Enham Trust (202308633)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308633

Enham Trust

10 April 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 is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damp and mould in the resident’s property.
2. The resident’s reports of damage to household items caused by the damp and mould.
3. Visits by contractors without sufficient prior notice.
4. The resident’s formal complaints.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, Enham Trust, which is a disability charity and housing association. Enham Trust completed its merger with the Aster Group in October 2022 and, for the purposes of this report, both entities are considered to be ‘the landlord’. The resident has occupied the 2-bedroom bungalow with his wife and son since 2018. The resident has terminal illness and complex health needs, which include COPD, and he mobilises with the use of a wheelchair. He and his wife also have asthma.
The resident has claimed the landlord was aware the property had damp and mould prior to him moving in. He said he and his wife reported the problem many times over the following years, but the landlord told them it was a ‘lifestyle’ problem and mould was a tenant’s responsibility.
On 9 December 2021 the landlord inspected the property following a further report of damp and water ingress. The survey highlighted the poor condition of the pointing and cement between roof tiles and eaves, a leaking gutter, damp to the external wall, damp to the ceiling, mould around the front door, a water stain with mould above the lintel in the lounge, and damp in the revels. Work was undertaken to fix the guttering, tiles, and verge, in January 2022. A further specialist damp survey was conducted by an external company on 7 February 2022. This identified surface moisture, attributed to condensation, with the indication this was exacerbated by a non-venting kitchen extractor and defects in the loft including poor insulation and damage to the roof felt.
The landlord’s surveyor visited again on 18 March 2022 and concluded that extensive works were required and expressed concern that the condition of the property was adding to the deterioration of the resident’s health. The report said the mould spores could be smelt metres back from the door and contained pictures of mould on the loft hatch, bedroom ceiling, around the radiator, and mattress.
The resident and his family were decanted into temporary accommodation for 7 weeks, from 27 July to 13 September 2022, whilst works were undertaken. These were, namely, roof repairs including laying insulation, a mould clean, internal decoration, installation of a new lounge carpet and carpet cleaning.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 20 December 2022. This followed a letter he had received notifying him that an external contractor would be attending to carry out a routine ‘stock condition’ survey for all residents in the area. The resident felt he had been given insufficient notice of this appointment.
Following an unannounced visit by a roofer on 6 January 2023, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. No formal stage 1 response had been provided, but the landlord issued its final response on 27 January 2023. It acknowledged the impact on the resident of it failing to make appointments and assured him he would receive due notification going forward. It also awarded £20 compensation.
Following the decant, the resident had reported peeling paint by the windows and doors. This was attended by contractors on several occasions from October 2023 but kept reoccuring. The landlord conducted a survey on 13 March 2023, which recommended that a venting extractor be fitted in the kitchen, and a specialist survey be conducted of the wall cavities and loft.
In early April 2023 the resident reported that the black mould was ‘coming back fiercely’, the window frames were draughty, damp patches were spreading across the wall, and the walls were wet to the touch in places. On 12 April 2023 he made a stage 1 complaint about how the damp had been handled. He noted the windows were leaking and said he felt the home was unfit for human habitation. In further follow up communications the resident said that his possessions had been ruined, which was added to the complaint.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 27 April 2023. It apologised that the cavity wall insulation and kitchen extractor had not been implemented when the resident was decanted and confirmed that it would arrange for a further survey of the windows. It assured that the stock condition survey, conducted in January 2023, had advised there were no immediate damp and mould hazards that needed addressing. It offered £125 in compensation (£100 for the time and trouble caused by works not being completed during the decant, and £25 for the resident having cause to complain).
The resident escalated the complaint on 2 May 2023 and the landlord provided its response on 16 June 2023. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration that the damp and mould had returned following his decant. It noted further works, including the kitchen extractor and tile roof vent, silicon seals to the windows and doors, mould treatment, and application of stain block would be undertaken. It recognised the temporary move had been especially disruptive given the resident’s circumstances and awarded additional compensation of £80 for delays in its complaint handling.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint and referred it to this Service in June 2023. He said he would like the works completed to a suitable standard and for the landlord to give prior notice when scheduling appointments. His household items had been damaged, including his sofa and son’s bed, which he had replaced 4 times due to mould. He expressed his distress at the ongoing situation and felt his living conditions had shortened his life.
