London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202333852)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333852

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 July 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 handling of:
1. Repairs to the boiler.
2. Repairs to the windows.
3. Damp and mould.
4. A pest issue.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the property which was a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident lived in the property with her daughter. The resident has a heart condition and her daughter had health conditions at the time, which the landlord was aware of.
In an email dated 3 November 2022, the resident informed the landlord that she had been at the property for over a month and was already experiencing issues with mould. She said she raised her concerns at the time of viewing the property and was assured that there would be no issues. She said the windows were in the worst condition she had seen in any property and she was concerned that they would become a bigger problem during the winter. The resident said the landlord was aware of both her own and her daughter’s health issues. She said their bed was damp throughout the night. The resident said it was making her anxious and requested a resolution for as soon as possible.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on 9 January 2023. She said she was horrified at the number of complaints she had had to make against the landlord over the years. She referred to issues with her previous property and said the current one was worse as it was full of mould, with no hot water, and frozen windows. She said the £320 given as compensation was pathetic. The resident said she was becoming severely depressed. She said her daughter had an operation coming up and she was still having to deal with the landlord.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response the following day. It said it was sorry that the resident needed to raise a complaint to get the issues resolved. It upheld the complaint. It confirmed it had raised a job for the window for 13 January 2023 and a job for a mould wash which would be booked in with the resident directly.
In an internal email dated 13 January 2023, the landlord confirmed that the repair to the window was supposed to have taken place that day but had to be rearranged to the following week. It noted that the resident was very upset, had mould in the property, and the household’s health was impacted due to not being able to open the windows. It said a contractor had attended to repair the boiler but when they left, the hot water was still not working. It said it had raised a repair but could not confirm when it could be attended to. In the email it stated that the resident had a heart condition and a vulnerable 1 year old, it queried whether to move the resident to a hotel.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on the same day. She said the stage 1 response was not satisfactory. She said the boiler was extremely dated and had broken down a few times in the time that she had been living at the property. She said it was not acceptable for her daughter who had health issues. She said she had not had hot water for 3 weeks which she described as “criminal”. The resident said regardless of what was offered, she would not accept it, and she wanted the complaint to be escalated. The landlord requested a welfare check for the resident the same day as it was concerned for her and her living conditions.
A damp and mould follow up report dated 13 February 2023 stated that a “clean and shield” was carried out that day in the property on a small area of mould. It noted that the property had been completely refurbished, which included the windows. It said the boiler had also been replaced. The report noted new kitchen and bathroom extractor fans and that the property now had trickle vents. It said the property was well ventilated and it had provided best practice advice to the resident regarding the thermostat, trickle vents, and not drying clothes on the radiator. It said no new repairs were required.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was provided on 5 December 2023. Prior to that the resident had reported issues with rats in the property, further damp and mould, issues with parking, and antisocial behaviour (ASB) which had been targeted towards her. In its stage 2 response the landlord said the following:
1. Boiler repairs – the resident initially reported an issue with the pressure in November 2022 and after numerous issues and long periods without heating and hot water, it was replaced in January 2023. It apologised for how long the issue lasted and acknowledged it was over the winter period with a vulnerable child in the property. It said it previously compensated the resident £320 which was in line with its processes but acknowledged that it caused the resident a lot of distress.
2. Damp and mould – it said the resident first raised the issue in January 2023 and its contractor attended on 13 February 2023. It attached the report and said it confirmed the mould had been “shielded and eradicated.” It apologised for the delay and any distress and inconvenience caused. It said the report did not note any signs of damp and asked the resident to let it know if it had reappeared.
3. Window repair – it said there was a significant delay and miscommunication regarding the work order. It said it was originally reported in November 2022 and there was a discrepancy and miscommunication regarding the appointment in January 2023. It acknowledged and apologised for the distress caused to the resident as it was near the time of an important operation for her daughter.
4. Pests – the resident reported rats in the property around 22 March 2023, and a job was raised to attend as soon as possible. It attended and completed the works in May 2023 which was over a month and was a significant timeframe. It apologised and acknowledged the distress and worry caused to the resident regarding her own and her daughter’s health. It said the timeframe to remedy the issue was insufficient and should have been dealt with sooner.
5. Previous tenant and ASB – the resident had reported children throwing things at her property because of the previous tenant who lived there. It recommended that she speak to the police and local authority if the issue persisted. It confirmed that there was an ongoing ASB case related to an incident with the resident’s neighbour. The landlord confirmed that it could not address the issues within the complaint and advised her to follow the process of a stage 1 complaint.
6. It offered a total of £1,080 in compensation.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she had read the damp and mould report provided and despite following the advice provided to her at the time, the issue persisted, and had worsened. She said there was mould and rising damp in every part of the home. She said there was no resolution for her, other than to be moved from the property. The resident moved out of the property via a mutual exchange in April 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has referred to her health and that the landlord’s handling of the repairs could have had an impact on this. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether there would have been a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent impact on the resident’s health. Although we cannot assess the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to the distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced as a result of the situation.
The resident has requested that the Ombudsman investigate the landlord’s handling of the ASB. As this complaint does not appear to have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure for this case, the Ombudsman cannot consider it in accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme. The resident has now received a separate stage 2 response in relation to the ASB and if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she may wish to bring the complaint to the Ombudsman.

