Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202218565)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218565

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

20 December 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and subsequent damage to the resident’s belongings.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The resident moved into the property on 14 February 2022 via a mutual exchange. The property is a one bed, ground floor flat with an access ramp. The resident lives at the property with her spouse.
The resident suffers from a physical disability and multiple mental health concerns. The resident’s wife has asthma and both members of the household use inhalers.
The resident reported issues of damp and mould in the bedroom to the landlord on 18 February 2022. She also reported a slow leak under the kitchen sink, which was being contained with towels. The landlord raised a job to repair the leak and to inspect, treat and identify the cause of damp/mould on 24 February 2022. At this time, the landlord was also advised of the resident’s pre-existing medical condition, that the resident stated would worsen due to the damp and mould.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 28 February 2022 to fix the leak and noted that the resident’s washing machine was not connected to the waste pipe. After attending to the leak, the contractor advised the resident to keep the unit door open to allow air to circulate to stop condensation.

The landlord attended to the damp and mould in the bedroom on 10 March 2022. The contractor noted that there was damp and mould present and that the bedroom radiator was too small for the room and needed an upgrade. The contractor also removed a section of the bedroom wall to investigate and then returned to replaster this on 17 March 2022.
The landlord raised an order for a new bedroom heater on 24 March 2022 and this was fitted on 21 April 2022.
The resident reported further damp and mould to the landlord on 13 April 2022. She stated that she had moved a sofa in the lounge and that it was covered in mould, that the whole flat smelt of damp and that there was mould on the walls. She informed the landlord that one of her household was asthmatic. The landlord raised an order on the same day to inspect, treat and identify the cause of mould for the whole property. This was marked as a 10 day job, due to be completed on 29 April 2022.
The resident submitted a Stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 17 April 2022. She complained about the damp and mould and that her furniture and clothing had been damaged beyond repair and that she had lost furniture and shoes to the value of £600. She advised the landlord of the impact on her health and that both she and her spouse had been using inhalers and had been staying with friends due to the damp and mould. She stated she wanted the issue resolved quickly or to be moved to another property.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 April 2022 to request to visit the property to see if it could diagnose the issue. The resident and the landlord arranged for the landlord to carry out an inspection on 21 April 2022. On this visit, the landlord noted there was a damp issue affecting external walls to the lounge and bedroom, which the landlord believed was due to blocked cavities and inadequate fans in the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord advised the property had a high moisture content.
The landlord advised the resident it needed to carry out further investigations, which would involve taking out bricks to check the cavity. It advised the resident that it could then proceed with whatever works would be required before rectifying the issue internally. The landlord raised orders to change the internal fans and advised the resident to clean off any mould and to keep furniture away from walls to allow air to circulate. It did not offer the resident any reimbursement for her damaged items as it stated this was part of its policy. The landlord asked its insurance company to send the resident a claim form.
On 25 April 2022, the landlord raised the job, asking its contractor to check the condition of the insulation and the bedroom and lounge plaster boards as well if necessary. The landlord also agreed to complete a mould wash at the same time and to supply a dehumidifier and reimburse the resident for the additional fuel cost. The work was completed on 3 May 2022.
The landlord stated that the resident was happy with the proposed works so closed the Stage 1 complaint on 27 April 2022. The landlord stated this was agreed verbally with the resident.
Upon investigation, the cavities were dry and the concrete floor was dry, including the insulation so the landlord determined that the damp and mould was caused by excessive moisture in the property from a combination of previous residents’ use and occupation, as well as the previously inadequate extractor fans, which were replaced in April 2022.
The landlord carried out further works from June to August 2022, including removing and refitting plasterboard in the lounge and dry lining this and replastering. It also raised several decoration jobs, which the resident refused as she was concerned that the underlying cause of the damp had not been rectified.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 24 August 2022 to advise she could not stay at the property due to the damp and mould, had now lost £2,000 worth of belongings and that the damp and mould had affected her mental health and her relationship. She refused any decorating works until she had a damp survey and an inspection by environmental health.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 October 2022 and this was escalated as a Stage 2 complaint. The resident advised one of them was not living at the property, her mental health had been adversely affected and the mould and damp issue had not been rectified. She stated the walls were still damp and mouldy and she would allow no decorating or mould wash works until the property was inspected by environmental health.
Both kitchen and bathroom fans were checked on 6 October 2022. The landlord’s contractor readjusted the settings on both of these and advised the resident that they needed to be left on permanently so as to trickle air.
Environmental health visited the property on 7 October 2022, together with the landlord and a third party damp surveyor. The survey noted that there had been previous issues with condensation forming in the property and recommended that the landlord install a wall mounted positive input ventilation system (PIV) in the hallway. This was in order for fresh air to be brought in from outside and circulate it throughout the property. It stated that along with the existing extractor units, this would greatly help in reducing condensation throughout the property.
The landlord issued a Stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 17 October 2022. It stated that it had completed the following actions:
1. It had been in touch with its insurer who had sent the resident a claim form in April 2022 and again on 21 June 2022.
2. It had raised repairs to inspect, treat and identify the cause of damp and mould and had carried out further works including new humidistat extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom, plastering, opening cavities externally (which showed no blockages and dry insulation)
3. It had readjusted the resident’s setting on her kitchen and bathroom fan.
4. No defects were found in the fabric of the building.
5. An independent survey had been carried out and the independent surveyor had suggested installing a PIV unit which the landlord did not consider necessary.
6. It had offered to carry out a mould wash behind the washing machine unit, it had offered to decorate the replastered areas in the bedroom and lounge and bathroom ceiling due to some minor peeling paint and the resident was currently refusing this.
7. It accepted that the property was not clean when the resident moved in and it had mould on the walls which presented as damp. It advised these were caused by condensation, as identified in the survey, and not fabric defects.
8. It advised the resident on ventilation and using the humidistat fans – to leave these on all the time and leave the trickle vents in the windows open.
9. It offered the resident £150 in decoration vouchers.
As an outcome to her complaint, the resident would like to be moved or for the landlords to support her to move properties.

Post internal complaints procedure

Since the Stage 2 complaint response, the resident has reported a further loss of belongings up to the value of £8,000.
The landlord has carried out further plastering and decoration works, has installed a cooker hood extractor fan, and has carried out another survey (survey results not seen) and has installed a PIV unit.
The resident’s insurance claim was closed with no payments made. The landlord stated the resident did not pursue the claim and the insurers have stated that considering the evidence, no liability would attach to the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This Service is aware that the resident moved into the property by way of mutual exchange and has a further complaint with the landlord, regarding the condition of the property at the point of exchange. Whilst the Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s frustration, as this matter has not been duly made to this Service, this element will not form part of the investigation. This is because paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of any complaint responses regarding the mutual exchange complaint so will not currently be in a position to investigate this matter. Any reference to this is for context purposes only. The Ombudsman advises the resident to bring the matter to us if they remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response once it has completed its internal complaints process.
The resident has also advised that the handling of this matter by the landlord has led to a deterioration in the health of the household. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Landlord obligations, policies, and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act requires landlords to make repairs to the structure and exterior of the building as well as to installations such as boilers, pipes and electrics.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy and website states that it operates a responsive repairs policy where it will complete all responsive repairs within 28 calendar days on a ‘right first time basis’. It continues to say that in some circumstances, it may be more appropriate for someone else in the team to visit and identify the cause of the issue and fully specify and scope the remedial work that may be required. Some examples of this include, follow on works it has not been able to complete at first visit due to the scope, complexity or the extent of actual work required or work needing complex diagnostics.
The policy refers to the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), under which damp and mould is a category one hazard.
The landlord’s website states that it responds to reports of damp and mould within 10 days. It is unclear when the landlord updated this timeframe as there is no mention of this on their written policy and procedure.
The landlord has an emergency repair timescale where it responds to incidents which can seriously damage someone’s health on the same day and always within 24 hours. The landlord operates a discretionary service where it aims to respond on the same day to vulnerable or disabled customers.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At stage one, it aims to agree a solution with the resident within 10 working days, with the possibility of a further 10 days if complaints are more complex. The landlord aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, with an extension of up to 30 further days if necessary.
The complaints policy states that it will not close a complaint until it has tried everything it believes it could reasonably have done to resolve the issue.
