Orbit Group Limited (202223344)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223344

Orbit Group Limited

24 November 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and outstanding repairs.
This report will also look at the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling;
2. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a two bedroom bungalow with his family. The tenancy, which is an assured shorthold tenancy, began in December 2017.
The records show there are two vulnerable people living in the property, both with asthma. One was undergoing cancer treatment at the time the complaint and one is a recovering cancer patient with physical disabilities.

Legal and Policy Framework

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
As per Section 11 of the same act, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for making sure the structure and outside of the home and certain parts of the inside, including the inside walls, floors and ceilings are kept repaired. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency. Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure the property is ‘fit for human habitation‘ in relation to, by virtue of Section 10 of the same act, ventilation.
The tenancy agreement also states that the landlord will carry out repairs within a reasonable time of being notified of them. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy lists three categories of repair. Emergency repairs include any repair required in order to sustain the immediate health, safety or security of the resident at risk, or that adversely affects the structure of the building. These repairs are carried out within between four and 24 hours. Routine repairs include any repair that is not an emergency and these are completed within 28 calendar days. Non-responsive repairs are major repairs such as roof or fencing replacements.
The Responsive Repairs Policy states that, in the event that a resident reports damp and mould, the landlord will conduct a risk assessment before determining whether a repair is required. Should a repair be required, this will be raised on the relevant priority in line with the landlord’s Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy.
The landlord says in its Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy that it will ensure it treats residents reporting damp and mould with respect and empathy and will recognise that having mould issues in a home can be distressing. It will ensure it is supportive in its approach, ensuring good communication throughout. It will ensure its responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Inspections and responsive repairs to diagnose and alleviate damp will be carried out as quickly and efficiently as possible in accordance with the Responsive Repairs Policy.
The landlord’s Damp, Mould and Condensation Procedure states that, if the information received on an inspection request suggests that the property has significant issue with damp or mould, children or elderly customers in habitation, an illness that may be exacerbated by damp/mould and/or any disability, the customer must be contacted within 5 working days to book an inspection unless the residents are not available. It adds that inspectors should contact the customer to arrange an appointment and the inspection should take place within 20 working days, (28 calendar days), and mould treatments should be raised on a seven calendar day Damp, Mould and Condensation repair priority.
The landlord has a Compensation Procedure for when it has identified service failures. It states that it may award compensation if the standard of service it provide is considerably below the standard residents could reasonably expect and will only pay it if residents have experienced financial loss or significant distress or inconvenience. It will pay compensation if the resident has lived in poor conditions longer than is reasonable due to our failure to deal satisfactorily with repairs that are its responsibility and which the resident has told it about. The policy does not provide any specific compensation minimum or maximum amounts, although the landlord’s Compensation Guidance states it will pay up to £400 for time, distress and inconvenience, and up to £150 for poor complaint handling.
The landlord’s Complaints Policy has two formal complaint stages. The landlord will acknowledge both state one and stage two complaints within five working days. It aims to respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days, with an additional 10 working days if it requires more time to complete its investigation. If a complaint will take longer than 20 working days to resolve, it will contact the resident to discuss, explain why a complaint may be taking longer to resolve and advise when it expects to be able to provide the a response. The landlord will aim to respond to stage two within 20 working days, with an additional 20 working days if the investigation is more in-depth and requires more time to complete.

Summary of events

After the resident moved into the property, in December 2017, he reported a number of repairs, which included:
1. Loose guttering and downpipes on 11 December 2017;
2. Wet patch in the porch area on 7 November 2018;
3. Broken kitchen extractor fan on 26 November 2018;
4. Broken bathroom extractor fan on 28 November 2018.

The records do not make clear when these works were completed

From the evidence provided, it is unclear whether these repairs were undertaken and, if so, when. It is also unclear what transpired for most of 2019. However, on 4 November 2019, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint (Complaint A) and stated:
1. Since he moved in, he had complained on a regular basis about cold and damp in the property, which was a ‘serious health risk’ to his household due to the vulnerabilities of family members;
2. When the property had the soffits and weatherboarding renewed, he took the opportunity to photograph the cavities and sent the pictures to the landlord’s managers. The cavity wall insultation had been poorly and inadequately installed and was ‘patchy in many places’. The insulation material was of a ‘wool-type’ and was not suited to the property, which had an external wall that was exposed to heavy rain;
3. He found it strange that several of the bungalows had had their insulation re-installed that year but that his property, which was at higher risk of damp and cold, was not included despite the complaints he had made;
4. As the health of his family required immediate action, he would be funding his own survey of the insulation and damp issues and he had ‘had enough’ of the landlord, “putting the health and welfare” of his family “at risk”.
The landlord contacted the resident on 14 November 2019 to say that, following a recent conversation about the ongoing issues with the cavity wall insulation, it had contacted its Capital Delivery team. It confirmed that, following a survey of the property, the cavity wall job could be booked in as standard works.
On 22 November 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord to say that, despite the urgency of the situation, he had received no contact from the contractor. The cold, damp and mould situation was getting worse by the day, exposing his family to serious health risks. He stated that the landlord had, “consistently intercepted our complaints and failed to pass them onto the Resolutions team”. The resident referred to previous advice he had received from the landlord about photographing and destroying ‘contaminated’ items, rather than keeping hold of them for future compensation claims. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any other evidence in relation to this. However, in his correspondence of 22 November, the resident said he wished for the landlord to put its advice in writing.
The landlord responded on 2 December 2019 to say that it had received confirmation from its Capital Delivery team that the resident’s property had been added to the next cavity wall insulation programme and the contractor should contact him shortly. The resident asked for further advice on how he could deal with the damaged items and the landlord reiterated that he should send it photographs of the items, which it would refer to its Management team. It said that, as it usually advised residents to get contents insurance, there was no guarantee it would offer compensation but would see if there was anything it could do.
On 6 December 2019, the landlord sent its stage one response to Complaint A, which stated:
1. Following discussions with its Capital Delivery team, it had, “arranged for your property to be put on this year’s programme to have the cavity wall insulation put in”.
2. Due to the resident’s poor experience, it was able to offer the resident £200 compensation as a ‘goodwill gesture’ for its poor communication and, “general service failures in getting the works carried out”.
3. It was unable to accept liability for the damages the resident had incurred due to the damp issues and recommended he made a claim through his insurance provider.
The resident responded on 8 January 2020 and stated that his complaint was, “not simply about poor service or lack of communication”, but that it was that the landlord had, “consistently and over a period of nearly two years, ignored or denied the health risk and damage to property being posed by ongoing serious damp issues”. The landlord wrote back on 7 February 2020 to say that it had tried to call the resident regarding his ongoing concerns. It asked the resident to send it a list of the damaged items, photos of the damage and the cost and age of each item, so it could consider matters further.
On 17 February 2020, the resident wrote to raise concerns that his complaint had not been fully understood or that it was, “being deliberately misunderstood”. He reiterated that the main focus of his complaint was that the landlord had ‘consistently ignored’ the fact that the property was suffering from the effects of, “badly installed and quite likely incorrect insulation”.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 March 2020 to acknowledge that the 2 bedrooms suffered from condensation problems, and that the gable wall being open to the elements did contribute to this. It stated that planned cavity insulation works would help resolve the issue and that the work was planned for the 2020/2021 financial year. It said it had requested that the resident’s property was prioritised and suggested in the meantime that a large shrub against the gable wall was removed.
Between 17 March 2020 and 12 May 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to chase up the information it had requested regarding the damaged items. The resident provided the relevant details on 24 May 2020 and, following this, the landlord made an offer of £893 to cover the cost of damage due to delays in works being completed. The date that the compensation was offered is unclear from the evidence provided to this Service. However, it is noted that the landlord later advised that this offer was made as part of a review of the stage 1 complaint.