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for the heating and hot water supply, windows, condensation, damp, and mould. It states that for emergency repairs it will attend within 24 hours and for routine repairs it will aim to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. The landlord updated its repairs policy in 2023 to state that it will aim to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days.
The landlord’s pests policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for rat infestations.
The landlord’s complaint policy provides for a 2 stage complaints procedure. It will respond to a complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider paying compensation where it has failed to satisfactory deal with repairs that are its responsibility and the customer is continuing to live in poor conditions longer than is reasonable. It states that it will award discretionary compensation when its failure causes a customer distress and inconvenience and/or unnecessary time and effort to get it to put things right. The policy states that discretionary payments must consider the household’s individual circumstances such as specific vulnerabilities, where it has caused greater impact.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.

Repairs to the boiler

The landlord’s records show that the resident first reported an issue with the boiler on 9 November 2022. The landlord attended the same day and reported that the issue was resolved. The landlord’s response to the initial reported issue was reasonable.
According to the records, the next report in relation to the boiler was on 3 January 2023. In the resident’s formal complaint and the landlord’s stage 2 response, reference was made to numerous repairs and prolonged periods of no heating and no hot water prior to the boiler being replaced in January 2023. The landlord said it awarded £320 which it said was in line with its processes under periods of no heating and hot water. It acknowledged the distress caused to the resident during the winter period and awarded further compensation. This information suggests that the Ombudsman has not received full records related to the boiler repairs as other reports were made prior to 3 January 2023.
When speaking to the Ombudsman, the resident stated that the landlord would send people to replace parts on the boiler and that it eventually replaced the boiler, but she had no heating or hot water within that time. The resident confirmed that she was not provided with any temporary heating and that she had to provide her own.
While there is limited information in relation to this, it is concerning that the resident reported no heating and hot water throughout the winter months. In line with its repairs policy, the landlord should have attended to each report within 1 working day. Even if the landlord had attended and further repairs were needed, it had a responsibility to ensure that the resident’s home was warm enough and that she had access to hot water in that time. There is no evidence to suggest it did, which is a failing.
Without the records, it is difficult to determine whether the landlord’s actions were in line with its policy and were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The overall information indicates that the landlord failed to resolve the issue in a timely manner, and the landlord did not dispute this in its complaint responses. The landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities in the household, and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have conducted a risk assessment to determine if a decant was necessary while it was waiting for parts or arranging for a new boiler.
On 13 January 2023, in an internal email the landlord noted that an engineer had attended to fix the boiler that day, but the hot water was still not working. It said it would raise a new repair, but no one could attend that day. The landlord referred to the resident having a vulnerable baby and how it may be weeks before she received a new boiler. It asked if a decant was required. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 the same day, she said that the boiler had broken down a few times in the last 4 months and she had not had any hot water in the last 3 weeks. The resident referred to her daughter’s health issues and that it was not acceptable that she was suffering. The landlord asked for a welfare check to be completed the same day.
While it was reasonable following the lack of hot water for the landlord to consider a decant and a welfare check for the resident, it is not reasonable that there is no evidence of those actions taking place. This is a further failing.
The landlord confirmed on 18 and 19 January 2023 that there was still no hot water in the property. The boiler was replaced on 26 January 2023. While it was reasonable for the landlord to replace the boiler following the multiple repairs, it was not appropriate that the resident and her daughter were left for approximately 6 weeks with no access to hot water.
Since the boiler was replaced, the Ombudsman has only seen 1 further report in relation to the boiler prior to the stage 2 response. This was recorded on 22 March 2023, the repair notes stated that this was in relation to low pressure and was attended to as an emergency repair. The landlord’s response was appropriate and appeared to resolve the matter.
Overall, it is concerning that the landlord’s records did not reflect the record of repairs in relation to the boiler. Where there is a disagreement in the accounts regarding the condition of the property, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how the repair work had been completed to a satisfactory standard. As the landlord did not provide such records and did not dispute the resident’s account, the Ombudsman does not find that the landlord’s handling of the boiler repairs was reasonable.
It is positive that the landlord’s stage 2 response awarded compensation and acknowledged some of its failings, but it did not acknowledge them all. There was also no learning provided to suggest it would do anything differently in the future. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the boiler repair.

