Kingston upon Thames Council (202209197)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209197

Kingston upon Thames Council

15 August 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 damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs required to the front door.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.
4. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord which began on 2 November 2009. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat
The resident suffers from anxiety and depression. She has 3 children. 2 of her children are registered disabled and suffer from autism, ADHD and sensory difficulties. Her youngest child suffers from breathing difficulties.
The landlord’s website says it will prioritise every responsive repair depending on its urgency and allocate a target for the maximum time that it should take to complete a repair. The target timescales are:
1. Emergency – within 2 hours
2. Urgent – within 24 hours
3. Routine – within 20 working days.
The landlord has a damp and mould policy which says that:
1. It will take responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp in a timeless and effective way. It will communicate clearly and regularly with any actions that it plans to undertake. The landlord will treat residents reporting damp and mould with respect, and not pre-judge the cause
2. Rising damp is noticeably worse in the winter and is considered the landlord’s responsibility to resolve
3. Where damp and mould are recurring, a representative will undertake a comprehensive risk assessment which may result in a range of actions to support the resident, depending on their particular circumstance. If intrusive building work is required that could cause a health risk to the resident or their household, it may require them to move out
4. Where no further work is required, residents will be informed and the reason why will be fully explained
5. It recognises that residents may struggle to afford to heat their homes adequately. Where required, it will guide and support them to funding initiatives.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaint policy:
1. Stage 1 – the resident will be responded to within 10 working days
2. Stage 2 – the resident will be responded to within 20 working days
3. Residents will be informed if there is likely to be a delay and when they can expect a full response.
The landlord has a compensation policy which says that it will consider discretionary compensation where a member of staff has not communicated with a resident within an appropriate timescale or where it has taken an unreasonable amount of time to resolve the issues complained about.
On 9 April 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and said that:
1. She had issues since her door was fitted in 2015. In 2018 a job was raised to replace the door and she was provided with a reference number, after years of chasing. However since then, she had experienced further difficulties in getting the landlord to attend to complete the job
2. She had been told that the delay was due to the landlord’s budgets and universal delays in obtaining composite doors
3. Her repair had been “left in limbo”. She had spoken to the landlord on several occasions to raise a complaint but had heard nothing further. She said “chasing the landlord had become stressful”.
On 21 April 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and said that:
1. She had spoken with the landlord on 10 February 2021 and was assured that someone would be in contact to measure up and fit a new door. Nobody had made contact and she had tried several telephone numbers including mobile numbers of the landlord’s staff. In a previous complaint she had made, she was “absolutely assured” that the landlord was sorry and she wouldn’t have to chase the door again but she was in the same situation
2. She had damp in her home. Despite several visits, the only response the landlord had given was that it was as a result of the way she lived. The damp was “absolutely ruining her life”, she cleaned the property regularly, and ran a dehumidifier on constant. The surveyor was welcome to visit her property to see how she was living.
The landlord’s surveyor responded the same day and said:
1. There was an undercroft at the property. This was a void where the water pumps were, and meant that the property had a cold concrete slab underneath made up of concrete beams and clay pots
2. A specialist damp company looked at a similar property and its findings were that consistent heating was a key factor in why condensation and mould form. It was recognised that it was expensive to heat properties consistently
3. If she provided a telephone number, it could contact her to discuss the matter further.
On 30 April 2021 the resident said she wanted to raise a complaint about the condition of her front door. She said:
1. She had been waiting for a replacement door for years. In 2018, she was told she would have a new door “ASAP”. She was again told in February 2021 that an urgent request had been raised to replace the door. She had lost count of how many times operatives had been out to measure for it
2. She was recently informed an appointment had been made at short notice. She made arrangements to stay at home but no one had turned up
3. Her depression and anxiety had become “uncontrollable” and she felt she was being ignored.
There is a gap of evidence of communication between the landlord and the resident until June 2021. On 14 June 2021 an independent damp survey was carried out at the property. The landlord was in attendance. The report noted:
1. The weather conditions on the day were dry and warm. It understood that the resident had said the conditions become progressively worse in the cooler months of the year
2. Electrical meter testing found that the majority of the property was reasonably dry, except to localised sections of the floor. A hydrometer test was recommended for further testing
3. The walls were dry, but it was “entirely possible” that this could vary, and mould could grow during the cooler months, typically October to April
4. The bathroom had a fan but it had insufficient extraction pull. There was no extractor fan fitted in the kitchen
5. The undercroft was inspected and water ponding was found. There was also some evidence of water penetration through the low level air vents. Both could exacerbate the internal atmospheric moisture levels. It was “entirely possible” that there was some rising damp as a result
6. Environmental measurements of the undercroft indicated that the temperature could result in water vapour permeation through the clay pot and into the internal habitable space of the property. This would exacerbate the internal conditions within the property, which would be further affected by general living and a lack of appropriate fan extraction
7. Recommendations were made to:
  1. Check the mechanical fan within the bathroom and make necessary repairs or replacement so that it is in full working order
  2. Consider a humidistat fan in the kitchen. As a minimum, the existing cooker extractor fan should be vented
  3. Install a 7 day remote hydrometer test and carry out any subsequent remedial works to the solid floors
  4. Check and test the communal soil vent pipe for any potential defects using a drainage specialist
  5. Consider drylining the walls, particularly the living room and bedroom
  6. Advise the resident to use the extractor fans once they had been fixed, and keep internal doors closed. She should ensure that the internal temperature does not drop below 18 degrees.
On 12 October 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s local MP and advised that:
1. Investigations into damp and mould were ongoing. Recent investigations showed that the air moisture was at reasonable levels, but recommended that a humidistat fan be fitted to the kitchen, and an extractor fan to the bathroom. Works had been raised for these
2. A recommendation was also made for a hydrometer to be fitted to investigate moisture permeation from the undercroft
3. The property was not uninhabitable and it was not considering moving the resident into any temporary accommodation. It recognised that the resident had applied for a 3 bedroom property but these were in high demand and a move would not be in the near future
4. In the meantime, in view of concerns about the children’s respiratory conditions, it would refer the resident and her family to an occupational therapist (OT).
