Lincoln City Council (202302041)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302041

Lincoln City Council

12 March 2024

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 the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the property, including to address damp and mould.
2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Scope of investigation

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident has referred to several health conditions within the household that were impacted by the ongoing issues. While we do not doubt the resident’s comments, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the local authority. She moved into the property following a mutual exchange in July 2019. The resident lives in the house with her husband and 2 sons.
The landlord did not provide any information regarding any vulnerabilities for the resident or the household. The resident did however inform the landlord of vulnerabilities on several occasions throughout the case.

Summary of events

As part of the investigation, this Service asked the landlord to provide information regarding the reports of damp and mould, all repairs linked to the complaint and leaks from the bathroom. It is noted the resident has also provided this Service with evidence to support the investigation.
The resident moved into the property following a mutual exchange. The resident acknowledged she accepted the property in its condition. She knew the previous occupant had not used the upstairs due to mobility issues and therefore may not have been maintained this area as well as downstairs. The resident said she was aware she could not report repairs for the first 6 months of the tenancy as part of the conditions of the mutual exchange.
According to the information provided, the resident first reported damp in a bedroom on 12 December 2019. The landlord’s records show it attended on 3 January 2020, with follow up work to check the lintel and guttering on 21 January 2020. There is no further information to confirm if any follow-on work was requested because of this visit.
The resident acknowledged the period of isolation and reduction in services due to Covid. Regardless, she said she continued to report the problem to the landlord. The landlord has not provided evidence of the resident’s contact.
On 15 September 2021, the resident reported mould problems in the bathroom. She told the landlord there was mould in the grout on the walls that could not be cleaned off, and that the tiling was bowing. The landlord attended on 16 November 2021 to assess the mould on the bathroom. There is no evidence to confirm the outcome and actions because of the visit.
The resident said she complained to the landlord over the phone in February 2022 as she had not received any updates on the issues reported. The landlord attended to look at the bathroom for the second time. It was agreed the tiles needed to come off and be replaced with aquaboards, and the extractor fan needed replacing. The resident was given a decoration voucher, but this had expired by the time any work commenced and she was able to use it. No work was carried out following this visit.
On 21 September 2022, the landlord started the work in the bathroom. A new fan was installed however, it was not fit for purpose and was later replaced.
On 22 September 2022, the tiles were removed. The plaster behind the tiles was wet and mouldy. The resident asked if the wall could be plastered before the aquaboards were fitted. Although the landlord inspected the walls, the resident was told re-plastering was not needed and the aquaboards could go straight onto the wall. The resident said the walls were plastered in some areas, but the aquaboards were installed while the plaster was still wet, and the old plaster was still wet from the damp and mould. The resident said she was left with deep black mould over the ceiling and cracks all over the walls. One week after the aquaboards were fitted, the resident reported the mould was on the new silicone and there were gaps in the silicone. No further work took place.
The resident said the problem with damp and mould was increasing. On 24 November 2022, she inspected the loft. She found that insulation had not been laid correctly; old insulation was thick in mould and new insulation had been thrown across the top and not laid correctly. This was reported to the landlord, but the resident said nothing happened. The landlord has not provided evidence of the contact, or any actions taken after this was reported.
On 10 January 2023, the resident submitted an official complaint. She advised she had already complained previously and stated the following:
1. The landlord had inspected the property in February 2022 and agreed the tiles needed replacing with aquaboards.
2. Work started in September 2022 but the aquaboards were installed over fresh wet plaster, and old wet, damp, mouldy plaster that had not been treated. Although she contested this, the landlord continued with the work.
3. Shortly after the aquaboards were fitted, she noticed mould on the silicone and gaps around it.
4. Plaster had fallen from the ceiling in the bathroom, exposing plasterboard, and the mould was getting worse.
5. She said there were 2 asthmatics in the house, and she was struggling to clean the mould regularly due to upcoming spinal surgery.
6. The damp problem was affecting the bathroom, master bedroom and box bedroom and was impacting on her family sleeping in the rooms.