Repairs to the window

From the evidence provided, the resident first reported the windows in her email dated 3 November 2022. The resident said that the windows were in the worst condition she had seen in any property, that screws were hanging out, the pane did not fit inside the frame, they rattled when opening, and that some of the windows had duct tape as a seal. The resident raised concerns that they would become a much bigger problem in the coming winter if not replaced. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the windows became frozen shut throughout the winter, and she had to break the ice with a knife every morning to open the windows.
The landlord’s records show jobs raised for the windows on 4 and 7 November 2022, 2 December 2022, and 4 January 2023. The landlord has since stated that it attended on 7 November 2022 to inspect, measure up, and quote for the works. However, none of the jobs had repair notes and were marked as either closed or cancelled. Therefore, it is unclear what was communicated to the resident in relation to the repair at the time and if the landlord had satisfied itself that the property was secure in the interim.
In her formal complaint the resident stated that her windows were frozen and that she was becoming severely depressed by the issue. The landlord responded the next day and said that a job had been raised for the 13 January 2023. It did not outline its reasons for the delay so far or acknowledge the impact on the resident, which was not appropriate.
The appointment on 13 January 2023 was rearranged by the contractors and the landlord noted that the resident was very upset and becoming desperate. It said that there was mould in the property and the resident could not open the windows due to them being frozen shut, which was impacting the resident and her baby’s health. It noted that there was also no hot water in the property and queried whether the resident should be decanted. As already acknowledged, the landlord should have considered the vulnerabilities in the household and confirmed its position on whether a decant was necessary. It is a failing that it did not do so.
On 19 January 2023, the landlord confirmed that the windows had been re-arranged again, it said that the contractor had said the replacement windows had not been cut to size yet and it did not know how long it would take. The Ombudsman can appreciate that there can be delays in ordering parts and windows. However, it would have been reasonable given the vulnerabilities and other issues in the property for the landlord to consider any temporary measures it could have taken to ensure the property was secure and habitable. There is no evidence that it did, which was not appropriate.
The landlord has stated that the windows were repaired on 21 January 2023. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the delays and miscommunication with the work order. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and offered compensation. It is encouraging that the landlord acknowledged its failings, but it did not fully explain why there were delays or how it would learn from its mistakes.
The landlord’s handling of the window repair was poor, and it is concerning that there is no evidence the landlord fully assessed the impact of the windows prior to the formal complaint. While the landlord has offered redress to put things right, it did not account for all its failings. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the window repair.

