Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202125617)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125617

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

21 June 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of damp, mould and woodworm at the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Scope of investigation

The landlord and resident have referenced historical information from 2009 when the first treatment of timber within the property took place. Whilst this is useful information and gives context, this investigation concentrates on the more recent events from 2019.
The resident has referenced his medical information, making reference that the property condition has affected his health. It is outside of the scope of investigation for medical information to be assessed. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would more usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a one-bedroom ground floor flat owned by the landlord. This is on an assured tenancy agreement that began in 2008.
The landlord has noted that the resident considers himself to be vulnerable and has reported medical conditions of epilepsy and ulcerated colitis.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the tenancy agreement places obligations on the landlord to maintain the property. In particular, section B of the agreement refers to repair and maintenance responsibilities. Although not exhaustive, it includes that the landlord must keep the following in good repair:
1. Drains, gutters and pipes on the outside of the property.
2. The roof.
3. Outside walls, outside doors, windowsills, window catches, sash cords and window frames, including necessary painting and decorating.
The landlord has a repair and maintenance policy, committing to take a proactive approach to repair and maintenance to keep homes safe, in good repair and maintained to the decent homes standard. It provides priority timescales of:
1. Priority One – Emergency repairs – it aims to attend within three hours and complete the job within 24 hours. Examples include total loss of power, no hot water (during winter months) and blocked external drains.
2. Priority Two – General repairs – it aims to complete repairs within 10 working days.
3. Priority Three – Emergency out of hours repairs – it aims to attend within three hours and complete the job within the next working day.
Whilst the landlord does not give examples of what it classifies to be priority two repairs, it clearly outlines on its website the essential repairs it is responsible for maintaining. These include such items as kitchen units, worktops, taps and window frames.
The Housing Act 2004 ensures landlords are responsible for assessing hazards and risks within its rented homes. When assessing any such hazards and risks, the assessment should be considered in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and damp and mould growth are potential hazards that may require remedy.
The landlord’s complaints policy has a two-stage approach, and it aims to respond at stage one within 10 working days and stage two within 20 working days. This policy includes guidance on compensation and goodwill payments. It states that if a resident is unable to remain in their home because it is uninhabitable or unsafe, it will find suitable accommodation. If the home is deemed suitable for the resident to stay in, but they have lost the use of an essential room, it will compensate the resident for that loss. It gives examples of when this may apply such as severe damp caused by a defect to the home and infestation.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s more recent records that this investigation will be based on show that the resident reported an issue with woodworm on 7 August 2019. The resident commented that a door had been affected so much that it had come off the hinges. He mentioned that there was woodworm previously in the floorboards, but this was not followed up. The landlord confirmed that it had attended the previous year and the carpenter had suggested attending again but it is unclear if this happened.
On the same day, the landlord’s maintenance team advised that an order should be raised for its contractor to attend to treat the property. The resident was advised that the door would be reviewed for replacement after the treatment had taken place.
On 13 August 2019, the landlord’s records show that its contractor could not attend to treat the property, but it was making arrangements for another company to attend.
On 9 September 2019, the resident made contact with the landlord to chase up the contractor who would be attending to the woodworm. The landlord advised him of the situation that it was arranging for another contractor to attend.
The same day, an order was raised for the new contractor to attend and the next day, the landlord requested that contact was made with the resident to arrange an appointment.
On 12 September 2019, the landlord’s internal records show that it was arranging for a surveyor to attend to ascertain the extent of the woodworm to the flooring and joists and the spraying or replacement of timber as necessary.
It is unclear what happened from this point on and whether the contractor did attend to treat the woodworm as there is a gap in the landlord’s records from September 2019 until September 2020.
