Peabody Trust (202126795)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126795

Peabody Trust

31 January 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 the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
2. Complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a 3 bedroom house, and her tenancy started in March 1993. The resident’s landlord, at the time of her complaint, was not the landlord named at the start of this report. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident’s current landlord merged with the resident’s previous landlord (Catalyst Housing) in April 2022. The resident’s previous landlord was responsible for the repairs when first reported, and responded to the resident’s complaint. As such, this investigation has assessed the landlord’s actions as it related to the policies and procedures that were in place at that time, which may differ from her current landlord’s policies and procedures.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 13 October 2021 and raised a concern about damp and mould in the property, and reported that the floorboards were “full of damp” and the ceiling was damaged. The landlord logged the contact as a “complaint”. It is unclear what action the landlord took at the time, but according to the contact log the job was marked “complete” on 19 October 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 17 November 2021 and the notes reflect this was to “chase up the outstanding repairs”. She said she wanted to make a complaint about the service received and felt “let down”. It is unclear what action the landlord took at that time.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 November 2021 to report that the tiles were “coming off” the walls in the bathroom, due to the damp conditions. It is unclear, from the records available, what action the landlord took at the time. The landlord raised a “make good” repair on 29 November 2021, following works at the resident’s property, and the work was booked in for 7 December 2021. It is not possible to determine if the works to place at that time.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 February 2022 to make a complaint and chase for an update on works related to the damp and mould. The resident contacted the landlord again on 3 March 2022 to chase up proposed works in relation to the damp and mould. It is unclear what action the landlord took at that time.
The landlord commissioned a survey at the resident’s property on 25 May 2022. The surveyor drafted a report that said:
1. There was evidence of condensation and mould in the lounge, landing, bathroom and all 3 bedrooms
2. The mould in the lounge was caused by “moisture migration” from the kitchen and bathroom
3. The damage to the bathroom (downstairs) and the ceilings upstairs were caused by “water leaks” and were “unconnected” to the black mould
4. The issues in the property were “potentially” made worse by the limited use of heating, and the surveyor saw evidence that the gas had run out due to the prepaid card being out of funds
5. The situation was “made worse” because most of the windows had “blown, creating more significant heat loss”.
The resident contacted this Service on 14 June 2022 and said the landlord had not responded to her complaint. She said she had been waiting for “over a year” for the landlord to complete repairs and the landlord’s surveyor had not responded to requests for a call back. This Service wrote to the landlord on 30 June 2022 and asked it respond to the resident’s complaint by 14 July 2022.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 15 July 2022 and said:
1. In the bathroom it needed to “ensure the damp and mould” was resolved before it could tile the necessary areas. Once it had done that it could reinstall the resident’s shower.
2. It had asked its contractor to contact the resident to book the repairs.
3. It offered £350 in compensation for the delay in completing the bathroom repairs “only” which was for missed appointments, stress and inconvenience and an additional “goodwill” gesture of £150.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 July 2022 and asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2 and said:
1. Its stage 1 response did not address the fact she had not been given a date the repairs would start
2. The damp, mould and outstanding repairs had caused “untold distress”
3. She had not received a response to previous complaints raised, and it had not explained why.
The resident’s solicitor sent the landlord a letter, as part of the pre action protocol for disrepair, on 31 August 2022 and said:
1. In August 2021, a burst pipe caused a leak and the living room floor was damaged and “waterlogged” as a result. A cupboard was removed to fix the leak, but was never replaced.
2. It had removed mould and treated the living room wall with antifungal paint in “summer 2021”, but the resident was concerned the area was still affected by “excessive damp”
3. The damp had been getting worse in the last 2 years, which had caused the tiles in the bathroom to become loose. The landlord had removed the tiles and said the area needed to “dry out”. The resident was told it would then inject the walls with material to provide better insulation. The landlord had not done any further works in the bathroom.
4. Following a leak in February 2022 the ceiling in the upstairs hallway was “damaged” and appeared to have a damp patch
5. The damp and mould in the small bedroom was “so bad that it was unusable” and the leak in February 2022 had made it worse
6. The master bedroom had mould on the ceiling, walls, and skirting board
7. It asked the landlord to inspect the property as soon as possible.
The resident contacted this Service on 1 September 2022, and said she had not received a response to her stage 2 complaint, and asked for help in getting a response. We wrote to the landlord on 6 September 2022, and asked it to provide a stage 2 complaint response. The landlord contacted the resident on 29 September 2022 and apologised that her request to escalate the complaint was “unanswered”. The landlord said it would send its stage 2 complaint response by 11 October 2022. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 4 October 2022, and said:
1. The damp, mould and associated repairs was now being dealt with as a “disrepair case”. As such, it would not be addressing concerns about repairs in its complaint response, as the matter was now on a “legal footing”. Its offer of £350 in compensation it made at stage 1 was “annulled”.
2. It would address the resident’s concerns about its complaint handling, as that was not part if the disrepair case
3. It had looked at its records and found the complaint raised in October 2021 was marked as “resolved over the phone”. It could find no other complaints logged until the Ombudsman contacted it in June 2022
4. It apologised for the problems with the complaints process and offered the resident £250 for its complaint handling.
The resident contacted this Service on 6 October 2022 asking us to investigate her complaint. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response, was still having issues with damp and mould, and had not been given dates for proposed works.

