney stack.
2. roof rafters and ceiling joists needed to dry naturally. It said its surveyor would then attend on 30 January 2023 to take meter readings.
3. due to the nature of the work it would not complete the work while a resident was away, even if someone else could provide access.
4. it appreciated the resident providing access, and her work commitments, but that as the access had been “supplied sporadically”, this had caused delays to the work.
5. it had no record of the resident reporting damp and mould over a 15-year period, and it had arranged for a surveyor to visit as soon as it was advised of the issues.
The landlord noted the resident felt she had had to fight to get repairs done. It apologised that she felt this way. It said:
1. it had inspected and arranged for necessary work to be completed.
2. all other work had been completed other than decoration of a corner of the lounge.
3. Cavity wall insulation was underway and it had instructed contractors to contact the resident to arrange appointment dates.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 January 2023. She said she was “utterly appalled” by the landlord’s decision and wished to escalate the matter to stage 2 of the complaints procedure. The landlord responded on 6 January 2022. It said it would escalate the complaint and asked what outcome the resident desired.
The landlord’s records note that it completed the following work at the property:
1. washed down and removed mould in the corner of the lounge on 22 February 2023.
2. completed work to the airbrick in the lounge on 9 March 2023.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 March 2023, after she contacted us about the lack of complaint response. It said it had not escalated her complaint as it did not receive a response to its email of 6 January 2023. It said it had now logged the matter as a stage 2 complaint.
The same day the landlord noted internally that cavity wall installation was still outstanding and that its planned works team was looking for a contractor to complete this work.
On 5 April 2023 the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. It said the property was a non-traditional build and it was looking at a “unified way” to approach to addressing these properties. It said it had recently appointed a surveyor who would contact the resident in the next 28 days to complete a full survey of the property. It said it had prioritised the resident’s property so that work could be done as soon as possible after the survey. It apologised for the delay.
The landlord said that once the property had been surveyed it would be able to insulate it to alleviate the damp and mould issues caused by cold bridging. The landlord said it had investigated the repairs listed in the resident’s stage 1 complaint and its records showed these were all complete.
The landlord noted a delay in the resident’s complaint being escalated. In addition to the £250 payment offered during its stage 1 response, it awarded a further £100. It said this was to recognise its failure to handle the complaint quickly and efficiently. The landlord said it would also raise issues it had identified with record keeping with senior management, to avoid the same mistakes reoccurring.
On 20 April 2023 the resident wrote to us. She said:
1. the landlord had fixed the chimney but that it had not completed a full inspection of the roof or responded to her reports for mortar falling from the roof. She considered this to be a health and safety risk.
2. she was still waiting for a date for insulation to be installed. She said she had “little faith” in this happening.
On 25 April 2023 the landlord recorded that it had sent the resident a letter to introduce her to an external contractor it planned to use to complete the insulation work at the property. No further records have been seen by us of contact between the landlord and the resident about the outstanding insulation work.
In October 2023 the landlord told the Service that all work at the property had been completed except the insulation. It said its planned works team had requested a quote from a contractor. However, this contractor could not fulfil contract obligations. It said a new contractor had been “mobilised”. It said the property had been placed on the programme to survey and quote for this work.
The resident told the Service in November 2023 that:
1. she had been running dehumidifiers in the house for several years which she had purchased herself.
2. the landlord resolved the roof/chimney leak before Christmas 2022, but she still experienced mortar/tiles falling from the roof which she considered dangerous.
3. she believed the old heating system contributed to the issues of damp, and she had noticed that mould was returning to one of the bedrooms.
4. she had been told she was on a waiting list for the rest of the house to be insulated and had last heard it should be done by winter 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said she has experienced damp and mould issues caused by lack of insulation for more than 15 years. She has provided evidence of communication from the landlord in 2013 when it said it would put her property forward for insulation. She has also provided emails she sent to the landlord in 2014 and 2016 about the issues of damp and mould at the property.
It is not possible to know now whether emails sent by the resident in 2014 and 2016 were received by the landlord, or whether it responded to them. While the resident said that she raised the issue of damp and mould with the landlord since 2016 by telephone there is no record of this or any other contact by the resident about this matter between 2016 and 2021, at which point she told the landlord she was still waiting for insulation.
It is acknowledged that the issue of insulation and damp and mould is a longstanding issue for the resident. However, the Ombudsman expects residents to raise complaints with landlords in a timely manner so that the issues can be investigated when evidence is available. This investigation has therefore focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s damp and mould report of July 2022. However, we have considered the appropriateness of landlord’s actions since that date in the context of its awareness that this was a longstanding issue for the resident.

