Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202307053)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307053

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

18 April 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 response to:
1. A request for revised service charges.
2. Reports of subsidence of the boundary wall.
3. Reports of mould in the property.
4. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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.
Paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of a rent or service charge increase. While the resident has confirmed the matter has now been resolved, for the purpose of clarity, this aspect of the complaint will not be assessed within this report. Should the resident have the need to challenge the amount of service charge and seek recovery, this can be done by making an application to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The Ombudsman is aware that the resident raised a previous complaint regarding the boundary wall. The complaint was not escalated beyond the first stage of the complaints process; however, it is suggested this was due to the landlord agreeing to complete repair work. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm when the complaint was raised or what was agreed by the landlord, and it was not included in the most recent complaint made. While it has been included as a reference point only within this report, due to the time that has passed, and the issue not exhausting the full complaint process, the boundary wall issue is outside the jurisdiction of this Service and will not form part of the assessment.

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated her health has been impacted by the ongoing issues. While we do not doubt this, 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.
Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunals, or procedures. Due to this, the reported damage to belongings caused by the mould will not be assessed within this report.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of the ground flat floor after purchasing the property on 17 December 2020.

Summary of events

The evidence provided confirms the resident has previously raised issues concerning mould in August 2021. This resulted in the front door being renewed in January 2022 and the patio and windows being renewed in July 2022.
On 6 March 2023, the resident made the landlord aware that mould was still in existence within the flat. She informed the landlord the bedroom was “riddled” with thick black mould that had damaged furnishings. The resident asked the landlord how it would resolve this and advised she was contacting Environmental Health and her GP.
The landlord responded the same day and confirmed it would refer the matter to the surveying team who would confirm if any work was required. The resident asked when this would happen and asked for the contact details of the surveying team. She told the landlord the issue was detrimental to her health and a medical professional had suggested she had tests to confirm the effect on her. The resident asked for the landlord’s insurance details as she had been advised she could claim.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 March 2023. She asked for phone numbers for the surveying team so she could start to make calls. She said she was sleeping in her living room due to the mould in the bedroom. The landlord provided the details for the loss adjustors and confirmed the surveying team would be in contact by 13 March 2023 once a desktop assessment had been completed. The landlord told the resident a home visit may be required. The resident also asked for the sales team contact details and told the landlord she would be contacting her MP. She stated this had been highlighted in December 2020 when the surveyor was supposed to make contact and did not.
On 13 March 2023, the resident had not received a response from the surveyor and contacted the landlord. She stated she had asked for the insurance details and the contact number for the sales team but had not received a response.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 March 2023, to apologise for the lack of contact from the surveyor. It confirmed it would speak to the surveyor and provide the other information requested before the end of the day. It later advised the resident that the surveyor could not assess based on the 1 photo provided so a visit was needed to take more. The resident confirmed she had sent 6 photos to the landlord. She said she had cleaned the mould away, but if someone had contacted her when this was first reported, she would have been able to take photos of the window frames.
On 15 March 2023, the resident asked for her concerns regarding mould to be logged as a complaint. She told the landlord she wanted to sell the property and the mould was not appealing. The landlord acknowledged the 6 photos provided by the resident but advised the surveyor wanted to inspect the property in person. An appointment was made for 23 March 2023.
On 27 March 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to ask for an update on the surveyor’s report. She told the landlord she had her own surveyor who wanted to read the report and cross reference its findings with his own. She said she was concerned the mould was diagnosed as “seasonal” and wanted to speak the surveyor.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 31 March 2023 for an update. She confirmed she was still living with mould and sleeping on the sofa. The landlord emailed the resident and confirmed it had spoken to the surveyor. It acknowledged the report was taking longer to produce than it preferred. It confirmed the surveyor would be happy to speak to her. The landlord confirmed it had updated the complaint to confirm the mould issue had not been resolved.
On 5 April 2023, the resident asked again for the insurance details and the surveyor’s report. The landlord sent the resident the surveyor’s report in the body of an email and asked her to answer a series of questions for the insurance company. She asked if there was a full copy of the report as what she had had received was not an official document. She also pointed out that only the bedroom had been included. The resident asked when a meeting would be arranged with the surveyor, but the landlord advised it would be better to contact him directly. The resident asked if her complaint could be escalated as she wanted to involve this Service.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 April 2023, concerned about the ventilation from new windows which she said was lower than surrounding properties. She asked when she would receive the findings regarding the mould at the front and patio doors. While asking how the landlord was to resolve the issues, she repeated her request for the insurance details and asked for confirmation as to what stage her complaint was at.