Damp and mould

Although the landlord’s stage 2 response stated that the damp and mould was first raised in January 2023, it did not acknowledge that the resident first reported the issue in November 2022. In her email dated 3 November 2022 the resident said that she was experiencing mould issues in the property. She said that the landlord was aware of both her own and her daughter’s health issues and said that their bed was wet from damp. It would have been reasonable following the resident’s reports for the landlord to have inspected the damp and mould in the property. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident’s reports, which is a failing.
In her formal complaint dated 9 January 2023, the resident reported that the property was full of mould. The landlord raised a job the following day for a mould wash and the contractor did not attend until 13 February 2023, which was not appropriate. In internal emails dated 13 January 2023, the landlord stated that the resident had severe damp and mould in the property and referred to the vulnerabilities in the household, stating that they were becoming worse. As already highlighted, if the contractor could not attend sooner, the landlord should have completed a risk assessment in line with its responsibilities under the HHSRS to ensure the property was habitable for the resident and her daughter.
The damp and mould report dated 13 February 2023 acknowledged that the property had a new boiler and windows, it had carried out a “clean and shield” and that there were no issues in the property. While it has been determined that the contractor should have attended sooner, the report was detailed, and the action taken at the time was appropriate.
There were no further reports of damp and mould made by the resident in the summer months. On 6 November 2023 the resident stated that she was suffering with extreme mould all over the property, she said it was growing everywhere, and she had to throw away her daughter’s mattress and toy box as they were full of mould. She said her 2-year-old daughter was always sick and had suspected asthma but could not be diagnosed due to her age. The resident referred to other issues she was having at the property and that she was feeling suicidal every day.
There was no evidence provided to suggest the landlord responded to the resident’s email. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have carried out a further inspection in the property. It would also have been reasonable for it to have raised a safeguarding concern or welfare check for the resident. Social landlords have a key safeguarding role to play along with other professionals and should be responsive where residents cite potential self-harm. Given the circumstances outlined by the resident, together with its prior knowledge of her mental and physical health, the lack of follow up action by the landlord at the time was not appropriate.
The resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on 23 November 2023 to reiterate the concerns with the resident’s property and the vulnerabilities in the household. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the landlord responding to the MP. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 November 2023 and said she wanted to move. She provided the reasons why which included that the property had a lot of mould in the last few months and both herself and her daughter were always sick. She said where her daughter sat and ate was mouldy, where she washed was mouldy, and where she slept was mouldy. She said it was not acceptable for any human to live like that. She attached a letter from her doctor, recent pictures of the mould, and a picture of her own mould wash.
The landlord responded on the same day and said it was sorry for what she was experiencing, that it was investigating the complaint, and that it would respond shortly. It would have been reasonable for it to have confirmed what next steps it would take in relation to the resident’s reports, it is a failing that it did not do so, and the resident was left unsupported.
In its stage 2 response the landlord referred to the report which was provided on 13 February 2023 and said, “going by the report, they’ve shielded and eradicated the mould from the reported areas”. It said it could see there were no signs of damp and to let it know if it had reappeared and it would send another assessor to investigate.
The landlord’s response was inappropriate, there was no acknowledgement of the resident’s more recent reports of mould growth in the property or the period in which the resident had been affected. This was a missed opportunity to comprehensively assess the issues which might have resulted in a resolution sooner. This led the resident to have to continue reporting the issue, which likely caused further distress and inconvenience.
It is noted that the landlord made efforts to address the damp and mould in the property, namely replacing the boiler and windows and carrying out a mould wash, which was positive. However, from November 2023 onwards, the resident’s enjoyment of her property was severely limited due to the reported mould growth. It is concerning that the issue remained outstanding at the time of the stage 2 response. The landlord missed several opportunities to inspect the property, carry out a risk assessment, and to consider any temporary measures such as mould washes and/or dehumidifiers to help alleviate the issue.
The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s failings amount to maladministration. An additional order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of the property caused.

Pest issue

In her email dated 6 November 2023, the resident referred to having had a massive infestation of rats and that it was horrifying. She said she had a letter from her daughter’s hospital stating that she should keep the home sanitary and she said she could not do so with rats.
It is not disputed that the landlord had a responsibility to deal with the rat infestation. In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed the resident reported rats in her propertyon 22 March 2023 and works were raised for as soon as possible. It said it attended and completed the job in May 2023. It apologised for the delay, acknowledged the distress and worry caused to the resident, and offered compensation. There is no information to suggest that the landlord’s account was incorrect or that there were any further reports made following its attendance on 2 May 2023.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the reason for the delay and what action it would take to ensure it would not happen again. However, the landlord did acknowledge its failings and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. While its compensation was not broken down per reported issue, it awarded £80 per month for the distress and inconvenience caused. It is reasonable to assume that the compensation awarded for the months of March, April and May 2023 were to account for the pest issue and would amount to £240.
The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint. This assessment considers whether the landlord offered reasonable redress for its acknowledged failings in accordance with our Dispute Resolution Principles, to be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman recognises that it would have been very distressing for the resident to have to deal with rats in her property. However, the remedy offered by the landlord was reasonable for the failings identified. As such the Ombudsman has found reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the pest issue. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to review its pest policy and consider adding the timescales in which it would aim to respond to reports of pests. This is to help manage expectations and to provide a framework for both the landlord and its contractors to work within.

