Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202101922)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101922

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

20 December 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

The complaint is about –
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repair works regarding damp and mould to the resident’s property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in relation to her property windows.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in relation to a neighbouring balcony.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report in relation to post at the resident’s previous property.
5. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied her 2-bedroom flat in a converted house, together with her young child, under an assured tenancy agreement. The tenancy began on 4 February 2019.

Legal and policy framework

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord was obliged to maintain the structure and outside of the property including drains, external pipes and gutters and chimneys. Under section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, it was obliged to ensure the property was fit for habitation in relation to damp. Under Section 11 of the same act, the landlord has a duty to keep the exterior of the building in repair, which would include windows. The landlord would have a duty to undertake repairs within a reasonable period. It was implied by law into the tenancy agreement that the resident had a right of quiet enjoyment of the property, i.e. to occupy it without unlawful interference of their right to occupy by the landlord. This right was reflected in the tenancy agreement in that the landlord would not “interrupt” the resident or “interfere” unless it required access.
Under the repairs policy, routine repairs would be completed within 28 days. Replacement windows were carried out according to an agreed work programme. The landlord’s policy accepted that it would be sometimes necessary to complete work in a shorter timescale. Major repairs included works to the area around its buildings and homes essential to the safety, security and protection of residents e.g. the replacement or substantial reconstruction of unstable boundary walls or footpaths. The policy gave no timescale for such repairs. To minimise disruption to residents, it was possible that it would carry out several repairs at one time. The lettings standard stated that surfaces would be free from mould.
The landlord’s complaints policy stated it had a two-stage procedure. The timescale for responding was 28 days. The customer had the right to ask for their complaint to be escalated to the next stage if they did not feel their query was being dealt with adequately.
The compensation policy set out a maximum payment in its tariff of payments of £500 for failure of service. An example was where the issue had been ongoing for more than six months. It also set out maximum of £500 for the resident’s time and trouble while pursuing a complaint and £150 for poor complaint handling. It would also reimburse expenses up to £300 and £10 for missed appointments up to £50.