The landlord responded to the resident on 14 April 2023. It asked the resident if she would share her own surveyor’s report. It confirmed it would ask for the window company to provide the warranty and to visit the resident to explain the type of windows that had been fitted. The landlord advised the “slight” mould around the front door and patio doors was diagnosed as seasonal condensation by the surveyor. It confirmed the complaint was at stage 1 and a response would be provided by 17 April 2023. It advised the insurance query had been sent to the insurance team and a claim form had been sent for the resident to complete and return.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 April 2023. The response referred to the mould in the flat. The landlord confirmed the following:
1. Mould in the bedroom was reported in August 2021 and a staff member visited the property. The matter was referred to the surveying team on 25 August 2021. The front door was in disrepair due to black mould and the window frames were rotten.
2. The landlord had to chase the surveying team in September and October 2021 who confirmed it was to visit the property.
3. A new front door was fitted on 22 January 2022, and the windows and patio door were replaced on 11 July 2022. The landlord believed the work carried out had resolved the mould issue in those rooms.
4. Further mould was reported in the bedroom on 6 March 2023, and was referred to the surveying team who visited on 23 March 2023. The landlord arrived early and was given access by someone present. It continued with the inspection without the resident being present and did not wait for her to arrive home. The landlord accepted it should have waited for her.
5. The mould on the bedroom wall was diagnosed as seasonal and could be removed with mould remover fluid.
6. The resident had instructed her own surveyor to inspect the property and the landlord asked for a copy of the report. It suggested a specialist mould contractor conducted another survey of the bedroom with her agreement. It did however advise that if the findings were the same as its own surveyor, the resident would be charged for the report.
7. The landlord apologised for the time taken to resolve the issues and acknowledged the stress it caused. It offered £100 for the time taken to replace the doors and window, £50 for arriving early to the inspection, and £50 as a gesture of goodwill. The landlord’s response stated it offered £400 in total.
On receipt of the stage 1 complaint response, the resident contacted the landlord on 1 May 2023 with a series of further questions. The landlord provided its further response on 19 May 2023, apologising that sickness had contributed to the delay.
On 20 May 2023, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated. She said she had received minimal resolution to the issues raised.
On 26 May 2023, the resident spoke to this Service. She advised she had received a stage 2 response which she was unhappy with. She remained unhappy with subsidence to a wall, mould in the bedroom, the surveyor’s report, and service charge queries.
A visit was arranged for 8 June 2023 for the landlord to inspect the property. The landlord emailed the resident on 9 June 2023 to suggest an external surveyor inspected the flat to advise on the cause and resolution for the mould. It followed up on its suggestion on 19 June 2023, after not receiving a response from the resident. It asked again if the resident would be willing to share her own surveyor’s report. The resident replied and confirmed she would release the report if the case went to court.
On 14 June 2023, this Service emailed the resident. It was unclear after reviewing the communication if a formal complaint had been made and a complaint response received. The resident was advised to contact the landlord to detail her concerns.
On 22 June 2023, the resident emailed this Service. She confirmed she had raised a formal complaint, and she would be ready to proceed to stage 2. She advised she wanted to add the boundary wall to the complaint and escalate it to stage 2.
The landlord provided its final complaint response to the resident on 4 July 2023. The response focused on mould in the flat. The landlord confirmed:
1. It had looked at the history of the case and confirmed the outcomes and compensation stated in the stage 1 response.
2. It acknowledged it took too long for a surveyor to inspect the property (in 2021) and it should have considered using an external surveyor, however the appropriate decision was made to replace the windows and door. The compensation for the delay was increased to £200.
3. It agreed it should have been more proactive by contacting the resident after a few months to check if the work had addressed the issue.
4. It received the stage 1 complaint request on 15 March 2023, but did not log this until 31 March 2023. The landlord apologised for not following its complaint policy.
5. The surveyor’s report, provided on 5 April 2023 confirmed the mould was caused by condensation and could be addressed by better ventilation of the property. No repairs were identified to the building.
6. It had provided the surveyor’s details so the resident could contact him directly with her questions regarding the inspection.
7. It confirmed the introduction of a new damp and mould policy and the timescale for inspections. The landlord acknowledged it had not followed its policy correctly, however the inspection of the property was completed quicker than it would have been and so there was no negative impact on the resident.
8. It suggested an alternative survey was commissioned by an external contractor to advise on the cause and resolution of the mould.
9. It requested a copy of the resident’s own surveyor report. If it confirmed issues which the landlord needed to repair, it would consider reimbursing the cost to the resident.
10. It had reviewed the compensation offered to better reflect the service failures:
  1. £200 for the delay in the door and window replacement (increased from £100 offered at stage 1).
  2. £50 for attending the appointment early (agreed at stage 1).
  3. £50 for the delay in providing the surveyor’s report.
  4. £50 for not logging the complaint in line with the complaint policy.
  5. £50 for the delay in responding to the resident’s additional questions from the stage 1 response.
  6. £100 gesture of goodwill (increased from £50 at stage 1).
The resident contacted this Service on 26 May 2023. She explained she had received a stage 2 response which she was unhappy with. The issues included the subsidence of the boundary wall, the mould in the bedroom, the surveyor’s report, and the service charge query. As a resolution, the resident asked for the mould to be treated, the subsidence to be investigated and maintained and for compensation for distress, damage, and inconvenience.