The landlord’s policy continues to say that as a charitable organisation, it rarely offers compensation, unless the customer has suffered financial loss, like damage to their personal belongings.
The landlord’s policy continues to state that in respect of service failure, in certain circumstances, the landlord will compensate residents if there has been a failure in service. It cites loss of personal property, damage, or inconvenience as examples of when it may award compensation.
The landlord’s policy urges residents to have their own home insurance policy for contents, which would not be covered under the landlord’s buildings insurance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and subsequent damage to the resident’s belongings

This Service’s Spotlight report on damp and mould states that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. It further states that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould should reflect the urgency of the issues. Further, that residents living in homes with damp and mould may be more likely to have respiratory problems, which include asthma. The report also highlights the importance of having appropriately skilled staff to identify and remedy damp and mould, as it is crucial to the early diagnosis of issues.
The landlord initially acted appropriately when it logged the resident’s job to repair the slow leak in her kitchen and to inspect damp and mould in her bedroom. The resident called on 18 February 2022 and the landlord logged the job on 24 February 2022. It attended the resident’s property on 28 February 2022, which is within its 10 day timescale published on its website.
Furthermore, after the visit on 28 February 2022, the landlord raised an order on 10 March 2022 to plaster the corner of the bedroom and bathroom and completed this within its timescale on 17 March 2022, which was appropriate. It also raised an order to check the operation of the radiator in the bedroom on 10 March 2022 and recommended replacing the heater as the room had damp and mould and raised an order for this to be replaced. This was an appropriate response, although it is noted that the heater was not replaced until 21 April 2022 as part of the landlord’s planned heating upgrade. As the residents reported significant health problems, this delay in fitting a suitable heater may have caused them some distress and anxiety and may have exacerbated the problem with the issues in the property. Although it is reasonable that the landlord replaced the heater as part of its planned works as this is more cost effective, it would have been appropriate to provide the residents with an interim alternative form of heating until it was replaced.
It was appropriate and proportionate that when the resident called the landlord on 13 April 2022, to report further damp and mould in the lounge and damage to her furniture, that the landlord raised a specialist damp and mould job on the same day and took note of the resident’s health vulnerabilities. The landlord responded to the resident within its timescales and arranged a visit within 6 days, which again was appropriate and within its timescales. The evidence shows that the job was marked as ‘urgent’ and the resident’s physical health issues were flagged by the landlord.
It is also reasonable that the landlord raised further jobs as a result of its visit to the resident’s property. As the landlord noted a high moisture content in the property, it was reasonable and necessary that it commissioned further investigations to ascertain the root cause of the issue. It also fulfilled its obligations in ordering new humidistat fans for the bathroom and kitchen.
However, the landlord’s policy states that it may reimburse residents in the event of financial loss such as damage to its personal belongings. Although it is reasonable that the landlord referred the resident to its insurer to pursue the losses, it is not appropriate that it did not support her in pursuing the claim. Furthermore, it is not reasonable that the landlord did not consider any form of compensation to the resident for the damage to her belongings or that it did not ask her for evidence of the expenditure so it could have considered a reimbursement. Neither did it direct her to pursue this with her own insurer if she had one. The landlord was aware that this was an issue for the resident and that she remained unhappy with its refusal to compensate her. It did not take into account the distress and inconvenience caused to her. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explore all the options and support her in these and this outright refusal would have caused the resident stress, frustration and time and trouble in pursuing financial redress. This is a failing on the part of the landlord.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord did act appropriately when the resident notified it of the impact of the situation on her household. It liaised with appropriate statutory agencies and raised relevant safeguarding concerns. Whilst the resident at times did not fully engage with the landlord, the landlord evidenced it took reasonable steps to seek to put appropriate adjustments in place.
It was reasonable that the landlord provided the resident with a dehumidifier on a temporary basis and offered to pay for the additional electricity costs to incur no further charge to the resident. It was further reasonable that the landlord carried out remedial plaster works and undertook to carry out a mould wash and decoration. Furthermore, the landlord attended several times when the resident reported issues with her fans and completed the works in a timely manner. This was a proportionate response.