Chronology

On 20 March 2019, the resident made a complaint to the landlord as follows:
1. The landlord’s contractor had informed her neighbour at her previous property that it had disposed of the resident’s post. She had had difficulties with the post office redirecting her post.
2. She had raised a number of issues when viewing the property as well as on further occasions, as follows:
  1. Damp spots in the hallway cupboard and in the living room.
  2. Extractor fan not working in the bathroom.
  3. Unstable and unsafe structure in the neighbour’s back garden that overhung the resident’s garden and drained into her garden. She was concerned about the risk to her child.
  4. Windows were old and not insulated. She was informed that a surveyor would inspect and check whether the property was due for renewal of the windows.
  5. The fireplace in the living room had been “slightly” boarded up. During the days of extreme wind, it had been rocking about. She wanted to know whether the chimney was sealed and what could be done to secure the fireplace.
3. The windows and the fireplace were “leaking” heat which was very costly.
4. Her view was that her complaint should be escalated immediately as she had already reported these issues.
The landlord acknowledged her complaint on the same day in an automated response and stated that it would contact the resident with an update within 10 working days.
The resident wrote again on 8 April 2019, asking the landlord to escalate her complaint as she had not received a response within the specified time. She received the same automated response from the landlord as before.
On 10 April 2019, the resident chased a response to her emails sent on 20 March 2019.
The resident wrote again on 26 April 2019 expressing her dissatisfaction at the lack of response. She had telephoned and had been told a member of staff was on sick leave which she did not feel was a satisfactory reason for the lack of response. She requested that the complaint be escalated to stage three of the landlord’s complaint process. She received the landlord’s automated response again.
According to the resident, while her email was acknowledged, she only received a response after she telephoned the landlord. The service has not been provided with that response.
On 2 May 2019, the landlord internally noted as follows:
1. There was a works order to investigate and remedy any leak from another flat. It did not specify which flat.
2. The extractor fan was supposed to have been overhauled prior to the let. It would arrange a repair.
3. In relation to the structure in the neighbour’s back garden, it noted that those neighbours would be unable to remove the balcony themselves. If the balcony were taken down “the resident” (it did not note which resident) would be able to use the rear door to access the rear garden, instead of using an aluminium ladder. The rear garden was shared by two properties.
4. The timber-sash bay window to the living room was rotten and needed renewal. While it had been stuck with paint, it was still openable and was in working order. It would recommend that work to the window was included in its window programme.
5. An order had been raised to secure the access metal panel to the fireplace.
According to a further internal email of 13 May 2019, the repairs team offered advice on how to knock down the dilapidated balcony .
According to an internal email of the landlord dated 14 May 2019, the damp patches were being dealt with as a responsive repair, and the balcony (in relation to which the local authority had also contacted the landlord because they considered it to be hazardous) had been referred to its “complex and disrepair” team.
Throughout the history of these events, the resident chased the repairs on several occasions. The evidence showed that the landlord had placed orders for repairs to take place and the complaints case officer chased on her behalf.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 May 2019 confirming that it had raised repairs for the damp, extractor fan, and fireplace. It had requested a survey of the balcony and had sent a recommendation for a replacement bay window. It would stay in contact to ensure any appointments were convenient for the resident.
On 30 May 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to say that it was waiting for survey results before taking the next steps in relation to the repairs and advised her not to use the garden while the balcony next door was being dealt with.
The resident made a further complaint on 5 July 2019. She had reported on 31 May 2019 that the patio doors in one of the bedrooms did not lock. The landlord arranged an appointment to replace them. She was informed on the day of the appointment that they were to be repaired instead. She reported that the job was sub-standard as there was a gap in the door which let rainwater in. One of the locks fell off. After the works were completed, although she had covered the carpet, she found her carpet was left with footprints and the contractor did not fully clean up after themselves. She was unhappy with the inconvenience as well as the unsatisfactory work.
On 9 July 2019, the landlord’s surveyor carried out a site visit.
On 18 August 2019, an independent surveyor on behalf of the landlord carried out a damp inspection survey. It made a number of findings and recommendations including:
1. It identified damp in the bedrooms and bathroom and recommended repairs, including to the extractor fan and window and to redecorate.
2. It recommended that the flat above be surveyed and there be an investigation of gutter downpipes for leaks, as well as some external repairs.
3. It recommended painting the bedrooms.
On 12 September 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident that the repair issues “were still being dealt with”. It was awaiting a date when the balcony works would commence, and for information on what works need to be done following the recent damp survey. It may need planning permission to replace the window in relation to which the landlord would update the resident. On the same day, the landlord noted internally that the works might not go ahead that year due to costs issues.
According to the landlord’s records of 17 October 2019, the landlord was seeking to carry out all the works at the same time, which the resident stated she was aware of.