On 24 September 2020, the landlord’s records show that the resident made contact by telephone following a survey of the property. He confirmed that the second condition survey was done on 22 September 2020 and commented that the kitchen and bathroom radiators were 35 years old and tile adhesive was crumbling due to damp. He confirmed that the bedroom radiator had been replaced. He was concerned that he was having to constantly wash down the affected walls with bleach as he did not want to aggravate his fragile health.
He followed this up with an email on the same day concerning the condition of the property when he moved in and attached photographs. However, these have not been provided to this Service. He said that, shortly after moving in, he had called to say he had a lot of damp and mould in the bedroom and bathroom, woodworm in some of the floorboards and the doors to the pantry and gas meter cupboard in the kitchen were crumbling. He confirmed that someone was sent to inspect it but there was no follow up fumigation, so he dismantled the door and replaced it himself to stop the infestation.
In the same email of 24 September 2020, the resident explained that he had never had floor coverings and he was concerned about wind and draughts blowing up from the floorboards through the airbricks. The resident asked for the landlord to consider floor insulation and said that he was willing to fit it as he wanted to make his home warm for the winter.
On the same day, the landlord responded acknowledging receipt and advising the resident that his concerns would be investigated.
On 29 September 2020, the landlord’s records showed that it made contact with the resident to advise that it was investigating the issues and considering the stock condition survey. In an internal email of the same day, the landlord asked for advice from its maintenance team about whether they would intervene.
The resident continued to get in touch with the landlord, wanting to know what was happening throughout October 2020 and the landlord’s housing officer continued to chase this up with its maintenance team.
On 17 November 2020, the landlord telephoned the resident to advise him that it was scheduling in a repair to the sub-floor for 27 November 2020. It advised the resident that it would follow up with him after the appointment.
On 27 November 2020, the landlord’s records show a web chat from the resident who wanted to speak to a specific officer who was dealing with his case. The officer was in a meeting and the resident was advised that they would call him back. The contractor was at the property checking the sub floor and the resident wanted the officer to speak with him to confirm how bad the property was. The web chat handler advised the resident that they would pick this up from the contractor’s report.
The same day, the resident emailed the landlord attaching photographs of the problems. He said that he had been suffering with slugs appearing in his bathroom overnight. He was concerned that nothing was being done and asked for the officer to telephone him.
The same day, the landlord telephoned the resident. He said the operative had made comment about how cold the property was, and he said that he could not afford to keep the heating on due to the flooring and insulation. The officer advised that he would monitor the case and get a surveyor out as soon as possible.
On 2 December 2020, the landlord’s internal emails show that they asked for the surveyor inspection to be expedited and during December 2020, further calls and resident updates were given that a survey request had been made.
Again, in January 2021, the resident had to contact the landlord to make chase ups. He said that he had not heard anything since the contractor attended to install ply flooring in the bedroom and lounge but not the bathroom.
The landlord contacted the resident on 29 January 2021 about an appointment that did not go ahead. It said that the contractor would need some of the resident’s items to be moved to allow them to carry out the works.
On 10 February 2021, the landlord’s internal emails confirm that the resident had called and asked for a call back urgently as he could not live in the property. He had come out of hospital, and he had not been able to sleep at the property because of the damp and cold. The resident said he had been calling every day that week and despite promises that the officer would call him, he had still not heard anything. He wanted an update urgently.
The same day, the resident sent in an email to thank the officer for his efforts. He said that the email was for their line manager to see that he appreciates all that the officer had done on his behalf. He asked for a call so that he could understand the situation with the outstanding works.
During March 2021, various resident contacts were made to the landlord. The landlord did make contact with an appointment made for a radiator to be checked on 9 March 2021 and then a further appointment made for 18 March 2021 for the contractor to attend. However, the specific works order has not been provided to this Service.