Post completion of complaint process

It is evident that upon receipt of the final complaint response, the resident remained unhappy, and the mould issue continued. The resident raised additional points after receiving the final complaint letter which the landlord responded to.
The landlord again offered an inspection by an external surveyor. It apologised for saying it was seasonal damp when the evidence provided by the resident showed it was persistent throughout the year. It confirmed it understood and apologised for the inconvenience and financial impact the matter had on her and her health. It confirmed it would escalate the case and work with her to find a resolution to bring the property back to standard for resale. It asked for availability and confirmed the boundary wall could be inspected too.
The resident confirmed the wall had been inspected 2 or 3 times before. While this is not disputed, this Service has not received any evidence of these visits. There was email correspondence throughout August and September 2023 between the resident, the landlord and the contractor who was assigned the work following the complaint in 2022. The evidence suggests work was carried out in September 2023, although there is contact from the resident asking when this would be completed.
The resident continued to ask the landlord for updates on her complaint responses stating several points were not met or responded to sufficiently. She asked for copies of all reports that referred to the wall. She also disputed the level of compensation, stating she would accept £4,500. This was declined by the landlord who stated it exceeded the compensation policy.
The evidence provided confirmed the matter of the wall and the work required continued through to November 2023, however it is not clear if this matter was resolved in full.
More recent correspondence from April 2024 confirmed the landlord had met with the resident in March 2024 to review all the concerns raised in the stage 2 complaint. A senior member of staff had been assigned to the case to review the issues and to provide a response on behalf of the landlord. It was confirmed the landlord had been in contact with the resident to start this process.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

The lease agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for the building and all external parts, including all external and load bearing walls which are not the responsibility of the leaseholder.
The landlord’s repair policy states:
1. Emergency repairs will be attended within 4 hours with a make safe or temporary repair completed within 24 hours.
2. Standard repairs will be completed within 20 working days.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states:
1. A local officer should visit a property within 10 days of receiving a report of damp or mould. This will determine the severity of the problem, and where possible, the cause.
2. Minor remediation work should be arranged in line with the repair policy.
3. Severe cases should be inspected within 10 days of the first inspection and remediation work prioritised in line with the severity of the issue.
4. Where damp and mould is the result of condensation, the landlord will support residents alleviate contributing factors. For example, ventilation.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. Stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. Complaints at either stage will be acknowledged within 2 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states the following:
1. Claims for damage to property or personal belongings should be referred to the insurance team.
2. A discretionary payment can be offered for inconvenience and stress above what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate. A compensation matrix determines low to high impact and the level of compensation that should be considered.