On 27 April, the resident chased the landlord up for an update on when the insulation work would be started. It is unclear whether the landlord responded. However, on 13 May 2021, the landlord carried out a damp survey of the property and made a number of findings, including the following:
1. The condition of the porch was allowing moisture to form and contributing to mould growth and possible failure of the damp proof membrane (DPM) in the porch floor;
2. The lack of cavity wall insulation and the lack of air circulation in the bedrooms was causing condensation build up resulting in mould growth on the walls;
3. Limited suction from extractor fans was allowing moisture to remain and circulate within the property.
The survey report made the following recommendations:
1. Install cavity wall insulation;
2. Install roof ventilation;
3. Replace the kitchen fan with a humidistat fan;
4. Apply a DPM to the porch floor and re-screed.
It is not clear what transpired after the survey was completed. However, between 1 February and 17 June 2022 the resident called the landlord several times to chase up the progress of the recommended works, including the cavity wall insulation and stated:
1. The porch walls and ceiling were infested with mould, and their skirting boards and the door frame trims were rotten;
2. He was still waiting for a date for when the cavity wall insulation would get done and that this had been on list for 3 years;
3. Black mould was affecting the health of the household, who were all asthmatics, and doctors had confirmed that the mould was causing this;
4. The mould was covering the whole of a wall, all the rooms were affected and the resident was running dehumidifiers to try and dry the carpets.
It is unclear how the landlord responded. As such, on 11 November 2022, the resident raised a second stage 1 complaint (Complaint B) through their member of parliament (MP). Within this, he stated that one of the residents was disabled and suffered with respiratory problems, and they had struggled for nearly 5 years to get help from the landlord to address serious mould and damp issues in their property.
The landlord visited the property on 22 November 2022 to carry out an inspection and, during the visit, the resident raised several concerns. These included roof tile vents that had not been incorrectly fitted, roof tiles that had been broken by operatives, the condition of the cavity wall insulation and mould on the 2 bedroom ceilings and the lounge.
On 29 November 2022, the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response to Complaint B, which stated:
1. Following its visit to the property, on 22 November 2022, it raised works to complete an initial mould treatment with a plan to carry out, “a more intensive survey to follow”;
2. A damp and mould survey completed in 2021, “reported no fundamental issues or concerns” followed by a mould wash and wall treatment that was applied to the affected rooms in the property;
3. It was, “truly sorry for the nature of distress and inconvenience currently being faced by” the resident. But had found only 2 previous records where the resident had raised the issue of damp and mould, and they were ‘addressed accordingly’;
4. Works were due to begin, with an initial damp and mould treatment on 7 December 2022, with a full survey to follow to determine the root cause of the problem;
5. It had found no justification to offer compensation at that time, “but this will ultimately be decided at stage 2”;
6. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint because it had only received 2 prior reports of damp and mould (one in 2019 and one in 2022), which had both been addressed by applying wall treatments.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 November 2022 to say he disputed the information in the stage 1 response regarding how many time he had reported damp and mould. He was also unhappy the landlord had not offered any compensation. The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day to acknowledge that his complaint would be reviewed at stage 2 and that it would be in touch shortly.
The landlord commissioned an independent damp survey on 10 January 2023. A copy of the report has not been provided to this Service. The landlord then carried out an inspection on 13 January 2023 and the resident confirmed that, although the contractor cleaned and treated all affected rooms in December 2022, the damp and mould was already coming back. During the inspection, the landlord noted the following:
1. The walls of one bedroom was visibly wet and the carpet was damp and stained;
2. There was damp and mould to walls of the other bedroom and the wardrobe, where clothing had been damaged as a result;
3. There was damp and mould around the rear door and loft hatch;
4. There was presence of damp and mould on the bathroom ceiling and windows;
5. There was evidence of damp and mould to the kitchen windows and the cupboards smelt strongly of damp;
6. The porch window was very wet.
On 14 February 2023, the landlord sent the resident a holding response, telling him that it was not currently in a position to respond to his complaint.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response to Complaint B on 22 February 2023. It stated:
1. On reviewing its previous response, it had found conflicting information between its stage 1 response and the actual number of times the resident had reported damp and mould, and it apologised for the error;
2. Whilst it had made several visits between April 2019 and November 2022 to attend various repairs, it had failed to effectively diagnose or treat the underlying cause of the problem;
3. In April 2019, operatives attended to complete major works but there remained outstanding issues, including the cavity wall insulation and belongings that had been damaged by damp and mould;
4. It had placed the cavity wall insulation works on its 2019/2020 programme and, in response to the resident’s initial stage one complaint (Complaint A), it offered £200 compensation for failings in its service;
5. Following a review of the resident’s complaint, it made an additional offer of compensation, which consisted of £534.25 for the damaged clothing, and £150 for distress and inconvenience, making a revised total of £884.25;
6. The resident had raised a new complaint in April 2021 after not having heard anything regarding the cavity wall insulation and, following investigation, it was found that the 2019/2020 works had been cancelled;
7. A damp survey has been booked for 13 May 2021 following the resident’s further reports of damp and the cavity wall insulation was placed on the 2020/2021 works programme. This was then suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic. £25 was awarded at the time for late acknowledgement of the complaint;
8. Following the 13 May 2021 damp survey, it had completed a mould treatment on 21 March 2022;
9. A new major works order had been raised to complete works on the cavity wall insulation before April 2023;
10. It acknowledged the delays the resident had experienced and apologised for the inconvenience caused;
11. It had taken into account the compensation it had awarded it its previous complaints responses and offered the additional amounts: £200 for distress and inconvenience, £100 for poor complaint handling and £1,117 for delay for the delays in completing cavity wall works. The landlord offered a total revised compensation amount of £1,517.
The landlord reported that it had carried out extraction works on the resident’s cavity wall in August 2023 and, in order to allow time for drying, it made a follow up appointment to compete the work in September 2023.
The resident reported to the Ombudsman, on 29 September 2023, that the cavity wall was cleared out and new insulation inserted on 21 September 2023. He added that he was still waiting for the damp course work that was part of the surveyor’s recommendations and that the wall had still not been sealed against the rain. In addition, the resident also reported that the landlord carried out a mould wash but that it had not addressed the roof ventilation, which meant, “any horizontal rain will be coming into the loft space”.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns that the health of some of his family members have been detrimentally affected by the damp and mould in the property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his family’s health. However this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s response to damp, mould and outstanding repairs

The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge that the resident and his family have experienced a great deal of distress over a lengthy period of time, while living with ongoing damp and mould. The Ombudsman recognises how upsetting and uncomfortable it must have been to live in a house with outstanding repairs, especially when there are residents with severe vulnerabilities living in the property.
This Service’s spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould, published in October 2021, confirms that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords and they should take a zero-tolerance approach; be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about actions. Where inspections result in recommended works to tackle condensation, damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner. Any deviations from the recommendations should be clearly documented and explained to the resident. In addition, the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that in the event that the resident reports damp and mould, the landlord will conduct a risk assessment with them before determining whether a repair is required. Should a repair be required this will be raised on the relevant priority in line with its Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy.
Although both the Ombudsman’s spotlight report and the landlord’s policy were published after Complaint A, it encompasses the good practice that the landlord would have been expected to follow at this time. By the time the resident raised Complaint B, the landlord’s Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy and Procedure was operational.
Given the resident’s comments that he had expressed concern about damp, mould and cold within the property since moving in, in 2017, we made a specific request for evidence relating to this period. This was so that the various reports and jobs raised could be considered further and as part of a larger picture. The further evidence the landlord provided failed to give a clear overview of the action the landlord had taken to address the resident’s earlier reports.
Furthermore, the evidence that was provided in response to our initial request for information, is lacking in detail. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the progress of ongoing repairs at any given time to be able to provide updates to resident. Records also enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong.
When the resident raised his concerns about damp and mould as a complaint in November 2019, he said he had received no contact from the contractor and that, the cold, damp and mould situation was “growing worse by the day”. In response, the landlord confirmed that it was making enquiries about when the cavity wall works would commence – suggesting that the issues within the property had already been discussed prior to November 2019, and that an upgrade to the cavity wall insulation had been agreed in principle. While it was reasonable for the landlord to confirm its position in relation to the wider works, it is unclear why it did not carry out a risk assessment, or any further surveys or damp inspections until May 2021. It is noted that the country entered its first nationwide lockdown following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, and that there were associated restrictions. However, this does not explain why the landlord did not carry out an inspection or risk assessment for approximately 18 months.
It is evident from the landlord’s damp surveys of May 2021 and January 2023 that the lack of cavity wall insulation was causing condensation and mould growth in the property . The later survey report states that the contractor cleaned and treated the property in December 2022; however, it states that “the damp and mould is already coming back in every room”.
Although the landlord identified that there were several factors causing the damp and mould, the work to rectify this was severely protracted. It is evident the works that had been recommended in the May 2021 survey had already been raised as part of the landlord’s response to Complaint A. These were due to start as part of the 2019/2020 programme but were not completed until September 2023; nearly 4 years later.
It is not clear from the records why the works were cancelled in 2019/2020. It is noted from internal correspondence that was exchanged between landlord staff in November and December 2019 that the property was to be added that year’s programme; and that it should be prioritised. It is therefore concerning that the works did not go ahead as initially planned. Furthermore, the evidence provided to this Service does not demonstrate that the landlord provided the resident with an explanation for why the works did not commence. It was not until the resident chased the landlord several times for updates that he was told that the cavity wall insulation would be fitted as part of the following year’s works programme.
It should also be noted that these works were continually pushed back to a later date, with little or no clear explanation to the resident why they had re-scheduled them. It is evident that, due to the landlord’s poor record keeping, it was unable to provide proper updates, and it was not until the landlord provided the resident with the final response to Complaint B that it was able to clarify that the works for 2020/2021 had been ‘suspended’ due to COVID-19.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the suspension owing to COVID-19 was outside of the landlord’s control. However, as the works were going to be further delayed, and that they should have taken place during the previous year’s programme, it would have been reasonable for it to consider what it could have done in the interim to lessen some of the impact on the resident and his family.
Despite being aware from the outset of the extent of the residents’ vulnerabilities, the landlord was unable to demonstrate that it dealt with the damp and mould with the required urgency. It failed to take appropriate steps to assess the potential risks this posed on the resident and his family. The evidence shows that, contrary to the commitment made in its Responsive Repairs Policy, the landlord did not take appropriate action or a proactive approach in dealing with the issue.
There is nothing to indicate, during this time, that the landlord made sufficient efforts to help the resident manage the damp and condensation while waiting for the repairs to be completed. Although the records indicate the resident was running dehumidifiers to dry his wet carpets, there is no evidence the landlord had offered to provide dehumidifiers or to meet some of the resident’s additional electricity costs. In addition, it did not offer any support or advice on managing the additional heating costs when the resident told it he was, “struggling with heating due to finances and energy costs”.
Although it was appropriate that the landlord had carried out some mould treatments, the findings from the damp survey clearly showed that poor cavity wall insulation was a major factor in the mould growth. This would have explained the worsening damp and mould problem within the property, despite the actions taken, including carrying out mould washes.
The landlord took an excessive amount of time to arrange the mould treatments. For example, the landlord’s stage 2 response to Complaint B states that, following a damp survey on 13 May 2021, it had completed a mould treatment on 21 March 2022, which was 8 months later. It is evident from this that the landlord failed to take a proactive approach in addressing the issue or to appropriately respond to the resident’s reports with any urgency. The resident and his family were therefore left to live in a property that suffered with damp and mould for an unacceptably lengthy period of time, which posed a potential hazard, given their vulnerabilities.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s communication was consistently poor. There is no indication it made reasonable efforts to provide the resident with regular updates, provide estimated completion dates or to keep him informed at any point. The evidence shows the resident was consistently left to contact the landlord himself for up-to-date information. This suggests he took significant time and trouble to try and progress the outstanding repairs, which should not have been necessary given the landlord’s obligations.
There is no indication the landlord provided any explanation to the resident for why most of the neighbouring bungalows had had their cavity wall insulation replaced prior to 2019 and why their property had not been included. It is acknowledged that the landlord may not have been able to divulge much information relating to the neighbouring properties. However, In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided some explanation as to why the works to the resident’s property did not take place sooner. It is clear this would have caused the resident significant confusion and concerns seeing works taking place in neighbouring properties, especially when the evidence suggests he had been reporting the issue prior to the works being done on the other properties.
The landlord’s poor communication and failure to adopt a resident focussed approach or to provide regular updates would have added to the resident’s uncertainty over whether or not the cavity insulation works would ever go ahead. This service recognises the landlord may have had some challenges during the pandemic and with its contractors; however, the landlord’s records demonstrate a lack of effective record keeping. It is evident the collaboration between teams, and the monitoring and communication when dealing with the issues was poor. This would have contributed significantly to the excessive delays in completing repairs.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report advises that the landlord must ensure there is effective internal communication between its teams and departments, and that one individual or team has overall responsibility for ensuring complaints or reports are resolved, including follow up or aftercare. There is no evidence of any effective contract monitoring by the landlord to ensure its contractors were providing a service that was in line with the Responsive Repairs policy of completing repairs within 28 calendar days, or that the contractor was communicating regularly and effectively with the resident.
The landlord made no attempt to identify with its contractor a single point of contact that the resident could approach, and there is no evidence it gave consideration to appointing a specific team to take overall responsibility for co-ordinating the repairs.
The landlord’s offer of redress falls significantly short of recognising the impact on the resident and his family of living in a property that suffered from damp and mould for an excessively protracted period of time. The landlord did not adequately consider the excessive delays, consistently poor communication and the time and trouble the resident took to chase the outstanding repairs and pursue his complaint. Due to the cumulative impact these failings would have had on the resident, the Ombudsman has made a finding of severe maladministration.
The resident has paid approximately £500 per month (taking account some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period of the landlord’s maladministration, which the Ombudsman considers can reasonably be considered to have started in December 2019, which was when the resident raised his first complaint. This is the start of the period on which this investigation focused. The Ombudsman considers that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time that cavity wall upgrade works were outstanding, and the cumulative impact of the outstanding works on the resident’s occupation of the property, (44 months). Taking into account the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £4,400 compensation for the impact on the resident of a house that was suffering from severe damp and mould. This figure has been calculated as approximately 20% of the total rent during the period in question. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.
The landlord was at fault for failing to manage the resident’s expectations. It initially gave him the impression it could reimburse him for damaged items, only to later refer him to his own insurer. The landlord acted appropriately in recognising this error, exercising its discretion and agreeing to reimburse the resident as part of the resolution to Complaint A. It should be noted that the landlord did not provide this service with a copy of a stage 2 response for complaint A, which the records indicate would have been sent to the resident around late May/early June 2020.
The landlord acted appropriately when it chased the resident for details of the damaged items, to ensure he was adequately reimbursed. However, it was inappropriate for the landlord to seek to defer the issue of the poor cavity wall insulation by focussing instead on the issue of the damaged belongings.
Although the evidence shows the resident tried to repeatedly draw the landlord’s attention to the damp and mould problem, and the inadequate cavity wall insulation, the landlord’s correspondence appears to have side-stepped the issue. It was not until the resident sent several contacts, clarifying his main concern that the landlord eventually arranged a damp inspection. It is unclear why the landlord failed to respond to the main issue of the resident’s complaint; however, it is evident this would have further contributed to the delays in resolving the issue.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving leaks, damp and mould. As a result of these; a wider order has been issued to the landlord under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
The landlord has been ordered to carry out a review, within 12 weeks, of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to leaks, damp and mould. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous cases. Therefore, the learning from this complaint should be incorporated into the wider review, ordered as part of case 202203675. In addition to this, the Ombudsman has not made any similar orders or recommendations as part of this case, as this would duplicate those already made to the landlord as part of the wider order.