The same day, the landlord contacted the resident and said it had responded to her MP about a request to move. During its enquiries, it found that it had never seen the supporting medical documents the resident had submitted. It asked that she log into an online portal to provide them.
The resident replied and said she submitted her medical evidence online many months ago, and also handed in paper copies to the landlord’s office. Her MP also assisted with submitting them again via an online link in around June 2021. She said:
1. She and her children were unwell. 2 of her children were disabled and her youngest daughter was awaiting surgery to help her breathe. Her son had mobility issues and had been sleeping on a high sleeper to escape mould, but had fallen during a night terror. She was worried the family was being “absolutely smothered in mould”.
2. She was running dehumidifiers all day and night, and now it was winter the fungus was getting out of control. She had tried everything to fight it and encouraged the landlord to “come and view it for yourself”
3. When she left messages or spoke to any of the landlord’s representatives, she would be told someone would call back, but they never did. She could not cope and the “walls were caving in”. Nobody was listening and no one cared.
On 10 November 2021 the resident contacted the landlord. She said that:
1. Further to a surveyor’s visit that took place on 8 November 2021 she wanted to express her concerns about the suggestion to fit a hydrometer. She felt worried and uneasy about its installation because its proposed location would significantly impact her disabled children
2. She was worried to learn from the surveyor that there were asbestos tiles in the property. When she moved in, many of the tiles were broken or damaged. She was worried the installation of a hydrometer would further disturb the asbestos and contaminate the area
3. Her youngest daughter was due to have surgery for a breathing condition, and she was certain that the mould was a contributing factor. She was still keen to get to the bottom of the damp and mould as it was making her life difficult. It was not her intention to reject any proposed works, but her family would not cope well with the disruption and she “felt ill just thinking about it”. She asked that the landlord keep her updated with any other solutions as the situation was a “ big worry” for her.
The landlord responded to the resident the same day and said:
1. It had discussions about the properties that sit on the undercroft and it would “hold back” on the hydrometer checks
2. It would stay in touch regarding any progress made, but “there is recognition that we need to do more with properties like yours”
3. The resident should “keep doing what [she is] doing” at her property, and urged her to make contact if she felt it could do anything else for her in the interim.
On 16 December 2021 the resident contacted the landlord. She said:
1. More needed to be done to improve her living conditions. The landlord had accepted that “more needed to be done”, and despite following up on its previous offer of contact, she had been unable to speak to anyone. There was no clear way forward on how the issues with damp would be resolved
2. She wanted to raise a complaint about the condition of the front door. It had taken 7 years to replace a door that was incorrectly fitted in 2015. The latest installation had issues where the frame was crooked and the catch was broken. The contractor told her she didn’t have the right “technique” to close the door. She found this patronising and felt it was reasonable to expect that her whole family could open the door easily
3. On 10 November 2021 she found herself locked inside the house. Someone came to remove the bottom catch as a temporary measure, but no one had visited since. She felt the responsibility to chase the contractors had been passed to her.
On 28 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and said that:
1. She had not received any response to her email dated 16 December 2021, or had any further communication about damp issues in the property. She had seen that a neighbour had approached the media about the same problem, and wanted to know what was being done about her own situation
2. The landlord seemed confused about where her medical documents were stored and who had seen them
3. No one had been out to inspect the new door that was installed in August 2021. The contractor had visited on several occasions but were unable to rectify the faults. The estate manager had visited and witnessed that the door was difficult to close, it was draughty and the letterbox stayed open. The door was not fire safe and made her house insurance void. She wanted someone from the landlord to oversee another replacement.
The landlord responded on 31 January 2022 and said that the surveyor had a “backlog” of damp and mould cases and it was sure he would be following up any actions. It had informed the relevant people about concerns about her door, and the housing team was aware of her request for a move.
On 7 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and asked for an update. She had been assured that someone would be in touch at the start of February 2022 to inspect the front door but she had heard nothing further. She included a copy of the email correspondence that evidenced this. The same day, the landlord’s resident service officer advised colleagues she had been to the property herself and was unable to open the door. In the event of a fire, she was worried that it could be dangerous for the resident.
On 24 March 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and said that following a recent appointment, a number of defects had been found with the front door. The main issue was that the door leaf itself was bowed. A new one would be manufactured and it would keep in touch when it had more information.
On 9 May 2022 the resident logged a complaint with her landlord about the condition of her front door. She said that:
1. The landlord replaced her door again in August 2021 but it continued to have problems, and she had little support from her landlord. She has had to chase the contractor directly on the landlord’s behalf. She felt this was the responsibility of the landlord
2. In November 2021 she became locked inside the flat as the door frame became stuck. She called the contractor who attended and removed a keep at the bottom of the door, which compromised the fire proofing. Since then, she had chased the landlord on several occasions, and appointments had been booked but cancelled. She had been left with an unsafe, difficult and heavy door.
3. The situation of having to have waited so long for a replacement door, only for it to still cause an issue had caused her significant distress. She had hand injuries as a result of trying to use it because it was difficult to close and lock
4. All she had received from the landlord’s contractors was “sarcasm or no response at all”. Her home insurance had become invalid and she felt her concerns were being ignored. She wanted her front door replaced as a matter of urgency. She had disabled children and was concerned for their safety.
In separate correspondence with the landlord on the same day, the resident said:
1. She had been requesting an extractor fan from the landlord since 2011. In April 2021, a specialist supported that she needed a fan in her kitchen and bathroom. The landlord had said the bathroom fan was fine, but had not done anything about her kitchen. In the past year she had been “messed around”, and appointments had been cancelled on at least 10 occasions. She had 3 children with disabilities and “did not need the extra upset”
2. She had lost trust in the appointment system. She provided reference numbers which she said the landlord could cross reference and see how many times she had been let down
3. She wanted the kitchen extractor fan replaced and a review of her bathroom fan. She wanted compensation for time off work. She was on a casual contract, and had to turn work down to accommodate appointments that were repeatedly not kept.
