Abri Group Limited (202233917)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233917

Abri Group Limited

25 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
   2. The resident’s concerns about damage caused to her personal possessions by the damp and mould.
   3. The resident’s reports of cracks to an internal wall, and possible subsidence.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of this investigation.

Background

3. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord at the property since March 2021, following a mutual exchange. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat, and the landlord confirmed it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident confirmed to the landlord during the complaint process that she is asthmatic and has Sjogren’s Syndrome.
4. The resident raised repair issues to the landlord on 14 November 2022. She reported that there was mould to the ceiling and outside wall of the bathroom, black mould by the front door and on the wall, and that brickwork around the window in the lounge was crumbling and had caused cracks. The landlord instructed a specialist contractor to inspect the damp on 6 December 2023 and completed a mould wash to the affected areas. The landlord inspected the cracks around the window on 23 December 2022, completed an interim repair and noted a surveyor inspection was required.
5. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 16 January 2023 due to the repair work remaining outstanding. The resident said the ventilation fans in her property were still not working, the mould had started to come back and her furniture had been damaged by this.
6. The landlord responded to the residents complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process on 20 February 2023. The landlord said the following:
   1. The fans in the resident’s property would be replaced on 27 February 2023.
   2. It had completed a mould wash as an interim measure.
   3. The resident was able to make a claim for damage to her belongings directly with the landlord’s insurer.
   4. A surveyor was scheduled to inspect the resident’s property for possible subsidence and the damp and mould on 27 February 2023.
   5. The landlord offered the resident £150 of compensation, broken down as £100 for the delay in its contractor repairing the faulty fans, and £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint on 28 February 2023. The resident said the complaint had still not been resolved. She said that new fans had been fitted but the hall and bathroom now required decorating. She said a surveyor was visiting the property on 1 March 2023, but she had concerns that the building was not structurally safe. The resident further raised concerns to the landlord on 16 March 2023 that the damp and mould was impacting upon her health. She said she had respiratory issues and had been diagnosed with Sjogren’s syndrome which also caused breathing issues. She said the repairs were insufficient, she was dissatisfied with the comments made by a surveyor on a recent visit, and she wanted to be rehoused.
8. The landlord provided its final response to the resident on 15 June 2023. It said the following:
   1. It upheld the resident’s complaint.
   2. New fans had been installed on 27 February 2023.
   3. A damp survey had been carried out on 20 March 2023. This had recommended the following:
      1. The fans were rechecked to ensure they were working correctly.
      2. The landlord carry out a leak detection to inspect for any plumbing defects at the property.
      3. The landlord sealed the area below and between the threshold step of the front door to rectify a defect which was allowing excessive rainwater to collect.
   4. On 25 March 2023 a contractor had attended and confirmed there was no leak to the water supply.
   5. An appointment for a drainage survey had been arranged for 13 June 2023.
   6. It had visited the resident on 17 April 2023 to inspect her concerns. Following this visit, the landlord had arranged for the resident’s tumble dryer to be moved to an external wall, instructed a full survey of the drainage, and asked the contractor who had installed the fans to return to check the equipment was working correctly.
   7. In regard to the outstanding work to the cracks, the landlord said the structural survey had confirmed that there was no signs of subsidence. The landlord had raised work to stitch the brick work internally and externally, make good the internal walls and decorate.
   8. The landlord said the external work to the crack and flooring would be completed on 27 June 2023 and the internal plastering on 2 August 2023. The landlord also said it would arrange for the property to be redecorated following this.
   9. A mould wash treatment was completed on 31 March 2023, and another was booked for 31 May 2023.
   10. It had taken actions following the survey of a specialist independent contractor and was confident it had taken all the actions recommended.
   11. It had visited the resident on 17 April 2023 and discussed the resident’s request to move. It said the local council needed to assess the resident’s needs to go onto the waiting list.
   12. It offered the resident a further £500 of compensation broken down as £200 for the delays in the works being completed, £200 for the inconvenience caused and £100 for the delay in resolving the stage 2 complaint.
9. The resident remained unhappy with the response from the landlord and contacted this Service. The case was accepted for investigation on 10 January 2024. Following the end of the complaint process, the landlord completed the work to the external crack stitching on 28 July 2023, and the internal work to the lounge wall was competed on 2 August 2023. The landlord confirmed it had replaced the kitchen extractor fan in August 2023, completed drainage works at the property on 1 September 2023 and completed work to install air bricks as a future preventative measure in October 2023. On 7 February 2024, the landlord reviewed its complaints responses and offered the resident a further £50 of compensation for the delay in its stage 1 response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

10. The resident has referred to the impact of the damp and mould on her health, as she is asthmatic and has Sjogren’s Syndrome. She has stated her symptoms had worsened while the issue went unresolved. The Ombudsman is very much aware of the detrimental impact that mould in homes can have on health, especially with pre-existing conditions that can be aggravated. However, it is not within the jurisdiction of this Service to make a finding on whether the issues raised in this complaint have had a material effect on the resident’s health. This is because it is outside our role to establish whether there is a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and the resident’s health. Such matters may be more appropriate for a court or liability insurer to decide. However, consideration has been given to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health as well as any general distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord.
11. The resident completed an insurance claim in 2023 to the landlord’s insurers. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate the outcome of the insurance claim as this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord. This Service cannot assess or award damages. This would require an assessment of liability and a binding decision from a court or tribunal. This is not something that is within this Service’s jurisdiction to provide.
12. The resident confirmed to this service that she had reported cracks to the hallway flooring and a repair to the front door to the landlord. Although these repairs were reported during the time of the complaint period, these were not included in the resident’s complaint. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
13. The landlord offered the resident £500 of compensation at stage two of the complaint. This included £200 for the delay to the works being completed and £200 for the inconvenience caused. It was not clear in the breakdown provided how much was attributed to each repair issue. Therefore, for the purpose of this investigation, £200 has been considered to be for the damp and mould repairs and £200 for the repairs to the cracks to the wall.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould.

