Eastbourne Borough Council (202003452)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003452

Eastbourne Borough Council

31 December 2020

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 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 response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.

Background and summary of events

The resident has had a secure tenancy at the property since 16 October 2016.
On 21 January 2020 in response to reports of damp in the property by the resident, the landlord’s contractors attended the property, a brick layer and a roofer who inspected the property’s pointing. They identified condensation due to surface mould on furniture, walls and around the window and recommended that the Senior Surveyance Manager attend the property to identify further actions to be taken.
On 24 January 2020 the landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s property to assess the damp that had been reported by the resident. The resident reported to the landlord that the contractors had conveyed to her that there may be “more than a simple condensation problem and could even be a case of rising damp.” The contractors stated that a Housing Officer would be needed to progress the issues within the property.
On 29 January 2020 the landlord’s Senior Surveyance Manager attended the property to carry out an inspection of the rear bedroom, including a test of the moisture level within the room. He also went into the rear garden to check on the exterior condition of the walls. The Senior Surveyance Manager advised the resident that he would be speaking to its damp specialist contractors for them to arrange a visit to provide a professional opinion as to the likely cause of the damp. The Senior Surveyance Manager’s report set out the conditions of the property:
1. There was heavy mould presenting as a result of high humidity, and mould presenting on the cold sub floor.
2. The moisture reading for penetrative damp was low, and there were no tide marks associated with it. The DPC and brickwork were visually satisfactory
On the same day the damp specialist contractors attended the property to carry out an inspection. The contractor conveyed to the resident the opinion that the damp/mould issues were not caused by rising damp and that the issue should be prevented from recurring by replacing the internal extraction fan units within the kitchen/bathroom and central hallway which it considered to be proving ineffective. The resident noted that the fans in the kitchen bathroom were only 4 years and 8 months old respectively.
On the same day the landlord raised an order with its contractors for an anti-fungal treatment to be applied to the affected areas as a temporary measure prior to the installation of new extractor fans. The landlord followed this up with its contractors via email on 4 February 2020.
On 6 February 2020 a contractor attended the property tasked with carrying out the antifungal wash down. However the landlord’s final complaint response notes that the contractor did not follow instructions to treat the mould but instead attempted to re-diagnose the repair issue.
On 18 February 2020 a contractor attended the property, according to the resident without notice, to undertake a full “mould wash/stain blocker” treatment to the walls in the rear bedroom. The resident could not allow him access as she was leaving to take her child to school at the time. The resident stated that she had previously made the landlord/contractors aware that appointments should not be made during this time. The resident states that when the contractor attended, he was intending to undertake a mould wash for the bedroom walls, while the resident stated that in fact the whole of the solid floor surface needed to be appropriately treated. The landlord’s internal emails of the same day noted that the resident had reported finding “huge areas of damp under her carpets” after the contractor left.
On 20 February 2020 the Senior Surveyance Manager requested that its repairs team attend the property to treat any mould symptoms with anti-fungal wash downs and stain blocking on the flooring and wherever else it was present, mainly in the rear bedroom. The emails noted he was having a Positive Input Ventilation system installed. A PIV system establishes a constant flow of fresh, filtered air into the property, pushing out stale air and improving air quality. On the same day the Building Surveyor confirmed this would be done. The internal emails noted there was substantial condensation build up in the property presenting in black mould at points of coldness. The landlord was chasing up the damp specialist company report. It noted the particular company is procured in severe cases where overcrowding is an issue and there is a present medical need that could be affected by such symptoms.
On 28 February 2020 the landlord visited the resident to discuss another issue. In the same conversation the resident discussed that there was a problem with damp and mould at the property and that she and her husband were wanting to move. The resident seemed to be under the impression that a housing application was in process, but the landlord had no records of the application.
On 12 March 2020 the landlord telephoned the resident having received a copy of a letter from her GP in support of a proposed transfer, telling the resident that she didn’t have an active housing register application at that time which would need to be started. On the telephone the resident was under the impression that she didn’t need to complete a housing register application in order to apply for alternative accommodation due to the level of disrepair at the property and because she was already a council tenant. The landlord informed her that she needed to send in the application form and that the landlord would set up her application as a priority once it was received.
As of 18 March 2020, the landlord’s internal emails indicated it was not aware that the forms provided to the resident in late February had been returned.
On 23 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident stating it was seeking an update for her. The resident replied on the same day noting that she was sleeping on a mattress on the floor in the lounge which was negatively impacting her physical health condition. On 24 March 2020 the landlord noted that delays were being caused by staff working remotely due to the Covid-19 pandemic and promised her a response by 27 March 2020.