The Ombudsman understands that external improvements have since been made, including repointing and the replacement of an air brick, guttering, and the replacement of the external lounge door. Further works are outstanding and it is understood the resident and his family need to be decanted again, due to the impact the works may have on his health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident submits that the landlord’s failure to resolve the damp and mould has negatively affected his health, including shortening his life. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions or inactions and any deterioration in the resident’s health. This would be for a court to establish through a personal injury claim, during which expert medical evidence can be properly considered. However, the Ombudsman accepts that damp and mould present a heightened risk to those with certain health conditions, including respiratory conditions. The investigation has looked at the landlord’s handling of the situation considering the known risks to the resident and the detriment caused.

Landlord’s handling of damp and mould

The resident claimed the landlord knew that damp and mould was present in the home prior to him moving in. The earliest record provided to this Service is the void inspection report, completed just prior to the resident’s occupation in 2018. This identified mould in the corner of the utility room, which required ‘decoration’. Other aspects of the home were ‘fair’ or ‘good’, requiring no works. The void inspection report was brief, did not cover all rooms in the home or the outside of the property, did not reference any repair history, and gave no indication the cause of the mould in the utility room was properly investigated.
While it is not known whether the issues that later presented could have been identified and rectified at this juncture, the report suggests a missed opportunity to thoroughly inspect. This should have been considered even more critical given the resident’s health conditions were known to the landlord and left him more vulnerable to the effects of damp and mould. The Ombudsman recognises that, now the landlord has completed its merger, it is accountable to the requirements in its master ‘damp and mould policy’, which include that ventilation and insulation are checked as part of the voids process.
The resident claimed he first reported damp and mould to the landlord in 2018. While the Ombudsman appreciates the resident considered the damp and mould ongoing from this time, there are no records of this on the landlord’s repair log, so it is not possible to assess its actions prior to the first recorded report in May 2020. The resident reported ‘a lot of black mould actively growing’ despite taking measures to combat condensation. The landlord advised the resident to check the extractor was functioning and requested that an inspection be conducted after lockdown.
There is no evidence the follow up inspection took place. It is not clear if this was because of the ongoing risk posed by the Covid-19 pandemic, or an omission on the landlord’s part. In the absence of information either way, the landlord cannot be held responsible for failing to inspect, but it could have been more proactive and at least contacted the resident to monitor and advise on the issue, or conducted an external inspection.
The resident reported further damp and mould in April 2021. Following this, the records indicate a damp and mould survey was completed by an external agency on 5 May 2021 and follow on works were completed in relation to a leak. The Ombudsman has not had sight of this survey, or further job notes, so it is not possible to assess the landlord’s response in any detail here. However, it is considered to have taken positive action in arranging an inspection, and following up with works, as required under its damp and mould policy.
The issues persisted and the landlord’s operative conducted an internal survey, in December 2021, when initial works were completed but some remained outstanding. A further specialist survey took place in February 2022, which also recommended works but it was left for the resident to chase the landlord for a response on 17 February 2022, and again on 15 and 16 March 2022.
In its response of 16 March 2023, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its poor communication. However, this was still to the detriment of the resident, who stated that he did not expect the works to be done immediately but simply wanted to understand the plan and know that he was not being ignored.
The landlord’s surveyor attended again in March 2022, and again expressed concern about the condition of the property. The resident told the surveyor they had reported the issue many times over the years and felt the landlord had dismissed the problem as being due to ‘lifestyle living conditions’. As discussed, this Service has not seen evidence of all reports the resident assured they had made, so cannot comment in any detail on this. However, there may have been opportunities for the landlord to have inspected more thoroughly and considered additional structural causes, prior to the inspections from December 2021 onwards.
Arrangements were made to decant the resident and his family whilst works were undertaken. The family were not moved until the end of July 2022, which was a significant period since the resident had reported the issue and the surveys had been conducted. However, it is recognised that the move took some time to coordinate, due to the planning involved in sourcing a property with appropriate facilities and in which necessary accommodations could be made.
