Peabody Trust (202204929)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204929

Peabody Trust

13 February 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. A boiler repair.
2. The resident’s reports of recurrent damp and mould.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom flat. She lives with her husband and three children. The resident and her children have asthma diagnoses.
The resident says she has experienced recurrent damp and mould in her home since 2010 when she moved in to the property. She has made several complaints to the landlord about damp and mould in her home. On 31 March 2021 she provided the landlord with a letter from her respiratory team. The letter said the consultant felt the mould in her home may be causing her respiratory symptoms to worsen.
In around October 2021, the resident experienced a boiler fault that left her with intermittent heating and hot water. The landlord told her she would be offered an appointment on 15 November 2021, but when she called, no appointments were available until the 17 November 2021.
The resident says that on 17 November the landlord ordered parts for the boiler and rescheduled her appointment for 23 November 2021. The landlord attempted to fix the boiler on 22 November 2021, a day before her appointment, but was unsuccessful.
On 22 November 2021, the resident made a complaint to the landlord, saying:
1. She had called 7 times to report the boiler fault.
2. She was the landlord’s communication about the appointments.
3. The landlord did not deliver the temporary heaters it had agreed to provide. The resident had to heat her home using the oven.
4. She did not have heating for 3 weeks and felt the landlord had not considered the impact of this on her family.
The landlord responded on 3 December 2021, upholding her complaint, and saying:
1. It acknowledged its communication failures.
2. The boiler had been fixed, but due to the number of faults she had reported, the landlord would look for a long-term solution.
3. It had asked its surveyor to contact the resident to discuss the damp and mould.
4. It offered her £300 in compensation, comprising £50 for delayed appointments and £250 for inconvenience and trouble.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process. She said:
1. The boiler was unpredictable and functioned intermittently. She had reported further faults since it was fixed.
2. The landlord had not recognised the additional costs she incurred heating her home when the boiler was broken.
3. The lack of heating had a significant impact on the health of her family.
4. The landlord had inspected the mould in the past and told her there were problems with her window frame and window air vent, and she needed an industrial dehumidifier to remove moisture from the walls.
As the landlord had not responded to her escalation request, the resident emailed again on 04 December 2021 and 20 June 2022. On 13 July 2022 the landlord upheld her stage 2 complaint, saying:
1. It accepted failures in its handling of the boiler repair. It had now replaced her boiler.
2. Its response to her concerns about mould and damp were too slow. It had now identified a fault with her ventilation, which should prevent a recurrence of the mould.
3. It offered her an additional £150 compensation in recognition of the time it had taken to respond to her complaint, and a partial rent refund of £390 for the period she had no heating or hot water.
On 5 August 2022, the landlord completed a mould treatment at the property. However, on 17 December 2022, the resident made a further complaint to the landlord about damp and mould in her home. The landlord logged this at stage one of its complaints process. The mould wash in her property had caused damage to her sofa and curtains.
On 20 December 2022, the resident’s respiratory team wrote a second letter on the resident’s behalf, which said they believed her health was being negatively impacted by exposure to mould.
On 21 December 2022, the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection of the property. The report noted:
1. There was condensation and mould on the bedroom and lounge windows.
2. There was mould on clothes in the wardrobe which was filled “beyond capacity”.
3. There was an “excessive number” of belongings in the property which combined with overcrowding. This would “accelerate moisture” in the home.
4. The ventilation system was working correctly. The resident told the inspector she closed the ceiling vents as she was worried about mice coming through them. This would prevent them working properly.
5. The surveyor believed the mould would return. The report noted the resident reported condensation within a week. The landlord had arranged regular treatments for mould, but the resident had refused this unless she was decanted (temporarily moved from the property), as the chemicals used affected her asthma.
6. The new boiler had been installed incorrectly as the flue was not properly terminated.
Following the inspection, the resident was decanted on 24 December 2022 so works could be completed in her home. The resident says she was told she would be reimbursed for costs she incurred during the decant on 30 December 2022, but she didn’t receive any reimbursement until she returned to the property on 9 January 2023.
On 10 January 2023, the landlord upheld the resident’s stage one complaint. It acknowledged that it had not done enough to respond to her concerns about damp and mould, and this had a significant impact on her wellbeing. It offered £500 in compensation, comprising £350 for time, trouble, and inconvenience, £100 for cleaning hire and supplies, and £50 for lack of communication. The landlord said that, because of her complaint it had given relevant training to staff.
On 20 February 2022, the landlord completed a check of the resident’s “whole house ventilation system”.
The resident made a further complaint to the landlord about how it handled her temporary decant. She said:
1. The landlord did not book enough hotel rooms for her family, saying there was no 3rd room available. When she arrived at the hotel an additional room was available, so she contacted the landlord about this, but it did not respond.
2. The landlord gave her incorrect information about the amount of security deposit she had to pay.
3. She incurred significant daily costs for parking, laundry, and meals. Although the landlord had agreed to reimburse these costs, paying them upfront caused her financial hardship, and she had to borrow money.
4. She was unhappy that the landlord did not reimburse her for the costs she incurred on the day it agreed.
5. The decant had a significant emotional impact on the family.
6. She had to replace her curtains, at a cost of £249.98. The landlord had only agreed to pay for them to be dry cleaned as the mould was a reoccurring issue.
7. She had incurred £667.40 more in costs than the landlord had reimbursed. She had been asked to provide a breakdown of the outstanding amount and was told she was responsible for the cost of the additional bed, as she had requested it.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint on 31 March 2023. It said it had reviewed the figures and would pay the resident £430. It accepted that the service it provided was not acceptable and said this would be addressed internally. It offered her £100 in compensation.
The resident was not happy with the landlord’s response. She asked the landlord to explain its calculations and noted that the invoice the landlord provided did not cover the last 2 days she was decanted. She asked for an apology. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s email, and she chased the response 4 times including emailing the landlord’s CEO on 18 September 2023.
In her email to the CEO, the resident said she still had not received the reimbursement agreed on 31 March 2023. She said the landlord told her it could do a chemical-free mould wash, but when it attended and began the works, she immediately had an asthma attack. She believed a chemical treatment was being used. The mould wash had been abandoned.
The landlord logged the complaint at stage one of its complaints process and responded on 2 October 2023. It said it would pass the issue of the outstanding reimbursement to the relevant team. It had completed a mould wash on 19 July 2023 without chemicals. The landlord said it understood that she had left her vents open because of mice, and it trusted the issue was now resolved. She should keep them open as this was causing condensation in her home.
The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s response, and says she is still experiencing damp and mould in her home.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

