Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202201020)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201020

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

20 December 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 is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs in the property.
This service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord who owns the property. He lives in a 2–bedroom basement flat of a converted property build in 1939. The tenancy started in May 2016.
The landlord’s website states that it has formal management agreement with a co-operative and describes the division of responsibilities for managing properties. The housing co-operative take direct responsibility for day to day repairs, collecting the rent, carrying out gas and fire safety checks, and managing tenancies. The landlord continues to provide major works, cyclical maintenance, and overall responsibility for the property.

Summary of events

The resident emailed the landlord on 16 June 2020 and asked for contact due to:
1. An unsafe structure at the rear of his garden. This was owned by a private resident undertaking building work. The resident advised that the structure had been up for 2 years and boundary fences/walls to his garden removed or damaged.
2. Not receiving an electrical installation certificate report (EICR) following works in 2019. He described still having a fault with a bedroom plug socket and an “electrical smell” in a cupboard under the stairs.
The landlord responded the next day. It advised that:
1. Its solicitors would write to the private property owner. It would insist for the removal of the structure as it was illegally trespassing and the replacement of boundaries.
2. It had passed his electrical enquiry to its stock improvement team.
The resident emailed photographs of repairs to the co-operative on 25 February 2021. These included an image of a light switch missing a cover plate and exposed wires, a blown double glazed bedroom window, fallen bricks from a boundary wall, and images of mould spots in the bathroom. The resident explained that there was no ventilation system in the bathroom and it was very cold.
The co-operative acknowledged the resident’s repairs. It said it had raised orders for the electrical work, garden clearance, and a replacement window. It said mould in bathrooms was normally caused by condensation and inadequate ventilation. It supplied leaflets about reducing condensation and suggested the resident opened the bathroom window. It was unclear from the evidence supplied whether any of these works were undertaken at this stage.
On 26 April 2021 the resident emailed the landlord. He said that:
1. The replacement of his front and rear entrance doors had been scheduled in January 2020 but was delayed due to Covid 19. He described the “desperate state” of the main entrance door and the urgent need for it to be replaced. He explained that:
  1. The front entrance door was ill fitting, with gaps causing draughts, and it was increasingly difficult to lock.
  2. The door was adjacent to electrical and water supply that may require fire compartmentation consideration during the new door installation.
2. Although the private property owner had removed the structure at the end of the garden, it had left the area unsafe, had not reinstated boundaries, and his property remained open to the general public. It was unsafe for his children. He had been chasing the co-operative who had attended today.
3. He had still not received communication about or a copy of the EICR from the co-operative following electrical works in 2019. Some repairs continued to remain outstanding.
On 7 May 2021 the resident chased the landlord’s fire safety contractor. It was due to replace his doors that day but failed to attend. The contractor apologised for its error and rearranged for 9 May 2021. Although the contractor attended and installed several doors at the converted property, it failed to replace the resident’s main entrance door. This was despite it sending images to the resident before its appointment to confirm the details of the outstanding work.
On 6 July 2021 the resident chased the contractor for an update about his replacement door. He reiterated that he was experiencing draughts, heat loss, difficulty securing it, and had additional heating costs due to its poor condition. The next day, the contractor said the landlord had decided not to replace the door. It advised him to contact it for an explanation.
Upon contacting the landlord, incorrect measurements during an inspection had caused delays. The landlord acknowledged his email, apologised for the “protracted nature and lack of communication” of this issue. It said it would pass his enquiry on to the relevant team to update him.
On 18 February 2022 the resident emailed a stage 1 complaint to the landlord and co–operative. He requested a joint inspection of the property and said it required significant investment. His complaint said:
1. His home did not meet the definition of the decent homes standard, was not free from defects, and did not offer thermal comfort.
2. His entrance door had not been replaced despite him chasing for updates. It being planned for replacement in January 2020.
3. He had repeatedly explained that there were plumbing and electrical services running close to the entrance door. These would benefit from fire compartmentation. He had received no contact about this.
4. Due to draughts from the door, windows, and air bricks, he expected to be compensated for his increased utility costs. He said with the thermostat constantly on high he was rarely able to maintain between 20 to 22 degrees Celsius in the day and 15 degrees Celsius at night. He supplied data of temperature and humidity recordings from use of a hygrometer and data logger.
5. The outcomes he expected were for:
  1. The landlord and co-operative to inspect the property.
  2. Improved bathroom facilities and improved water pressure from the boiler.
  3. The replacement of his entrance door and windows, and an assessment to improve the property’s thermal efficiency.
  4. Completion of outstanding electrical work and to be issued an EICR.
  5. The landlord to resolve the health and safety concerns in the garden.
  6. Compensation for additional utility costs due to heat loss.
On 22 February 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
On 7 March 2022 the landlord believed it had issued a stage 1 response. This did not appear to be the case. The date this appeared to have been sent was 12 April 2022. It said that:
1. It would contact him to arrange an appointment to survey the internal and external areas of the property.
2. The condition of the bathroom and reports of draughts would be assessed.
3. It would arrange for its new fire specialist contractor to complete a survey and report on any additional fire safety measures and doors required.
4. It had requested its stock improvement team to share the programme for replacement doors and windows.
5. The co-operative was responsible for:
  1. A heat loss survey. It was happy to review and discuss once complete.
  2. Completion of an EICR.
  3. A compensation calculation for heat loss from the bathroom air bricks and draughts from windows and the front door.
6. It would investigate his reports of an unsafe structure at the bottom of his garden with the council and health and safety executive (HSE). It asked the resident to send any photographs if possible.
7. It said it hoped that its response demonstrated the steps it would take to resolve his concerns.
On 12 April 2022 the resident emailed both the landlord and co–operative. He asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2. Although he had been told he would receive a call and a written response to his queries, he had received no contact. He described receiving a voicemail on 7 April 2022 having chased the co–operative unsuccessfully on four occasions between February 2022 to March 2022.
On 9 June 2022 the resident sent an email to the landlord to chase progress with his complaint. He had only received an update from a contractor about the fire rating assessment of his doors. He said that communication with the co–operative remained slow and asked for help to progress matters. His email said:
1. He had been delayed by 20 minutes today returning from work to meet the co–operative’s surveyor. The resident asked him to return but his request was turned down. He expressed how frustrating this was as he had received little to no contact from the co–operative since February 2022.
2. Following a further conversation later in the day, the co–operatives surveyor had suggested that arranging a joint visit with the landlord would be difficult.
3. There had been no contact from the landlord to inspect the internal/external repairs.
4. There had been no inspection to assess the condition of the bathroom, loss of water pressure, and mould growth that he was controlling at his own cost.
5. Although another fire specialist contractor had assessed his entrance door and other fire safety measures on 27 April 2022, there had been no report or update on dates for work to be completed.
6. He had not received information about programmes to replace his windows.
7. He had received no contact from the co–operative regards an upgrade to his heating system. Nor had it responded to his request for compensation for heating loss due to defective windows and doors.
8. He had still not received an EICR for work completed 3 years ago.
9. He considered the landlord should accept some responsibility for the repair failures and his request for compensation. His property was draughty, it was poorly insulated, window seals had perished, and windows blown. This was leading to noise, condensation, and heat loss.
On 7 July 2022 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. The summary of which is as follows:
1. It acknowledged the resident had chased an update to his stage 1 complaint on up 12 April 2022 and acknowledged its stage 1 response had been sent late. It acknowledged he had been required to chase for an update again on 9 June 2022.
2. It apologised for the “unacceptable complaint handling” at stage 1, its failure to provide an update on 9 June 2022 and the lack of advice given.
3. It advised that its stock improvement manager and head of property safety would contact him by 22 July 2022 to set up a joint visit with the co-operative’s surveyor. Its inspection reports would explain the respective responsibilities of the landlord and co-operative for any remedial work required. Points considered included:
  1. An inspection of internal and external areas of the property.
  2. An inspection of the bathroom and other parts of the property to ensure it meets decent homes standards.
  3. An assessment of the external door and any relevant fire safety assessments.
  4. A stock condition survey for the windows.
  5. A condition survey of the boiler and radiators scheduled for replacement in 2027.
  6. As soon as possible after the inspection it would ensure that he was given a valid EICR.
4. It advised the last energy performance certificate (EPC) for the property scored a rating C. Therefore, it would not be included in its initial retrofit works programme. However, it would arrange a survey to determine whether there were low cost works that could be undertaken to improve the energy efficiency.
5. As the co–operative were responsible for housing management and responsive repairs, it said to contact it about the reported water supply issues.
6. It requested that he resend photographs of the dangerous structure at the rear of his garden to investigate. It explained these had not been received following discussion at stage 1.
7. It advised him to contact the co-operative about his request for compensation due to the additional heating costs.
8. It offered him £75 for its complaint handling failures, lack of communication, and the inconvenience caused.
9. If said he could refer his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service if he remained dissatisfied.
10. Following his complaint it had identified the key lessons learnt. These were:
  1. It should handle all complaints in line with the timescales and processes outlined in its complaints policy.
  2. It staff should always keep residents updated on promises made in responses to complaints until satisfactory conclusion.
  3. All teams who provide services to co-operative managed properties should always have a full understanding of its the co-operative’s responsibilities in the management of residents’ homes.
  4. It needed to establish and maintain excellent working relationships with the co–operative and details of planned maintenance programmes should be shared with residents managed by the co-operative.

Events following the internal complaints procedure

The resident emailed the landlord on 7 September 2022. He explained that he remained dissatisfied with its stage 2 response. He said that:
1. He had received no report from the various inspections of the property and no update about any work to resolve his repairs.
2. Its stage 2 response had not addressed his request for compensation for heat loss due to the defective doors and windows.
3. There had been further delays installing a replacement entrance and reminded the landlord that this had been ongoing for over 2 years.
4. Although he had received some contact from the co-operative about agreed works, he had not received any information regarding its findings or a proposed action plan. He considered the process to be slow, maladministered, and disjointed communication.
5. The low water pressure from the boiler continued which was making it hard for his family to effectively use the bath or control the fluctuating water temperatures.
On 14 October 2022 the co-operative informed that resident that works would commence on 24 October 2022 with a target completion date of 1 November 2022. This was to include bathroom repairs, kitchen repairs, and electrical works. There is evidence that these dates were not completely kept and the resident continued to chase and co-ordinate all parties.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord supplied a copy of the management agreement held with the co-operative. Within this document it has categories of repairs with varying target response times. However, information supplied within the co-operative’s tenant and members handbook summarises some different response times:
1. The management agreement and co-operative’s tenant and member handbook say emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours.
2. The management agreement says an urgent repair will be completed within 5 working days. The co-operative’s tenant and members handbook states within 3 working days.
3. The management agreement says normal repairs will be completed within 28 working days. The co-operative’s tenant and members handbook describe the completion of routine repairs within 3 weeks.
4. The management agreement and co-operative’s tenant and member handbook refers to planned works. The management agreement says these will be completed within 3 months. However there is further reference made to ‘longer term’ repairs that will be completed within 4 months “if budget allows.” The examples of such repairs for both planned and longer term repairs are identical.
At the time of the resident’s complaint the relevant tenancy handbook states that it would acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days. Provide a written stage 1 response within 10 working days and 28 working days at stage 2.
The co-operatives compensation policy states that where there is a likelihood of legal action it will, with guidance from legal advice and/or insurers, consider what is fair and just. In other circumstances it says there will normally be a limit of £50 compensation. It will consider compensation when:
1. When it has not completed certain qualifying repairs on time.
2. When it has failed to provide an essential service set out in the tenancy agreement.
3. When it has failed to keep an appointment and not let the tenant know in advance.
Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes drains, external painting and decorating, outside doors, window frames, internal walls and ceilings, boundary walls and fences.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs in the property

The resident raised concerns to the landlord on 16 June 2020. These points continued to remain unresolved and formed part of the resident’s complaint in February 2022. Although the landlord was often observed to be quick to acknowledge the resident’s concerns, we have seen repeat incidents of missed opportunities for improved communication between the landlord and co-operative. This led to the resident having to chase multiple parties for updates and led to his repairs remaining outstanding beyond the landlord’s stage 2 response in July 2022. Assessments are as follows:

Garden

There is evidence that the resident contacted the landlord and co-operative for help with an unsafe structure at the rear of his garden in June 2020. He explained how the private property owner had left it exposed while awaiting planning permission. At this stage it had been ongoing for 2 years. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord instructed solicitors to write to the property owner and insist that it was removed and boundary fences/walls reinstalled.
Although the private owner removed the structure in 2020 the resident chased the landlord and co-operative again in February 2021. He explained that the boundaries had not been secured, the garden remained open to the public, and left unsafe due to fallen bricks from the boundary wall. This continued to affect how his family used the garden.
Given that the landlord was aware that someone had installed a support structure that was illegally trespassing on its land in June 2020, and had been for some years, it is unclear why this matter was not monitored. It took the co-operative until 26 April 2021 to inspect the issue but failed to remedy the situation. As part of the tenancy management responsibilities, the co-operative should have been documenting its actions to resolve this for the resident.
The resident raised a complaint, which included the outstanding garden/boundary issues in February 2022. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it would arrange to inspect the area with the HSE. Although this is a reasonable response, the resident had by this time waited approximately 2 years. Furthermore, we have seen no evidence of an inspection with or without the HSE taking place at this stage and the issue remained outstanding beyond July 2022.
The co-operative’s tenant and members handbook states that it is responsible for maintain dividing fences and bordering brick walls. As the resident had raised this concern from 16 June 2020 it was not appropriate that the landlord did not evidence monitoring or taking steps to ensure the boundaries were reinstated by the co-operative. The maintenance policy says that a normal/routine repair will be completed within 28 days. However this issue remained outstanding beyond the landlord’s stage 2 response. This was in excess of 500 working days.

Front entrance door, draughts, thermal efficiency

In this case it is not disputed that the resident’s front entrance door was due to be replaced in January 2020. This was delayed due to the Covid 19 pandemic. On 28 March 2020 the Government issued guidance for landlords, tenants, and local authorities and recommended that access to a property was only allowed for serious and urgent repairs. It is therefore reasonable that there was an initial delay at this stage.
This guidance was updated on 1 June 2020. The Government said that landlords “can now take steps to address wider issues of repairs and safety inspections, provided these are undertaken in line with public health advice” and that “where workforce is available and resources allow, landlords or contractors are now able to visit most properties to carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs, as well as any planned internal works.”
However there is no evidence to suggest the landlord communicated with the resident to arrange for the door replacement once restrictions were lifted in June 2020. It continued to remain outstanding until the resident chased the landlord on 26 April 2021 where he described the deterioration of the door and the impact it was having on him heating and securing his home.
While the landlord would acknowledge the resident’s need and arranged for its contractor to attend in May 2021, the first appointment failed to take place. There is further evidence of poor communication as the door was not replaced during the follow up visit. The evidence available to us shows that measurement errors contributed to further delays yet this was not initially communicated to the resident. Works remained outstanding and he chased again in July 2021. This was not reasonable. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had learned from previous outcomes and it was failing to adhere to its planned repair time frame of 3 months.
Given that the landlord was aware the door was planned for replacement in January 2020 and it acknowledged in July 2021 the “protracted nature and lack of communication” to replace it, it is unclear why it did not make progress to put things right. The resident should not have had to raise a formal complaint on 18 February 2022 simply to get work done. As it continued to remain outstanding in June/July 2022, he had at this stage waited approximately 29 months for the door to be replaced.
There is evidence that the resident raised concerns about the thermal efficiency of his property and provided temperature and humidity data. He described the door’s condition and resulting draughts to be one factor making it hard to heat the property and his increased utility costs. His concerns were raised within his communications between April 2021 to June 2022. This gave the landlord sufficient notice of a potential defect that required attention while it was resolving the issues with its replacement. However, an action plan continued to be absent until the landlord’s stage 2 response in July 2022.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or minimizing potential hazards. The landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including protection from infection, damp and mould, and excess cold. Given he had described the increased difficulties maintaining temperatures in his property, it was unclear why the landlord did not demonstrate taking more decisive action sooner to inspect and resolve the matter permanently.

Electrics

The resident informed the landlord in June 2020 that electrical work completed by the co-operative in 2019 had been left incomplete. He also advised that he had not received an EICR following these works.
When there are no serious hazards identified after an inspection the inspector should write a EICR report and give this to the landlord. A copy of these reports should be given to the resident within 28 days. This did not happen and the resident continued to chase for this to be resolved.
Although the management agreement states that the co-operative will complete this work, under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is required to keep in repair and working order any installations provided for space heating, water heating and sanitation, and for the supply of water, gas, electricity. This includes electrical sockets, wiring, and switches. As the resident raised his concerns to the landlord and supplied images of a switch missing a front cover plate on 25 February 2021, it should have taken steps to ensure this repair was addressed.
There is evidence that the outstanding electrical works and EICR were not resolved until after the landlord’s stage 2 response in July 2022. Therefore the resident had waited over 500 working days between June 2020 to July 2022 for the issues to be resolved. This was not appropriate. Even if this had been treated as a routine repair the resident should have expected it to have been resolved within 28 days as per the landlord’s maintenance policy.

Damp and mould

The resident sent photographs of outstanding repairs to the co-operative on 25 February 2021. These included images of mould in the bathroom, comments that the room was very cold, and it had no ventilation system.
Although the co-operative acknowledged the resident’s communication, it provided the resident with leaflets to reduce condensation and suggested he open the bathroom window.
The evidence suggests that the mould was limited in this case. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the co-operative or landlord took steps to investigate his concerns when first raised.
Whilst providing advice on reducing condensation within the property was reasonable, doing this alone was not. Having been informed that the issue remained on going it would have been reasonable to have inspected the property or arranged for a qualified damp survey to have been carried out. The lack of action, a leaflet, and advice to open windows amounts to inferring blame upon the resident and removing any responsibility to assist him in resolving the underlying causes. The resident continued to chase this matter for approximately 7 months and it remained until after the landlord’s stage 2 response.
The resident’s concerns were made before the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould published in October 2021. The report made several recommendations to landlords on how damp and mould should be addressed to prevent the ongoing risks. This included that landlords ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. There is no evidence that the co-operative or landlord acted in line with these recommendations in this case.

Conclusion

The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are, ‘be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.’
The landlord offered the resident an apology, acknowledged that communication had been protracted and poor, and identified lessons learned. These included the need for it to maintain better working relationship with the co-operative, keep resident’s informed, and respond within its policy time frames.
Although these are positive steps to minimise the likelihood of other residents experiencing the same issues and delays, it did not offer redress to adequately recognise the detriment its inaction had on the resident for an accumulation of service failures over an extended period of time.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that successful monitoring of contractors’ performance is critical to the delivery of the maintenance service and ensuring performance targets are met. This applies to the relationship held with the co-operative.
However, the co-operative had been put on notice as early as June 2020 that there were repair issues. The resident was required to repeat these concerns and others, to both the landlord and co-operative in February 2022. Having been made aware of the situation, best practice would have been for the landlord to have ensured that the co-operative was addressing the matters it was responsible for. There is no evidence that communication of this nature took place.
During the investigation there is evidence that there was a lack of an effective partnering relationship between the landlord and co-operative. This resulted in the resident chasing for updates and action. On 9 June 2022 the co-operative suggested that arranging a joint visit with the landlord would be difficult. This did not demonstrate a proactive approach to reassure and address the resident’s concerns. Furthermore, although acknowledging failures, the landlord’s stage 2 response simply redirected the resident back to the co-operative for compensation. This was not reasonable.
The resident took considerable time and trouble to chase and communicate with the co-operative, landlord and contractors to obtain responses. Despite many assurances, policies and procedures were not followed and its response to the resident’s concerns unreasonable. This would have damaged the trust he had with the co-operative and landlord that the matter would be resolved.
Due to the findings of this report the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s response was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble incurred by the resident. The landlord has not made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies recommends that where there have been failings by the landlord amounting to maladministration compensation payments should be £600 to put things right. The Ombudsman has therefore made a further order for compensation below.

Complaint handling

On 18 February 2022 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. This was acknowledged the next day. This was appropriate and in line with its policy to acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days.
However, although the landlord prepared a stage 1 response dated 7 March 2022, based on the evidence it is fair to conclude that this was not sent until 12 April 2022. This was not appropriate as the resident had been required to chase for a response and wait 27 days beyond the expected 10 working day response timeframe.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 12 April 2022 and chased for progress again on 9 June 2022. Although often apologetic to the resident, the need for him to chase again was not reasonable and did not demonstrate any learning by the landlord. All repair concerns that it had said it would investigate remained outstanding.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 July 2022. This was not appropriate as it was 30 days beyond its policy response timeframe.
Given the delayed complaint responses and multiple outstanding repair issues, it was unclear why the landlord did not co-ordinate a complaint response with its co-operative. The landlord and co-operative had separate responsibilities and both were at fault for the poor level of communication demonstrated. However the landlord simply informed the resident to contact the co-operative. This delayed further him receiving a comprehensive response to his complaint.
The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures within its stage 2 response, identified lessons learnt and offered the resident £75. It was appropriate for it to offer financial redress for the delay and failings. However, given the time and trouble caused to the resident over an extended period of time, this was insufficient to provide reasonable redress in the circumstances.
Furthermore, although the landlord had identified a need to establish and maintain excellent working relationships with the co-operative this was not demonstrated. The resident had to continue to chase for updates beyond the stage 2 response and the action promised by the landlord continued to remain delayed or outstanding. Therefore for the reasons set out above we find maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling and an order of £100 additional compensation has been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of, and communication about, various repairs in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to resolve the repairs within a reasonable timeframe. It failed to demonstrate that it met its repair obligations; appropriately investigate concerns raised by the resident in relation to its repair’s; and failed to offer redress that adequately recognised the detriment to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint handling was inadequate. The landlord failed to comply with its own complaint policy and both stage responses were delayed. The landlord did offer the resident £75 compensation but this was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £775. This comprises:
  1. £75 compensation offered at stage 2 if not already paid.
  2. A further £600 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of, and communication about, various repairs in the property.
  3. A further £100 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
2. The landlord should review current copies of the management agreement and tenant and members handbook used by the co-operative. It should ensure the repair response definitions and response times are accurate in each document. A copy of any learning outcomes or amended documents should be provided to the Ombudsman.
3. The landlord is ordered to review the communication failures within this case. It should identify where things went wrong and what lessons have been learned since to minimise future occurrences. Consideration should be made regarding the relationship with the co-operative and the procedures in place to ensure effective partnership working when multiple repair issues exist. A copy of the landlord’s report should be provided to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould (October 2021) and self-assess against the recommendations in that report. The report made several recommendations to landlords on how damp and mould should be addressed to prevent the ongoing risks. This included that landlords ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.