London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202206761)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206761

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

9 June 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident had a six-year fixed term assured tenancy agreement with the landlord that began at the start of 2016. The property was a one-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident moved out of the property in 2022. The resident was under the care of social services as a care leaver. In mid-2017 she had a son. The landlord has recorded that he has sickle cell disease and is a wheelchair user.
The landlord’s vulnerable tenant policy says a residents could meet the definition of vulnerability for a number of reasons including physical or mental wellbeing and/or if a resident is vulnerable as a result of their personal circumstances. The policy says that there are many ways in which the landlord can support its vulnerable residents to retain their home and well-being, and live as independently as possible, including priority repairs.
Under its repair policy the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the home, including walls, roofs, and windows as well as the fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, heating, and sanitation. The policy says the landlord is responsible for rising and penetrative damp as well as for extractor fans.
The policy says that, for routine day-to-day repairs, it aims to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment and, for emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, it will attend within 24 hours.
The landlord’s ‘Staying Dry’ leaflet published in 2019 gives advice on how residents can try to keep their homes free of condensation, damp and mould. It says if residents see signs of damp, they should contact it to book a repair. It says it should give as much detail as possible about the damp and it “will come and fix the problem”.
From April 2020, the landlord introduced a ‘healthy homes’ programme so it could “focus on tackling the root cause of mould and damp in homes and carry out any repairs needed to prevent damp and mould from reoccurring”. The landlord’s website shows that this involves a specialist attending properties to assess the cause of mould, completing a ‘clean and shield’ service and installing a sensor that highlights when a property is in a condition that could allow mould growth.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential category one hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. They are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Typically, improvement works are the starting point where a potential hazard proves persistent.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy says that there will be situations where it needs to directly rehouse existing residents either on an emergency, temporary or permanent basis. The criteria for such a move include:
1. Either the resident or a member of their household has a significant medical need or disability which means that they are unable to remain in their home.
2. A temporary move is required to carry out repairs to the resident’s permanent home.
3. The resident’s home is to be demolished or disposed of in line with our Asset Management Strategy
4. Exceptional circumstances as approved by senior management.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond at stage one within ten working days and within twenty working days at stage two. If the landlord cannot respond within that time, it will write to the resident and explain why not and respond within a further ten working days. The procedure says that it will not investigate issues which are over six months old unless there are ‘exceptional circumstances’. The policy does not state what those exceptional circumstances might be.
The landlord’s compensation policy says the offer of discretionary compensation is a goodwill gesture and staff will decide the value and form based on internal guidance. It adds it may make a good will gesture to recognise the time and trouble the resident has taken to get the issue resolved.
The policy also says that it will pay £10 when it is late in issuing a complaint response and that it may pay compensation in the form of a rent rebate if a customer is not able to use a room(s) in their home because of a repair issue that is its responsibility and which causes prolonged and unreasonable disruption.
In relation to damage to personal belongings, the policy says that where damage or alleged injury occurs because of its or its contractor’s negligence, it will refer the issue to the insurance team. It adds that all claims against its insurance policy must be registered by it within 28 days of the event.
It also says that it will make home loss payments to tenants, leaseholders and shared owners if it needs them to move from their homes permanently due to demolition, sale of land or major works. It explains that for tenants the payment will not exceed £7,100 (the amount effective from 1 October 2021 to 30 September 2022). The policy notes that this amount is reviewed by the government in October every year.
In July 2020 the Ombudsman issued a new Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which set out good practice that allows landlords to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. This explained that a complaints policy should clearly set out the circumstances in which a matter will not be considered, and these circumstances should be fair and reasonable to residents. It gave as an example issue that took place over six months previous to the complaint being made. It added, however, that where the problem was a recurring issue, the landlord should consider any older reports as part of the background to the complaint if this would help to resolve the matter for the resident. It added that it might not be appropriate to rely on this exclusion where complaints concern safeguarding or health and safety issues.
In 2021 the Ombudsman published a report ‘Spotlight on Damp and Mould. It’s Not Lifestyle’. This encourages landlords to take a proactive approach to damp and mould.

