The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

ForHousing Limited (202217777)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217777

ForHousing Limited

8 February 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of leaks, damp, and mould at the resident’s property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant from her property.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a house, where she lives with her 3 children. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the household, but it notes that the youngest child is aged under 6 years old. The resident has regularly communicated via a representative during her case, who is also referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.
  2. Following reports from the resident to the landlord of water leaking from her property’s bathroom in 2021, which it recorded that it could not access the property to repair, she contacted it again from March 2022. She described a ceiling at her property as being about to collapse due to the outstanding works there, which she asked it to bring forward, and it arranged an emergency plumbing job for this on the same day. The resident then chased the landlord for further repairs for water leaking from her bathroom when the bathing facilities were being used, which its subsequent temporary works for the leak had failed to stop, damaging her kitchen.
  3. The landlord then unsuccessfully attempted to access the resident’s property to repair the above leak on 4 occasions in March and April 2022. It subsequently carried out inspections and works for her bathroom, ceiling, plumbing, flooring, plasterwork, tiling, electrics, pipework, and kitchen from April to May 2022. The landlord’s contractor also completed a damp survey at the property in May 2022, which recommended major works for the leaks and resulting damage there, and the resident then chased it for a schedule for these repairs. This was so that she could arrange to move out of her property for the 10 days that she had been told that the recommended works would take, which were due by July 2022.
  4. The landlord was subsequently contacted by both the resident and its contractor in August 2022. They sought for her to be decanted by it to allow major works for the overdue damp repairs to be completed at her property, which she explained that she had received no further communication for. The landlord then confirmed in October 2022 that there were no respiratory illnesses in the resident’s household. However, it noted that the works were required to the property for damage including water reaching and staining the base of the ground floor walls.
  5. The landlord therefore initially offered to decant the resident to a hotel apartment 2.2 miles away for 3 weeks in November 2022, while it carried out the above major works to her property. She nevertheless declined this to stay with relatives, as it would be easier for her, and they were closer to the property. The landlord therefore arranged and paid for the resident’s belongings to be removed from her property and stored elsewhere, and it gave her food and energy vouchers totalling £1,410 while she stayed with relatives until February 2023. In the meantime, it recorded that it completed leak, kitchen, and plastering works at the property from November to December 2022.
  6. However, the resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord via the Ombudsman in November 2022 about its delays and lack of communication for the repairs for the leaks, damp, mould, and resulting damage at her property. She was also dissatisfied with the standard of its previous works, which she said had caused her to be decanted because major works were needed to correct these, seeking prompt repairs and compensation for her stress and inconvenience. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint in November 2022, but it failed to respond to her, and so it agreed to instead escalate this to the final stage of its complaints procedure at her request in December 2022.
  7. The landlord’s post-work inspection of the resident’s property in December 2022 went on to find that its above works there had been completed to a poor standard, and so these needed to be redone. The Ombudsman then chased it to respond to her final stage complaint in January 2023, and its subsequent final response in February 2023 acknowledged and apologised for its failings in her case. The landlord accepted that it had not responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint, followed the repair timescales that it had originally given her, completed works to her kitchen and electrics, or protected her flooring from damage.
  8. The landlord therefore explained that it had authorised and installed a new kitchen at the resident’s property, and that its surveyor had inspected her property in January 2023 to determine what works were still outstanding there. It had subsequently replastered her kitchen due to her concerns about its previous poor workmanship for this, and it had arranged for further kitchen and electrical repairs to be completed in February 2023. The landlord also raised its damage to the resident’s half-uncovered flooring with its contractors to ensure that this did not happen again, and it offered to reimburse her for the cost of replacing this. It additionally awarded her £500 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, and upset caused to her and her family.
  9. The landlord then decanted the resident to a self-catered bed and breakfast from February to March 2023 at her request, which it paid for and included all utilities, so she did not receive further financial assistance from it for this. This was because she could no longer stay with relatives and there were still outstanding works at her property. The landlord subsequently gave the resident a £178.38 decorating voucher after it had carried out the above damp works at her property and she returned there in March 2023. It also reimbursed her £1,065 for the cost of replacing her damaged flooring, and it arranged tiling, electrical, kitchen, and pipework repairs at the property in August 2023, after she reported outstanding issues with these following her return.
