Harlow District Council (202127707)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127707

Harlow District Council

1 March 2023

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

The complaint concerns the landlord’s response to:
1. Reports of the condition and effectiveness of the soakaway at the property.
2. Reports of damp and mould at the property.
3. The complaints handling.
This report also considers the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident resides in a three-bedroom house under a tenancy which began on 4 May 1992. To the right of the house is an out-building which contains a toilet and is used by the resident as a utility area/room. The area between the house and the out-building, which was originally an alleyway, leading from the front to the back of the house, has been enclosed by means of doors to the front and the back. The flat roof from the out-building has been extended to join up to the side of the main house. The alleyway contains a gully. Around the house is a soakaway. A soakaway is a buried drainage feature which seeks to manage surface water on the site and infiltrate into the ground, rather than discharging to an offsite location such as a watercourse or sewer.
The resident’s daughter has been assisting her with the complaint and any further reference to the resident shall mean either the resident herself or her daughter.
The landlord has informed this Service that there are no reported vulnerabilities held for the resident.
The landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement. It has instead provided a generic copy of the same type of tenancy agreement to this Service.
The landlord operated a three stage complaints policy at the time the complaint was originally raised by the resident. This was as follows:
1. Stage one is dealt by the service manager, and it will aim to respond back on the matter within ten working days.
2. If the complaint cannot be resolved at the first stage, it is passed to be dealt with by a head of service at stage two. The aim is to provide a response within ten working days.
3. The final stage is for the matter to be passed to the Chief Executive. It will aim to provide a final resolution within fifteen working days of the complaint being passed to it.
If the landlord at any stage of the complaints process is unable to meet the intended response time, it will advise the resident of this, together with an extended date and the reasons why this has been necessary.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it has the following priority targets:
1. Emergency: under 24 hours.
2. Urgent: under 5 working days.
3. Standard: under 20 working days.
4. Planned: within 9 months.
The repairs policy states where a resident is “considered vulnerable (such as, elderly or disabled) they may receive an enhanced repairs service”. The target under the enhancements were:
1. Emergency repairs would be attended within two hours with the aim to rectify/make safe within a day.
2. Urgent repairs would be dealt with in under three working days.
3. Standard repairs within fifteen working days.
Under the repairs policy the landlord treats repairs relating to penetrating or rising damp and condensation to be minor works with a standard priority. Blocked gullies are be considered as an emergency priority.
Any reference to either the landlord or the council from this point on shall mean the landlord.