On 1 April 2021, the landlord’s records show a repair to check the safety of the bathroom floor and the bath as a large hole was found underneath the rotten timber. It confirmed that the contractor visited the same week, regarding damp and mould, but did not find any hole. It referred to a new order to insulate the bathroom walls and the floor. However, it did not explain what would happen with this order.
On 6 April 2021, a specialist contractor inspected the property and on 13 April 2021, the report was provided and noted the resident’s concerns to be:
1. Numerous woodlice and slugs in the rear bathroom – evidence provided in a jar.
2. Common furniture beetle insect attacks in the floorboards.
3. Wet rot affecting the door frame in the kitchen which had been removed and stored.
4. Mould affecting the bathroom.
The report established the following:
1. Woodlice and slugs were predominantly appearing below the bath.
2. There was no evidence of a plumbing leak, but further checks were recommended.
3. Bathroom walls were tested for the presence of rising damp. There appeared to be a dense sand/cement render mix on the walls. Moisture readings were acceptable.
4. Mould growth was present on the bathroom wall surfaces. The paint had blistered on the rear wall that was likely to be compounded by water from showering and some wall tiles were missing.
5. There was a mechanical extractor fan located on the wall.
6. Hygrometer tests revealed that the temperature in the bathroom was 13.4 degrees (below recommended minimum temperature).
7. The floors were not carpeted. The resident had applied masking tape between the floorboards and painted the top surfaces of the floorboards.
8. Some sporadic floorboards were lifted and there were flight holes caused by the common furniture beetle (woodworm). It was inconclusive whether these indicated active infestation, although the resident felt that the activity may be recent.
9. An inspection was carried out some years ago, but it was not known whether any remedial works were carried out.
10. The resident showed the surveyor a door frame that had been removed from the kitchen and stored in the garden. There was evidence of wet rot decay to the frame.
The report made the following recommendations:
1. Apply fungicidal wash to mould affected bathroom surfaces.
2. Lift floorboards in both rooms to ascertain whether any structural weakening of floorboards, joists and plates had occurred. It confirmed that it was necessary to carry out the investigations in two visits to allow furnishings to be removed from room to room.
On 9 April 2021, the resident telephoned the landlord and sent in photographs. He explained that the contractor visited the previous week and he wanted to know the outcome. He was also concerned about rotting timbers underneath the bath and a large hole. The call handler looked at the photographs and raised a priority order for a carpentry repair as a safety precaution. He asked for a call back from the officer dealing with the case. The same day, the landlord confirmed that their contractor attended but no details of works completed had been provided.
On the same day, the resident emailed the landlord confirming the inspection had taken place and that the report should be received soon. The landlord responded the same day and said that it wanted to speak with him to provide an update and that it had called but there was no answer.
On 12 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord, apparently attaching a folder of pictures. These have not been provided to this Service.
On 16 April 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it was arranging for its contractor to go back to the property and arrange to lift the floorboards to complete some works to help resolve the rot under the bath and other parts of the property. It also confirmed that a mould wash would be arranged. It said that it may be a few days before the appointment was received and that it would contact the resident midway through the following week.
On 19 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord. He confirmed that the gas team installed the new radiators the previous week and the result was instant. He thanked the officer for all his help so far.
In May 2021, the resident called on a number of occasions and the landlord telephoned the resident following on from the surveyor report, but it did not confirm the current actions.
On 8 June 2021, the landlord’s internal emails show that the contractor was having problems arranging the works due to confined space and that it had spoken to the resident but unfortunately, he was in hospital.
On 24 June 2021, the landlord’s records show that it emailed the contractor regarding the proposed remedial works. It confirmed that the resident had asked about where the furniture was going to be stored and whether it could be put in storage due to the confined space of the flat. It suggested a way forward of the following works:
1. Lift floorboards to the bedroom to ascertain the conditions of the boards and the sub floor joists and plates.
2. When the extent of replacements had been revealed, the contractor to telephone the landlord to provide a further cost for replacement of timbers and any treatment works.
3. On the understanding that the price was accepted, the contractor to continue with the works to:

i. Replace structurally weakened flooring timbers and apply preservative spray treatment.

ii. Refix boards on completion.

iii. Carry out fungicidal wash treatment of mould affected surfaces.

It noted the resident’s health issues and recommended that he remained out of the property for 24 hours following the spray treatment.
It suggested a discussion with the resident prior to works starting, in particular relating to the furniture.
It advised that the works in the living room would need to be carried out at a later date.

From 24 June 2021, and throughout July 2021, various resident contact with the landlord took place. The landlord responded to the resident to advise him that the work had not gone ahead because some items had to be moved. It was left that the resident would contact the contractor once his items had been removed.
On 14 July 2021, works commenced and were noted as completed on 18 July 2021. However, the landlord has not itemised the work that was completed.
On 22 and 29 September 2021, the resident called the landlord, requesting to speak with the officer dealing with his case. It is unclear if a conversation took place as relevant records have not been provided.
On 13 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord, advising that he had tried to contact the landlord a number of times since its last email after his discharge from hospital, but he had not heard back. He asked for contact to be made to provide an update. He said that he was prepared for the contractor at the end of June and contacted them but had not heard since. He explained his medical condition of ulcerated colitis that was recently diagnosed and that he was trying to prepare for winter and was concerned of the impact on his health.
On 14 October 2021, the landlord emailed the resident, confirming its telephone conversation of the same day. It said that it would chase the contractor to see when they could go back and do the work in the bathroom.
On 9 November 2021, the resident’s email to the landlord showed that he had suffered a relapse to his health condition and had to return to hospital. He was concerned that the contractor’s plan of works would be disruptive and required five to six days and the use of chemicals which he was worried about in relation to his health. He expressed concern about the condition of the flat when it was let to him, and that the landlord removed and replaced some of the floorboards. He reported that the bare minimum had been done, which had resulted in all the untreated floorboards being left and that its condition had contributed to his health issues. He said that the quickest and most convenient solution would be:
1. Replace the rotten floorboards with treated board to prevent further infestation.
2. Damp proofing underlay to prevent the moisture and damp air rising.
3. Floor coverings for rooms and vinyl for kitchen.

The resident also provided costs for the works that he believed were more cost effective. He asked for this work to be considered with some urgency.

On 9 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord with images to show the replaced floorboards when the flat was originally stripped, which he believed indicated prior knowledge that there was a problem. The landlord confirmed that it would raise this with senior management as it needed to get approval for work to the flooring.
On 11 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to say that he had not heard anything. In another email of the same day, reference was made to images sent the previous day, showing the mould on the walls in the bedroom. These images have not been provided to this Service.
On 30 November 2021, a landlord internal email asked an officer to chase up the contractor.
On 1 and 2 December 2021, the landlord received telephone calls from the resident and it said that it was still checking the case regularly for updates.
On 10 December 2021, the resident requested that the landlord contact him urgently about the works. He said that he could not live in the property, and he had just come out of hospital and was very unwell.
On 24 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again chasing up works to the bathroom and kitchen floor. He said there was no flooring in the kitchen, just concrete, and that the bathroom floor was poorly insulated, and he had been advised lino should be fitted. He said that he had not heard anything since the contractor attended to fit the ply flooring. He was concerned that the situation had been ongoing for years and he requested the specific officer dealing with the case to contact him urgently.
The same day, the landlord telephoned the resident and said that it would follow up the works with the contractor and that the officer dealing with the case would call him back. It assured the resident that it would be within a few days.
On 4 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again, requesting a call back.
On 21 February 2022, the resident contacted this Service and stated that the floorboards were completely rotten, and he had been without suitable flooring for over 12 years. He explained that social services were called two years ago when they had ordered the landlord to carry out works but the bare minimum was done. The resident said that he had evidence and photographs and the conditions he was living in were horrifying. A visit should have been carried out that day, but no-one turned up. Advice was given to the resident to contact the landlord and make it clear that he wanted to complain and request the complaint reference number.
On 21 February 2022, the resident advised the landlord that he had made a complaint to this Service as he said that he had lived with mould all over the flat, faulty floorboards and the door infested with woodworm, and it had been ongoing for over two years. He said that the landlord had been formally contacted by social services and he asked for the complaint reference number.
On 22 February 2022, the resident telephoned the landlord and he expressed that he was so unhappy with the works that he wanted a second opinion. It advised that new floorboards in the property would resolve the situation and it explained the length of time taken to resolve the issues was due to the pandemic and also the resident’s health conditions over the past couple of years.
On the same day, the landlord sent an internal email with photographs and a report attached following the surveyor’s attendance. It commented as follows:
1. Kitchen – no kitchen floor.

i. Recommendation to screed floor and fit polysafe flooring.

Bathroom – floor had openings which insects were getting through.

ii. Screed and new polysafe floor to be fitted. Resident to remove the self-fitted tiles.

iii. Renew boxing in and retile to the rear of the bath.

iv. The walls required time to dry out.

v. Bath panel to be renewed.

vi. Repair section of concrete to external wall to stop insect access.

Lounge – high level of damp to external wall. Brick vents blocked by resident, and he was advised to remove the blockage to allow airflow.
Pointing repairs to front brick wall.
It confirmed that it would arrange the work for April 2022, or sooner if funding was available.

