LiveWest Homes Limited (202010034)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010034

LiveWest Homes Limited

23 October 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 the landlord’s handling of:

Works to damp and mould in the property.
The associated formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has held an assured tenancy with the landlord since January 2015. The property is a two bedroom semi-detached house.
The property has a solid floor, part solid walls (constructed with a single layer of brick) and part cavity walls. The external walls of the property are brick/stone with a pebble dash finish.

Scope of investigation

The resident reports that there have been repair issues to the property since the beginning of his tenancy.
The Ombudsman expects that complaints are raised within a reasonable period of time (6 months) from when the event of the complaint occurred. In this case, the complaint was raised in December 2019. There is no evidence that prior to this time, a formal complaint was made to the landlord or brought to this Service for consideration.
Therefore, this investigation is not able to assess the landlord’s handling of the historical repairs dating back to the start of the tenancy.
This Service recognises that the repairs that are the subject of this complaint were the result of recommendations made after a survey the landlord completed in November 2018. Whilst the survey took place more than 6 months prior to the submission of the complaint, this Service will consider the events from the 2018 survey onwards. The reason being that the findings from that survey provide context to the repairs this investigation is considering.
This Service also notes that at the time the complaint finalised the complaints procedure, the complaint related work was ongoing. In addition to that work, the landlord also agreed to other repairs to the property which were not the subject of the resident’s original complaint. This investigation will consider the landlord’s actions beyond the complaints procedure, insofar as the actions it agreed to complete to resolve the original complaint in the final response to the complaint in July 2021.
The Ombudsman can only consider matters that have been reviewed within the landlord’s complaints procedure therefore, any concerns in relation to quality of the work completed after the complaint finalised will not be considered in this investigation.

Summary of events

In October 2018 the resident reported an issue with the drains and an issue with damp at the property. In response to the report the landlord surveyed the property in November 2018 and found:

There were voids in the cavity wall insulation that had been refilled in 2015.
Damp around the lounge window, which was noted could be the result of cracks in the external render and worn window seals.
Damp affecting all ground floor walls to a height of less than 1 meter. It was advised that this indicated an issue with rising damp.

In addition to the above, it was noted that the resident reported that a damp patch appeared on the floor along the lounge window wall when it rained.
The following remedial works were recommended from the survey:

The injection of a damp proof course (DPC) around the property including a solid wall between the kitchen and lounge.
The lounge floor to be coated and sealed with a damp proof membrane or equivalent moisture barrier thin enough so as to fit under the front door.
The sealing of the lounge window frame both internally and externally. This was completed by the landlord in December 2018.
An investigation of the cavity wall insulation work completed in 2015, to address the voids in the wall with no insulation.

On 1 July 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to ask what was happening regarding the damp. On the same day the landlord requested a quotation from a contractor (contractor A), to complete the recommended work to inject the DPC and the damp proof membrane over the lounge floor.
Contractor A visited the property on 6 August 2019 and provided the landlord with its report on 4 November 2019. It reported that the external of the property was in a reasonable condition with no issues that would cause water penetration into the property. However, it said that the ground floor level around the property was not 150mm below the DPC, which could cause issues resulting in water penetration to the property. It reported the same findings as the survey in 2018 regarding the voids in the cavity walls and advised that it believed that issue was contributing to the damp found on the walls. In addition to work to the cavity wall, the contractor recommended damp proofing, remedial work to the internal walls affected by damp and a damp proof membrane (DPM) application to the concrete lounge floor.
On 5 November 2019 the landlord arranged for another contractor (contractor B), to survey the cavity walls. Contractor B reported in addition to the void in the wall, that the walls and insulation beads within them were very wet. It suggested that consideration be given to extracting the wet insulation to facilitate the drying out process before the insulation was refilled. The report also said that the render to the rear of the property was blown and would need to be addressed.
Contractor A started work in December 2019. On 18 December 2019 the resident reported dissatisfaction with the work it completed to the lounge floor. He informed the landlord that the substance applied to the floor had not dried properly, was sticky and had an odour. The resident advised that his elderly mother was due to move into the property soon and he was worried about how this issue would impact his mother moving. As well as the floor, the resident reported that there were other repairs required and he believed that works had not been coordinated or checked by the landlord. The other reported repairs were as follows:

Due to the single skin construction of walls, thermal changes caused condensation and water ingress particularly to the front wall of the property.
The external render enabled water penetration.
The house was full of damp and mould.
The cavity wall insulation work was supposed to be done.
Fascia boards were hanging off and there was an ongoing issue with the drains.

