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

The Riverside Group Limited (201909268)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909268

The Riverside Group Limited

25 January 2021


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The resident has complained about the landlord’s:
    1. response to her reports of damp and mould in her property;
    2. handling of a leak through her bedroom ceiling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The landlord has provided this Service with an undated file note (reference 101003993553) which appears to be either an email or online complaint from the resident in which she states that she wants to make a complaint about mould and that she has complained many times in the past. She noted that she is certain that condensation is not the issue, despite the landlord telling her that condensation was the cause of the mould. She also stated that she made a complaint about a leak in her bedroom ceiling and someone attended to check it but then she heard nothing further. She said a second leak had occurred and again someone attended but, whilst she had received a letter of apology from the landlord, still nothing had been done.
  2. This Service has not been provided with any further information from the landlord as to what inspections or work, if any, was carried out at the time.
  3. In relation to the formal complaint of mould and the ceiling leak, on 17 October 2019, following contact from this Service, the landlord replied stating ‘I will now record this as a stage 1 complaint as this has not been reported to [the landlord] previously’.  On 4 November 2019, the landlord emailed the resident to say that a job had been raised for 11 November 2019.  It is not known if this was to deal with the mould, ceiling leak, or both.
  4. The landlord has provided an excel spreadsheet outlining repairs carried out to the property. There is an entry regarding painting with a start date of 10 January 2020 and an entry related to plastering with a start date of 12 February 2020. It is not known if either of these jobs related to the mould or the ceiling leak.
  5. On 17 February 2020, according to a record provided by the landlord, a work order was raised to address the mould. An internal email, also on 17 February 2020, asked for the matter to be looked into as it was first logged in October 2019.  According to a file note dated 18 February 2020 ‘the issue with the ceiling is that it has tested positive for asbestos …. Work booked for 04/03-06/03’.
  6. In the landlord’s stage one response of 19 February 2020, it apologised for the length of time taken to deal with the issues. It had arranged for a second opinion on the mould to take place on 24 February 2020 (this Service has not been provided with the first opinion). In addition, removal and reinstatement of the bedroom ceiling would take place between 4 and 6 March 2020.
  7. A file note dated 24 February 2020 stated that the resident had been given a leaflet (presumably about condensation) and the landlord would consider if a ‘drymaster system’ could be fitted. On 4 March 2020, an internal email noted that a member of staff had visited in December 2019 but this Service has not seen any evidence of the purpose or outcome of that visit.
  8. The landlord has provided a copy of a contractor’s report following a survey of the mould carried out on 10 March 2020. It states that the lounge, hall, toilet, kitchen, dining room and three bedrooms all needed treatment for severe mould. In general, the recommendation was to treat the rooms with 2 stage mould treatment and apply 2 coats of paint.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint during this time, and the landlord’s stage two response was issued on 11 March 2020. It stated that three different inspectors had attended and each of them had advised that the issue was one of condensation. It noted that the resident had been offered advice on lifestyle to reduce the condensation. It also noted that she had refused the pre-booked appointment to wash down any affected areas with a mould wash but confirmed that she could book this in again if she wanted the work to take place. Finally, it noted that the work to the ceiling following the leak had been postponed at the resident’s request and would now take place from 18 to 20 March 2020.
  10. The resident contacted this Service on 9 June 2020 to say that the ceiling was still dripping; the mould was still present and the landlord had not kept its appointments.