However, the third party survey carried out on 7th October 2022, recommended that the landlord install a PIV system, which the landlord refused to do. It stated that the issues could be managed, using appropriate ventilation. Although installing a PIV was a recommendation, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to fully consider the installation of this system. The recommendation was made following a further survey in October 2022, when the resident had been living in the property for a number of weeks with the upgrades to the current fans and ventilation in place. This Service would expect to see clear decision making as to why the recommendation was not followed initially and this clearly communicated to the resident. The fact that the resident had to wait until several months after the internal complaints process to have this installed, caused her additional stress, anxiety and time and trouble. This was inappropriate on the part of the landlord, particularly when the resident’s spouse suffered from asthma. Although the Service cannot comment on causation between damp and mould and health issues, this would have undoubtedly added to the resident’s stress and frustration.
Although the landlord went some way in abiding by its policy and remedying the issues of damp and mould, it did not go far enough. When the cause of the mould was established as caused by condensation, it was recommended to install a PIV system, which it refused to do as it did not consider this necessary. The landlord stated it did not consider it necessary, despite the recommendation from the surveyor. It did not fit a PIV system until August 2023, following an additional survey carried out in May 2023. This is 10 months after the internal complaints process and 10 months after the initial damp surveyor recommended it. This would have caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience and will have impacted the resident’s enjoyment of her home. The landlord did not apologise to the resident for this delay, did not acknowledge the impact on the resident and distress and inconvenience and only offered the resident £150 in decoration vouchers. This is a failing on the part of the landlord. As such, a finding of maladministration is made, along with orders for redress.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) states that a full record must be kept of any complaint, any review and the outcomes at each stage. This must include the original complaint and the date received, all correspondence with other parties and any reports or surveys prepared.
It goes on to state that landlords must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. It states that landlords must confirm in writing to the resident at the completion of stage one in clear, plain language:
1. The complaint stage
2. the complaint definition
3. the decision on the complaint
4. the reasons for any decisions made
5. the details of any remedy offered to put things right
6. details of any outstanding actions and
7. details of how to escalate the matter to stage two if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.
The landlord did not provide the resident with a written response to her stage 1 complaint, nor any details therein. This points to poor record keeping and monitoring on the part of the landlord. The landlord advised that it had closed the resident’s complaint as she was satisfied with the proposed works the landlord had agreed to carry out. There is no written record provided in the evidence, where the landlord has written to the resident to either close the complaint or offer her the option to escalate the matter. Indeed, the landlord has confirmed to this Service that the complaint was closed verbally. This is contrary to the Code and is a failing on the part of the landlord. Furthermore, this may have delayed the resident from escalating her complaint and approaching the Service sooner. This would have caused the resident frustration, time and trouble and may well have contributed to the delays in the substantive issue being resolved.
Furthermore, the landlord offered no apology for not providing the resident with a written response and no redress was offered to compensate for this.
Additionally, although the landlord stated that the Stage 1 complaint was closed on 27 April 2022, it then opened a Stage 2 complaint on 3 October 2022. This would have caused confusion to the resident as well as additional time and trouble.
This Service had to request copies of the original damp survey (carried out on 7 October 2022) on at least 3 occasions. This points to poor record keeping on the part of the landlord and good record keeping is the pre-requisite to providing a good service. This poor record keeping is a failing on the part of the landlord and would have caused the resident additional stress, frustration and time and trouble.
The resident suffered adverse effect in terms of stress, frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. The poor record keeping also contributed to the resident losing trust in the landlord and in the complaints process as a means to putting things right.
As such, a finding of maladministration is made, along with orders for redress.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and subsequent damage to the resident’s belongings.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1100 for the following:
  1. £500 for distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in dealing with the damp and mould.
  2. £300 for time and trouble in pursuing the damp and mould issue.
  3. £300 the landlord’s complaint handling failures identified in this report.
3. Support the resident to make a claim for her damaged belongings via the landlord’s insurance.
4. Review the complaint handling failures in this case to determine what action has been or will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these. In particular, it should ensure that all complaint responses are provided in writing in accordance with the Code.
The landlord should provide the Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman understands the resident has an outstanding complaint regarding the condition of her property following the mutual exchange process. The landlord should contact the resident to pursue and finalise the matter through its internal complaints process.