Peabody Trust (202201791)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201791

Peabody Trust

29 June 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:

a.               outstanding repairs to the property.

b.               ongoing issues with damp and mould.

c.                complaint handling.

Background

2. The residents are joint assured tenants of a four bedroom maisonette which commenced in 2019. The landlord is a housing association and a registered provider of social housing. It is noted that a household member has a disability.

Policies and procedures

3. The tenancy agreement and duties under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, confirm the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property. It is also responsible for keeping installations for water, gas, electricity, etc and repairing the fixtures and fittings it provides.
4. Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS.
5. The Ombudsman published a spotlight report on damp and mould in October 2021 which recommended that landlords strengthen their approach to tackling damp and mould issues and improve communication with residents. It is available at  Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
6. The landlord’s repairs policy states that:

a.               Programmed repairs (includes roofing works with scaffolding and damp works) are to be completed in 60 calendar days with an average target of 33 days.

b.               If residents are dissatisfied with the service they receive or where a repair has not been completed, they can make a complaint under the complaints policy.

c.                Residents are entitled to compensation if it has failed to complete repairs within the established guidelines and refers to the compensation policy.

7. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. When one is received, it will look to resolve the matter locally. If the approach has not reached the desired outcome, a complaint can be raised by contacting the local team or registering a formal complaint.
8. The landlord’s complaints procedure has two stages. A stage one complaint will be dealt with by the relevant service area within 10 working days. If escalated to stage two, an independent review will be carried out by the customer experience team within 20 working days. An extension can be requested at both stages but should not exceed 10 days.
9. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will assess a claim for compensation considering:

a.               the severity of time, trouble and inconvenience suffered and whether it was reasonably foreseeable

b.               any known costs that have reasonably incurred

c.                the household vulnerability

d.               recognition of any failure to follow policies and procedures

e.               the time taken to resolve the matter

f.                  it will not make a payment where a claim can be made on home contents or building insurance

g.               offers up to £100 for poor complaint handling could be made

h.               offers of up to £100 for minor disruption, £300 for moderate disruption and £400 for extensive disruption can be awarded. It may provide compensation over the above-mentioned limits if deemed fair and reasonable to do so

i.                  compensation claims can be made by phone, in person, writing or by completing an online complaints form.

Summary of events

10. The residents reported a roof leak on 23 November 2020. Scaffolding was erected at the property in the same month. Whilst inspecting the roof, it was thought that asbestos was present which delayed any further works until a full asbestos report could be provided.
11. On 4 January 2021, the residents made enquiries about the repair work as there had been no update from the landlord. They were advised that the contractors were waiting for the asbestos report. An internal email from the landlord on the same day stated that the survey had been completed.
12. In February 2021 the resident reported a leak from the roof of the wet room.  This is a separate lower roof to the main building roof.
13. The residents contacted the landlord again on 11 March 2021. Contractors had told them that they were still waiting for a copy of the asbestos report and so the work could not commence.
14. No information or documents were provided by either party during April – May 2021.
15. Additional scaffolding was erected on 2 June 2021.
16. On 18 June 2021 the residents completed an online complaint form to the landlord. They reported that:

a.               the leak repair had been outstanding since December 2020, and despite emailing on many occasions they had not received any updates on the planned works

b.               despite the leak “supposedly being fixed”, following heavy rain, water was pouring down from the ceiling

c.                they kept being told that the contractors were waiting for the asbestos report, but a copy had been sent to the resident on 13 March 2021

d.               they did not feel safe at home with the scaffolding around the property as it was not alarmed.

