Optivo (202002413)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002413

22 June 2021

Optivo

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 Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property;
2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over subsidence to the building;
3. the landlord’s handling of the corresponding complaint.

Background and Summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and its tenancy agreement with her confirms its obligations to “keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the Property including… drains, gutters and external pipes” and “maintaining insurance for the structure of the Property”. Furthermore, it is responsible for maintaining “any installation provided by [it] for… the supply… of electricity”. This agreement also confirms that it is the resident’s responsibility to “decorate all internal parts of the property as often as is necessary to keep them in good decorative order”.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that if repairs affect the decoration of the property it will “make good’ the area” or offer a decoration voucher if the resident chooses to redecorate this herself. This policy defines an emergency repair as one which causes “immediate risk to the health, safety and security of any occupants… Or causing immediate damage to a property’s structure, fixtures and/or fittings.” While it confirms that it will make safe emergency repairs within six hours, no timeframe is provided for non-emergency repairs.
The landlord’s complaints resolution procedure provides for a two-stage complaints procedure, with acknowledgement of the complaint to be made within three working days at both stages. At stage one, it aims to provide a full response within ten working days or agree an extension with the resident. At the final review stage, the complaint is to be considered at a review panel meeting, the date of which should be confirmed within ten working days of acknowledgement of the review request. A response is to be provided within ten working days of the review panel meeting or an extension agreed with the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy provides for the award of discretionary payments in cases where it has “taken reasonable steps to resolve any failure in service”. Its compensation procedure specifies that discretionary payments may range from £50 to £250 “in exceptional cases”. This procedure also states that the landlord “may offer decoration vouchers or a decoration pack” to the resident in the event that “decorations or fixtures have been damaged due to repairs or improvements carried out by [it]”.

