Habinteg Housing Association Limited (201910893)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910893

Habinteg Housing Association Limited

9 July 2021

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of mould growth in her property;
2. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and the tenancy began on 18 April 2016. The tenancy agreement describes the property as a one-bedroom ground floor flat.
The tenant handbook shows that the landlord is responsible for repairs to ‘doors, windows and outside walls’ and that it will carry out repairs in either 24 hours (for emergencies), 5 days (for urgent repairs) or 20 days (for routine repairs). It adds that larger items or structural repair work will be undertaken in 90 days.
The tenant handbook also describes what condensation is and gives tips on reducing it such as keeping background heating on and providing ventilation. It adds that residents should remove mould growth ‘by washing affected areas with a fungicidal wash’.
The landlord has a repairs and maintenance process document that shows it will:
1. identify repairs responsibility, consider the repairs history, log the repair and attach a priority code to a repair on first contact
2. pre-inspect within 14 days if a diagnosis cannot be made over the telephone.
The tenant handbook recommends that tenants obtain insurance cover for ‘internal decorations and your belongings’ in event of ‘accidental damage, theft or loss’ as these are not covered through the landlord’s own insurance. The landlord says that it ‘will not be able to provide financial assistance… to compensate for losses in the event you have not taken out adequate insurance cover’.
The landlord has a three-stage complaints process of stage one (with a response within 10 working days), stage two (with a response within 10 working days) and stage three (with a panel hearing within 20 working days and a response within 5 working days of that).
The landlord has a compensation policy that allows the landlord to make a discretionary award or a gesture of goodwill where there has been a failure to provide a service. It sets out that negligence or injury claims should be directed to its insurers and that residents ‘are encouraged to take out home contents insurance for their personal possessions to insure against accidental damage’ and that it ‘will not pay compensation for damage or loss that should be covered by a tenants own contents insurance policy’.

Summary of Events

The landlord completed a damp inspection of the resident’s property on 28 February 2019 that it said was in response to the resident’s reports of rising damp and mould. It noted:
1. no visual evidence of damp, no excessive moisture content following use of a damp meter and no mould growth
2. no evidence of Category 1 Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) hazards
3. historic staining and minor blistering to the paintwork on skirting boards and walls by the bay window due to condensation
4. ‘minor condensation to the bay window and resulting mildew to moisture absorbent paper blinds’
5. no remedial works were found to be necessary.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 March 2019 following the inspection. It offered a summary of the inspection findings and provided tips on reducing condensation. The inspection findings were also passed to the resident’s MP on 1 April 2019 following receipt of an enquiry.
The resident submitted a complaint on 22 October 2019 about the condition of her property. She complained that:
1. there was water penetration on both sides of the living room windows
2. she had found black mould around every window and door before she moved into the property which she attributed to rising damp
3. using mould spray, heating and open windows had not resolved the problem
4. she had found woodlice behind furniture
5. her blinds had been ruined and a recent surveyor’s visit had not addressed the damp.
The resident also wrote to the landlord on 23 October 2019 about damage she said she had discovered to a handbag.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 November 2019. She advised that she had not heard anything about her complaint and the woodlice problem had worsened. She advised that she had been required to cancel a carpet installation pending the resolution of the damp problem.
The landlord’s customer service records show that the resident called on 11 November 2019 and advised that the property condition had made her unwell.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 November 2019 following a surveyor’s visit that day. She raised concerns that he had not used a damp meter and failed to consider damage to plasterwork and skirting boards.
The resident made further telephone calls to the landlord on 14, 18 and 19 November 2019 to chase progress on repairs and the complaint. The resident’s own notes of these calls indicate that the landlord informed her that outstanding works had been passed to a contractor to be completed by 14 December 2019.
The landlord made a note on its internal records on 27 November 2019 that it found the property was cold with no heating on during visits on 12 September 2019 and 12 November 2019. It recorded that no damp or mould had been observed on either visit but some works had been raised.
The landlord’s records showed that the resident called on 4 December 2019 to chase up her complaint.
The resident made a report on 11 December 2019 that another damp patch had appeared – this time in the kitchen. She asked for the surveyor to return with a damp meter and mentioned that the extractor fan was not as good as a previous one and that the living room plasterwork was cracked due to black mould.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 23 December 2019. It concluded that:
1. a survey of the property on 28 February 2019 found no evidence of damp caused by building defects
2. further surveys on 12 September 2019 and 12 November 2019 also established no evidence of rising or penetrating damp
3. no evidence of mould had been found during all three surveys
4. during the visit on 12 November 2019, it was noted that the heating was not being used and that the resident advised this was due to expense – the landlord said it had told the resident that lack of heating can promote condensation
5. an order had been raised to renew and upgrade storage heaters as part of its ongoing renewals programme
6. the resident was signposted to the local authority if she wished to dispute the damp findings.
The landlord’s records show that the resident made a call on 6 January 2020 as repair works had not been completed that day.
The resident submitted a complaint escalation on 14 January 2020 across three separate emails. She provided photographs that she said evidenced mould damage to her clothes and accessories and asked for compensation for this. She added that the heating was not the problem, advised that the landlord had not used a damp meter to investigate the issue and asked for a dehumidifier to be installed.
The resident’s records (that she later provided to a stage three complaint panel) show that storage heater renewal works were completed on 15 January 2020.
The landlord made a note on 20 January 2020 that it had agreed to pay the resident £150 compensation but that the resident subsequently telephoned to reject the offer.
The landlord sent a holding email to the resident on 24 January 2020. It advised that a full response would be offered by 10 February 2020.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 January 2020. She said that she had been offered £150 compensation but this did not cover the damage to her personal effects. She added that some remedial works had taken place but she was still awaiting the notification of the main problem of damp and asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage three.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 February 2020. It invited her to call the head of asset management to discuss a way forward with her complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 February 2020, seemingly following a telephone conversation between them. The landlord said that it would appoint an independent surveyor to undertake a full property survey and then raise the required repairs and discuss the level of compensation.