On 20 May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and said she wanted to make a complaint. She said:
1. Her main concerns were the damp, the condition of her front door and the extractor fans in the property. She had tried for 10 years to be moved and wanted to make a complaint about how her housing needs had been handled. There was a long history of the landlord not responding to emails, following upon calls or visits and there was no clear line of responsibility
2. Documents she repeatedly uploaded onto the landlord’s website would go missing. She took some documents into the office by hand to avoid this, but they had also been misplaced
3. A neighbour with the same issues with damp in the property, but had been moved. The landlord had not offered her a move and so she felt discriminated against. Her children had significant disabilities and she found it “hard to see a future”
4. She was aware that a damp report flagged that there were clay pots under her property which were contributing to damp and mould. She had refused the installation of a hydrometer because of concerns about her family and the impact of asbestos, but no further investigations had taken place since.
On 20 May 2022 the landlord’s internal correspondence noted:
1. The only option for the resident to move was a mutual exchange or a housing panel move to a similar size property. A surveyor would need to state that her property is no longer habitable because of damp for a housing panel referral to be approved
2. The situation was affecting the resident’s mental health and there were concerns about the safety of her disabled children. Her youngest in particular suffered from a breathing disorder.
On 25 May 2022 the resident logged a complaint with her landlord about damp and mould in the property. She said that:
1. She had suffered with damp, mould and disrepair since she started the tenancy in 2009. She had asked to be moved because of damp and mould. More recently, there had been further problems with her front door and extractor fan.
2. She had been told that the damp and mould was her fault due to her not opening her windows or heating the property appropriately. She had tried her best to manage the damp and mould and had purchased 2 dehumidifiers, 2 air purifiers and fitted a damp proof membrane under her carpet at her own cost. She regularly cleaned and kept furniture away from the walls. Despite her interventions, her possessions were regularly damaged by mould
3. The landlord visited last year and said that the damp was caused by clay pots which retained the moisture under her property. No further works, investigations or updates had taken place since
4. The landlord’s communication had been poor. It was not responding to emails or following up on phone calls. Its failures to communicate predate the covid pandemic, which was being used as an excuse for the way her case was being dealt with. Documents she provided the landlord, even by hand, had gone missing, had not been placed on file, and were contributing to delays
5. All 3 of her children have learning disabilities and health problems, and had been forced to share a room. Anything left in the their room against the floor or walls became mouldy. Her daughter suffered from breathing conditions and a consultant advised that using humidifiers and steam would help her clear the mucus blocking her sinuses. She felt it was not possible to do this for fear of contributing to the damp and mould in the property
6. Her family had suffered physical and emotional distress as a result of the issue being unresolved for a significant period of time. Most days she found it “hard to see a future” and felt like she was “going insane”. She had done everything possible to eradicate the problem herself and felt “haunted” and trapped by the mould.
In separate correspondence on the same day, the resident said that:
1. She wanted to take her complaint about her front door to stage 2 of the complaint process. She had been totally ignored and left chasing. A fire safety marshal had recently attended the property and confirmed that the door needed to be replaced
2. The door she had been left with was big, heavy and difficult to lock. One of the lock keeps had been removed, and because the frame was misaligned, the other lock kept getting stuck. Her situation was being minimised and she wanted the front door replacing with one that was straight, closed easily and had no draughts.
On 25 May 2022 the surveyor informed the landlord’s colleagues:
1. No penetrating damp had been found in the property. Readings that were taken during an inspection the previous year showed that the moisture was within reasonable limits
2. “We should be clear that residents are going to have to take more ownership of their properties”. Fans and insulation would only be effective if residents have a clear understanding of how to control condensation.
The same day the landlord contacted the resident about her front door. It said that:
1. There was a gap between the door leaf and frame, and the overhead door closer was not the original. The bottom keep had been removed but not replaced. The door was stiff for children to open, but was lockable and secure. Snagging to the frame and the step were outstanding
2. The door did not need to be a certified fire door because she had more than one direction of travel as a fire escape, but it would arrange for the overhead door closer to be removed to allow for ease of opening for her children. It would not replace the door.
On 30 May 2022 the social prescriber from the resident’s medical practice emailed the landlord and advised that she had concerns about the resident’s housing situation and the effect this was having on her mental health. The landlord responded and said it would forward the correspondence to the housing officer to consider the resident’s housing needs.
On 31 May 2022 the landlord emailed the resident about concerns relating to her door. It contained a letter referenced “Stage 1 complaint” but was undated. The landlord said that:
1. There had been “a catalogue of issues” surrounding her case, from poor communication to poor workmanship. It was sorry for this.
2. It would like to help resolve the faulty door or help with its replacement. The landlord would take responsibility to liaise with the contractor. It would advise a repair was needed to the door, and if beyond repair then request that it provides a full replacement. If it had difficulties working with its contractor, then it would source an alternative to speed up the process
3. A meeting would be arranged around 6 June 2022 to discuss a plan of action and the resident would be updated. In the meantime, she could contact a specific member of staff directly about her concerns.
On 9 June 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and said that it was approximately the thirteenth time she had been let down with regards to an appointment for her extractor fan. She said:
1. That morning someone attended, but said that the right glass had not yet been ordered for the installation
2. She had a casual contract and had to turn down offers of work to allow to for the appointment. This had impacted her cash flow and she was getting depressed. She felt discriminated against and unable to cope. She had email evidence requesting an extractor fan since 2011. It was unacceptable that it was still not fitted. Communication was going “terribly wrong” and she was suffering as a result.
On 15 June 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it required an extension of a further 2 weeks to respond to her complaint. Internal correspondence noted:
1. The landlord was “not confident” in the information it had and there was “no clear solution as to what it intended to do about the complaint about mould”
2. The surveyor had stated an independent survey was carried out and there was “no problem with mould in the property because [the resident] meticulously cleans the flat for her children’s wellbeing” but “this did not mean she was not affected by it”
3. The mould was not as a result of her lifestyle
4. The extractor fan had still not been fitted. An appointment was made for 9 June 2022 but the operatives turned up without the required materials.
On 17 June 2022 the surveyor said they would not respond further on the matter until it had received a specialist damp survey from the neighbouring property. This was expected within the next 2 weeks.
On 30 June 2022 the resident said she had still not had any contact about her door. She had been left to live with it since August 2021. She was concerned about what her children would do if there was a fire because they were unable to open it.