Summary of events

The landlord’s internal emails show that on 11 September 2019 it confirmed that external and internal cracking present in the property was due to subsidence, which it attributed to “nearby vegetation and possible defective drains”. This was confirmed in a report to it on that date from its insurer’s loss adjuster.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 November 2019 in which she noted that the property was being investigated for subsidence but she had not been informed about the results of this. She added that she had “constant mould growing on walls in each room” which the landlord’s surveyors had attributed to “every day living”. The resident disagreed with this and believed that work needed to be carried out to the walls.
The landlord replied to the resident on 27 November 2019 to advise that it was awaiting a response regarding the subsidence from its insurance team and would ensure an inspection was carried out.
On 6 January 2020, the landlord provided details to the resident of the company who would be attending the following day to carry out an inspection.
Later that day, the resident emailed the landlord regarding issues related to her reports of leaks and subsidence. She stated that since having “pins” installed in October 2019, she had not received any further contact about these. The resident was aware that her drains needed to be checked but had not been informed about a visit to do this.
The resident reported that she had sent pictures of the damp and mould issues within the property to the landlord on 29 November 2019 but had since received no response about this. She relayed that she had “constantly” been advised that it was a condensation issue which had not been resolved and the problem had spread to each room in the property, in addition to further cracks appearing in the walls.
On 7 January 2020, the resident confirmed that a representative attended the property to carry out a property risk inspection of the vegetation outside the property.
On 8 January 2020, the landlord suggested that an independent damp survey would be advisable to which the resident consented to later that day. On the following day, the resident was informed of an appointment for the damp survey to be carried out that day.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 24 January 2020 showed that the damp contractor had contacted the resident to advise that damp treatment works were to commence on 18 February 2020. The contractor requested that the landlord arrange for the resident to move furniture away from the lounge front wall and bedroom rear wall ahead of damp treatment works. The contractor also advised that the electrical sockets, wiring and radiator needed to be removed, and the kitchen extractor fan required upgrading.
On 25 January 2020, the resident asked the landlord to provide further information on the proposed damp treatment works as she had been contacted by a contractor that she did not recognise about the commencement of the works. She wanted it to advise her of the outcome of the damp inspection and the contractor who would be carrying out the damp works.
The landlord replied to the resident on 27 January 2020 to advise that it would chase the contractor for details of the proposed damp works and relay these to her once available. It added that its insurance department was also carrying out investigations and works.
On 4 February 2020, the resident chased the landlord for an update, requesting a detailed description of the works and the rooms involved. She stated that she would refuse access for the works due to begin on 18 February 2020 unless these details were provided to her. The resident asserted that exterior works needed to be carried out in order to resolve the damp issues she had previously reported.
On 7 February 2020, the landlord advised the resident that it was still looking into the enquiry.
The resident informed the landlord on 11 February 2020 that she had been contacted by a contractor to arrange an appointment to remove the front room radiator to treat the damp. She contended that “this [made] no sense” and had declined this appointment. The resident repeated that she would refuse access for the forthcoming damp works on 18 February 2020 as the landlord had not provided details of the works. She repeated her assertion that the exterior works needed to be carried out as she believed that damp was penetrating through from the exterior.
On 12 February 2020, the resident relayed to the landlord that she had received a call from the damp contractor who had advised her of the scope of the works, which did not require the removal of the radiator. She enquired about how long her electrical sockets would be unusable, what arrangements it would make for redecoration following the works, and its intentions for treating the condensation issue in the bathroom, which was not included as part of the proposed works.
In an email exchange on 13 February 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it would not offer decoration services; however, it would offer a decoration pack for her to carry out redecoration herself. It confirmed that it would arrange for the upgrade of the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the offer, which she felt was unfair, but consented to the works proceeding.
The resident emailed the landlord later on 18 February 2020 to raise a stage one complaint as the damp contractor had been unable to start the work due to her not being informed of the need to clear space for them to proceed. She advised that it would not have been practical to clear such an area for them and she gathered that the work would create mess which she reported was likely to affect her and her daughter’s health conditions.
The resident felt that she had not been communicated with effectively in relation to the works, which she would have refused had she been aware of the full details and the potential effects on her health due to the dust created. She raised the issue of the subsidence affecting the property, stating that she had not been informed about progress with dealing with this. The resident stated that the landlord had been “neglectful and inconsiderate” of her situation. She added that she had experienced “ongoing issues” with the fire system which she contended was due to an unsuitable system being installed for the property.
The landlord acknowledged the above complaint on 19 February 2020, advising the resident that it had logged it as an informal complaint. Later that day, she emailed it to question why it had not recorded a formal complaint. The landlord spoke to the resident on 20 February 2020 and confirmed by email that it had logged a formal complaint with a response to be provided by 5 March 2020.
In an email exchange between 24 and 27 February 2020, the resident raised a further complaint to the landlord concerning the standard of electrical works previously carried out at the property. This was acknowledged by it as an informal complaint on 27 February 2020, to which she replied later that day to request that the issue be logged as a formal complaint.
On 4 March 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to inform her that it would be arranging a visit to inspect the mould formation she had reported. It noted that she had cancelled the installation of fans but would arrange for her to be contacted with a new appointment.
The landlord confirmed that its insurance team were dealing with the subsidence at the property and that it intended to carry out a separate inspection of the new cracks reported by the resident. It advised that the monitoring of the subsidence was to take place over one to three years as “it require[d] certain ground changing conditions to naturally occur” and its insurer’s loss adjuster would provide more information on this to her on a visit to the property. The landlord advised it would provide contact details for the loss adjuster to enable the resident to book an appointment for the visit.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 5 March 2020, in which it advised that its examination of the damp contractor’s inspection report had indicated that there was some historical water ingress caused by defective guttering which had since been rectified. It advised that the mould issue reported by the resident was “consistent to previous visits over the years” which had indicated that the mould was a result of condensation. The landlord stated that she had cancelled two appointments to install two extractor fans which would resolve the mould formation.
The landlord relayed that electrical work was carried out to the plug sockets in preparation for damp treatment work. This work was since found not to meet its standards, which it had discussed with the contractor, and it confirmed that it had reinstated the sockets on 20 February 2020.
The landlord proposed to carry out the “critical fan installation works” and post inspect these. It advised it would inspect the cracking reported by the resident and consider if this constituted “subsidence peril”; it added that this may result in minor pointing repairs. Lastly, the landlord offered to assist in providing any reports required by the resident in relation to the visits to her property.
In an email exchange between the landlord and resident on 11 March 2020, she expressed her dissatisfaction with the reports it had provided, which had omitted reports from when the property was part of the previous landlord’s housing stock. She disputed the thoroughness of the inspections referred to in the reports. The landlord advised the resident that it could answer her technical queries arising from the reports at a site meeting and inspection. In response to her dissatisfaction with its response to her complaint, it confirmed it would refer the complaint for a final stage review.
On 13 March 2020, the landlord exchanged emails with the resident, responding to questions she had raised the previous day, about the proposed inspection. It confirmed to her that it would be sending her a report on the inspection. The resident gathered that both pre- and post-inspection reports would be made available to her. At her request, the inspection was postponed due to the corona virus situation.
The resident submitted a panel review request form on 23 March 2020 to escalate her complaint. In this, she contended that the landlord had not taken her reports “seriously… for over 5 years”. The resident’s desired resolution was to “live in a home that is not subsiding and has damp and mould in every room” and she wanted “minimal disruption” in achieving this.
The resident attached further information to her form which detailed her dissatisfaction with not being fully informed about the arrangements needed for the damp treatment work on 18 February 2020 and the extent of the likely disruption. She queried why no risk assessment had been undertaken.
The resident asked for the landlord’s plan for the monitoring of the subsidence and asserted that the damp and mould was linked to this. She stated she was not happy that her possessions were being damaged by damp whilst the landlord assessed how to deal with the subsidence.
The resident highlighted that the landlord had not offered any apologies or compensation for the number of appointments, which had caused “constant disruption” to her, and she felt that the landlord was attempting to “blame” her for cancelling the appointment to install the extractor fans. She noted that the proposed inspections and remedial works involved more appointments which appeared to “just waste more of [her] time”. The resident added that she had recently been asked to allow access to replace the boiler and potentially two radiators which involved more disruption to her.
The resident disputed the landlord’s explanation that the damp and mould in the property were the result of condensation. She asserted that she had taken measures to alleviate this but the issue persisted. The resident pointed out that the property had a blocked-off basement and suggested that the subsidence had caused the basement to flood which then led to the damp and mould.
On 6 April 2020, the landlord apologised to the resident for its delayed response, attributing this to the impact of the corona virus pandemic, and requested an extension for the final review stage complaint response. It advised it had been attempting to contact her to discuss the complaint review and asked her to confirm her availability for a telephone conversation and to arrange a visit to discuss the issues. The resident replied later that day to state that a visit would be “a great way” to progress matters.
The landlord provided a provisional response to the resident on 8 April 2020 which, amongst other proposals, suggested that a temporary decant while works were carried out may be possible. The resident replied the same day to advise that she would not consider a temporary decant.
After agreeing an extension for its full response with the resident on 8 April 2020, the landlord issued its final review stage complaint response, as agreed, on 17 April 2020. Regarding the information given to her ahead of the damp treatment work on 18 February 2020, it apologised for the poor standard of communication and assured her that feedback had been provided to its contractor and surveyors.
The landlord noted that the resident had queried if a risk assessment had been completed and advised that one had, but clarified that this was different to a project plan which would set out specifically how works would be carried out. It acknowledged that its communication had not sufficiently prepared her for the implications of the works and assured her that it would make improvements to how it communicated about major works in future.
The landlord noted that the fire system had been attended on 18 March 2020 which had left it working and the resident had since made an appointment for her boiler replacement. It also noted that she had received reports from it on 10 March 2020 and apologised for any delay in sending these.
The landlord maintained that “condensation and mould are mostly created internally” and assured the resident that it would explore any further improvements possible, in addition to the installation of the extractor fans, to improve the damp and condensation reported by the resident. It stated that a full survey would be carried out and the affected areas inspected once the corona virus lockdown had been lifted.
Regarding the subsidence monitoring, the landlord confirmed that this could take up to three years and offered to provide further details after the proposed inspection above. It confirmed that it was unable to proceed until approval was received from its insurer’s loss adjuster otherwise it would invalidate the insurance cover on the building.
The landlord apologised for the poor service received by the resident and advised it would be using lessons learnt from the complaint to improve how it managed major works. It offered £350 compensation for the delay with repairs and lack of communication. This was broken down as £300 discretionary compensation and £50 for the landlord’s failure to repair. It confirmed that it would not be escalating the complaint to review as it had answered the points in the review request and offered the maximum compensation offer, in line with its compensation policy, and would now close the complaint.
On 22 April 2020, the resident requested extra time to submit a full response to the landlord’s final complaint response. It replied on 23 April 2020 to state that the complaint was now closed, to which the resident responded to later that day to contend that the complaint was not resolved, nor had any actions been agreed in moving the complaint forward. She noted that the works had been described as “major works” in the final complaint response. The resident asked how this had been “decided from a desk” without an inspection being carried out. She reiterated that a temporary decant would be “not acceptable” and felt that the landlord’s response had been inadequate. It responded that day to confirm that the complaint was closed but it would continue to “work with [her] to resolve any outstanding issues”.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 1 May 2020 in which she repeated her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the final review stage of the complaint, as she felt she had been denied an opportunity to explain her complaint in more detail at a review meeting. She repeated her assertion that the complaint should not be closed as no remedy had been agreed. The resident questioned why the landlord was only now considering temporarily decanting her to carry out work when “this has been ongoing for years”. She contended that she was living in an “unsafe environment”; “the skirting boards [are] falling away from the walls” and she had experienced damage to her possessions due to the mould. The resident confirmed that temporary accommodation was “not an option” due to the disruption.
The resident did not accept that monitoring of the subsidence could take up to three years, as she stated that the landlord had been aware of issues since “the early 1990s”. She contended that the landlord had not monitored the issue adequately and had not checked the basement of the property for water ingress.
The resident stated that the landlord had not responded sufficiently to her complaint about its contractor leaving a “live exposed socket” for three days with no warning to her or her family. She acknowledged that she had signed for the work but disputed that this suggested that she approved the quality of the work. The resident said that she was not appropriately trained to identify dangerous work and the landlord’s communication with her had implied that it was her fault as she had signed for the work. She found this to be “disgraceful” and was no longer comfortable signing for work “for fear of being held accountable”.
Regarding the proposed boiler replacement, the resident advised that she had not been notified of this and was not given sufficient notice to arrange leave for this to go ahead. She relayed that the inspection of the radiators had revealed rust and damage and asserted that she had not contributed to this by leaving wet washing on them to dry.
The resident expressed her frustration with the landlord’s statement that the installation of extractor fans would alleviate the damp and mould issues she had reported and its implication that she had contributed to these. She highlighted that the previously installed fan had been fitted incorrectly and had then ceased working, but she kept her window open and had an air brick in the bathroom. The resident acknowledged that the landlord had agreed that a survey was required.
The resident expressed confusion over being offered compensation; she felt that it was too soon for her to accept an offer of compensation when the repairs were still incomplete and the complaint was unresolved. She thought it was “unacceptable” to be expected to live in her current conditions and highlighted that she had needed to redecorate three times in five years due to the mould and damp. The resident stated that the issues had caused her distress and inconvenience to addition to the financial cost and more “anxiety and stress” had been caused by the recent subsidence issue. She advised that she had now contacted her MP to progress the matter.
On 11 May 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP to advise that, regarding her reports of damp and mould, it had worked with her “over a number of years” and would continue to do so. It stated its previous inspections had found no evidence of severe mould and damp. The landlord clarified to the MP that it did not consider any major works were required to address the cracking to the wall and explained that the subsidence required annual monitoring to ensure that repairs were not carried out while the property was suffering movement.
The landlord advised that, “once the current Covid-19 crisis [was] over” it would visit the resident to explain the details of the subsidence work, a damp specialist would attend to answer her questions and it would also work with her to support her and progress works. It highlighted that it had offered, and continued to offer, to temporarily decant her to reduce the inconvenience and disruption to her by the works but this had been refused.
The resident explained to this Service on 1 July 2020 that she continued to be dissatisfied that, despite four inspections by surveyors and two by damp specialists in six years, the damp and mould had not been resolved. She felt that the landlord was not prepared to incur the expense required to fix the issue. The resident was unhappy that her complaint had been closed without visiting the property and the temporary decant it proposed would be inconvenient to her. She felt “unsafe” in the property as the subsidence issue had not been explained to her and was concerned that any forthcoming remedial works would cause damage to her decoration and floor coverings.
The landlord carried out an inspection at the property on 28 July 2020. The following day, it received a damp report from its contractor which proposed a schedule of “stage one” works to address the damp issues reported. The landlord It fed this back to the resident alongside an outline of proposed temporary remedial works to the reported signs of subsidence and provided a timeframe for the subsidence monitoring. On 10 August 2020 it instructed contractors to proceed with the quoted works.
The landlord updated the resident on 16 September 2020 to relay information from insurers about the monitoring of the subsidence. On 22 September 2020 the landlord advised the resident that its insurer was arranging for a surveyor to visit within the next two weeks.
The landlord replied on 6 October 2020 to an email from the resident the previous day enquiring about the subsidence monitoring. It noted that its insurer had, on 22 September 2020, offered a visit for 29 September 2020. This was declined by the resident though it is clear from other correspondence she stated she was unwell during this period.
On 16 October 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to advise that, following the completion of the works, she had discovered damage to one wall. Photographs of this were provided.
An inspection was carried out by the landlord on 27 October 2020 found “no evidence of damp caused from an external factor” with “No damp issues here as previous work carried out by [the contractor had] prevented any water ingress into the property.” The landlord since asked the resident to consent to further works proceeding.

Assessment and Findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s tenancy agreement, above at point 1, confirms its responsibility to keep the structure of the property in “good repair”. Therefore, it had an obligation to respond to the resident’s report of damp and mould on 27 November 2019. However, this report was not acted upon until her further report of damp and mould issues on 6 January 2020, to which the landlord suggested on 8 January 2020 that a damp inspection was carried out. Therefore, there was a failing on its part to respond to the resident’s initial report.
When a landlord receives a report of a repair, its first action should be to inspect the issue. Therefore, its arranging for a damp inspection on 9 January 2020 was a reasonable response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould on 27 November 2019 and 6 January 2020. It was particularly suitable for the landlord to arrange for an independent damp survey in light of her report that its previous surveyor’s inspections had found that the cause of the mould was “every day living”. This would have provided an opportunity for it to identify any issues which may have not been picked up by its own surveyors or that had arisen since its previous inspections.
If an inspection carried out by the landlord highlights a requirement for any works to be carried out, it would reasonable for it to ensure that these are followed through with. There was evidence that it was made aware by its appointed damp contractor on 24 January 2020 of the need for the resident to create space for works to proceed; however, there was no evidence that it relayed this information to her. This was a failing by the landlord as this omission led to the damp treatment works recommended by its damp contractor not being carried out on 18 February 2020.
This omission of information was not addressed in the landlord’s stage one complaint response on 5 March 2020 where it attributed the cancellation of repair appointments to the resident. This stage one complaint response noted that the result of the independent damp survey was consistent with its historical inspections in finding condensation was the cause of the reported damp and mould. Therefore, its proposal to install extractor fans, and post-inspect the work, was reasonable; though, it was not reasonable that it failed to acknowledge that it contributed to the damp treatment works not proceeding on 18 February 2020, which is likely to have contributed to the resident’s continued dissatisfaction.
The landlord’s final review stage complaint response on 17 April 2020 acknowledged that there had not been clear communication from it to the resident regarding the damp treatment works scheduled for 18 February 2020 and apologised for this. It offered a “full survey” of the damp and mould issues reported by the resident and extended an offer to temporarily decant her to minimise the disruption caused to her by any subsequent works. These were reasonable actions on the part of the landlord as they addressed the resident’s concerns about her health, the level of disruption to her and the disputed cause of the damp and mould.
In the landlord’s final review stage complaint response of 17 April 2020, it offered compensation of £350, made up of £50 for the resident’s right to repair and a discretionary payment of £300. This is a reasonable offer as it was in excess of its compensation policy above at point 4, which provides for awards of up to £250 in “exceptional cases”. This award is also broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been “considerable service failure… but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant”.
It is noted that the resident maintained in her panel review request form on 23 March 2020 that there was a need to examine the sealed basement of the property for flooding caused by subsidence. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude, based on the inspection on 9 January by its contracted damp specialists, that there was no evidence of external sources of damp. The landlord’s complaint response also identified plans for further inspections which also demonstrates an appropriate response.
In conclusion, the landlord recognised its failure to communicate adequately with the resident over the damp treatment work schedules for 18 February 2020. It made reasonable efforts to address the damp and mould issues reported, by inspecting the issue, proposing remedial works, and making plans to continue investigations in working with the resident to address the issue.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over subsidence to the building

It is noted that the subsidence identified at the property was dealt with by the landlord’s insurance team and this was communicated to the resident on 27 November 2019. This Service cannot comment on the actions of its insurer as complaints concerning insurers fall properly within the Financial Ombudsman Service’s jurisdiction. This assessment will instead focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s enquiries about the subsidence.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident, above at point 1, confirms it is to maintain insurance on the structure of the property and therefore it appropriately referred the subsidence of the building to its insurers, which was confirmed on 11 September 2019. The subsidence then became an insurance matter and the landlord’s subsequent obligation was to continue keeping the structure of the property in good repair, as per its obligations in the tenancy agreement at point 1, and to keep the resident informed of any progress.
The landlord responded to the resident’s enquiry on 27 November 2019 about the subsidence by advising that the matter was being dealt with by its insurers and it advised her on 6 January 2020 of a property risk inspection on the following day. After her stage one complaint on 18 February 2020, it advised on 4 March 2020 that it would inspect the new cracking reported by her and informed her of the timescale of the subsidence monitoring. The landlord’s stage one complaint response also offered to provide any reports required by the resident. These actions were reasonable efforts to keep her informed of progress.
The landlord confirmed in its final review stage complaint response on 17 April 2020 that it could not address the subsidence without approval from its insurer, though confirmed it would arrange for an inspection to advise further on timescales. This is also a reasonable response.
In conclusion, the landlord made reasonable efforts to keep the resident informed about the subsidence issue and address temporary repairs that arose. Therefore, no failings were evidenced in its response to her concerns about the subsidence.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 5 March 2020 was issued 11 working days after it acknowledged the stage one complaint raised by the resident on 19 February 2020 that she had made on the previous day. This was almost in accordance with the ten–working–day timeframe specified in its complaints resolution procedure above at point 3 and there is no evidence that she experienced any detriment as a result of this brief delay.
The landlord agreed an extension with the resident for a response to the review panel request and issued a response as agreed on 17 April 2020. The landlord’s response sought to address the points raised by the resident and offered compensation, and on this basis refused the request for a review panel. However, the complaint policy does not identify that following a review request a revised response can be sent to the resident which then is the basis for refusing a review panel. If this is the intention of the policy it needs to be made clear. It is noted that the resident was dissatisfied with being unable to discuss her complaint in person. The corona virus lockdown restrictions were in force in the UK at the time, though this was not identified by the landlord as a reason for refusing a review.
While the landlord’s application of its complaint policy at the review stage was confused the amount of £350 compensation offered in its review stage complaint response on 17 April 2020 reasonably and proportionately addressed this failing. This award both exceeded the £250 maximum level of compensation recommended by its compensation policy above at point 4 and is broadly in line with this Service’s remedies guidance where there has been “inadequate or incorrect information about a complainant’s rights”

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaints satisfactorily concerning:
1. its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould
2. its response to the resident’s concerns over subsidence to the building
3. its handling of the corresponding complaint.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged its failings in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and made a reasonable offer of compensation. It proposed reasonable actions to address the damp and mould.
The landlord made reasonable efforts to keep the resident informed of progress regarding the subsidence of the property.
The landlord provided reasonable redress in its overall compensation offer for deviations from its complaint resolution procedure.

Recommendations

The landlord to:
1. Pay the resident the amount of £350 compensation that it previously offered to her, if not already paid.
2. Review its complaints handling policy and procedure to ensure it provides a clear process to staff and residents, and to provide any necessary training to staff.
The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff