Industry News


Severe maladministration in damp and mould cases


H


ousing Ombudsman has made four findings of severe maladministration against the Guinness Partnership, as a


result of vulnerable children living in damp and mould for three years and another resident with fungi growing in one of their bedrooms. In Case A the Ombudsman found


severe maladministration aſter the landlord failed to fix a roof that was impacted by bird infestation for 21 months. Half of the delays were caused by poor contractor changeover and the temporary measures put in place by the landlord were insufficient, as was its overall offer of compensation. While the landlord acknowledged its failures in its stage two response, it took a further four months to fix the problem. Tere was no evidence throughout the repair


that the landlord considered its obligations under the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) and it failed to keep the resident updated throughout the complaint process. Te Ombudsman ordered the landlord to pay £1,360 in compensation, provide a written apology from the chief executive and to offer the resident an inspection of his roof if he would like it. In Case B the Ombudsman found


severe maladministration for how the landlord handled repairs and damp, as well as for its complaint handling throughout the case. Tis meant the resident and her family were leſt with an ongoing leak that leſt them living in a damp and cold property for an excessive period of time. Te family were forced to live with an ongoing leak, and the associated damp, mould and fungi growing in one of the bedrooms. Tere were excessive delays in completing


repairs, a consistent lack of communication from both the landlord and its contractor, poor record keeping, poor contract monitoring, repeated failure to complete a permanent repair and failure to follow its policies and procedures.


COMPLAINT HANDLING DELAYED Tere were also severe failings within the landlord’s complaint handling. Aſter seven months


delay, it failed to provide a Stage 1 response and escalated directly to Stage 2 with no clear instruction from the resident. Te landlord’s complaint handling was overly protracted, ineffective and disorganised, and the landlord sent a Stage 1 complaint three days aſter it sent its Stage 2 complaint with no explanation. It had sent no prior acknowledgement or indication it was investigating a further Stage 1 complaint. In addition, the stage 1 response was factually incorrect. While the landlord’s learning statement says these issues were raised in 2021, the repairs in this case were still not resolved by the landlord at the time of the Ombudsman’s determination and had to be ordered as part of an action plan with the resident. Te Ombudsman also ordered the landlord to


pay the resident £5,300 in compensation, carry out an inspection and heat loss survey at the home, as well as seeking whether the resident needs any adjustments based on a heart attack she suffered during the complaint. In Case C the Ombudsman found severe


maladministration aſter failure to effectively deal with damp and mould in a vulnerable child’s bedroom for almost three years. Aſter the initial reporting of the incident, an operative attended the property and recommended intrusive tests were required, but this was not acted on. When it was raised again months later, the


landlord sent another operative who recommended the same thing but in response simply isolated an outdoor tap and marked the job as complete. Over the next 14 months the resident chased the landlord for repairs and had jobs cancelled three times to rectify this situation. Te landlord provided no updates or timetable on the repair, causing further distress to the resident. Te landlord was aware of the child’s health


condition and received a letter from the family doctor explaining the need for the mould to be treated urgently, but this was no seen in its actions. As in Case B, the landlord has stated in its learning statement that the issues in this case were from 2021, but at the time of determination works still


had not been completed and the resident and her child were still living in damp and mould. Te Ombudsman ordered the landlord to


instruct a specialist damp surveyor to produce a report to identify the remedies needed, follow the works required in that report in full, as well as paying the resident £2,720 in the meantime for the distress and inconvenience caused.


LENGTHY DELAYS & POOR COMMS In Case D the Ombudsman found severe maladministration aſter the landlord failed to undertake effective repairs, with some still outstanding at the point of the Ombudsman’s determination – 14 months aſter it was first notified. Because of the landlord’s failings, and its poor communication, the resident’s enjoyment of her property has been severely curtailed for a prolonged period. When the resident reported her doors were


faulty, the landlord should have arranged someone to assess this within 24 hours – however it took 13 calendar days for someone to look at them. Tis did not have the urgency required to make the home safe. Te landlord visited the property on four separate occasions and noted the same repairs were needed every time, without any further action taking place. Despite further reports that the resident’s house


was “freezing” in the winter months, the landlord continued to miss opportunities to expedite the repairs or consider how it could reduce the detrimental impact of the cold on the resident and her children, given the time of year. Another repair ongoing was a bathroom


refurbishment, which was confirmed aſter an inspection. However, some of it was completed but not all. When this was chased the landlord reported it had finished the works but no such installation had taken place. Te Ombudsman ordered the landlord to pay


the resident £5,500 in compensation, to review its repairs and record keeping, as well as reviewing itself against the Complaint Handling Code.


Welsh HA advises 40 households to leave homes due to RAAC risk


Discredited building material has been found in 60 HA owned properties on the Gower Estate in Hirwaun, South Wales with fears for another 17 privately-owned homes on the same estate.


Welsh housing association Trivallis advised 40


households to move out of their homes due to the risks posed by Re-inforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC). Te residents were offered hotel accommodation to facilitate a quick evacuation. Trivallis has said that none of the tenants were


forced to move out, and that “it was up to each family to decide”. A Trivallis spokesperson said: “We know there will be anxiety among other Trivallis tenants who will be worried that their homes have RAAC which could be dangerous. But, just to be clear, the homes in Hirwaun are the only homes of this type that we own, and our current data hasn’t


10 | HMMApril/May 2024 | www.housingmmonline.co.uk


highlighted other risks.” Te lightweight concrete, which is at risk


of sudden collapse, was detected in relation to issues affecting the roofs and ceilings. RAAC was predominantly used in public sector buildings constructed between the 1950s and 1990s, including some social housing buildings. Te Regulator of Social Housing has previously said that RAAC is not widespread in social housing, but it has warned social housing providers to check whether the concrete is present in their homes. Some 364 council homes in Aberdeen, Scotland were also evacuated earlier this year due to RAAC risks.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52