London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202215520)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215520

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

5 September 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 handling of:
1. the resident’s report of damp and mould issues throughout the property including issues related to the condition of the windows and doors.
2. the resident’s report of repairs to heating and hot water system.
3. the resident’s report of repairs to bathroom.
4. the resident’s report of repairs to kitchen.
5. the complaint and financial redress.

Background and summary of events

Background policies and procedures

The landlord’s Repairs Policy dated 31 March 2021 states that:
1. L&Q’s repair and maintenance responsibilities are set out in legislation, regulation and our tenancy, lease, transfer and management agreements. Where the terms of these agreements differ from those set out in this policy those terms take precedence.
2. Across all our homes, L&Q is responsible for maintaining the following:
  1. The structure and exterior of the home, including walls, roofs, windows, external doors, drains, gutters, external pipes and boundary fences and gates.
  2. Fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, heating and sanitation.
3. Where age and wear and tear affects key components such as kitchens, bathroom, doors and windows, these will be replaced through a planned programmes of work.
4. L&Q will only redecorate following a repair where we have an obligation or in exceptional circumstances entirely at our discretion. L&Q will make good any surfaces affected by the repair ready for residents to redecorate.
The landlord introduced its Healthy Homes programme in 2020 in partnership with a damp contractor to ensure that every case of damp and mould is “properly investigated”. The focus is “on tackling the root cause of the problem and carrying out any repairs needed to prevent damp and mould from reoccurring”. It will make a referral to the damp contractor who will visit then provide the landlord with a report advising on the severity of the issue. The landlord will then raise orders for treatment or repair.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. “Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this”.
2. “Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner”.
The landlord’s Programmed Maintenance Policy states “Programmed maintenance is planned projects of maintenance work carried out in designated years to meet appropriate standards and includes but not limited to:
1. internal refurbishment or replacement of building components, such as kitchens, bathrooms, heating, electrical rewiring, and communal lifts.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy dated August 2021 states it:
1. “will consider an offer of compensation when an apology alone is not sufficient and we recognise the impact the service loss or failure has had on the customer” and that “Where a customer has made a valid complaint, we will apply compensation as detailed in this policy”.
2. Circumstances where compensation or reimbursement may be offered include:
  1. Where we fail to complete repairs for which we are responsible to agreed response times and not advised customers of any exceptions e.g. structural or supply chain issues, identification of asbestos.
  2. Where we fail to deal satisfactorily with repairs that are our responsibility, and the customer is continuing to live in poor conditions longer than is reasonable.
  3. Where our failure has caused a loss of facilities and/or amenities beyond the agreed response times e.g. heating and hot water or the customer is unable to use part of their home.
3. The policy further states that “Discretionary payments must consider the individual household circumstances, such as, larger sized households and/or specific vulnerabilities and where this has caused greater impact.
4. With assessing the level of discretionary compensation, we will take the following considerations into account:
  1. the duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience
  2. the seriousness of any other unfair impact
  3. actions by the customer or us which either mitigated or contributed to actual financial loss, inconvenience, or unfair impact
  4. how we have communicated with the customer”.
5. It “will make a payment of £10 for the … failure to respond to a formal complaint within the timescales published in our Complaints Policy”.
The landlord’s Complaint Compensation Standard Operating Procedure (2021) states that:
1. where there is a “loss of individual service/facility”, such as no toilet, no hot water or no heating, it should make a “payment in line with Right to Repair scheme £10 initial payment for any period up to 5 days after the target date, then an additional £2 per day until repair is completed”.
2. Separate payment can be made for distress and for inconvenience. For each, the range of payments is:
  1. Low – £10 – £20.
  2. Medium – £20 – £40.
  3. High – £40 – £60.
3. For the time and effort invested by the customer to raise the issue and reach a resolution, the range of payment is:
  1. Low – £10-£50.
  2. Medium – £50 -£100.
  3. High – £100 – £200.
4. For failings in complaint handling, the range of payments is:
  1. Low – £10 – £50.
  2. Medium £50- £100.
  3. High £100 – £200.
The landlord’s Complaint Policy in effect from 2021 to October 2022 and subsequent version of the policy dated October 2022 both confirm it has a 2 stage complaints procedure.
1. At stage 1, the landlord will outline how it will resolve the complaint with timescales within 10 days. If it cannot do so, it will write again within a further 10 working days. After it has agreed the resolution and confirmed our decision in writing, it will monitor progress until all actions are complete.
2. At stage 2 it will write with the outcome and the next steps within 20 working days of the complaint escalation. If it cannot do so at that point, it will write again within a further 10 working days. After it has agreed the resolution and confirmed our decision in writing, it will monitor progress until all actions are complete.

Scope of the investigation

In her complaint to the landlord the resident stated that there had been repair issues in her property for several years and that she has previously carried out repairs to her property. This included replastering the walls in the property herself and applying anti-mould / anti-fungal paint. Whilst acknowledging that the resident felt it necessary in previous years to carry out works herself to her property this investigation has focussed on events occurring after November 2021 which is six months prior to the resident’s first formal complaint of 3 May 2022. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which were not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, which would normally be within six months of the matter arising. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider and resolve 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. Issues prior to November 2021 have been noted to provide background context to the complaint and considered only with respect to the landlord’s handling of the issues occurring after November 2021.
The information provided to this service contains evidence of activity that goes beyond its final stage 2 complaint response. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme which states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”. In line with paragraph 42(a) this service has not assessed the landlord’s actions during this period. However, this service has noted some events that have occurred following the final complaint response of December 2022 where they relate to activity that is within the scope of this report. These events have also been noted in order to provide the current context to the complaint and to inform the orders and recommendations made.
This service also notes that in correspondence at and after stage 2, the resident raised repair issues that did not form part of her earlier complaints, including repairs to the hard standing area outside her property, an external drain and external walls. This service has not investigated the landlord’s handling of these issues in line with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme.
It is not the role of the Ombudsman to assess whether there is a causal link between the actions of a landlord and the impact on health. Such matters should properly be dealt with as a personal injury claim to be considered by insurers or a court or law where negligence and liability can be determined and where damages can be awarded. However, this Service can consider to what extent the resident has experienced distress and inconvenience from the service failings of the landlord.

Summary of Events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, her tenancy commencing in 2005. Her property is a two-bedroom brick-built house. The resident has epilepsy and an autoimmunity condition. Her adult daughter is in her household.
The landlord installed a new boiler in 2014 which is located in the centre of a kitchen wall. She had a gravity fed system with a hot water cylinder in the living room. A note in the landlord’s repair records from September 2020 noted that the resident “has been having numerous issues for several years regarding the boiler and the radiators and has not managed to have it fully resolved”. It noted that she had installed new radiators herself which did not resolve the issue. The records indicate that the landlord’s contractor had ascertained that plastic pipework installed by the resident’s contractor meant that the system could not be flushed. On 30 November 2020 the landlord’s contractor stated that it may have to replace all the pipework in the property. After the landlord replaced some radiators and carried out a power flush, on 3 December 2020 the resident advised that she had no heating or hot water.
On 19 March 2021 the resident reported several issues in her property including ongoing problems with her boiler, leaks to the hot water and heating system and carbon monoxide scares since the boiler was installed in 2014. Most recently, a large blockage of rust had been removed but problems persisted. She advised her floors had to be taken up during repairs so pipes could be accessed, but had not been made good so she could not relay flooring. The landlord noted that a carpenter had attended to carry out repairs to the floor in January and that it would investigate a damp patch under the living room floor.
On 18 January 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord advising attempts to repair the front door had been unsuccessful as the frame was faulty causing water to enter the property and difficulty in keeping the property warm. She stated an independent survey carried out by an external contractor two years previously in respect of her heating and hot water system had found the windows and doors to be “below standard”. In response, an operative attended on 24 January 2022 and recommended a further inspection of the windows and back door and for a new front door to be ordered.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the kitchen on 27 April 2022 which found “this kitchen needs to be renewed. all backs taking off all floor units end panels missing units missing. exposed electrical wires and gas pipe. all is work is required after a major leak”.
On 28 April 2022 the landlord’s window contractor inspected the resident’s windows. It agreed that the front door should be replaced. It also provided a quote for the repair of two windows in the main bedroom, two windows in the second bedroom, a stairway window, the kitchen window, the living room window and the bathroom window. The contractor itemised the works it intended to carry out for each window which included installing trickle vents, installing top and side hung casement stays, replacing gaskets, installing handles and replacing security seals.
On 3 May 2022 the landlord noted that the resident’s bathroom was in poor condition and arranged a further visit on 9 May 2022 by a supervisor who raised a works order.
On 3 May 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint stating she had carried out repairs herself to her property for many years including replacing radiators; stripping, treating, replastering and decorating every room; setting every window and re-squaring with bonding; replacing every window board, skirting board, doorframe and door; recarpeting/reflooring every room and replacing belongings including beds, blankets, curtains, sofa etc. However, her situation remained:
1. Windows were in disrepair and did not sit correctly in the frames causing dirt, dust and drafts to enter as well as water ingress which damaged her windows boards and the carpets, and which caused mould and mildew to form.
2. A contractor which inspected her heating and hot water system two years previously had said that the radiators were undersized, and the windows were “below standard”.
3. A contractor came to measure a new front door in February 2022, but it had not yet been installed. The landlord did not carry out an inspection of the windows but sent an operative who sought out carry out repairs but could not make the windows fit in the frames.
4. Her kitchen was affected by previous works to the water pipes, with units having not backboards or end panels, the kitchen sink hanging to one side so could not drain, no kickboards, missing units, broken tiling and exposed electrical wires and gas pipe.
5. Her bathroom was old, installed before her tenancy started, with the bath scratched and chipped and with leaking taps. The seal had broke so water ran down the side and under, attracting bugs The toilet and sink were also broken and leaking, casing damage to the floor. The walls were blown and mouldy.
6. Her daughter had become asthmatic and had suffered respiratory problems. She had recently been diagnosed with an auto-immune disease which she attributed to her living conditions and the stress.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint stating that it would not investigate historic issues and noting that an inspection of the bathroom and skirting was booked for 9 May 2022. It asked its heating contractor to carry out a full survey of the heating system. There is no contemporaneous evidence of the inspection.
On 6 May 2022 the landlord’s internal correspondence noted that it needed to resolve the safety of the cooker’s position but repairs to the kitchen units could be carried out.
On 20 May 2022, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. It advised:
1. the window contractor had attended the resident’s property and identified issues with several windows including the need to renew hinges and trickle vents, handles, gaskets, glass units and silicone. The landlord advised that its window contractor would book an appointment.
2. a maintenance surveyor had attended on 9 May 2022 to look at the bathroom and the skirting and it was awaiting confirmation of agreed works.
3. at a visit on 27 April 2022, an operative had recommended that a new kitchen be installed.
4. a consultant would review the boiler and the overall performance of the hot water and central heating system.
5. an insulation specialist would attend.
The landlord also noted that the resident had made improvements and alterations to her property therefore it may no longer take responsibility for repair of these items.
On 28 May 2022 the landlord’s window contractor installed a new front door. The contractor sought to agree an appointment with the resident to complete the window works on 21 June 2022, but the resident advised that she was not available, but in any case she wanted new windows and was in communication with the landlord. On 8 July 2022 the landlord apologised for a delay in considering a quote from its window contractor to install new windows.
The landlord agreed to carry out bathroom works which were scheduled for 8-11 August 2022. On 8 August 2022 an operative attended to remove the bath, sink and toilet and some flooring, and cut off pipes. The operative advised the resident that he had been in contact with another resident who had tested positive for Covid-19. As the resident thought the operative should self-isolate for ten days, works were put on hold then arranged to be completed between 17 and 19 August 2022 as no other operative could attend.
On 11 August 2022, the resident raised a new complaint stating that her bathroom had no toilet, bath, sink and the repairs could not be carried out until 17 August 2022. She was unhappy that she had been in contact with an operative who had Covid-19. She wanted compensation and for the works to be actioned as soon as possible. The resident also reiterated that her boiler did not work properly.
On 15 August 2022 in response to the second complaint the landlord offered the resident compensation comprising £47.63 for part loss of amenity and £50 for missed appointments as a gesture of goodwill.
On 17 August 2022 the landlord’s bathroom contractor re-attended. The following day the resident reported leaks under her bath and from the main water feed leading from ceiling to floor; the cistern on the new toilet continually running; a damaged stop cock in living room (although the contractor did not use this stopcock to turn off the water supply) and leaking pipework possibly from the type of isolation valve. The landlord arranged for the bathroom contractor and its responsive plumbing contractor to attend to these repairs. Its records show that a contractor returned on 22 August 2022 and saw no leaks; the resident has advised that she has not been able to flush her toilet since it was replaced, as water would not stop running if she used the flush and she was on a water meter, therefore she would use a bucket for flushing.
The window contractor has reported that it spoke to the resident several times in July and August 2022 about carrying out the window works. The resident advised it again on 31 August 2022 that she was not available and that she wanted new windows. The contractor did not contact the resident after this time as she was refusing the repairs.
On 12 September 2022, the resident advised she wanted her first complaint escalated to a manager as she had not received updates. After the landlord called the resident back to discuss her complaint, the resident advised that the bathroom had not been completely replaced as she expected – only the bath and toilet had been changed. The resident stated that she had been advised that she had to undertake her own decorating works, including tiling to get the bathroom habitable, and to make good damage to the floor therefore she had paid for these works. The landlord agreed to inspect and asked the resident to provide receipts. It apologised that some of the workers were not customer friendly and were not respectful of worries about Covid-19.
On 12 September 2022 the bathroom contractor advised the landlord that the resident had wanted a family member to carry out “plastering tiling bonding of walls and damp as well as the area originally arranged for boxing in tiles” and that the resident had agreed the removal of flooring in one area to allow the relocation of a pipe. The landlord advised the resident that it agreed to partially reimburse the costs it would usually incur by installing 3 course of splashback tiles and some of the materials, which usually required receipts from a VAT registered company, as a goodwill gesture.
Internal correspondence on 29 September 2022 confirmed that the landlord’s surveyor decided the landlord would not replace the kitchen but carry out repairs.
On 8 November 2022 this service, having been contacted by the resident, wrote to the landlord advising it to escalate the resident’s complaint to Stage 2 and respond within 20 working days. On the same day the landlord allocated the resident’s first complaint to a member of staff for investigation at Stage 2. The member of staff decided to consider the second complaint simultaneously. On 9 November 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident about her complaints and understood the resident wanted it to review her requests for a new kitchen, bathroom and windows; and consider the issues with her boiler. The landlord also noted an enquiry about loft insulation and a report of problems with the skirting boards.
On 9 November 2022, the landlord raised repair orders:
1. for a damp and mould inspection and carry out a damp wash if necessary.
2. to check the electrics (sockets including the unused cooker switch, wired in appliances and lights) in the kitchen, to check the kitchen fan and whether a fan could go in the bathroom. This was completed on 11 November 2022 according to the landlord’s repair records.
3. to carry out an asbestos check in the bathroom if works were needed there.
4. to deliver a humidifier, arrange for a plumber to repair the bathroom tap which had been installed incorrectly and make an action plan for the toilet which had no pressure and had to be adjusted to prevent overflowing.
5. for its surveyor to carry out an inspection. The landlord advised that the surveyor would consider the possible replacement of windows and ill-fitting external doors, the resident’s request for a new kitchen and the fact that the resident had to decorate, including plastering, the bathroom herself. The surveyor would also consider issues such as crumbling concrete skirting boards, no insulation and external pointing.
On 14 November 2022, the resident emailed the landlord stating that an independent surveyor had visited her property and advised that it was “Category A”, with the kitchen particular hazardous and the boiler wrongly located (this was a stock condition survey carried out by an external consultant separate to the resident’s formal complaint).
In the email, the resident advised that a plumber had provided a dehumidifier and made a report but not carried out works. Electricians had repaired a socket that had exploded in the kitchen but had not been able to install a new fan as the old one was connected to the boiler electrical supply, therefore the landlord needed to authorise the additional works (this is confirmed by the landlord’s repair records). The resident added that the heating contractor had renewed the thermostat and had ordered new valves to repair a leaking radiator, but it could not identify what was wrong with the boiler.
On 17 November 2022, the landlord’s asbestos contractor carried out a survey of the bathroom wall and ceiling prior to redecoration. Its report confirmed that no asbestos was detected.
On 21 November 2022 the resident advised that the landlord’s damp and mould contractor had attended on 17 November 2022 to carry out a mould wash which was not needed at that time as mould was not an issue due to works she had carried out to the walls of the property (the resident has advised this Service that she carried out the works in 2021). However, the operative told her that the loft insulation was inadequate and the doors and windows needed to be replaced. The landlord has not provided a contemporaneous record of the visit.
An internal repair note dated 18 November 2022 states “Immersion heater tank may need to be removed as it is costing the resident too much money, resident may benefit more from a combi boiler”.
On 23 November 2022 the landlord raised an order “Please inspect kitchen units for possible component renewal after flood. Some units are damaged beyond repair, particularly by sink. Not scheduled for a complete refurb”.
On 24 November 2023 the resident advised the landlord that a plumber attended on 23 November 2022 and noted that the bath was too small and incorrectly fitted but nothing could be done without damaging new tiling and the walls. (It is understood that the resident wanted a 1650mm bath fitted into the walls and that she believes the bath is wonky meaning that a bath panel cannot be fitted). The resident also advised that an emergency plumber attended later that day as the toilet would not stop running water, so he had to shut off the water supply, therefore she was back to using a bucket for flushing. The resident also reiterated that she was unhappy with the condition of her kitchen which included deteriorated worktops from leaks to the boiler.
On 25 November 2022 the landlord advised the resident that the surveyor inspection would take place on 30 November 2022, whilst the gas team would look at the boiler. The surveyor would also look at damage to the concrete outside the resident’s home although that was not part of the complaint.
The landlord’s internal correspondence regarding the survey noted:
1. “the kitchen is unsafe in its current state and needs replacing before any planned works.
2. a cooker was wired incorrectly into the boiler from a previous gas contractor.
3. the boiler is right in the middle of a main wall. Move the boiler to a more convenient, and safe area in the kitchen and remove the cold-water feed system and install a combi boiler, including removing a water tank from the living room. Refit the kitchen when the boiler is moved and not before, due to its location.
4. look at the radiators that are constantly leaking”.
On 1 December 2022, the landlord’s asbestos contractor carried out a “refurbishment survey to the walls and ceilings within the hallway and kitchen and to all areas affected by the installation of the new boiler and loft water tank removal”. No asbestos was found.
The heating contractor carried out an inspection on 5 December 2022 and recommended “full repipe of the heating pipework be done using the existing radiators as they [are] in condition”. It also recommended a “new 30kw combination boiler be fitted and moved to the left of its original position by approximately 1 metre. New magnetic filter to be fitted under the new boiler … Gas pipework to be run in 22mm for under the kitchen cupboard up to the new boiler location. Gas pipe that goes the cooker location at the moment to be removed and relocated to where run up to boiler currently”. Following the inspection, on 5 December 2022, the landlord agreed for its heating contractor to install a new combi boiler.
On 6 December 2022, the landlord sent the Stage 2 response to the complaint. With regards to the first complaint the landlord recounted the action taken on the issue raised and acknowledged that the resident had asked for an inspection in the earlier stages of her complaint which if it had been carried out may have reduced the delays in the kitchen and bathroom works. It acknowledged that contractors had arrived for appointments before asbestos tests, which should have been scheduled earlier, had been completed.
The landlord noted the action taken after the Stage 2 investigation began and confirmed, following the inspection of 30 November 2022, that:
1. it would carry out follow on works to the windows and doors and the contractor would be in touch.
2. it would replace the kitchen after getting the outcome of the boiler survey.
3. it would repair or replace the toilet so that the flush and waste pipe worked well.
4. the cooker housing was reviewed and repaired where required.
5. it would train the bathroom contractor staff about conduct when they had Covid-19, general communication during the repairs process and about checking sanitaryware.
The landlord also stated that external concrete areas (the resident had mentioned a flood from the outside drains which had caused damage) would be reviewed and repaired where needed, although this was not part of the complaint.
The landlord went on to say that:
1. its Gas Team had approved its heating and hot water contractor to install a combi boiler and remove the hot water tank from the living-room cupboard. It advised it would re–pipe the heating system using larger gauge pipes under kitchen cupboards and the existing radiators (which the resident had installed herself and were in good condition). Existing cooker pipes would be removed and relocated. The landlord advised that the boiler and kitchen works would take 3-5 days and that she would receive compensation if temporary accommodation was needed.
2. it was attaching an energy performance certificate and confirmed that as the resident already had cavity wall insulation and 250 mm loft insulation, it would not add her property to the insulation waiting list.
3. the resident could ask its damp and mould contractor to assess the damp and mould again.
The landlord also advised that with regards to the stock survey, the surveyor should not have given an opinion on whether the kitchen needed to be replaced and should only have been concerned about reporting any hazards. He felt the current positioning of the cooker was a hazard and it had agreed for the pipework to be altered.
The landlord offered a further compensation payment of £2,557.39 which comprised:
1. £1500.00 for distress, time, effort, and the inconvenience.
2. £850.59 for the resident’s right to repair and any service failure.
3. £500.00 for having to stay with friends, and family, for a period.
4. £76.80 for the running costs of a dehumidifier for 20 days @ £3.84 per day.
5. £130.00 for the late response to the Stage 2 review, Stage 1, and the complaint handling.
On 7 December 2022 the resident advised the landlord that she was unhappy with the complaint response. She also noted that the heating contractor had attended and disagreed with the findings of the surveyor in that it believed the existing pipework could remain, which would be less disruptive. She also disputed that her windows did not need replacing stating several surveyors had previously advised that this was the case and that the window consultant advised her this was needed too but the landlord would prefer to carry out repairs. The resident noted that a contractor who had recently come to carry out works to her window noted that the new front door did not fit the frame, therefore did not open or shut easily. The resident also disputed that her property had adequate insulation stating that “every surveyor I have seen at the property has said that this property does not have cavity wall insulation and the loft insulation is inadequate… again firstly by the independent surveyor sent to do a warmer homes survey… then everyone in between & most recently healthy homes which is why they suggested thermal boarding the outside”. The resident added that she thought the landlord’s repair records were unreliable as they also stated she had a combi-boiler when this was not the case.

After the complaints procedure

The landlord’s heating and hot water contractor attended to install a new boiler on 10 January 2023, but the resident had concerns that the contractor intended to carry out works different to what the surveyor had recommended in particular that the contractor did not wish to replace the underfloor 15mm pipes with 22mm pipes as recommended by the surveyor as the 15mm pipes were silted up. She therefore did not wish to sign a disclaimer which according to the contractor related to lifting the carpet. The landlord agreed to pay for a carpet fitter to pull back and refit carpets.
In further correspondence between 13 and 23 January 2023 the resident raised continuing concerns about repair issues stating that the relocation of the boiler would mean the kitchen wall and floor units being removed which had been overlooked. She noted that repairs had not been carried out and that she had been using a bucket for her toilet since August as the water supply had been turned off. She also stated that the bath was too small. The landlord advised that it was reviewing the status of all the works but that the boiler works would have to be completed before the other repair would be carried out. After further contact by the resident, on 6 February 2023 – the landlord agreed to carry out the repair to the toilet cistern but advised all other works would be carried out after the boiler installation.
The resident has advised this service that she sought to make a new formal complaint on 27 January 2023 about the ongoing repair issues through the landlord’s online complaint form; however, the form was not acknowledged.
Due to the resident’s concerns and a dispute over the order of works the boiler works were not completed until 27 February 2023. The gas to the cooker had to be turned off for the boiler works for which the landlord agreed to pay a food allowance of £22 per day (£11 per person) initially sending a cheque to cover 10 days. The resident has stated that the kitchen was ripped out to allow the boiler works.
On 4 April 2023 the landlord carried out a kitchen replacement inspection. On 5 April 2023, the landlord arranged with the resident for follow on kitchen works to take place between 22 May 2023 and 6 June 2023.
It is not disputed that plasterers and electricians attended to carry out works in the kitchen between 22 May and 24 May 2023 prior to the replacement of units. On 30 May 2023, the resident rejected the new kitchen that had been supplied due to her medical condition. In an email of 26 June 2023 she stated that she agreed “high gloss, to please be handleless & please could I have the white sparkle quartz worktop”. The landlord’s internal correspondence noted that there was no discussion about colour choice, and it did not provide upstands. It only agreed a change in the worktop colour and no handle door fronts.
The resident made further attempts to get her new complaint registered by the landlord including sending emails on 16 March,17 April, 17 May and 2 June 2023. She noted that she was advised to make a new complaint by this service. She insisted that her new complaint concerned different issues to her initial complaint including:
1. the boiler replacement works being delayed by the landlord not responding to her correspondence.
2. the kitchen works being delayed & mismanaged, in particular the landlord not booking in a kitchen fitter straight after the boiler works leaving her and her family living in dangerous & unhygienic conditions then without any cooking facilities for more than 14 weeks (as of 16 March 2023).
3. being left with a toilet that did not flush for more than 8 months now. She noted that using a bucket caused splashes, but the bathroom did not have floor covering only porous plywood after the contractor took up the floor covering.
4. repairs that were promised at the end of the Stage 2 process not being completed which included but was not limited to broken windows and doors, broken electrics and faulty electrics for a cooker.
5. wanting to seek further compensation. She noted that the compensation offer in the response of 6 December 2022 could not cover the landlord’s handling of the repairs and delays to repairs to the boiler, kitchen and toilet afterwards, or the fact that there was a collapsed drain outside her property letting out contaminated water. In her email of 30 June 2023, the resident advised she thought she should receive a food reimbursement payment of £1,980 as kitchen works were not due to finish until 6 July 2023.
The landlord advised the resident that it would not register a new complaint and that this service could investigate the more recent matters concerning ongoing work after the Stage 2 outcome.
The resident also contacted this service advising that she wanted to make a new complaint. On 5 May 2023, this service raised a new complaint under the reference 202304366 and contacted the landlord advising that the resident wished to make a new complaint. The landlord reiterated that it would not raise a new complaint and referred this service to its Stage 2 response of 6 December 2023.
Whilst not registering a new complaint on 30 May 2023 the landlord proposed to offer the resident £1,500 again on completion of kitchen works and £100 for complaint handling. The resident reiterated that she still wished to make a new complaint as issues were still unresolved and she had not received food allowance payments or reimbursement of other costs that the landlord had agreed.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s report of damp and mould issues throughout the property including issues related to the condition of the windows and doors

After an operative recommended the inspection of the windows and doors in January 2022 it took 3 months for the inspection to take place, which was an unreasonable delay, in particular as the resident had advised that there was water ingress. The landlord’s window contractor in April 2022 confirmed that extensive window repairs were required throughout the property. It was reasonable that the landlord relied on the professional and expert opinion of the window contractor in order to meet its obligation to keep the windows in a satisfactory state of repair. Whilst the resident wanted new windows replaced, the landlord was not obliged to do so at this point as its policy was to install new windows under a planned programme of work. The resident has stated that the window contractor considered that her windows needed replacing; however, there is no evidence that it made this recommendation to the landlord.
Information from the window contractor confirms that it directly sought to arrange window repairs with the resident until September 2022, in order to meet the landlord’s repair obligation. However, the resident’s response to the window contractor and the landlord’s email to the resident of 8 July 2022 both confirm that although its window contractor was seeking to carry out window repairs, the landlord was simultaneously considering whether to install new windows. In fact, it noted it had received a quote thereby raising the resident’s expectations. However, there is no evidence that it took further steps to progress any window works until raising an order for a surveyor to inspect on 9 November 2022. After the inspection, which took place on 30 November 2022, the landlord advised that it would carry out follow on works – however it did not make clear what the outcome of the inspection was, what the follow on works entailed, and what specifically what its position was on the resident’s request for new windows were. As such, despite carrying out inspections, the landlord has been unclear as to how it intends to ensure the resident’s windows were in a good state of repair, causing avoidable uncertainty, distress and inconvenience.
The resident had complained that her windows were not weatherproof, leading to water ingress and damp in her property. Given that landlords should have a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, the delays by the landlord in establishing what action it should take to ensure the windows were in good repair and the lack of clarity in its communication to the resident were particularly unreasonable.
The resident reported that her front door was also not weatherproof, letting in water and cold air, on 18 January 2022. The landlord took appropriate steps to meet its repair obligation in respect of the front door by arranging for its contractor to install a new door, which it did on 28 May 2022. The new door could not be installed until it was measured, ordered and manufactured. However, it is not evident that the landlord or its contractor informed the resident about the timescales involved. This added to the resident’s uncertainty distress and inconvenience as is evident from her complaint of 2 May 2022 where she complained about delays to works to the door.
When investigating the resident’s Stage 2 complaint, the landlord established that the resident was unhappy with the repair condition of her external doors insofar as she considered they were ill-fitting in the frame. Given the possibility of cold air and water entering the resident’s property, it was appropriate that it arranged for the surveyor to inspect this issue when attending on 30 November 2022. However, again, the landlord did not make clear the outcome of the inspection or what follow on works were required to the doors.
As noted, the resident related the repair condition of her windows and doors to dampness in her property. She also advised of leaks in her property, a damp patch in the living room and that she found it difficult to keep her property warm which could also contribute to damp and mould issues. The landlord evidently accepted that there was mould in the property and took action to remove the mould by arranging for its damp contractor to attend. It was reasonable that the contractor did not carry out a mould wash as this was declined by the resident. However, over and above clearing any mould, the landlord’s focus should be on “tackling the root cause of the problem and carrying out any repairs needed to prevent damp and mould from reoccurring”. Therefore, even if the damp contractor did not carry out a mould wash it should still have carried out a report. This could include whether the works carried out by the resident was likely to prevent the recurrence or whether other action could be identified. As the damp contractor did not provide a report of the possible causes of damp and solutions, the landlord did not follow its procedure for dealing with reports of damp and mould.
Insulation can reduce the risk of damp and mould as damp is condensation is less likely to build up on warmer surfaces such as the inside surface of walls. The landlord also accepted that it needed to confirm whether the resident’s property had adequate insulation, insofar as it agreed in the response of 20 May 2022 that an insulation specialist would attend. However, there is no evidence that a specialist attended or that the landlord received a report on insulation. Whilst the landlord has relied on the EPC, the resident has disputed the information within it and noted it is out of date, therefore it is prudent that the landlord bases its response on a new inspection which is recorded.

The resident’s report of repairs to heating and hot water system

The landlord has an obligation to ensure the fixtures and fittings for the supply of hot water and heating were in good working order. It is not disputed by the parties that there have been problems in the operation of the resident’s heating system for several years prior to the complaint. The parties also do not dispute that the landlord has historically attended the resident’s property on many occasions although the resident evidently felt the issues were so extensive that she carried out works herself, including replacing radiators. The landlord has also accepted that the resident’s boiler was installed in an unsuitable location in the kitchen.
After the resident made a formal complaint on 3 May 2022 the landlord agreed that it would review the performance of the boiler and hot water and heating system, in line with its repair obligation. However, although the landlord asked its heating contractor to carry out a survey, there is no evidence that this was carried out at the time. This indicates that the landlord lost oversight of its survey request and failed to track the actions of its contractor causing the resident’s concerns about the boiler and heating and hot water system to be unaddressed. This was particular unreasonable given the landlord’s awareness that the resident had historically reported problems with her heating and hot water systems on many occasions, therefore her dissatisfaction had compounded over time. Moreover, the resident’s autoimmunity condition and her daughter’s respiratory problems indicated that they may be especially vulnerable to the impact of faults to the heating system.
The resident reiterated her concerns when escalating her complaint to Stage 2. It was not until the inspection of its surveyor on 30 November 2022 heating contractor on 5 December 2022 that the landlord took appropriate steps to establish what works should be carried out in respect of the heating and hot water system. The landlord and contractor decided that boiler and parts of the system should be renewed, thereby identifying what works could be carried out to resolve the resident’s concerns. However, there were avoidable delays in reaching this decision.
Having agreed the works to the boiler and system, the works were not completed until 27 February 2023. The resident has stated that there was a delay attributable to the landlord and has sought to make a new complaint. The resident was in effect seeking to complain about actions not previously considered within the complaint procedure. A new complaint investigation would allow the landlord to respond to the resident’s claim that it is responsible for delays. Therefore, whilst the landlord’s complaint policy states that it will monitor the progress of actions agreed at Stage 2 until completion, it should have raised a new complaint.

The resident’s report of repairs to bathroom

The landlord has an obligation to ensure that all fixtures and fittings for sanitation are in good repair condition and proper working order. The landlord initially accepted that the resident’s bathroom was not in a satisfactory condition in May 2022. In arranging for a surveyor to attend it took appropriate steps to identify what works should be carried out. Works were not scheduled to commence until 3 months later; however, there is no evidence that the resident expressed dissatisfaction with this length of time.
The resident was unhappy with how the works progressed after they commenced. Whilst Covid-19 pandemic social distancing restrictions had been lifted it was unreasonable that an operative who had contact with another person with Covid–19 was sent to the resident’s property given her medical condition. This indicates that the landlord was not mindful of or sensitive to the resident’s vulnerability. As the contractor could not find an alternative operative, this caused unnecessary delay to the works, until the operative was safe to return. The fact that the works stalled straight after the old bathroom components were taken out compounded the inconvenience to the resident and prompted her to make a further complaint.
The contractor returned to complete the works as scheduled. The resident immediately raised concerns about the quality of the works. The landlord took appropriate works to rectify any snags by recalling the bathroom contractor and sending a plumber. The resident states that there remains a fault with the toilet from this time, August 2022, preventing her from using the flush, due to water not stopping running after use. However, there is no evidence that she reported that she could not use the flush until 23 November 2022, when she called an emergency plumber.
Following the attendance by the emergency plumber on 23 November 2022, there is no evidence that the landlord sought to restore the water supply to the toilet and ensure that the flush was operating correctly. The landlord in the Stage 2 response agree to carry out a repair but there is no evidence that an operative inspected or carried out further works to the flush directly after the response. In fact, the landlord’s correspondence of 6 February 2023 accepted that the landlord had not repaired the flush / cistern.
It is noted that the resident in the new complaint she wishes to make has stated that she still cannot use the flush. As with the delay to the installation of the new boiler, the landlord should investigate her ongoing claim that she cannot use the flush within a new complaint. However, this service will award compensation for the delay in attending to the toilet flush for the period to 6 February 2023 when the landlord accepted that it had not yet repaired the flush / cistern.
The resident stated that the bathroom contractor only changed components in the bathroom and would not carry out decorative or flooring works, The contractor’s version of event differs insofar as it indicated that the resident had wanted to carry out plastering, tiling and flooring works herself. In any event, it was reasonable that the landlord agreed to reimburse the resident an amount equivalent of the cost it would have incurred, pending provision of acceptable receipts, as it was not obliged to make this payment.
The resident has raised concerns about the size of her bath installed the property. The dimensions, features of the new components in the bathroom were at the landlord’s discretion, taking into account the opinion of its staff and contractors. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations from the outset by making clear exactly what works it would be carrying and the dimensions of the new components to be installed.

The resident’s report of repairs to kitchen, following cold water mains leak

The landlord initially inspected the resident’s kitchen on 27 April 2022 and assessed that it needed to be renewed, in part because of missing components and exposed wires and gas pipes which indicated possible safety risks. The internal email of 6 May 2022 further indicates that the landlord had further safety concerns arising from the position of the cooker. However, there is no evidence that the landlord took action to progress works to improve the condition of the kitchen over the following 5 months, until after the resident escalated her complaint and on 30 November 2022. This delay prolonged the resident’s distress and inconvenience. Nor is there evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated, despite her raising this issue in the first complaint which exacerbated her distress and inconvenience.
In the interim, the landlord had carried out a stock condition survey at which the surveyor advised the resident that her kitchen was hazardous, in part because of the location of the boiler. This advice exacerbated the worry and distress caused to the resident from the delay in completing works.
The survey of 30 November 2022 confirmed that the kitchen was unsafe and required replacing at that time. The fact that the landlord was not obliged under its Repairs and Programmed Maintenance Policies to renew the kitchen outside a planned programme of works but decided to anyway underlines the poor condition of the kitchen. In fact, it would appear that the survey confirmed further safety issues in the kitchen, from incorrect electrical wiring.
The landlord missed opportunities to identify the unsafe condition of the kitchen and progress necessary works at an earlier stage. Indeed, the view expressed in the landlord’s internal correspondence of 29 September 2022 that the kitchen did not require replacement was not arrived at from a sound evidential basis.
It transpired that works to replace the kitchen were not straightforward as the hot water and heating contractor needed to replace the boiler and change parts of the heating and water system beforehand. Furthermore, the position of the boiler and the invasive nature of the boiler works presented technical difficulties. The resident has after the Stage 2 response sought to raise a new complaint about the delays in completing the kitchen works after the heating and hot water system works and being left with no kitchen facilities during this period. She has also disputed the specifications of the new kitchen that the landlord intends to install. These further issues fall outside the scope of this investigation as the landlord should first investigate and respond within its complaints procedure.

The complaint and financial redress

On 3 May 2022, the resident made a formal complaint. The landlord sent a response on 20 May 2022 which confirmed the action it would carry out to resolve substantive repair issues, but which did not review the past handling of the issues. This was unreasonable as effective complaint resolution includes assessing and acknowledging where things have gone wrong as well as proposed action to put matters right.
Furthermore, the landlord was required under the policy to monitor the progress of the works to be carried out; however, as noted there is no evidence that the landlord monitored the repair issues, collated the information and updated the resident in a coherent and timely way, as required by the policy. More generally, the complaints procedure provided a framework for the resolution of the issues; however, the landlord did not use it effectively in this case. Consequently, the resident decided to escalate her complaint on 11 September 2022.
In the interim on 11 August 2022, the resident raised a new complaint, specifically about the progress of bathroom works. The landlord responded promptly and offered compensation for the loss of use of the bathroom at that time due to the suspension of works.
The landlord delayed in dealing with the resident’s Stage 2 response as it took 2 months to allocate the complaint for consideration, which itself was outside the timeframe for responding. The delay would have been longer had the resident not approached this service. After the complaint was allocated, the landlord took appropriate steps to resolve the outstanding repair issues by phoning the resident to confirm its understanding of the complaint and by raising repair orders. The Stage 2 response was also sent within the required timeframe of 20 working days.
In this case, the compensation initially offered in response to the resident’s second complaint of 11 August 2022 was proportionate to the circumstances of the case at that time. It offered awards for the loss of use of the bathroom and for the fact that operatives would not attend her property until 17 August 2022. Although the landlord did not explain how the latter award was calculated the amount offered was comparable to a payment in line with the Right to Repair scheme, outlined in the Complaint Compensation Standard Operation Procedure.
In the Stage 2 response the landlord offered compensation for its overall handing of the resident’s case. It recognised that the resident had stayed with friends, and whilst it did not make clear how the award of £500 was awarded, it was not contested by the resident. It reimbursed the resident for the cost of running a humidifier in a transparent way by citing the number of days taken into account and the rate of compensation. The landlord also recognised the failings in its complaint handling by making an award that was within the High band of compensation. However, given the length of the delay in following up on the Stage 1 response, then the delay in initially dealing with the Stage 2 complaint taken together with the number of issues complained about, an award at the higher end of the range would have been more appropriate.
The landlord offered an award for distress, time, effort and inconvenience in accordance with the categories of compensation within its Compensation Policy. It also accepted its delays in carrying out repairs by making an award referencing the Right to Repair. However, without separating the repair issues complained about and the timeframe considered, the landlord did not make clear how the award was arrived at, and therefore did not justify its reasonableness.
Ultimately, there were extensive repairs required throughout the resident’s property, including an unsafe kitchen, which cumulatively elevated the impact on the resident. Furthermore, whilst it was reasonable that the landlord did not investigate historical repair issues in detail, it did not consider the prior handling of repairs at all. Its complaint responses focussed on the action to resolve ongoing repair issues. As such the landlord did not appreciate the context to the resident’s complaint, specifically that each of the repair issues complained about were not new and the resident had felt it necessary to carry out repairs herself. Taken together with the resident’s vulnerability, it is not considered that the landlord offered redress that satisfactorily resolved the resident’s complaint.
This investigation has noted that the resident has complained about the completion of works after the Stage 2 response. The landlord has refused to accept the complaint, noting the works arise from the Stage 2 complaint and stating that this Service would reach a decision. However, the resident’s new complaint concerns issues that were not considered within the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord has a responsibility to resolve complaints at the local level in the first instance. Therefore, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not accept the resident’s new complaint but instead absolved responsibility by conflating it with the complaint that had completed the complaints procedure. The landlord’s complaint procedure states that it will monitor the progress of actions identified at Stage 2 therefore it should be in a position to readily assess its handling of the issues and respond to further complaints.
It is also noted that the landlord nevertheless made a further offer of compensation on 30 May 2023. Without having accepted and investigated a new complaint this offer was arbitrary.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould issues throughout the property including issues related to the condition of the windows and doors.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s report of repairs to heating and hot water system.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s report of repairs to bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s report of repairs to kitchen
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the complaint and financial redress.