Handling of reports of repairs needed to the roof

Repair records show that the resident reported issues with a missing roof tile, and movement of the tiles, on 7 April 2022. However, there is no evidence of the landlord taking appropriate action in response this report. In line with the landlord’s service standard for repairs the resident could expect the landlord to respond to this with 5 working days. But it did not do so until the resident made another request on 4 July 2022. That was a failing.
The landlord’s repair records note it attended to re-position a roof tile on 12 July 2022, and this is in line with what the resident said about the attendance of an operative. However, there is no clear record of what was done at this time, such as what level of inspection of the roof was undertaken. The landlord later said, in response to the resident’s request for an inspection report, that it had no record of an inspection and that it appeared the job had been abandoned. It is unclear why the landlord does not have a record of this inspection; however, that it does not is a failing in record keeping. It is apparent from records, and what the resident said, that some work had taken place. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to record, with sufficient detail, what work it had completed and whether this had resolved all the issues reported.
Adequate records would undoubtedly have assisted the landlord in communicating effectively with the resident about the roof repairs. The landlord had already failed to respond appropriately to the report of April 2022. It compounded this failing with its inability to show what it had done after the resident raised the repair again in July 2022. While the resident said the landlord’s operative had repositioned a tile, the lack of adequate records means the landlord cannot show it had responded appropriately by investigating all the resident’s concerns, including movement in the roof tiles.
A further failing can be seen in the landlord’s recording of the inspection of the roof and chimney in October 2022. It did not make appropriate record of this or of the subsequent work that was undertaken. By this time the resident was reporting that she believed the roof to be leaking. It is apparent from email correspondence that some level of inspection of the roof and chimney took place and that work needed to address the leak was identified. The resident said work was completed before Christmas 2022 to resolve the leak. But there is no clear record of this work. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to detail what it had done, and that it had satisfied its obligations under the tenancy agreement. Adequate and accessible record keeping would have helped the landlord to monitor what steps were being taken, and show it had responded appropriately to the resident’s reports. In light of this, an order has been made aimed at addressing failings that have been identified in the landlord’s record keeping.
When responding to the resident’s complaint the landlord queried with the contractor whether the roof tiles would be checked. It noted the resident’s concerns about a temporary repair using silicone. But there is no evidence the contractor responded to confirm whether or not this concern had been investigated. It is clear the resident’s concerns about the roof remain. While she said the leak has been resolved she has concerns of mortar falling from the roof. There is no clear record of what inspection the landlord completed, either in July or October 2022. There is no evidence of what the landlord did to investigate the resident’s concerns of movement in the roof tiles or the appropriateness of the repair completed in July 2022. The landlord is obliged to maintain and repair the roof. As such it should have taken steps to ensure that it was in a good state of repair, and that it had a clear audit trail of actions taken in respect of this. In view of this an order has been made that the landlord arrange to inspect the roof to address these concerns.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident reports of roof repairs. It delayed initially in completing any work following the repair raised in April 2022. It then failed to record adequately what work or inspection had been completed in July and October 2022. Further, it failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the repair to the roof in July 2022 and the movement in roof tiles.

In responding to the resident’s complaint the landlord acknowledged the delay in responding to the resident’s concerns about the roof. But it offered no compensation for this. The resident had to wait more than 3 months before the landlord acted on her report of April 2022. The landlord’s inability to provide any details of what inspection of the roof took place provided no reassurance that work completed has address all issues reported. The resident said that she felt she had needed to struggle and fight for repairs. She should not have had to wait for long for the initial repair. Nor should she still be waiting for her remaining concerns about the roof to be addressed. That is a detrimental impact. With reference to the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an award has been ordered to recognise the impact of the landlord’s failings.