Summary

The resident telephoned the landlord on 13 July 2021. The landlord’s notes of the call recorded that the “soakaway around house is flooding when it rains and green gunk coming out of it. Disabled tnt”.
The landlord sent a drainage specialist to inspect the reported flooding and he attended together with a colleague on 20 July 2021. The specialist chose not to access the back of the property to look at the soakaway as there was a dog there which was being looked after by the resident. Instead, the resident reported that the drainage specialist inspected the drains next to the property and following being satisfied that it was clear he and his colleague departed the property.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 25 July 2021 following further rain which again had resulted in flooding. She requested sandbags to prevent damage. These were delivered by the landlord later the same day.
The resident contacted her local member of parliament (MP) by email on 26 July 2021 about the flooding at the property. The resident reported that her landlord’s drainage specialist had visited a few days previously. She explained that:
1. The property “has a soak away around it which was put in by the council almost 30 years ago. With the rain recently her soak away has flooded her front and back garden”. She added “the soak away is not working”.
2. When she had spoken to the landlord it did not “seem to know what a soak away is and don’t seem interested in sorting out the problem”.
3. The drainage specialist “came out and checked the drain outside and said it was fine but wouldn’t go in the garden to check the soakaway as my sister’s dog was there on the day, and she was barking”.
4. When she had contacted the landlord on 26 July 2021, the drainage specialist “said the soak away is working- yet he has NOT looked at it and not has he seen the photos of the issue!”.
The MP replied to the resident on 27 July 2021 via email. He explained he had “spoken extensively with the Council over the past 36 hours about those residents who have been impacted by the flooding”. The MP explained that the landlord was “urging all properties that have been subject to flooding to contact Thames Water” by either phone or by completing a questionnaire. The MP provided a link to this questionnaire in his response. In addition, the MP stated in his email that he was “also writing to Thames Water to demand action on the drainage maintenance”.
The resident responded back to the MP on the same day. She explained “the council have given you genetic [sic] information with regards to the problems in the area and nothing with regards to my mum’s soakaway issue”. The resident added she had asked for a surveyor to come round but that after speaking to the drainage specialist “he’s now refused to come out”. She requested the MP’s involvement to get someone from the landlord, who was more senior than the drainage specialist to come and look at the issue.
The resident followed up with a further email to her MP on 7 August 2021 with an update. She explained when the drainage specialist had attended the property “originally, he only checked the drain- he said it was clear yet it splurted out god knows what and when we were flooded it left all residue on the floor. Since we’ve had more rain, it looks like it’s being blocked by the moss from the roof that’s blocking the guttering and it’s falling into the drain”.
The MP emailed the resident on 27 August 2021, attaching a response he had received from the landlord. This landlord’s letter concerned the “enquiry regarding a soak away at the rear of her property”. The letter explained the “surveyor has advised he had liaised with the drainage team leader who confirmed that the property was not flooded and had no internal water ingress. This meant there was not a requirement for a surveyor to attend. However, the Housing Officer visited the property on Monday 26 July 2021, to confirm that the property received no damage due to the heavy rainfall”. The MP explained that if the resident remained unhappy, she “may wish to start the council’s formal complaints procedure”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 31 August 2021. This was sent to the officer who had provided the previous response to the MP. Following a request from this officer the resident sent a further email on 1 September 2021 setting out the circumstances. This reiterated the contents of the resident’s earlier email to her MP on 26 July 2021. To this the resident had added the drainage specialist had told her “to allow water to come into the utility area which has a door to the front and back garden and to pick up the carpets in order to allow the water to go down the drain”. The resident said that she was unable to do this. The resident also stated that when she was on the telephone to the emergency team, the drainage specialist had been “shouting in the background that he’d never put a soakaway into someone’s garden”.
The landlord responded to the resident via email on 7 September 2021. It stated:
1. The advice about the utility area was provided as “when the properties were constructed the area was an alleyway with a surface water gully within it. They were purposely placed here because this point is lower than the dwelling and would therefore allow for the collection and discharge of water from around the property”.
2. In terms of the properties, which included the resident’s as well as those situated around it that “over the course of time residents have elected to enclose these spaces therefore removing the discharging capabilities of this gully from the properties protection from surface water ingress”.
3. In terms of the soakaway the landlord stated that it had “a maximum capacity which is adequate to deal with surface water in the area however in this particular instance it appears the unusually large amount of rain falling in a short space of time, coupled with the surcharging Thames Water managed drain in the locality, has caused this to become overwhelmed”.
The resident replied to the landlord on 13 September 2021 disputing its findings. The resident stated:
1. The tenancy agreement made no reference of the issue of the alleyway and its purpose to collect and discharge the water.
2. The alleyway space had not been enclosed and at no point had she been informed that it could only be used as a gully.
3. In terms of the soakaway, that it needed replacing. She added this was a view shared by Thames Water when it had attended the property.