On 19 May 2022, the landlord’s internal emails show enquiries were made for an urgent update on behalf of the resident as to the full scope of works. It stated that the resident was extremely upset, and it requested an update within the next two days. On the same day, the landlord confirmed it was happy to raise these works and the resident would be contacted in due course.
On 20 May 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that the surveyor had now instructed its contractor to make contact with him to organise an initial visit and provide a quotation to the landlord.
On 13 June 2022, the landlord’s internal emails indicated that the works could progress and that there had been a delay due to having to appoint a different contractor. An email was sent to the contractor requesting attendance and a quotation for the works.
On 21 June 2022, the landlord’s records show that the resident made contact for an update. It is unclear what the landlord said as no relevant records have been provided to this Service.
On 5 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord’s board members, advising them that there had been a total lack of interest and disregard in relation to its tenants and condition of properties.
On the same day, the landlord contacted the resident to advise that it did receive his email in February 2022, but no further information has been provided.
On 6 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that he wanted to make a formal complaint on advice from this Service. He said that he had held back on sending this in the hope that a solution could be reached. He stated that he had been ignored and that his medical conditions had worsened. He believed that the property was a death trap, and that the landlord did not care.
The same day, the landlord’s listed works (that it later noted as agreed on 14 July 2022) as follows:
1. Kitchen floor (latex and polysafe)
2. Bathroom floor (latex and polysafe)
3. Boxing in
4. Pointing
5. Bath panel
On 7 July 2022, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and advised the resident that the response was due by 13 July 2022.
On 12 July 2022, the landlord’s records show that it telephoned the resident and advised that it would call him back the following day with an update.
On 13 July 2022, the landlord telephoned the resident and emailed him to extend the complaint response timescale. It was agreed that it would call the resident by 22 July 2022, to provide an update, and, if possible, the outcome of the complaint. It also agreed to call him with updates on 14 July 2022. The resident acknowledged the email the same day.
On 14 July 2022, the landlord sent a further email to the resident and advised it was discussing the complaint internally and that it would call him the following day with an update.
On 15 July 2022, the landlord telephoned the resident to confirm works had been agreed to remove the toilet and fit the polysafe flooring.
On 22 July 2022, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint and confirmed:
1. Its contractor visited the property, and a quote was received on 7 July 2022. The contractor then arranged an appointment for the works to commence on 14 July 2022.
2. The bathroom and kitchen floor works had been completed.
3. The damp and mould specialist had attended to assess the property.
4. It apologised for the poor communication and length of time it had taken to complete repairs, for not responding to concerns raised and for any upset caused.
5. It was in discussion with the contractor to see if it could carry out work to the bathroom to replace or repair the larder door and fit architrave around the kitchen and bathroom doors damaged by the wood rot. It advised that it would ensure they were completed.
6. It offered a gesture of goodwill payment of:

i. £100 for time taken to chase the complaint and the distress and inconvenience caused.

ii. £50 for the delay in completing repairs.

It said that it would review the feedback to improve the service and provide training to relevant teams to improve communication.