Summary of events

The repairs log evidences reports of damp and mould in the property since before the resident moved into it in 2016. The log evidences reports of mould in the bathroom and bedroom in 2007; a cancelled damp proof course inspection in 2010; and severe damp in the living room in 2014. The log evidences completion dates for these issues but does not give details on any works undertaken. The repairs log also evidences that, despite severe damp being treated in the property in November 2014, by January 2015 there were “ongoing damp issues in the living room”. Again, the log notes this as being “completed” but gives no detail of the work undertaken.
In late January 2016, two days after she had signed the tenancy agreement, the resident contacted the landlord saying that the flat was damp and asked the landlord to fix it “before it becomes a bigger problem”.
A few days later the landlord requested the resident’s address so that it could action this matter, which she provided. The repair log does not evidence any action taken by the landlord at this time relating to the damp and mould.
The next reference to this matter is in the repairs log on 10 July 2019 when the resident reported black mould in the bedroom. The landlord noted it would send out a mould wash kit and did so on 15 August 2019.
On 18 February 2021 the resident told the landlord she and her baby were sleeping in the living room “due to the mould”. She explained that the damp property was not suitable for her son’s health because he was vulnerable.
On 19 February 2021 an NHS health visitor wrote to the landlord in respect of the resident’s son. They explained that the property had become “increasingly inhabitable for them due to a problem with damp”. They added that the son had sickle cell anaemia and was under a specialist haemoglobin team; due to this medical condition, it was detrimental to his health and development to continue to live in the property especially as the landlord had failed to treat the damp.
On 21 April 2021 the resident reported that the entire property was prone to black mould which was affecting her son’s health. The landlord signposted the resident to its resources about damp and mould including its ‘Staying Dry’ booklet that explained what to look out for and provided advice for reducing condensation and treating mould. The landlord also raised a job for its damp contractor to inspect the property.
In early May 2021 the damp contractor inspected the property. They noted that there were no issues with the damp proof course. It noted that there was visible mould in the property in the living room, bedroom and all four bedroom walls. The damp proof contractor concluded by saying that the front heat loss wall of the bedroom would benefit from internal wall insulation. They subsequently completed a full clean and shield of the entire property. This was carried out on 1 July 2021.
Meanwhile on 25 May 2021, the landlord had noted that it should respond “asap” to the local authority’s emails about the damp and mould at the property as “there have been several requests sent already”. There is no evidence that it did so.
On 26 May 2021 the landlord noted that, following the damp contractor’s assessment of the property, there were no repairs only a recommendation for insulation. The landlord noted that at that time it was not able to raise works for the installation of internal wall insulation. It did not give a reason for that.
On 27 May 2021 the landlord noted in an internal email that the resident’s social worker was still waiting for an update from it about the damp and mould; support for the resident and a move for her and her child. On the same day the landlord noted further that it had received a recent medical application from the resident and it would “progress the move”.
The next day it noted further that photos of the condition of the property “would be good and we’ll roll them in with our direct let report to get this signed off for a permanent move”. Later that day the landlord noted that the photos did not look like a decant was warranted but that, due to the issues raised, it might “be prudent” to do so.
In July 2021 the local authority and a local councillor visited the property. The evidence suggests the councillor wrote to the landlord after that visit expressing concerns about the condition of the property and its effect on the resident and her son’s health. This Service has not seen a copy of that letter.
On 16 July 2021 the resident’s local NHS haemoglobinopathy service wrote to the landlord explaining that her son had sickle cell disease which was a serious disease and life-threatening. They explained the characteristics of sickle cell adding that it had been reported that there was damp and mould in the property, which was not suitable for the son’s health needs as he should not be exposed to cold and damp. They added that, living in such an environment, could cause unnecessary exposure to infections which were triggers for excruciating pain episodes and other sickle cell crises. They concluded by saying that, within the National Standards of Care for Sickle Cell Patients, housing requirements needed to be met, which in turn would help in reducing health risks and hospitalisation to individuals.
The landlord’s complaint records show that it logged a formal complaint from the resident on 30 September 2021. She said there had been no changes and no‑one had contacted them. She said they were still being “forced to live and sleep in our living room” and she was made to feel that her and her son’s lives “do not matter”. She asked what had to happen for someone to help. The landlord acknowledged the complaint; this Service has not had sight of a stage one response.
On 7 October 2021 the resident’s medical application for a move was refused. The assessor noted that there was a “generic advocacy letter from a specialist nurse, but without information confirming the property is substandard it would be unwise to make a recommendation for a direct let offer”.
Soon after, the landlord received emails from the local authority saying they had been chasing up the landlord by phone and email since their visit to the property in July 2021 without a response. They said they had expressed their concerns about the “poor accommodation and urgency to move” for the resident and her son.
In internal emails of 12 October 2021, the landlord noted that it had also had an enquiry from the resident’s social worker. The landlord questioned if any of its staff had visited the property. It said it needed to ascertain if it was a child safeguarding concern based on the condition of the property and how long this had gone on for. It added it might need to decant if the property was in a really poor condition and that the letter from the councillor “doesn’t read too good”. On the same day the landlord noted that a staff member should make a welfare check on the resident “to make sure they are okay”. It noted this was a safeguarding concern and believed it had some work to do because its “reputation was at risk”.
On the same day the landlord arranged for its damp contractor to visit the property and noted it could also arrange for a damp and mould surveyor to inspect it.
The landlord discussed this case on 13 October 2021 and noted:
1. Its damp contractor would attend later that week.
2. A welfare check for the resident and her son was required.
3. It believed the resident’s request for a move had been “eliminated” as the medical assessor did not recommend a move. It noted it would consider this after the visit to the property.