7. The loft insulation was mouldy and had not been laid correctly.
8. As a resolution, the resident asked for the bathroom to be restored and the damp across the affected arears to be resolved and treated accordingly.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 11 January 2023. The resident was told the complaint would be passed to a team leader who would contact her shortly to discuss and rectify the problem.
On 13 January 2023, the resident informed the landlord of a leak from the bathroom into the kitchen. She said the hot water flex pipe from the boiler had ruptured under the bath and hot water had flooded the kitchen. She said the kitchen ceiling looked like it was going to fall. An emergency repair was raised to make the situation safe. The resident said her husband had removed the bath panel to try and reduce the damage. This exposed damp, mouldy, swollen woodwork, and a hole and damaged brickwork where the external outlet pipe was. The resident said she was looking at potential damage to the kitchen flooring, washing machine and fridge freezer. The resident asked for this to be added to her complaint. There is no evidence of any repairs being completed in the kitchen following this leak. On 16 January 2023, the landlord confirmed it would add the details of the leak to the complaint.
On 17 January 2023, the landlord visited the property to inspect the plaster in the bathroom. No work was completed during the visit.
The landlord returned to the property the following day to install a new bath and bath panel. The resident said the operative fitting the panel told her he had not been trained and was not confident in doing the work. She said she asked for this to be added to her complaint.
The landlord’s repair records indicate it attended between 6 February and 8 February 2023 to work on the ceiling and walls in the bathroom and to reinstate the radiator following the plastering. The resident said the toilet and pipes were loosened to allow access but were not tightened back up. She was told a new radiator was needed, but said the wrong size was ordered. The bathroom was left without heating for 6 weeks before the new radiator was fitted.
On 14 February 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to ask for an update on her complaint. The landlord responded on 20 February 2023 to confirm it was still under investigation, but it was taking longer than expected. It told the resident it would respond shortly.
On 22 February 2023, the first mould treatment was completed. This included the removal and replacement of mouldy silicone around the windows upstairs.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 February 2023. She confirmed she had not received any update on the outstanding repairs. She asked the landlord what the next steps were. She confirmed the issue with the radiator in the bathroom. She said the shower could not be used as there was no curtain, and the lack of this bathing facility was debilitating on her spinal disease. There was no extractor fan and the pipes to the toilet were still loose. She confirmed the plastering work was completed but the other issues were still outstanding.
The landlord sent the stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 24 February 2023. It said:
1. The resident had raised damp and mould issues, and they were still outstanding.
2. Repairs to the loft were outstanding.
3. A team leader had raised repairs for the mould in the bathroom in September 2022. Bathroom wall tiles were removed and aquaboards were installed, along with an extractor fan.
4. A different team leader had arranged several repairs for the engrained mould on the plasterwork.
5. The bathroom ceiling was replaced on 8 February 2023.
6. The following repairs were outstanding:
  1. Top up loft insulation (17 April 2023).
  2. Replace flexi vent to extractor fan and insulate the pipes (17 April 2023).
  3. Replace 3 wall vents in the bedroom (17 April 2023).
7. The complaint was upheld.
On 4 April 2023, the resident informed the landlord of a further leak from the bathroom into the kitchen. An emergency plumber attended. He could not get the new bath panel off and so had to smash it to access behind the bath. The plumber said the water was coming from behind the bath and aquaboards.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 5 April 2023, the day she was having surgery on her spine. She acknowledged the loft insulation and extractor fan were being installed on 17 April 2023. She said the issues in the bathroom were ongoing and the leak into the kitchen the previous day was due to water building up behind the aquaboards. She told the landlord she was at the “end of her tether” and that more money and resources should have been spent doing the job properly the first time.
On 5 April 2023, the landlord acknowledged receipt of the escalation. It confirmed a response would be sent within 20 working days.
On 11 April 2023, an operative attended to reinstate the bath panel, but he did not have the materials. He said he had not been told a new panel was needed and so the work could not be done.
On 17 April 2023, the landlord attended to remove the old loft insulation. It was to install cavity batons, install the bathroom extractor fan through the loft and install the vents in the bedrooms. The resident said the operative told her the batons were not needed and refused to do the work and he would not remove the old insulation as it was good.
The landlord inspected the property again on 18 April 2023. It told the resident it was to pass the work to a contractor. The resident highlighted the damage caused to the electrics and the cracks in the bedroom which had been done during the work the previous day.
The landlord returned to the property on 20 April 2023 to inspect the loft. It agreed that the removal of the loft insulation and the installation of the extractor fan and bedroom vents would be completed by the contractors. It was also confirmed 2 further mould treatments were needed.
On 24 April 2023, the landlord and contractor visited the property to discuss the work required. Following a further inspection on 26 April 2023, the contractor started the work on 27 April 2023.
The resident said the contractors worked in the bathroom to reinstate this as best they could. They found the bath had not been fitted properly and when they adjusted it, there was a gap to the floor. The resident said the contractors had told her they had recommended the whole bathroom be done again, but the landlord refused. While this is not disputed, the landlord has not provided any evidence to verify this.
On 28 April 2023, the resident contacted this Service to say she had not received a response to her stage 2 complaint. As the timeframe had to accommodate the Easter and May bank holidays, she was advised to make contact again on 10 May 2023 if she still had not received a response.
On 1 May 2023, the resident had a further leak under the bath. It is not clear if this was reported to the landlord and if the landlord took any action.
Scaffolding was erected on 2 May 2023 to allow for the extractor fan to be installed through the loft. It was dismantled on 4 May 2023, unused, as the new fan was installed using the same vent as the previous one. The resident confirmed the contractors installed the vents in the bedrooms but had told her they would not help the damp. The resident said the contractors reported a hole in the mortar on the roof which could be the cause of the damp in the box bedroom. The resident confirmed the contractors completed all the necessary work in the bathroom.
The contractors returned on 5 May 2023 to complete all the work in the loft.
The resident confirmed to this Service on 10 May 2023 that she had not received a complaint response. She said that although the landlord had been attending for weeks, the issues were still outstanding.
On 20 May 2023, the landlord spoke to the resident about the stage 2 complaint and agreed to visit on 7 June 2023 to discuss the outstanding work. The resident said this was the first contact she had received about the stage 2 complaint.
On 23 May 2023, this Service contacted the landlord regarding the resident’s complaint which had been escalated on 5 April 2023. The landlord was asked to prove the resident with a response by 31 May 2023.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 31 May 2023. It said:
1. It acknowledged significant failings led to delays in work. This resulted in the resident spending considerable time and inconvenience chasing updates and actions.
2. It would investigate the loft issue with the individual involved as its records suggested the work was completed as requested.
3. The bathroom and loft were now completed. It was acknowledged this was after the resident spent more time and effort in chasing the completion of the work to the necessary standard.
4. Several repairs remained outstanding. The landlord was to arrange a drone survey to fully inspect the roof, and it would arrange the mould treatment where required.
5. It would inspect the bedroom and kitchen ceilings for possible replacements following the damage from the leaks.
6. A visit was to be completed on 7 June 2023 to discuss the impact of the failings on the resident. It would assess the damage caused by the leaks, assess the mould, and issue a decoration voucher.
7. The landlord agreed to consult with the insurance team to discuss a goodwill payment for the trouble caused.
8. The complaint was upheld.
On 9 June 2023, the resident contacted this Service to ask for her complaint to be investigated. The resident was unhappy with the final response due to the lack of compensation, understanding and empathy shown. While the landlord acknowledged the failings, there was no apology, and after all that she and her family had been through, the bathroom was to be done again. As a resolution, the resident asked for the following:
1. A systematic review of how the landlord deals with complaints.
2. A written apology.
3. Compensation.
4. All the work to be completed.
It is evident from the information provided by the resident that the issues with her home and her complaint continued through to December 2023. The bathroom was replaced, as were ceilings replaced but it has not been made clear if all the work has since been completed in the property and if any compensation was awarded to the resident.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for the repairs to the following components and within the stated timescales:
1. Roofs, heating, baths, toilet fittings, kitchen fixtures and fittings and tiling.
2. The landlord will respond to priority repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 days and all other repairs within 100 days.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. Stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days of receipt. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged and responded to within 20 working days of receipt. If at any stage more time is required, the resident will be notified.

Repairs to the property, including to address damp and mould

In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy and Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obligated to repair and maintain the roof, heating system, bath, toilet fittings, kitchen fixtures and fittings and tiling in the bathroom with the property. It was therefore necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports and take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. It is noted the landlord has provided a list of repairs from the property, but it has not provided any evidence of the resident’s contact logs relating to the issues. It has provided limited information relating to the assessment of the property and repairs decision making. This raises concern around the landlord’s record keeping and makes it difficult for this Service to determine if the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its policies.
The resident first reported damp in the bedroom in December 2019. As this was the first report, the landlord attended within an appropriate timescale to assess the problem. A follow-on inspection of the guttering took place, but the landlord’s records do not confirm if any action was taken. This Service cannot determine if the landlord completed any necessary work to resolve the damp issue.
The damp in the bathroom was first reported in September 2021. It took the landlord 2 months to inspect the property but then no further action was taken. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the time taken to inspect the damp was unreasonable, and the lack of assessment and follow on work did not demonstrate a commitment to resolve the issue in a reasonable timescale.
The landlord did not attend the property again until the resident complained in February 2022. A scope of works for the bathroom was agreed but this did not start until September 2022, 7 months after it was initially assessed. The landlord did not act in line with its repair responsibilities or timescales, and the delay in starting the work is likely to have exacerbated the issue further.
When the tiling was removed from the bathroom, the resident was concerned about the condition of the wall. She said it was wet, damp, and mouldy and she asked if it could be replastered. This was a reasonable request from the resident and although the landlord inspected the wall, it said the aquaboards could be installed regardless with only minor plasterwork being completed. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, if the landlord was seeking a long-term solution and a right first-time approach, its response to this situation was unreasonable. It failed to offer any reasoning to the resident for its refusal to re-plaster. This approach was tested one week later when the resident reported visible mould through the aquaboards due to the wall being wet when they were installed.
This damp and mould issue was likely again worsened as a result of the leak from the boiler pipe into the kitchen below which the resident reported in January 2023. While this may not have been directly connected to the damp, it exposed a build-up of water from behind the recently fitted aquaboards and highlighted more damp and mould under the bath.
The landlord inspected the bathroom again and said a new bath and panel were needed. While these were done the next day, the resident said the panel was fitted by an untrained operative and had to be smashed off when the resident experienced a further leak. The landlord did provide evidence of an investigation or detailed response to this issue.
Further work was completed to the bathroom walls and ceiling at the start of February 2023, along with the first mould treatment. This was 1 year after the damp was first reported which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was unreasonably delayed without justification. The treatment cycle had to be repeated due to the landlord missing the second treatment. The landlord is expected to react to reports to damp and mould promptly and, in line with the Spotlight Report (October 2021), it should have effective processes in place for dealing with such issues. The landlord has not demonstrated its commitment to tackling the damp problem in the property.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s inaction meant it failed to offer the resident reassurance that it was dealing with this issue effectively. It was the resident who continually invested time and effort in chasing the landlord for updates and actions which she should not be expected to do. It is the landlord’s responsibility to project manage all repairs through to completion. The resident continued to inform the landlord that the damp and mould in the property was affecting the health of family members and impacting her own health following spinal surgery. The landlord did not demonstrate any sense of urgency in completing the repairs despite the potential damp and mould hazard.
The landlord passed repairs to a contractor in April 2023. The contractor was instructed to complete the work in the loft, fit an extractor fan in the bathroom and vents in the bedrooms, and then to complete further repairs in the bathroom. It was alleged that the contractor recommended that the whole bathroom was done again but the resident said the landlord refused – the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of these communications. Nevertheless, the contractor completed the work in the bathroom in May 2023, 15 months after it was initially assessed.
There is no evidence to suggest the landlord looked for the root cause of the damp, regardless of the resident telling it about the damp in other rooms. It was the resident’s own inspection of the loft that initiated the work there, which took 4 visits and 6 months to be completed by a contractor. It is expected that the landlord tracks and monitors repairs through to completion and within its repair obligations and timescales. The response time to complete this work does not demonstrate effective repair monitoring.
It is evident from the information received that despite the time, inconvenience and disturbance caused to the resident and her family, the landlord did not agree to replace the bathroom in full until November 2023, 21 months after the bathroom was initially assessed. It is not clear why the landlord did not make this decision earlier and its insufficient records and lack of a thorough diagnosis mean that it is unable to justify its approach.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the property. There was a lack of record keeping which led to ineffective repair monitoring and a series of failings and significant delays from the outset. The timescale to complete work, the repeated treatment and the continuous chasing from the resident suggests the landlord at times lost sight of the repairs. There were occasions where, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord appeared to look for a quick fix approach rather than a longer-term solution. This led to further work, disturbance and inconvenience to the resident and her family. There was evidence of poor staff attitude and a lack of training which led to further delays and is likely to have added to the resident’s frustration. The time taken to complete the work does not demonstrate a sense of urgency from the landlord who did not appear to take the family’s vulnerabilities into account.
The landlord failed to demonstrate an effective approach to managing damp and mould. Upon request from this Service, it did not provide its self-assessment against the “It’s not lifestyle” spotlight report published by the Ombudsman in October 2021.
There were further issues in the bathroom which were left outstanding for unreasonable lengths of time or were not addressed by the landlord. For example, the bathroom was left without heating for 6 weeks after the wrong radiator had been ordered. The first bath panel had to be smashed off as it was not fitted correctly, but then a new one was not ordered. The pipework behind the toilet was left loose after it was disconnected, and the initial fan that was fitted in the bathroom was for a kitchen and had to be replaced.
As a result of the findings of this investigation, it is of the Ombudsman’s opinion that compensation should be offered to the resident. This is to recognise the service failures of the landlord, the time and effort taken by the resident in chasing the landlord for updates and action, and the inconvenience and disturbance caused to her and her family.

The associated complaint

The resident said she complained to the landlord in February 2022. Although the landlord visited the property at that time, it has not provided any evidence of a complaint being logged, or a response. It is of concern that there is no record of a complaint or the contact that led to the landlord’s visit which again indicates insufficient record-keeping.
The resident submitted a complaint on 10 January 2023. This confirmed the issues in the property and how this was impacting on her family. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint within its policy timescale. The resident added more issues to her complaint on 13 January 2023 following the leak. She received confirmation that the landlord would add these to the ongoing complaint. Due to the original complaint being recently made, this was a reasonable response from the landlord.
When a response had not been received within the complaints policy timescale, the resident had to take time and effort to chase the landlord. In its policy, the landlord states if a response is delayed, it would inform the resident. It took the landlord 4 days to tell the resident her complaint was still under investigation, and it would respond shortly. It did not offer an apology for the delay, did not give a reason for the delay, and did not provide an estimated response date. The landlord did not comply with its policy and the Ombudsman finds the landlord’s response unreasonable and lacking in detail.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint 33 working days after it was received. This is outside of the complaints policy timescale. The landlord did not apologise for the delay and did not provide any explanation around this.
Further, the response did not fully address the resident’s issues and is likely to have added to her frustration. For example, the complaint was upheld, but the landlord did not explain why. It offered little response in the way of an apology, empathy, and redress of the situation. The landlord did not take accountability for its own failings, or provide any learning taken from the complaint. The response focussed solely on the repair issues. It did not refer to the complaint in February 2022, or account for how long these issues had been ongoing. It did not consider the time and inconvenience of the resident chasing the landlord for action and updates. It also failed to address the additional issues reported by the resident after the complaint was made.
The complaint escalation request was received on 5 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the request the same day, and informed the resident a response would be sent within 20 working days.
However, the resident did not receive any further communication from the landlord on this matter and contacted this Service for help in obtaining a response. The landlord failed to respond within the timeframe required and this gave cause for the resident to make further contact with this Service. This Service contacted the landlord and asked for a response to be sent by 31 May 2023.
The landlord sent its final complaint response on 31 May 2023, 36 working days after it was received and outside of the complaints policy timescale. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code, it is expected that a different officer investigates stage 2 complaints. It is noted this investigation was completed by the same member of staff who completed stage 1. The landlord has not demonstrated fairness and impartiality by using the same officer. It has not complied with the Code which raises concerns around the landlord’s complaint management.
While it acknowledged significant failings, the landlord did not confirm what these were and how it would learn from them. The complaint was upheld, but the landlord did not offer any compensation by means of redress, other than a decoration voucher. The landlord confirmed it was to visit the property the following week to discuss the impact on the resident. Considering how long the stage 2 had been ongoing, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to visit prior to sending the final complaint response. The landlord would then have been able to provide a response that included the outcome of the visit, confirmation of any outstanding work, and a final position regarding a compensation offer.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The landlord has not provided any evidence of the complaint that was made in February 2022, which raises concerns around the landlord’s record keeping. It failed to respond at either stage within its required timescales and offered little explanation or apology regarding the delays. There is evidence of non-compliance against the Code in it having the same officer investigating both stages of the complaint.
The landlord offered little apology or display of empathy in relation to how its failings had impacted the resident and her family. The responses at both stages failed to address all the issues raised which is likely to have added to her frustration. The landlord acknowledged significant failings, yet there is little evidence to demonstrate how it followed the dispute resolution principles of this Service in its learning and offer of redress. As a result of the findings in this report, the Ombudsman has ordered that compensation be paid to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property, including to address damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord took too long to complete the necessary work to resolve reported repairs issues. It did not evidence an effective approach to managing the repairs which led to delays, poor workmanship, disturbance and inconvenience to the resident and her family. There is concern regarding the record keeping, the landlord’s approach to seeking a long-term resolution and its commitment to tackling damp and mould.
The landlord did not comply with its policy or the Code and there are concerns relating to the landlord’s record keeping and complaint management processes. The responses were delayed without explanation or apology and did not address all the issues raised by the resident. Despite an acknowledgement of failings, the landlord did not explain how or why they occurred, and what it would do to learn from these.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Write a sincere apology to the resident which acknowledges the failings identified within this report. The apology should come from senior management.
2. Pay the resident £1,000 in compensation. This is to be paid directly to her (and not offset against any rent arrears) and is made up of the following:
  1. £800 for the failings identified with the repairs to the property;
  2. £200 for the failings identified with the complaint handling.
3. Complete a post inspection at the property (if it has not already done so) and provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the report. The inspection should ensure all repairs have been completed to the required standard to resolve the damp and mould issues at the property. If any repairs are still outstanding, the landlord should provide the resident and this Service with a schedule to confirm what work will be done, and by what date.
4. This Service published a spotlight report on damp and mould in October 2021. Landlords were asked to complete a self-assessment against the recommendations from within the report. The landlord should provide this Service with a copy of its self-assessment.
5. This Service published a spotlight report on knowledge and information management in May 2023. If not already done so, the landlord should complete a self-assessment against the recommendations within this report. The landlord should provide this Service with a copy of this self-assessment.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should complete a senior management review of this case. The review should identify the failings of the landlord and should form the basis of any learning that can be taken into future cases. The landlord should provide this Service with a copy of the review and confirmation of how learning points will be implemented.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its complaint process and provide refresher training to all staff involved in the process to ensure it complies with the Code. It should advise this Service when it intends to complete its self-assessment against the new Complaint Handling Code set to be introduced in April 2024.
The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in response to this recommendation.