14. The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
15. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) 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 was required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
16. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of buildings. It operates a 24-hour emergency response to make safe repairs, and appointment based repairs for non emergencies.
17. The landlord’s damp and mould policy at the time of the complaint stated that the landlord would respond quickly to initial reports of damp and mould and promptly act upon the recommendations given by damp and mould specialists. It said it would keep residents fully informed on what work was required and why and in more complex cases, it provided the resident with one point of contact.
18. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure at the time stated that decants may have been appropriate if the resident or their family members had health issues or vulnerabilities that were exacerbated by the damp and mould and/or treatment.
19. The landlord’s management transfer policy states that resident’s who need re-housing will usually be signposted to their local authority for a transfer to ensure requests are managed consistently. It says this should include moves required under medical grounds.
20. The landlord’s “Putting Things Right Guidelines” states that it can offer redress for distress, pain and suffering, and inconvenience. The policy says that where a resident has been the subject of repeat service failure, a goodwill gesture of £200-£500 can be offered. The guidelines states that the landlord should refer a resident to its insurers in instances of damage to property where the landlord may be at fault.
21. This Service published a spotlight on damp and mould report prior to this complaint. This stated that landlords should have a ‘zero tolerance approach’ to damp and mould and be proactive in identifying potential issues. It says that landlords should look beyond the immediate symptoms, such as wet walls, and look to find the cause.
22. The resident had first raised the issue of damp and mould to the bathroom ceiling, outside bathroom wall, and by the wall near the front door on 14 November 2022. The landlord confirmed to this service that all works to the property to remedy the damp and mould had been completed by November 2023. This was a timeframe of over 11 months in total.
23. The landlord had here failed to action the repair works it identified through its specialist investigations within a reasonable timeframe. The law does not specifically define what is considered a reasonable time, but this should depend on how serious or urgent the problem is and how vulnerable the people living in the property are. In this case, the resident had made the landlord aware of the serious impact the damp and mould was having on her health conditions. The landlord had not demonstrated that it had taken into consideration the resident’s reported health vulnerabilities in its response times when resolving the damp and mould.
24. It was understandable that the resident felt the landlord had instructed a number of surveys but had taken little action. From the evidence provided, the source of the damp and mould was not immediately clear and it was appropriate for the landlord to have investigated a number of possible causes in order to ensure the correct treatment. It was also noted that the landlord had offered the resident mould washes in the interim.
25. The landlord initially acted promptly and arranged for a specialist contractor to attend the property on 6 December 2022 to report on condensation levels at the property. The contractor’s report had noted that the positive input ventilation system was not working and should be replaced. It also noted the fans in the bathroom and kitchen were not suitable for the property. However, the replacement was not completed until 27 February 2023. This was 3 months after the resident had first reported the damp and mould. While the landlord had here identified the need to take action to the ventilation in the property, it had failed to complete these works within a reasonable timeframe.
26. The cause of the damp and mould was not clear, however a full damp survey of the property was not completed until 20 March 2023. While it was noted that the landlord had investigated the condensation levels, it was not clear why the landlord had delayed in instructing a damp survey. It was evident that the delay to this survey had an impact on the timescale of the completion of the works required as a result. The resident had continued to experience damp and mould at her property during this time.
27. While it took a long time to resolve the problem, the Ombudsman does acknowledge that certain problems can be complex and take time to diagnose, with an element of trial and error involved. Once the damp survey had taken place, the landlord demonstrated that it followed the recommendations of this and the further surveys to investigate a possible water leak from underground, a full structural survey and a survey of the drainage of the building. The landlord here had demonstrated that it had taken appropriate steps to investigate the cause of the damp and mould.
28. For complex repairs that may require additional time to be completed, this Service expects the landlord to keep in communication with the resident and update them on the progress of the repairs. The resident followed up with the landlord on several occasions to find out what was happening with the repairs between January 2023 and 16 March 2023.
29. Following the resident’s complaint escalation, the landlord took the appropriate step of appointing a point of contact for the resident from 17 March 2023 onwards. This was in line with its damp and mould policy. From the evidence provided to this Service, the weekly updates agreed had not consistently taken place, evidenced by the resident chasing up a response from the landlord on 9 May 2023. The resident had here experienced inconvenience, time and trouble by having to request updates from the landlord. The landlord was not consistently proactive in keeping the resident updated about the progress of the damp and mould investigations.
30. It was evident that the resident had endured a high number of repair appointments during the 11 months for which she needed to facilitate access. While the surveys and repair appointments were necessary, it was acknowledged that this caused the resident significant inconvenience. The resident told the landlord on 5 June 2023 that a contractor had arrived for an appointment but had left due to not having the correct equipment. She had also been asked by the contractor to explain why they were attending. This caused the resident further distress and inconvenience having taken the time off work to facilitate the appointment. This caused the resident further frustration and had a detrimental impact on the landlord and resident relationship.
31. The resident had informed the landlord when reporting the damp and mould on 14 November 2022 that she had severe asthma. During the complaint process she repeatedly raised to the landlord that she was concerned about the impact of the damp and mould on her health.  The landlord demonstrated that it had taken into consideration the impact of the mould washes on the resident and following the initial wash in December 2022. The following mould washes had been noted as to be completed with nontoxic chemicals due to the resident’s health. The landlord here had taken appropriate steps to ensure the health of the resident when carrying out mould washes. However, it was noted that the resident informed this Service that during the mould washes, she had needed to vacate her property for hours afterwards to ensure it had not affected her breathing. This had impacted on the resident’s use of her property.
32. It was not clear from the evidence provided to this Service if the landlord had considered a decant for the resident in consideration of her health concerns. The resident had provided her medical information to the landlord and told the landlord throughout the complaint process that the damp and mould was affecting her health. In an email on 12 April 2023 the resident said she would not be able to stay in the property while repairs were taking place and said this would result in her being hospitalised due to breathing challenges. The landlord told the resident in an email on 13 April 2023 that it would discuss if she would prefer to be decanted while the work was going on due to her health, at a visit to her on the 17 April 2023.
33. While the notes from the visit confirmed that a permanent move was discussed, it had not made reference to any consideration for a decant. The landlord had not demonstrated that it had risk assessed the resident’s health concerns and explored if the option of a decant was required. The landlord had here failed to follow its damp and mould procedure which stated that decants may be appropriate if residents have health issues that are exacerbated by the damp and mould and/or treatment.
34. During the complaint process, the resident requested to be rehoused due to the impact of the damp and mould on her health. The landlord offered support to the resident on her housing options during a visit on 17 April 2023. It advised the resident to apply to the local authority who had 100% nomination rights. This was in line with its management transfer policy. From the evidence provided to this Service, the landlord demonstrated that it had liaised with the local authority who managed this process, to support the resident with this. It had also provided the resident with information on bidding for properties and mutual exchange in April 2023. The landlord also continued to follow up with the local authority on this issue in May 2023 and August 2023. The landlord had here taken appropriate action to support the resident with her request to be re housed.
35. To provide a fair response, landlords are expected to resolve complaints by addressing both the main issue raised and any inconvenience that happened. When a landlord agrees that it failed to provide a service, the expectation is for the landlord to offer redress. The landlord attempted to resolve the substantive complaint through a total offer of compensation of £550. It is essential for landlords to break down any offers of compensation so that a resident can understand to what extent it had acknowledged the impact of each individual failure. For the purpose of this investigation, £350 of this compensation was considered to be related to the damp and mould issue. This consisted of the £150 offered at stage one for the delay to the repair to the resident’s fans and inconvenience caused by this, and £200 of the £400 offered at stage 2.
36. While the offer of redress made by the landlord shows good practice in trying to resolve complaints and learn from outcomes, the compensation was not appropriate for the failings identified. The resident has informed this Service that the complaint had a significant and detrimental impact on her ability to enjoy her home and she had spent a considerable time and trouble chasing the landlord for responses throughout and after the complaint process. It also did not account for the continuation of the repair work until November 2023.
37. In summary, the resident had experienced delays to the replacement of the fans, and a delay to the landlord instructing a full damp survey of the property. The repair work required to the property was not fully completed until 11 months after the resident’s first reports. While the landlord had here taken appropriate steps in the interim to arrange mould washes, and acted on the advice of specialist contractors, the repairs had taken too long. The landlord had taken the resident’s health concerns into consideration and supported her in her request to be rehoused. However, it failed to explore if a decant was necessary while the works were ongoing due to the resident’s health vulnerabilities.
38. As a result, the resident had experienced significant distress and inconvenience over a period of 11 months, which included concerns over the impact of the damp and mould on her health. The landlord had attempted to put this right for the resident through its offer of compensation and had acknowledged some of its failures. However, its offer of redress did not go far enough to reflect the full impact of its failures here. As such there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. A further amount of £400 of compensation has been ordered in addition to the compensation previously offered by the landlord. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where the landlord’s failures have had a serious, and detrimental impact.
39. In addition, a recommendation has been included for the landlord to review its staff training needs in regard to the importance of communicating with residents throughout the repair process.