The landlord made notes on 6 March 2020 that:
1. it had inspected and recommended works such as ‘thermoboard’ to an area of wall under the bay window, a new skirting board, a new vent, patch repairs to walls and a mould wash
2. these works would not be raised until April as they were non-emergency
3. it had told the resident to make an insurance claim for damaged furniture.
A building surveyor company wrote to the landlord on 17 March 2020. It advised that it would not be attending appointments due to the Covid-19 situation.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 March 2020. It advised that a surveyor would not be able to attend due to the Covid-19 related guidance.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 May 2020. She asked to discuss the outstanding repairs as she said that she understood that another survey was needed to address mould around the ‘boxed window area’. She also mentioned repairs needed to the front and back door seals and asked for vents to be installed in the ‘internal coat cupboard door’.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 June 2020. She reported that she would not be able to claim for damaged possessions as the damp was a pre-existing problem and she chased outstanding repairs.
The resident approached this Service in July 2020 and provided information about progress of her complaint. She advised that the damp issue had been resolved during January-February 2020 when the landlord installed a new storage heater but that there was still damaged plasterwork in her home and the landlord had not adequately compensated her. This Service wrote to the landlord asking it to progress the matter.
The landlord and resident exchanged emails during 7-10 August 2020 regarding arrangements for the independent survey.
The landlord issued a stage two complaint response to the resident on 10 August 2020. It concluded that:
1. an independent survey had been scheduled for 31 March 2020 but the pandemic had prevented progress
2. a new appointment for the survey had been made for 14 September 2020
3. the level of compensation would be discussed after the survey if any failing was identified.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 August 2020. She questioned why it had not escalated her complaint to stage three and noted that:
1. the landlord had promised to address black mould, condensation and rising damp prior to her signing the tenancy
2. there was evidence of previous damp at the property during the tenancy sign up process such as the heating being left on, a damp extractor in the living room, mould around door frames and windows and a damp patch on the floor in the coat cupboard
3. she was told by a surveyor at the beginning of the year that the cause of condensation was the lack of insulation to the ‘boxed window’
4. a slow leaking toilet may have contributed to the damp
5. she sought compensation for the full period of her tenancy, damage to her personal effects and the impact on her health
6. other issues such as the installation of a bath, replacement of the shower unit, movement of concrete slabs and woodlice were mentioned.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 August 2020. It apologised that its previous response was incomplete as it had not been aware of the full history of the case at that point. It advised that the complaint had now been escalated to stage three but a survey was required in order for the panel to consider the case. It noted that an appointment had been agreed for 16 September 2020.
A damp inspection report was completed by a surveyor on 18 September 2020. This found that:
1. there was no rising damp, penetrating damp or plumbing related problems at the property but there were condensation related issues
2. aluminium doors and windows at the property tend to radiate coldness inside the unit and had been ‘set on to the external leaf of the cavity wall, rather than across the cavity’ which contributed to ‘cold bridging’ and mould growth in various rooms
3. mould growth to the cupboard under the stairs was a result of condensation due to lack of heating and ventilation
4. there was some discolouration to the cold water supply pipe in a service cupboard that was due to condensation on the outside of the pipe
5. there was slight mould growth to the door recess area in the entrance hall
6. the bay window in the reception room was thermally inefficient and the heater poorly positioned which meant condensation dampness had caused damage to plasterwork
7. there were no signs of mould growth in the kitchen but the extractor fan did not appear to expel air well
8. there was visible mould growth to recess areas, skirting boards and the floor covering to the bathroom due to poor heating and condensation dripping from pipework to the skirting board.
The report made recommendations for the resident to:
1. avoid using a curtain in the living room
2. use heating liberally
3. open trickle ventilators
4. not place furnishings or stored goods against external walls
5. clean any mould growth with bleach and water.

The report recommended that the landlord consider improvements such as:

installation of vents to the service and under stairs cupboard doors as well as lagging over pipework in the service cupboard and background heating in the under stairs cupboard
further background heating for the bay window area in the reception room
insulation boards in the bedroom, entrance hall, kitchen, bathroom and where there was damaged plasterwork.
installation of a better extractor fan and a better low-level heater in the kitchen
installation of an electric towel rail and pipework boxing in the bathroom
installation of a humidity meter, portable de-humidifiers and repairs to the back kitchen door (to remedy a woodlice issue).

The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 October 2020. It provided a copy of the surveyor’s report and suggested a meeting to discuss a resolution. It clarified that the meeting was not the same as the stage three complaints panel.
The landlord issued another response to the resident on 19 October 2020 that it described as being under stage two of its complaints process. It concluded that:
1. it had brought forward renewal of the storage heating in the property following the stage one complaint
2. it had arranged for an independent surveyor visit following the stage two complaint but this had been suspended due to Covid-19 and not been able to take place until September 2020
3. it met with the resident on 12 October 2020 and 16 October 2020 to discuss the report
4. it offered apologies for failure to act in a more expedient manner as it had not dealt with the complaint effectively at all stages and repairs had not been completed in a timely manner
5. it did not uphold the resident’s complaint about damp and mould
6. it was willing to award compensation of £250 and signposted the resident to make an insurance claim for damage to her possessions
7. it attached a schedule of works that showed it had agreed to provide vents, lag the cold water supply pipe, service the existing kitchen extractor fan, repair plasterwork, provide a humidity meter and repair the kitchen door seal
8. the schedule showed it would not install a dehumidifier unless there was significant moisture in a property, windows were to be assessed for replacement in 2023 (and thermal insulation would be considered at the same time), heating engineers would review the system design and the kitchen and bathroom improvement plans would be reviewed in regard to provision of heating.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 October 2020. She asked to escalate the complaint and said that:
1. the landlord had not investigated the complaint in full such as the presence of mould before she took up the tenancy
2. there had been cancellations of repairs appointments which staff had exacerbated
3. she had been told she would be reimbursed for damaged possessions
4. the landlord had displayed institutionally discriminatory behaviour
5. she sought compensation for damaged possessions, each day she had spent in disrepair, discrimination by the landlord and distress so she rejected the £250 offer.
The stage three complaint panel was organised for 11 November 2020 but the resident advised on 5 November 2020 that she wanted an adjournment as the paperwork did not contain all the required information.
The stage three complaint panel hearing went ahead on 7 December 2020 and the stage three complaint response was issued on 14 December 2020. This determined that:
1. the resident’s complaint about staff and contractors was upheld as it was satisfied that the resident had evidenced missed appointments and miscommunication; it said that the landlord had since implemented a complaint monitoring database and a recommendation was made for staff to be trained on damp and condensation in properties
2. the resident’s complaint about damage to clothing and furniture was not upheld as the panel was satisfied that tenants were told to insure their own possessions at the commencement of tenancies
3. the resident’s complaint about mould was partly upheld and it awarded £450 compensation and recommended further works such as insulation works around the box window, installation of a heated towel rail in the bathroom and provision of a temporary dehumidifier (in addition to the humidistat-controlled fan it said it had already installed in the kitchen).
The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 January 2021. It noted that the resident had informed it that she was not comfortable at the present time (apparently due to Covid-19 concerns) to allow access for the bay window and vent works.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 February 2021. She reported that measurements had been taken for the new bathroom heated towel rail and that she had been told the kitchen extractor fan was on order.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 February 2021 – it advised that its contractors would attend the following day to install thermal boarding to the bay window and vents to the service cupboard.
The resident made a report to the landlord on 8 March 2021 that plasterwork by the bay window had recently been renewed although it was not drying out quickly.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 June 2021. She asked for details of the landlord’s insurers as she advised that her own insurers did not cover damage due to condensation or damp.
The landlord provided an update to this Service in June 2021 that it had installed vents to cupboards, fitted lagging to cold water pipework, remedied living room plasterwork, repaired the kitchen door seal, provided a humidity meter and serviced the kitchen fan (which it would replace once parts were obtained). It added that:
1. dehumidifiers would only be offered where there was significant moisture in a property
2. insulation boards and thermal bridging to frames would be considered as part of the proposed 2023 window renewal works
3. the re-positioning of the living room heating and provision of background heating were decided not to be required
4. the provision of heating in the kitchen and bathroom had been deemed as adequate but specifications would be reviewed for future improvement works in line with these recommendations.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair
Put things right
Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Mould growth

Based on evidence seen by this Service, the resident began to make reports of mould growth in her property at least as early as the beginning of 2019. She linked this to rising damp and asked the landlord to diagnose and rectify the problem. The landlord recorded that it:
1. conducted a damp inspection of the property in February 2019, making visual and damp meter assessments
2. used this evidence to conclude that there was no rising damp in the property and that condensation was the cause of any mould growth
3. provided the resident with a written outcome, including advice on limiting condensation.

These actions were in line with the landlord’s repairs processes to pre-inspect where diagnosis over the telephone is not possible – this was therefore appropriate. It was also reasonable that the landlord decided not to raise any repairs and offered the resident condensation-related guidance in line with the tenant handbook.

The resident raised the damp and mould growth issue again on 22 October 2019. The landlord arranged a further inspection for 12 November 2019 which was again in line with its repairs processes albeit a week outside of the required 14-day timescale. It is of concern that the landlord has not offered a damp inspection report for this visit (nor the inspection that it subsequently said it had undertaken in September 2019) and that it took several weeks for any outcomes to be communicated to the resident – this indicates that the landlord’s record-keeping was not of the standard it should have been.
The inspection in November 2019 led the landlord to improve the storage heater units in the property. The resident has advised that these works were completed in mid-January 2020 and that they led to an improvement in the mould growth problem. Given the landlord’s conclusion during November-December 2019 that the lack of heating in the property was a primary contributing factor to the condensation issue and that the resident reported the present system was costly, it was reasonable and resolution-focused for it to improve the heating system.
The landlord recorded in March 2020 that it had identified additional works that it would seek to undertake, including thermal boarding, plastering repairs, skirting board renewal, mould wash and installation of vents. These works were presumably identified during the inspection in November 2019 but were not raised on the landlord’s repairs system by the point the landlord’s ability to complete them was limited by Covid-19 restrictions – this represented an unreasonable delay.
The landlord decided in February 2020 to arrange an independent survey of the property. Given it had already inspected the property and reached its own conclusions that any mould growth was condensation-related, it was reasonable for the landlord to use its discretion to arrange an inspection by a third party in an effort to resolve the resident’s concerns.
However, the independent survey had not been arranged by the time that Covid-19 restrictions limited its ability to progress the matter. Government guidance published on 28 March 2020 said that landlords should not access properties unless for serious or urgent issues. It was not until June 2020 that new guidance was published that allowed for routine repairs to re-commence. The delay from March-June 2020 was therefore not due to service failure on the part of the landlord.
However, the independent survey did not occur until September 2020. This was three months after government guidance on landlord repairs changed – this was unreasonable. Although the delay may have been partly caused by the landlord and the surveyor adapting to new working practices as lockdown eased, there is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident between June-July 2020 and the resident felt the need to approach this Service in July 2020 to progress the inspection.
The September 2020 independent survey outcome was broadly in line with the landlord’s own inspection findings from the three visits it undertook during 2019. The survey concluded that there was some mould growth due to condensation and no rising or penetrative damp with a variety of improvement recommendations made regarding heating and ventilation. This demonstrated that the landlord’s own inspections had been accurate and identified similar potential improvements to alleviate condensation.
The landlord was made aware of the independent survey recommendations at least as early as October 2020 and it communicated these to the resident. It is not clear from the evidence seen by this Service exactly when the recommended works were completed but the resident’s own communications indicate that plastering repairs, thermal boarding and the cupboard vent installation were carried out by the end of February 2021. There was a short period when the resident was uncomfortable with allowing contractors into the property but some of the recommended works were not completed until five months after the independent survey – this was well outside the tenant handbook guidance of 20 days for routine repairs and therefore inappropriate.
The landlord chose not to complete all works recommended by the independent survey and stage three complaints panel. For instance, it determined that insulation boards and provision of more background heating would be better delivered during proposed major works programmes due to the property. Where it decided not to complete works, the landlord offered reasonable explanations to the resident and this Service has seen no evidence that the resident queried the extent of works after March 2021.
In summary, the landlord’s approach to conduct multiple inspections followed by an independent survey was a reasonable response to the resident’s reports of mould growth. None of these inspections have led to a conclusion that there is any rising or penetrating damp as the resident suspected and no repairs have been identified. However, there was service failure by the landlord as it:
1. failed to produce reports after the September and November 2019 inspections
2. delayed unreasonably in raising improvement works that it identified in November 2019
3. contributed to delays in carrying out an independent survey during June to September 2020
4. delayed unreasonably in completing improvement works between October 2020 and February 2021.
The landlord has identified that there was service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports of mould growth. Within its final complaint response, it apologised, awarded compensation of £450 and identified lessons to be learned such as more training for staff in handling cases of damp and more information for residents on managing condensation.
The resident has contested that the landlord should have awarded compensation in the region of several thousand pounds. However, the award of £450 made by the landlord is within the compensation range that the Ombudsman recommends within its Remedies Guidance for ‘failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs’. Given the mould growth was not due to a failure to diagnose rising or penetrative damp, was not present throughout the property and was not designed to reimburse the resident for damages, this compensation award was proportionate.
In summary, the combination of the landlord’s apologies offered, service improvements and compensation award represented appropriate redress for the service failures identified in the way it handled the resident’s reports of mould growth in her property. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, it was fair in its assessment of the service failure, took steps to put things right and demonstrated it had addressed potential learning points.

