Hyde Housing Association Limited (202008936)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008936

Hyde Housing Association Limited

14 July 2022

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

a. water penetration into the property

b. damp and mould in the property

c. damage to the resident’s possessions

d. request to be transferred

e. the related complaint

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy which commenced on 1 October 2014.
The property is described as a two-bedroom conversion flat on the ground floor of a four-storey detached Victorian building.
The resident has informed us that she has medical conditions including non-epileptic seizures.
The tenancy agreement obliges the resident to allow the landlord access to carry out repairs at reasonable hours of the day once they have provided adequate notice. The landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair including the drains, gutters and pipes. In addition, it states that the resident is responsible for insurance cover for your own fixtures, fittings and contents in the home that forms part of the tenancy.
The landlord repairs policy statement provides an overview of its repairing obligations. The repairs information available on its website sets out that emergency repairs will be completed within 4 hours but does not provide a timescale for non-emergency repairs to be concluded.
The landlord’s complaints procedure outlines that it had a two-stage complaint procedure with complaints answered within 20 working days at both stages of the complaint procedure.
The landlord updated its complaints and compensation policy statement in January 2021 which stated that complaints at the first stage will be concluded within 10 working days and within 20 working days at its final stage.
The complaints and compensation policy extended the matters excluded outside the complaints procedure to include
1. where legal action was in progress as the legal action would supersede the complaint and that it would state which matters it considered were subject to legal proceedings.
2. insurance claims would be dealt with under its insurance policy.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the different tariffs available – low, medium, high when considering compensation awards as well as recognising payments for delay, distress, inconvenience and time and trouble payments. In addition, before an award of compensation is made, a check must be made that there is not an existing disrepair or insurance issue.
The landlord’s website has its allocations and policy guidance which advises that where homes are not suitable for the resident’s needs, they must register on the local authorities waiting list for rehousing as the landlord does not operate its own transfer list. In addition, vacant properties may be offered to decant tenants who are being rehoused, if they have to move home for major repairs to be carried out.