17. The landlord responded on 22 June 2021 acknowledging the expression of dissatisfaction. It said it would pass their concerns to the relevant team to liaise with contractors to ensure that the work was completed as soon as possible.
18. The next day the landlord sent chasing emails with regards to whether the asbestos had been removed from the roof so that work could commence. It was noted that there was a dispute with the asbestos report as the one sent to the contractor was not correct.
19. The residents contacted the landlord again on 2 July 2021. They were unhappy because the scaffolding had been up since November 2020, the roof was still leaking and no work had commenced. The contractors had advised them that they were still waiting for the asbestos report. The landlord responded on the same day advising that it was checking whether the asbestos work had been completed and would update them accordingly.
20. In internal paperwork dated 5 July 2021, the landlord confirmed that, following a further roof leak and subsequent inspection, the roof was in a very poor condition. The flashing was faulty and dangerous in all walls, the ridge tiles were loose and the dormer top had a hole in. This in conjunction with asbestos in the tiles meant it would be more effective to replace the whole roof rather than repair. The residents were advised accordingly.
21. On 20 July 2021, the resident sent an email to the landlord to ask if the new roof was to cover the wet room. This was on a lower level and had been leaking. since February 2021 but they had not heard anything about the repair. This had caused the wet room tiles to come loose providing limited use of the wet room which was causing difficulties for the disabled household member.
22. The landlord requested a copy of the asbestos report to be sent to the surveyor on 4 August 2021.
23. The landlord’s internal notes on 6 August 2021 confirm that an email was sent to the initial contractors to remove the existing scaffolding. On the same day, the residents were advised of a change in contractor due to the extent of the work now required and that it would be in contact to advise on progress and dates.
24. On 25 August 2021, the residents contacted the landlord, advising that they had not been able to speak to the relevant staff members regarding the planned works and asked to be contacted. The landlord said that it would chase an update.
25. On 13 September 2021, the residents emailed the landlord again regarding their complaint. The landlord had been to inspect the property twice but still no work had commenced. They had tried to contact the landlord but had not received a response or any update regarding the commencement of works. They asked for a compensation form to be sent.
26. The landlord responded on 15 September 2021. It had requested contact by the relevant team. It advised that it would not issue a compensation form as these were only provided if an offer of compensation was being made. No further information was given to the residents with regards to compensation or claiming on insurance.
27. From 15 September to 5 October 2021, the residents emailed the landlord on five occasions requesting an update. Whilst the emails were acknowledged, no evidence was provided to confirm that the residents received an update regarding the planned works.
28. On 18 November 2021, another request was made by the landlord for the scaffolding to be removed.
29. The quotes for the new roof were received on 23 November 2021 and awarded to a contractor on 25 November 2021.
30. On 24 November 2021, an email was sent by the landlord chasing for the scaffolding to be dismantled. The landlord’s internal notes dated the following day confirmed that the new contractors could start work as soon as the previous contractors scaffolding has been taken down which was done on 10 December 2021.
31. The replacement roof works commenced on 24 January 2022 and were due to be completed within 2-3 weeks. The completed works to the replacement roof were inspected by the landlord on 29 March 2022.
32. The repair works to the wet room were completed on 16 February 2022.
33. Following initial contact with the Housing Ombudsman on 26 April 2022, the residents contacted this Service again on 4 May 2022 providing further details of their complaint. Photographs were provided, which showed black damp and mould patches on the walls of the two bedrooms and mould growing on the chest of draws. They had not heard from the landlord, rubbish had been left on site by the contractors and repair works remained outstanding.
34. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 26 May 2022 requesting that a stage two response was sent to the resident within 10 working days. This was a misunderstanding on the Ombudsman’s part, as the residents had requested that the landlord escalate their complaint. A stage one response was required with regards to the complaint about:

a.               ongoing issues with roof repairs

b.               ongoing issues associated with mould and damp

c.                outstanding internal repair works – skylight had not been renewed and lack of insulation to the roof.

35. In an email from the landlord dated 6 June 2022, it confirmed that it had “requested the subcontractor provide a more elaborate version of the existing insulation before and after replacement of the roof.”
36. A stage one response was sent by the landlord on 14 June 2022. It stated that:

a.               all repair works had been completed except for the ‘making good’ of the bedroom wall, two bedroom ceilings, and the kitchen wall. This was booked in for 27 June 2022

b.               it had not agreed to replace the sky light window

c.                it would inspect the property with regards to the roof insulation

d.               It recognised some distress and inconvenience had been caused

e.               once the work was completed an offer of compensation would be made.

37. An email was sent internally by the landlord on 15 June 2022 asking for the remaining rubbish to be removed.
38. The residents responded to the stage one decision on 5 July 2022. The residents escalated their complaint. They said that they were dissatisfied as:

a.               the sky light was not being replaced

b.               contractors had left lots of rubbish behind and it was still there.

c.                compensation was only being offered for delays. There was mould and leak damage to their personal property (keyboard and chest of draws) and the resident’s ill health (functional neurologic disorder, bought on by stress) and he had not been able to work for four months.

39. The landlord acknowledged their request the following day. It said that that whilst it offered compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience, it did not offer compensation for personal belongings as this was expected to be claimed for on the residents’ personal contents insurance in line with its policy.
40. The stage two response was due on 2 August 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and asked for an extension of 10 days to respond. It responded on 12 August 2022, referring to the Ombudsman’s complaint definitions. It said:

a.               it apologised for the delay in completing the new roof work which was post inspected on 29 March 2022

b.               the mould and damp work was noted at the post inspection. Repairs were raised on 21 April 2022. The work started on 8 June 2022. The final touches of paint and stain blocking were completed on 27 June 2022

c.                at no time had it offered to replace the sky light. If it had needed replacing it would have been added to the scope of work.

d.               An appointment to inspect the loft on 13 July 2022 regarding insulation was cancelled. This was due to an administrative error and was rebooked for1 September 2022.

e.               It acknowledged that the works had fallen below their standards and beyond the timescales of its repairs policy. It wanted to put things right by offering £500 in compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing the repairs and £75 for poor complaint handling.

41. On 8 September 2022 the residents wrote to the landlord declining the offer of £575 compensation. They advised that it was not sufficient to compensate what they had been through and what it had cost them. Appointments had been missed (13 July 2022) and cancelled (1 September 2022), the skylight had not been replaced and rubbish left by the contractors was still at the property. The kitchen waste pipe had been broken by contractors on 30 March 2022 and was not fixed until the end of May 2022.
42. The resident sent an email to the Ombudsman on 5 December 2022, as damp and mould was returning to the two ‘loft’ rooms due to lack of roof insulation.
43. On 15 December 2022, it was confirmed via email that the loft insulation would be installed in January 2023 at the residents’ request. It was confirmed by the resident on 23 May 2023 that the roof insulation work had been completed.
44. The resident updated this Service on 23 May 2023 to advise that the landlord had agreed to replace the sky lights.

Assessment and findings

45. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case. Unlike a court we are unable to establish liability or award damages and we cannot establish whether the damp and mould or the delays with the repairs caused any health issues.