On 3 April 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord seeking an update as to when she could start bidding on properties. The landlord replied to the resident on the same day noting that the housing register team had advised it was waiting on a report from the Senior Surveyance Manager, which it presumed was a report regarding the condition of the property on 29 January 2020. It was trying to clarify the nature of the report and have it sent to the Housing Register team, noting its understanding that the latter required to the report to support the resident’s housing register application to determine the suitability of the resident’s current accommodation.
On 7 April 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident again noting that the Senior Surveyance Manager had sent his report through to the housing register team and was chasing up a further survey undertaken by the damp specialist contractors which the Housing Register team would also need. She advised the resident that this team were aware of the resident’s situation and would assess the resident’s application within a few days providing the report was received.
On the same day, the landlord’s internal emails noted that the Senior Maintenance Surveyor was of the opinion that the presentation of the mould warranted an expert diagnosis and treatment plan, but did not require the residents to be moved. It noted it would authorise the works as a priority one following the lockdown. The SMS stated that while he understood the likelihood of the damp conditions getting worse while it was left untreated during lockdown, there were a lot of residents in the same situation.
On 14 April 2020 the landlord contacted the resident to note it had received both reports. Its internal emails noted that both reports indicated the property was not considered to be of significant enough disrepair to warrant a decant, meaning that the resident was therefore also unable to apply to go on the social housing register as her property was considered suitable.
On 15 April 2020 the landlord’s internal emails noted that the resident did not qualify for the housing registry. The property would have work done on it to make it reasonable to occupy, specifically the replacing of the extractor fans throughout the property and the installation of the Positive Input Ventilation system. It was noted that “the report” noted the cause of the mould to be “lifestyle” and that the issue was being dealt with.
On or around 16 April 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident in response to the resident’s request to be moved and with an update regarding the reports on the repair issues. It noted that both the SMS report and the specialist damp firm report had been reviewed. There had then been discussions between the repairs team and the Housing Register team to understand how these reports impacted on the landlord’s plans for carrying out repairs, and by extension the resident’s transfer application.
It noted:
1. At the site visit, the SMS observed substantial condensation presenting in black mould at points of coldness.
2. The decision to arrange for the specialist damp firm to inspect the property was considered the most appropriate course of action based on the preliminary course of action, given these particular contractors are procured in severe cases where there is an existing medical need that could be affected by the living environment.
3. The report found that the existing extractor fans should be replaced with particular models so as to “remove the moisture laden air at source and reduce the risk of moisture migration to nearby rooms.” Beyond this a new PIV system was to be installed with a low temperature comfort heater to resolve the condensation and mould problems, specifically by ensuring incoming air does not drop below a certain temperature.
4. The landlord had also reviewed the structure of the property and considered this was not contributing to the issue, but rather that the condensation produced in the property was causing wide spread mould. The situation was likely to improve during the hotter months.
The landlord noted that the recommended work would be undertaken as a priority after the Covid-19 lockdown. The Housing Register team was therefore of the position that the property was deemed suitable for the resident’s needs as the damp and mould would be rectified as a priority once the emergency measures had been lifted. It appreciated this would be disappointing to the resident but that she could consider mutual exchange as an alternative option.
On 20 April 2020 the resident submitted a diary of events in support of the raising of a formal complaint. She requested that the application for the family to be moved to suitable accommodation be reconsidered. The following sets out the account of the major events up to this date as well as the elements of the landlord’s actions that she was unsatisfied with:
1. Her account of the inspection on 24 January 2020 was that the contractors had stated to her that that the damp issue was more than simple condensation and could be a case of rising damp caused by previously undisclosed problems with the foundation membrane beneath the property.
2. The SMS carried out the visit on 29 January 2020, undertaking what the resident considered to be a superficial inspection of the rear bedroom without measuring the levels of damp penetration within the fabric of the walls (internal or external), nor the exposed concrete flooring.
3. The SMS arranged for an inspection by a damp specialist firm to ascertain the likely causes for the damp. The visit lasted 5 minutes and largely concentrated on a cursory visual inspection of each of the internal extraction fan units within the kitchen, bathroom and central hallway. The resident stated that the contractor concluded that the damp and mould issues were not caused by rising damp and that the internal fans were ineffective and needed to be replaced. The fans were 4 years and 8 months old respectively.
4. There was no follow-up from the landlord for 3 weeks until the morning of 18 February 2020 when a contractor attended the property unannounced in order to carry out a mould wash and stain block treatment. The resident had previously advised that this timing was not suitable for her.
