Newlon Housing Trust (202012759)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012759

Newlon Housing Trust

29 March 2021

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 the resident’s reports of a leak in her property, and the subsequent damp, mould, and damage to her personal belongings.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an Assured Non-Shorthold Tenant, in respect of the property, since December 2008.
The property is a two-bedroom ground floor flat occupied by the resident and her daughter (who is also the resident’s registered carer).
The resident appears to have a respiratory condition. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord was made aware of this at the start of the tenancy.

Legal and policy framework

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obligated to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises, except where the tenant or persons living with the tenant or the tenant’s visitors have caused disrepair by failing to use the property in a reasonable manner. The landlord must also keep the installations and fixtures / fittings (which it is responsible for) in good repair and proper working order.
Once the landlord has been informed of repairs that are needed, the tenant must allow a reasonable time for the work to be done, and liability only arises once the reasonable time has elapsed from the date the notice was served. The length of time will depend on the scale of the work and the effect the disrepair is having. The landlord will not be in breach of its repairing obligation until this time has elapsed.

Repair Policy

The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of its repair policy. This highlights the landlord’s maintenance service responsibilities and echoes the obligations set out in the above act. Of particular relevance, it shows that where the landlord has been alerted of an urgent or routine repair, such as a plumbing repair, it will respond within 20 working days.
The policy indicates that where there is a flood, which is not the landlord’s fault, the resident will be responsible for carrying out any decorations and also the cost of damage to their belongings, as this should be covered by the tenant’s household insurance.

Compensation Policy

The landlord has also provided this service with a copy of its compensation policy. From this, the Ombudsman has noted the following as general practice:
1. £25 awarded for a failure in service, such as a failure to reply to emails/calls, complaint handling and general poor communication.
2. 20% of the rent (after 7 days) awarded for the loss of a bedroom.

Scope

The resident has suggested that as a result of the mould and damp in her property, as well as her sleeping arrangement, her health condition worsened. Whilst this may be the case, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the deterioration of the resident’s health. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.

Summary of events

On 15 December 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord following a telephone call in which she reported a leak at her property. She attached several photos and explained that there was now mould growth which had damaged her carpets, clothing, and her walls. She explained that as these were all still soaking wet, she believed that the leak was still ongoing.
The landlord confirmed receipt of the resident’s correspondence on 16 December 2019. The resident was advised that the landlord’s surveyor would review this and a job would be raised to source and trace the leak.
The resident’s property was inspected by the landlord’s contractor on 24 December 2019 however it was unable to resolve the issue. The landlord’s surveyor also attended on the same day.
The Ombudsman notes that the leak was resolved on 13 January 2020 by the property developer’s onsite plumber, sought independently by the resident.
On 22 January 2020 the landlord’s contactors applied mould wash and treatment to the resident’s bathroom walls and ceiling. A coat of anti-mould and emulsion paint was also applied
On 2 March 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord explaining that she wished to register a complaint. She stated the leak had originated in the bathroom and had damaged the walls and skirting as well as the carpet and built-in wardrobe in the main bedroom. She explained that several personal items had to be thrown away as a result of the leak.
The resident highlighted that she had emailed pictures of the damage to the landlord on 15 December 2019, but it took until January 2020 for the leak to be resolved as the landlord’s operatives had been unqualified to address the issue. The Christmas holiday was used as an excuse and the leak subsequently had to be repaired by an independent plumber. She asserted that if she had not arranged this herself, the issue would still be ongoing. The resident wished to know how the landlord would resolve this. She stated that the landlord had been aware of her disability, however had left her to deal with matters on her own. She had started sleeping in her daughter’s room due to the mould and this was both extremely uncomfortable and impacting her pre-existing conditions.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s correspondence on 3 March 2020. It confirmed that it would provide a response within 10 working days.
On 16 March 2020 the landlord offered its stage one response. It noted:
1. Following a visit to the resident’s property, its contractor advised that this would be an all-day job and would require the removal of tiling.
2. An appointment was scheduled on 3 January 2020 and it was confirmed that the leak appeared to be coming from behind the tiled boxing area to the WC. It was again suggested that the tiling would need to be removed. The operative reported, however, that as it could not confirm whether the tiling would go back exactly as it was, the resident refused this work.
3. A job was also raised on 6 January 2020 to remove mould in the affected areas of the hallway and bedroom. Patch paint was required on the skirting to the bathroom and bedroom, and this had been completed.
4. On 13 January 2020 a plumber had been instructed to stop the leak. Following this, the floor was cleaned out, silicone was put down, the bathroom door was shaved down (as it had swollen), stain block was applied to the walls, and the corner of the carpet was lifted to dry.