During the period of the complaint, the resident says the condition of her home impacted on her and her children’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony and we acknowledge the medical evidence she has provided concerning damp and mould. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health, particularly for people who have respiratory conditions. The Ombudsman can take into account the general impact of damp and mould, but it is outside our remit to establish if there was a direct link between the action or inaction of the landlord and the health conditions of the resident and her family. We will consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced because of errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her and her family’s health.

Boiler repair

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible to keep in working order any installations for space heating, in this case the resident’s boiler.
The landlord’s handling of the boiler repair was poor. The resident had to call 7 times to report the fault. When the landlord inspected the boiler and realised it needed to order a part, it was aware there would be a delay in reinstating the heating. While the delay to order parts may have been unavoidable, at this point the landlord should have provided the family with temporary heaters. This was particularly important given the time of year and household composition. It did not agree to do so until the escalated her concerns to a manager, 3 weeks after the boiler fault occurred. The landlord’s failure to act proactively in this situation led to additional distress for the resident and her family.
Although the landlord agreed to provide temporary heating, it did not do so. The landlord’s failure to deliver on this promise may have reinforced the resident’s feeling that the landlord did not consider the impact of the repair on her family and damaged her trust in it.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor, and she was told she would be given an appointment for the 15 November 2021. This did not go ahead for 2 further days and when it did, the required part was not available. The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations or keep her informed when plans changed which was unreasonable. Ultimately the resident was left without heating for approximately a month, in November. This caused her distress, as she was worried about the impact of this on her family’s health and caused them significant inconvenience, as they had to wash at a neighbour’s house. She also incurred additional costs attempting to heat her home with her oven and a fan heater.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for these failures, which was appropriate. It replaced the boiler as a long-term solution due to the number of faults the resident had experienced, and offered compensation comprising:
1. £250 for inconvenience and trouble.
2. A partial refund of £390 for the time she was without heating to cover the additional costs incurred.
3. £50 for its failed appointments
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance says that awards in this range are appropriate where there is maladministration by the landlord and failures have adversely affected the resident.
Had the landlord carried out an effective repair on the boiler, this level of compensation would have, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily. However, the landlord’s workmanship and handling of the boiler replacement was poor. The flue for the old boiler was incorrectly terminated with duct tape. The landlord first noted this on its records on 3 August 2022, but the repair was not completed until 7 February 2023. The landlord has not provided evidence that explains the 6-month delay between it identifying and rectifying the issue. The Ombudsman therefore considers that the delay was unreasonable. The landlord’s records indicate that the incorrectly sealed flue was dripping on clothes in the resident’s cupboard. It is plausible that this exacerbated the resident’s ongoing issues with damp and mould. This will have caused the resident inconvenience and distress.
As such, the landlord finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the boiler repair. The landlord is ordered to pay £100 in compensation due to the additional inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the poor quality of workmanship and subsequent delays in rectifying the boiler flue. This is in addition to the compensation the landlord has already offered.