5. Following this the resident had heard nothing further from the contractor or landlord and the work remained outstanding. She considered that she was being forced to endure ongoing health and safety concerns and that these would cause potentially damaging ill-effects and complications to her health.
6. The rear bedroom containing the resident’s personal possessions and furnishings, stacked in the centre of the room-space and this would make it impossible for adequate and effective treatment to be applied throughout.
7. The resident had been provided with the damp specialist contractors site-visit report on 17 April 2020 and enquired as to the reasons why she had not received a copy of the written conclusions made by the Senior Maintenance Surveyor in his report which was sent to the Housing Register team.
On 22 April 2020 the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s communication and noted it would raise the matter as a formal complaint. It apologised that it could not provide a timeline for a response due to the emergency pandemic situation.
On 28 April 2020 the resident sought an update as to the status of the complaint. On the same day the landlord contacted the resident to state that the complaint had been received but that it could not provide a timeframe for a response because there were delays with staff managing emergency work within the community. On 4 May 2020 the resident requested an update, stating that the situation was becoming unbearable.
On 4 June 2020 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response in which it set out the following:
1. The landlord’s Senior Maintenance Surveyor then attended the property on 29 January 2020. Its position was that the inspection was conducted thoroughly with inspections of the walls and walking over the grass to get close enough to conduct the assessment of the external walls effectively. The particular staff member’s role was to manage repairs and identify what work needed to take place, and it was therefore appropriate for them to inspect the property and then get a specialist firm to identify what specific remedial works were needed The landlord included a copy of its report.
2. The Senior Maintenance Surveyor contacted the specialist firm to carry out a detailed investigation that same day. A thorough report was produced, the report was provided to the resident and a schedule of works had been set as a priority once the government restrictions are lifted and the schedule set out all the equipment that will be installed.
3. The SMS also requested its contractors carry out anti-fungal treatment the same day and followed this request up via email on 4 February 2020. On 6 February 2020, these contractors did not follow instructions to treat the mould and had instead attempted to re-diagnose the issues. The operative was not qualified to make the statements about rising damp as a qualified surveyor had already made an assessment and identified a remedy. It noted it would address this with its contractors to avoid future errors.
4. It apologised that its contractors subsequently attended the property unannounced which caused further delays. A note had been placed on her customer record and the contractors system to ensure staff knew not to conduct visits before 9:30am. As had been communicated with her by the landlord, and to her MP, the necessary work had been scheduled as a priority post lockdown. It believed that this remedial work from the specialist firm would resolve the situation.
5. It was not possible to schedule the specialist firm works prior to the government lockdown being imposed and this could not have been foreseen. It accepted however that there had been delays in getting the anti-fungal wash down completed prior to the restrictions and it apologised for the delay this had caused in resolving the issues.
6. It upheld the complaint and made an ex gratia offer of £50 in recognition of the delay, distress and miscommunication.
7. Noting the resident’s request that it reconsider the decision not to grant a move to a property and the health documents provided in support of this, it confirmed it had reviewed the information and the decision of the letter dated 31 October 2019 was correct. The resident had been assessed as having a two bedroom need which was the status of her current property. The scheduled works would remedy the mould issues and it therefore considered her to be adequately housed and no recommendation to decant had been made.
On the same day, 4 June 2020 the landlord wrote to its damp specialist contractors to establish that it was prepared to undertake the works at the resident’s property following the lifting of lockdown. The contractors replied on the same day noting that it was in the process of un-furloughing some of its installers.
On 25 June 2020 the resident requested that the complaint be escalated, setting out her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response summarised as:
1. The unprofessional nature of the report compiled by the landlord’s senior maintenance surveyor and the fact that this was not provided to her until 5 months after the inspection visit.
2. Her account of the visit by contractors on 21 January 2020 that they had not checked any of the outside of the property, and also stated to her that the mould issue looked like it could be caused by rising damp stemming from a problem with the membrane under the floor.
3. At the Senior Maintenance Surveyor’s inspection he did not properly consider the damp proof membrane below the bedroom subfloor or the wall cavities, which it considered was widely known to allow water to penetrate the internal skin of the brickwork. Her position was that the landlord’s recommendation for antifungal wash/mould treatment does not address the definitive root cause of the problem. She also considered that condensation gathers at ceiling height usually if it is caused by high humidity conditions, not over the complete floor and lower walls as in the resident’s property.
4. Issues of mould, damp and flooding were noted to be a problem 3 years prior to the complaint and there had been no attempt to get to the definitive root of the problem despite mould washes being done 5-6 times since 2017. This meant 3 seasons of the year the property was surrounded externally by six inches of standing water, causing difficulty of access for elderly and disabled persons like herself.