Outstanding repairs to the property

46. The landlord took 14 months to complete the roof repairs with a further 12 months to install the roof insulation. This is 25 months out of the time frames within its repairs policy. This led to the residents experiencing three further leaks, living in damp and mould conditions and damage to personal items. This caused distress and frustration to the residents as they had to chase the landlord for updates on the planned works schedule. This was not appropriate
47. Given the circumstances, it cannot fairly be said that 25 months represents a reasonable timeframe for the roof works to be fully completed. No evidence has been provided of any steps the landlord took to mitigate the leaks, or damp and mould. There were further leaks in the interim period. Whilst its preferred contractor was responsible for some initial delays, the landlord should have taken reasonable steps to manage the situation. In other words, the landlord was ultimately responsible for contractors acting on its behalf. A schedule of works should have been available and shared with the resident so that all teams and people involved were aware of timelines. This is poor project management and was not appropriate
48. The landlord initially acted reasonably in its actions once the resident reported the leak, as scaffolding was put up in the same month so that investigations could take place. This was appropriate. Additional scaffolding was erected in June 2021 following a further leak to the wet room
49. According to the landlord the asbestos report was completed in January 2021, however the report was only provided to the landlord and not the contractor. It was still being requested in August 2021. This is a clear communication and record keeping error which if avoided, could have seen the matter resolved at a much earlier point.
50. There was also a delay in obtaining confirmation about the asbestos works completion date. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have been aware of the contractor’s timeline for the asbestos to be removed, or appropriate questions asked to establish the completion date. This caused further delays which could have been avoided.
51. The delays in the removal of the scaffolding between August and December 2021 led to postponement of the replacement of the roof. It is recognised that the landlord requested the scaffolding to be taken down in August 2021. It did chase the dismantling of the scaffolding, but it was not removed for a further four months. Had the scaffolding been project managed correctly this issue could have been avoided. This was not appropriate as it led to the resident feeling unsafe at their property and caused further delays.
52. It took five months to obtain the quotes for the roof replacement after the landlord was advised that a replacement was required. The landlord has not provided any explanation for this delay. Quotes should have been requested immediately. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is not considered a reasonable timescale bearing in mind the damp and mould in the property caused by the numerous leak. This would have added to the distress and inconvenience faced by the residents.
53. It is not disputed that the leak to the wet room in February 2021 caused the tiles to fall off the wall due to the damp.  It took the landlord a year to fix the repair and tiles which were replaced in February 2022. This made it unsafe for the resident’s disabled child to use the shower properly in the interim period. This was not appropriate.
54. There has been no evidence provided to indicate that the sky light needed replacing, nor that it was included in the scope of works. Costs of replacing the sky light were added as supplementary information to the main quotes. The landlord was under no obligation to replace the sky light and the decision to exclude it from the repair works on the information available was appropriate.
55. The resident also advised that the new roof had not been insulated. This was addressed in the stage one decision. The landlord acted reasonably by suggesting an appointment to inspect the property. Due to an administrative error, this was delayed for two weeks. There is no information provided to establish why the insulation was not installed at the time of the replacement roof being fitted as proposed.
56. It was reasonable and fair for the resident to raise the issue of the insulation as part of her complaint as it left the property cold. If the insulation had been fitted at the time of the new roof being installed as suggested, it would have been completed in February 2022. Instead there was a further delay of 11 months until the works were finished. This was not appropriate as the residents reported that it created additional heating costs and caused the damp and mould to return in the property.
57. There was no evidence provided to confirm that the residents were given an action plan or any relevant details of schedules of work or completion dates for any of the repairs carried out by the landlord. The timeline confirms the resident made significant efforts to progress the repairs. It shows they repeatedly contacted the landlord for updates and often referred to its lack of communication. Living with such uncertainty would have affected the residents enjoyment of the property and caused inconvenience and frustration to them perhaps especially so for the resident with the stress based condition.
58. The landlord was aware that a household member had a disability and that the resident had been signed off work sick. The records demonstrate that the residents informed the landlord that delayed repairs to the property were having a negative impact on their mental health. There is no evidence to suggest that an equality impact assessment had been completed, nor a swift response to the resident’s repeated requests for contact. It should have obtained sufficient information to enable it to make an informed decision as to the urgency of the repairs, remedial works necessary and the consideration of a decant from the property due to the likely impact this would have on the residents. The landlord has shown no evidence that it was resident focused or resolution centred. This was not appropriate.
59. Overall, the landlord failed in its obligations to effectively repair the roof, put right the internal damage, insulate the property and support and communicate effectively with the resident over a significant period of time. The landlord offered £500 compensation due to the delay, for time trouble and inconvenience. This is not proportionate to the distress and inconvenienced caused to the residents. It took 27 months to complete the roof works, including the insulation. Three further leaks occurred whilst waiting for the roof to be replaced, leading to damp and mould in three rooms and the wet room being unusable for the disabled household member. The landlord’s handling of the residents’ reports of outstanding repairs to the property amount to severe maladministration. Accordingly additional compensation has been ordered.
60. The Ombudsman will award increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Our order will include a rent reduction element based on a refund of around 10% for each identified delay period. The rent figures have been used as a guideline only and are not intended to amount to an exact refund. It took the landlord 15 months for the landlord to replace the roof, during which time the residents endured further leaks, damage to their personal property and damp and mould in the bedrooms. With the additional delay of 12 months to install the roof insulation, it lead to the property being left cold resulting in additional heating bills, and damp and mould returning to the two loft rooms. It impacted the residents wellbeing and their overall quiet, peaceful, enjoyment of their property. Overall, the timeline points to inappropriate delays of around 27 months in total.

Ongoing issues with damp and mould

61. The residents complained about the ongoing mould and damp at the property. The photographs submitted showed black damp and mould patches on the walls of the two bedrooms. and mould growing on the chest of draws The images sent to the Ombudsman in April 2022 suggest this would have been attributed to the leak.
62. Whilst the leak was reported in November 2020, there are no reports on the repairs schedule for the property relating to damp and mould until 21 April 2022. The only record of the residents mentioning the mould and damp is in their complaint raised in May 2022 as the repairs were still outstanding. The landlord cannot therefore be held accountable for the delays in treating the mould up until this time
63. An internal inspection of the property should have been carried out with a risk assessment undertaken in line with the HHSRS guidelines. The inspection should have assessed if the property remained in a habitable condition. These findings should have been discussed with the residents as recommended by the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould.
64. The information provided does not suggest that any advice was given to the residents to keep the mould and damp at bay and remain safe. It would have been best practice for the landlord to have provided Interim advice whilst the residents waited for an inspection and any subsequent report, provide humidifiers, or the walls being washed down professionally by the landlord. This could have had a detrimental impact on the family’s health and wellbeing. This was not appropriate.
65. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould recommends that landlords should consider their current approach to record keeping and satisfy themselves it is sufficiently accurate and robust. The report encourage landlords to go further and consider whether their record keeping systems and processes support a risk-based approach to damp and mould. The report also recommends that landlords ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. No evidence has been provided to confirm that these recommendations were actioned.
66. The repairs surrounding the damp and mould were completed four months after they were reported to the repairs team and three months after the complaint was raised. This would have affected the residents enjoyment of the two bedrooms and kitchen. Damage was reported to the residents’ personal belongings. It would have caused distress, frustrations and inconvenience. This was not appropriate.
67. Accordingly, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding issues with mould and damp amount to maladministration.

Complaint handling

68. A stage one decision was not provided by the landlord until the Ombudsman’s request. Ultimately, it was issued on 14 June 2022, which amounts to 240 working day after the initial expression of dissatisfaction which was made on 18 June 2021. The stage two decision was issued on 12 August 2022, after a request to escalate the complaint was made on 5 July 2022 and was therefore eight working days late from the 20 day target. This was not appropriate. It does not fall within the guidelines of the landlord’s complaints policy nor the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (CHC).
69. The landlord operates an expression of dissatisfaction stage, prior to the formal complaint stage. The Ombudsman encourages the early and local resolution of issues between landlords and residents and recognises that there may be times appropriate action can be agreed immediately. The residents’ complaint was not one of these. It required more than a brief call to a contractor. It should have been raised as a formal complaint and dealt with accordingly. This was not appropriate.
70. The residents were advised that their expression of dissatisfaction was passed to the relevant team and that they would be in contact. No evidence was seen that the expression of dissatisfaction was investigated or responded to by the relevant team. Nor did they make contact with the residents. As such, the landlord gave the residents an inaccurate expectation of how their complaint would be resolved.
71. The Ombudsman’s CHC is very clear in that landlords must ensure that  efforts to resolve a resident’s concern do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay. The complaint was initially raised on 18 June 2021. The residents chased a response on at least four occasions between June and October 2021. This was an unreasonable delay and led to confusion with the resident as they believed that a formal complaint had been recorded and asked that it be escalated when they were dissatisfied with the informal response.
72. The resident requested a compensation form, but was refused as compensation had not been offered. This was not in line with the landlord’s compensation policy where it states that compensation claims can be made by phone, in person, writing or by completing an online complaints form. This was not appropriate and was obstructive.
73. The evidence seen shows that the landlord appropriately made enquiries with its contractor when the resident complained. However, the contractor’s responses were inadequate and did not respond to all the points raised. There is no evidence of any robust challenge or persistence by the landlord to get the answers it needed. This left the landlord being unable to appropriately respond to the resident’s complaint.
74. It is recognised that the landlord apologised for its poor complaint handling and offered £75 in compensation to make it right. This was not proportionate to the impact its failures and delays had on the resident. The resident chased numerous times for a response to her complaint. The formal complaints process was only started after intervention from the Ombudsman. There was the obstruction and confusion caused by the expression of dissatisfaction preliminary stage and the landlord refusing to send out a compensation form. The stage one complaint was over a year late, which does not comply with its own complaints policy or the Ombudsman CHC. The landlord’s complaint handling amounts to severe maladministration. Accordingly additional compensation has been ordered.