Handling of reports of damp and mould and lack of insulation

The resident reported the issue of black mould and damp at the property on 4 July 2022 when corresponding with the landlord about a roof repair. The landlord took appropriate action at this time by arranging for a surveyor to attend to inspect the property on 14 July 2022. At this time the surveyor noted areas of mould in the property and the urgent need for insulation.
The landlord raised work orders for internal work to address the damp and mould on 14 July 2022. It wrote the resident on 19 August 2022 outlining repairs to be completed following its surveyor’s inspection. But that was over a month after the inspection. At this time it provided the resident with no indication of when she could expect repairs to be completed, contrary to its repairs policy. While the landlord’s service standards do not provide a timescale for major work, when raising the resident’s repairs the landlord noted a target completion date of 9 September 2022. It would have been reasonable for it to provide this information to the resident when setting out the work to be completed. The delay in writing to the resident about the work, and the lack of information about any timescale for this work was a failing in communication. It demonstrated a lack of urgency and commitment to when it would complete the work. In addition, as later noted by the resident, the landlord failed to say what it was doing to progress the insulation work it had identified was urgently needed. That would have given the resident no assurance this work was being taken forward with any urgency.
It is not clear from records what steps were taken by the landlord to complete repairs between 14 July 2022 and 4 October 2022, when it inspected the property again. While it noted on this day that its contractor had previously tried to book work in, there are no contemporaneous records relating to this. That is a further failing in record keeping which means that the landlord cannot demonstrate that it took appropriate steps to complete the work during this time.
The landlord identified on 4 October 2022 that the scope of internal work needed to be increased, following the surveyor appropriately reinspecting issues. Email correspondence between the resident, the surveyor and the contractor indicates that the landlord’s communications to arrange access in for the work to begin during October 2022 were reasonable. For instance, the contractor set out to the resident on 13 October 2022 a schedule for when it anticipated completing the outstanding work. There is also evidence of regular contact from the surveyor to arrange the work. It is acknowledged that the resident requested that the landlord complete work while she was away on holiday. She explained that her daughter was distressed by the presence of contractors. It is understandable that the resident wanted to explore this option. However, the landlord explained why it would not do so and offered assurances to her that it would complete the work at times that were convenient for her. That was a reasonable response by the landlord.
It is noted, however, that the resident had reported to the landlord that she had overheard a contractor refer to her as “awkward”. It would have been appropriate and proportionate for the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns and provide her with a response about this.
Records relating to what internal work was completed, and when, are again lacking in detail. This is a further failing in record keeping. However, it appears that the majority of work had been completed by the end of November 2022, and that remaining work in the lounge was completed during February and March 2023. This is clearly far outside the 9 September 2022 target initially set out. It is acknowledged that the timescales for work would have been prolonged by the limitations in access due to the resident’s holiday and working from home. It is also noted that the scope of work increased in October 2022. However, we have identified failings in communication and lack of evidence of appropriate action to begin work between July and October 2022 that would have contributed to the time taken to complete the work. The evidence suggests that some of the delay could reasonably have been avoided.
While internal repairs to address the damp and mould have been completed, the landlord has yet to complete insulation work. It is unreasonable that the resident it still waiting to hear when this work will be completed. The landlord identified in July 2022 that this work was urgently needed.
While this investigation is considering how the landlord responded to the resident’s report of July 2022, it is appropriate that the landlord considered the lengthy wait the resident had already experienced. The resident provided the landlord with details of the longstanding issue, including its correspondence to her in 2013. The landlord even recognised in its complaint responses that it should have arranged insulation work sooner due to the age of the property. Since July 2022 it has repeatedly assured the resident that insulation work was underway and that her property would be prioritised. But, nearly 17 months after it identified this work as urgent, it is still outstanding. While records suggest the landlord wrote to the resident to provide details of a contractor it planned to use, there is no evidence a clear plan, or a firm date, for this work has been agreed. That is unreasonable, particularly in context of the length of time the resident has already waited for this work.
The landlord has previously looked to complete work by way of a government grant scheme. It was reasonable for the landlord to explore this option. It was also reasonable for it to look to take a unified approach to completing the insulation work to these types of property. But it should have balanced this against its repair obligations and the need to complete the work within a reasonable timeframe. In view of this, an order has been made that the landlord set out a clear plan and a reasonable timeframe for the completion of insulation work.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of damp and mould and insulation work needed. There was a failing in communication about the timescales for work to address damp and mould. There is an absence of evidence of any steps taken to complete any of this work between July and October 2022. The resident has also waited an unreasonable length of time for insulation work identified as urgent in July 2022.
So far, the landlord has offered the resident £250 for the delay in insulating her property. This award provides inadequate compensation for the concern and frustration about when and what work would be completed to address the reported damp and mould issues. She said that damp and mould has begun to return to her property and that she has needed to continue to run dehumidifiers. That is a detrimental impact to the resident. With reference to the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance a further award has been ordered aimed at fully recognising the impact of the landlord’s failings.
As outlined in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, where landlords make use of dehumidifiers or other electrical tools likely to impact on electricity bills, it should ensure it accurately calculates these and reimburses the resident accordingly. While it is noted that the resident was not supplied dehumidifiers by the landlord, in view of the unreasonable time she has waited for insulation work, we consider it is appropriate for the landlord to look to compensate her for the cost of using dehumidifiers since July 2022. As such, an order has been made that the landlord contact the resident to obtain details of the increased electricity costs she has incurred and reimburse her for these.