The landlord agreed a scope of works to address the damp and mould based on the specialist’s report. It was appropriate for the landlord to consult a technical specialist and to have acted upon their findings. However, there were indications the specialist survey was not sufficiently robust. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states where a technical survey is required it should include a ‘full written report’. Its repairs policy also held it accountable to select external contractors carefully and ensuring works were done to a high standard.
The survey considered works necessary to the roof, but found no evidence of structural moisture and dedicated most of its one-and-a-half-page report to general advice about how to manage condensation in the home. This was despite the landlord’s own surveyor, during their visits in December 2021 and March 2022, stating the residents had the property ventilated and appeared to be doing as much as they could to reduce mould spores. The landlord’s survey had identified additional works, including repointing the end wall, but there was no evidence the specialist had inspected the external structure of the building. The landlord’s surveyor also suggested there was poor wall insulation, indicated by the presence of damp around a radiator, but the specialist made no mention of this.
Furthermore, it appears the landlord questioned the scope of the specialist survey. It consulted with the local council in April 2022, which reviewed the report and said it was ‘very basic at best’ and gave no evidence for its findings. The council warned that, should the cause of the damp and mould remain undetermined, the problem could reoccur in the winter months. The landlord appropriately went back to the specialist surveyor, who wrote a further letter about their findings. However, this simply reiterated its position that it considered the cause to be ‘entirely’ due to condensation (albeit exacerbated by the roof defects and non-venting extractor) and did not address the issues the council had raised about its methodology and unevidenced conclusions.
The landlord progressed with the works based on the report and these were completed in September 2022. By early April 2023 the resident reported that the mould was ‘coming back fiercely’. The landlord acknowledged, in internal emails from this time, that it did not believe the root cause of the problem had been fully established during previous works. It arranged for further inspections and found that the cavity wall insulation was very poor and the kitchen required an extractor venting to the outside. A further survey, on 13 September 2023, identified that the external end wall needed repointing and was the source of high moisture readings near the windows. All these issues had been previously identified and not acted upon.
The Ombudsman considers it a significant failing on the part of the landlord that these issues were either not identified or addressed at an earlier opportunity. The landlord’s failure to act on additional considerations raised by its own surveyor, and its decision to limit the scope of works based on what it was warned was an inadequate specialist survey, caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident and his family. The work had meant significant upheaval for the family, involving a 7-week decant. That they had to endure further damp and mould, and the inconvenience of having additional inspections and works to the cavity wall once back in the property, was unnecessary and a direct consequence of the landlord’s choices and failings.
Another contributory cause for the damp and mould appears to have been the windows and doors, which the landlord’s surveyor concluded needed ‘doing’ in March 2023. The resident noted, in a follow up email to his complaint on 13 April 2023, that the surveyor had found the windows were not sealed correctly, allowing water to seep into the cavity and cause damp on the wall. The Ombudsman cannot conclusively say whether issues with the windows and doors were present prior to the works undertaken in the summer of 2022. Further, there is no evidence they were assessed as part of the pre-works surveys conducted in-house and by the specialist. This, again, brings into question the robustness of the landlord’s assessment of the problem prior to undertaking works.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged further works had been required. However, in response to the resident’s claim that the home was ‘unfit for human habitation’, it noted that the stock condition survey of January 2023, had not identified any hazards relating to damp and mould that needed addressing under the ‘Housing Health and Safety Rating System’ (HHSRS).
The HHSRS is a system for assessing housing conditions. It identifies hazards and their likely impact on the health and safety of occupants. The Ombudsman has not seen the stock condition survey, but accepts it found no hazards relating to damp and mould. However, this survey was outdated. The resident had reported that the damp and mould had returned ‘fiercely’ in early April 2023. The landlord had subsequently carried out works to the wall cavity and acknowledged further works were required to combat moisture in the home. This caused much understandable frustration for the resident who felt the landlord was denying the presence of damp and mould.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985’ (LTA), as amended by the ‘The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018’, requires landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation. While the LTA does not define ‘fit for human habitation’, consideration should be given to factors including repair, freedom from damp, and ventilation. The ‘Decent Homes Standard’ also requires that a home must meet the current statutory minimum standard for housing, be in a reasonable state of repair, have reasonably modern facilities and services, and provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. As outlined in its repair and maintenance policy, the landlord acknowledges and accepts its responsibilities under the relevant legislation and had a duty to ensure the home was ‘decent’ and ‘fit for human habitation’.