Assessment

  1. According to an undated file note provided by the landlord, the resident had complained about mould ‘many times in the past’.  The landlord also provided file notes which state, in an entry dated 18 February 2020, ‘from previous experience with this customer I believe it to be condensation and this is what customer has been advised previously ….’.
  2. This Service has not been provided with any evidence to show how often, or on what dates the resident had made previous complaints about mould. However, she approached this Service in October 2019 and a formal complaint was raised the next day by the landlord. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
  3. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme which states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, whilst the historical information provides context for the current complaint, this report focuses on the most recent complaint regarding damp and mould of October 2019.
  4. In accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, which would include any damage or disrepair to the ceiling following a leak.  Responsibility for damp and mould is a more complex area as, if the mould is a result of condensation due to a repair or structural problem, the landlord may be responsible to rectify the issue.  However, a tenant is required to properly heat and ventilate the home to prevent the occurrence of condensation and any subsequent mould growth.
  5. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine the cause of the mould growth in this case or assess whether it was due to lifestyle condensation or outstanding repairs in the property. Instead, it is this Service’s role to assess whether the landlord properly responded to the resident’s reports in line with its obligations under the tenancy agreement, legislation, and relevant policies and procedures, and took appropriate steps to investigate and resolve any issues it identified.
  6. The landlord has not provided this Service with any repairs policy which sets out its target timescales for responding to reports of repairs.  Examples of standard timescales provided by other social landlords for dealing with non-emergency repairs are in the region of 3-4 working days for urgent repairs and 28 working days for routine repairs.  The landlord has not stated how it categorised the issues reported to it.
  7. It is acknowledged by both parties that there have been previous problems with mould in the property, which gives context to the resident’s more recent reports. However, as stated at paragraph 14 above, only the most recent complaint, and the landlord’s response to the same, have been considered herein.
  8. The difficulty in assessing the landlord’s response to the more recent complaint of mould, and to the leak in the ceiling, is the absence of documentary evidence provided to this Service. It is concerning to note the absence of clear and accurate records and correspondence relating to the handling of both the mould and repair reports. The Ombudsman can only base its decisions on the documentary evidence provided to it by the parties and there is an expectation that the landlord, as the professional organisation with resources available to it, should be in a position to provide adequate evidence of its actions. It has been highlighted throughout this report where there were gaps in the information, and the landlord should therefore take steps to ensure that its record keeping practices are adequate and that care is taken to provide all necessary documentation requested by the Ombudsman for its investigations.
  9. It is not clear when the landlord first became aware of the problems of mould and the problem with the ceiling, as the file note it provided to this Service, in which the resident raised the matters, is undated. However, certainly by 17 October 2019 the landlord was made aware, by this Service, of the issues.  A job was raised in November 2019 but there is no evidence provided by the landlord that any inspection or work took place at this time.
  10. There is anecdotal evidence that the landlord was dealing with both the ceiling repair and the mould.  A file note stated that there was asbestos in the ceiling but there is no record of any previous inspection or job raised to attend to the matter.  The stage one response stated that the landlord was seeking a second opinion about the mould, but there is no evidence provided to show when the first opinion was sought and why it was thought necessary to seek a second opinion. 
  11. It was not until February 2020 that the landlord, after one department chasing up another, began to document its actions and provide evidence that it is dealing with the complaints.
  12. A survey took place in March 2020 and, according to that report, the property had severe mould throughout. The resident first reported the problem in October 2019 and, therefore, despite the history to the complaint and the acknowledged presence of severe mould, it took the landlord approximately four months to carry out a survey. Even if the issue was considered to be a routine repair, this is far outside the type of timescale within which the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have taken action and this was unreasonable. 
  13. It is noted that the landlord appeared to consider the mould to be as a result of the resident’s lifestyle. Whilst it is entitled to rely on a professional opinion from suitably qualified staff in confirming its position on the cause of the mould, it has provided no evidence to this Service to support this position. For example, whilst the survey suggested work to remove the mould, it offered no opinion on the cause. As a result, it is not clear how the landlord reached the conclusion that the mould growth was caused by condensation rather than want of repair.
  14. The resident has claimed that the mould is not as a result of condensation, but she has not provided any evidence to support her position. It is also noted that, according to the final stage response from the landlord, the resident has refused to have the mould washed down. It is not known why she refused, and the landlord has not provided any evidence in the form of telephone notes or written correspondence to show that she was refusing to have the work done. In addition, although the landlord was considering installing a Drymaster system, there is no evidence of the outcome of this.
  15. Finally, the landlord stage two response gave dates that remedial work would take place to the ceiling. However, it has not provided any evidence to this Service that this work took place and the resident, in June 2020, advised that the ceiling was still leaking.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints about:
    1.       mould growth;
    2.       the leak to the ceiling.

Reasons

  1. There is no record of the date the landlord first became aware of the complaint of mould and the leak to the ceiling, but it certainly knew by October 2019. It took until March 2020 to carry out an inspection of the mould. It is not known when the ceiling was inspected but work was not proposed to take place to remove and replace the ceiling until March 2020.
  2. The landlord has provided no evidence that it carried out the work to remove the mould, or alternatively, evidence that the resident refused to have the mould removal work carried out. Nor has it provided any evidence that the work to the ceiling was carried out and has satisfactorily resolved the leak.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
    1.       Provide a report to the resident to include:
      1. evidence of any professional opinion it obtained to show that the mould was as a result of condensation caused by lifestyle;
      2. evidence of the result of its consideration of installing a Drymaster system, giving full reasons if it decided not to install the system;
      3. an up-to-date inspection report that the work to remove the mould (as per the consultant’s recommendation) and repair the ceiling has been completed. If the resident has refused any of the work, the landlord should evidence this refusal and is then entitled to consider the matter dealt with.
    2.       Pay the resident £200 compensation for the delay between November 2019 (when the issues were reported) and March 2020 (when action took place).

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should consider:
    1.       how it can improve its record keeping to ensure that there is no repetition of the matters raised within this report;
    2.       how it can ensure that there are no lengthy delays between repairs being reported and inspections being carried out.