Damp and mould

The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s website says it has a specialist team in place and encourages residents to report damp and mould. Its repairs policy states that it is responsible for carrying out repairs for penetrative and rising damp. It says it is responsible for repairs to condensation and mould through its “healthy homes programme”. However, in the same document, the landlord says it is not responsible for repairs to condensation and mould. This is contradictory.
The landlord was part of a merger in 2022. It has provided a damp and mould policy for the resident’s landlord at that time. It has not provided a current damp and mould policy, so the Ombudsman assumes that one is not available. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (available on our website) says it is good practice for landlords to produce a consolidated, comprehensive damp and mould policy, separate to their repairs policy. The landlord is ordered to either update its repairs policy, or publish a separate damp and mould policy, to clarify its approach to damp, mould, and condensation.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould says, “Landlords should…ensure they avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language that leaves residents feeling blamed”. It goes on to say that lifestyle should not be blamed when it is the result of limited choices.
Some of the landlord’s language in internal emails could be considered to suggest blame. For example, the landlord said the resident had “excessive” belongings, and the wardrobe was filled “beyond capacity”. The landlord was aware that the resident lives in a 2-bedroom property with her husband and 3 children. The family has taken appropriate steps to seek rehousing, but the demand for family-sized accommodation means rehousing may take some time. While the family’s belongings may contribute to mould growth in a 2-bedroom property, they may not be an ‘excessive’ number of belongings for a family of this size.
The landlord also said that the resident told it she did not open her vents because she was worried about mice coming into the property. It worried this would affect the efficacy of mould treatment. The resident denies saying that she does not open the vents. With the evidence available, the Ombudsman is unable to determine which account is correct. However it was reasonable for the landlord to recommend that the vents are kept open as this can help reduce damp and mould.
When the resident complained about damp and mould in her home on 3 December 2021, the landlord responded that its surveyor would contact her. However, its repairs records don’t show any repairs were done until a mould wash was carried out on 5 August 2022. The landlord has not explained this delay, so the Ombudsman concludes the delay was inappropriate, as it does not reflect its damp and mould policy, introduced in May 2022, which said it treated mould and damp as urgent repairs.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord about the ongoing impact of damp and mould on her family on 17 December 2022. As this was only 4 months after the landlord carried out a mould wash at the property, it indicates the treatment did not resolve the issue. Following the resident’s complaint, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange a survey of the property and arrange works. The survey was done the week after the resident complained, which within the landlord’s repairs policy timescales.
The resident was decanted so the works could be done. She was asked to pay a significant number of costs up-front when she was decanted, which she calculated amounted to over £2000. This caused her family financial hardship. She had to borrow money and felt she could not afford to celebrate family birthdays during the decant. The landlord’s reliance on the resident’s ability to meet these costs up-front was inappropriate. Many residents would not have been able to cover the costs, and it could have caused them to accrue debt. The landlord should review its approach to decants to ensure they do not cause residents financial hardship.
The resident was not given accurate information about some of the costs, for example she was not told she would have to pay a security deposit for both rooms, and that there would be a deposit for her additional bed. She was not told the parking costs. This was inappropriate. Although the decant was at relatively short notice, the landlord would have had enough time to make enquiries with the hotel before giving the details to the resident. In its failure to do this, the resident will have experienced distress and inconvenience.
Although the landlord’s efforts to complete the repairs quickly were reasonable, the timing of the decant was poor, being over the Christmas period. Landlords rarely carry out routine repair work on bank holidays. This will have meant the resident, and her family were away from her home for longer than necessary. The landlord did not reimburse the resident on the day it agreed to do so, prolonging her financial hardship, and this may have been caused by staff absence over the holidays. Considering this, and the relatively short time needed to do the repairs, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have delayed the works until after the festive period to minimise disruption for the family.
When the resident requested reimbursement, the landlord only partially reimbursed the resident, disputing some of the costs incurred. The resident felt that she had to fight to be repaid, including having to contact the hotel she stayed in to get additional information. While the landlord did agree to pay additional reimbursement, the process will have caused a significant inconvenience to the family. The resident was able to make her case on this occasion because of her financial literacy. Some residents would not have been able to calculate the costs as the resident did, and this may have resulted in them not being fully reimbursed.
The landlord fully reimbursed the resident 10 months after she incurred the costs. This was an unacceptable delay, which did not consider the financial impact this may have had on the resident. To prevent this happening to other residents, the landlord should reconsider its decant procedure to ensure that decants necessary to complete works do not place residents into financial hardship and they are not expected to pay large sums of money up front.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy at this time said, “We will make every effort to work with the customer to ensure a move that works for them”, but this was not followed in practice. For example, the landlord initially arranged hotel rooms on different floors, which would have left the resident unable to supervise her children. It also assumed that one of the children would share a room with its parents but did not arrange a bed for the child. This was a further example of poor communication that will have caused the resident avoidable distress.