Following the resident’s communication with the landlord on 18 December 2019, it raised a stage one complaint.
The following day contractor A attended to place board over the lounge flooring as a temporary resolution. The landlord requested that contractor A provide a quote to address the water ingress issue to the front wall of the property. The landlord met with the resident on 19 December 2019 and agreed that it would contact him the following year about the remaining work to the property.
The landlord then cancelled works it had arranged with contractor A. It appointed a new contractor, (contractor C) in January 2020 to complete further damp proofing and insulation work. This work included the rectification of the lounge flooring and the installation of insulation to the internal front wall of the property. These works were extensive and required the removal of various components in the effected rooms such as, the skirting boards, radiators and sockets.
Before the works commenced the landlord provided the resident with a shed to store his belongings from the rooms that were due to be worked on. In the meantime, the landlord decided to place the cavity wall work with contractor B on hold until contractor C completed its work.
Contractor C began work on 9 March 2020. The landlord confirmed to the resident that a staff member would oversee the work and put in place quality control visits to check the progress of the work. On 16 March 2020 the resident informed the landlord that at the last minute contractor C had cancelled its appointment the same day. While reporting this the resident stated that the contractor had not left the property tidy and that there was a crack to a window cill board.
On 16 March 2020 the Government announced guidance that all non-essential contact and travel was stopped due to the Coronavirus pandemic. Following this, lockdown measures legally came into force. As a result, works to the property were placed on hold.
Between 16 and 24 March 2020 contractor C attended to the property. It reported to the landlord that the compound to the lounge floor had been poured, walls had been plastered and heating was working in the occupied rooms. It said that the electrics were not secured to the wall but were safe. Contractor C also said that the resident had confirmed with it that he preferred that it did not return until it was safe to do so but said that it had assured the resident that he could call in the meantime if there were any issues.
In August 2020 works to the property resumed. Contractor C planned to attend before starting work to refamiliarise itself with the remaining work. Before it attended the resident raised concerns about the work it had completed to the floor and window cill in the lounge. He also reported that insulation beads were falling out of the cavity wall into the drain. The resident advised the landlord that he wanted it to attend and review these issues.
The landlord proposed to visit but before the visit the resident provided images of the flooring and insulation beads that had escaped. He also provided an image of the front drain that he reported had been blocked for some time. The landlord and resident agreed as pictures had been provided, that the visit was no longer necessary. Following the review of the images the landlord advised the resident on 10 August 2020 to expect a call from contractor B about the insulation beads. It also arranged for the drain to be cleared by contractor C on 11 August 2020 and requested it investigate the condition of the drain.
The resident requested an escalation of the complaint during a conversation with the landlord on 12 August 2020. He reiterated the concerns about the flooring, escaped insulation beading and the drain. He advised that works were not progressing and he had not been contacted about the insulation beads as advised.
On 13 August 2020 the landlord spoke with the resident again. During the call it confirmed that contractor B was going to attend on 18 August 2020 and that it might be getting a quote for the drainage work. The landlord reported that during the call the resident confirmed that he had spoken with contractor C and no longer believed there was an issue with the lounge floor.
On 28 August 2020 the landlord confirmed that contractor C completed the schedule of work confirmed in January 2020.
The resident called the landlord and requested an escalation of his complaint again on 29 September 2020 as he remained unhappy that he had not been updated on the works. He reported that contractor B had extracted the majority of the insulation beads within the wall but some were stuck. He said that contractor B had drilled holes to ventilate the wall and assist the drying out process and as a result the house was drafty. The resident also advised that he had not been informed what the follow on was after an inspection of the external render the week before.