The landlord therefore concluded that its operative had attended the resident’s property with the intention to complete the works however had been prevented by the resident. It advised contacting its service centre to try to reach a possible solution in the future, before taking independent action. The landlord also recommended that the resident contact her contents insurer to report any damage to belongings. It requested up to date pictures so that it could re-assess any further issues that existed.

On 18 May 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord attaching further photos. She explained:
1. On Christmas Eve when two of the landlord’s plumbers had visited her property, they suggested that in order to stop the leak, the tiles needed to be smashed. The resident explained that she had advised against this as there was an alternative access point. The operatives refused to take this on-board, however.
2. On 3 January 2020 she was met with the same situation. She stated that she had not refused the repair but tried to advise of a different method for repair. In desperation, she instead sought the help of the on-site plumber who was able to resolve the matter within 10 minutes. She had heard nothing from the landlord since, however the matter had not been resolved.
3. No mould had been removed during the visit on 6 January 2020. Her daughter had to repaint following the landlord’s attempt and the bathroom had been left in a poor state. She also did not believe that the mould had been treated sufficiently.
4. The carpenter had attended on 13 January 2020 to shave the door down. He also confirmed that the damp in the carpet would never dry out.
5. She had spoken with her insurer who had advised that she could claim on the landlord’s insurance for all forms of damage. She would therefore be seeking compensation for her belongings.

The resident subsequently emphasised that the matter had not been resolved. She reiterated that she was unable to sleep in her room as the damp and mould triggered her respiratory condition. She therefore continued to sleep in her daughter’s bedroom while her daughter slept on the couch.

On 20 May 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. It acknowledged the resident’s continued dissatisfaction and confirmed that her complaint would be escalated to stage two of its process. The landlord advised that contact would be made within 10 working days.
The resident added on 21 May 2020:
1. There was now severe damage to her walls, flooring, and skirting. Her personal items were also damaged, and the issue was ongoing.
2. She was displeased that the landlord’s plumbers had not listened to her advice.

In a separate email, the resident submitted an enquiry to the landlord’s insurance team.