  10. The resident nevertheless complained to the Ombudsman that the landlord’s compensation offer did not recognise that she had to leave her property for almost 6 months and returned to find that its works there were still incomplete. She added that she had not received updates on the progress of these repairs or been able to get through when she had tried to call it about them, with her mental health and her youngest child being affected by the stress of this. The resident therefore requested a higher level of compensation from the landlord to resolve her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has complained to the Ombudsman about the landlord’s handling of works at her property since 2021, that her mental health and her youngest child were affected by this, and that her living room heater was subsequently not working. This is very concerning, but these matters cannot be considered by this report. This is because, under the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 6 months of the matters arising. We may also not consider complaints where the resident is seeking an outcome that is not within our authority to provide, or that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s property’s is therefore investigated from March 2022, and not since 2021, by this report. This is because there are continuous records of her reports of and its responses to these repairs from March 2022 onwards until her formal complaint about this to it via the Ombudsman in November 2022, but not from 2021. Therefore, while March 2022 is within 8 and not 6 months of the resident’s complaint to the landlord, the regular incidents and evidence from that date mean that this is a reasonable period for us to investigate, whereas their absence from before then and in 2021 means that this earlier period is not.
  3. This report is also unable to determine the landlord’s liability for damages to the resident’s mental health and her youngest child, as we do not have the authority or expertise to do so in the way that a court or insurer might. This report additionally cannot investigate its handling of her living room heater repair because there is no evidence that a complaint from her about this has exhausted its complaints procedure yet. Although it is noted that the landlord has told the Ombudsman that it would contact the resident to confirm that the living room heater was working correctly.

Leaks, damp, and mould

  1. The resident’s tenancy conditions oblige the landlord to keep her property’s structure in repair, including walls, floors, ceilings, and major plasterwork. It is also required to keep the installations that it provides at the property for sanitation and supplying water and electricity in repair and proper working order, including baths, showers, pipework, wiring, and sockets. The resident is obliged to give the landlord access as and when required for inspections and repairs, with generally at least 24 hours’ notice.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure requires it to respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days, routine repairs within 30 working days, damp repairs within 40 working days, and replacement works within 80 working days. Its repairs and maintenance policy states that it will either make good damage caused to decorations by its works or provide residents with a decoration voucher to purchase the necessary decorating materials.
  3. The landlord’s damp and mould policy and procedure oblige it to take a zero-tolerance approach by inspecting, addressing, and taking full responsibility for resolving the underlying issues for all damp reports. It is required to provide a customer-focused approach by listening to residents’ concerns, particularly regarding the impact of damp and mould on their households. The landlord is obliged to identify and prioritise works for the vulnerable, including children aged under 6 years old, to protect their health and wellbeing, such as via a temporary decant for it to carry out works. It is responsible for inspecting damp within 10 working days, and for keeping residents updated throughout the life of the repair, including automatically when appointments are made.
  4. The landlord’s self-assessment of its compliance with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (the spotlight report) states that it has introduced the above timescales and inspections to ensure timely and urgent responses. Although it says that it is challenging for it to do so on time due to available resources, which its contractor is recruiting dedicated operatives for and it is seeking additional contractors, while it follows its above obligations for vulnerabilities. The self-assessment also states that the landlord ensures clear and regular communication with residents regarding actions taken for damp and mould by providing them with clear schedules of works and timeframes. This is in addition to effective internal communication via a new process for this, quality assurance, and coordination, including for decants.
  5. During the period investigated by this report, the landlord initially responded to the resident’s reports of water leaks and resulting damage appropriately. This is because it followed her tenancy conditions and its repairs and maintenance procedure by attending her reports of a leaking pipe and of shower tray and ceiling damage of 24 and 25 March 2022, respectively, on the same day that these were raised. This was in line with the 24-hour timescale for the landlord to respond to emergency repairs in its procedure, which it was obliged to carry out for these items by the tenancy conditions.