On or before 30 September 2020, contractor C completed work to replace the rainwater drainage running underground. In addition to this, a new pathway was laid. The internal window cill in the lounge that was reported by the resident in August 2020 was also replaced.
The landlord delivered temporary heaters to the property on 3 October 2020 to assist with the cold temperatures throughout the property whilst the ventilation holes remained in the wall. The landlord paid the resident £240 compensation for the cost of running the heaters for an 8 week period from 3 October 2020 to 19 November 2020.
On 4 November 2020 the landlord received an initial quotation from contractor C for the render of some external areas. The resident raised concern about the extent of the rendering quoted for and asked the landlord to look at other areas of rendering at the property, particularly the side and front walls. After reviewing, the landlord confirmed on 17 February 2021, that the entire property required re-rendering.
In December 2020 contractor B attended to complete the extraction of the remainder of the insulation beads within the cavity wall. The resident confirmed that he did not want the beading replaced. The cavity wall was still damp so the holes were not filled at that time. The landlord paid a further £150 towards the resident’s ongoing use of the temporary heaters provided.
On 5 February 2021 the resident requested a stage 1 response and the escalation of the complaint to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged this on the same day and confirmed it would do so. The landlord provided an update on the pending cavity wall work and rendering work and confirmed that it was going to pay an additional £100 for the cost of the temporary heaters. The landlord explained that it had concern about escalating the resident’s complaint as works remained outstanding. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration and the delays and apologised for this. On 16 February 2021 it spoke with the resident about the complaint again and agreed to provide a response by 24 February 2021.
On or around 10 February 2021 contractor B returned to fill the holes in the cavity wall as it was dry.
After confirming the extent of the rendering required on 16 February 2021 the landlord completed further visits until March 2021 to inspect the property again. During this time, it proposed an option of external wall insulation however, it confirmed to the resident on 13 April 2021 that after consideration it would render the walls without the insulation. In addition, the landlord confirmed it was going to check the cavity walls for any insulation that required extracting. It later found that insulation beads were not fully extracted around a bathroom window. The extraction of this was completed on 21 May 2021.
In March 2021 the resident contacted this Service about his escalation request as he had not received the landlord’s response. We wrote to the landlord and it provided a stage 2 response on 4 June 2021.
The landlord explained the impacts of local and industry wide delays, as well as the impact of COVID-19 on its plans for the works at the property. It confirmed the actions it had taken to address the lounge floor and cavity wall since the complaint was submitted in December 2019. It confirmed receipt of the resident’s escalation request earlier in the year and its acknowledgement of this in February 2021.
The landlord confirmed that works to render the entire property were pending. It explained that contractor C was chosen to complete the rendering but had since confirmed that it could not commit to the work. The landlord explained that as a result, there were delays in the commencement of the work as it had to source a new contractor. The landlord confirmed the name of the contractor, (contractor D), and said that it would be in touch with the resident but that it anticipated works could begin in early July 2021.
The landlord confirmed that the extraction of the cavity wall insulation was complete. It said that it was disappointed that contractor B had to return to extract insulation around the bathroom window and explained that this this did happen with the beading material used on occasions.
The landlord advised that it had considered matters from the point of the complaint and assessed the impact of the complaint matters to date, as the work was ongoing. It concluded that it was satisfied that it completed the correct work but found that there had been service failures due to delays and the handling of the complaint. The landlord offered the resident £200 in recognition of the service failures and agreed to review the circumstances once the work was completed.
Following a request from this Service, the landlord confirmed its final position on the complaint on 5 July 2021. In this it provided a planned schedule for July and August 2021 for work to complete the rendering. The landlord reiterated its apology and offer of compensation to the resident, including its agreement to review its compensation offer once works were completed.