Ultimately it is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether the home was ‘decent’ of ‘fit for human habitation’, but given the evident presence of damp and mould, it was reasonable for the resident to conclude this was not the case.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord reiterated that the HHSRS survey had not identified hazards, which again, offered little assurance given the resident’s experiences. However, the landlord acknowledged a further survey was necessary and outstanding works were required. It said these had, so far, been on hold due to the resident’s mother passing away, and the resident being treated in hospital. Delays at this juncture were understandable, given the circumstances, and agreed in consultation with the resident.
These works remained further delayed. The resident expressed, in an email to the landlord on 31 May 2022, that he wanted an independent survey to be conducted to assess any further works required. He subsequently denied access for the landlord to survey on 5 June 2023. The resident noted he did not trust the landlord to survey as it had previously denied the presence of mould. In its stage 2 response, the landlord noted that, following its merger, it now had access to a specialist and qualified damp and mould team. It, therefore, considered an in-house survey appropriate.
The Ombudsman appreciates the position of both the resident and landlord on this issue and considers it reasonable that the landlord ultimately arranged for an external survey to be completed on 13 September 2023. It is unfortunate that this came some months later, however the circumstances around the delay are not clear. The landlord’s records indicate contractors were turned away by the resident on 30 June 2023 when they came to assess the windows. The resident said the issue was bigger than the windows and he was ‘taking it further’ with the landlord. In the absence of further information, the landlord cannot be reasonably held responsible for delays at this stage.
The independent survey of September 2023 identified further issues. These included the poor condition of the pointing in places including the end wall, which, as discussed, had been identified by the landlord’s own surveyors in December 2021. The survey also identified that the position of the decking was potentially impacting on the damp proof course. This had not been identified in previous surveys, again, evidencing they had not been sufficiently robust. It also raised issues with the insulation that had been laid during previous works, noting there was a gap and that some was touching the roof covering, possibly allowing condensation to build up and pass through to the plasterboard ceilings and walls.
The Ombudsman appreciates that sometimes repairs can be complex and problems persist despite efforts to address them. However, ultimately it remains the fault of the landlord that the insulation was not laid correctly, and this was to the further detriment of the resident. Following the survey it has been determined that the resident will need to be decanted a further time. Given the resident’s complex health needs it has not yet been possible to find appropriate temporary accommodation. This is despite the apparent best efforts of the landlord, who has arranged for an occupational therapy assessment and engaged the assistance of the council. However, the resident remains in situ and reports ongoing damp causing further stress, worry and inconvenience.
Overall, the landlord’s failings in this case amount to severe maladministration. The failings can be traced back to its initial handling of the damp and mould, which began with its failure to complete a sufficiently robust void inspection that might have identified preventative measures. Most significantly, the landlord too readily accepted the conclusions of its specialist report, even though it was warned it was brief, uncomprehensive, and emphasised the role of condensation over structural causes of damp.
The landlord failed to fit the venting kitchen extractor, repoint the property, and investigate the cavity wall insulation despite being told this was required. It also arguably failed to identify and address issues with the windows and doors, and the decking, at an earlier opportunity, because of its failure to conduct an adequate initial inspection. Finally, it did not lay the loft insulation satisfactorily, which was a potential caused of damp on the ceilings and walls and requiring additional works.
The impact of this was significant on the resident, who has reported ongoing damp and mould, causing stress, worry, and the upheaval of further surveys and works. While some degree of this was unavoidable, the landlord’s missteps caused undue hardship and detriment and continue to have an impact as the resident remains in the home awaiting a further decant.
In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged it had missed the opportunity to implement the kitchen extractor and investigate the wall cavity when the resident was initially decanted. It apologised and offered compensation of £125 for this. It acknowledged that this had caused particular detriment given the resident’s needs and circumstances. The Ombudsman also notes that, since the independent inspection in September 2023, the landlord said it has completed external works, including the repointing, and is actively looking for alternative temporary accommodation for the resident and his family to progress internal works.
However, this does not constitute sufficient acknowledgement or remedy. The landlord must write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report. It should also clearly outline the outstanding scope of works. The Ombudsman understands the landlord has said the windows require ‘overhauling’, but it is not clear to the resident what this means and whether they will be replaced, so clarity is required.