On 1 July 2022 the landlord responded to the resident about her complaint about damp and mould at stage 1 of its process. It said that:
1. It was sorry for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. The repairs system showed that the property had suffered from numerous leaks since 2010. It could see that an order was raised to fit dry lining to the bedroom, but this had no effect on the damp
2. In September 2011 an order was raised to fit an extractor fan to the kitchen and a humidistat fan to the bathroom. It could see that it was yet to be fitted, a contractor would be in touch to arrange a convenient appointment date
3. A damp survey was carried out in June 2021. The report noted that there was little evidence of damp but it was understood to become progressively worse in the cooler months of the year
4. An electrical moisture test was done. The majority of readings were within acceptable levels, except for the hallway, WC room and bathroom. A hydrometer was recommended but the resident refused its installation for concerns about the effect on her children’s medical conditions. Early indications of tests done to a neighbouring property showed that there was no damp on the floors
5. The issue around documents going missing would be addressed by the housing team. If she were to be offered a property via the housing panel, this would be a like for like property. However it would explain to the panel that the same size property was not desirable for her children
6. Overall, it upheld the resident’s complaint about damp and mould. It could see a long term solution to alleviate the damp and mould remained inconclusive. It would partially uphold the complaint about her housing move. If the resident remained unhappy with the response, she could escalate the matter to stage 2 of its complaint process.
On 4 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and advised she wanted her complaint escalating. She said that:
1. There were errors in the landlord’s response which minimised her situation. The inspection at her property in June 2021 was done during an extended period of extremely warm weather. A thermal imaging device would have been more appropriate in the winter and she felt that the delay was deliberate. It was unreasonable that the landlord said that because a neighbouring property had no damp, hers didn’t either
2. There was little evidence of mould during the inspection because she was regularly cleaning it. The meter checks were done with the front door open, which she felt would have affected the condensation readings. The inspector refused to look under the mattresses and so she was attaching a photograph which showed fungus starting to form
3. Her possessions had been damaged. She had bought a sofa on a 4 year payment plan for £1950 but had to throw it out after 2 years as it was covered in mould and fungus. Her beds were metal and raised off the floor to prevent contact with mould
4. An extractor fan alone was not going to remedy the issue. She was running a dehumidifier 24 hours a day with an extraction rate of 20L. She put it on boost mode when having a shower, kept the heating on constant and opened the windows every morning in the winter. She was doing everything she could, and had followed every bit of advice she had been given
5. She did not “reject” the use of a hydrometer. The surveyor told her that she didn’t have to agree to it
6. She was starting to see that “every white family” around her was being moved as a result of damp and mould, but not hers as they were mixed race. Other people were getting help but she felt she was not because she had black children. Her children also had considerable disabilities which the landlord had not taken into consideration
7. She had been told that her door would be fixed on 6 June 2022 but had heard nothing since. Her mental health had been affected and “was going out of her mind”. She was taking medication but felt unsupported. She wanted someone to “come to her flat, see for yourself, help me”. She was “at breaking point” and the “walls here just seem to get smaller every day”.
On 6 July 2022 the resident told the landlord:
1. She felt unwell chasing repairs and complaints all the time. She had “been worn down to nothing”. Nobody cared and it felt like the landlord was laughing at her
2. She felt sick and the children were struggling. She had been let down over many years and had been told “lie after lie”.
On 11 July 2022 the landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident directly about delays with regards to her door. It said there had been a lack of communication and a series of failed appointments. It was willing to offer her £10 per missed appointment, a total of £60 for 6 failed appointments.
On 18 July 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord. She said that:
1. She wanted an update on her housing panel move. She had been told that someone would be in touch but she had heard nothing further. She had a 14 year old boy and 9 year old girl who were registered disabled. Her 4 year old daughter also had vulnerabilities and they were all sharing one bedroom. A 2 bedroom property was not suitable for their needs
2. The property had suffered with damp and mould since 2009. The landlord had been out several times over the years and had “brushed it off”, suggested all sorts of remedies which never worked and blamed it on her family’s lifestyle
3. She had to run 2 dehumidifiers just to stop the mould from “smothering everything”. She had laid a damp proof membrane under the carpet at her own cost. Her bills were high and she was struggling to afford to keep the dehumidifiers and air purifiers running
4. She aired her flat, never allowed it to drop below 18 degrees and had the heating on all the time. She never dried clothes on the radiators or had hot showers to try and avoid any build up of damp. The situation was affecting her family life and they could not live comfortably at home
5. All of her furniture was raised including the bed frame to allow for airflow, but still several of her possessions had been damaged by damp and mould. The situation was not down to the way she lived and she was not at fault, yet had been made to feel that way for years
6. She had kept her property in good condition and “tried to get on with it” but the situation was affecting her mental health, and she was “spiralling downwards”. She felt she had been “forced to live and suffer” and was being discriminated against. There was “no escape” in the flat and her disabled children were suffering. Her youngest was unable to breathe through her nose and it was “a battle to have repairs done”. It was like “getting blood out of a stone” to get support, and she felt sad and depressed all the time
7. She wanted help because she was “going out of her mind” and a move to a more suitable property was all she could think about.
On 30 July 2022 the resident chased the landlord for an update to her front door. She said she was concerned that her children could not escape in the event of an emergency and that her family were being discriminated against.
On 3 August 2022 the landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint process in relation to the door. It said that:
1. With regards to the resident’s door, it could see that there were a number of actions that were not followed through. There was poor communication and she was not given regular updates
2. She now had a single point of contact. They would be discussing the case with their team and highlighting the failure in service
3. It was sorry that the level of service failed to meet the standards it aimed to achieve and was upholding her complaint. She could expect fortnightly updates on progress
4. If she remained unhappy she could contact the Ombudsman.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 August and advised she still had not had an answer to her complaint. The landlord responded and reattached the stage 2 response. It said that it was “awaiting instruction from the Ombudsman”, and in the interim it would review the overall handling of her complaint and provide an update regarding her door.