When the resident contacted the landlord to chase her reimbursement, it repeatedly failed to respond. This was inappropriate, which the landlord recognised in its complaint response. It also said it would provide relevant training to staff, which is a reasonable step to prevent this issue reoccurring in future.
The resident was unhappy that the landlord did not cover the cost of the family’s lunches during the decant. In this instance, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s actions were reasonable. The resident would have spent money on groceries had she not been decanted. Although the costs of buying lunch may have been increased by the lack of food storage or cooking facilities in the hotel, the landlord’s provision of breakfast and dinner would have compensated for the increased costs.
The resident told the landlord that when she was decanted, she experienced financial hardship. In other correspondence she had talked about the cost of heating her home and explained that she had been unable to work due to her health. Considering this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to ask her if she would benefit from welfare benefits support, and signpost her appropriately.
The resident told the landlord that the mould treatment had damaged her curtains. She says she was initially told that the landlord would replace the curtains, but the landlord later said it would only pay to clean them. Although the resident replaced the curtains, the landlord offered her £100 in compensation for cleaning supplies and hire. It is generally considered reasonable for items to be cleaned rather than replaced in the first instance, unless it is clear that cleaning will not be effective. If cleaning is attempted but is proven to be ineffective then replacement should be considered at that stage. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence on which to assess whether cleaning the curtains would have been effective, or evidence that the landlord said it would replace the curtains. We cannot therefore determine that the the amount offered should have been higher.
However, the landlord’s compensation policy states: “…Where it is proven damage has been caused directly through us or our contractors’ actions, we will provide appropriate redress and take the necessary steps to put this right”. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation for the resident’s damaged belongings as an alternative to the resident submitting an insurance claim.
Shortly after the resident and her family returned home, they reported new mould growth in the property. In its records, the landlord initially suggested regular mould wash treatments as a solution to the issue. However, the resident was unwilling to be decanted for any further visits as she was worried the chemical mould treatments would affect her asthma.
To complete the work without decanting the resident, the landlord agreed to complete a non-chemical treatment of the property. The treatment began on 19 July 2023. The landlord had received a letter from the resident’s consultant indicating that they felt mould in the property was contributing to a deterioration in her health. The landlord should have taken this into consideration and acted promptly to resolve the new mould growth. Instead, there was a 6-month delay between the resident reporting new mould growth in her home and the work beginning. The landlord has not explained this delay, so the Ombudsman concludes this it was unreasonable. The landlord should ensure its response to damp and mould is timely in future to mitigate the impact on residents.
The treatment was aborted, as when the mould wash was begun, the resident had an asthma attack. The resident believes a chemical treatment was used which caused the asthma attack. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate to determine whether the treatment used was a chemical treatment, given the seriousness of the incident. The landlord has not provided any evidence it did so, and this will have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord further. She refused to allow further mould treatments unless she was decanted, which was understandable under the circumstances.
The landlord has already completed mould washes in the property, and these have proven not to offer a long-term solution to the problem, so it would also have been appropriate for the landlord to consider other options to resolve the issue. The spotlight report on damp and mould says landlords should take a ‘zero-tolerance’ approach to damp and mould, which is not reflected in the landlord’s seeming acceptance that the mould will reoccur in this case. The landlord should have arranged a surveyor’s inspection to assess what other measures could be taken to resolve the damp and mould.
Since the aborted treatment attempt on 19 July 2023, the resident says there has be no further mould treatment in her home. She says that there is still mould in the property, and she believes this is affecting the health of her and her family. This is causing her significant distress, so it is unacceptable that the landlord has not taken further steps to resolve the issue.
For the reasons above, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Although the landlord has surveyed the property in the past, the last survey was over 12 months ago, and the mould has reoccurred. The landlord is ordered to instruct an independent damp and mould specialist to survey the property. It would be appropriate to assess the condition of the windows, as the resident believes they may be a contributing factor.
In January 2023, the landlord offered the resident £350 in compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience its handling of the damp and mould had caused her, and an additional £50 for its poor communication. However, as it has failed to affect a lasting repair, the resident has experienced additional distress and worry about the impact mould may have on the health of her family. Consequently, the landlord’s offer of compensation is inadequate. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £500 for the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This is in addition to any offers of compensation it has already made.

Complaint handling

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 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”. The landlord’s complaints policy uses this definition.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It says it will respond at stage one of its process within 10 working days, and at stage 2 of its process within 20 working days.
When the resident complained on 22 November 2021, the landlord responded in 10 working days, meeting its policy timescale. She asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process on 3 December 2021. She chased the complaint response several times before the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 27 February 2022. This will have caused her inconvenience and distress.
When the landlord acknowledged her complaint, it told her it would respond in 10 working days, but it did not. When the resident chased it, it said it would respond the next day. However, the next day, it extended the deadline for a 5 days. On the day of the deadline, it extended the deadline by 5 days, and then on this deadline, extended it by 5 days again. This did not manage the resident’s expectations and caused her further inconvenience.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 13 July 2022, 7 months after she requested the case be escalated. This was an unacceptable delay far outside of the landlord’s policy timescales, which caused the resident avoidable inconvenience. The resident made 4 further stage 1 complaints between this complaint and the date of this report. It is significant that all the landlord’s complaints responses in this time were outside of its policy deadlines, although to a lesser extent. The landlord should review the resident’s case to consider why it did not meet its policy deadlines for complaint responses and put steps in place to ensure it can meet them in future.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on its handling of her temporary decant for mould treatment on 24 February 2023. The landlord responded on 31 March 2023. The resident asked for clarification on the landlord’s answer the same day, but it did not respond. She chased the landlord further on 4 April 2023, before requesting the case be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 8 May 2023. The evidence the Ombudsman has seen indicates that the landlord did not escalate the case to stage 2 of its complaints process. When she emailed the landlord again, it logged her complaint at stage one of its process. This was inappropriate, as it does not align with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) which sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code says: “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure, unless an exclusion ground now applies”.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that residents should request escalation of their complaint within 10 working days. Although the resident did not request the escalation of her complaint within 10 working days, this was because the landlord had not responded to her emails. In the circumstances of the case, the landlord should have escalated the complaint, and its failure to do so could have resulted in a delay in the resident accessing support from the Ombudsman.
The resident has made repeated complaints about damp and mould, over several years. This indicates that the steps the landlord took to resolve the issue did not provide a lasting resolution. It would be good practice for the landlord to review cases where residents have made repeated complaints about the same issue to identify opportunities for effective resolutions.
In her complaints, the resident described her mental distress and severe low mood. The landlord’s complaints responses did not fully acknowledge this and the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord contacted her about her to check on her wellbeing. This was inappropriate. The landlord should have considered making an internal safeguarding referral or carry out a welfare check on her, given the disclosures she made. It could also have considered signposting her for additional support, for example through her GP. Its failure to do this may have led the resident to feel that it did not care about her wellbeing.
The landlord apologised for its poor communication and offered the resident £150 for its the delayed stage 2 complaint response it sent on 13 July 2022. However, its later failures to respond within its policy deadlines, and examples of poor communication with the resident, do not suggest it learned from its errors. This equates to maladministration. As such, the landlord’s offer of £150 compensation for its complaint handling is insufficient, and it is ordered to pay the resident an additional £150, bringing the total amount of compensation for complaint handling to £300. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says awards in this range are appropriate where a finding of maladministration have been made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the boiler repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents’ reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must update its repairs policy, or publish a separate damp and mould policy, to clarify its responsibilities and approach to damp, mould, and condensation.
The landlord is ordered to pay £750 in compensation. This is in addition to offers of compensation already made by the landlord and comprises:
1. £150 for its complaint handling failures.
2. £100 for its handling of the boiler repair.
3. £500 for its handling of the residents reports of damp and mould.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should complete a case review into the failings identified in this case. It should set out specific steps it will take to improve its service delivery, and consider:
1. How it can ensure it appropriately provides temporary heating to residents left without heating or hot water, particularly where there are vulnerable household members.
2. Why it was not able to respond to the resident’s complaints within an appropriate timeframe and what it can put in place to do so in future.
3. Its handling of the reoccurring damp and mould in the property.
For each of these points the landlord should identify any learning and set out the steps it will implement as a result.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should instruct an independent damp and mould specialist to carry out a survey of the property. The survey should include:
1. A heat survey.
2. Confirmation of whether the property ventilation is adequate.
3. An assessment of the windows.

The landlord should carry out any repairs identified as necessary following this survey in line with its published repair timescales.