4. The drainage specialist had not looked in the garden at the soakaway nor at photos she had taken. Therefore, she was unclear at how he had come to his conclusion that it was working effectively. She questioned the reference to the unprecedented rain as “we have had this type of rain on numerous occasions over the past 30 years, yet the soak away NEVER flooded like it is doing now”.
The resident followed up with a further email to the landlord on the same day. She stated, “I forgot to mention that the inside wall of the utility is showing signs of mould now”.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 16 September 2021. The landlord’s call notes stated “downstair toilet walls and utility room walls are turning black with mould and peeling off. Please inspect”.
The landlord acknowledged that it would register the resident’s response and dissatisfaction as a formal complaint. It took the complaint date as being 20 September 2021 and considered the resident’s email from 1 September 2021 to set out the details of the complaint.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 1 October 2021. It explained:
1. In terms of the drainage specialist not going into the back garden due to the dog barking, that its “operatives do not have to go into gardens if there are dogs”.
2. Despite not going into the back garden, the drainage specialist had looked at photos provided by the resident.
3. It understood a conversation had taken place where the drainage specialist “advised that he didn’t install the soakaway and although he is not a fan of them, they do serve a purpose in the correct situation”.
4. The amount of rainfall that fell on that particular day had caused the soakaway to be overwhelmed.
5. The drainage specialist had been trying to “advise of possible solutions to flooding”.
6. When the sandbags had been delivered to the resident, the operatives who delivered them had “advised that there were people sitting in the garden and at this time there was no sign of flooding”.
The resident requested an escalation of the complaint to stage two of the complaints procedure on 8 October 2021. In her request she stated that the drainage specialist had not looked at the photos she had taken, refusing to do so. She disputed the landlord’s assertion that there was no flooding when the sandbags were delivered and indicated that there were no people sitting in the garden at that time.
The landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint on 15 November 2021. It apologised for the delay in providing the response. It explained that this was down to the large number of enquiries it was dealing with. It said it had spoken to the drainage specialist who disputed that the resident had offered to restrain the dog when he had visited. It added “he did look at a photo on a mobile phone”. The landlord also stated it asked the drainage specialist if there was any flooding when the sandbags were delivered, and he had responded “that he could not see any”. The stage two response explained if the resident remained unhappy with its response, she had the option to escalate the matter within 28 days to stage three of the complaints procedure.
The resident requested an escalation of the complaint to stage three of the complaints procedure on 4 December 2021.The resident:
1. Explained she had attempted to contact the individual who issued the stage two response on several occasions between 17 November and 24 November 2021. But despite leaving messages he had not responded to her.
2. Disputed the recollection of the drainage specialist. She stated that she had offered to hold the dog when he visited to allow the inspection of the garden and that he had not looked at the numerous photos she had taken which were on her mobile phone.
3. Questioned the advice provided about the gully. She stated “the gully which you mention is to allow the surface water to discharge- if this is the case why is they a step into the gully at both ends? Surely, they would be ground level in order for the water to go down the drain?”.
4. Requested the landlord to attend the property to view the soakaway and to inspect the damp and mould in the utility room.
An inspection report was prepared and sent to the landlord on 10 December 2021, following a surveyor having visited the property earlier that month. The surveyor’s report which also had several recommendations for the landlord noted that there were raised surface moisture levels and that the dampness on the walls was a result of condensation. The report provided the causes of condensation as being due to:
1. Intermittent heating.
2. Poor ventilation.
3. Lack of sunlight.
4. Poor insulation to single course walls resulting in cold bridging.
5. Furnishings and storage against external walls.
6. Cold bridging through external walls which was likely to continue without internal thermal wall insulation and improvement to ventilation.
The landlord communicated the result of the damp survey to the resident on 20 December 2021. It explained “that the dampness is not caused by any penetrating or rising damp, nor any repairs such as pipe leaks etc. The report states that there are no repairs causing dampness and that high humidity levels were recorded inside your home”. The landlord enclosed a condensation guide to the resident, which it stated contained “hints and tips for you to try to reduce the amount of moisture being produced within your home”.
The landlord issued the stage three response on 8 February 2022. It explained:
1. That the drainage specialist was satisfied that the soakaway was functioning as it should be, It added that “a soakaway should last approximately 100 years before it should need replacing”. It added that the cause of failure in this case was down to the unprecedented volume of rain which had fallen.
2. The alleyway between the property and utility area was not designed to be enclosed by doors which affected the capabilities of the surface water drain which was situated within this area.
3. The drainage specialist had “clarified that during his visit there was no flooding to the property or soakaway and he was shown the photos along with a colleague in the kitchen”.
4. The calls made by the resident to the officer who had looked at the stage two response were not made directly to them but rather to the main reception. It said the individual had not been able to locate any messages which had been left by the resident.
5. In terms of the damp and mould a report had been sent to the resident on 20 December 2021, which attributed the condensation to lifestyle.