Post complaints procedure

This Service is aware that there was a delay in the completion of the rendering work. The date the work was completed is not clear but from the evidence provided, it appears that this was around April or May 2022. The landlord has confirmed the delays were the result of weather conditions, concerns raised about the standard of work, health and safety concerns about scaffolding and third party power cables that were interfering with the work.
On 20 January 2022 the landlord offered a disturbance payment to the resident. As works were ongoing it based this figure on a view that works started on 18 October 2021 and were estimated to be completed within 19 weeks. Its total estimated offer was £703.50 and comprised of the following for the estimated period of work:

15% of the resident’s weekly rent figure.
A sum of £5 per week while the external walls were exposed to brickwork resulting in the need for increased heating.
A sum of £5 per week towards the cost of running a dehumidifier that the resident purchased.

In addition, it offered £200 to account for the inconvenience to the resident during the work. Specifically, the landlord acknowledged that there had been intermittent progress and issues with contractor D. It said that it was actively looking at alternative contractors to complete the outstanding work to the property. It explained that this meant there would be further delays in getting the work completed.
Following the completion of the rendering work the landlord visited the property in May 2022 to inspect the quality of the rendering work and internal damp proofing work completed by contractor D. The landlord found the work was competed to a poor standard and completed an investigation into the contractor. The landlord appointed a third party consultant to inspect the property which identified several areas of work that required redoing, including the rendering and the excavation and relaying of the front path. In November 2022 the landlord increased its compensation offer to £2000. It also provided a full specification of the works it was going to complete to rectify the issues found, to the resident in December 2022.
The landlord has notified this Service as of October 2023, that the majority of the work specifically that relating to the original complaint, has been completed and was post inspected in September 2023.
In September 2023, the resident also informed this Service of further dissatisfaction with the quality of works recently completed.

Assessment and findings

Terms of the tenancy agreement.

Under the terms of the tenancy, the landlord is responsible for decorating and keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the premises. This includes the drains, gutters and external pipes.
In its service level agreement, the landlord explains that on occasion, it may identify more complex repairs or minor works to a property. It refers to such repairs as ‘managed repairs and minor projects’. It states that such repairs could include external works and major damp and mould issues. The landlord explains that it will agree specific completion targets for such work which is usually within 90 days.

Relevant legislation

The Housing Act 2004, states that properties must be free from hazards at the most dangerous category 1 level, as assessed using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). This includes mould and all types of dampness.
From March 2020 new legislation and government guidance was issued in response to COVID-19, including a national lockdown and various recommendations including that people avoid contact with others where possible and social distance. The Ombudsman accepts that COVID-19 therefore had a major impact on the service the landlord was able to provide from March 2020. This includes the significant disruption to its normal services during the pandemic and following the easing of restrictions. The Ombudsman will consider the impact of the pandemic on the actions taken by the landlord during the period and take this into account when investigating the complaint.

The handling of repairs to address the damp and mould

It is evident from the survey report dated November 2018, that the landlord was aware the property had damp and that there was a range of work it was required to complete. The specific work being in relation to the external rendering, internal damp proofing work and the cavity wall insulation.
In accordance with the landlord’s service level agreement, it is expected that it would address these works within a reasonable time. The landlord has accepted within its investigation, that there were delays in the completion of works. As mentioned, this Service accepts that the restrictions in place in response to Covid-19 has been a factor in the delays.
However, prior to the pandemic there were the delays as a result of the landlord not acting on the recommendations made by its surveyor within a reasonable period of time. We note that the landlord attended to seal the window as recommended, a month after the survey. But the rest of the recommended works were not raised until 8 months later.
This Service notes that after contractor A’s initial visit in August 2019 there was a further delay before the works started in December 2019. The delay was the result of contractor A not providing the landlord the quote within a reasonable time. While the landlord actively pursued the quotation until it was sent, there is no indication of the resident being kept informed about the progress of matters between the visit in August 2019 and the landlord’s receipt of the quotation in November 2019.
This Service acknowledges that the works that were required in the property were of a large scale. The landlord appointed the relevant contractors for the work and it carried out works to the property from December 2019 onwards, to address the damp. In respect of the external rendering work however, the landlord did not investigate this within a reasonable timeframe.
It received reports from contractor A and contractor B, both of which had conflicting findings on the condition of the external render. Contractor A believed the rendering was in reasonable condition, while contractor B reported that rendering to the rear of the property had blown. While both contractors provided differing findings about the render, it is not evident that the landlord identified this. The result of this is that, while the landlord progressed the repairs to the internal damp proofing, the issues identified with the external rendering were not addressed. There is evidence to show that the landlord requested contractor A, to investigate the render before it was replaced by contractor C. But an investigation and quote for the rendering work did not materialise until November 2020, a year after contractor B reported that parts of render were blown.
Among several preventative measures, the HHSRS guidance notes that rising and penetrating dampness should be prevented by ensuring that external fabric should be kept in repair to prevent rain penetration. This was, therefore, a significant oversight by the landlord in the circumstances. In order to take a holistic approach to the work to address the damp, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate external factors, in this case the rendering, before addressing the internal damp proofing work. This would have provided the assurance that the property was not at risk of further water ingress before internal damp proofing work was completed.
Similarly, with the repair to the drains there is evidence that the resident had raised an issue with the drains in 2018 and again when he complained in December 2019. It would have been appropriate at that stage therefore, for the landlord to investigate the drains much sooner than it did. After the complaint was raised, it was several months before the landlord looked into the matter before it completed the repair in September 2020, nearly a year later.
Once the works started in December 2019 and the resident raised his formal complaint, which included his dissatisfaction with the standard of the work to the flooring, the landlord took the appropriate action to address the concerns. It arranged for contractor A to return the following day with a temporary resolution to the floor. It also met with the resident to discuss his wider concerns about the work that had been carried out and made the decision to replace contractor A. Thereafter, the landlord also recognised the need to work more collaboratively with its contractor and increased its oversight of the works completed by contractor B and contactor C. This included appointing a technical member of staff to manage the various work. The actions were reasonable in light of the concerns the resident had raised about the quality of the work undertaken by contractor A.
In addition to this, when works resumed with contractor C in March 2020 the landlord agreed to complete quality checks of the work at the resident’s request. However, this Service has seen evidence of only one visit to quality check work, which took place on 12 March 2020. This Service notes that there was a delay in the work restarting after December 2019 but recognises that this was the result of the time taken to prepare ahead of works. This included the removal of the resident’s belongings into the storage shed provided.
A week after Contractor C started works, the government announced recommendations that everyone stop non-essential contact and travel, in response to COVID-19. On the same day as the announcement, the resident reported a missed appointment by the contractor and issues with the way it had left the property. The landlord addressed this by ensuring the contractor returned to clear up. The landlord also sought reassurances from contractor C about the status of the work completed and the condition the property was left in at the time works were placed on hold. This Service has also seen evidence that while works remained on hold, the landlord followed up with the resident on 2 occasions, in April and July 2020. This was appropriate as when doing so it offered assurance that it was still monitoring the matter and that the resident could contact it in the meantime.
Before the work restarted after the easing of the lockdown, the resident reported further concerns in August 2020 about the quality of the work completed by Contractor C and the issue with the insulation beads. Before the resident confirmed that he was satisfied the floor no longer had an issue, there is evidence that the landlord sought a response from the contractor about the prior concern the resident raised. It was reasonable for the landlord to consult with the contractor about the issues as it carried out the work and therefore would have the expertise to address any concern. The contractor was also able to speak with the resident about the floor. The landlord’s records show that the internal work was completed by contractor C by 28 August 2020. However, there is no evidence that the landlord attended to quality check the final works.
In response to the insulation beading that was reported to be escaping, the landlord made the necessary arrangements for this to be addressed. The drains were cleared of the beads and contractor B attended to extract what insulation beads it could from the wall at the time. In respect of the visit by contractor B to address the insulation beads, it was nearly two weeks before the visit and in that time the resident was required to chase the landlord.
After contractor B made the ventilation holes to aid the drying of the walls, it is acknowledged that the resident was required to wait a significant period of time before the holes were filled. This was because the wall remained damp. The landlord took appropriate steps to assist the resident’s comfort in the property and delivered temporary heaters on 3 October 2020. After the heaters were delivered, it was 18 weeks before the holes were refilled and the landlord paid compensation for the cost of running these during that period. The landlord paid the resident a total of £490 towards the cost. Its compensation guidance provides that it may offer up to £20 for the reimbursement of additional costs for temporary heaters during repairs. It has therefore offered compensation for the period the heaters were required, in line with this.