Complaint handling

The resident made her initial complaint on 23 October 2019. The landlord was required to offer a response within 10 working days according to its complaints policy but failed to do so until 23 December 2019 – this was a delay of more than a month and was inappropriate. The delay meant that the resident had to chase a response on several occasions during November-December 2019.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 14 January 2020 on the grounds that she disagreed with aspects of the stage one complaint response and felt that the investigation had not covered all aspects of her complaint. The landlord subsequently took steps to update the resident on progress with the complaint and discussed potential remedies with her – this was reasonable and demonstrated that the landlord was resolution-focused.
However, it became apparent that its intention to arrange an independent survey before implementing a remedy was not possible due to Covid-19 social distancing guidance. Based on evidence seen by this Service, the landlord failed to tell the resident how it intended to answer the escalated complaint from February to August 2020 – this was inappropriate and the eventual response was not offered until 10 August 2020. This led the resident to approach this Service in an effort to progress the complaint. Although the landlord was not able to offer the resident the findings from the independent survey at this point, it could have answered the aspects of the resident’s complaint about its historic handling of the mould growth.
The landlord apologised in August 2020 that it had failed to ensure it was aware of the history of the case before responding and told the resident that her complaint was at stage three of its complaints process and that the independent survey outcome was needed for the panel. This advice was subsequently proven to be inaccurate as the landlord issued another stage two complaint response on 19 October 2020, after the independent survey – this was inappropriate as the resident had already asked to escalate her complaint after the August 2020 stage two complaint response.
The resident had to ask to escalate the complaint to stage three again on 21 October 2020. A panel was originally organised for 11 November 2020 – this was within the 20 working days set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. However, the panel had to be re-arranged when the resident established that the document bundle did not contain essential information. The landlord rectified this but it meant that the panel was delayed until 7 December 2020 and the stage three complaint response was not offered until 14 December 2020 – this was inappropriate as it was several weeks outside of the stage three complaints policy timescale of 25 working days.
The resident made reports in her complaint of October 2019 and complaint escalation of January 2020 that mould growth had caused damage to her possessions. In response, the landlord recorded in February 2020 that it had told the resident to make an insurance claim – this advice was reasonable and in line with the tenant handbook and compensation policy guidance that resident should make claims using their own contents insurance and that the landlord does not pay compensation for damaged possessions.
However, the resident advised the landlord in June 2020 that she would not be able to use her own insurance policy because the mould growth was a problem at the property before she moved in. At this point, the landlord could have signposted the resident to make a claim against its own insurance but the resident had to chase this information as recently as June 2021 and it remains unclear if she has been provided with advice on this potential recourse – the failure to consider the resident’s report that her own insurance would not cover damage to her possessions and to signpost her on a potential liability claim was unreasonable.
There are also aspects of the resident’s complaint that remain unanswered. The resident consistently raised a concern through the complaints process that the landlord had been aware of a mould growth problem when the property was empty before her tenancy. This aspect of the resident’s complaint was not addressed by the landlord – this was unreasonable and meant that the resident had no clarity as to whether the landlord had reviewed its void records or determined that it could have given advice on condensation and damp to the resident at the point she moved into the property.
In summary, the landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint at each stage of the complaints process, delayed in escalating the stage three complaint request and failed to comprehensively answer all aspects of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the service failure identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of mould growth in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord contributed to delays in completing improvement works to alleviate condensation at the property but its apologies, lessons learned and £450 compensation award were appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord issued late and incomplete responses to the resident at each stage of its complaints process.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £150 in recognition of the time and trouble and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling service failures.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to write to the resident to signpost her as to how she can make a liability claim against it for damage to her possessions.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.