On 13 September 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and said:
1. It was obvious that the door was causing the family difficulties to operate. For this reason it had decided to replace the door. Its service had failed to assist with the matter earlier and it was sorry for this. It would ensure that the case was discussed at team meetings and lessons would be learnt around communication
2. An engineer would need to carry out proprietary work before the door was fitted to make sure the new installation fitted appropriately. It would make arrangements to attend with the contractor on 26 September 2022 so she could be assured she was supported by the landlord. It would also be available for any aftercare
3. There had been a “catalogue of poor communication and missed opportunities” to resolve the matter earlier. It would ensure that it was in regular communication.
On 22 September 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage 2 of its complaint process in relation to the damp and mould. It said that:
1. It agreed that there “were some inaccuracies” as to how the damp was dealt with, however this didn’t amount to an unwillingness to help her family. The inspection was not done in the summer intentionally. It could see no evidence of racial discrimination in the stage 1 response that had been sent to her
2. It noted that installing an extractor fan in the kitchen would assist with extraction of moisture and air movement. It recognised it had not yet been installed and the causes of damp were “inconclusive”
3. It agreed that her concerns about how her property was difficult to heat were not addressed in the stage 1 response and therefore it was upholding that no response had been provided on the issue
4. Other families were being moved due to the regeneration of the estate on temporary or permanent decants, according to their own needs. It had spoken to its housing management colleagues and she had not been put forward for the housing panel, despite what a member of staff had told her
5. Taking all findings into account, it deemed that her complaint was partially upheld. As a result, it had left a voicemail message for the independent damp inspector to make contact to discuss her case
6. It had concluded her complaint and had provided its final position on the matter. If she was dissatisfied she could contact he Ombudsman.
On at least 6 occasions between 11 December 2022 and 6 April 2023 the resident chased the landlord for an update on the installation of the new front door. In her correspondence, she advised that she “no longer had the energy to keep chasing”.
On 25 January 2023 the landlord advised the Ombudsman that:
1. It only became aware that the resident’s children had vulnerabilities on 21 October 2021. When she was last visited by the surveyor, there was no evidence of damp and mould because the resident was managing the situation very well herself. A surveyor has looked at a similar property where a neighbour had moved out and found no issues
2. It recently made an offer to install a remotely connected humidity controlled device which the resident declined but it would contact her again about this
3. It had been informed the front door had been resolved and its repairs logs showed that there were no outstanding works in the resident’s property
4. It was considering fitting internal wall insulation to all communal areas and lift shaft.
In recent contact with the Ombudsman, the resident has said that:
1. She has had 3 front doors since 2015. The latest door was replaced in May 2023, and not January 2023 as the landlord has suggested. She feels that the door was only actioned as a result of her complaint to the Ombudsman, as the landlord was asked to provide repairs records around the same time. The door is “not perfect” as it is big and heavy, but she has given up speaking to the landlord about it
2. In January 2022 she was given a diagnosis of tenosynovitis which she feels is a direct result of injuries sustained from difficulties she experienced opening her door
3. Damp and mould continue to be an issue in the property. She recently upgraded her dehumidifier for one that was advertised as suitable for a 5 bedroom property because she felt it would be stronger. She also had 2 air purifiers in constant use, and was always conscious that she did nothing else to create additional moisture in her home
4. The landlord has never offered any plan of action or communicated what its intentions were to resolve the damp and mould. The extractor fan the landlord fitted in the kitchen took over 13 appointments over 18 months to install, and her bathroom fan has had no adjustment to it. She recalls being in tears during a surveyor visit in 2021. They seemed to acknowledge the problem but the only advice they could give was to “just keep doing what you are doing”. She feels because she is trying to fight the mould herself, and not letting it get out of control, the landlord has “left her to it”
5. At times, the landlord has made her feel like the damp is her fault and she and her family have had no support. The landlord never referred her to the OT it referenced in correspondence with her local MP. There was no progress on a move for her family and she felt the landlord was disinterested in what support it could offer her
6. The stage 2 response about damp offered no resolution. The landlord said her complaint had been upheld, but there was no indication of what would happen next. It contained spelling errors which made her feel as though it was rushed and not thought through. It did not recognise she had been financially impacted for time taken off work to allow for missed appointments and it failed to properly address her concerns about discrimination
7. She has been financially impacted in her attempts to tackle the damp and mould herself. She has receipts which show she spent £299 on a dehumidifier on 28 December 2022, and £24.64 to purchase a damp proof membrane to fit under her carpet. She has bought several other dehumidifiers she has lost receipts for over time but she has record of each make and model she has used, and believes the value to have been over a further £345. As a result of using several dehumidifier and air purifiers her electricity bills have been high
8. The landlord will say one thing on the phone, but follow up in writing with something else. Often, it does not respond to her at all. Prior to the stage 2 complaint responses, the landlord contacted her and they were on the phone for “hours”, but the response was not reflective of the conversation that was had. The landlord’s record keeping had been a source of frustration and information was always missing. She is particularly upset that a member of staff called her by phone and said she had been accepted for a move, and this was later disputed in writing
9. She “cannot put into words” how the situation has affected her mental health. She has suffered from severe depression and suicidal thoughts. It has been demoralising throwing away her possessions on a regular basis which had been damaged by mould. Her children have significant vulnerabilities and she is worried about the impact on them. She does not want to face another winter in the property.

Assessment and findings

Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to a hand injury she sustained in January 2022 and a direct impact on her mental health. Unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s repair records show that it has been aware of damp and mould concerns in the property since 2011. Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. To date, the landlord has advised that the cause of the damp remains “inconclusive”. The associated impact on the resident has been exacerbated over an extended period of time and amounts to a severe failing by the landlord.
The resident reports she had chased the landlord several times before making a complaint about the lack of action about the damp and mould on 21 April 2021. The landlord arranged for a specialist damp survey to take place on 14 June 2021. The delay in instructing a specialist to attend the property was unreasonable and did not demonstrate that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. The landlord had a responsibility to act on the recommendations made by the damp specialist in a timely manner, but it failed to do this. For example, no evidence was seen in the landlord’s communal repairs records that it had arranged to check and test the soil vent pipe, using a drainage specialist.