Mould

When the resident reported mould in her bedroom on 6 March 2023, the landlord responded appropriately by confirming it would refer the issue to the surveying team. While the response from the landlord was timely, it would have been reasonable to provide an indicative timeframe as to when the resident would hear from the surveying team. Only after the resident sent a further email asking for a timeframe was, she advised the team would contact her by 13 March 2023.
The surveying team did not contact the resident as advised and she had to spend time and effort chasing the landlord. It apologised for the lack of contact and confirmed a home visit was necessary to inspect the mould. The visit took place on the agreed date, however the landlord arrived early, and the inspection was done without the resident present. While it is understood appointments may run early, it should have tried to call the resident to ask if she would be arriving home soon or it should have waited for her to arrive. The landlord was aware of the resident’s concern regarding the mould; therefore, the Ombudsman finds the action of the landlord unreasonable. The landlord did acknowledge this error in the complaint responses and compensation was offered, but this is likely to have contributed to the frustration of the resident who was not able to speak to the landlord directly as a result.
It is not clear if the resident was told she would receive a copy of the surveyor’s report or how long this would take. The first request was made on 27 March 2023 with further requests following before receiving this was provided via email on 5 April 2023. The Ombudsman does not find this timeframe unreasonable.
When the resident raised concerns regarding the windows and ventilation, the landlord agreed to provide the warranty and to ask the window company to attend to explain the windows that had been fitted in the property. While this was a reasonable suggestion to make, it is unclear from the evidence provided if this took place and what was explained to the resident. This lack of evidence raises concerns regarding the landlord’s record keeping and communication with external contractors. The landlord asked the resident if she would share a copy of her own surveyor’s report so it could compare it to its own. While this was a reasonable request of the landlord, it is understood that the resident was not willing to share this and was under no obligation to do so.
In respect of the request for the insurance details, 4 separate requests were made from 6 March 2023 before the landlord confirmed it had sent the insurance query to the insurance team and had sent a claim form to the resident on 17 April 2023. The Ombudsman finds it unreasonable that the resident had to ask for this information 4 times. The landlord should demonstrate its commitment to helping the resident, particularly given her stated concerns about damages and her health and should have referred the query at an earlier stage to allow the process to begin.
In the stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed the surveyor diagnosed the mould as seasonal which could be cleaned with mould remover fluid. While it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of the surveyor, there was no confirmation as to who was responsible for cleaning the mould; there was no suggestion as to what materials to use, and no other advice or guidance provided. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy around offering advice and guidance.
The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated as she said she had received minimal resolution to the issues raised. The landlord visited the property on 9 June 2023 and suggested an external surveyor inspect the flat to look for a cause and resolution. While this was a reasonable suggestion, it is a concern that it took the escalation of the complaint and a further visit to prompt this. The landlord repeated its suggestion to the resident on 19 June 2023 who confirmed she was obtaining advice on what action to take.
In its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed the mould was caused by condensation and could be addressed by better ventilation. No repairs were identified or needed in the property. It suggested commissioning an alternative survey by an external contractor, but it is unclear if this survey took place and if it identified any issues not highlighted by the landlord. The lack of evidence makes it difficult to determine if the landlord has responded appropriately to any findings.
Following the final complaint response, the resident contacted the landlord to confirm the mould issue was still ongoing. Upon receipt of photographs from the resident, it apologised for the miscommunication regarding the seasonal nature of the mould and agreed the problem was persistent throughout the year. It recommended a wash down of the affected areas with halophen solution and an application of a new skim of 3mm plaster to the external wall, including the renewal of all sealants. It confirmed a full external inspection would be carried out to identify any possible damp proof course issues. The Ombudsman is not clear from the evidence provided as to whether this work has been completed and if issue with the mould in the property has been resolved in full.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the mould. It responded appropriately when put on notice of the problem, but there was then a lack of communication from the surveying team and the appointment went ahead without the presence of the resident. There were delays in communication when responding to the resident’s request for the insurance details, the sales teams contact details and in the replies to the resident’s questions which she asked upon receipt of the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. These were in part acknowledged within the complaint responses.
The landlord reasonably accepted the opinion of its qualified surveying team regarding the cause of the mould. When the resident continued to experience the mould and express her dissatisfaction, it offered a further survey from an independent company to assess the property again when. While this was reasonable, there was a delay of 3 months in this being offered. Due to the time the issue had been ongoing, it would have been reasonable to suggest this earlier than it did.
Additional work was highlighted, albeit after the final complaint response was provided. It is not clear who, how or when this additional work was identified and if it has been completed, and if therefore a misdiagnosis was initially made by the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged some of these failings through its complaints process. It awarded some compensation for earlier issues that occurred during 2021-22 as well as £100 for failings that occurred after the further mould report made in March 2023. Given the circumstances of the case, the landlord is of the view that this compensation was insufficient.
The Ombudsman has been made aware that the landlord met with the resident in March 2024 to review all the concerns raised in the stage 2 complaint. A senior member of staff has been assigned to the case to review the issues and to provide a response. While this is a positive step in reaching a resolution for the resident, it is a concern how long it has taken the landlord to take this action, 8 months after the final complaint response. As a result of the findings of this report, it is of the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord should offer the resident additional compensation. Further details can be found in the orders section of this report.