Complaint handling and level of compensation offered

The landlord took 11 months to provide its stage 2 response. The delay was not acceptable nor was it in line with its policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord acknowledged its delay in its complaint response and awarded £100 compensation. It did not outline what steps it would take to ensure it would not happen again, which is a failing.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code became statutory on 1 April 2024, meaning that landlord’s will be obliged by law to follow its requirements. Therefore, no order will be made in relation to the delay. The Code aims to achieve best practice in complaint handling and to provide a better service to residents.
In investigating the complaints in this case, the Ombudsman came across another stage 2 response provided to the resident on 30 November 2023. It said it was in relation to the lack of hot water and delay to repairs. It offered compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time, and effort caused and the delay in responding at stage 2. The landlord confirmed that the complaint about the windows would be addressed separately under the complaint reference which the Ombudsman has investigated.
In the stage 2 response provided on 5 December 2023, the hot water and heating was also addressed with compensation awarded. The landlord’s approach is confusing and suggests a lack of oversight in its handling of the complaint and record keeping. For fairness, and as neither the landlord nor the resident have brought the response dated 30 November 2023 to the Ombudsman, it has not been investigated. However, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord awarded £680 in compensation, which will be taken into account when considering the level of compensation offered. To ensure transparency and consistency, the Ombudsman does not encourage landlords to provide more than 1 stage 2 response and compensation for the same issue.
As already stated, the stage 2 response did not adequately respond to all the issues and reports raised by the resident, specifically around damp and mould. This led to the resident having to raise the issue again and bring her complaint to the Ombudsman. The stage 2 response was an opportunity for the landlord to reclaim oversight of the conditions of the property, to learn from its mistakes, and offer appropriate redress, it was a failing that it did not do so.
While the compensation went some way to account for the landlord’s failures, it did not go far enough. This is due to the lack of compensation awarded for the damp and mould. The landlord awarded a total of £1,080 for the complaint delay, no heating and hot water over the winter periods, the delay in window replacement and the pest/rodent infestation, which was broken down as follows:
1. £100 for the stage 2 delay
2. £100 for time and effort
3. £660 for distress (11 months x £60)
4. £220 for inconvenience (11 months x £20)
As already stated, the landlord also offered £680 in its complaint response dated 30 November 2023, which was in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time, effort and delays related to the lack of hot water and heating.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have broken down the compensation for each complaint point in the stage 2 response. However, the overall amount awarded for distress, inconvenience, time, and effort in relation to the boiler, windows, pest issue and complaint delays was appropriate.
The landlord did not acknowledge the more recent reports of damp and mould in the property and as such, it could not offer suitable redress for its failures. The Ombudsman finds it reasonable to award compensation for the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the lack of action taken by the landlord. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for when a landlord fails to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right, the Ombudsman orders an additional £300 to be paid to the resident.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Special report on London and Quadrant

In July 2023, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord following an investigation carried out under paragraph 49 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which allows the Ombudsman to conduct further investigations to establish whether any presenting evidence is indicative of a systemic failing.
Some of the concerns relevant to this report centred around its handling of repairs (particularly damp and mould), vulnerabilities, complaint handling, and record keeping. The report recommended the landlord independently review those areas and develop an action plan based on the findings.
While the landlord has engaged with the Ombudsman and progress has been made, we have continued to identify problems with the landlord’s performance. This is evidenced in the similar and more recent failings which have been identified in this report. The landlord should reflect on its approach to damp and mould and consider how if the current tenant raises new reports, it should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to resolve the issue.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the boiler.
2. Repairs to the windows.
3. Damp and mould.
4. The handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to the investigation which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of a pest issue.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

A senior member of the landlord staff must provide an apology for the additional failings identified in this report. The apology should outline what changes it has made or intends to make to ensure it does not repeat the same mistakes again.
The landlord must pay the resident a total of £2,060. This is inclusive of the landlord’s previous offers totalling £1,760.
The landlord is to provide compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its pest policy and consider adding timescales to respond to reports of pests. This is to help manage expectations and to provide a framework for both the landlord and its contractors to work within.
The landlord should reflect on its approach to damp and mould and consider how if the current tenant raises new reports, it should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to resolve the issue. Best practice and guidance can be found in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould.