Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202304184)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304184

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

18 March 2024

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 the resident’s reports of:
1. Damp and mould.
2. Overgrown trees affecting the property.
3. The associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy of the property, where she lives with her adult daughter. Both the resident and her daughter have medical conditions that affect their daily living. The property is of non-standard construction.
On 10 May 2022, a charity (who we will refer to as the resident’s representative throughout this report) supported the resident to complain to the landlord. It said:
1. The resident had experienced damp and mould in her home since 2015. She had reported the problem to the landlord and attempted to manage it at home, but this had not resolved it.
2. The damp and mould were affecting the family’s health and wellbeing.
3. Plaster in the property was sodden and falling from the walls.
4. The landlord should reimburse the resident for money spent on mould spray and a dehumidifier.
5. Trees outside the property were damaging the roof. She had injured herself trying to trim the trees.
6. She had been told she had to pay to clear items left in the loft by a former tenant, so the landlord could do insulation works. This was unfair.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 25 May 2022. It said:
1. It had arranged for a tree surgeon to inspect and undertake work to the trees. Afterwards it would inspect the roof to see if there was any damage which could be contributing to the damp and mould.
2. It had arranged an inspection of the damp and mould for 31 May 2022.
3. It apologised that she had been asked to pay to clear the loft. It would reimburse this cost, and £178.97 for the costs she had incurred in managing the mould.
4. It gave the details of its insurer to make a personal injury claim.
5. It offered her £200 as a goodwill gesture, comprising £50 for the delay in resolving the issues, £50 for its poor communication, and £100 in recognition of the impact the issues had on the family.
The resident’s representative responded to the landlord, expressing dissatisfaction with the level of compensation offered. In response, the landlord increased its goodwill offer by £100. This brought the total offer of compensation to £300.
The landlord rearranged the damp and mould inspection for 9 June 2022. On 9 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord because its surveyor had not arrived for the damp and mould inspection. The landlord said it would reschedule the appointment.
In June 2022, the tree maintenance was completed. This revealed that the property’s guttering was rotten. On 13 June 2023, the landlord inspected the property for damp and mould, and subsequently arranged repairs.
On 7 July 2022, the landlord’s contractor inspected the property. The resident says the contractor felt the property required replastering and said a ventilation system should be installed in the loft.
The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on her behalf on 23 August 2022, as the mould, guttering and loft issues were unresolved. He asked the landlord to confirm the repairs it had agreed. He listed a series of works the resident believed the landlord’s contractors had recommended.
The landlord responded, outlining the works it had completed and saying a repair had been booked for the guttering. The landlord said its contractor had specified that it should complete a mould wash and install a fan. It did not intend to do any other work to the loft.
The MP contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf again on 12 September 2022. He said the resident did not agree the works were completed, as the contractor had told her it was recommending other works. In addition, the landlord had not repaired the guttering. The MP asked the landlord to consider reimbursing the resident for belongings damaged by mould.
On 1 October 2022, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process, as the agreed works we incomplete. She said:
1. The landlord had not issued a schedule of works.
2. The landlord had only agreed tomould wash15sqm of the property. This was inadequate.
3. The survey report had recommended other works, including the gutter repair, replastering, replacing the roof and roof membrane, and repairing the decayed fascia boards. The landlord had not completed these. The report highlighted serious structural issues, as the property was of non-standard construction and did not meet building regulations.
4. The landlord’s offer of compensation did not cover her financial losses.
5. She had employed her own contractor to do some of the works required and would send the invoices to the landlord.
On 21 October 2022, the landlord’s contractor installed extractor fans in the property and treated the mould. However, the resident contacted the landlord on 2 November 2022, as she felt the work was inadequate.
On 3 November 2022, the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It agreed that its communication after agreeing the works was inadequate. It said:
1. There were failures in its handling of her stage 1 complaint.
2. The repairs were completed, but as she had raised concerns about their adequacy, a surveyor would attend that day to inspect. They would inspect the guttering at the same time.