On 14 October 2021 the landlord told the resident it was escalating her complaint to stage two.
On 19 October 2021 the damp contractor inspected the property and identified a possible damp proof course breach at the rear of the property. It noted that further investigation was required. It also noted the extractor fan in the kitchen was not working and needed fixing. In relation to the mould the contractor stated that there was mould on the bedroom walls and ceiling as well as the kitchen and living room.
In conclusion the damp contractor noted that there was a possible structural problem with the damp proof course breach; that the bedroom wall would benefit from internal insulation; and that the extractor fan required fixing. They added they had given the resident advice on ventilating the property and cleaning up condensation and noted that she seemed to be following some previously given behavioural advice. The damp contractor subsequently completed a full clean and shield of the entire property.
On 26 October 2021 the landlord issued its final response under its formal complaints procedure. The main points were:
1. It apologised that the resident and her son had had to sleep in the living room after the damp and mould returned “worse than before” after the treatment in (July) 2021.
2. The damp contractor would complete a clean and shield on 27 October 2021.
3. The extractor fan in the kitchen would be repaired on 8 December 2021 (this matter was resolved on 28 January 2022).
4. An independent medical assessor would review all of the medical documents provided including new evidence from the recent visit and they would give the resident an update by the end of the following month.
5. It noted further that there was a significant amount of correspondence from the resident requesting updates which it did not answer. It said this was a clear service failure and one it would try to learn from.
6. It was clear the level of service the resident received was not reflective of the high standards it aimed to provide; repairs and communication should have been managed more effectively and delivered more swiftly. The service the resident received fell short of acceptable standards.
7. It offered compensation of £170 made up of £50 for inconvenience; £60 for distress; £40 for time and effort and £20 for the delay in providing that final complaint response. It added that this compensation would be offset against the resident’s rent arrears in line with its compensation policy.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
In an internal email dated 6 January 2022 the landlord noted that a decant had been agreed for the resident. On 21 January 2022 the landlord told the resident it had made a discretionary decision to decant her into a two-bedroom property in light of the current circumstances and the health needs of her son. They said this would be a two-bedroomed, ground floor property that was wheelchair accessible.
On 29 March 2022 the resident chased the landlord for an update on the move stressing the urgency of their situation.
In mid-May 2022 the resident viewed and accepted a different property with the landlord. She signed the tenancy agreement for this property at the end of May 2022.
On 10 June 2022 the landlord told the resident that it would look into what help was available for her belongings that had been damaged by the mould in the previous property and get back to her the following week. The landlord subsequently told the resident how she could make a claim to its insurer about her damaged belongings.
On 5 July 2022 the resident told the landlord that the compensation it had offered was not adequate and did not reflect the inconvenience and distress which she and her son had suffered.
On 20 July 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident following a review of the stage two complaint response. It said that it believed the original compensation offer of £170 “was too low” because it did not take account of the resident’s time and effort or the distress and inconvenience this issue would have caused her and acknowledged that the service provided to her “fell short of our usual expectations”. The landlord noted that it could not investigate matters that were over a year old “in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s instructions” but said it could see that the resident had reported damp within the property when she first moved in, in 2016. It said that, unfortunately, this report was not logged, no repair order was raised and this was “a clear service failing”.
The landlord increased the compensation offered to £560 made up of £200 for inconvenience; £200 for distress; £50 for service failure; £60 for time and effort; and £50 for the delay in providing the original stage two complaint response. It said this sum would be offset against the rent arrears.
On 8 August 2022 the resident explained to the landlord that the compensation offered was still inadequate. She also requested a home loss payment.
On 21 September 2022 the resident again requested a home loss payment. She explained that during their move, she could only take very few items as everything else had been contaminated or/and destroyed by the damp and mould. She said she only had “a few clothes, shoes, blankets …”. She asked for help to making a new home as she was on benefits and only received £70 a week to live on. The resident said that was not enough to purchase furniture or white goods adding “I just about make ends meet, and with the cost of living rising, it is impossible to save any money”. She said she had had no success applying for grants. She added that with winter approaching, it was “vital” they had “beds, mattresses, bedding, fridge, oven and much more”.
On the same day the landlord noted that it did not consider this case warranted a home loss payment. However, after confirmation from the landlord’s maintenance team that “extremely extensive kitchen and bathroom upgrades [were] required” to the property and that the required works were a “massive job” costing from “£50 to £60k”, a decision was taken that a home loss payment should be made “urgently”. The resident applied for a home loss payment on 11 October 2022 and some ten days later the landlord said she should receive it by post “within several weeks”. The resident chased the home loss payment in December 2022 and twice in early to mid-January 2023. At the end of that month, the landlord sent the resident a cheque for £5.599.45 (it deducted the sum of £1,500.55 for rent arrears from the home payment due of £7,100. The evidence suggests that there was an internal question about which department would cover this cost.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said, for over four years she and her child had been forced to live, sleep and eat in the living room, as the bedroom was unusable. She explained that the bedroom walls were plastered in black mould additionally they would have occasional leaks from the neighbour above. The resident explained that living in the property caused her to become “severely depressed to the point I could not look after my child properly and had to seek professional help as I was often suicidal as I felt so trapped, powerless, and often inadequate”. She said had found herself questioning her “ability to look after my child because I could not even provide a safe environment for him to live in”. She said she was seeking further compensation.