On the same day, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s correspondence and confirmed that her complaint had been moved to its appeal stage. The landlord stated that as it understood, the resident’s main concerns were about the damage to her possessions as it had already addressed the repair handling at stage one. The landlord stated that once this was clarified, it would advise further on how to take the appeal forward.
The Ombudsman can see that there was back and forth communication between the landlord and resident on 3 June 2020.
On 4 June 2020 the landlord explained to the resident that while the panel would review her comments in due course, it wished to know what it could do in the meantime. It had discussed the case with the surveyor and sought clarification on:
1. The resident’s floor – Her photos identified staining which the landlord believed to be the sheet flooring where the wood had discoloured due to damp. As the leak had been fixed in January 2020, the surveyor had advised that the flooring should have been dry. The landlord also questioned whether there was any damage that needed repairing other than the staining.
2. The resident’s door – The landlord noted that the resident had reported the door not opening and closing properly due to wood swelling and damage. It was under the impression, however, that its contractor had shaved the door to close. The landlord questioned whether or not this was made usable by the carpenter after the leak was fixed.
3. The resident’s bedroom – The landlord requested details on any repairs needed in the bedroom as a result of the leak as it could not see why the resident could not use the room.
In response, the resident explained on 5 June 2020 that:
1. The photos showed that the carpet was discolored, not the wood. The carpet had been extremely stained, and the underlay broken. There was also a lingering damp smell. She asserted that the carpets needed repairing and replacing. There was also still damp in the creases of the skirting boards.
2. The swelling of the wooden door had caused it to become unattached from the doorframe. She acknowledged that this had been shaved down however as it had separated from the door frame, it was not fitted correctly. She requested that the door be replaced, and the fixture corrected to allow the door to move freely.
3. She was unable to use her bedroom as a result of the damp. She explained that her respiratory condition was worsened by the presence of damp. She had also been advised to shield following the COVID-19 outbreak, however she was unable to get fresh air within the property.
4. She had been advised that her mattress would absorb moisture from the dampness in the room and would therefore require replacing. As the damp had not been resolved yet however, she had not made a claim for this.
The resident chased the landlord for a response to her correspondence on 17 June 2020, 4 July 2020, and 29 July 2020. The landlord confirmed on 29 July 2020 that a full response would be provided in due course.
In a separate email conversation with the resident, the landlord sought to clarify why the resident was dissatisfied with the emulsion paint which had earlier been applied by its contractors. The resident explained that no damp seal or fungicide treatment had been used and so the damp and mould was seeping through the paint. Further pictures and details were provided by the resident on 2 August 2020 along with picture evidence of the moisture extracted by her damp traps.
On 3 August 2020 the landlord informed the resident that the panel review would be held on 7 August 2020. It provided a summary of events and noted that replacing the carpet was the resident’s responsibility. If it was damaged, this could form part of the insurance claim. The landlord stated that it could arrange for a deep clean in hope that it would remove much of the staining and kill the mould, however.
On 4 August 2020 the resident sought to clarify some of the points made by the landlord in its correspondence on the previous day. The resident stated:
1. The landlord’s insurance had advised her to claim on her own insurance and for her insurer to counter claim if it was believed to be liable. The resident asserted that she was willing to do this.
2. A deep clean would suffice, however this was pointless while the mould was still present in the walls and the door in its current state. This needed to be resolved first.
3. There was still a lot of damp present in the bedroom and bathroom walls which could be seen by eye. This meant that although the property had two bedrooms, she was only able to use one.

The resident expressed further dissatisfaction that the landlord had taken a significant amount of time to respond to her correspondence.

On 5 August 2020 the landlord responded to the resident. It confirmed that it had taken the resident’s comments on-board and advised:
1. If the resident’s mattress needed replacing, this could form part of her insurance claim. The landlord informed the resident of the availability of a hardship fund that she could additionally seek help from.
2. The panel would not make awards for loss of possessions. It would, however, consider the loss of the use of her bedroom.
3. It agreed that the communication had not always been good. This would be considered by the panel.
4. A follow up inspection had now been scheduled to take place on 12 August 2020. This would provide the opportunity to point out any ongoing issues.
The Ombudsman can see from the surveyor’s internal email that the inspection was undertaken on 12 August 2020. While the surveyor was unable to identify much damp during this time, it was suggested as a good will gesture that a dehumidifier could be provided for a week or so to help dry out and eliminate the smell.
On the same day, the landlord confirmed, following a prompt from the resident, that her appeal had been reviewed on 7 August 2020 and the outcome would be communicated.
The resident chased this outcome on 27 August 2020, 3 September 2020, 4 September 2020, 18 September 2020 and 23 September 2020.
On 28 September 2020 the landlord provided its panel outcome letter. The landlord apologised for the delays in the time taken to make good the resident’s property (noting that some items still remained outstanding), and in the shortfalls in the handling of her complaint. It stated that a series of recommendations had been brought to its attention to complete the making good. This was being checked for approval and would progress as soon as this was agreed.
The landlord concluded that in light of the review, it would award the resident £695. This was broken down as:

£515	For the loss of the use of the resident’s bedroom. This was calculated as 20% of her rent from 18 May (the date of appeal) until September 2020 (the provision of its final position).
50	For delays in communication concerning repairs and complaint handling.
50	For the delay in reviewing the complaint appeal and sending the outcome letter.
30	For future costs of running a dehumidifier and past steps taken to tackle the damp.
25	For delays in repairs.
25	For the inconvenience caused.