3. It gave the resident details of its insurer so she could make a claim for her damaged belongings.
4. It increased its offer of compensation to £600, comprising:
  1. £150 for poor communication, and its delayed response.
  2. £200 for its complaint handling failures.
  3. £150 for time and trouble, inconvenience, and personal impact.
  4. £100 for delayed repairs.
On 4 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord about the survey it carried out the previous day. She said the landlord had sent someone who was not a qualified surveyor. She said he told her the type of property she lived in was more likely to be mouldy. He gave her a series of recommendations about how to reduce mould in her home, which she felt were impractical. He took pictures of her home without her permission.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 November 2022, as mould was regrowing in the areas the contractor had painted. She said she would arrange her own treatment and redecoration of the area.
The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 15 November 2022. He asked for a copy of the survey report. He said the suggestions the landlord made for the management of mould were unaffordable, and the resident would be physically unable to complete some of the tasks recommended.
On 5 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord. She said the contractor had left without completing work on her loft insulation, as he had been told to use pieces of the existing insulation to fill gaps, and this was not sufficient. The contractor said it did not have any orders to repair her guttering. She also explained that, although her private contractor had used 4 layers of fungicidal treatment and redecorated the affected areas, the mould was returning.
On 19 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord, as its inspection had found that the guttering needed complete replacement. She reiterated her concerns about the adequacy of the roof and said these were supported by the contractor’s inspection.
The landlord agreed to replace the roof but said it could not do this until the following year. In the meantime, it would need to do interim repairs. It replaced the guttering on 9 March 2023.
The resident’s solicitor contacted the landlord on 28 September 2023, using the pre-action protocol for disrepair (the pre-action protocol aims to resolve issues at an early stage and agree a schedule of works). The solicitor suggested a joint inspection and asked that the roofing works were not done until it was completed.
On 7 November 2023, the landlord logged a repair for the guttering, recording that it had been incorrectly installed and was leaking into neighbour’s property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

During the period of the complaint, the resident, who has an asthma diagnosis, says the condition of her home impacted on her and her daughter’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony, but it is outside our remit to establish if there was a direct link between the action or inaction of the landlord and the resident’s health. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim
It is widely accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health, particularly for people who have respiratory conditions. The Ombudsman can consider the general impact of damp and mould. We will consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced because of errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her and her family’s health.
The resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of a mouse infestation in her home. The landlord’s handling of the mouse infestation was not considered as part of the resident’s formal complaint, therefore it is outside the scope of this investigation.As the issue has not been considered at both stages of the landlord’s complaint process, it is outside the scope of this investigation. The landlord should log a new complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of mouse infestation at stage 1 of its complaints process.

Damp and mould

The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that the landlord aims to complete general repairs within 10 working days, and “repairs exclusions” within 20 working days. It says that larger jobs may fall outside of these timescales.
In the resident’s first complaint to the landlord, citizens advice explained that she was disabled. Both the resident and her daughter have also disclosed mental health conditions to the landlord. These are not reflected in the landlord’s records. This is a record keeping failure that may have affected the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports. To put things right, the landlord should contact the resident in a way that is convenient for her, to discuss updating its records to reflect the information she has disclosed about her family’s health.
One of the health conditions the resident disclosed was asthma. As noted earlier in this report, damp and mould is widely accepted to have a health impact, particularly on those with respiratory conditions. The landlord should have considered this in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, but there is no evidence it did so. If it had considered the resident’s health, it may have prioritised work in her home, or decided a decant (a temporary move) was appropriate while it did repairs in the property.
After receiving the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 5 May 2022, the landlord arranged an inspection of the property on 9 June 2022. On the day of the appointment, the resident contacted the landlord because the surveyor had not arrived. The landlord explained he was unavailable. The landlord should have contacted the resident as soon as it was aware the appointment would not go ahead. Its failure to do this caused the resident inconvenience and distress, because she had left an unwell relative to be home for the appointment. The landlord advised her to contact its contractor for compensation for the missed appointment. However, as the resident’s legal relationship is with the landlord, not the contractor, the landlord should offer compensation in this instance. The landlord should pay the resident £30 compensation for the missed appointment in line with its compensation policy.
The landlord did not inspect the property until 11 July 2022, 2 months after the complaint was made. Repairs were agreed, but there was a further delay in arranging them. On 5 September 2022, the resident said she had been told that the works still had not been instructed. This was 4 months after the resident’s complaint and 2 months after the inspection. No explanation has been provided for this series of delays, so the Ombudsman concludes they were unreasonable. The timescale for works did not align with the landlord’s housing management policy commitment to resolving repairs promptly and may have led the resident to feel that her reports were not being taken seriously.
The resident had regular communication with the landlord and its contractors about the works. On several occasions she reported to the landlord that its contractors had told her they were recommending specific works to the property, that the landlord did not go on to agree. For example, she said the contractors recommended a positive input ventilation system. However, the landlord said the contractors recommended an additional extractor fan, not a positive input ventilation unit. With the information available it is not possible to determine the cause of the discrepancies.
There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident when she asked about the discrepancies. This was not reasonable. The landlord should have been clear about the works it intended to undertake and fully explained the reasons why it was, or was not, undertaking the works the resident asked about. Its failure to do so will have undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord.
The landlords internal emails indicate that some members of staff did not have a full picture of the repairs required, and different teams were raising and cancelling repairs without informing each other. For example, the landlord sent internal emails asking why guttering repairs were cancelled and asked which contractor had attended and advised the resident that the roof needed to be replaced. This indicates poor information management and could account for some of the landlord’s poor communication with the resident. To improve its information management practices, the landlord may wish to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, which is available on our website.
Overall, communication with the resident was inadequate. There were several occasions where the landlord did not respond to the resident’s emails or give answers to questions she asked. This caused the resident unnecessary distress, frustration, and uncertainty. It also caused the resident to invest time and trouble in chasing a definitive schedule of works. This could have been avoided had the landlord provided a schedule of works when she requested it in her stage 1 complaint, or later through her MP. It would also have been reasonable to provide a lead point of contact for the resident with overall responsibility for her repairs, to avoid her needing to contact both the landlord and its contractors about her concerns.
In or around September 2022, the landlord went to the property to complete the mould wash. In her stage 2 complaint, the resident said that the landlord had underestimated the amount of time required and the contractor had only partially completed the job. A further mould wash was done on 21 October 2022. However, on this occasion, the operative who attended left early for personal reasons, and the work was not completed. This will have caused the resident further inconvenience. In response to her concerns, the landlord appropriately agreed to inspect the property to review the adequacy of the work.
The resident’s home is of non-standard construction. The type of property she lives in is designated defective by the building research establishment. This means it is defective ‘by reason of its design or construction’. The member of staff who inspected her home had experience of the type of home the resident lived in but was not a qualified surveyor. Given the severity of the issues the resident was reporting and the impact on her wellbeing, as well as her concerns about the impact of damp and mould on her health, this was not appropriate. In the circumstances it would have been appropriate to employ a building surveyor and damp and mould specialist to assess the property.
The resident said the landlord told her the type of home she lives in is prone to damp and mould. It gave her advice to manage the mould, which included running the heating all day, every day, at 21-23 degrees celcius, opening the windows as much as possible, particularly in autumn and winter, and cleaning the walls and ceilings weekly. The resident said she was told not to use the inbuilt cupboards, and it was implied that she should not have curtains in the property. This advice was inappropriate, as it placed all responsibility to resolve the issue on the resident, while acknowledging that the construction of the property was a significant factor. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report, available on our website, says that landlords failure to take responsibility for resolving damp and mould mean their response may be protracted and ineffective. In this case, the landlord did not consider the financial implications of its advice, or the physical limitations of the resident.
The resident also said that she was told the decorative and improvement works she was doing to the property were ‘monies down the drain’. This will have added to her distress and sense of hopelessness.
The inspector took pictures of the property and the resident’s personal belongings without her permission. This was not appropriate, and led to the resident feeling that the landlord was trying to infer that she was ‘at fault’ for the damp and mould. Records the landlord has provided do not show the landlord responded to this concern. To put things right, the landlord should apologise, and ensure the photographs taken at this inspection are deleted from its records.
The resident says she was not given the outcome of the survey, other than the lifestyle advice she was given, and it appears no further work was ordered. It is therefore understandable that the resident arranged to have the mould cleaned, treated, and the area painted privately, although the repair was the responsibility of the landlord. She has said to the Ombudsman that she felt she had no alternative, as she was worried about the impact of the mould on her and her daughter’s health, having contracted a serious lung infection during the time she was attempting to treat the mould in her home.
The resident asked the landlord to reimburse her for the cost of the work, which she says she financed with a loan of over £2,000. Although her decision to do the work is understandable, it was not agreed with the landlord. The landlord is responsible for the repairs and is entitled to do these to its own specification. It did not give the resident any assurance that it would reimburse her costs, so it is not obligated to do so. The landlord should consider reimbursing this as a gesture of goodwill given the impact the resident believed the mould was having on her health.
Although the resident told the landlord she had carried out the work at personal cost, and asked it to reimburse her, there is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged this. The landlord should have spoken to her, set out its position, and arranged to do any outstanding works. In failing to do this, it did not manage the resident’s expectations. It could also have signposted her to a debt advice organisation like stepchange when it became aware of the debt, which the resident said was causing her sleepless nights.
The mould in the property was treated with a mould wash at least 3 times in an 18-month period, and on each occasion it quickly returned. The resident also reported to the landlord that mortar fell off the exterior of the building, and plaster fell off internal ceilings. This indicates that mould washes are not sufficient to treat the issue. The resident says that she is still experiencing mould in her home, so the landlord should arrange an independent inspection of the property, by a qualified building surveyor and a damp and mould specialist. The survey should consider the structural composition of the property. As part of the survey report it should consider each of the recommendations that the resident says its contractor recommended, and if it deems these unnecessary it should give a full explanation for each. Any advice given as a result should not place an unreasonable financial or physical burden on the resident
The resident said that her belongings were damaged by mould which the landlord was aware of. Landlords use liability insurance to determine whether they are liable for damages, and the landlord rightly gave her the details for its liability insurers so she could make a claim. Decisions made by the landlord’s liability insurer are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident also contacted her own contents insurer about the damage, but it did not agree her claim. If the resident is unhappy with this decision, she may want to speak to the Financial Ombudsman Service for advice.
In her stage 1 complaint, the resident said the loft was damp, and when the landlord had attended to insulate it, it had discovered personal belongings of a former tenant, and the work had been stalled. It told the resident she was responsible for clearing the items, which cost her £300, before it would do the work. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for this, and offered to reimburse the clearance cost, as it should have removed the items before reletting the property.
It was not until 7 July 2022, 2 months after the complaint, that the landlord inspected the loft. There was a further delay in it arranging work. Some of the landlord’s records about the loft and insulation work are unclear. On 23 August 2022, the landlord told the resident’s MP the insulation work was complete. However, on 30 August 2022, the landlord logged a new repair to do works to the insulation as ‘cold bridging’ was occurring. Cold bridging is a gap in the insulation which carries a higher risk of condensation forming. The repair order said the insulation needed to be stripped out and reinstalled.
When the landlord’s contractor came to the property on 15 December 2022, the resident said his instruction was to take pieces from the existing insulation to fill the gaps. This is supported by the landlord’s repair order which said to ‘reposition insulation’ to the eaves. It did not reflect the original works order from 30 August 2022, so it appears there was an internal miscommunication. The contractor felt repositioning the insulation was an inadequate solution and left without completing the work. This miscommunication caused a further avoidable delay and inconvenience to the resident. To try to prevent this in the future, the landlord should consider its information management as part of its self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s knowledge and information management spotlight report.
The resident says the work to the insulation was satisfactorily completed in autumn 2023. This was approximately 16 months after the resident complained, and 2 years after the first repair work was logged by the landlord. This is an unacceptable delay, far exceeding the landlord’s policy timescales. It will have had a significant detrimental impact to the resident, causing her inconvenience and distress, and may have contributed to condensation in her home.
In correspondence with the landlord about the insulation works, the resident said the contractors had suggested a new roof membrane, and asked the landlord why her roof was not replaced when her neighbours’ were. When it investigated the resident’s enquiry, the landlord identified that the property’s roof had not been replaced since it was built in 1935. It agreed to replace the roof, but said it was not able to put the property on the next programme of planned works, so the roof would not be replaced until the following year. Planned work schedules are usually created far in advance of the works, and the roof had not been identified as an urgent repair, so the landlords proposed timescale for roof replacement was reasonable.
It is appropriate for landlords to attempt to repair issues before doing larger works. This helps them to manage their resources effectively and provide value for money. However, in this case, the landlord was aware of the age of the roof, had repaired several roof leaks in the preceding years, and replaced slipped tiles. If the landlord had considered these issues holistically, it may have taken action to replace the roof sooner.

Summary:

The ongoing issues in the property had a detrimental impact on the resident’s wellbeing. This was evident throughout her correspondence with the landlord, and in her resulting actions, for example accruing debt to resolve the issue privately. She described feelings of desperation and despair and being unable to sleep. The landlord’s complaint responses and general communication should have gone further to acknowledge this. Its failure to fully appreciate the impact on the resident may have led her to feel that it was not listening to her or did not care about her wellbeing. Although the landlord offered her £150 compensation for time, trouble, and personal impact at stage 2 of its complaints process, this did not adequately reflect the detriment to the residents wellbeing and her concerns about her health.
The landlord also offered the resident £150 for its poor communication, and £100 for the delays to the repairs. However, there have been further communication failures and delays, and the mould has not been resolved. This does not demonstrate that the landlord took learning from its failures and amounts to maladministration. The landlord is ordered to pay £930 in compensation, in addition to the compensation it has already offered, comprising:
1. £400 for the inconvenience caused by avoidable delays and poor communication.
2. £500 for the distress and worry caused to the resident.
3. £30 for the missed appointment on 9 June 2022.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website) says that awards in this range are appropriate when the landlord has acknowledged failings, but its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified.

Overgrown trees affecting the property

In her stage 1 complaint, the resident said the trees were overgrown when she moved in. The records the landlord provided do not show whether the trees were trimmed before the property was let, but the landlord has not disputed the resident’s assertion. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to assess whether works were needed to remove or maintain any of the trees when the property was relet. Had it done so, it may have identified the issues sooner.
The resident had reported to the landlord that the trees were overgrown and were affecting the roof in 2021, and in the same year it noted the trees had caused debris to block the gutter, “potentially causing a leakage”. It recorded that the property was suffering from damp and arranged to clear the gutters.
The landlord told the resident the trees were her responsibility to maintain. She subsequently attempted to trim the trees and fell, breaking her foot. The landlord’s Housing Services Policies and Procedures document states that residents are responsible for garden maintenance. However, in the circumstances of the case, as the trees were not maintained when the property was let, and they were affecting the property, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to accept responsibility for the works when this was first reported.
After the resident complained on 5 May 2022, the landlord felled some of the trees and trimmed others on 29 June 2022. This timescale was reasonable as the landlord did not ordinarily do tree maintenance work and it needed to employ a specialist contractor. It said that following the work it would inspect any damage to the roof which may be affecting the property. This was reasonable as it would enable the landlord to consider whether damage caused by the trees was an underlying cause of the damp. When the landlord inspected, it became aware that the tree had caused damage to the guttering, and this was causing water ingress into the property. The resident said that there was water ‘running down’ the internal walls of the property.
The landlord did not replace the guttering until in or around April 2023, 10 months after it became aware that it was rotten. This far exceeds the landlord’s policy deadlines for repairs and will have had a significant impact on the resident, as it may have contributed to the damp and mould in her home. The landlord has not explained the reason for this delay, so the Ombudsman concludes it was unreasonable. In the intervening months, the resident experienced further inconvenience as she had to follow up the concern several times.
Although the guttering was replaced, it was installed incorrectly, and on 7 November 2023, the landlord logged a job to refit it, as it was causing a leak into a neighbour’s property. In the landlord’s repairs policy, it says it will strive to complete repairs ‘promptly, to a good standard, and right first time’. The resident says that this job is still incomplete. In this instance the landlord failed to meet its policy commitments, and this will have caused the resident further avoidable distress and inconvenience.
Although the landlord’s actions in this case to manage the trees, inspect the roof, and do identified repairs, were reasonable, the timescale of its repairs and its poor-quality workmanship amount to maladministration. To put things right for the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience this caused her. The landlord is also ordered to complete the guttering repair within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. The landlord’s complaints policy uses this definition.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It says it will respond at stage 1 of its process within 10 working days, and at stage 2 of its process within 20 working days.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in 13 working days, just outside of its policy timescale of 10 working days. At stage 2 of its complaints process, it responded in 24 working days, just outside of its policy timescale of 20 working days. Although the responses were outside of the landlord’s policy deadline, the delays were not excessive, and would not have had a significant detrimental impact on the resident.
The resident chased the landlord for updates on her complaint throughout November, as she said she had not received her stage 2 response. The evidence seen by the Ombudsman as part of the investigation does indicate that the response was sent to the resident, but the landlord re-sent a copy of its response, which was appropriate.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised that it had failed to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint, and its response was delayed. It offered the resident £200 in compensation for its complaint handling failures. This was appropriate, as it aligns with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website). The remedies guidance says that awards in this range are appropriate where there is service failure by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord’s offer of compensation was a reasonable offer of redress which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of overgrown trees affecting the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement which satisfactorily resolves errors the landlord made in its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident £1130 in compensation. This is in addition to the compensation of £600 it has already offered and comprises:
  1. £900 for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. £30 for the missed appointment on 9 June 2022
  3. £200 for its handling of the resident’s reports of overgrown trees affecting the property and the repairs subsequently identified.
2. A member of staff at director level should issue the resident with a formal apology for the failures identified in this report.
3. Ensure that the pictures taken of the resident’s home without her consent are deleted and confirm this to her in writing.
4. Contact the resident in a way that is convenient to her to discuss updating its records to reflect the health conditions she has disclosed.
5. Complete the repair to the guttering.
6. instruct an independent survey of the property. The survey should consider the non-standard construction of the property, and include:
  1. A thermal imaging survey.
  2. Confirmation of whether the property ventilation is adequate, and specific consideration of whether a positive input ventilation system (PIV) is appropriate.
  3. Confirmation of whether plaster in the property should be removed and replaced.
Within 2 weeks of the date of the survey, the landlord should produce an inspection report and a full schedule of any identified works. This should be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman. The landlord should carry out any repairs identified as necessary following the survey in line with its published repair timescales.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has complied with these orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The resident has told the landlord she is dissatisfied with its handling of a significant mouse infestation in her home. The landlord should log this as a complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process.
The landlord agreed to treat the mouse infestation in the resident’s home. It should also consider any proofing works required to address the infestation and respond to the resident’s request that it considers replacing her kitchen cupboards.
The landlord should consider reimbursing the loan the resident took out to have repairs done to the property as a gesture of goodwill, given the impact the resident believed the mould was having on her health.
The landlord may wish to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, which is available on our website.