Further, the damp specialist made recommendations that the landlord fit an extractor fan in the kitchen and repair or replace the one in the bathroom with better extraction. Repair records show that the landlord took 4 months from the date of the survey to raise a repair for both fans. No evidence was seen as to what steps were taken to inspect the bathroom fan, and the kitchen fan was marked as complete on 14 September 2022, 318 working days later. The delay was unreasonable and significantly outside of the timescale that could be expected in accordance with the landlord’s repair policy.
Whilst the report noted that the resident’s property was reasonably dry, it still highlighted concerns about sections of the floor and noted that it was “entirely possible” that there was rising damp which could be worse in the colder months. To further investigate this, it recommended the installation of a hydrometer. Evidence suggests that the landlord visited the resident around 105 working days later to discuss the hydrometer with the resident.
The delay in following up on the recommended actions was unreasonable, and though no notes of the visit were seen, it is clear the discussion caused the resident significant concern about the impact the installation would have on her disabled children. Her distress is evidenced in the correspondence she sent to the landlord 2 days later on 10 November 2021 where she said she “felt ill just thinking about it”.
The resident told the landlord that it was not her intention to reject any proposed works, but she was concerned that her family would not cope well with the disruption the landlord had informed a hydrometer would cause. There is no evidence that the resident refused further investigations. She made it clear that she will wanted to “get to the bottom of the damp” and that she was willing to work with the landlord to tackle the issue, particularly as her daughter had breathing difficulties. The landlord offered the resident no reassurance of how it could install the hydrometer with minimal disruption to the family, and there is no evidence to suggest that it considered a temporary decant whilst it carried out the works.
The response sent to the resident by the landlord on 10 November 2021 was inappropriate. Whilst it was of the view that it “needed to do more with properties like [yours]”, and would “hold back” on the hydrometer checks, it provided no reassurance of what other steps it would take to investigate the issue. It simply said “keep doing what you are doing”, and urged her to contact the landlord if she felt it could be doing anything else. This was unreasonable, demonstrated a lack of empathy to the resident and put the onus back on her to tackle the problem.
The resident informed the landlord that despite its visits, there was still an issue with damp and mould in the property to the point she felt it was “absolutely ruining [her] life”. She made it clear that she had tried all possible interventions to tackle the damp and mould herself. She cleaned the property regularly, fitted a damp proof membrane underneath her carpet and was running dehumidifiers that she had purchased at her own cost. She encouraged the landlord several times to “come and see how [she is] living”. It is unreasonable that the landlord took no steps to re-visit the property. It did not respond promptly to her concerns, and when it did, its responses were inappropriate and inferenced blame on the resident.
It was not appropriate that despite not having visited the property to discuss the damp for approximately 5 months, the landlord concluded in May 2022 that “consistent heating of the property was a key factor” and that “residents needed to take more ownership”. These comments were an inappropriate generalisation of how the landlord viewed resident’s reports of damp and mould. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident has not been taking ownership of the damp and mould in her home. The landlord’s more recent correspondence on 25 January 2023 supports this, contradicting its previous comments and stating that the resident is managing the situation “very well”.
There is no evidence that the landlord has reinspected the damp and mould with the resident since November 2021. No further investigations took place in the winter months to see if the situation had worsened, and the landlord has said the root cause has remained “inconclusive”. It was unreasonable for the landlord to have suggested on multiple occasions that “similar neighbouring properties” had shown no signs of damp, and therefore concluded there was no issue in hers. No evidence was seen that it conducted a risk assessment and considered the resident’s particular circumstance in accordance with the landlord’s damp and mould policy.
The resident and her family suffer from considerable vulnerabilities. She has spoken to the landlord openly about how she has found it difficult to cope in the property with 2 disabled children and a daughter who has breathing difficulties. The resulting distress she has experienced in getting the landlord to acknowledge the issues with damp and mould in her property has been significant. In correspondence with the landlord she has said she has “found it hard to see a future”, was “spiralling downwards”, felt “haunted, trapped” and asked the landlord to “help me”. No evidence was seen that the landlord responded to these concerns, its responses lacked empathy and it did nothing to refer the resident to appropriate support.
The resident advised she experienced financial difficulty in trying to manage the damp and mould herself. She explained that the dehumidifiers and air purifiers she had purchased were running all day every day, causing an increase in bills. Her property had been damaged as a result of growing fungus and mould and she has found it “demoralising” throwing away her personal possessions. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to these specific concerns, or made any referrals to the funding initiatives referenced in its damp and mould policy.
Overall, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It failed to effectively monitor the situation in accordance with its HHSRS obligations and failed to act using its own damp and mould policy. It did not implement all of the recommendations made in the specialist survey done in June 2021 and further investigations remain outstanding. It has placed the onus back on the resident to manage the situation herself and has failed to appropriately support her family, despite being aware of their vulnerabilities.
Where the landlord has failed in its obligation to respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, the Ombudsman has ordered compensation which takes into account the circumstances of the case, the resident’s rental liability and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the resident’s enjoyment of her home has been severely curtailed, particularly in the winter months of October to April, and has ordered compensation calculated as follows:
1. The resident’s current rent is £138.32 per week, which will be used as an approximate figure for the purpose of this calculation
2. The landlord should pay the resident an amount equivalent to 35% of the rent amount for the period of 1 October 2021 to 30 April 2022, and 1 October 2022 to 30 April 2023
3. This totals 60.6 weeks
4. The compensation for the delayed response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould totals £2,933.65
5. Further compensation has been ordered that takes into account the distress and inconvenience she experienced
6. Further compensation has also been ordered which takes into account costs incurred by the resident for the purchase of items used to tackle the damp and mould herself.

The landlord’s handling of repairs required to the front door.

The resident reports that she has had issues with her front door since 2015. The landlord’s repair records entitled “repair history between 2 November 2009 and 23 January 2023” show that on 29 October 2018 a job was raised to look at a gap in the door that was allowing a draught in. The repair was marked as complete on 5 November 2018. There are no further repairs records for the property which references the front door. A separate assessment has been made in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.
The resident refers to speaking to the landlord on 10 February 2021 and was “absolutely assured” that the landlord was sorry that she had to chase up repairs relating to the door and that someone would be in contact. No record of the conversation was seen, and there appears to have been little further contact with the resident over a further significant period of time.
Where the resident was not getting a response from the landlord, she started to correspond directly with the contractor about the condition of her door. Evidence shows that they wrote to her on 11 July 2022 acknowledging their failures and offering her compensation as a result. It was the landlord’s responsibility to liaise with the contractor about the condition of the door and monitor their performance as part of its contract management responsibilities, but it failed to do so.
Records show that the resident chased the landlord 3 times in April 2021 for an update about her door. It failed to respond to the resident and it did not promptly raise a complaint. She had to chase at least a further 3 times throughout 2021 and into January 2022. When the landlord eventually responded to the resident on 31 January 2022 and it said it had “informed the relevant people about the door”. This response failed to acknowledge its lack of communication over a prolonged period of time and took no responsibility for providing the resident with an appropriate update.
As a result, the resident had to chase the landlord again. When it responded on 24 March 2022 it referenced a “recent appointment” were a number of defects on the door were identified which meant that it would require a replacement. It made assurances that it would keep in touch with the resident but again failed to do so. She had to chase it at least a further 2 times in May 2022 causing her unnecessary inconvenience and frustration.
The landlord’s communication around the door was confusing and contradictory. It had already informed the resident that it required a replacement, but on 25 May 2022 it said it would not be replaced. 6 days later, it contacted the resident again as part of its stage 1 complaint response and said it would assist with either a repair or replacement. It acknowledged that there had been a “catalogue of errors” and assured her that she would be contacted by a specific member of staff with an action plan.
No evidence of an action plan was seen, and the resident had to contact the landlord several times again between June and August 2022 for an update. The landlord failed to learn from outcomes and kept making the same mistakes. For example, on 3 August 2022 the stage 2 response advised the resident that its communication had been poor and it would be discussing the case to highlight the failure in service. It also said it would be in fortnightly contact. However there is no evidence that it did this, and further apologies for the same poor level of service followed.
On 13 September 2022 the landlord acknowledged that “it was obvious” the door was causing the resident difficulties and again apologised for a “catalogue of poor communication and missed opportunities”. The repeated acknowledgement that it was failing in its service to her, using the same choice of words it had used 4 months earlier, caused the resident evident frustration.
Despite offering again to be in regular contact, it failed to do so and the resident had to chase the landlord on at least a further 6 occasions. The lack of ownership from the landlord was unreasonable and contributed to the resident’s lack of trust and feeling that it was taking her concerns seriously. Its communication was poor, and evidence shows it failed to rectify the problem for at least 2 years.
It is unknown exactly when the door was replaced. The landlord told this Service that it had “been informed” that the door had been resolved by the end of January 2023, but the resident disputes this and said it was not replaced until May 2023. Overall, there was severe maladministration in the handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her door. The time it took to attend to repairs and eventually replace the door was significantly outside of the timescales that could be expected within its repair policy. The landlord’s communication was poor, it appeared confused as to what works needed to be done and it made repeated assurances which it did not see through to action.

The landlord’s complaint handling

It is noted that the resident has said she has complained about damp in the property since 2011 and issues with her door since 2015. This investigation is primarily focussed on the handling of the resident’s complaint from April 2021 onwards, noting that the landlord had the opportunity to consider all the historic evidence as part of its recent complaint responses.
The resident experienced considerable difficulties in getting the landlord to acknowledge her concerns as a formal complaint. Records demonstrate that she contacted the landlord at least 11 times between 9 April 2021 and 25 May 2022 to say she wanted to make a complaint about the condition of her door, and the landlord’s response to damp. The delay in recognising the residents concerns was unreasonable and caused her distress where she felt she was not being taken seriously. She had to enlist the support of her local MP to receive a response from the landlord.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response about her front door 289 working days after the resident’s initial contact. The delay was unreasonable, and although the landlord apologised for poor communication in relation to the repairs to her door, it failed to recognise its complaint handling failures. When considering how it will put matters right for the resident, the landlord must ensure that it carefully manages expectations and does not promise anything that cannot be delivered. In this case, it did not follow up on its reassurances of an action plan and regular contact.
When she advised that a month after the stage 1 response she still had no contact, the landlord was slow to act again. There is no evidence that it contacted her to discuss her request for an escalation in more detail, and a response followed 25 working days later. The response reiterated much of what it had already said in stage 1. It failed to acknowledge exactly what had gone wrong, consider it’s repair records, and failed to provide a conclusive response as to when she could expect her door to be fixed. As a result, the resident had to chase the landlord at least a further 6 times and it was not until the following year that the door was replaced. The landlord failed to learn from outcomes and put matters right.
The resident experienced similar difficulties with regards to her complaint of damp and mould. She made it clear on 21 April 2021 she was unhappy with the interventions the landlord had taken to address the issue, and commented that it was “ruining her life”. The landlord failed to recognise her communication as a complaint and she had to chase it at least a further 7 times. The delay in formally acknowledging her concerns was unreasonable.
Prior to issuing the stage 1 response about damp, the landlord had an opportunity to discuss the issues in depth with the resident. There is no evidence that it did this, despite noting that it “was not confident in the information that it had”. A stage 1 response was issued 302 working days after the resident first raised her concerns. The delay was unreasonable and whilst it apologised for this, its response did not fully recognise the extent of its failures and did not it take steps to rectify them.
The landlord’s stage 1 response into the damp and mould was inappropriate and did little to resolve matters for the resident. It acknowledged that it had taken over 10 years to fit extractor fans to the property, yet did not provide reassurance as to when the works would be completed. The landlord’s summary that a long term solution to the damp was “inconclusive” was unreasonable and gave the resident no confidence of its intentions to carry out further investigations. There was a lack of empathy towards the resident, and the information it gave as to whether the damp was worse in the winter was contradictory. It was unreasonable that it had referenced investigations into a neighbouring property, when it had taken no steps to investigate her individual circumstances or take into account her household vulnerabilities.
The impact of the landlord’s complaint handling on the resident was significant. Her correspondence of 6 July 2022 is of particular note as she explained to the landlord that she “had been worn down to nothing chasing complaints” and “felt the landlord was laughing at her”. No evidence was seen that the landlord replied empathetically to the resident, exacerbating her feelings of frustration and mistrust.