On the same day, the landlord’s internal emails show that an officer had been in touch with the resident, and he had confirmed that he was pleased with the bathroom works and to close the complaint. The following works were requested:
1. A new larder pantry door that in part housed the gas meter and food (as the current one did not close).
2. A small amount of architrave around the bathroom and kitchen door.
3. It said that the contractor would carry out these works as they were currently working on site.
On 5 August 2022, the landlord’s records show that the resident telephoned, and a discussion took place about a possible escalation of the complaint as there were outstanding works to the larder pantry door and architrave. The note refers to the contractor checking the sub floor on 15 August 2022 and, once this was completed, the landlord had arranged for carpets to the hallway and bedroom to be fitted via its hardship fund.
On 12 August 2022, the landlord’s internal notes show that the outstanding work was being picked up on a separate order.
On 16 August 2022, the landlord’s records show that the resident called into the office to discuss the complaint and repairs. It advised the resident that he would be contacted directly by the carpet fitter who would be attending to measure up and bring samples. Another note shows that the officer dealing with the complaint was in a meeting and the resident was advised that they would telephone him the same day.
Various correspondence from the resident to the landlord continued during August 2022, expressing his dissatisfaction.
The landlord’s records show that on 22 September 2022, all work was completed at the property. This included the flooring, pantry door and chimney breast.
On 26 September 2022, the landlord returned the resident’s telephone call to discuss concerns regarding the sub floors. It confirmed that no other rooms required the sub floor to be changed and it would request the carpet fitter to call him to arrange for the carpets to be fitted.
On 11 and 12 October 2022, the resident provided emails about his liaison with a councillor to support him with his complaint. He outlined his frustrations with the landlord, the history of repairs at the property and the outstanding work.
On 23 October 2022, the resident emailed the landlord, requesting an escalation of his complaint to stage two. The landlord registered this on 24 October 2022 and acknowledged the complaint on 26 October 2022.
On 23 November 2022, the resident has provided a copy of an email from the landlord that apologised that it had not sent its stage two response and said that it would need to extend this to 2 December 2022 so that it could ensure each element of the complaint was responded to.
On 1 December 2022, the landlord sent its stage two complaint response and confirmed the issues to be:
1. Numerous repairs that still required attention which the resident wanted to be completed in a timely manner.
2. The previous surveyor’s visit had not resolved the issues.
It said that it had reviewed the case and confirmed that:
1. It was unclear what repairs should or should not be completed.
2. It apologised for this and recognised that it needed to ensure it was clear for future the next steps to be taken.
3. It was satisfied that the issues raised were addressed but it did seem that there was confusion about the extent of repairs.
4. It had agreed to assist with carpets to resolve the matter.
5. It was happy to arrange for a comprehensive survey to be carried out and the officer responding would personally review the outcome of the survey to ensure any repairs were actioned without delay. It would agree a mutually convenient time for the survey.
6. It agreed that the communication and the progress to complete the repairs had been poor and was unacceptable, and it agreed the complaint response extension should not have been necessary.
7. It confirmed that it was implementing improvements to ensure the situation did not happen again.
8. It confirmed that the repairs team would manage the next steps until completion of works and would keep the resident updated on progress.
9. It confirmed its discretionary compensation offer of £150 and its offer to provide carpets which could be fitted once repairs were completed.
10. It offered an additional £250 in recognition that the service could have been better in relation to the resident having to chase the complaint, its poor communication and the inconvenience and personal impact this had on him.

Summary of Events after landlord’s complaints process

On 5 December 2022, the resident sent an email to the landlord to confirm his previous discussion about his dissatisfaction with it. He explained his concerns with his health and the poor condition of the property. He believed the landlord had ample time to resolve the situation but instead he said that he had winters living in a cold property, constantly having to wear layers of clothing and being financially burdened due to his energy bills. He reiterated that the property was:
1. Lacking a damp proof barrier.
2. Lacking carpet and underlay.
3. Subject to cold flooring due to airbricks.
In the same email of 5 December 2022, the resident accepted the goodwill payment to help towards the energy bills but made it clear that it was not a final settlement to his complaint.
On 7 December 2022, the resident contacted this Service and included the email conversations he had with the landlord. He said that he was waiting to hear from the surveyor, and he had explained to the landlord’s head of repairs the long-term detrimental impact the situation was having on his health plus the financial loss.
The landlord has confirmed that the property was inspected on 13 December 2022 and the following observations were made:
1. Chip board and hardboard flooring had been installed over the lounge floor.
2. The surveyor looked at photographs of some of the floor joists when sections of the floor were removed in the bedroom which showed signs of decay and further investigations were required.
3. There were no skirting boards to the property.
4. The front wall below the window was showing signs of damp and had a high meter reading.

Works to the bedroom, lounge, missing doors and bathroom were identified as follows:

Remove plaster back to brick and inject a damp proof course. Render the wall with added water proofer to form a scratch coat and replaster.
The entire existing floorboards, old and new, to be removed to fully inspect the timber joists to determine if they required replacing or treating.
Instal a new moisture resistant chipboard floor and fitting of skirting boards.
Redecorate affected walls.
The previous works to the bathroom flooring were not fully completed and this had caused damp in the bathroom and the walls were wet due to the lack of damp proof course on the external wall.

On 20 December 2022, the landlord confirmed that a £250 e-voucher was provided to the resident following his earlier conversations in relation to how cold he was in his home.
On 4 January 2023, the landlord provided an update of the situation and confirmed that it had agreed a schedule of works that were due to start on 20 February 2023 and that the resident would be temporarily moved out whilst the works were completed. It confirmed that the works would not usually warrant decanting a resident, but it would do so as a gesture of goodwill and in recognition of the earlier delays. It confirmed the following works:

a. Bedroom – Some replastering to the front facing wall, taking this back to the brick to attempt to resolve the damp build up in this area. There was also replacement of chipboard flooring and associated skirting boards and nosings.