  6. The resident then reported that there was again damage from the leak at her property to the landlord on 30 March 2022, which affected her kitchen via the ceiling when the bathing facilities were used. It therefore attempted to complete further leak repairs at her property on the same date, under its repairs and maintenance procedure’s above emergency timescale, but it was unable to access the property at that time. The landlord nevertheless carried out pipework and waste system repairs for the property’s leaks 4 working days later on 5 April 2022, and a plumbing inspection there on 7 April 2022. While these dates were slightly outside the procedure’s 3-working-day urgent repair timescale, this was understandable given that they followed an unsuccessful attempt by it to gain access for them.
  7. The landlord also showed that it tried to follow its above obligations from the resident’s tenancy conditions and its repairs and maintenance procedure by again unsuccessfully attempting to gain access for additional leak repairs. It tried to do so at her property on 8, 12 and 13 April 2022, while she sought further shower tray and leak works from it on 11 and 12 April 2022. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord raised additional repairs to address the above issues at the property at that time, and that it subsequently repaired water damage to the ceiling and renewed the resident’s bath on 25 April 2022. This was within the procedure’s 30-working-day timescale for routine repairs, which was understandable given its earlier works to and unsuccessful access attempts at the property.
  8. The landlord also completed further repairs to the resident’s property within the above routine repair timescale, which was appropriate. It did so for her ceiling and kitchen worktop and units on 3 May 2022, when it additionally inspected the electrics and plasterwork, and it replastered the ceiling on 12 May 2022. However, it is of concern that the landlord subsequently exceeded the above timescale for its pipework repairs by 2 working days on 18 May 2022. It also did so by 8 working days for the resident’s flooring and wall tiles on 26 May 2022, and by 57 working days for her shower tray and further flooring renewal works on 5 August 2022, which was an unreasonably lengthy delay.
  9. With regard to the damp and mould at the resident’s property, the landlord was obliged by its damp and mould policy and procedure to inspect this within 10 working days. Following her reports to it of further leak damage at her property from 30 March 2022, it instead arranged a damp survey by its contractor 24 working days later on 6 May 2022, which recommended extensive damp works for the damage. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure also required it to carry out the damp works within 40 working days, which it originally scheduled for 8 July 2022, which was 67 working days after the resident’s above further leak damage report.
  10. It is noted that the resident was only recorded as chasing the landlord for damp works at her property from 18 May 2022, and that the damp and mould requiring these repairs was found by its contractor’s above damp survey as arising from the leaks there. It was therefore understandable that it arranged the survey after it had first completed works to address the leaks that caused this. This is particularly because there is no evidence that the landlord received separate reports requiring it to address damp and mould at the property before then. This also meant that it was reasonable that it originally scheduled damp works at the resident’s property after the survey, in the absence of any earlier reports seeking such repairs. The works were additionally originally due 43 working days after the survey, which was only 3 working days outside their above timescale.
  11. However, it is very concerning that the resident then chased the landlord to carry out the outstanding damp works at her property again from 5 July 2022, as it had still not begun these and would miss its original timescale. This was inappropriate and so was the fact that it was subsequently contacted about the outstanding works again by its contractor and by her on 10 and 19 August 2022, respectively. Although it was understandable that the contractor explained to the landlord that it should consider decanting the resident to allow the major works required for the damp at her property to be completed. This meant that it would have been reasonable for it to have postponed these repairs until a decant was arranged for her, so that they could be carried out.
  12. The landlord nevertheless delayed beginning the damp works at the resident’s property from before its contractor asked it to consider decanting her for these in August 2022, as it missed its original target to complete them by July 2022. This was inappropriate, and so was the fact that she had to chase it to try and progress these repairs and provide her with a schedule for them in May and July 2022, as it had not updated her. This is because the landlord’s lack of damp works and updates to the resident were contrary to its damp and mould policy and procedure and the spotlight report. These obliged it to listen to her concerns, identify and prioritise these repairs for her child aged under 6 years old, and keep her updated throughout the life of the works, but it did not do so.