On 24 October 2019, the resident wrote requesting an update. She had not been able to use her garden. There was mould in the bathroom which had caused damage and she said that she had to wash her towels on an almost daily basis. She had reported blocked and damaged drainage which caused issues in heavy rain. The windows were leaking heat and letting in water.
On 06 November 2019, the landlord wrote with an apology, and stated that it would consider reimbursing her for her energy costs. It would arrange appointments for the repairs.
Some of the repair works were carried out in the period 28 January through to 31 January 2020.
According to the landlord’s records, a new extractor fan was fitted on 14 February 2020.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 July 2020 in response to the resident’s complaint. The final repairs had been due to be carried out on 1 April 2020 but were now on hold due to lockdown. It had completed the investigation and was closing the complaint.
According to the landlord, it completed the repairs in relation to the leaks on 27 August 2020.
On 2 October 2020, the resident sought an update in relation to the window repairs. She wrote to the landlord on 9 October 2020 as follows: she had contacted various teams for an update but to no avail, she had made “countless” phone calls, taken “innumerable” number of days off work and the works were still incomplete. Her windows were insecure and no planning application to replace them had been submitted to the local authority. She had not been able to open the windows and they let rain in and let out heat. The unsafe balcony was still in place.
The landlord replied on 15 October 2020 to say it would provide an update.
According to an internal email of 1 December 2020, the landlord reported that it had carried out an inspection on 6 November 2020 and found that the balcony next door needed to be taken down and the concealed stairway to be exposed for use. It was awaiting an estimate for the works.
The landlord’s second stage response of 22 March 2021 stated as follows:
1. It noted that the final repairs to the issues the resident had raised on 25 of March 2019 were due to be carried out on 1 April 2021 but they had been put on hold. It closed the complaint on 8 July 2020. It noted that the landlord had escalated her concerns to the “disrepair and major works” team. She was provided with a direct contact with that team. The scheduled works were delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The landlord was “empathic” to the resident’s situation.
2. It offered its apologies and felt the overall management of her stage one complaint and the outcome was satisfactory, especially given the “unprecedented circumstances”. The works were escalated and she was given support. It did not consider that the resident had provided “valid’ grounds to escalate the complaint. She had not demonstrated that the stage one response was factually incorrect, or that the landlord had not addressed the initial complaint, or that important information provided in the initial complaint has not been considered. In the circumstances, it confirmed that the outcome of its first response remained as it was.
It offered compensation as follows:
1. Time & Trouble – £500.
2. Failure of Service – £500.
3. Poor Complaint Handling – £150.
4. Total – £1,150.
The landlord has explained to this service the rationale for the offer of compensation as follows:
1. £500 in recognition of the time and trouble the customer experienced while chasing this matter. The delays occurred due to the initial lockdown and the suspension of non-urgent repairs. This was the maximum award available under this “tariff”, which it felt was justified given the length of time the matter went on.
2. £500 in relation to the service failure in delivering the works in a timely manner. It aimed to complete routine repairs within 28 working days, but had exceeded this considerably, so it awarded the maximum for this tariff also.
3. £150 in recognition of its poor complaint handling, given the length of time the matter was ongoing. This was once again the maximum it could offer under this tariff.
The resident replied on 30 March 2021that while the “minor” works had been carried out, the works to the balcony and window remained outstanding. Moreover, the extractor fan had already stopped working. Mould and damp was returning to the bathroom and bedroom wall, and the leak in the hallway cupboard had reappeared.
This service wrote to the landlord on 4 August 2021 asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint in relation to her missing post at her previous property.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 November 2021. It noted that the resident had notified the landlord of the matter at the time in 2019, but had failed to respond. It was unable to prove or disprove the resident’s allegations regarding her post being destroyed. Therefore, it gave the resident the benefit of the doubt. It accepted that its contractors should not have tampered with her mail and its complaint handling should have been more effective. It offered compensation of £300 as follows:
1. £150 in recognition of the time and trouble the resident had experienced.
2. £150 in recognition of its poor complaint handling.
It apologised unreservedly for any inconvenience and distress that she may have experienced.
The resident confirmed to this service that she accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation in relation to the missing post.
The resident has informed this service that at December 2021, she had issues with the bathroom fan and damp in her living room and hallway.
The has landlord informed this service that the balcony works began on 10 May 2021 and were completed three weeks later. The resident has informed this service that there were issues including debris being left and a dripping pipe from the neighbour’s property into her garden.
The landlord has also informed this service that some works were carried out to the windows in May 2021. Replacement windows were due to be installed in the “next” financial year “2021/2022”. The resident informed this service that the windows were replaced but that there were outstanding issues with the works including missing handles and keys and that the type of windows that were installed had caused her issues with her furniture.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repair works regarding damp and mould to the resident’s property.