Lounge – Replacement of chipboard flooring and associated skirting boards and nosings.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp, mould and wood worm at the property

Following the report of woodworm in August 2019, the landlord demonstrated that it acted quickly and sought advice from its maintenance department the same day. However, during the first month, there appeared to be an issue with the appointment of a contractor and six weeks later, the landlord arranged for its surveyor to inspect the property to ascertain the extent of the woodworm and damp. The six-week delay was unreasonable and meant that the landlord failed to comply with its repair and maintenance timescale of 10 working days for general repairs.
Despite the lengthy delay, the landlord did take an appropriate step of arranging a surveyor to attend as an assessment of the condition of the property (given the resident’s individual needs) was recognised as necessary from an early point.
The condition survey is a vital record for the landlord to determine the property condition and assess risks in accordance with Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). This Service expects landlords to evidence key records and it is inappropriate that the landlord has failed to retain, or provide, information to confirm the outcome of the survey planned in late 2019.
Indeed, there is a large gap in records from September 2019 until September 2020. The lack of landlord records during this period is of concern, particularly given the seriousness of the property concerns presented and the vulnerability of the resident.
In September 2020, the resident made reference to a second condition survey being carried out and throughout September-October 2020, he made numerous calls and emails to the landlord to chase up the outcome of this survey. However, the resident was not advised by the landlord how it intended to proceed.
It was not until November 2020 that the landlord advised the resident that it was arranging repairs to the sub-floor for later that month. The consistent chase ups by the resident will inevitably have caused frustration and distress and it is unreasonable that the landlord did not take a proactive role in managing the communications and the overall action plan for repairs.
The resident continued to express his concerns to the landlord throughout December 2020 and January 2021 about the condition of the property. The landlord did not discuss a clear way forward, despite the resident raising his concerns that he could not continue to live at the property. This is of particular concern given the resident’s vulnerability and it was a missed opportunity by the landlord to act on the resident’s worry about the habitability of the property.
The landlord should have reassured the resident that it would provide a supported action plan that involved assessing the habitability of the property in accordance with the Fitness for Habitation Act 2018. Whilst it is not for this Service to determine whether the property was habitable or not, it is of concern that the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it fully investigated this matter and took into account the resident’s vulnerabilities.
Whilst the landlord did attempt to expedite a survey inspection, it was not until March 2021 that it arranged for the contractor to attend to carry out some works, although it has not evidenced what these were. This was an inappropriate delay that no doubt added to the resident’s distress.
On 1 April 2021, the landlord carried out an inspection of the property to check the safety of the bathroom floor and the contractor attended the same week but did not find a hole. A specialist surveyor inspection of 6 April 2021 recommended a fungicidal wash to the affected bathroom surfaces and to lift the floorboards to assess their condition.
Whilst the landlord did provide limited communication with the resident during April 2021, it was unreasonable that the resident had to continue to chase the landlord and the contractor was not able to provide a quote for works until July 2021.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it took a proactive approach to managing the situation and instead reacted on a piecemeal basis as and when the resident raised an issue. Whilst this may be a sufficient response in some instances, the overall seriousness of the reports of woodworm and damp and mould needed a much more robust approach by the landlord, and it has failed to demonstrate that it acted in an appropriate manner.
There were various further resident chasers to the landlord during the following months and in November 2021, he reported that his health had suffered a relapse and he had to return to hospital. He expressed worry about the planned works and his health and even suggested a way forward of various works himself. It is of particular concern that despite the resident’s stated ill health and how he felt the property condition was impacting this, the landlord still did not consider how it would resolve the situation. This does not comply with the obligations placed on the landlord within the Housing Act 2004.
Further, despite numerous reports raised by the resident and reports of intervention by social services and the councillor, the situation continued, and it was not until February 2022 that a further survey was conducted and recommendations were made. This was for work to the kitchen, bathroom, lounge and pointing repairs. However, the landlord delayed again in ordering these works until April 2022 – apparently because of funding. Therefore, it was not until July 2022 that the work commenced and not until September 2022 that the landlord has confirmed that all works were completed.