Events after complaints procedure

On 31 January 2023, the landlord raised a job to repair the exterior render at the property. The records provided indicate that the job was marked as complete, but it is unclear when the works took place.
The landlord raised the following works on 18 April 2023:
1. Fit electric shower in the bathroom that was removed while doing works in the bathroom
2. Complete a mould wash in the kitchen and replace “missing” floorboard
3. Replaster and decorate the living room
4. Check all windows and renew blown glass in “various” windows in the property
The records provided indicate that the above works are marked as complete, but it is unclear when the works took place.
The resident told this Service, on 6 December 2023, that the landlord had completed “some” works at the property, but there were still repair issues that had not been addressed.
On 12 January 2024, the landlord provided this Service with photographs that show the bathroom was retiled and the shower reinstated. From the information provided by the landlord, it is not possible to determine when the works to the bathroom took place. The landlord also provided photographs of redecoration completed in other parts of the resident’s property. Again, it is not possible to determine, from the information provided, when the works took place.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies, and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the drains, gutters, and external pipes of the property.
The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’) obliges the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation. In determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters including repair, stability, freedom from damp, ventilation, drainage and sanitary conveniences, and facilities for preparation and cooking of food and disposal of waste water, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, repair works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy stated that for emergency repairs it will attend within 24 hours to make safe. If needed, it would finalise the repair emergency repair within its routine repair timeframe. It said it aimed to complete routine repairs within 10 working days, but some repairs may take longer due to their complexity or specialist nature.
The landlord’s complaint policy stated that it operated a 2 stage complaints procedure, with stage 1 complaint being logged within 5 working days and a response sent within 10 working days. Stage 2 responses were to be sent within 20 working days. The policy stated that it would not consider complaints if legal action had begun, which it defined as a “claim form, and details of the claim, having been filed at court”.
The landlord’s compensation policy stated that it could offer “goodwill gesture” compensation up to £150, when an inconvenience was caused. The compensation policy stated it could offer compensation based on a percentage of rent, for loss of rooms, or service. The amounts it could offer were eligible after 72 hours of the first report of the repair and are set out below:
1. Kitchen: 30% of net rent
2. Bathroom: 25 % of net rent
3. Living room: 20% of net rent
4. Bedroom: 15% of net rent.