The landlord appropriately offered an explanation and apology in its response for the fact that the contractor was required to return to the property to complete a further extraction.
By the time the landlord provided the resident with its final response to the complaint the rendering work remained outstanding. It explained the reason for the further delay in the commencement of the work at the time. The fact that the landlord was required to source another contractor to complete the work was beyond its control. This Service is aware that there was a considerable delay in the completion of the rendering work and that once completed, it was found to be of a poor standard.
The landlord has explained there were several contributing factors to the delay in the completion of the rendering work carried out around May 2022, including the weather conditions, health and safety concerns in relation to the scaffolding and third party cables interfering with work.
In its response to the complaint the landlord has taken into consideration its communication with the resident and the delays, but only from the point the complaint was made. At the time of responding to the complaint, it made its offer of £200 compensation in recognition of this and has since followed through on its agreement to review its offer, doing so in January and November 2022.
When there are failings, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. When assessing this, the Ombudsman takes into consideration its Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord has acted fairly by offering the resident compensation for not completing all the works within a reasonable time. In addition to that delay, the landlord has recognised that when it did do the work, this was not up to a good standard.
The landlord has also demonstrated learning from the complaint. It completed a case review, which resulted in it:
1. Adopting a regime of post inspections and in progress visits for works carried out.
2. Raising an investigation into contractor D, following issues identified with the standard of work it had carried out. After the investigation, the landlord was transparent with the resident about its findings and the steps it would be taking as a result.
However, the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s service delivery was considerable. The landlord has taken steps to fulfil its obligation to address the damp in the property and offered compensation for the delay in resolving the complaint. However, the level of compensation (totalling £2000) is not considered proportionate to reflect the overall delays in the completion of the work.
With the exception of the fact that the rendering works had to be redone after they were completed around April/May 2022, it took approximately 3 and a half years for the landlord to complete the work to address the damp after it became aware of the issues with the property in November 2018. This is far beyond the expected timescales within the landlord’s service standard of 90 days. The landlord has not acknowledged or offered any redress for the delays in starting the work to the property, between November 2018 and December 2019. In addition, the landlord has not recognised that it delayed the investigation into specific areas of the property specifically, the rendering and the drains.
It should be noted that we have found that the landlord has taken some action to put things right and demonstrated learnings. But there has been a finding of maladministration because the landlord has not taken into consideration the entirely of the service failures and the impact this had on the overall time taken to complete the repairs.
Given the finding of maladministration, this Service finds it appropriate that an additional award of compensation is made to the resident. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies says that remedies of up to £600 are suitable in cases such as this where there the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
Taking into consideration the fact that the landlord has offered £2000 for its service delivery from the time the complaint was submitted, this Service has awarded an additional £300 compensation. This is to reflect the service failures that the landlord has not acknowledged within the response to the complaint.
During a recent conversation with the resident, he has highlighted concerns about contractor D and a subsequent contractor that the landlord appointed to complete the remainder of the schedule of work confirmed in December 2022. Due to the ongoing issues the resident has reported, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident particularly in relation to the most recent contractor appointed.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints procedure at the time, stated that the target response time at stage 1 was within 5 days. At stage 2 a response would usually be no longer than 7 days.
The landlord has appropriately recognised in its response to the complaint, that it did not provide a stage 1 response and that its stage 2 response was delayed.
On 2 occasions the resident requested an escalation of the complaint. The landlord explained its reasons to the resident about why it would not do so at the time however, this was not fair or in accordance with its policy.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling principle is that a landlord should ensure that its efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay.
It should be noted that this Service has found that the landlord was in communication with the resident about the works both during and after the complaint. It also delivered on its agreement to review its compensation offer once the works had been completed and confirmed that it had made improvements to its complaints process.
Nevertheless, the delay in the progression of the complaint and provision of the landlord’s response was inappropriate. By the time it provided its final response in July 2021, it was 18 months after the complaint had been raised.
Maladministration has been found in the landlord’s handling of the complaint, because while it has offered an apology, it has not offered appropriate redress for the delays and the resident’s efforts to pursue the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the works to address the damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been maladministration in the landlords complaint handling.

Reasons

While the landlord has offered redress to the resident, this is not considered proportionate for the overall service failures and the impact that this had on the delays in the completion of the works.
The landlord has appropriately acknowledged that it did not handle the complaint in accordance with its policy. However, it has not offered appropriate compensation for the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the complaint.

Orders

In recognition of the finding in relation to the landlord’s handling of the works to the damp and mould, the landlord is to pay the resident £2300. This is inclusive of its offer of £2000. If the landlord has already paid the £2000 to the resident, it is to pay the £300.
In recognition of the finding in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling, the landlord is to pay the resident £250.
The landlord is to complete the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any monies that may be owed by the resident to the landlord. Once the compensation has been paid, the landlord is to provide confirmation to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to establish whether he wishes to discuss and/or raise a further formal complaint in relation to his dissatisfaction with the recent contractor, including any works undertaken by said contractor.