It is noted that there were periods when Covid-19 may have impacted the landlord’s ability to progress repairs, the resident was in hospital at times and there was an issue with moving the resident’s possessions. However, it is unreasonable that the landlord failed to take a pro-active approach to these matters and that there were lengthy periods when the resident will have been left uncertain as to how it intended to bring a resolution to his long-standing concerns about damp, pests in the property and the impacts of poor flooring.
In summary, despite the reports of woodworm at the property being raised in August 2019, and damp and mould at the property from September 2020, the works that the landlord diagnosed as necessary were not completed until September 2022 – three years later. Even then, related works that were required because the bathroom flooring had previously not been fully resolved, did not commence until as recently as February 2023. This was an excessive time period to leave a vulnerable resident with outstanding works at his home.
Further, it is of serious concern that the landlord failed to evidence that it had assessed the property condition and the resident’s needs in accordance with the Fitness for Habitation Act 2018 and the assessment of risks under Housing Health and Safety Rating System.
The landlord did recognise some of its service failures within its complaint responses at both stage one and two and provided some redress that included:
1. Providing and fitting carpets to the property.
2. £400 compensation.
3. An e-voucher of £250 to the resident to assist with the cold weather.
4. A subsequent decant offer after the end of the complaints process.
Although it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge failings and make offers of redress, given the excessive delays the resident experienced for over three years, this level of compensation was insufficient. This compensation was not reflective of the significant impact that this matter likely had on the resident over an extended period of time and the likely effect on his use of the property.
The landlord committed to learning from this complaint to ensure this type of situation did not happen again, but no specific evidence has been provided on how it has done this, albeit it has provided a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s Damp and Mould Spotlight Report and updated its website to reflect that it is now proactive in managing damp and mould cases. Nevertheless, there were continued delays after the landlord’s final complaint response – this indicates that it had not implemented sufficient learning from the outcome of this case.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The resident advised that he wished to raise a formal complaint in February 2022. However, the landlord did not issue their stage one response letter until July 2022 – five months later. This was not only an unreasonable length of time, it is outside the landlord’s complaint policy timescale of responding to stage one complaints within 10 working days and it does not comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord did recognise this delay in its stage one complaint and awarded £100 compensation in recognition of the resident’s time taken to chase the complaint including the distress and inconvenience caused.
On 5 August 2022, the resident discussed escalating the complaint with the landlord. However, the landlord delayed in registering the stage two complaint and it was not until October 2022 that it did log the complaint and, as a result, did not respond until December 2022 – four months later.
The complaint handling service failures over a nine month period are inappropriate and will have no doubt added to the resident’s distress that the repairs at his home were not getting completed and the landlord was not doing enough to try and resolve the matter. The landlord missed opportunities at both complaint stages to recognise that the resident wished to make, and escalate, his complaint.
The landlord did offer a sum of £400 compensation in its final complaint response, which it indicated was partially for complaint handling failings (in combination with repairs failings). However, given the period of the delay and the time and trouble caused to the resident as a result, this level of compensation was insufficient and a separate award of £400 should have been made solely for the complaint handling delay.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of damp, mould and woodworm at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to:
1. Identify from an early point the full extent of works and proactively manage the required works.
2. Assess the resident’s needs, whether the property was habitable and consider the risk in accordance with HHSRS.
3. Keep the resident fully updated and provide him with an action plan as to how it would manage the required works and what support it could offer him.
4. Provide comprehensive records of the required works, including the initial survey inspection report.
5. Comply with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
2. Provide written confirmation of when the full extent of works were completed at the property and an action plan, including timescales, for any remaining outstanding works.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1500 (including its previous offer of £400, if it has not already been paid) within four weeks of the date of this report in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the failures in its handling of the reports of woodworm, damp, mould and the complaint.
Within eight weeks of this report, the landlord to:
1. Review its handling of repairs at this property and provide this Service with an action plan as to how it intends to improve its repairs service in relation to how it responds to woodworm and potentially damaged flooring and joists.
2. Review its record keeping in relation to this complaint and advise this Service on how it intends to improve this aspect of its repairs service.
3. Review the way it handled this complaint and advise this Service what improvements it intends to action.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.