Complaint handling

The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response to Complaint A. He said that the landlord’s understanding of the complaint was incorrect and that his concerns had not been addressed. In relation to closing a stage 1 complaint, the landlord’s Complaints policy states that “if the customer remains unhappy with the outcome of their complaint, you should escalate the case as a stage two complaint”. Given that the resident had clearly indicated that he was unhappy with the response, the landlord should have escalated this complaint. That it did not was a failure to comply with its policy. It is acknowledged that the landlord had advised what it would be doing in relation to the cavity wall works, and therefore may have regarded the matter as resolved. However, as the resident was unhappy with the response he had received, the complaint should have been escalated in line with the landlord’s policy. That the landlord did not take such action was a failing in the circumstances.
It is noted that the landlord also referred to having undertaken a review of the stage 1 response to complaint A. We have not been provided with any contemporaneous evidence in relation to this review. However, it is acknowledged that the landlord offered the resident further compensation for distress and inconvenience and agreed to reimburse him for damage to his belongings. While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer some compensation for failings in its service, it is unclear why the offer was not communicated via a stage 2 response. The landlord’s Complaints policy does not set out that a review of the stage 1 response forms part of its complaints procedure; and it is therefore unclear why the landlord handled the matter in the way that it did. This was a further departure from the Complaints policy.
As the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s overall response to his concerns, he raised complaint B. When the landlord issued its stage 2 response, it appropriately acknowledged the delays in carrying out the cavity wall works and offered the resident further compensation. However, when calculating the compensation amount the landlord took into consideration the compensation that was offered in response to Complaint A, and the amount that had been offered in relation to damage caused to the resident’s belongings. It is unclear why the landlord did this, given that the offer had been made as part of the previous complaint, and that a large portion of it was in relation to damaged goods – so was paid as reimbursement as opposed to compensation. Any compensation offered as part of Complaint B should have been in relation to failings that were identified as part of the landlord’s investigation of that complaint.
In addition, although the landlord acknowledged the failings in its service and admitted its communication was poor, it did not demonstrate any learning from the complaint. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have identified areas where its service could have been improved and to provide details of the measures that it would be taking. That it did not was a missed opportunity.
In addition, due to its poor record keeping, the landlord failed to uphold Complaint B at stage 1, on the basis of incorrect information it had provided regarding the number of times the resident had reported damp and mould. It also advised the resident that a full survey and inspection would follow a mould treatment in December 2022 to determine a route cause of the damp and mould. However, the outstanding works were not completed for a further 8 months, and communication from both the landlord and its contractor remained poor throughout.
It should also be noted that the landlord stated in its stage 1 response to Complaint B that the 2021 survey reported “no fundamental issues or concerns”. This did not adequately reflect the findings of the survey, which identified a lack of cavity wall insulation and air circulation in the bedrooms, which was, “causing condensation build up resulting in mould growth on the walls”. While the landlord may not have regarded this as significant, it would have been reasonable to ensure that the findings were accurately conveyed within the complaint correspondence. The report also found that the extractor fan was not effective in removing the condensation. The landlord failed in its response to properly consider the survey’s findings or the repeated reports from the resident about the condition of the property. This demonstrates a failure by the landlord to properly investigate the resident’s concerns.
Although, in its final response to Complaint B, the landlord stated it had offered £25 compensation at stage 1, there is no evidence this was communicated to the resident at the time. Although this was discussed in internal correspondence, it is unclear when this offer was made; and it was not set out in the stage 1 response. This was poor and suggests confusion on behalf of the landlord.
This investigation has found that the landlord’s complaint handling departed from its Complaints policy, that the responses contained errors and that the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had learnt from the failings it had identified. A series of orders have therefore been made aimed at putting things right with the resident, and improving the landlord’s complaint handling overall.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that ‘it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates’. In addition, the Ombudsman’s latest spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”.