Assessment and findings

The evidence suggests that this Service did not receive full records relating to the damp and mould issue. It is clear that by May 2021 the local authority had been contacting the landlord about the property as well as the resident’s social worker. Both entities state that they chased and had had no response from the landlord; this Service has not seen evidence of them chasing the landlord. There was also a letter from a local councillor following a visit to the property in July 2021 that this Service has not had sight of.
Furthermore, in its complaint handling the landlord itself refers to a “significant amount of correspondence from the resident requesting updates”. It is not clear if that refers to updates about the move or to her reports of damp and mould. While this Service has seen evidence of chasing the move, there is no correspondence relating to the damp and mould from after the resident’s first report in January 2016 to mid-2019. Considering the involvement of other parties in 2021 – the NHS, the local authority, the local councillor and the resident’s social worker – it is reasonable to presume that the resident was also in contact with the landlord about the condition of the property at least from the start of 2021 when the NHS told it about how the property had become “increasingly uninhabitable”.
A recommendation has been made, below, for the landlord to ensure that when the Ombudsman requests evidence that it includes all correspondence including from third parties.

Scope

The Ombudsman has used discretion to look at events since the resident first reported damp and mould in the property in 2016. This is because of the related health and safety and safeguarding issues relating to the complaint. This Service considers that the landlord should have also used its discretion to look at older events when the complaint was brought to it; more detail is given in the assessment of its complaint handling, below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould was not appropriate. The evidence shows the property was prone to severe damp which was ongoing in the year before the resident moved in. While the repairs log states works were completed in relation to these issues, the log does not give detail of what work was undertaken to resolve the damp and mould.
As soon as the resident moved into the property, she reported damp and mould. There is no evidence in the repairs log that the landlord acted on this report. That was a serious failing and left a young, vulnerable person living in a substandard property.
Three years later – in July 2019 – the resident reported damp and mould again; by this time she had had a baby who had serious health problems. The landlord took reasonable action at this stage and sent out a mould wash kit.
Damp and mould was reported by the resident again in February 2021 when she explained it was so bad they could no longer sleep in the bedroom. The landlord did not act for three months – until April 2021 – and a clean and shield was carried out on 1 July 2021. It would be reasonable to presume that one month to take repair action would be reasonable; therefore, this time taken – even taking into account some impact on the service as result of the pandemic – was not appropriate. There is also no evidence to suggest that the landlord considered whether a priority repair service was appropriate on the basis of their vulnerabilities. That was a further failing.
While the contractor recommended further works (insulation of a bedroom wall), the landlord did not carry this out. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the potential benefit to the resident or its property by doing this insulation work. There might have been a reasonable explanation as to why the landlord did not follow the expert’s opinion to try to resolve the damp in the property, but it is not clear from the evidence. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to make a note on the repair log of its reasons when it decides not to carry out recommendations of such experts.
As the landlord acknowledged in its complaint handling, the damp and mould came back “worse than before” after this clean and shield was completed which suggests that it had limited effect on the condition of the property. Given this and the identified potential damp proof course breach, the second clean and shield later in 2021 again had limited effect. The landlord did not recognise that the resident had stated that they been sleeping in the living room since February 2021, rather than when things appeared to worsen later that year.
By the end of May 2021, the landlord was looking to progress a move for the resident seemingly after contact from the resident’s social worker. However, matters stalled. The evidence shows that, only after further contact from the social worker and the local authority in October 2021, was a move suggested again. That delay was not reasonable. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord became alert to its safeguarding responsibilities at this stage and, while it showed concern for the resident and her child, its emails also demonstrated that its concern about “reputational risk” was also a factor in taking action at this point. The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord was putting the welfare of these vulnerable residents at the heart of its decision-making.
The evidence suggests that a decision to move the resident could and should have been made much earlier given the landlord’s apparent commitment to do so in May 2021. These delays had a significant impact on the resident and her son who continued to live in conditions that the landlord has accepted worsened over time. The time taken, along with the considerable vulnerabilities of the household, means that these failings amount to severe maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould.
In its complaint handling, the landlord recognised that there had been failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It offered compensation of £560 made up of £200 for inconvenience; £200 for distress; £50 for service failure and £60 for time and effort.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The failings identified had a significant impact on the resident and her child who remained in a property in a poor state of repair for lengthy periods of time from January 2016 to about August 2019 when the first clean and shield was completed and then from at least February 2021.
The compensation offered by the landlord does not reflect this impact. While the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, we will take this into account when considering the resident’s circumstances. The Ombudsman recognises that some residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s physical and/or mental health condition) could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
Taking into account the specific circumstances of this complaint and based on the fact that the property has only one bedroom, rent related compensation has been calculated as follows:

10% of rent for the period from mid-February 2016 to August 2019 (approximately 177 weeks at an average weekly rent for that period of £116 a week) – £2,053.

40% of rent for the period from March 2021 to May 2022 (approximately 56 weeks at an average weekly rent for that period of £126 a week) – £2,822.

These figures reflect the fact that the resident (along with her child from the summer of 2017) were living in a property affected by mould and damp for the first period; the second period takes into account the loss of the bedroom and the fact that the living room was being used as a bedroom from February 2021 and that resulted in the loss of that room also. These periods take into account the time it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken to take repair action. These sums reflect the loss of the rooms as well as the impact those failings had on the residents and are payable in addition to the £560 previously offered by the landlord.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s handling of the complaint was not appropriate. The evidence suggests that no stage one complaint response was sent to the resident. The landlord acknowledged a delay in issuing the stage two response.
It was also not appropriate in this case for the landlord to limit its investigation to events that had happened within a year of the complaint being made. Its complaint policy gives discretion to investigate in ‘exceptional circumstances’. In line with the Code, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated the full extent of the resident’s concerns given that the damp and mould was a recurring issue and that the complaint clearly concerned safeguarding and health and safety issues. Had it done so, matters might have been resolved earlier.
An order has been made, below, for the landlord to review its complaints procedure in line with the Code to give details of the ‘exceptional circumstances’ in which it will investigate issues that arose more than six months before a complaint is made.
The landlord offered compensation of £20 for the delay in issuing the stage two complaint response. Further compensation is appropriate here for the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to investigate its handling of events over one year old. Compensation of £250 is appropriate for that impact and replaces the £20 previously offered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not respond appropriately to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. While it acknowledged failings in its complaint handling, the redress offered did not reflect the impact in her and her son as vulnerable residents.
The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. There is no evidence it issued a stage one complaint response and it unfairly limited the scope of the time period it considered.

Orders

The landlord should take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence to the Ombudsman of compliance with these orders:
1. A senior member of the management team should write to the resident with an apology for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £5,685 made up of:
  1. The original £560 offered for its handling of the reports of damp and mould.
  2. £2,053 for the impact on the resident for the period from mid-February 2016 to August 2019.
  3. £2,822 for the impact on the residents from March 2021 to May 2022.
  4. £250 for the impact of its complaint handling failures.
3. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedy’s guidance, the above compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.
4. Review its complaints procedure in line with the Code to give details of the ‘exceptional circumstances’ in which it will investigate issues that arose more than six months before a complaint is made.
5. Carry out a review of the events that led to this complaint to identify what went wrong and why. This should take the form of a report and should be shared with the Ombudsman within four months along with what learning the landlord will take forward from this case.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
1. Ensures, when the Ombudsman requests evidence, that it includes all correspondence when responding including from third parties.
2. Makes a note on the repair log of its reasons when it decides not to carry out works in line with recommendations of experts.