Complaint handling

The resident logged her complaint regarding mould in the property on 15 March 2023. In line with its complaint policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the landlord should acknowledge a complaint within 5 days of receipt. This confirms the understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking. The landlord did not log the complaint until 31 March 2023 and there is no evidence it was appropriately acknowledged; therefore, it did not comply with its own complaint policy.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident when it logged the complaint to acknowledge and apologise for the delay. This would have stopped her from chasing an update on 6 April 2023, 16 working days after submitting the complaint. The Ombudsman does not find it reasonable that the resident should have to invest time and effort into contacting the landlord for updates.
The stage 1 complaint response was provided on 17 April 2023. This was 10 working days from when it was logged, but it was 21 working days from when the landlord received it. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in the response or address the service failure in logging the complaint late. This raises concern regarding the landlord’s complaint handling and management.
Within the response, the landlord acknowledged the delays in the replacement of the windows and door (in 2021) and as a result offered compensation. It is a concern that this was not acknowledged at the time, and it took until this complaint, almost a year later, to address it. It is also a concern that the compensation levels did not align to the total offered within the response, although it was later confirmed the landlord would honour the higher figure quoted in the response. This was reasonable of the landlord in acknowledgement of the error it had made.
The stage 1 response prompted further questions from the resident which took the landlord 3 weeks to answer. The landlord told the resident sickness had caused the delay. Although this was unfortunate and cannot be foreseen, it should have plans in place to account for this and the resident should not be impacted. The Ombudsman therefore finds the delay unreasonable and likely to have added to the resident’s frustration.
The complaint escalation was made on 20 May 2023. As with the stage 1 complaint, there is no evidence of an acknowledgement, despite the policy stating it would be done within 2 working days. The landlord missed the opportunity to confirm the reasons for the escalation and desired outcome of the resident. The Ombudsman finds this a failing in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 4 July 2023, 31 working days after it was requested, and outside of the timescales within the policy. The landlord did not acknowledge or explain the delay which the Ombudsman finds unreasonable and lacking in customer focus. The final complaint response repeated the information provided at stage 1 and included an acknowledgement for the delay in receiving information. The landlord identified service failures with the complaint handling. These included the complaint not being logged in line with policy, and the resident having to chase for a response. For these, the landlord offered £100 compensation. In the Ombudsman opinion, the compensation offered does not fully reflect the service failures with the handling of the complaint and should be increased.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The landlord failed to comply with its own complaint policy and the Code in terms of the logging, acknowledging, and delays in its responses. It identified it did not log the first complaint in line with policy but failed to acknowledge the delays in the complaint responses. The landlord did not demonstrate how it would learn from these mistakes. It is expected that if issues are still ongoing when a response is provided, these should be monitored through to completion. It is therefore a concern that delays linked to a complaint from the previous year were only acknowledged and addressed via compensation within this complaint. As a result of the findings within this report, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the offer of compensation should be increased. Further information can be found in the orders section below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

Reasons

There was a lack of communication from the surveying team who then attended an appointment early and completed the inspection without the resident being present. There was a delay in communication from the landlord with the resident investing time and effort in making several requests for the same information. The landlord offered to commission an external surveyor to inspect the property, but this took too long and only happened when the complaint was escalated, and the problem continued. The landlord agreed to additional work in relation to the mould, yet it was not evidenced who made the recommendations and if this challenged the initial diagnosis of seasonal mould. It is not known if all the work has been completed and if it has resolved the issue, therefore it is difficult to determine how long it took to fully resolve the mould problem. The landlord is now working with the resident to address the issues raised in the complaint, but this is 8 months after the final response was provided.
The landlord failed to comply with its own complaint policy and the Code. The service failure affected the logging, acknowledging, and responding to the complaints at each stage. The landlord failed to recognise these delays within the complaint process, and this raises concern regarding the landlord’s approach to complaint management. While some delays were acknowledged, the landlord did not demonstrate how it would learn from the mistakes, and the level of compensation offered did not reflect the failures identified.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident £900 which is made up of the following:
  1. £500 as previously offered in the final complaint response dated 4 July 2023.
  2. An additional £200 for the time and effort spent by the resident chasing repeated requests for information and for the delay in offering a survey from an external company.
  3. £200 for the service failures identified with the complaint handling.
  4. The additional compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent or service charge account.
3. The landlord should confirm if a survey was completed by an external company and should confirm the findings of this to the resident and this Service.
4. The landlord should confirm the current position in relation to the mould in the property. If there is any outstanding work to be completed, it should provide a schedule of work to the resident and this Service and confirm that it will subsequently complete a post-inspection to check the success of these works.
The landlord must reply to this Service providing evidence of compliance with these orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should provide this Service and the resident an update as to its current position in relation to the boundary wall. If there are any outstanding actions required, these should be confirmed with an expected completion date. It is recommended the landlord completes a post inspection following the work to ensure it is done to the required standard.
This Service published a spotlight in knowledge and information management. It was suggested that landlords completed a self-assessment against the recommendations within the report. It is noted this recommendation has been made in a previous determination (202120755) so will not be repeated in this report.
The landlord should consider delivering complaint refresher training to all staff involved in complaint management. This should include knowledge on the landlord’s own policy but also against the Code. The landlord should notify this Service of when it intends to submit its self-assessment against the updated Code.