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

Abri Group Limited (202201662)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201662

Abri Group Limited

23 May 2023

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
  1. reports of damp and mould in her home;
  2. associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of a flat owned by the landlord. The resident has asthma and dyslexia, which the landlord has recorded.
  2. On 18 September 2019, the resident reported to the landlord that mould had appeared on her kitchen wall. The landlord responded immediately by raising an inspection for 27 September 2019. Upon attending, the landlord was unable to get access to the property, and the inspection was rearranged for 4 October 2019. A job was raised for stain block to be painted on the wall, which was completed on 1 November 2019.
  3. Over the course of the following two years, the issue remained ongoing, with various works done by the landlord to try and resolve it. The landlord worked with the resident, various specialist contractors and the housing standards team at the local authority. The process experienced several issues along the way that contributed to the delays in resolving the mould problem.
  4. On 4 October 2021, after an appointment that day had to be re-arranged due to contractor sickness, the resident complained to the landlord about how long it was taking for the issue to be resolved. She said that the problems in her flat were affecting her physical and mental health. The resident wanted the landlord to note that she is only available on Thursdays and also to bring forward the next repair job from 8 October 2021.
  5. In December 2021, the resident agreed to allowing her neighbour and her two small children to spend three days living temporarily in the resident’s flat, at the landlord’s request. This was to enable the landlord to treat her neighbour’s home for a mould problem.
  6. The landlord issued its stage one response to the resident’s complaint on 21 December 2021, following an agreed extension of ten working days. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £150 compensation. It also stated it would renew focus on improving communications around repairs and increase efforts to recruit more tradespeople.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day and stated she was unhappy with the level of compensation. The resident confirmed on 5 January 2022 that she wished to escalate her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s internal process.
  8. On 12 April 2022, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response, following a panel meeting. It again offered £150 financial compensation. On 18 July 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to inform her that her complaint had been reviewed following contact with the Housing Ombudsman. It made a final increased compensation offer of £450, comprised of:
    1. £50 for financial loss incurred;
    2. £50 for the complaint handling failure at stage one;
    3. £100 for complaint handling failure at stage two and delay in arranging the panel meeting;
    4. £250 for inconvenience caused and the poor level of communication about repairs.
  9. By July 2022, multiple inspections had been carried out at the resident’s home in the months prior, by the landlord and its contractors. All reported that there were no further signs of damp and mould, with the landlord noting this had not changed since its inspection in December 2021. The housing standards department at the local authority had closed its case.
  10. The resident approached the Ombudsman as she feels the final offer of compensation does not reflect the inconvenience and impact on her from the damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referred to the impact of the mould on her health, as she is severely asthmatic. She has stated that she experienced numerous chest infections while the issue went unresolved. The Ombudsman is very much aware of the detrimental impact that mould in homes can have on health, especially with pre-existing conditions that can be aggravated. However, it is not within the jurisdiction of this Service to make a finding on whether the issues raised in this complaint have had a material effect on the resident’s health. This is because it is outside our role to establish whether there is a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and the resident’s health. Such matters may be more appropriate for a court or liability insurer to decide. However, consideration has been given to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health as well as any general distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. The tenancy agreement sets out the rights and obligations of both the landlord and the resident. The landlord must complete repairs in a reasonable timeframe once reported. The tenant has a legal obligation to facilitate access to the property to the landlord and its contractors so that it may carry out their obligations. The tenancy agreement requires that the tenant gives at least 24 hours’ notice if they are unable to keep to an arranged appointment time.
  2. Following the landlord’s initial attempt to fix the issue, the resident contacted the landlord on 14 November 2019 as the mould had returned. A further inspection was completed on 20 November 2019, with a job raised to repaint wall with stain block (completed on 18 December 2019). Another job was raised with specialists to conduct a damp and mould survey. This was completed on 10 January 2020. It found mould on the front window in the living room and a small amount on the bedroom windows. Two kitchen cupboards had mould in, and one wall. The report recommended that extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom be replaced. The landlord raised a job for this on 20 January 2020.
  3. The fans were not replaced until 30 September 2020. This was a significant delay. The landlord says it had problems with contacting the resident. The Covid-19 lockdown between March and July 2020 also meant the landlord could only do emergency repairs during this time, in line with government guidance.
  4. On 4 November 2020, the housing standards team at the local authority conducted a HHSRS survey, having been contacted by the resident. The survey categorised the hazard in the property from the mould as a category “I” (categories go from A – J, where J is the least hazardous). The recommended action was to treat all affected areas with a suitable fungicide and cover with a mould-inhibiting paint. The suggested timescale for these works to be completed was six weeks. The file shows that the landlord and local authority were in regular and effective communication with each other about this issue. In July 2022, the local authority confirmed that the landlord had complied with the actions required to resolve the damp and mould.
  5. Throughout the first months of 2021, the landlord was unable to get access to the property to carry out the repairs. On 14 January 2021, the landlord noted internally that the resident was only available on Wednesday afternoons. It has listed multiple separate appointments from January 2021 to July 2021 that were not kept by the resident. The landlord has provided evidence of reminder texts sent to the resident for these appointments. There may sometimes be legitimate reasons why tenants may be unable to allow access for appointments and the Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for not allowing access, However, the landlord would not be responsible for any delays caused by its contractors being unable to access the property for pre-arranged appointments. Nevertheless, the landlord could have worked more pro-actively with the resident to remind her of her tenant obligations to provide access and support her in doing so if required.
  6. The contractors did gain access to install a new ventilation unit, and complete works replacing parts of ventilation units and treating walls. In August 2021, the resident called to reschedule further works that then had to be pushed back to October 2021. This appointment was then not kept due to contractor illness. On 14 September 2021, the local authority asked for an update from the landlord. The landlord replied that the reason the repairs remained outstanding was because the resident had not been at the property for the last five visits. The resident disputed this and stated that on one occasion, the contractors reported that they had not been able to gain access, when she had been at home. The landlord and the resident have given different accounts and whilst this Service does not doubt the resident’s word, it is not possible to fully confirm what happened in the absence of evidence to support either account.
  7. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act says the landlord has to keep the property in good, safe working order and respond to repairs in a “reasonable” timeframe. The landlord sets a 90 day target for resolving non-urgent repairs. While it took a long time to resolve the problem, the Ombudsman does acknowledge that certain problems can be complex and take a long time to diagnose, with an element of trial and error involved. What is important to note is that the landlord was responsive to the resident and generally actedon her reports of repair issues. Where remedies did not prove effective, it arranged further inspections, got further professional opinions and tried other remedies.
  8. By time the resident formally complained, the resident and the landlord were at a stalemate on whether there was still mould in the property. The landlord had visited the property on 15 October 2021 as part of the stage one complaint investigation and reported no sign of mould. The new ventilation unit was also found to be running at full capacity. Therefore, the landlord asked a specialist company to visit and give an independent opinion, which was a reasonable course of action in an effort to find the source of the problem.
  9. To conclude, there was a significant delay in fixing the mould issue at the resident’s home. While the landlord is accountable for some of the delay, this Service does not agree that the reasons for this were always within the landlord’s control, for example there were delays due to the effect of Covid-19 on the landlord’s service. The landlord demonstrated a will to resolve the issue and worked closely with specialists and the local authority. It brought forward appointments when it was able to. It generally responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, with inspections and resulting works raised as jobs in line with its published timescales for repairs. However, there were clear communication failures that extended the delays unnecessarily. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, particularly as she was concerned about the risk the damp and mould may pose to her health.

The handling of the associated complaint

  1. This Service will consider not only if the landlord acted within its policy, but whether it has acted fairly considering all the circumstances of the case. Whilst we have regard for the landlord’s internal policies about compensation, this Service does not restrict itself to the confines of the landlord’s policy when it considers the fairness of compensation offers. When assessing compensation, we rely on our own Remedies Guidance (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation.
  2. £50 was offered for financial loss incurred by the resident for allowing her neighbour and her two children to stay with her for three days. This is a reasonable contribution to an increase in utility bills for that period in the absence of evidence to indicate that the additional costs were higher than this. The resident had reasonably estimated an extra £10 for gas, £10 for water, £15 for food and £15 for electricity. However, the resident will also have experienced a significant degree of inconvenience in overcrowding her flat for 3 days. The landlord should pay an additional £50 a day to remedy this inconvenience.
  3. The landlord offered £50 for the delay at handling the resident’s complaint at stage one of its process. With the agreed extension for the complaint response, it should have been issued on 1 November 2021. The actual issue date was 21 December 2021. It is clear that during this extended time, there was an active investigation and works being done to the flat. £50 is a reasonable offer for the delay to complaint handling while this was being done, and this offer is within the Ombudsman’s guidance where a low impact has been assessed.
  4. The landlord offered £150 for the delay to the handling of the resident’s complaint at stage two of its internal complaints process. The response was due on 16 February 2022 at the latest but was issued on 12 April 2022. The landlord offers two options for stage two complaint handling; one is to have the complaint handled by a senior manager, and another is to have it reviewed at a panel meeting comprising various representatives including other tenants of the landlord. The resident chose the latter option, but the landlord said it was unable to arrange the panel meeting quickly enough due to lack of available participants. If the landlord offers this option to its residents, it should be able to follow this through. The landlord’s offer of £150 suggests it considered this error had a medium impact on the resident. Considering the inspections prior to the stage two escalation returned no findings of mould, £150 is a reasonable offer for complaint handling delay. According to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, awards of between £50 and £250 are appropriate where service failure has occurred of short duration and without a significant impact on the outcome.
  5. The landlord offered £250 for inconvenience and poor level of communication about the repairs. According to the landlord’s guidance, this offer reflects that the landlord considers a high impact was felt by the resident, and that they were “subject of persistent failure, over an unreasonable timeframe”. This Services considers that in view of the overall length of time and apparent lack of updates from the landlord at times, this level of compensation may not adequately remedy the inconvenience caused. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that payments between £250 and £700 should be made where there has been a considerable failure but there is unlikely to be a permanent impact.
  6. The offer of financial compensation for inconvenience, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, did not go far enough as a proportionate remedy. This Service acknowledges that some delay to fixing complex issues while its cause is correctly diagnosed, while regrettable, is not always avoidable. It is not expected for the landlord to offer financial remedy for delays caused by lockdowns or an inability to access the property. However, the delays and associated distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident were significant enough to warrant a higher offer of compensation. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an award of £400 for distress and inconvenience caused by poor communication and delays would more appropriately recognise the impact over a significant period of time.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould in her home.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, was there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident, within four weeks of the date of this determination, financial compensation of £800, comprised of:
    1. £200 for the resident temporarily housing her neighbours for three days. This amount reflects an increase in utility bills, and inconvenience;
    2. £400 for distress and inconvenience caused by poor level of communication about the repairs;
    3. £200 for delays in complaint handling.

These amounts are inclusive of the landlord’s previous offer of compensation which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.

  1. The landlord should consider requesting utility bills from the resident for the period that any de-humidifiers were being run in the property and the same period during the previous year. It could consider reimbursing the resident for any identified increase in utility bills due to the running of dehumidifiers to control the damp and mould.