Determination (decision)

75. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs
76. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ongoing issues with damp and mould.
77. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

78. The identified 14 month delay period in repairing the roof was both unreasonable and contrary to its repairs policy. Its duration confirms the landlord’s handling of the repairs was not appropriate. Whilst it offered £500 compensation due to the delay this was not proportionate. There was a six month delay in obtaining the asbestos reports and then a further six months delay in having the roof replaced. The insulation was then not installed until a year later. This left the family living in cold, damp and mouldy conditions for two years causing significant distress and inconvenience to the residents.
79. Mould and damp was found in two bedrooms and the kitchen. No evidence was provided that any risk assessments were completed in line with the HHSRS guidance. The residents were not provided with any information to assist them in cleaning the affected areas, and no interim repairs were completed by the landlord to treatment wash the walls. The repairs were completed three months after they were reported.
80. The complaint handling was not managed in line with the landlord’s policy and procedures with regards to its response times. It is recognised that It apologised, requested additional time for the stage two response which was in line with their policy and offered £75 for poor complaint handling. However this was not a proportionate redress considering the length of time of the delays and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident during this period.

Orders

81. The appointed senior leader to issue the resident with a written apology within four weeks. It should recognise the landlord’s inappropriate delays and failure to engage with the resident’s complaint. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman a copy of the letter.
82. The landlord to pay the resident a total of £3,768 in compensation within four weeks. This includes the £575 previously offered and should be deducted if already paid. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears if accrued. The compensation comprises:

a.               £2268 rent reimbursement for loss of enjoyment of the home caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ongoing repairs.

b.               £1000 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused due to the outstanding repairs to the property.

c.                £300 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the ongoing issues with damp and mould.

d.               £200 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.

83. The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to review this complaint and provide a report on:

a.               Its learning identified about thoroughly inspecting properties when leaks, damp and mould are identified especially where there are vulnerabilities recorded, stating how this has been implemented and if any changes have been made to its process to avoid such failures.

b.               Its learning identified with regards to working with contractors and establishing a schedule of works that can be monitored and made available for all involved including residents

c.                Review its healthy homes approach, considering the failings highlighted in this case, to ensure it:

(1)  Maintains oversight of damp and mould cases.

(2)  Considers the risk of harm to residents and takes appropriate action to mitigate those risks.

(3)  Considers providing dehumidifiers to speed up removal of excess moisture.

(4)  Proactively manages cases to ensure repairs are completed within appropriate timescales.

d.               To review its complaints policy and procedure to ensure that it complies with the complaints handling code as published by the Ombudsman. If the expression of dissatisfaction stage is to remain, it must be made clear in the policy of how this can be progressed to a complaint, without having to completely reregister the concerns. It must avoid any unnecessary confusion to residents. Staff must be trained in how to recognise the transference, to ensure that it does not create a barrier for the residents in accessing the formal complaints process.

Recommendations

84. The landlord to strengthen its processes for managing difficult repair projects. For example, where the scope of works expands or where projected costs spiral. This could include referring cases to teams with experience of delivering large-scale works projects.