Handling of the related complaint

Following the resident’s complaint on 21 September 2022, the landlord did not provide its initial complaint response until 21 November 2021. This was well outside the 7–working day timeframe set out in its complaints policy. While it acknowledged this delay and apologised, there is no evidence it had agreed an extension to the deadline with the resident. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) it would have been appropriate for it to do so. That is particularly as its eventual response was several weeks late. While the landlord said in its response that it has been waiting to hear from its major works team about what work was outstanding, it is unclear why it took so long to do so. But it would have been reasonable for the landlord to communicate with the resident in the meantime about what it was doing to respond to her complaint.
The landlord’s eventual complaint response upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £250 for the length of time it had taken to agree insulation. While this response acknowledged the delay attending the resident’s roofing report it did not award any compensation for this, or identify that the resident was still waiting for a response to all her concerns about the roof. The complaint consideration was an opportunity for the landlord to identify and resolve previous failings, but it missed the opportunity to do so. As noted earlier, when making her complaint the resident raised concerns that she had heard a contractor refer to her as being “awkward”. The landlord should also have addressed this point during its complaint responses, and the steps it had taken to investigate her concerns.
The resident asked that the landlord escalate her complaint on 3 January 2023. But despite telling her it would do so, this did not happen. It was not until the resident raised the matter with the Ombudsman that her complaint was escalated. While the landlord later said it had been waiting for the resident to respond about her desired outcome, it had not said it was waiting for this response before escalating her complaint, nor did it chase it. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this delay when responding to the resident on 5 April 2023 when it awarded £100.However, while it noted insulation work was still outstanding it provided no clear details of when this would be done or how it would monitor the case until its completion. By this time the resident had already waited 9 months for this work. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to put in place plans to oversee the case until the work was completed. It could have done so by arranging to provide the resident with a single point of contact and agreeing regular updates about progress. Simply telling the resident her property would be prioritised was not enough.
Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It delayed in providing responses at both stages. It failed to agree the response extension during its handling of the stage 1 complaint and delayed in escalating the complaint to stage 2. It did not identify or address the issues with its failure to respond to all the resident’s concerns about the roof. It also failed to respond to her concerns that she had been referred to as awkward. Further, the landlord failed to take adequate steps to put in place plans to monitor the insulation work through to completion. The award of £100 does not compensate the resident sufficiently for the impact of the landlord’s complaint handling failings. With reference to the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance a further award has been ordered.
It is noted that in its complaint response of 5 April 2023 the landlord referred to having identified record keeping failings. It said it would raise these with senior management. Identifying areas of learning and improvement is a positive step, however, the landlord did not explain what these record keeping failings were. It is therefore unclear whether it had identified issues with its complaint handling records, or other records. Without sufficient information about the issues identified, these points of learning lack clarity and meaning. As outlined earlier, an order has been made for the landlord to take steps to address repair record keeping failings identified during this investigation. In addition to this a recommendation has been made that the landlord remind complaint handling staff of the importance of being clear and specific about identified failings and areas of learning.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of repairs needed to the roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of damp and mould and lack of insulation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the related complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the impact of damp and mould on her family’s health falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s initial roof repair of April 2022. It then failed to make an adequate record of what work it had done to the roof and chimney in July and October 2022. While work completed address the leak, the landlord cannot demonstrate it has responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the repair of July 2022 or about the movement in tiles.
The landlord failed to provide the resident with clear details of when it expected to complete work to address damp and mould. It also delayed in setting out what work was to be completed. There was limited access to the property when the resident was on holiday and when she was working from home. However, the landlord cannot demonstrate that it took adequate steps to progress damp and mould work between 14 July and 4 October 2022. This will have added to the time taken to complete the damp and mould work identified.
The landlord failed to record adequate details of when the damp and mould work was completed. It also failed to make appropriate record of roof and chimney work and of inspection/work completed in July and October 2022. As a result, it cannot demonstrate it responded to all the resident’s roof concerns.
Both of the landlord’s complaint responses were significantly delayed. In addition, the landlord failed to identify and address issues such as its lack of response to all roof concerns. Further, the landlord failed to put in place adequate plans to oversee insulation work through to completion.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. pay compensation to the resident of £1,350, made up of:
  1. £250 for the impact of the delay in responding to her roof concerns.
  2. £750 for the impact of the delay and lack of oversight of the completion of insulation work. This includes the £250 previously awarded.
  3. £350 for the impact of complaint handling failings. This includes the £100 previously awarded.
  4. any payment of compensation already made to the resident should be deducted from the total amount.
3. contact the resident to provide details of a single point of contact in respect of the outstanding insulation work and outline a clear plan and reasonable timeframe for completing this work.
4. contact the resident in order to arrange to inspect the roof to address outstanding roof concerns.
5. contact the resident to obtain details of the increased electricity costs she has incurred running a dehumidifier since July 2022 and reimburse her for these.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. undertake a review of its repairs record keeping, aimed at addressing failings that have been identified in this report and ensuring these mistakes are not repeated.
2. remind complaint handling staff of the importance of agreeing response extensions with residents.

Recommendation

Contact the resident about her concern that her current heating system is contributing to damp and mould issues and investigate these in line with its service standards.
Contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities that should be recorded for her family to ensure it records are accurate and up to date.