Reasons

The resident’s report of damp and mould issues throughout the property

It took the landlord 3 months to initially inspect the windows after the recommendation of 18 January 2022, which was an unreasonable delay. Although its window contractor identified repairs the landlord agreed to consider replacing the windows but delayed in taking steps to reach a decision. Even after the inspection of 30 November 2022, the landlord did not make clear what the outcome of the inspection was, and what specifically what its position was on the resident’s request for new windows was. Given the landlord’s responsibilities to deal with damp and mould its delays and lack of clarity in its communication to the resident about the works to her windows was particularly unreasonable.
Regarding the external doors, the landlord did not inform the resident the timescales involved for the replacement of the front door. After the doors were inspected on 30 November 2022, the landlord did not make clear the outcome of the inspection or what follow on works were required.
The landlord also employed its damp contractor. As the damp contractor did not provide a report of the possible causes of damp, the landlord did not follow its procedure for dealing with reports of damp and mould. Also, there is no evidence that a specialist attended to provide a report on insulation, as promised in the complaint response of 20 May 2022.

The resident’s report of repairs to heating and hot water system

After the resident submitted a formal complaint on 3 May 2022 the landlord did not ensure that its heating contractor carried out a survey of the heating and hot water system as promised. This was particularly unreasonable given the historical repair reports made by the resident about the system and the fact her household may have been especially vulnerable to the impact of faults to the heating system.

The resident’s report of repairs to bathroom, subsequent to the damp and mould issues

Whilst there was a delay to the bathroom works in August 2022 due to the operative being in contact with another person with Covid–19, the landlord offered compensation for this. The landlord also took appropriate steps to rectify snags by recalling the contractor and arranging for a plumber to attend. However, after the resident reported that she could not use the toilet flush on 23 November 2022, the landlord did not seek to carry out the necessary repair at this time. By its own acceptance, as is evident from its correspondence to the resident, it had not completed the necessary repair by 6 February 2023.

The resident’s report of repairs to kitchen, following cold water mains leak

Having identified in April and May 2022 safety concerns in the resident’s kitchen, the landlord delayed in taking action to improve the condition of the kitchen. It was not until 30 November 2022 that the landlord assessed that the kitchen required replacing. This decision to renew the kitchen outside a planned programme of works underlines the poor condition of the kitchen. The fact that its stock condition surveyor had advised the resident in the interim that her kitchen was hazardous exacerbated her worry and distress during its delay.

Complaint Handling and Financial Redress

The landlord did not update the resident on the progress of works following the Stage 1 response of 20 May 2022. The landlord then delayed in allocating the Stage 2 complaint to a member of staff for consideration. Whilst the landlord has sought to resolve the complaint by offering compensation it did not make clear how the award was arrived at, and therefore did not justify its reasonableness of its awards.
It was unreasonable that the landlord did not accept the resident’s new complaint but instead absolved responsibility by conflating it with the complaint that had completed the complaints procedure.

Orders and recommendations

Within the next four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of staff to send an apology to the resident.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £3,724.43 comprising:
  1. £300 for the failure to make clear what action it would be taking in respect of her windows, specifically whether it would be replacing them.
  2. £50 for the lack of communication about the repair to the front door.
  3. £300 for not carrying out a damp report.
  4. £150 for not obtaining a report on insulation at the property by a specialist as promised.
  5. £500 for the delay in surveying the resident’s heating system.
  6. £150 for the delay in repairing the flush to the resident’s toilet.
  7. £1,200 for the inconvenience caused from the condition of the resident’s kitchen and the delay in surveying the kitchen.
  8. £250 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience and time and trouble arising from the landlord’s complaint handling failures. This includes the lack of clarity within the Stage 2 complaint response about its compensation award.
  9. £150 for the resident’s time and trouble in seeking to raise a new complaint.
  10. The £576.80 offered within the complaints procedure for the resident staying with family and friends and the running cost of a humidifier.
  11. The £97.63 offered within the complaints procedure for loss of amenity and missed appointments during the bathroom works.

This award supersedes the award made within the complaints procedure therefore the landlord may deduct any payments already made to the resident.

Confirm the outcome of the window inspection, and in particular whether it will be replacing the windows. If not, the landlord should make clear exactly what repairs will be carried out to each window.
Arrange for a damp inspection by its damp contractor and for the outcome to be provided to the resident.
Arrange for an inspection of the insulation at the property and for the outcome to be provided to the resident.
Inspect the resident’s toilet and complete any necessary repairs so that it is fully functional.
Complete the installation of the resident’s new kitchen. If the landlord does not install the kitchen within the next four weeks, it should confirm to this service the reasons why and its proposal for further action.
Register and respond to a new formal complaint to investigate the resident’s dissatisfaction with its handling of repairs after the Stage 2 response. If necessary, the landlord should contact the resident directly to obtain an up-to-date version of her complaint. A copy of the response should be sent to this Service.

Within the next 6 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Review its complaint handling procedures and staff guidance to ensure complaints are handled in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and its own complaint policy, particularly in relation to:
  1. Escalations.
  2. Clearly identifying failings.
  3. Allocating complaints.
  4. Calculating redress..
  5. Updating residents during complaints
2. Review its record management so it can accurately monitor the progress of repairs to completion and track outstanding repairs.
3. Review its property inspection process to allow for early and accurate identification of disrepair.
4. Review its contractor arrangements to ensure better management of damp and mould cases from end-to-end.