It is evident that the landlord’s complaint responses relied on incorrect information as a result of its poor record keeping. Its Complaint B stage 1 response cited only two occasions where the resident reported damp and mould in his property, whereas the evidence shows he had reported this issue on many occasions, and over a long period of time. It is unclear why the landlord did not have access to the correct information at the time of its investigation and what information it had been relying on at the time.
It is clear the landlord did not have an effective enough system in place for keeping records or for being able to access them. This is also evident by the fact the landlord was unable to provide proper updates to the resident. For example, the landlord was unable to explain at an early stage why the cavity wall works were cancelled in 2019/2020, why the resident’s bungalow was not included in earlier works or that the work had been suspended in 2020/2021 due to COVID-19. This demonstrates that the landlord was lacking an effective recording system for sharing information between teams, which would have added to the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced while chasing the landlord for updates. The evidence also suggests that the poor record keeping had a negative impact on the landlord’s repairs management and appears to have impacted on its handling of the repairs themselves.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The excessive delays to complete repairs, along with a consistent lack of communication from both the landlord and its contractor meant the resident was left to chase the landlord repeatedly with little or no response. Poor record keeping, poor contract monitoring, lack of urgency or consideration of the household’s vulnerabilities and failure to follow its policies and procedures meant the resident and his family were left in a property that suffered from damp and mould, and associated risks, for around 4 years.
The landlord’s poor record keeping, its lack of effective tracking of the outstanding cavity wall insulation works, and failure to update the resident or provide reasons why work was cancelled was a major contributing factor in the poor communication and the distress and uncertainty the resident experienced over an excessively long period of time.
The landlord failed to deal with Complaint A in line with its complaints policy. Furthermore, the responses issued in response to Complaint B contained factual accuracies and the landlord missed an opportunity to identify how it could improve its service going forward.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation. The apology should be made by the Chief Executive.
2. Pay the resident the revised compensation amount of £5,884.25, which is calculated as follows:
  1. £4,400 in recognition of the amount of time that the cavity wall repairs were outstanding and the cumulative impact of the outstanding works on the resident’s occupation of the property for 44 months;
  2. £300 for time and trouble pursuing the complaint;
  3. £884.25 the landlord offered as part of its initial stage two resolution as reimbursement for damaged items, as agreed with the resident, and delays in starting works;
  4. £300 in recognition of the landlord’s poor record keeping.
The resident has reported that there are still some outstanding repairs remaining. As such, the landlord should:
1. Within 4 weeks of receiving this determination carry out an inspection of the property so that any outstanding repairs may be identified.
2. Within 2 weeks of the inspection, the landlord should agree a plan for any remedial works to take place. This must include how and when it will update him on the progress of any outstanding repairs, explain the work that needs to be done and provide dates for when any outstanding work is expected to commence. The landlord should share a copy of its plan with both the resident and this Service.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should carry out a review of why the cavity wall insulation work was repeatedly cancelled following its plans to complete the work in its 2019/2020 programme. The review should also look at:
1. Why nothing was done to try to lessen the impact of the damp and mould on the resident and his family between 2019 to 2022, especially given the high level of vulnerability within the household;
2. What it could have done to mitigate the delays and communicate better with the resident.

The findings of the review should detail the learning from the case and any changes in service provision it plans to make to ensure similar failings are avoided in future.

Recommendations

The landlord to provide complaint training to staff, with emphasis on checking that information is accurate and records are properly checked before drafting response letters. The training should also emphasise that staff should not take compensation awards from separate complaints into account when making compensation offers for new complaints, and that each complaint should be considered on its own merits.
The landlord to ask the resident if he is happy to provide copies of utility bills showing an increase in cost as a result of having to use dehumidifiers, and to offer to make a contribution towards the increased bills while the resident was waiting for the outstanding cavity wall works to be completed.