The landlord would not consider the resident’s insurance claim under its complaints/appeals process.

On 8 October 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. She explained that following receipt of the panel response, she wished to question:
1. Why the 20% refund for the loss of her bedroom had only been applied from 18 May 2020. She asserted she had been unable to use her bedroom since December 2019.
2. Why an amount of £30 had been awarded for the dehumidifier with no indication of how long it would be supplied for. She added that this had still not been supplied also.
The landlord responded on 21 October 2020. It explained:
1. It had calculated the loss from the moment that the resident confirmed that she was unable to use the bedroom. This was in her appeal on 18 May 2020.
2. At the time of the panel outcome, the resident’s property had been inspected and a dehumidifier recommended. It noted that this had not been delivered, however it was anticipated that it might be needed for a few weeks. The compensation policy allowed £10 to be awarded per week for the running of the dehumidifier. £30 was therefore thought to be fair based on the information available.
3. It was noted that following the August 2020 inspection, a works order had been raised and it had been agreed that works to the door frame, door fitting, skirting, and carpet would be undertaken on 27 October 2020. A dehumidifier would also be supplied.
On 28 October 2020 the resident re-emphasised that she had been unable to use her bedroom from 15 December 2019. She expressed that she was still unable to make use of her room and that the attempt made to clean the carpet had been unsuccessful. She asserted that this needed to be replaced. She added that the dehumidifier had still not been supplied.
On 10 November 2020 the landlord emailed the resident apologising that it had not offered a response. It explained that it was in the process of chasing up matters and would provide a further update in due course.
The landlord followed this up with a further email on 18 November 2020 noting that the dehumidifier had been dropped off on 6 November 2020.
With no further correspondence, the resident chased the landlord on 12 December 2020 and 23 December 2020.
On 24 December 2020 the landlord explained to the resident that it had reviewed the resident’s comments and the panel award to establish whether any further award was required. The landlord asserted that it would set out its findings on 8 January 2021.
The Ombudsman can see that the resident chased this once the target date had elapsed. The resident attempted to contact the landlord on 14 and 27 January 2021, however the Ombudsman cannot see that this was acknowledged.
On 9 February 2021 the landlord provided its further review findings. It explained:
1. The calculation for the loss of her bedroom would not be considered from 2019 as there was no mention of this at that time.
2. On or around 27 November 2020 several works had been completed including the door frame, skirting board, and the necessary paint.
3. The dehumidifier was provided for two weeks. As the award covered a three week allowance, this was reasonable.
4. It was confirmed that the carpet was the resident’s responsibility to replace.
5. As the leak which caused the damp had been resolved over a year prior, it was reasonable to assume that the damp had dried out. As a good will gesture, the de-humidifier was offered to remove any mustiness. An offer was also made to clean the carpet to help with this.
6. It could not identify a reason why the resident was still unable to use her room as the leak had dried out, the carpets had been cleaned, and the works completed.

Nonetheless, the landlord agreed to increase the previous award of compensation by £150. This was broken down as:

£80 to account for the loss of the bedroom between 1-16 October 2020 (when the carpet was cleaned)

£25 for the delays in repairs completed on 27 November 2020
£25 for the delay in communication
And £20 as a good will gesture to round the figure up.

On 19 February 2021 the resident responded expressing dissatisfaction with the delay in providing the outcome and the landlord’s offer of compensation for its communication. In relation to the other points raised by the landlord, she explained:
1. It would have been obvious that when the leak was at its worst, she would not have access to her room. This was raised in a telephone call with the landlord on 15 December 2019. She also highlighted that this was mentioned in her complaint in March 2020.
2. The dehumidifier should have been left for three weeks however was collected after two.
3. The water and leak had dried out in the bedroom, however the subsequent damp was still present in the carpet. The resident asserted that she was still unable to use the bedroom as a result. She added that as it had been explained that her mattress would have absorbed the damp too, she needed to replace this before she could occupy the room.

She explained while she accepted the compensation, she remained displeased with the costs calculated for the time without her bedroom and the compensation offered for the lack of communication.

On 3 March 2021 the landlord its final review response. It stated:
1. £120 had been offered in total for communication and inconvenience (including the goodwill gesture). It concluded that this was appropriate.
2. The carpet and mattress were both regarded as personal belongings and would be the subject of an insurance claim.
3. It could not see that the resident reported her bedroom being an issue in December 2019. It noted, however, that in the resident’s correspondence on 2 March 2020, she had explained that she had “started sleeping” in her daughter’s bedroom. The landlord therefore agreed to extend the award to account for this time.
4. The panel’s award was in the resident’s favour as it made an offer which assumed use for 3 weeks and not two.

The landlord subsequently concluded that an additional £382 would be offered to account for an additional 77 days loss of bedroom. This brought the total amount offered for this complaint to £1,227. No further award would be made in relation to its communication.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in her property, and the subsequent damp, mould, and damage to her personal belongings.

The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of the reported leak and while the Ombudsman is displeased with the landlord’s delay in making good the resident’s property, the Ombudsman is satisfied that by 3 March 2021 the landlord had made a reasonable offer of redress to put things right.
In respect of the initial leak, the Ombudsman is content that following the resident’s report in December 2019, the landlord made appropriate arrangements to address the issue. The Ombudsman appreciates that due to a disagreement in the most appropriate method for repair, the leak was ultimately resolved by an independent plumber arranged by the resident. Still, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord sought to make this repair within the timeframe set out in its repair policy (20 working days). The Ombudsman is unable to comment on whether breaking the tiles was the most practical/reasonable method to address the issue, however, notes that it would have been reasonable to take the resident’s comments on board and to explore her suggestion.
On 24 December 2019 the landlord’s surveyor also attended the resident’s property to make note of the level of damage caused by the leak. The Ombudsman has been unable to see the damage that was noted at this time, however is aware that a job was raised by the surveyor on 6 January 2020 with works undertaken on 13 January 2020 and 22 January 2020. This was reasonable.
The Ombudsman is displeased that following the works in January 2020 and upon learning of the resident’s dissatisfaction with the standard of those completed, the landlord delayed in undertaking a post-work inspection and in putting right her ongoing issues. While the landlord did agree to reassess the outstanding problems (in March 2020) upon receipt of further pictures, it took no action despite the resident’s correspondence and photos on 18 and 21 May 2020. The Ombudsman notes that it was not until June 2020 that the landlord engaged with the resident to understand the outstanding issues and while it offered a deep clean of the resident’s carpets on 4 August 2020, made no attempts to inspect or address the issue until 12 August 2020. This was inappropriate. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord should have noted the outstanding issues soon after they were reported, and a further inspection should have been arranged in good time to allow works to commence. The Ombudsman notes that the carpet was not cleaned until 23 October 2020 and works not undertaken until 27 November 2020.
With this said, the landlord did recognise its delay in making good the resident’s property on 28 September 2020. The landlord acknowledged that there was still outstanding work to be completed and explained that following the previous inspection, a series of recommendations had been made which it intended to undertake. An offer of compensation was also made to reflect the delay in repairs, the inconvenience and the subsequent loss of a room. This was appropriate. What’s more, the landlord made a further adjustment to the offer of compensation on 19 February 2021 to account for the further delay (between September and November) in undertaking works. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was reasonable. The Ombudsman notes that this (with the exception of the offer made for the loss of her room) was accepted by the resident February 2021.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident remained displeased with the costs calculated for the loss of her bedroom as she did not believe that the landlord had adequately accounted for the length of time. In the Ombudsman’s view however, the landlord’s offer of compensation was fair and reasonable. While the resident may have reported being unable to use her bedroom in December 2019, the loss of her room at this time was not caused by the landlord’s actions (or lack of). The landlord had therefore held no responsibility for the loss of the bedroom at this time.
Upon learning on 2 March 2020 that the resident had started sleeping in another room however (after the landlord had taken steps to treat the damp and mould), a further inspection should have been undertaken to verify the resident’s assertion that the room could not be used and where necessary, to restore her bedroom to a good condition. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonable action should have been taken from this point. It was therefore appropriate to offer compensation from this date. The Ombudsman can see that while the landlord failed to acknowledge this in its responses in September 2020 and February 2021, it did so in March 2021. An additional £382 was awarded to account for an additional 77 days and this was appropriate. It was also reasonable, as the resident had attributed the loss of her room to the continued existence of damp and mould in her carpet, that the landlord adjusted the compensation to account for the time taken to complete the carpet clean. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was fair.
It was also fair, where it was confirmed that the stains could not be removed from the carpet, to advise the resident to claim on her contents insurance. This was equally applicable to the resident’s personal belongings (including her mattress). In line with the landlord’s repair policy, the resident was responsible for any damage to her personal belongings (or decorations) which were caused by the leak and which was not the fault of the landlord.
In relation to the dehumidifier the Ombudsman notes that this was offered to the resident following the surveyor’s inspection in August 2020. The Ombudsman cannot see that the dehumidifier was promised for a specific length of time but is content that the landlord’s offer of compensation accommodated its use for the length of time it was provided for. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, while the Ombudsman notes that this was offered as a good will gesture, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have supplied this in good time. The landlord noted the benefit of a dehumidifier (in helping to remove the musty smell) in August 2020 and provided an allowance for its use in September 2020 however did not deliver the dehumidifier until November 2020. As it was offered as part of the landlord’s resolution, this should have been provided promptly.
The Ombudsman also notes that the resident remained displeased with the compensation offered for the landlord’s poor communication. Upon review of this, there was a clear failure to maintain communication with the resident which resulted in delay in the provision of the stage two complaint, and an unreasonable level of involvement from the resident. The Ombudsman is satisfied however, that this too was recognised by the landlord in its complaint response. On 28 September 2020 the landlord made a proportionate offer of redress specifically to account for its delays in communication, in complaint handling, in reviewing the complaint appeal, and in providing the outcome. The Ombudsman has considered the level of compensation offered and this was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
Moreover, following further poor communication in November 2020, December 2020 and January 2021, the landlord reconsidered the resident’s experience and made a further offer of redress (£25) as well as a £20 good will gesture. This was appropriate. While the Ombudsman may have considered it reasonable to increase the compensation to reflect the subsequent delay in offering the resident resolution, the Ombudsman is content that the overall award was satisfactory in resolving the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak in her property, and the subsequent damp, mould, and damage to her belongings, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determination as the landlord took reasonable steps, following the resident’s complaint, to put things right. The landlord acknowledged its delay in upholding its repair responsibility, its poor communication, its delay in providing a complaint response and the impact on the resident, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, made a proportionate offer of redress. What’s more, the Ombudsman also notes that on 19 February 2021, the resident confirmed acceptance of the landlord’s compensation, with the exception of the amount offered for its communication errors and the loss of her bedroom. In respect of these matters, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the compensation offered was fairly calculated and that this was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. It was appropriate for the landlord to review its previous responses to ensure that it accounted for all circumstances of the case, and the Ombudsman can see that it did this. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that by March 2021, the landlord had adequately resolved the complaint.