Due to the quality of the landlord’s records, it was on occasions difficult to ascertain what works were carried out and determine an exact chronology, however the resident provided her emails in a clear chronological format which assisted this investigation. The Ombudsman has concluded that the works referred to in the resident’s complaint regarding the damp and mould were carried out in January 2020 and completed in August 2020.
There was a significant delay in the landlord taking any action in relation to the resident’s reports of damp and mould that she summarised in her email of 20 March 2019. While it was appropriate that the landlord did not dispute that it would carry out the works, it took from mid-February 2019 to May 2019 for the landlord to place an instructions for the works to be carried out. There was no explanation for the delay. However, it was reasonable of the landlord to seek a surveyor’s report. It is likely the further delay was due to the availability of the surveyor, however the landlord should have ensured it kept the resident updated.
The surveyor’s report of 19 August 2019 made a number of recommendations. There was no evidence that the landlord undertook a survey of the property upstairs or the gutters as the surveyor’s report advised. There was no explanation, reasonable or at all, as to why it then took until January 2020 to commence the works. There was no evidence that the works in relation to the damp and mould were particularly complicated. The only explanation that can be identified for the delay was that the landlord wished to carry out all the works at the same time. The landlord failed to ensure it updated the resident, which was frustrating for her.
Given the length of time the resident waited, this was not a reasonable or appropriate approach. The landlord had a legal obligation to undertake repairs within a reasonable period. Its own policy specified the damp and mould works should have been completed within 28 days. While there was no evidence that the property was not fit for habitation, it had a duty to maintain the structure and outside of the property and to keep the property free from damp and mould.
Without the landlord expressly acknowledging any service failures, it offered the resident a total of £1,000 in relation to its delays. That was the maximum amount under its own compensation policy. While the landlord’s response was not clear as to whether the offer also referred to the delays in replacing the window and the removal of the balcony, the amount offered is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies. Having considered the landlord’s own policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its delays in relation to the works that were carried out in regard to damp and mould.
The resident has reported further issues with damp and the bathroom extractor fan. As these issues which may be connected arose after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints procedure and is outside the remit of this investigation. It is not clear whether these issues are connected with the resident’s original complaint. However the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to follow up on the resident’s report and will make a recommendation in that regard..