Summary of events

The resident reported to the landlord that she had experienced water penetration into her property and damp into her son’s bedroom and that she did not receive a response to her contact. The landlord’s record show that on 6 October 2020 and 9 October 2020 it received reports regarding dampness in the resident’s property. Evidence seen by this service shows that the resident made a complaint to the landlord on 12 October 2020 which it acknowledged.
The landlord complained to the landlord on 15 October 2020 that for the past three months she had a broken drain outside her home and that she had experienced water penetration in her bedroom and the reception area. She explained that she had water dripping through her ceiling which caused the electrics to spark and that she was scared the ceiling would collapse as it was so wet. She had previously reported the leak to the landlord on numerous occasions and the wet carpet and damp walls were making the room uninhabitable. She advised that the room smelt of mould, that her possessions had been damaged and that the situation was affecting her mental health. She requested a quick response as the situation was deteriorating.
The landlord’s records show that in response:
1. it raised a repair on 16 October 2020 to investigate the cause of the leak and raise any follow-on works
2. It supplied dehumidifiers on 17 October 2020 to the residents home for one week.
The landlord’s internal records on 22 October 2020 note that, the overflow pipe to the gutter, had discharged into the resident’s property. It had supplied dehumidifiers to dry out the resident’s property and offered a temporary decant to the resident which had been refused. The surveyor had visited the previous day (21 October 2020) and had noted that the leak originated from the PVC gutter at the rear of the building which had affected the communal front porch, stairs and entered the hallway. This had resulted in damage to the front entrance ceiling, walls and corner of the first bedroom of the property affecting the wallpaper and carpet.
The resident provided a medical letter dated 4 November 2020, regarding the condition of the property and set out how it had impacted her.
The landlords repair records show that on 6 November 2020, its surveyor recommended the following works:
1. to cut out the hole in the ceiling to enable the water to flow and make safe
2. hack out the damaged plasterboard, plaster front hallway, ceiling and walls. In bedroom one, the corner walls to be repaired
3. strip out damage wall and ceiling paper to see the extent of the damage. Decorate walls and ceiling to front hallway
4. plaster front bedroom
5. supply industrial wet vac to water damaged carpets
The landlord’s internal records record that the resident’s representative from the local authority contacted it on 9 November 2020 to advise that its contractor had attended the resident’s property to provide a dehumidifier, however at the time the resident was having a seizure. The resident was advised that she had to clear the room for the dehumidifier to be effective, however due to the size of the family that was not possible as she did not have space to store the contents. The resident was advised to claim on her home contents policy regarding the damage to her possessions. However, the landlord was advised that the advice it had given to the resident was incorrect and that the landlord should deal with the claim for damages through its insurance policy.
The occupational therapy team contacted the landlord on 11 November 2020 to advise that they had contacted the environmental team to request an inspection of the resident’s home as it was concerned about the resident’s living conditions and it was not satisfied with the landlord’s response.
On the same day, 11 November 2020, the landlord’s internal records show that it considered that a decant for the resident was only required for a short period and that the resident’s carpet had been water damaged as a consequence of the water leak.
Later that day on 11 November 2020, the landlord discussed the work required to the property. It noted that in September 2020, it had erected scaffolding to the building to undertake roof repairs after the other properties in the building experienced water penetration to their properties. A four week decant was agreed for the repairs to be carried out and it was noted that there were no available properties in the resident’s area of preference.
The landlord’s records show that on 12 November 2020,
1. the landlord decided to progress the works to the property without a decant in place as it considered that the works to the property had been outstanding for too long.
2. it raised repairs to the pillars, coping stones and the porch stairs to the resident’s property.
3. it contacted the resident to advise that it had arranged for a specialist damp team to attend the following day to carry out an inspection of the property.
The landlord’s repair records show that it drew up a schedule of works on 13 November 2020 for the hallway and bedroom to:
1. renew carpet to the hallway
2. decorate the hallway wall and ceiling
3. renew damage to the skirting in the bedroom.
The landlord received the report from the specialist damp and mould company on 13 November 2020. It recommended mould treatment and the upgrading of extraction units in the kitchen, bathroom and to supply ventilation fans to the living room and bedroom.
It is noted that on the same day (13 November 2020) that the landlord raised a works order to treat the mould in the property and upgrade the existing ventilation units in the bathroom and kitchen as prescribed by the report.
It is noted on 17 November 2020, that the contractor staff were affected by the Covid 19 pandemic as they had acquired the infection and were not available to work. The same day, the resident was informed that a permanent decant had not been agreed.
On 18 November 2020, the resident’s representative from the local authority contacted the landlord to express that
1. the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to carry out the work with her in situ
2. she was unhappy that the landlord had made contact with the resident before the schedule of works had been agreed
3. the specialist damp contractor had advised that the resident would need to clear the room before it could start work and this would cause difficulty for her
4. shared the representation it had received from the resident’s sister that she was concerned about the resident’s mental health.
It is noted that on 19 November 2020 that the damp specialist tried to arrange a convenient appointment with the resident to carry out the repairs. The resident advised that she had tested positive for Covid 19 and would advise when it would be convenient for the appointment to be take place.
On the same day 19 November 2020, the landlord contacted the resident’s representative from the local authority and was advised that the resident had support networks in place including her family.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 19 November 2020 who outlined her disappointment that the landlord had not agreed to a permanent move and advised that she could not remain in the property whilst the works were taking place.
The resident’s representative contacted the landlord on 20 November 2020 to advise that the contractor had informed the resident that whilst the repairs work was being undertaken, she should keep her children in one room. In response, the landlord clarified on the same day, 20 November 2020 that there had been a misunderstanding and that it had informed the resident of the health and safety concerns to be observed whilst repair works were taking place in the property as her children should not be near the operatives or the equipment.
The resident requested that the landlord on 20 November 2020 provide a risk assessment and undertake a safeguarding assessment if the works were to take place while her children were at home. She questioned the level of ventilation in the property and advised that she was very distressed.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 2 December 2020. The key findings were:
1. the first contact about the overflow pipe was received on 15 October 2020, which had caused mould and damp and it had resolved the cause of the leak on 15 October 2020
2. it had offered a temporary decant on 19 October 2020 which the resident had refused