Assessment and findings

Reports of the condition and effectiveness of the soakaway at the property.

The landlord’s repairs policy does not specifically reference flooding or soakaways. As a result, no indication is given as to what priority the landlord would have provided to such matters. However, the repairs policy does set out under drainage that it would treat as an emergency priority, repairs to clear the blockage of either the foul pipe or the gully.
The landlord sent a drainage specialist to the property seven days after being notified. At the time an unusually large amount of rain had fallen in parts of the UK at the time, which caused localised flooding to a number of properties in the area. However, the landlord has confirmed that by the time that the drainage specialist attended he property that it was neither raining nor were there any signs of flooding at the property or that the soakaway was not working. Given this it was a missed opportunity for the landlord to witness whether the soakaway was working effectively or not.
The landlord has informed this Service that there were no known vulnerabilities for the resident. However, the resident has confirmed that the landlord had installed a wet room into the property a number of years ago. The landlord’s notes also show that on 23 August 2021, the resident had requested a pull cord be attached to the fan in the wet room as she was unable to reach the existing switch. The landlord therefore failed to take into account the resident’s vulnerability when providing its initial response to the repair. It did not even adhere to the timescales in the repairs policy for an emergency repair, for a non-vulnerable individual. Given this the landlord’s initial response was not a reasonable response.
The resident’s and the landlord’s accounts of what happened when the drainage specialist, together with his colleague had visited the property on 20 July 2021 differs. The resident says the drainage specialist did not inspect the soakaway nor did he look at the photos she had taken which showed the flooding and the soakaway. The landlord however says that when the drainage specialist visited the property there was no evidence of flooding. It says, however, the drainage specialist did look at the photographic evidence provided by the resident. In terms of this evidence which was stored on the resident’s mobile phone the landlord has provided conflicting information about this. In its stage two response the landlord stated that the drainage specialist had looked at a single photo whilst in the stage three response the landlord had used the term “photos” implying more than a single photo was looked at by the drainage specialist.
The landlord has not been able to provide evidence of any report completed by the drainage specialist of his visit on 20 July 2021. It has informed this service that the specialist was allocated jobs via a personal digital assistant, It says “he has an option to add notes when a job is attended to. In this instance he felt that he did not need to add notes as he cleared the side gully to take access [sic] water and explained how the soakaways work and that it did not need replacing and he closed the job down without any further works requirement”.
The landlord’s comments concerning the drainage specialist have been pieced together from his signed statement which was only completed in November 2022 as well as notes which it says related to an initial investigation which took place in September 2021. It has said that no formal notes of any discussions took place with the drainage specialist when the complaint was originally made. The lack of any contemporaneous evidence from the landlord at the time is concerning and a serious failing on the part of the landlord. It was not reasonable for no notes to have been taken. Landlords need to maintain an audit trail of its actions and the evidence which it is relying on regardless of whether this constituted a “formal” investigation or not. In this case this did not occur.
In terms of the “initial notes” from September 2021 the landlord has said that the comments were taken in response to the formal complaint made at that time. Given that it was a formal complaint, the landlord has by its own admission as set out above failed to keep formal notes from the time which was a failure in its record keeping.
In terms of the actions of the drainage specialist, the landlord states he appeared to check the drains at the property were working correctly. He also made observations on actions which the resident could take if the issue arose again. As he did not identify any issues which were the responsibility of the landlord, he did not highlight any repairs which needed rectifying.
Although the landlord has relied upon the professional opinion of its approved drainage specialist at the time of his visit on 20 July 2021, the soakaway was not inspected by him on its behalf. Following the further report of flooding several days later it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have re-attended the property at the time to see how effective the soakaway was at discharging the water. However, it did not do this, which was a failing on its behalf. Had the landlord done this it may well have identified the issues of the mould and damp earlier than it eventually did and taken actions to prevent or limit the impact of it.
In the event of a flood, the drainage specialist’s advice to the resident on 20 July 2021 included lifting carpets and opening the front and back doors. The advice did not account the resident’s disability nor was it sustainable and practical. Doors could not be left open if the resident was away from the property. Also the resident’s disability meant she would not have been able to lift the carpet which would be much heavier than normal as it would be fully soaked.
In terms of the doors to the alleyway the landlord had stated in its response that some residents had enclosed the spaces. It is clear from an earlier inspection of the property carried out in 2013 that it was aware that the alleyway to the property had doors at the front and back. However, despite knowing this there was no mention made by it at that time or indeed at any point afterwards that these doors should be removed as they could impact on the surface water discharging. By not stating they needed to be removed, the landlord gave implicit consent for the doors.
The landlord by not re-attending the property after 20 July 2021, or when it was raining missed the opportunity to determine whether or not the soakaway was working effectively. The landlord also failed to take into account the resident’s disability when responding to the matter in the first instance. It also provided the resident with inadequate and inappropriate advice to deal with future floods. It also did not keep contemporaneous records of the discussions which took place at the time. Overall, these were severe and significant failings on the part of the landlord.