5. Concerns with accuracy and effectiveness of the inspection carried out by the specialist firm, noting that the report mistakenly said she did not have pets and that the gas heating throughout the property was inefficient and didn’t work properly. She asserted that the contractor was only at the property for approximately five minutes.
6. The landlord’s assessment of the resident’s housing need, including additional factors which the resident asserted had not been considered, such as the presence of a neighbour’s family member who she considered threatening based on criminal history.
7. Additional information not considered during the stage one investigation which the landlord considered to be outside the scope of the further investigation undertaken:
  1. The property not retaining heat despite the installation of a new boiler causing increased heating costs.
  2. Damage to personal possessions including furniture, carpets, underlay, blinds and clothing. The resident considered replacement of these would cost 100s or thousands of pounds. The resident had been sleeping on the lounge floor on a mattress for the previous 5 months.
  3. Concerns about the additional cost of running replacement extractor fans that the report deemed necessary to fix the repair issues.
On 2 July 2020 the landlord acknowledged the escalation request, noting it would provide its response within an expanded timeframe due to the circumstances of the pandemic, being 20 working days of the date the complaint was logged, being 24 July 2020.
On 8 July 2020 the landlord confirmed with its contractors that they were operating again and able to undertake the work at the property of installing the fans at the resident’s property.
On 13 July 2020 the landlord contacted the resident to arrange a date to book the installation but the resident stated she wished for the complaint process to be exhausted before arranging the installation.
On 17 July 2020 the landlord provided its stage two complaint response, in which it set out the following:
1. In response to the resident’s comments on the quality of the report and the time it was provided to her, it noted that it was compiled following a basic inspection with the intention of triggering the next phase which included a more detailed inspection by a specialist firm on the same day. The short nature of the report was stated to be a necessity due to the volume of calls received which require surveyor attendance, and are presented in such a manner to expedite progression of required repairs as well as using non-technical language to support the repairs booking teams understanding of what work was required. Though it understood the point the resident was making, the report was fit for purpose. It also noted that it was not usual practice to provide inspection reports to residents, and she had been provided with it at her request as part of attempts to resolve the complaint.
2. It accepted the resident’s position that the anti-fungal wash/mould treatment only provided an interim solution to the problem and that a more lasting resolution needs to be enacted. It stated again that its contractor had failed to carry out the instruction, delaying the works and that the Covid-19 pandemic meant these remained incomplete. It had written to her to offer a further visit, noting that she was currently shielding as a result of her physical condition but that it was taking strict precautions with visits including risk assessments to ensure the safety of both residents and staff including use of PPE.
  It noted that it completely understood if the resident chose to wait until further changes had been announced in government guidelines but that it was unable to progress further towards resolution of the identified issues if this was the case. The offer of £50 was deemed to be reasonable in respect of delays and errors to completing the interim work, which had caused her inconvenience, delay and distress. It stated that if she wished for damage to her personal possessions to be considered as part of the complaint, further inspection and discussion as offered would be required, as well as evidence that the damage had been caused by the condensation identified.
3. Regarding the damp specialist contractor report it apologised for the inaccurate reference to her having no pets at the property. However her position that the operative spent only five minutes at the property had been refuted by the latter who stated that the duration was 15-20 minutes. As a result, it was impossible to conclude which recollection was accurate. Given the core element of the concerns raised was that not enough time was spent to effectively diagnose the reported issues, its suggested remedy would be the proposed further visit and discussion from the Senior Maintenance Surveyor. It encouraged the resident to contact the Senior Maintenance Surveyor to this end.
4. Regarding her housing need, the stage one response was accurate based on the information available at the time. While it acknowledged the residents concern, the factors did not constitute a change to the decision and it therefore did not uphold that aspect of the complaint. It encouraged her to consider the other options set out in the stage one response.
5. Regarding the other elements which it stated fell outside of the scope of the complaint, it stated that all aspects related to the property should be discussed with the surveyor when she felt able to rearrange the intended additional visit, and preliminary reports of ASB would be investigated following the appropriate staff member’s return from leave.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s tenants handbook sets out the following:
1. Mould caused by condensation is not a repair the landlord is responsible for, and residents should attempt to carry out repairs such as removing sources of condensation, opening windows and drying out areas before reporting the issue as a repair issue requiring landlord intervention.
2. The landlord is responsible for kitchen and extractor fans.
It is noted in the escalation request acknowledgement by the landlord that it was extending its standard deadline for providing a complaint response to the resident as a result of the difficulties brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Assessment and findings