3. it had provided a dehumidifier and removed it on 6 November 2020 due to the running costs
4. the resident wanted to move on a permanent basis – the consequence of the Covid 19 pandemic, meant that she did not want to move on more than one occasion
5. it had tried to find a temporary decant near her family and the children’s school, however it could not find a suitable property, so it would carry out the repairs while she remained at home
6. it had accepted the recommendations from the damp specialist
7. it had signposted her to the local authority to obtain larger accommodation and had agreed to support her request for rehousing
8. it considered that the required repairs should take 10 days to complete
9. it could not provide compensation for damage to her possessions, nor could it agree to provide Air B&B accommodation but could offer a hotel for a week while the work was being completed
10. it offered a compensation award of £370. This was broken down as: £50 for the delay in acknowledging the complaint; £50 for poor customer service, £250 for distress experienced; £20 for the costs of the dehumidifier to dry out the property. In addition, as a good will gesture, it agreed to carpet and decorate the outer hall and bedroom. As well as once work started it would consider her requests for it to undertake work to the inner hallway and her son’s bedroom
11. it would be in contact to book in the work, once the resident and her family advised that it was convenient for the appointment to take place and she was no longer testing positive for Covid 19.
On 16 December 2020, the landlord received a medical letter providing information regarding the impact on the resident’s living condition.
The landlord contacted the resident on 5 January 2021 to obtain an update on her health and advised that as another national lockdown was in place this would impact on its ability to carry out the agreed repair works. The resident responded to the landlord requesting information about the protection of her belongings whilst the contractor was working in her property if she was to be temporarily decanted to another property.
The resident chased the landlord on 9 January 2021 for its response regarding the protection of her belongings and the landlord responded on 12 January 2021 apologising for its delay. It advised that it was having a meeting to review the situation in the UK as a result of the Covid 19 pandemic and that it was best to pause the repairs until the schools reopened.
The landlord received a disrepair claim on 22 January 2021 from the resident’s solicitor regarding the leak, damp/mould in the property and faulty windows.
The landlord’s internal records that on 28 January 2021, it sourced a temporary three-bedroom house that was available from 3 – 12 February 2021 for the resident. It emailed the resident on the same day to ascertain her availability and informed her that key safe could be used to provide access for the contractors.
The landlord communicated with the resident on 29 January 2021 to obtain an update on her health. The resident informed the landlord that she had been unwell, that she preferred moving into a permanent property and that she was not happy leaving her belongings in the property whilst the contractor was working there.
The complaints team spoke to the resident on 2 February 2021 and confirmed the content of their conversation in writing – that the repairs would be paused until she was better, following which a convenient appointment would be arranged for the specialist damp and mould company to attend.
The landlord’s records note that the resident refused the offer of the temporary accommodation on 3 February 2021.
The resident informed the landlord on 4 February 2021 that she remained unwell, therefore it was not convenient for the disrepair surveyor to carry out an inspection of the address.
This Service contacted the landlord on 5 February 2021 advising that the resident was unhappy with the complaint response and that her preferred outcome to the complaint was a permanent move to another property.
The landlord contacted the resident on 17 February 2021 to ask whether she wanted the repairs to commence.
The resident’s sister contacted the landlord on 3 March 2021 to advise that it was not convenient for the repairs to be carried out due to her sister’s medical condition. She advised that the mould was affecting all members of her sisters family and requested that it agree a permanent move to alternative accommodation.
The damp and mould contractor contacted the landlord on 9 March 2021 to advise that the appointment agreed for the 12 March 2021 had been cancelled as the resident was unwell and it had been advised not to arrange a further appointment for the time being.
This Service chased the landlord for its complaint response on 12 April 2021 and in response the landlord advised:
1. that the repairs to the resident’s property were on hold due to the resident ill health
2. that the resident was representing herself in a disrepair claim
3. it recognised that the resident had requested a permanent move to alternative property but it would be quicker for a temporary move to take place
4. its disrepair surveyor had been unable to get access to the property to assess the condition of the property
5. the complaint had not been put on hold; it was trying to obtain a resolution to the complaint.
The resident advised this Service that the disrepair complaint was not been progressed at the end of March 2021.
This Service issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order on 15 May 2021 as the landlord failed to respond to the complaint.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 19 May 2021. The key findings were:
1. it had responded to the report of the leak within 24 hours
2. as the family were recovering from Covid19, the resident had advised that she would confirm a start date for the repair works when they recovered
3. it had received a disrepair claim and it had contacted the resident to ascertain who was representing her in the matter
4. it had offered the resident a temporary move to another property or a hotel whilst the works were taking place
5. it was aware of the resident’s concerns about having to move on more than one occasion to facilitate the works taking place
6. the resident had requested a permanent move to another property as the only resolution to resolve the outstanding repairs
7. it had offered a two-week holiday at a destination of the resident’s choice as a remedy under the disrepair claim, for the works to take place
8. it apologised and reoffered the compensation award of £370 that it offered in its stage one response.
Concurrently, the landlord wrote to the resident on the same day (19 May 2021) regarding the disrepair claim. It stated:
1. it was aware of her medical problems
2. It had commissioned an independent surveyor to inspect the property
3. The work would take around two weeks to complete and it offered her a two-week holiday whilst the work was taking place.
After the complaint process, it is recorded that:
1. the repairs to the property were paused as the resident was unwell
2. the resident refused the offer of the holiday as she required a permanent move
3. The independent surveyor inspected on 24 June 2021 and provided his report to the landlord. It found that the works were not structural, that in light of the resident’s medical condition that the works should not be carried out with her in occupation and that once completed the works should be maintenance free.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed its own policies and procedures and acted appropriately. The assessment will consider the landlord’s response to the reports that it received and to the formal complaint and consider whether its response was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The report will not be addressing each specific issue or incident; however, all the available evidence has been considered and the Ombudsman will not only consider the landlord’s response to the substantive issue, but also the actions it took within its complaints process.
It is clear from the resident’s submissions that she had been distressed following the leak into her property. The resident’s feelings are acknowledged, and it is recognised that dealing with such situations would no doubt have been difficult for the resident and her family.