The resident’s concerns about damage caused to her personal possessions by the damp and mould.

40. The resident told the landlord on 3 January 2023 that her furniture had been damaged by damp and mould and provided it with photos of this on 10 January 2023. She also raised this in her complaint. In its stage 1 complaint response on 20 February 2023, the landlord told the resident she was able to make a claim directly to its insurer for the damages. It provided the contact details of how to make a claim. This was reasonable and appropriate advice for the landlord to give to the resident when issues of damages to decorations or belongings occur. This action was in line with the landlord’s “Putting Things Right Guidelines.”
41. However, it was noted that this advice was provided 34 working days after the resident had raised the issue. The resident also had to raise this matter as a complaint to receive the appropriate information on the action she needed to take. The landlord’s delay here in providing the information was inappropriate.
42. This Service was not able to comment on whether the landlord was liable for the damage to the resident’s possessions, because we do not have the authority or expertise to determine or award damages for liability in the way that a court or insurer might. However, the landlord had delayed in providing the resident with the details of its insurer and it was evident that the resident had to follow up with the landlord on this and raise a complaint to receive the information. This had caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the damage caused to her personal possessions by the damp and mould. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £75 to account for its failure here.

The resident’s reports of cracks to an internal wall, and possible subsidence.

43. The landlord’s records noted that the resident first raised her concerns about cracks to the brickwork around the living room window on 14 November 2022. The repairs to the cracks both external and internal were not completed by the landlord until August 2023. This was a timeframe of 9 months. It was noted that the landlord had completed an interim repair to the internal seal around the window in December 2023. While it was noted that the work required assessment on a specialist contractor due to concerns about possible subsidence causing the cracks, the timeframe here for completion of the repair was inappropriate.
44. The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy did not include timeframes for nonemergency repairs. The usual industry standard for repairs is around 28 working days. However, it is accepted that the timescale can be longer for repairs which require surveys and specialist contractors.
45. It is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. In this case, the issue was inspected by three different parties and it was concluded that there was no evidence of subsidence. The landlord had instructed a specialist window contractor who assessed the cracks around the window on 5 February 2023. Following this a surveyor attended in March 2023 and a structural survey took place on 4 May 2023. The landlord took the recommended actions from the report to stitch the brick work internally and externally. The landlord had here taken the appropriate steps to investigate the cause of the cracks. Although it was noted that the repair was not completed fully until August 2023, which was 3 months after the structural survey. This delay caused the resident frustration and inconvenience.
46. The communication from the landlord on the progress of the repair was poor. The resident followed up with the landlord on 5 December 2022 and 10 December 2022 as she had not heard from the landlord following her initial report of the cracks. She also continued to follow up throughout the complaint process. The landlord had here failed to keep the resident consistently updated on the progress of the repair. As a result, the resident did not know when to expect the repair to be completed and felt that the landlord was not taking her reports seriously. It was also noted that the resident told the landlord in her complaint escalation that a surveyor had missed an appointment. In consideration of the high number of repair appointments the resident had facilitated during the complaint period, this was particularly frustrating for her.
47. The landlord acknowledged the delays to the work its final complaint response and had offered the resident £400 compensation for delays in the works being completed and for the inconvenience caused. £200 of this has been considered to be for this aspect of the resident’s complaint. This compensation here did not fully account for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the outstanding repair for a period of 9 months.
48. Overall, the landlord had here followed the recommendations of the surveys and contractor reports to investigate the cause of the cracks and the concerns about subsidence prior to organising a repair. It was acknowledged that the delay to the repair was frustrating for the resident and this was exacerbated by the poor levels of communication from the landlord on the progress of the repairs. The landlord had offered the resident £200 of compensation for the delays and inconvenience caused. While this went part way to putting things right for the resident, it did not fully acknowledge the continued distress and inconvenience. As such there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cracks to an internal wall, and possible subsidence. An order has been made for a further amount of compensation of £100. This is in line with the remedies guidance of this Service for circumstances which have adversely impacted a resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