While it is unclear when the reports of damp/mould were first raised by the resident, it has not been disputed that the landlord responded promptly in the first instance to investigate the issue by sending its own contractors to inspect the property, followed by its Senior Maintenance Surveyor and then a specialist damp firm. Following these inspections, the landlord was correct to arrange an interim repair approach while it awaited the results of the specialist damp firm’s report. It was aware of the resident’s vulnerability as a result of her health condition and she repeatedly conveyed to the landlord that she was experiencing distress and inconvenience as well as medical impacts on her condition as a result of needing to sleep on a mattress on a floor rather than in her bedroom. The interim work of the mould wash was therefore an appropriate step to arrange to undertake. Importantly, in its final complaint response, the landlord accepted the resident’s position that the anti-fungal wash/mould treatment only provided an interim solution to the problem and that a more lasting resolution needed to be enacted. It therefore should have and was progressing the more substantive/permanent response to the issue in the meantime.
The landlord has relied on the findings of its Senior Maintenance Surveyor and the specialist damp contractor in forming the conclusions as to:
1. The nature of the repair issue;
2. The repair work therefore required for rectification of the issue; and
3. Whether the resident should have been decanted or granted a housing transfer while the repair work remained outstanding.
This was reasonable given the specialist knowledge of both the surveyor and the damp firm whose role is specifically to respond to repair requests such as these.
The dispute about the extent, time and professionalism of the inspections undertaken by the specialist contractor team was considered by the landlord to be based on two separate accounts, neither which could be definitively proven to be accurate. It therefore took the reasonable position in its complaint response that it was unable to establish with certainty the length of time spent by the contractor at the property, but that it had enquired as to this and was satisfied by the content/thoroughness of the report that a thorough inspection had been undertaken by the damp specialist firm.
There were delays in the carrying out of the interim work caused by mistakes made by the contractors:
1. On 6 February 2020 the contractor did not follow instructions to carry out the interim anti fungal/mould treatment but instead attempted to re-diagnose the repair issue
2. On 18 February 2020 the contractor attended without prior notice at a time that the resident had previously conveyed to the landlord was not suitable, and also prepared to undertake work which the resident considered to be inadequate based on the scope of the mould.
The landlord is ultimately responsible for the actions of its contractors as it employs them to carry out works it is obligated to provide for its residents. The order for the interim work was raised on 29 January 2020 and then again on 20 February 2020, with the lockdown beginning on 16 March 2020. Subsequently, the delays in carrying out the interim works were unreasonable and this work was not completed by the time the Covid-19 lockdown came into effect a month after the order was first raised. As a result, this also prevented the work being completed in the months following the beginning of the lockdown.
Nevertheless, the landlord has recognised that there was a delay and it has failed to adhere to its service standards in this regard. It apologised for the actions of its contractors in both cases and noted that it had provided feedback to them to ensure such instances did not recur. It recognised that distress and inconvenience had been caused to the resident, and attempted to remedy the issue by providing compensation of £50 to the resident. While a delay has certainly occurred, with the interim works being delayed a few weeks beyond the landlord’s service standards up until the point of the lockdown, the landlord has recognised this and attempted to provide redress for it. Its offer of £50 compensation to the resident and feedback to its staff and contractors to ensure the issue does not recur was an appropriate response to the recognised failing.