water penetration into the property

The landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property. As a result, it was necessary for it to investigate reports of water ingress that it received and take appropriate steps to resolve the issues it identified.
Looking at the available information, the resident states that she informed the landlord that she was experiencing water penetration into the property before the report on 15 October 2020. The landlord in its initial complaint response has acknowledged that it received reports regarding dampness on 6 October 2020 and 9 October 2020 and that it took no action. In addition, the landlord has not provided any information regarding the complaint made on 12 October 2020 that it acknowledged. This is a short coming as landlords are required to keep and maintain accurate records of the reports it receives and the actions taken in response to enable it to manage issues reported by the resident as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord.
The landlord’s repair policy sets out that it will respond to emergency repairs within four hours. The landlord has said that it became first aware of the leak when it received the resident’s report on 15 October 2020. The available evidence indicates that the landlord responded on 16 October 2020 to assess and remedy the leak. This indicates that the landlord responded more than 4 hours after it received the report which was an unreasonable delay to the concerns reported by the resident.
Looking at the available evidence, the landlord attended the resident’s property to carry out an inspection on 16 October 2020 to assess the condition of the property. It determined that the cause of the leak resulted from the overflow pipe to the gutter which had affected the resident’s property, it carried out a temporary repair to divert the water into the downpipe and drew up a schedule of works to remedy the water ingress to the property. This consisted of removing the damaged plasterboard to the front hallway and to plaster the affected ceiling and walls in the front hallway and to the bedroom. The landlord carried out a further inspection on 13 November 2020 and updated its schedule of works to include the renewal of the carpet, decoration to the hallway wall and ceiling and the renewal of the damaged skirting in the bedroom.
The landlord decided that that the resident should be moved to alternative accommodation whilst the repairs would be carried out and discussed this with the resident. This was reasonable approach to take considering the works required to the property and to minimise the inconvenience to the resident and her family.
The landlord considered in its complaint review that the cost of running the dehumidifiers added an additional expense to the resident and made an award of compensation for this. This was an appropriate response as it considered the personal circumstances of the resident and acknowledged her statement that the use of the dehumidifiers had increased her utility costs.
There is evidence that the landlord monitored the time taken to carry out the repair and considered the reasonableness of undertaking the plastering works to the property with the resident in occupation in accordance with its repairing obligations. In reaching its decision, it considered the availability of alternative accommodation for the resident and her family and the possibility of deterioration to the property.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. One of the factors, that the Ombudsman considers is whether the redress is proportionate to the severity of the service failure by the landlord. In its complaint response, the landlord advised that the leak was completely resolved by 20 October 2020, acknowledged that the dehumidifier had been removed due to the running costs. It apologised and offered a compensation award of £250 for the disruption experienced by the resident, accepted that the carpet had been water damaged and offered good will gestures to carpet and decorate the outer hall and the first bedroom. It also agreed that once it commenced the work, it would review the concerns raised by the resident regarding the inner hallway and her son’s bedroom. It acknowledged that she had tested positive for Covid and that once the infection had passed, it would contact her to arrange a convenient appointment to arrange for the works to take place.
The landlord’s offer in light of the available evidence is considered reasonable redress as it takes into account the impact on the resident following the water penetration into her property,

reports of damp and mould in the property

In its complaint response, the landlord accepted that the resident had reported damp within the property in early October and that it had not acted on the report. The landlord appropriately apologised for its failure to respond to the resident’s report.
The available evidence shows that following the leak into the property the landlord arranged for a specialist damp and mould company to attend in November 2020 to inspect and provide its report. It recommended mould treatment, upgrade to the existing extraction units in the kitchen, bathroom and for new ventilation units to the living room and bedrooms. The landlord accepted the report’s recommendations which was a reasonable as this would supply extra ventilation to the resident’s home.
There were disagreements between the resident and the damp and mould contractor regarding what was agreed about the condition of the room before the repairs were carried out – the contractor advised that the room needed to be cleared before it could carry out the work and the resident advised of the difficulties that this would cause her as she did not have storage facilities to undertake this. There were misunderstanding regarding the ability of the damp and mould contractor to work safely with the children present in the property. The landlord appropriately clarified to the resident’s local authority representative that due to the Covid 19 pandemic there were extra health and safety precautions that needed to be in place before the works could be carried out to protect the contractors and the resident and her family.
The landlord was person centred as before the damp and mould work could take place the resident became unwell. The landlord appropriately contacted the resident for updates regarding her health and wellbeing, discussed with her the national restrictions caused by the Covid 19 pandemic and that it may be preferable to delay the works until the Covid 19 restrictions were lifted and the children were in school to reduce the risks to the family.
The landlord also reacted to reports it received regarding the suitability of undertaking the works by seeking advice from her representative at the local authority. This was a reasonable approach to take as it had received reports from family members of the resident to pause the work due to the impact of the work on the resident and this showed that it considered the impact of the work on the resident.
At the time that the complaint had exhausted the complaint procedure, it is not clear whether the ventilation works recommended in the report by the damp and mould contractor had been implemented. A recommendation has been made about this later in the report.

damage to possessions

The landlord’s complaint procedure advises that complaints about damage to the resident’s possessions should be dealt with as an insurance claim. It is not disputed that the leak into the resident’s property caused damage to the resident’s personal possessions. The landlord advised the resident to make a claim under her home contents policy for the damage to her and her family possessions in accordance with its tenancy agreement.
The resident’s representative disagreed with the approach taken by the landlord and advised that it should consider the resident’s claim for damage to her possessions under its insurance policy. When the landlord considered the resident’s request it advised that it could not consider these issues under the complaint procedure and that it had made an award of compensation for the distress experienced. However, it did not undertake an assessment of the damaged possessions and its assessment did not consider whether it should signpost the resident to make a claim to its insurers for the damage to her possessions. This was a shortcoming as it was aware that following the leak into the property that the resident had experienced damage to her belongings. A recommendation has been made about this later in the report