49. The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Its customer relations procedure states that a stage one response will be made within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. At both stages, response timescales can be extended by 10 working days, and a resident will be provided with the reasons for this and updated on the progress of the complaint.
50. The Complaint Handling Code sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate. This should not exceed a further ten working days without good reason. The Code also states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
51. The resident had first raised her complaint to the landlord on 16 January 2023. The landlord updated the resident on 24 January 2023 and advised a response would be provided by 13 February 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 February 2023. This was a timeframe of 25 working days from the resident raising her complaint. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy or the Code. While it was appropriate for the landlord to update the resident on 24 January 2023, it had then not responded by when it said it would. This caused the resident further inconvenience.
52. It was noted that the landlord reviewed its complaint responses in February 2024 and offered the landlord £50 compensation for the delay in its response at stage 1. The Ombudsman encourages local resolution of complaints even when the internal complaints process has been completed. However, it is expected that a landlord do all it can to resolve the matter while the complaints process is live as this is the appropriate route for such resolution action.
53. The landlord’s stage 2 response was also delayed. The landlord said in its final response that it had acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation on 20 March 2023. Its final response was issued on 15 June 2023, which was 59 working days after this. However, the landlord’s records noted that the resident had escalated her complaint on 28 February 2023. It showed that the landlord had sent a letter to the resident on 6 March 2023 acknowledging her complaint escalation and advised that it would respond within 20 working days. The timescale for response here was 69 working days.
54. It was noted that the landlord wrote to the resident on 17 April 2023 and confirmed the complaint response had been extended by 10 working days, however this was then extended further. The landlord had here again failed to comply with its complaint policy or the Code. The landlord’s communication here was poor. It had failed to keep the resident accurately updated on when she could expect a response. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation in its final complaint response for this delay. This was appropriate and demonstrated the landlord’s attempt to put this right for the resident.
55. By issuing escalation acknowledgement letters to the resident on both 6 March 2023 and 20 March 2023, the landlord had caused confusion. It was noted that the second escalation letter followed the resident raising her complaint to senior managers. The landlord had offered no explanation for the second escalation acknowledgement letter and if this had replaced the one sent on 6 March 2023. As a result, the resident did not know when to expect a complaint response from the landlord.
56. It was evident that the resident had to continue to follow up with the landlord on the progress of her complaint. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 February 2023, 15 February 2023, 12 March 2023, 15 March 2023, 25 April 2023, and 14 June 2023. The landlord had here failed to keep the resident updated. It had demonstrated a poor level of customer service. As a result, the resident had to take the time and trouble to continue to follow up throughout the complaint period.
57. In her complaint escalation, the resident had raised concerns about the conduct of the landlord during a visit to her property on 8 March 2023. It was noted that these concerns were not part of the resident’s initial complaint and as such the landlord was not under an obligation to reply to these at stage 2. However, the landlord did not acknowledge this part of the resident’s escalation to either address this or to confirm that it was not including this in its final response. This was a failure to fully address all parts of the resident’s complaint. The landlord had here missed the opportunity to set out how it would resolve these issues for the resident and set her expectations on how it would investigate this issue.
58. In summary, the landlord’s complaint process took too long, provided inaccurate information, and the resident experienced poor communication. The landlord had attempted to put things right for the resident through an offer of compensation of £150 for the delay in its complaint responses. However, this was not proportionate to the inconvenience, time and trouble the resident experienced. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250 for the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its poor complaint handling. This includes the compensation of £150 offered in relation to complaint handling during the landlord’s complaints process.

Determination

59. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
60. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damage caused to her personal possessions by the damp and mould.
61. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cracks to an internal wall, and possible subsidence.
62. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

63. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
64. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1375 compensation. This amount includes the £650 offered during the complaints process and the £50 offered in January 2024. Compensation not already paid, should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
    1. £750 for the distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. £300 for the distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cracks to an internal wall, and possible subsidence.
    3. £75 for the distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damage caused to her personal possessions by the damp and mould.
    4. £250 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
65. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation.

66. The landlord should review its staff training needs in regard to the importance of communicating with residents throughout the repair process.