  13. The landlord instead only confirmed that there were no respiratory illnesses in the resident’s household on 3 October 2022, despite it finding that her property’s leaks had left water stains along the base of the ground floor walls. It was unreasonable that it delayed identifying the level of risk to her household, and particularly to her youngest child, until that date, which was also contrary to its damp and mould policy and procedure and the spotlight report. The landlord additionally then only began the damp works at the resident’s property from 5 November 2022, after she declined its offer of a decant from that date and arranged her own stay with relatives, which it originally scheduled to carry out by 26 November 2022.
  14. However, the landlord subsequently completed the major works for the damp at the resident’s property on 24 March 2023. It therefore took 180 working days from when it first scheduled these repairs to be carried out by July 2022 until their completion, which was an inappropriately excessive delay. The landlord also delayed finishing the works by 81 working days from when it next scheduled them to be carried out in November 2022 above, and by 15 working days from its later target completion date on 3 March 2023, which was unreasonable.
  15. The landlord has explained that the damp, mould, and resulting damage at the resident’s property obliged it to arrange extensive major works there for this. These included damp repairs to the kitchen, including a new kitchen, plastering, woodwork, and the removal and refixing of fixtures and fittings. It was therefore understandable that the landlord described eventually prioritising these as replacement works due within 80 working days under its repairs and maintenance procedure, as a result of their extensive and time-consuming nature. This nevertheless still meant that it delayed completing these repairs in March 2023 by 100 working days from when it first scheduled them to be carried out by July 2022, which was itself 43 working days after its damp survey initially recommended damp works in May 2022.
  16. Moreover, the landlord did not complete all of the outstanding leak, damp, and mould repairs at the resident’s property by March 2023. This is because it also went on to complete further tiling and electrical works there on 7 August 2023, and kitchen panel, worktop, unit, and pipework repairs on 8 August 2023, so that its repairs were not finished until 315 working days after its May 2022 damp survey. Overall, this meant that the landlord exceeded its repairs and maintenance procedure’s above replacement works timescale by 235 working days from the survey. This was an extremely excessive delay, even allowing for it to arrange for a decant property to be offered to the resident, and so this was inappropriate.
  17. The landlord explained that its above delays in carrying out the resident’s leak, damp, mould, and resulting damage repairs were due to poor planning delaying these and feedback to its contractor. It described this as, in turn, leading to a poor standard of work, which needed multiple visits to complete and redo these repairs. The landlord also acknowledged that the resident’s half-uncovered flooring had been damaged by its operatives during their works, and that her decorations needed to be made good following the repairs. It was therefore suitable that it tried to comply with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle for it to put things right by awarding her the following remedies. This is as well as the fact that the landlord raised the damaged flooring with its contractors to ensure that this did not happen again.
  18. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised to the resident for not following the repair timescales that it had originally given her, still needing to carry out works to her kitchen and electrics, and for damaging her flooring. It also took reasonable steps to comply with its repairs and maintenance policy for the damage to the flooring and to her above decorations. This is because the landlord reimbursed the resident’s £1,065 costs for replacing the flooring to make this good, as required by the policy, and it also followed its obligation from its policy to give her a £178.38 decorating voucher to make good her decorations, as it had not done so itself. With regard to the distress, inconvenience, and upset caused to her and her family, it recognised this by awarding her £500 compensation on 7 February 2023.
  19. The landlord’s above compensation offer was over £300, as recommended by its compensation guidance for serious prolonged inconvenience, distress, detriment, impact, effort, disruption, and an extended time to complete actions. However, this was not over £600, as recommended by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for such failures and impact, and it did not recognise the effect on the resident and her family of its subsequent delay in not finishing the works at her property until 6 months later in August 2023. This was unreasonable, and so the landlord’s compensation award was not proportionate to put right all of its repair delays in her case, or the effect of these on her and her family.
  20. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to both pay the resident the £500 compensation that it previously offered her, if she has not received this already, as well as another £600 in recognition of its above further failings. It has also been ordered below to write to her to acknowledge and apologise for the additional failures by it identified by this investigation. The landlord has been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs regarding the application of its repairs and maintenance procedure and damp and mould policy and procedure, as well as the spotlight report and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This is to ensure that it provides timely and effective inspections, repairs, communication, and remedies for reports of leaks, damp, mould, and resulting damage in the future.

Decant

  1. The landlord’s decant procedure obliges it to fairly and efficiently arrange decants for its residents when it becomes necessary for them to move for reasons including major repairs. It is required to clearly explain all options and processes, take into account personal circumstances, give reasonable preference to location, and make best efforts to make a reasonable offer of suitable alternative accommodation. The landlord is permitted to provide temporary decants in the form of hotels or bed and breakfasts. It is obliged to contact residents when it is notified that a decant is required, and when a decant property has been identified, arranging this to prevent delays and avoid unnecessary extensions to the decant period when a property is accepted.
  2. The decant procedure also requires the landlord to arrange for the removal and any storage necessary for its residents’ belongings when they are decanted. It is obliged to inform temporarily decanted residents when works at their original property are coming to an end, and only arrange to move them back when the work has been fully completed and inspected. The landlord’s compensation guidance permits it to pay its residents to cover the actual increased financial costs they experience as a result of a decant, such as food costs.
  3. The landlord’s decant procedure required it to fairly and efficiently arrange an offer of a temporary decant property to the resident from 10 August 2022, when its contractor asked it to do so for her property’s major damp works. It then took until 5 November 2022 to offer her a decant to a self-catering apartment hotel 2.2 miles away from the property, which she declined as it was easier and closer for her to stay with relatives instead. It is therefore of concern that it took the landlord almost 3 months to offer the resident a decant, even allowing for the length of time that it would taken it to identify an appropriate local property for her and her 3 children.
  4. The decant procedure obliged the landlord to take into account the resident’s personal circumstances, give reasonable preference to location, and make best efforts to make a reasonable offer of suitable alternative accommodation to her. This meant that it was appropriate that it offered her a decant in the local area, with the hotel that it offered her also being permitted by its procedure, which correctly took into account that she and her 3 children needed to be decanted. There is no evidence that the decant that the landlord offered the resident in November 2022 was otherwise unreasonable or unsuitable, and the fact that she found it preferable to stay with relatives instead did not contradict this.
  5. The landlord additionally followed its decant procedure by discussing the above decant offer with the resident, as this required it to clearly explain all options and processes to her. Moreover, it arranged and paid for the removal and storage of her belongings from when she arranged her own decant in November 2022, as it was obliged to by the procedure. The landlord also followed its compensation guidance by paying the resident to cover the actual increased financial costs that she experienced as a result of the decant from November 2022, by giving her £600 and £810 in food and energy vouchers, respectively, as permitted by the guidance.
  6. The landlord went on to promptly arrange the decant property that the resident later requested from it from 8 February 2023, as she could no longer stay with relatives. This again took her personal circumstances into account, gave reasonable preference to location, and made best efforts to make a reasonable offer of suitable alternative accommodation to her, in line with its decant procedure. This is because the landlord booked the resident a local bed and breakfast that was 2.4 miles away from her property, which was self-catered and included all utilities, so that she did not need additional assistance with food and other decant expenses. It therefore again took into account that she and her 3 children needed a decant, with no evidence that this was otherwise unreasonable or unsuitable, as the procedure permitted a bed and breakfast.
  7. It is nevertheless concerning that, as well as failing to prevent the above nearly 3-month delay in offering the resident a decant in November 2022, contrary to the decant procedure, the landlord failed to prevent unnecessary extensions to the decant period. This was an obligation from its procedure, but it instead extended the original 10-calendar-day decant period that it gave her ending on 26 November 2022 by over 3 months to 3 March 2023, and then by another 3 weeks to 24 March 2023, which was inappropriate. The landlord also did not arrange to move the resident back when the works had been fully completed and inspected at her property on the latter date, as required by the procedure, as the repairs there were not finished until over 4 months later on 8 August 2023.
  8. The landlord’s above delays have already been addressed and remedied in the previous section of this report. However, the above instances of its non-compliance with its decant procedure were not put right by it, contrary to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle for it to do so. The landlord has therefore additionally been ordered below to write to the resident to acknowledge and apologise for the failures in its handling of her decant from her property identified by this report.
  9. Moreover, the landlord has been ordered below to pay the resident another £100 compensation in recognition of her prolonged distress and inconvenience from its handling of the decant. This is in line with its compensation guidance’s and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended ranges of compensation for such distress and inconvenience. The landlord has also been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs regarding the application of its decant procedure. This to ensure that it provides decant properties promptly, prevents delays and avoids unnecessary extensions to decant periods, and only arranges to move decanted residents back when work has been fully completed and inspected in the future.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s redress policy requires it to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and to final stage complaints within 5 or 21 working days. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) obliges the landlord to keep residents regularly updated about the progress of their complaint investigations. It is required to provide them with explanations and a clear alternative response timeframe for delayed complaint responses. These should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason, and extensions should be agreed by both parties if these are beyond 20 working days.
  2. The landlord promptly acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 10 November 2022 made via the Ombudsman promptly on 15 November 2022, which was appropriate. It nevertheless then failed to respond to her complaint within its redress policy’s 10-working-day timescale for it to do so, or at all, until it escalated the complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure at her request because of this on 13 December 2022. This was unreasonable, as the landlord was required to issue the resident with a stage 1 response to try and resolve her complaint at that earlier stage, and not to unnecessarily prolong this by forcing her to escalate this in order to get a response.
  3. The landlord’s above failure to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint also breached the Code’s obligations for it to regularly update her about the progress of its investigation of that complaint. It additionally failed to explain its delay to her or provide her with a clear alternative response timeframe within 20 working days, or with her agreement, contrary to the Code. This was inappropriate, and it was a further failing on the landlord’s part that the resident subsequently had to ask the Ombudsman to seek a final stage complaint response from it on 31 January 2023 before it issued its final response on 7 February 2023. This was contrary to its redress policy’s maximum 21-working-day final stage response timescale, being issued 37 working days after the complaint was escalated.
  4. It was therefore suitable that the landlord’s final response acknowledged and apologised to the resident for the fact that it did not issue her with a stage 1 complaint response within its redress policy’s above timescale. It later explained to the Ombudsman that it had then escalated the complaint without a stage 1 response to avoid delaying the complaints process. However, the landlord now understood that it should not have done so, subsequently embedding the Code with its complaints team to prevent this in the future. This was reasonable and showed that it had followed our dispute resolution principle to learn from the outcome of the resident’s complaint.
  5. However, the landlord did not follow the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put right its poor complaint handling in the resident’s case by awarding her proportionate compensation that recognised this specifically. This was contrary to its compensation guidance’s and our remedies guidance’s recommendations for compensation to recognise her prolonged distress and inconvenience from its poor handling of her complaint.
  6. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident another £100 compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling. This is within the range of compensation recommended by its compensation guidance and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord has also been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs regarding the application of its and our guidance to ensure that it provides effective remedies for poor complaint handling in the future.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of leaks, damp, and mould at the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in:
    1. Its handling of the resident’s decant from her property.
    2. Its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £1,300 within 4 weeks, which is broken down into:
      1. £500 that it previously awarded her, if she has not received this already.
      2. £600 additional compensation in recognition of the further repair delays by it identified by this investigation, and the effect of these on her and her family.
      3. £100 additional compensation in recognition of her prolonged distress and inconvenience from it not complying with its decant procedure in its handling of her decant.
      4. £100 additional compensation in recognition of her prolonged distress and inconvenience from its poor complaint handling in her case.
    2. Write to the resident within 4 weeks to acknowledge and apologise for the further repair delays by it identified by this investigation, the effect of these on her and her family, and her prolonged distress and inconvenience from it not complying with its decant procedure in its handling of her decant.
    3. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the below recommendations.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its staff’s training needs regarding the application of its repairs and maintenance procedure and damp and mould policy and procedure, as well as the spotlight report and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This is to ensure that it provides timely and effective inspections, repairs, communication, and remedies for reports of leaks, damp, mould, and resulting damage in the future.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs regarding the application of its decant procedure. This to ensure that it provides decant properties promptly, prevents delays and avoids unnecessary extensions to decant periods, and only arranges to move decanted residents back when work has been fully completed and inspected in the future.
    3. Review its staff’s training needs regarding the application of its compensation guidance and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to ensure that it provides effective remedies for poor complaint handling in the future.