The landlord must also award compensation which adequately reflects the extent of its failings. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for payments of up to £150 to be made for time, trouble and inconvenience, where there has been extensive disruption. This threshold is not considered appropriate where there has been more significant failure. The Ombudsman considers an award of £2,750 to be appropriate, in line with its own remedies guidance. This is reflective of the length of time the particular repairs issues went unaddressed (which may have materially improved the conditions within the property) and the impact of the failures on the resident and his family.

Landlord’s handling of resident’s report of damage to possessions

The resident said that, because of the damp and mould, some of his possessions had been ruined. He was not specific about what items were damaged, but referenced clothes and household items in an email of 11 May 2023. He has told this Service he had to replace the sofa twice, and his son’s bed 4 times. The landlord’s survey, of December 2021, contained a photograph of a mattress covered in mould and stated this had been replaced twice.
The resident first raised with the landlord that his possessions had been damaged after submitting his stage 1 complaint. The landlord appropriately said it would add this to the complaint and, in its response, offered to visit the home to assess and understand the extent of the damage. It is not clear whether this visit took place. In its stage 2 response, the landlord asked the resident to submit a list of damaged items. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence this was sent, or that any further compensation has been offered for damage caused to the resident’s possessions.
The landlord is considered to have acted reasonably in requiring information from the resident and offering to assess the damage. The Ombudsman, therefore, finds no maladministration in its handling of the request for damages. However, the resident is encouraged to share relevant details with the landlord of any outstanding damages, including the mattress and sofa. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident in this regard, consider its liability for any damaged items, and compensate the resident accordingly.

Landlord allowing visits without sufficient prior notice.

The resident complained on 20 December 2022 that he had received notification from an external contractor that they would attend on an unspecified date. He considered this unacceptable and said he would not allow the surveyor in without them first booking a date and time. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concern and said a letter would be sent to all residents in the area allowing them to schedule the appointment. It was appropriate for the landlord to change its policy and this appeared to be to the satisfaction of the resident, who said the complaint could be paused.
However, on 6 January 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended having given the resident only 10 minutes notice of the appointment. As outlined in the tenancy agreement, the landlord is required to give reasonable notice for carrying out repairs, which is usually at least 24 hours. This is also outlined in the landlord’s current repairs policy. It was not appropriate for the landlord to attend with such little notice and it was to the detriment and understandable frustration of the resident who escalated his complaint. He outlined the particular challenge unannounced visits presented for disabled or ill tenants with personal care needs, such as himself, explaining the rush to ‘get ready’ can cause additional stress and result in inadequate care.
The landlord responded appropriately by meeting with the resident on 10 January 2023 to discuss his experiences. It provided a final written response in which is apologised and assured it would give prior notice for future appointments and offered compensation of £20.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s response appropriate, but the resident has expressed that unannounced visits have continued, or visits have been booked without sufficient notice, on a number of occasions. He has provided a copy of an email sent to the landlord on 21 April 2023, in which he expressed frustration that contractors had attended unannounced the previous day and explained that this had been particularly inconvenient given he was recovering from a minor operation.
The Ombudsman, therefore, considers this a service failure and reminds the landlord of its duty to provide sufficient notice of appointments. The Ombudsman considers this to be at least 24 hours for repairs, however the landlord should provide as much notice as possible. In recognition of the distress caused to the resident, it should award further compensation of £100, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints

The resident first complained to the landlord on 20 December 2022, regarding the surveyor attending without prior notice. Email correspondence ensued between the parties, in which the landlord acknowledged the complaint and said it would address the resident’s concerns about the unscheduled appointment. In response, the resident agreed to ‘pause’ the complaint on 22 December 2022. However, on 6 January 2023, the landlord sent a contractor to attend to the roof without notice. The resident notified the landlord he wished to ‘un-pause’ the complaint and escalate to stage 2. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 27 January 2023.