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in relation to her property windows

While the landlord had noted in May 2019 that the windows were openable and in working order, the resident had later reported that the windows were letting in rain and allowing heat to escape. Although it had noted the windows were rotten, there was no evidence that the landlord had considered the windows had fallen into disrepair and whether it therefore had a duty under the tenancy agreement to maintain the exterior of the premises and an implied duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to undertake repairs within a reasonable period.
While replacing windows would normally be completed as part of a work programme, there was no evidence that the landlord considered whether the windows should have been treated as a responsive repair. There was also no evidence that the landlord had considered under its policy whether the windows should be repaired within a shorter timescale than its major works programme, given the circumstances.
While it was a reasonable explanation that planning permission was required in order to replace the windows, an application had not been put in hand prior to October 2019. While the delay to the works may have been due to costs, the landlord still had a duty to address any disrepair within a reasonable period. Moreover, the resident was given the impression that the windows would be addressed which impression she made clear to the landlord. A delay of over two years to carry out the works to the windows was unreasonable, during which time there was no evidence of the landlord having managed the resident’s expectations in the meantime. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds there was service failure in relation to its delays and to its lack of communication.
There is a discrepancy between the landlord and the resident’s account of whether works to the windows are outstanding at the date of this report. Any issues the resident had with the instalment of the windows itself is outside the remit of this investigation, as it occurred after the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints process. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to ensure that it completed the works to a satisfactory standard and that it keeps the resident informed as to any further works. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
The landlord had suggested it would consider reimbursement of the resident‘s energy expenses that she reported had increased. This was not addressed in the landlord’s final offer of compensation. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to act in accordance with its assurances. There is insufficient evidence for the Housing Ombudsman to measure any losses. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation for the landlord to follow up this commitment.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in relation to a neighbouring balcony.