It is unknown from the landlord’s records whether it contacted the resident prior to issuing its stage 2 response but it again did little to conclude matters for the resident and its contents were inappropriate. The response was sent 52 working days late, and significantly outside of the timescale expected in accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy. It did not acknowledge or make any apology for its complaint handling failures. The response had spelling errors, contributing to the resident’s sentiments that it was “rushed” and she was not being taken seriously.
The stage 2 response lacked appropriate investigation into the resident’s concerns. It failed to respond fully to the resident’s reports of discrimination and failed to address the difficulties the resident had experienced in heating her home. The landlord acknowledged that it had still not installed the extractor fans nor established the root cause of the damp, and its concluding action that it had left a voicemail for a damp inspector was unreasonable.
Overall, the landlord failed to demonstrate a full understanding of the resident’s complaints for each issue and at each stage. It took no ownership and failed to explain what would happen next. Its responses lacked empathy and it failed to consider its compensation policy at any stage. In doing so, it failed to adopt the Ombudsman’s key dispute resolution principles of “Be fair, Put matters right, Learn from outcomes”.

The landlord’s record keeping

Evidence points to failures in the landlord’s record keeping. The resident made reference to several telephone conversations with the landlord. Part of her complaint relates to being told one thing in person or on the phone, and another in writing. This Service was not provided with comprehensive call or visit notes that could demonstrate what was discussed with the resident and what advice it gave.
It is reasonable to expect that the landlord has systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, visits, inspections and investigations. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould makes it clear that landlords should ensure their record keeping is sufficiently accurate and robust. Internal correspondence shows that the landlord was unclear prior to issuing its stage 1 response about damp and mould what information it had available and what steps had been taken. Of particular note is the last surveyors visit on 8 November 2021 for which contemporaneous visit notes appear missing.
Both the resident and the landlord’s contractor reference several missed appointments in relation to the front door. However records provided by the landlord for repairs relating to the resident’s property show no reference to repairs required to the door after 2018, and much of what has been discussed was over several email chains. Missing information about the door has impacted its ability to effectively manage the repair and monitor its contractors performance. It also contributed towards its failure to communicate with the resident effectively.
The landlord does not appear to have updated its systems to accurately reflect the household vulnerabilities. The resident has said she submitted medical evidence through several channels, which have been lost by the landlord. It has not responded to the resident on this point. However, the landlord was very specific when it advised the Ombudsman that it only became aware of the vulnerabilities relating to the resident’s children on 21 October 2021. Evidence used in the timeline of this investigation shows that this was not the case. On 30 April 2021 the resident informed the landlord she had anxiety and depression, and on 12 October 2021 the landlord made reference to referring her family to an OT to support the children.
Overall, gaps in the landlord’s records hindered its ability to demonstrate that it was confident in its investigations and it failed to effectively communicate with the resident over a prolonged period of time. An order has been made for the landlord to review its record keeping, giving due regard to the Ombudsman’s recent Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the front door.
3. Complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

There has been a failure by the landlord in investigating the resident’s concerns of damp and mould. It has failed to act in line with its damp and mould policy and failed to pursue its obligations under HHSRS. The landlord has not been able to demonstrate that it has acted on the recommendations made by a damp specialist in June 2021 and has accepted that the root cause remains “inconclusive”. The resident experienced significant distress chasing the landlord for a response and she has been left to manage the issue herself.
The delay of at least 2 years in replacing the resident’s front door has been unreasonable. The landlord has been disorganised in its management of the repair and it gave contradictory advice as to what its intentions were to resolve it. The resident had to chase it on several occasions, over several years. There is no evidence that the landlord appropriately managed its contractors and the resident experienced significant inconvenience where she made herself available for appointments which were not honoured.
The landlord failed to recognise the resident’s contact in April 2021 as a complaint. When it did, there was significant delays in responding in line with its complaint policy and it kept making the same mistakes. The landlord failed to answer all elements of the resident’s complaint in its responses, did not include up to date repair information and it did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures. The responses were unsympathetic to the resident’s experience and took no ownership of the resident’s concerns. It failed to apply the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and offered little reassurance of what steps it would take to put matters right.
There was poor record keeping by the landlord, no evidence was seen of contemporaneous notes of conversations with the resident from its customer relationship management system. There was a lack of visibility of repairs information which impacted its ability to respond appropriately to the resident. The landlord failed to record that the household had specific support needs, which is key to providing an effective housing management service.

Orders

The landlord’s senior leader responsible for housing to apologise to the resident, within four weeks.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £5,983.65 in compensation within four weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation compromises:
1. £2,933.65 for the delay in responding to the resident’s reports of damp and mould
2. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould
3. £700 in contribution towards costs incurred by the resident for the purchase of items used to tackle the damp and mould herself
4. £1,000 for the delay in responding to the resident’s reports about repairs required to her front door
5. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures found in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord to attend the property with a specialist to inspect and identify any further remedial works required in relation to damp and mould, within four weeks.
If remedial works are identified above, then they are completed within a further four weeks.
The landlord to attend the property and report back on the current condition of the front door, within four weeks.
The landlord to investigate and respond to the resident’s reports of discrimination and racial bias originally noted correspondence dated 20 May 2022, within four weeks.
The landlord to review the circumstances surrounding the resident’s request for a move and provide a written response to its decision, within four weeks.
The landlord carry out a full review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices, within six weeks. The review must include:
1. Confirmation that it will attend the resident’s property in a further 6 months time to re-inspect the damp in the winter months
2. An explanation of how the landlord will quality check the works of its contractors, and how it intends to identify and respond to repeat repairs in the future
3. A review of its procedures in relation to record keeping. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management
4. Confirmation of its strategy for handling damp and mould with regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould
5. Response times to damp and mould reports, and formal hazard assessments for every inspection
6. A review of its procedures in relation to resident’s vulnerabilities. In doing so, demonstrate how it will actively use its vulnerability information to provide any additional support that may be required
7. Consideration of when a management move or transfer to alternative accommodation may be required, whether permanently or on a temporary basis whilst work is undertaken – this should be included in the relevant policy
8. A full schedule of training for its housing staff in relation to complaint handling, giving regard to the Code and the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction guidance.