The landlord’s policy requires it to provide a written response, within 10 days, at stage 1. The landlord did not follow its policy in this instance, providing a written response only at stage 2. When the resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2, the landlord should have provided its written response and notified the resident he could escalate if he remained unhappy following this. However, it is also recognised that the landlord was engaging with the resident on the issue, prior to and following the resident’s escalation, and that, for a period, the resident remained satisfied his concerns were being addressed. Therefore, whilst recognising the landlord deterred from its policy, the Ombudsman does not consider its handling of this complaint to be a failing.
In his correspondence with the landlord of 9 January 2023, the resident said he would have preferred to have made a verbal complaint, noting it as his right under the Equalities Act 2010, but that the complaints policy/procedure suggested this was not possible. The landlord had just undergone its merger, and it is possible that the complaints policy accessible to the resident was outdated. The complaints procedure for the combined entities for this period states that a resident can make a complaint to any member of staff by telephone, letter, email, a personal visit or via the website. The landlord’s procedure is therefore considered compliant with the Equalities Act 2010 and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (Code) in this regard.
The resident made a further complaint, on 12 April 2023, relating to the ongoing damp and mould. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 27 April 2023, after 12 working days. The landlord’s policy and the Code requires that responses be made within 10 days at stage 1, so this represents a short delay.
However, the resident expressed upset that the response was sent at all, during what the landlord knew was a period of mourning. He asked that future communication be delivered with a heightened level of sensitivity to his current circumstances. The Ombudsman appreciates this was a difficult time for the resident. The resident had notified the landlord that he could not facilitate appointments at this time, however it is not clear that this extended to all communications and that the landlord was unthinking in providing the response at this juncture.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 June 2023, after 32 working days. Again, this was out of timeframe according to the landlord’s policy and the Code, which require that responses be provided within 20 working days, with extensions of 10 days with ‘good reason’.
There is no evidence that the landlord delayed out of respect for the resident’s circumstances and the resident continued to engage with the landlord on the complaint throughout May 2023, asking for his complaint to be expedited. The landlord notified the resident on 18 May 2023 that the response would be delayed due to staff absence. It explained what actions remained outstanding to fully investigate it, including meetings with personnel and a possible visit to the resident’s home over the next 2-3 weeks. The landlord acted reasonably in notifying the resident of delays, however, as per its policy, it could have better managed the resident’s expectations by providing a more specific timeframe for its response.
The landlord acknowledged the delays in its stage 2 response and offered £80 compensation. This is considered an appropriate offer in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the landlord’s own compensation policy, which suggests payments of up to £100 are appropriate where there has been a service failure.
The resident raised further queries in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. In an email to the landlord, subsequent to its final response, the resident questioned the appropriateness of an Aster employee handling the complaint when it related to the actions of Enham Trust. The Ombudsman understands that the entities completed the merger in October 2022 and so considers it reasonable that staff from across the wider organisation were involved in the complaint and wider repairs.
Overall, there were service failures in the handling of the complaint, but the Ombudsman considers there was reasonable redress for these by the landlord in its stage 2 response and offer of compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused to household items because of the damp and mould.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of visits by contractors without sufficient prior notice.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident £2,850 compensation (£2,750 for distress caused by its handling of the damp and mould and £100 for its failure to provide sufficient notice of appointments).
2. Write a letter to the resident, acknowledging and apologising for the failures identified in this report and explaining how it intends to ensure these are not repeated. It should also explain what works are outstanding and will be completed during, or prior to, the resident being decanted.
3. Share learnings from this case with its surveyors and ensure staff have clear expectations of external providers, in terms of the scope, methodology and evidence base for conclusions, when conducting damp and mould technical inspections.
4. Ensure at least 24-hour notice for routine repair appointments.
5. Evidence to the Ombudsman that it has implemented or acted upon the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to:
1. Ensure staff are aware of the damp and mould policy with respect to void inspections. Opportunities to inspect and rectify issues should be seized and consideration given to any applicable and proportionate preventative measures that can be put in place.
2. Self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould and ensure its recommendations are incorporated into policy.
3. Contact the resident regarding his claim for compensation for damaged items, consider its liability, and compensate accordingly.
4. If it has not already done so, pay the resident £80 compensation as previously offered for its complaint handling failures. Please note the reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident as it recognised service failings which required remedy.
5. Review the Ombudsman’s new Complaint Handling Code and ensure the requirements are incorporated into the landlord’s complaints policy.