Sanctuary Housing Association (202000930)

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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for compensation following damage to her property caused by mould.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, an housing association. The property is a first floor flat. The tenancy commenced in 2011.
Section 13.1 of the Tenancy Agreement states: “Where appropriate, the Trust will be responsible for insuring (including self-insuring) the property. You are responsible for insuring your personal goods and possessions.”
The landlord’s handbook and policies confirm it commits to undertake any necessary repairs to tenant’s homes within the timescales it promises.
The landlord’s repairs policy details two repairs priorities, emergency repairs, which are responded to within 24 hours, and appointed repairs, which are responded to within 28 days.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure, aiming to respond at stage one in ten working days and at stage two in 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy advises it will consider compensation or goodwill offers, including in cases where there has been a loss the landlord is responsible for. When considering compensation it will assess the length of time it took to resolve a problem and evidence of any costs incurred.

Summary of events

In October 2019 the resident requested for a surveyor to visit, following which a surveyor attended on 23 October 2019 and suggested a wet radiator in her home was due to a leak. Operatives then attended in relation to the radiator on 14 November 2019, where it was identified the bedroom radiator was not leaking, but was being fed by unlagged pipes in a loft space which was resulting in some condensation on the pipe. The landlord carried out further investigation in relation to the resident’s reports of damp and mould on 20 January 2020, due to her availability, where no evidence of external water ingress was identified.
The landlord subsequently completed works on 6 January 2020 to fit lagging to the heating system pipes to prevent further issues, as identified in its November 2019 visit; and completed works on 4 February 2020 to repair cracked plaster; treat mould; and install loft insulation, as identified in its January 2020 visit.
The resident subsequently complained about damage caused to shoes, carpet and clothing which she claimed was due to the landlord’s neglect. She reported that she replaced a bed frame, mattress and carpet and paid out £100 to redecorate her bedroom. She reported that she was informed by operatives the dripping pipe would have caused the damage, and that she was informed by landlord staff to dispose of the carpet. She reported her health being affected.
The landlord investigated the resident’s claims within its complaints procedure between November 2019 and February 2020 , where it responded within aimed timeframes.
In December 2019, it explained that it had attended to the resident’s radiator repair within its published timescale of 28 days and taken appropriate action. It advised that operatives denied confirming damage to possessions was caused by the pipe condensation, and in the opinion of staff the radiator pipe condensation would not have been expected to cause the damage claimed. It noted an expectation to claim from household insurers in the circumstances.
In February 2020, it confirmed findings of its inspection on 20 January 2020 and that it was satisfied that mould was due to lifestyle related condensation, as there was no evidence of water ingress. It explained that it was noticed a loft area adjacent to the bedroom did not have insulation, however moisture readings of walls were completely dry. It noted surveyors had not considered the carpet to be beyond repair and had offered to have it professionally cleaned, and it was the resident’s decision to take the carpet up. It confirmed repairs to repair cracked plaster, treat an affected area with anti-mould, and insulate the loft area were completed on 4 February 2020 after an initial appointment on 31 January 2020 was cancelled. It explained an inspection was being arranged to assess if a ventilation system would be beneficial.
In its response the landlord advised that it was unable to accept that costs for replacing a bed frame, mattress and carpet were caused by service failings, however it offered compensation of £10 for the missed appointment on 31 January 2020; £30 that would have covered the cost of professionally cleaning the carpet; and £50 towards decoration costs, in recognition that the anti-mould treatment would have required wallpaper removal. Later, the landlord confirmed it would not review the matter further unless the resident provided professional and credible evidence that disputed the findings of its surveyors.
The resident contacted this Service about her dissatisfaction that the landlord declined her claim for damage to her bed and carpet, because she contends the damage wa s due to structural issues and lack of insulation.

Assessment and findings

It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine caus e and liability for the damage to the resident’s property, or effect on her health, but it can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
In accordance with the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for repairs in relation to the structure of the property. Consequently, an important consideration for this Service is how long the landlord took to respond to issues the resident raised, when the landlord became aware of them.
In this case, it is not disputed that the landlord attended for radiator repairs in published timescales, carried out further investigation subject to the resident’s availability, and also completed further works it identified in published timescales. This demonstrates the landlord met its repairs obligations in a swift and appropriate manner.
T he landlord reviewed information from the resident when she raised possessions damage and took appropriate steps to assess if there was any loss it was responsible for, by considering the length of time it took to resolve problems and evidence of incurred costs. Its conclusions that it was not responsible for the damage and the issues were due to condensation were reasonable, as these were based on the assessments of its staff upon whose opinion the landlord is reasonably entitled to rely.
After concluding there were no service failings, its suggestion to claim from household insurers was appropriate as t his was in accordance with Section 13.1 of the Tenancy Agreement which states tenants “ are responsible for insuring your personal goods and possessions,” that the resident accepted on signing the tenancy. The responses to the resident’s contentions that she was informed a pipe caused damage and was advised to throw away carpet were also reasonable, as the landlord took appropriate steps to discuss these internally, and t his Service has seen no evidence to show the resident was misinformed.
By offering £90 toward a missed appointment, what would have been the cost to professionally clean the carpet, and decoration costs, the landlord has however been empathetic and exercised appropriate discretion in line with the Compensation Policy, beyond its stated obligations.

I n accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme , t here was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s requests for compensation following damage to her property caused by mould.

The landlord attended to repairs reports within its published timescales and took appropriate action in relation to issues it identified.
The landlord acted reasonably and in line with policies when responding to the resident’s complaint and request to be reimbursed for personal possessions.
There is no evidence to support the resident’s contentions that a pipe caused damage to personal possessions or that the landlord told her to throw away the carpet. The Ombudsman is satisfied, based on the evidence available, that the landlord’s conclusion that it was not responsible for the damage and that the issues were due to condensation was reasonable. This is because it attended following the resident’s reports, investigated her concerns and carried out works that it considered appropriate, based on the findings of its own inspections.