The landlord cannot be held accountable for the delays to the repair works caused by the government pandemic lockdown. It nevertheless acted appropriately in making contract with its contractors on 4 June 2020 to ensure the jobs that had been raised for the resident’s property remained on the contractor’s system following lockdown and could be actioned as a priority. Ultimately when the landlord contacted the resident in July 2020, it was open to her to accept the landlord’s offer to undertake the substantive work to resolve the issue at her convenience, particularly considering it conveyed to the resident that it could attend the property taking necessary precautions with PPE. While it is true that the landlord had not yet provided its complaint response, to allow the landlord and its contractors into the property to carry out the work would not have negatively impacted the complaint process. The resident has a duty to work with the landlord in its attempts to resolve repair issues and other disputes, and she failed to mitigate here which means the repair was outstanding for a number of months longer than it needed to be, at least into September 2020 and possibly even later.
The delays to the interim work and final substantive repair work being carried out have been substantial. Nevertheless, these delays have largely been outside the control of the landlord who has acted reasonably to arrange for the necessary investigations prior to repairs and then arrange the latter which has been substantially impacted by the pandemic lockdown. It has acknowledged the initial delays by its contractors and taken steps to provide reasonable redress for these. It has offered to attend the property with necessary safeguards in place such as PPE in acknowledgement of the resident’s vulnerability and her shielding from the pandemic which was an appropriate offer for it to make. Shortly prior to the lockdown arising it contacted both its contractors and the resident in an attempt to undertake the substantive works, thus fulfilling its obligations to the latter.
The resident has enquired as to why it took so long for the landlord to provide her with a copy of the SMS’s report following his initial inspection of the property prior to that of the damp specialist firm. The landlord in turn has explained that such a report is not usually provided to residents and is rather undertaken as a precursor to a more thorough report by such specialist contractors who are better placed to make an assessment of the work necessary to be undertaken. For this reason, the initial report by the SMS is written in a basic, short form, to the point that the resident has considered it to be “unprofessional”, given it exists as a record for the landlord on the basis of which it makes decisions as to employ contractors for further work. It was therefore constructed appropriately for its purposes, and the landlord acted appropriately in providing this to the resident as part of its complaint response.
Unlike the court system, we are not set up to establish financial loss like damage or personal injury. Rather, we consider whether a landlord, once it identifies a failing, has offered appropriate redress. We operate separately to the landlord and have still carried out our own investigation so as to assess objectively the reasonableness of the landlord’s complaint response by considering the evidence available. If the complainant wishes to pursue a claim for damages to her personal belongings, she will need to obtain her own legal advice as to the options available to her, including court proceedings. The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the landlord is responsible for the damage to her belongings as this is reliant on a determination of liability and negligence which are matters more suitable for an insurance claim or a court claim.
The Ombudsman is also unable to make a finding on the requested transfer by the resident to the landlord. References to the application have been included in the report to provide context to the landlord’s actions during the repair investigation and works, when it is apparent the landlord was considering a decant for the resident who was in turn requesting a permanent transfer. The Ombudsman cannot make a finding on whether the landlord acted appropriately in this manner.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord.

Reasons

The landlord acted appropriately in carrying out investigations regarding the reported repair issues of damp and mould by the resident. While there were delays in carrying out the initial interim works, these were acknowledged by the landlord who provided compensation for these and also provided feedback to its contractors to ensure the issues would not recur. The landlord cannot be held accountable for the delays caused by the government mandated lockdown and acted appropriately in attempting to carrying out works as soon as possible by contacting its contractors for updates to arrange the works and also offering to attend the resident’s property undertaking necessary precautions to protect her while she was shielding.

Recommendations

I make the following recommendations:

That the landlord pay to the resident its previous offer of £50.
Carry out any outstanding works at the property regarding the repair work.

These recommendations should be carried out within the next eight weeks.