Request to be transferred

Looking at the available information, following the leak into the property, the landlord assessed that the resident should be moved on a temporary basis to allow the property to dry out and for it to carry out the requisite repairs.
The landlord responded appropriately when it determined that as the repairs would take a short time to carry out – around 10 days, that alternative accommodation was required for a limited time. This was a reasonable decision to make as it considered that the schedule of works it had drawn up could be concluded with within that time frame. The resident declined its offers of temporary accommodation giving reasons such as the need to be near her support network and her children’s school.
The landlord was person centred as it considered the representations that the resident made. It tried to source accommodation near her family and the children’s schools, tried to minimize disruption to the resident by agreeing to carry out the work while the children were in school, contacted the local authority regarding the availability of temporary accommodation and as part of its negotiation for the disrepair claim offered her and her family a two-week holiday for the work to take place whilst she was away.
The resident stated that her preferred outcome was a permanent move to a larger property. Whilst the resident may qualify for a move to a larger property under the local authority rehousing list, she will need to complete the appropriate applications to be considered under this process if she hasn’t already. The reason for temporarily moving the resident was to remedy the disrepair in the property. Therefore, whilst it was the resident preferred outcome to the situation, the landlord was responsible for ensuring that it took action to remedy the disrepair in the property and the landlord was not obliged to offer a permanent move to enable the repairs to be completed.

the related complaint

The landlord’s complaint procedure at the time the initial complaint was made states that it would respond to complaints within 20 working days. The resident provided evidence of a complaint made on 12 October 2020. The landlord has not provided any information regarding this complaint, which is not reasonable as landlords are expected to record complaints it receives about its service delivery.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 October 2020 to complain about the water penetration into the property. The landlord delayed in responding to this complaint until 2 December 2020, which was at least two weeks past its published timescales. In its complaint response, the landlord apologised and offered an award of compensation for this.
The resident escalated her complaint in February 2021 through contact with this Service. This Service confirmed on 12 April 2021 to the landlord that it should consider her concerns through its complaint procedure. The landlord advised that it was trying to resolve the concerns raised by the resident and that it was simultaneously dealing with the disrepair claim that she had made. The recent guidance to landlords advises that landlords that when it receives a disrepair claim, the landlord should continue sending its complaint responses. Going forward, this is the approach the landlord should take, when dealing with complaints of this nature.
The resident has advised this Service that she does not have an active disrepair complaint with the landlord. The landlord believes the resident was representing herself in the disrepair claim at the time and the resident communicated with the disrepair team regarding the condition within her home.
A complaint handling failure order was issued on 15 May 2021 when the landlord did not provide its complaint response. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out the expectations of landlords when it receives complaints. Whilst the landlord had accepted that the property was in disrepair and was negotiating a resolution, this did not prevent the landlord setting out its position regarding the complaint.
The landlord sent its final complaint response to the resident on 19 May 2021 restating its position regarding the outstanding works, that it was willing to undertake the repairs and that the resident wanted to move to permanent accommodation.
The final response to the complaint exceeded its published time limit by two months and the landlord did not consider whether a further award of compensation was payable for this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s response to your reports of water penetration into the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to your reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to your reports of damage to your possessions.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to your request to be transferred to another property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord exceeded its published repair timescales when it responded to the resident’s report of water penetration into her report. It apologised and has made an appropriate award of compensation for this.
The landlord organised for its damp and mould specialist to attend the resident’s property. It agreed to action the report’s recommendations; however, the resident’s ill health meant she was unable to agree a suitable convenient appointment for the work to be carried out.
The resident’s possessions were damaged as a result of the water penetration to the property; in its complaint review the landlord did not signpost her to make a liability claim under its insurance policy.
The landlord agreed to move the resident to alternative accommodation to carry out repairs to the property. It found suitable temporary accommodation and acknowledged the difficulties that a temporary move would cause the resident but did not agree that the resident should be decanted on a permanent basis.
The landlord delayed in responding to the complaint at both stages of the complaint procedure despite the intervention of this Service.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident and apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation for
1. £100 for its failure to signpost her to its insurance company to make a claim for damages
2. £200 for its delay in providing its final complaint response
The landlord to contact the resident to agree a mutually convenient appointment to arrange for the works outlined in the report received by the damp and mould specialist to be implemented, if they have not already been completed.
The landlord to contact the resident and arrange for a liability claim to be made for the damage to her and her family’s possessions following the water penetration in October 2020.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.