It was reasonable of the landlord to take responsibility for the removal of the balcony, in particular as the neighbours were elderly and it had been in place since 1999. However, the local authority deemed the balcony to be dangerous and the resident was advised not to use her garden. In the circumstances, the landlord should have considered whether the removal of the balcony should fall under the category of works essential to the safety of the resident and therefore applied more urgency.
In any event, the resident had raised the matter in March 20219 and the landlord made assurances in September 2019 that the balcony would be removed. A delay of over two years without any reasonable explanation or any explanation at all, was unreasonable. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have followed through with its assurances that the balcony would be removed, in particular in relation to works that affected the resident’s health and safety. The existence of the balcony was also likely to be an interference with her use and quiet enjoyment of the property, in particular her and her daughter’s ability to use the garden, in particular during the summer and lockdown. In the circumstances, this constitutes service failure by the landlord.
Again, any issues the resident had with the removal of the balcony is outside the remit of this investigation, as it occurred after the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints process. However, again, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to ensure that it completed the works to a satisfactory standard and that it responds to any reports the resident has made in relation to any issues she has in relation to those works. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report in relation to post at the resident’s previous property

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint about how its contractors handled the post until 30 November 2021. The resident had not provided further information to the landlord beyond her original complaint and does not appear to have pursued this matter. Taking into account the lack of evidence available and the time that has passed since this was raised, in the circumstances, the Ombudsman cannot establish what occurred, nor, while it be unlawful to interfere with post, what was the impact on the resident and whether she suffered any adverse effects.
The Ombudsman considered the landlord’s delayed response to the resident’s complaint.The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord remedied its failure in its complaint handling. It provided a response and acted reasonably in giving the resident the benefit of the doubt so that she was not unduly prejudiced by the delay. Again, it awarded the maximum amount under its own policy in relation to the complaint and an appropriate level of compensation in relation to the failure regarding the post itself. The Ombudsman considers that a fair and appropriate response in the circumstances.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint of 20 March 2019 until 8 July 2020 and did not provide its second stage response until 22 March 2021, over two years after the original complaint. The delays were significant and inappropriate. The resident, as well as experiencing frustration, was put to the trouble of chasing her complaint on a number of occasions. The only responses she received were automated responses or assurances that were not adhered to. The landlord’s explanation that members of staff were on sick leave was not reasonable at that stage, given that was given some five weeks after she had made a complaint.
It was concerning that the landlord needed to ask on 13 January 2020 for a reminder of what her complaint comprised. The landlord made a further assurance that it would contact the resident in 10 workings days but did not respond until six months later.
In relation to the resident’s complaint of 5 July 2019 regarding the balcony doors, there is insufficient information upon which to make any findings, no evidence that the landlord responded to that complaint or that the resident pursued it with the landlord. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have followed up the report.
The response itself of 8 July 2020 was inadequate and inappropriate. It was inappropriate of the landlord to close the complaint, when its policy stated that it would only do so when the resident was satisfied that the complaint was resolved. More importantly, it failed to acknowledge the significant delays in the repairs.
The final complaint response was also inappropriate, albeit it was more satisfactory than the landlord’s first response. Firstly, its language was unfortunate in stating that the resident’s reasons for wishing to escalate her complaint were not “valid’. Secondly, its reasons for describing her response as “invalid” cited criteria that the resident could not have addressed given they were not set out in the landlord’s complaint policy. The only criterion for escalation was in circumstances where the customer did not feel their query had been dealt with adequately. As a result, the process lacked transparency. Thirdly, it was inappropriate of the landlord to attribute blame for its service failures to the lockdown. The resident’s reports dated from over a year prior to lockdown. It was also unreasonable of the landlord to claim credit for “escalating” the repairs, given they were as delayed as they were. It was also unreasonable of the landlord to be satisfied by providing a contact number and for being “empathic”. What the resident required was that the landlord carried out the repairs, as well as to be kept updated.
In contradiction to its position that it had acted correctly, the landlord nevertheless offered reasonable compensation in relation to the delays in addressing the damp and mould but failed to address the issues of the balcony and windows.
It also offered £150 compensation in relation to its complaint handling and recognised the delays in its complaint handling. However, in the Housing Ombudsman’s view, it must have exacerbated the resident’s frustration by not recognising its own failings. The second stage of the complaints process was an opportunity to review its response of 8 July 2020, and explicitly acknowledge its service failures, rather than insisting it was not at fault and that its response of 8 July 2020 stood. It was also inappropriate of the landlord to attribute those failures to the pandemic. The purpose of a complaints process is an opportunity for the landlord to review its own actions, to acknowledged and address failures, and to learn from them. While the complaints officer chased its repairs team, and the landlord eventually offered compensation, the significant delays in its responses were otherwise inappropriate. For those reasons, the Ombudsman finds that the offer of £150 is not adequate and that, in these particular circumstances, £250 would be appropriate to recognise the full extent of its failures in complaint handling and resulting impact on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repair works to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in relation to her property windows.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report in relation to a neighbouring balcony.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report in relation to post at the resident’s previous property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The delays to the repairs were significant and there was poor communication by the landlord. The Ombudsman considered that the landlord’s offer of compensation of £1,000 in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs was in line with its landlord’s compensation policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s own Remedies Guidance and the offer constituted appropriate redress for the failings identified.
The landlord failed to consider whether to treat the windows as a responsive repair. There were considerable delays to the works and poor communication.
The balcony posed a risk and significant interference to the resident’s use and enjoyment of her property. There has been a significant delay to the removal of the balcony and there is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated.
While the delay of two and half years in the landlord responding to the resident’s complaint regarding the post was significant, the landlord gave the resident the benefit of the doubt and paid reasonable compensation in relation to the issue of the post, and the complaint handling in that regard.
While the complaint handling went in some way to be of benefit to the resident, as the complaints team provided some oversight to the works and offered compensation, the landlord’s explanations, lack of acknowledgement and assertions were inappropriate.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £700 within 28 days, in addition to the £1450 the landlord has awarded as follows:
1. £100 in relation to the delays and poor communication in relation to the works to the windows.
2. £500 in relation to the delays and poor communication to the works to the balcony.
3. An additional £100 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling regarding the repairs.
The landlord is also ordered to take the following steps:
1. Inspect the gutters and property upstairs within 28 days in accordance with the surveyor’s report of 19 August 2019, if it has not already done so, or provide a reasonable explanation why it is unable or it is unreasonable to do so.
2. Clarify whether it is to carry out further works to the windows and provide a timescale for those works within 28 days.
The landlord is asked to confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman within 28 days.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord carries out a post-inspection in relation to the following works, if it has not already done so, and provides the resident with a timescale for that inspection and of any further works in relation to the following:
1. works carried out in relation to the damp and mould, including the bathroom extractor fan.
2. works carried out as a result of the removal of the balcony.
3. the works to the windows to date.
4. works to the patio doors.
The landlord should contact the resident to request evidence of any additional energy costs she has reported and, if the resident provides to the landlord clear and adequate evidence within a reasonable time, it consider such a claim if incurred by there being draughty windows.
The responsible repairs and complaints managers should carry out a joint review of this case, taking into account the Ombudsman’s comments and findings, and develop an action plan to capture lessons learnt from this case, including:
1. Communicating with and keeping the resident updated.
2. Adhering to its own policies and timescales.
3. Ensuing continuing effective communication between the repairs and complaints teams.
4. Adhering to its own complaints policy, reviewing its own actions and acknowledging any failings.
The landlord should provide a timescale for major repairs in its policies.