Reports of damp and mould at the property.

In addition to raising concerns about the flooding and the soakaway the resident had also raised concerns about damp and mould to the utility area. This was first mentioned to the landlord on 13 September 2021 via email and it was followed by telephone a few days later which asked for an inspection. The target date noted on this enquiry form was 30 September 2021. This timescale would be in keeping with the landlord’s repair policy in which it considered that any repairs relating to penetrating damp, rising damp, or condensation should be treated as “standard” in terms of priority and that a housing inspection should be arranged to identify the cause.
However irrespective of this target date the landlord did not appear to arrange an inspection of the property until late November 2021, and it took place on 1 December 2021. There is no evidence seen of any efforts made by the landlord to update to the resident during this period. This was not a reasonable approach, given the timescales noted in the landlord’s repair policy. It is not clear why the matter took over two months for the inspection to take place. This demonstrated a lack of urgency and was a service failure from the landlord.
At the time the inspection took place, more than four months had passed since the persistent rain had fallen in the area on separate occasions during July 2021. The surveyor provided a report to the landlord on 10 December 2021. This report noted raised moisture levels and that there was dampness associated with condensation. However, the report also noted “cold bridging above windows via uninsulated concrete/metal load bearing structural lintels behind wall plaster”.
The surveyor’s report did refer to condensation and made several recommendations in line with this to the resident including regular use of the central heating systems and keeping furnishings and storage items away from the walls. However, it is clear there were also recommendations not made to the resident. These included applying high strength water seal to the wall from the floor to the ceiling. In addition, the report mentioned that there should be “thermal insulation to walls as indicated on the floor plan the surveyor had supplied. It also recommended that the “client to carry out all necessary repairs to the remedy external defects and to ensure that all external weather proofing elements are watertight, including regular building maintenance”. These issues would be the responsibility of the landlord as opposed to the resident.
Following receipt of the report from the surveyor the landlord wrote to the resident on 20 December 2021. This letter consisted of three relative short paragraphs which stated that the dampness was not “caused by any penetrating or rising damp, nor any repairs such as pipe leaks etc. The report states that there are no repairs causing dampness and that high humidity levels were recorded inside your home”. In essence the full responsibility for the damp and mould was placed upon the resident.
Whilst the landlord’s letter of 20 December 2021 addressed some of the comments of the surveyor in respect of condensation there was no mention of the other factors which the surveyor had indicated rested with the landlord. There is no indication that the landlord acted on the surveyor’s comments concerning the cold bridging which was due to the lack of thermal insultation in the utility area. There was also no mention made of the external defects identified by the surveyor which had needed repairing. Overall, the response from the landlord appeared to be unsympathetic and placed an undue and complete responsibility for the damp and mould upon the resident as a direct result of lifestyle.

The complaints handling.

The landlord failed to provide a response to the resident’s request for escalation to stage two within its target date of ten working days. Neither did it provide any update to the resident between the date the complaint had been escalated by the resident on 8 October 2021 to the date the stage two response was provided by it on 15 November 2021, some 26 working days later. This was not in keeping with the complaints policy which was in force at the time.
The landlord also failed to provide a response to the resident’s escalation to stage three of the complaints process. Whilst the complaints policy set a target period of 20 days for a response it actually took the landlord 46 working days to respond.
In both the stage two and stage three responses the landlord offered an apology for the delay. At stage two it explained this was due to the high volume of enquiries it has received. However, no explanation was provided for the delay at stage three.
In terms of the landlord’s complaints process at the time the complaint was originally raised by the resident this comprised three stages. The landlord had confirmed that this was revised to a two stage process in January 2022. However, as the resident’s complaint was ongoing at the time of the change it has explained that it proceeded under the old process by the time of the final escalation.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code sets out the requirements for landlords to allow them to respond to complaints fairly and effectively. This code explained that the complaints process for landlords should comprise two stages only, but the Ombudsman would welcome involvement by residents or senior executives outside the complaints team as part of the review process. It added that if a landlord believed that a third complaints stage was necessary this should not have protracted the internal complaint process. In this case this was not the case. Overall, it took around four and half months for the resident to go through the landlord’s complaints process. There was no indication that part of the delay was due to the landlord seeking further evidence or a detailed investigation into the complaint which had been raised. This was not acceptable and there were clear failures on the part of the landlord.

The landlord’s record keeping

The landlord has as part of its submissions to this Service provided separate signed reports dated 25 November 2022 from the drainage specialist and 6 December 2022 from his work colleague who accompanied him. It has stated that no records were taken of meetings with these persons as it did not consider the process to be a formal investigation at the time. It was also not able to corroborate either the resident’s or the drainage specialist’s version of events during a phone call as it was unable to access the phone records. Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This includes the investigation of complaints received. This has not been the case in its management of the residents’ repair request and later in its management of the complaint investigation. Neither was there any record of the resident’s vulnerability. This was despite the landlord having fitted a wet room into the property a number of years ago. These recording failures all amounts to a serious failing on the part of the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of the condition and effectiveness of the soakaway and the resultant flooding at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord’s initial action in attending to the property after seven days was not a reasonable first response to being alerted to the flooding. This followed on from an unusually high level of rainfall in a short timeframe. Whilst it attended the property, it did so at a time when there was neither rain nor any physical evidence of flooding to the property. Therefore, the landlord could not satisfy itself of the condition of the soakaway. Following further rainfall which led to flooding several days later, the landlord failed to re-attend the property to determine the adequacy of the soakaway.
The landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reporting of damp and mould was unreasonable and not appropriate. It failed to undertake an inspection until over two months after the issue had been reported by the resident, and there is no evidence it updated the resident in the intervening period. Following the visit by the surveyor the landlord failed to address properly property related causative factors including the cold-bridging and lack of thermal insulation. It instead fully attributed the damp and mould to the resident’s lifestyle.
There was a delay at stage two and an extended delay at stage three of the complaints process. At this final stage no explanation was offered by the landlord.
The landlord’s failed to keep contemporaneous records which accurately noted details of meetings with individuals and the findings of the drainage specialist when he had visited the property in July 2021. There were also record keeping failures in terms of the notes on the discussions which took place between the drainage specialist and the resident, including what to do in the event that the flooding had occurred again. The landlord also failed to search for phone calls to corroborate an incident raised by the resident. In addition, the landlord also had no record of the resident’s vulnerability despite having installed a wet room into the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this Service.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,650 comprising:
  1. £500 for its handling of the soakaway at the property.
  2. £750 for the handling of the reports of damp and mould at the property.
  3. £250 for the failure to respond to the resident’s complaint at both stage two and stage three in keeping with the complaints policy
  4. £150 for its failure in its record keeping
3. Provide the resident with a written update with regards to the results of the surveyor’s report and an explanation of what actions the landlord has or intends to take as a result, if any including to the thermal insulation and the cold-bridging.

Recommendations

That the landlord should review this case and develop an implementation plan to learn from the failures.
The landlord should carry out a review of this case to identify learning and ensure its procedures for damp and mould are fit for purpose. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). The landlord’s review should as a minimum include clearly defining and communicating the responsibilities of both the tenant and the landlord, and service level expectations in its publications.
Review its record keeping processes to ensure appropriate recording of, handling of and responses to complaints and delivery of operational services.
That the landlord report back on its intentions regarding the recommendations above, within four weeks of the date of this report.