Leaks, Damp, and mould

The records available for this investigation are limited. It is evident that the landlord has completed some works to try and address the damp and mould issues within the resident’s property. However, the poor record keeping on the part of the landlord make it difficult to determine when works were completed. What is evident is that the landlord was on notice about the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in her property from October 2021.
That the landlord did not commission a specialist survey until May 2022 was unreasonable. Considering the conditions the resident had reported, a delay of 7 months to get a specialist opinion was inappropriate and well outside of the timeframes set out in its policy. The resident was evidently distressed at the condition of her property, that the landlord was not proactive in its approach increased the detriment she experienced.
The survey report from May 2022 cited issues with the windows contributing to the damp conditions within the property. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord took any action, at the time, in relation to this. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord instructed a surveyor, so it could identify appropriate works to remedy the issues with damp and mould. Therefore, to take no action on issues cited in the surveyor’s report was unreasonable. The lack of action at this time evidently contributed to the overall delays in tackling the matter and caused the resident further inconvenience.
The survey report identified a lack of heating as a contributing factor to the damp and mould issues within the property. It reported the resident’s gas card had run out of credit. It is of particular concern, that there is no evidence to indicate that the landlord sought to discuss this matter with the resident. This was an unsupportive approach. Considering an expert had advised the lack of heating as possible cause of the damp and mould, the landlord’s lack of action in discussing this concern with the resident was unreasonable. The resident appeared to be having difficulty in paying to heat her home. That the landlord did not try to address this issue with her, and give advice on how it could support her, was unreasonable and caused a detriment. The landlord failed to consider the resident’s individual circumstances, and any possible vulnerabilities she had. Considering this, an appropriate order is set out below.
The evidence available shows the resident reported the bathroom tiles falling off the walls, due to damp, in November 2021. Due to the lack of available records, it is not possible to determine what action the landlord took at that time, which is a further failing in its record keeping. According to the resident’s solicitor, the landlord removed the tiles in early 2022. It is evident that by May 2022, when a further survey was done, the bathroom still had no tiles on the walls, and there was bare brick around the bath. Where the shower had been, there was an electric cable protruding from the wall, and was taped with red electrician’s tape.
That the resident’s bathroom was still in this condition in May 2022, was unreasonable. The bathroom was left without tiles, and exposed brick with no working shower. The evidence indicates there was also exposed wiring, which was a potential hazard. This evidently caused the resident distress. The photographic evidence from the report of May 2022, indicates the making good repair booked in December 2021 did not happen, which was a further failing in its handling of the matter. That the resident was living in such conditions for an extended period, with little action from the landlord, is a failing that caused the resident a significant amount of distress.
It is evident the bathroom was in the same condition when the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response in July 2022, which is evidence of a further unreasonable delay. In relation to the issue, its stage 1 complaint response was inappropriate. The response gave no assessment or explanation about why the bathroom had been left in that condition for so long. It is noted that the landlord said the damp and mould needed to be resolved before it could retile and reinstate the shower. But the evidence indicates that it had taken very little action, up to that point, to address the damp issues in the bathroom. Its comments were inappropriate and did not explain what works it would do in the bathroom to try and resolve the issue. It is noted that the landlord did offer compensation for its handling of the bathroom issue, but later withdrew it.
The landlord’s comments, in its stage 1 complaint response, that it was “only” addressing the bathroom issue was inappropriate. The evidence available shows the resident had raised concerns about leaks, damp, and mould in various parts of her property. It is unclear why the landlord only decided to address the bathroom in its complaint response, and its approach was unreasonable. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) the landlord should have used its complaint response to address all aspects of the residents complaint. That it only addressed the bathroom issue caused the resident an inconvenience, as she was left not knowing what action the landlord planned to do about the other concerns raised.
The letter from the resident’s solicitor, from August 2022, suggests the bathroom issue had not yet been addressed by that time. This was a further unreasonable delay. It appears no action was taken in the intervening period, despite having said it would progress in its stage 1 response. That it had not progressed is concerning, particularly considering the reported condition of the bathroom.
The landlord’s poor record keeping means it is not possible to determine what action the landlord took between July 2022 and the end of August 2022. However, this Service has seen no evidence to indicate the landlord did any works, or the statements of the resident’s solicitors were inaccurate. That the works had not progressed at this time amount to a further failing and caused further detriment to the resident.
The evidence available indicates that the landlord did retile the bathroom and reinstate the shower. Due to the landlord’s poor record keeping, the evidence does not show when the works to the bathroom took place. What is apparent is that the landlord did not raise a job to reinstate the shower until April 2023. This was 1 year and 5 months after the resident reported tiles falling off the walls in her bathroom. This was an unreasonable delay and well outside of the timeframes set out in its policy.
The resident experienced a significant detriment because of the delays. The resident was left with a bathroom in a poor state of repair for well over a year, which was evidently distressing. The lack of proactive action on the part of the landlord was unreasonable, and it is apparent that its poor record keeping contributed to the delays.
The landlord was on notice about the issues with the windows from May 2022. The survey it commissioned advised that issues with the windows were likely contributing to the damp and mould within the property. That it did not raise a repair to attend to the windows for nearly a year after (April 2023) was unreasonable. Due to the landlord’s poor record keeping, it is not possible to determine when the window repairs took place. What is evident is that the resident experienced a further inconvenience of a recommended repair, made by a surveyor the landlord had commissioned, not being attended to for nearly a year. This approach by the landlord further supports the conclusion that it was not proactive in attending to repairs needed at the resident’s property.
The landlord’s comments, despite an intervention from this Service, that it would not address the repairs issues in its stage 2 complaint response because the case was on a “legal footing” was inappropriate. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould states that when the pre action protocol for disrepair is initiated it must not “disengage from any open complaint”. The report explains that initiating the protocol does not “constitute legal proceedings” and a complaint can be considered at any stage. Considering this, the landlord’s decision not to address the issue in its stage 2 complaint response, formally outlining its position, was unreasonable.
The resident experienced the inconvenience of not having her concerns addressed, as well as the landlord withdrawing an offer of redress it had previously made. The lack of assessment of its handling of the damp and mould and associated repairs is evidence the landlord failed to apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes. The lack of engagement in learning can reasonably be concluded to have contributed to its overall poor handling of the matter. This is because it continued to make similar failings in not attending to repairs, or communicating properly with the resident about the ongoing issues.
It is evident that the resident’s disrepair case did not progress into legal proceedings. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord sought to revisit its handling of the matter, send a detailed complaint response, or revisit its offer of compensation. This approach was unreasonable. The landlord, inappropriately, relied on the resident pursuing a legal case as a reason for disengaging from the complaint. That it did not change this approach, when it was evident the legal case was not progressing was unreasonable, and a further failing in its handling of the matter. The landlord had admitted failings in its handling of the matter, but withdrew its offer of redress. This was inappropriate and a failure to apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of putting things right.
That it did not seek to offer the resident compensation for the period the bathroom was in such a condition is of particular concern. The landlord’s compensation policy set out that it should offer 25% of net rent, for loss of use of the bathroom. Given the conditions that were present in the bathroom, it is unclear why the landlord did not seek to offer compensation for loss of use of the bathroom. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
The Ombudsman has considered the resident’s loss of amenity and the level of rent paid throughout the matter being outstanding. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident was paying £244.83 in rent, per month at the time of raising issues about damp and mould. The resident had some benefit of living in her property during that time, and therefore was liable to pay rent. The bathroom was in a poor condition for a significant period, and there was an unreasonable delay in completing the window repairs. Given the poor record keeping, it is not possible to determine the exact period the works were outstanding. The Ombudsman has therefore determined the following amounts of compensation are appropriate in this case:
1. 30% of the rent, for loss of amenity due to the bathroom issue covering the period from November 2021 to April 2023
2. 10% of the rent for loss of amenity due to the window repair issue covering the period from May 2022 to April 2023.
Taking this into account the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay a total of £1,517.94 for loss of amenity, made up of:
1. £1,248.63 for loss of amenity to the bathroom
2. £269.31 for the loss of amenity due to the window repairs.
There were unreasonable delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould in her property. It is evident that the records kept by the resident’s previous landlord were poor, which impacted on its ability to respond when the landlord took her on as a tenant. The records kept by the resident’s current landlord are also poor and it is not possible to determine when proposed repairs were completed. The landlord has evidently done works at the property, and the bathroom is now reinstated in working order. There was an unreasonable delay in completing identified repairs and the resident does not believe the landlord has addressed all the repairs needed. As such, an appropriate order is set out below.
The detriment the resident experienced, as a result of the landlord’s handling of the matter was significant. The distress caused by the bathroom issue in particular is concerning, considering the vulnerability of the resident. The amount of time the resident was left with the bathroom in a poor condition was unreasonable and was evidently distressing. The landlord did not act on the recommendations of a specialist survey within a reasonable timeframe, which was inappropriate. Its approach to offering redress was unreasonable. This, in addition to the unreasonable delay in completing the repairs amount to a finding of severe maladministration.

Review of policies and practice

The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving damp and mould. As a result of these; a wider order has been issued to the landlord under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
The landlord has been ordered to carry out a review, within 12 weeks, of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to damp and mould. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous cases and so the learning from this complaint should be incorporated into the wider review, ordered as part of case 202122259. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of the wider order.

Complaint handling

The resident tried to raise a complaint in October 2021, reporting her concerns about the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues. There is no evidence available to indicate that the landlord acknowledged the complaint, investigated, or issued a response. This was a failing in its complaint handling, and caused the resident an inconvenience of not having matters addressed by the landlord.
The resident tried to make another complaint in February 2022. Again, there is no evidence available to indicate that the landlord acknowledged the complaint, investigated, or issued a response. This was a further failing in its complaint handling, and caused the resident an inconvenience of not having matters addressed by the landlord. That this happened twice indicates that the landlord was operating an unfair and hard to access complaints process.
The landlord did not open a complaint investigation until the Ombudsman asked it to, in June 2022, shows that the resident experienced a significant inconvenience in trying to get the landlord to formally respond to her concerns. She was cost time and trouble in needing to seek assistance from this Service, just for the landlord to investigate her concerns. This was unreasonable.
The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 when she asked it to, which was a further failing in its complaint handling. This is evidence it had not learnt from its poor handling of the stage 1 complaint, as it made similar mistakes again. The resident experienced a further inconvenience of having, again, to seek assistance from this Service to get the landlord to respond. Despite an intervention from this Service, on 6 September 2022, the landlord did not formally acknowledge the stage 2 complaint until 27 September 2022, which was a further failing in its complaint handling.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 4 October 2022 was sent 45 working days after the resident asked it to escalate her complaint. This was well outside of the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delay and offered compensation in an attempt to put things right. However, the response failed to show appropriate learning and explain why there had been a delay. It is noted that the landlord did advise it was reviewing its processes, following its merger, to improve complaint handling. This was appropriate and did evidence the landlord had done some learning.
The landlord’s comments in its stage 2 complaint response, that the complaint the resident raised, in October 2021, was resolved over the phone, was inappropriate. The Code states that landlord must respond to complaints “in writing”. To therefore suggest the complaint was resolved, shortly after it was raised, without any meaningful investigation, is concerning. The resident experienced the inconvenience of the landlord failing to acknowledge its approach to her complaints was inappropriate.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated that no other complaints were raised, until this Service asked it to in June 2022. This was inaccurate as the evidence shows the resident tried to raise a further complaint in February 2022. This is evidence that the landlord’s record keeping in relation to the complaints was poor. That it failed to acknowledge the further inconvenience the resident had in raising complaints was unreasonable, and a further failing in its complaint handling.
As outlined above, the landlord’s failure to address the damp, mould, and ongoing repairs issues in its stage 2 response was inappropriate. It was a failing in its handling of the substantive issue, but also a significant failing in its complaint handling. The evidence available for this investigation indicates that the resident has not yet received a meaningful explanation of the landlord’s position of its overall handling of the substantive issue.
There was a lack of learning shown in its complaint responses, or any explanation about its plan to address the issues. There was a lack of consideration of the resident’s individual circumstances, including her vulnerabilities, in its complaints responses. This supports the conclusion that the landlord’s poor complaint handling contributed to its overall handling of the issue.
That it was unwilling to assess its actions in its final complaint response, and inappropriately relied on the “legal footing” as a reason for not assessing its actions, was unreasonable. This lack of reflection can reasonably be concluded to have contributed to the overall delays. If the landlord had conducted a meaningful complaint investigation, that identified its evident failings, it could have sought to put things right. As such, the detriment caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling amounts to a finding of severe maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

There were unreasonable delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould in her property. It is evident that the records kept by the resident’s previous landlord were poor, which impacted on its ability to respond when the landlord took her on as a tenant. The records kept by the resident’s current landlord are also poor and it is not possible to determine when proposed repairs were completed. The landlord has evidently done works at the property, and the bathroom is now reinstated in working order. There was an unreasonable delay in completing identified repairs and the resident does not believe the landlord has addressed all the repairs needed.
The detriment the resident experienced, because of the landlord’s handling of the repairs was significant. The distress caused by the bathroom issue, in particular, is concerning. The landlord did not act on the recommendations of a specialist survey within a reasonable timeframe. Its approach to offering redress was also unreasonable.
The landlord created an unfair and hard to access complaints process, where complaints were shut down, without a formal response. The resident experienced difficulty in raising complaints, and was inconvenienced by needing to seek assistance from this Service. Its complaint responses were delayed, and lacked any meaningful engagement in the substantive issue of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s overall handling of the complaint contributed to its failings in the substantive issue of the case.

Orders

Within 4 weeks it is ordered that the landlord:

Instructs a senior director to review its handling of the repairs, and then apologise, in person, to the resident for the failings identified in this report
Pay the resident £3,517.94 in compensation, made up of:
1. £1,517.94 for the loss of amenity caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould, and the associated repairs
2. £1,000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould, and the associated repairs
3. £1,000 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
Meet with the resident to discuss any difficulties she is experiencing in heating her home, including affordability issues. It must provide tailored advice about the support it, or other organisations, can give around this issue.

Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to instruct a mutually agreed, damp specialist, surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. The inspection should:
1. Be a full inspection of the property to identify possible causes of damp and mould
2. Consider the resident’s concerns about ongoing repairs issues in the property.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on attitudes, respect, and rights. It should use the recommendations in the report to inform its future service delivery, and the importance of considering the individual circumstances of the resident.