Places for People Group Limited (202331840)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331840

Places for People Group Limited

30 September 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. damp and mould in the property.
2. a rent review in February 2024.
3. lost or stolen personal possessions whilst they were in storage.
4. a managed move application.
5. further and additional repairs to the property and common parts.
6. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident occupies a 1-bedroom ground floor flat under an assured tenancy agreement.
On 8 December 2022 the resident made a repair request to the landlord about the lack of ventilation in the property and that damp and mould was present. On 13 December 2022 she complained to the landlord that the Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery (MVHR) unit was not working and that there was black mould all over the property which was affecting her health.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 24 March 2023. In this, it said:
1. it had attended the property on 14 December 2022 and found:
  1. there were signs of damp in the property but it was likely to be condensation as the resident had been away from the property for 2 weeks.
  2. it carried out a mould wash and gave the resident advice about ventilating the property to prevent condensation
  3. the resident had kept the MVHR system switched off for a number of years. It cleaned the filters and showed the resident how to do this
2. following its attendance on 14 December 2022 it requested a specialist damp and mould survey be completed at the property. It said it had aimed to complete this within 45 days of the referral but accepted that there had been a delay in completing this due to high demand.
3. it was not able to reach a decision on whether to uphold the resident’s complaint as it had not received the results of the damp and mould survey. It told the resident it would write to her again once it had the survey to explain whether it would offer compensation.
The landlord issued a second response at stage 1 on 7 June 2023. In this it:
1. apologised for the delay in responding. It said this was due to a delay in receiving the survey results which should have been available 30 days after it was carried out.
2. noted that a mould wash had been carried out at the property on 29 March 2023 but that it had used the wrong solution and the staff member involved had not used suitable personal protective equipment.
3. stated the results of the survey were that the mould in the property was due to condensation and there was no evidence of rising or penetrating damp.
4. it offered the resident £250 as compensation consisting of:
  1. £100 for the delays in the survey being completed and the results being shared
  2. £50 for the handling of the mould wash
  3. £100 for distress and inconvenience.
The resident escalated her complaint on 8 June 2023. She told the landlord:
1. the survey report contained basic errors and its recommendations were not sufficient to address the issues with damp, mould and poor ventilation in the property.
2. the compensation offered was not sufficient to address the impact of the events on her.
3. the damp and mould problems had continued at the property and had negatively affected her health. She stated the landlord had an obligation to move her from the property.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 October 2023. In this it:
1. agreed the first survey completed in March 2023 was poor and had arranged for its specialist survey team to inspect on 21 June 2023. It described its surveyor had recommended:
  1. replacing and upgrading the MVHR system including replacing the filters and flues where mould had built up
  2. installing a fire door with a grille for ventilation to the boiler, due to the resident removing the previous door
  3. removing and replacing the area of discoloured flooring by the boiler. The landlord clarified that though it would investigate how the damp had affected this section of flooring, it did not consider this was the cause of excessive moisture in the property or the resulting mould.
  4. cleaning the mould from the living room and applying a chemical wash
2. noted the resident had not been using the MVHR system correctly for a number of years which had contributed to the level of dust and mould building up in the property. It explained due to the design of the flat, the resident must keep the MVHR system on permanently, except for servicing or cleaning which was recommended twice a year.
3. acknowledged that when it first decanted the resident it had to move her several times due to limited availability of suitable property and apologised for this. It confirmed that it had extended the decant up until January 2024. It said in response to the resident’s request to be permanently rehoused that it was confident the repairs would resolve the damp and mould but she could seek advice from its neighbourhoods team if she still wanted to be permanently rehoused.
4. As an outcome it offered the resident £3,075.12 consisting of:
  1. The £250 previously offered at stage 1
  2. £492.92 as reimbursement for flight costs in June 2023 before the decant took place
  3. £2,332.20 as a 50% rent reduction for the 26 weeks it expected the resident would be decanted from the property.
5. the landlord explained to the resident that if she was dissatisfied with the response she could either request the complaint to be reviewed by its Independent Complaint Panel or contact this service.
The resident referred the complaint to the landlord’s Independent Complaints Panel on 14 November 2023. The landlord’s Independent Complaints Panel made its decision on the resident’s complaint on 15 April 2024. In this, it recommended that the landlord:
1. assessed for damp and mould in other individual properties and communal areas where the building where the resident was located
2. reviewed its handling of reports of damp and mould, including how its staff are trained to handle damp and mould cases
3. provided the resident with an additional £400 for distress (for a total compensation offer of £3475.12).
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, as she did not consider its offer reflected the level of distress she was caused and referred her complaint to this service.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called our jurisdiction. This is set out in the Scheme. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states:

42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: (a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale

In her complaint to this service, the resident raised several issues that occurred following the landlord’s final response. These include complaints about:
1. the landlord’s communication with the resident about a rent review in February 2024 (as set out in paragraph 1(b) above)
2. lost or stolen personal possessions whilst these were in storage arranged by the landlord (as set out in paragraph 1(c) above)
3. a managed move application after the decant ended in March 2024 (as set out in paragraph 1(d) above)
4. further repairs to the property and common parts raised after the complaint procedure (as set out at paragraph 1(e) above)
The landlord should have the opportunity respond to these complaints through its complaints procedure before we may investigate. As these are separate issues from the complaint that has exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure, the Ombudsman will not investigate them in accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme.

The scope of investigation

In her complaints to this service, the resident told us that she had been reporting issues with damp and mould and the MVHR for several years before the formal complaint in December 2022. We have not seen evidence of concerns raised about the ventilation or damp and mould before the reports made around 8 December 2022 in the records we have seen. Therefore, the Ombudsman has decided to investigate the landlord’s handling of matters from 8 December 2022.
The resident extensively told the Ombudsman that the damp and mould affected her health and caused her to develop fibromyalgia. The Ombudsman would not be able to arrive at firm conclusions on what caused the resident to develop fibromyalgia. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to seek a finding and remedy via the court. Usually when examining this type of personal injury claim, the courts have the benefit of independent expert medical evidence as well as oral testimony – which the Ombudsman will not have. If the resident wants to pursue such a claim she should seek independent legal advice. The Ombudsman will still consider distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s actions.
From the available documentary evidence and what the resident told us, the Ombudsman considers there are 3 key issues to be looked at in assessing the landlord’s overall handling of the damp and mould at the property which this report will address, namely:
1. the landlord’s investigation of the reports of damp and mould and its treatment of this
2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about ventilation in the property and the MVHR system
3. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be decanted from the property.
For the avoidance of all doubt, the investigation commences from 8 December 2022.

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
The landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s repair obligations

The tenancy agreement between the landlord and resident says:
1. under clause 2.3 the landlord is obligated to keep in repair the structure of the property including windowsills, window frames and (with notice from the tenant) internal walls, floors and ceilings.
2. under clause 2.4 the landlord is obligated to keep in repair and proper working order any installations provided by the landlord for purposes such as space heating, water heating and sanitation.
3. under clause 3.28 the resident is obligated to undertake minor repairs to the premises.
The landlord’s repair requires the landlord to complete repairs in line with the following timescales
1. emergency repairs (issues which cause an immediate risk to the customer’s health and safety, or uncontrollable damage to the property), within 24 hours
2. appointable repairs, within 28 days. However, the version of the policy in place at the time of the events complained about said that it was taking 60 days to complete these.
3. planned repairs (those which are not urgent and may consist of replacing rather than repairing a component), within 90 days.
The landlord’s ‘decanting customers policy’ says that where it is identified that repair works are required to a property which it deems uninhabitable for a longer period of time (such as the replacement of a ceiling or floors) it will consider making a planned move to alternative accommodation for the customer.
The landlord did not have a specific damp, mould and condensation policy until November 2023. In its January 2023 self assessment against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould it recorded a target timescale of 15 days to arrange an inspection to determine the cause of damp and mould.

The investigation of the damp and mould at the property

The landlord recorded that the resident said there was a damp and black mould issue on or around 8 December 2022, but no further information was given.
In her complaint on 13 December 2022 the resident had said that there was ‘black damp and mould all over the house’ and she was ill as a result. The landlord arranged to inspect this the following day. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s actions were appropriate. It arranged the inspection in line with its policy for emergency repairs after the resident told it that the damp and mould was affecting her health.
As set out previously, the landlord’s inspection on 14 December 2022 concluded the cause of the damp and mould in the property was condensation, as the resident had been away from the property for 2 weeks. It is not clear to the Ombudsman how condensation could have been generated in the property when the residents were not present. The inspection does not specify this.
The landlord records that it carried out a mould wash to remove the mould and gave the resident advice about ventilating the property to prevent the damp and mould from returning. The resident disputed that the landlord carried out a mould wash on 14 December 2022. It would be for the landlord to show it completed a mould wash by completing a post-inspection with photographs. The landlord has not shown what the position was before and after any mould wash.
The landlord stated that following the attendance on 14 December 2022, it requested a specialist damp and mould survey. There is no evidence of this. The notes simply state that the operative that attended cleaned the vents (which appeared clean) and showed the resident how to do this. It would have been prudent of the landlord to have detailed the extent of the damp and mould with reference to photographic evidence.
Due to a lack of adequate records, it is not known when the landlord first requested a survey or what information the landlord gave the resident about it. This was a failure by the landlord.
The landlord’s records state that its contractor carried out a damp and mould survey on 3 March 2023. This was 76 days following the initial attendance on 14 December 2023 (excluding public holidays). In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the timescales for appointable repairs in its policy or its target from its self-assessment.
The contractor’s damp and mould survey from 3 March 2023 stated:
1. the survey had been carried out in accordance with the landlord’s instructions and the inspection was limited to those areas
2. it found the damp and mould to be condensation-related and there was no evidence of rising or penetrating damp
3. the growth of black mould in the boiler cupboard was minimal and had been caused by condensation as the cupboard lacked ventilation. There was a high moisture reading on the door to the cupboard due to it being a cold surface. The contractor recommended increasing ventilation, by either installing a new door with a grille, or an air brick to the external wall. It said this would eliminate excessive condensation which would prevent mould from developing.
4. the contractor noted black mould ‘spotting’ on the windows, window reveals and external door. They recommended the landlord treat this and the affected areas of the boiler cupboard with an anti-fungicidal wash.
Due to a lack of adequate records, it is not clear what the landlord’s instructions were to the external contractor about which areas of the property to survey or whether this had been discussed with the resident before the survey took place. This was a failing by the landlord which may have contributed to the delay in identifying the cause of the mould in the property.
It is accepted by both parties that the landlord completed a mould wash on 29 March 2023. the landlord records that it carried out the mould wash arranged following the first stage 1 response. The resident reported that the operative attended with bleach to clear the mould. The landlord accepted in its later responses that the product used to clean the mould was not suitable. There is no evidence to show the landlord considered whether it should attend the property to complete a mould wash – given the wrong product was used in March 2023. This was not appropriate as it did not effectively resolve the reported problem with the mould.
The landlord told the resident and this service that there was a delay in receiving the damp and mould survey report from its contractor. It stated that it would have expected it contractor to return this with 30 days of the survey being completed, namely by 2 April 2023. From the available evidence the contractor returned the report around 4 June 2023, 93 calendar days after the completion of the survey. At this time the landlord created a repair request with the recommendations from the survey.
Due to the lack of adequate records it is not clear what action, if any, was taken by the landlord to chase up the survey report between 2 April 2023 and 4 June 2023 or what information the resident was given about this. In any event, the landlord is responsible for the property and ensuring it was safe and fit for human habitation. It was also responsible for ensuring its contractors report on required works promptly. The delay was therefore a failure by the landlord. As a mitigating factor however, the resident told the landlord on 5 May 2023 that she would be away from the property until the end of May 2023 and she cancelled appointments the landlord had arranged during that time.
After the landlord shared the damp and mould survey with the resident on 7 June 2023, she complained about the quality of it. She requested the landlord cancel the repair request created to complete the recommendations from the survey. In response to this the landlord requested that its internal specialist surveyor carry out a further survey of the property.
Considering that the landlord agreed in its response to the complaint that the report from the survey completed on 3 March 2023 was poor it was not clear why it did not request its internal specialist surveyor carry out another survey once the report became available on 4 June 2023, rather than after the resident raised a complaint about this. Notwithstanding this the second damp and mould survey took place on 21 June 2023, 17 days after the first report became available. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the second report was completed promptly after it was raised. Albeit, it should have been raised sooner in March 2023.
The findings of the survey on 21 June 2023 were that:
1. mould had bult up in the flues of the ventilation system due to the MVHR having been switched off by the resident for ‘several years’. The removal and cleaning or replacement of the ducting was required as a matter of health and safety due to mould growth. The landlord noted that the repairs needed to address this would likely be intrusive
2. the resident regularly spent lengthy periods away from the property which had contributed to the build-up of condensation, as the resident was not heating or ventilating the property during that period
3. the mould growth observed on the windowsills and reveals would be controllable by treating this with fungicidal wash and properly heating and ventilating the property in the future
4. the resident had removed the fire door for the boiler because of the mould
5. there was discoloured flooring in front of the boiler with a distinct smell of mould in the area, which may have been due to condensation under the flooring as there was no evidence of a leak from the boiler. The landlord agreed to replace the door and remove the flooring for further investigation. However, it considered in the context of the rest of the findings the flooring was not the cause of excessive moisture in the property or indicative of rising or penetrating damp.
The resident was away from the property for 2 weeks from 22 June 2023 visiting family. The landlord placed the resident into temporary alternative accommodation when she returned which last for the duration of the repairs. The landlord provided her with its surveyor’s report and recommendations around 14 August 2023. The resident was unhappy with what the landlord had agreed to do to remove the damp and mould, she stated she did not consider the surveyor had appropriate qualifications and demanded that it use a private company of her choosing to complete this work.
The landlord responded that its surveyor had appropriate qualifications and knowledge to diagnose and treat damp and mould. It stated that as its surveyor had carried out a full survey of the property. The landlord went on to explain that it would complete the recommended works. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord was entitled to rely on the advice of its surveyor in absence of any contradictory evidence to suggest what had been uncovered or what repairs were proposed were wrong.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord agreed to appoint the resident’s preferred contractor to carry out additional treatments to remove mould from the property and affected surfaces and furniture. This took place in December 2023. This was not a requirement for the landlord to do and went above and beyond what we would expect. We also note that the resident’s contractor agreed with the conclusions of the landlord’s surveyor that there were no indications of penetrating or rising damp. The resident’s contractor only suggested adding trickle vents to the windows. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this supports the view that the landlord’s decision to rely on its surveyor’s advice and recommendations was appropriate.
The landlord completed the work recommended by its surveyor on 15 March 2024. From the available records as part of the process of redecorating the property the also re-laid vinyl flooring and removed and rebuilt the stud-walls housing the boiler due to mould previously present there. The resident told us she had been avoiding spending time in the property but was not aware of damp and mould reoccurring since March 2024.
It is evident that there were delays in identifying the cause of the mould and completing the full extent of remedial works from 8 December 2022 to 15 March 2024.

Ventilation and the MVHR system

As with the damp and mould we have not seen that the resident informed the landlord that the MVHR was not working or that it needed repairs before 8 December 2022.
In the landlord’s attendance on 14 December 2022 it recorded that the resident said she had kept the MVHR switched off for the last 6 years due to the noise it made. The landlord said it cleaned out the filters of the MVHR and showed the resident how to do this, as it was her responsibility to clean these in line with the tenancy agreement.
The tenancy agreement states that the resident has an obligation to carry out ‘minor repairs’. In the landlord’s responsive repair policy it states this includes internal decoration and ‘simple DIY jobs’. Though neither document specified whether this included cleaning the MVHR filters the landlord told us it considered it would be the resident’s responsibility to clean these as part of minor repairs under the tenancy agreement.
A tenant has a duty to act in ‘a tenant-like manner’. This means the tenant is required to keep the property reasonably clean and carry out minor works and maintenance around the property. From this the Ombudsman’s opinion is that the landlord’s position that the resident was responsible for cleaning the MVHR filters was reasonable.
In the damp and mould survey on 3 March 2023, though the landlord’s contractor did not inspect the ventilation flues in the property, they did inspect the MVHR system itself. The contractor noted the resident’s concerns that the MVHR may be distributing black mould around the property. The contractor recommended the landlord carry out an extensive service of the MVHR and create a future maintenance plan for it. As described previously the landlord did not receive the survey report until around 4 June 2023, significantly after the expected timescale of within 30 days of the survey. On 4 June 2023 it made a repair request for the MVHR to be serviced. As already set out above, there was a delay in the landlord receiving the report. This in turn, delayed it addressing the ventilation issues in the property.
As set out above, the specialist surveyor inspected on 21 June 2023. In relation to the MVHR the landlord’s surveyor recorded that the MVHR unit required an extensive service and its manufacturers were no longer trading. On that basis, it would be economical to fully replace the current MVHR with a modern system. The surveyor noted this would be a disruptive and intrusive repair.
The landlord completed its surveyor’s recommended repairs to completely replace the MVHR and ventilation on or around 15 March 2024. This was whilst the resident was temporarily rehoused. On 19 March 2024 the landlord reiterated to the resident that when she returned to the property she would have to keep the MVHR system running at all times to adequately ventilate the property and prevent mould from returning.
Taken together there was an unreasonable delay in identifying the problems with the MVHR and replacing it.

The resident’s request to be temporarily rehoused

From the available records the resident first asked to be temporarily rehoused for the period of the works on 8 June 2023 in her request to escalate her complaint.
On 17 June 2023 and 20 June 2023 the resident texted a manager at the landlord and asked about being temporarily moved from the property. On 22 June 2023 the landlord responded as follows:
1. the landlord said it would contact her regarding its specialist surveyor’s report and her stage 2 complaint
2. it did not consider that a temporary or permanent move was necessary
3. if the resident wanted to be rehoused, then there were alternatives open to her in terms of:
  1. registering on its website to express interest on a first-come-first-served basis for other available properties the landlord owned
  2. a mutual exchange
  3. privately renting
The landlord’s complaint handler also contacted the resident on 22 June 2023 and explained:
1. the resident stated she no longer required a temporary move as she was visiting family abroad for 2 weeks
2. it would consider reimbursing the resident’s flight costs as a goodwill gesture
In line with its ‘decanting customers’ policy, the landlord would be expected to consider temporary accommodation where repair works would render the property uninhabitable. At the time of the resident’s initial requests in June 2023 it was not apparent that intrusive repairs would be necessary to address the damp and mould in the property – although it should have been, had a full and proper survey been completed. The landlord was notified of the extensive works in the second survey of 21 June 2023, due to the need to remove the ceilings from the property in order to remove and replace the ventilation ducts and flues. At this time, the landlord was on notice that the ducts could have been spreading mould throughout the property. It therefore ought to have considered the request for temporary accommodation at this time and failed to.
The landlord did act reasonably in offering to contribute to travel costs, whilst the resident was away.
On 5 July 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and explained that from its surveyor’s recommendations, it was planning to fully replace the MVHR and ventilation which would be intrusive repairs. It stated it had made a referral to its internal support team to assist the resident with temporary accommodation when she returned from visiting her relatives. The records state that the resident was in temporary accommodation from at least mid-July 2024. This was appropriate, albeit delayed. There is also evidence on file to suggest that the landlord had to source accommodation that allowed pets.
The resident also complained to this service that the landlord delayed moving her belongings from the property. The landlord’s ‘decanting customers’ policy does not specify in what circumstances a resident’s property will be moved out of the property or if the landlord accepts any responsibility to arrange this.
From the available records the resident ask for her belongings to be moved into storage on 11 August 2023. The landlord responded to this on 16 August 2023 and stated it would assess if her furniture and belongings could be protected in the property during the works or whether they need to be removed. The landlord made arrangements for the resident’s property to be moved into storage on 22 September 2023. The landlord said the resident was preventing its staff from having reasonable access to the property so it could not complete the works or assess whether it could protect her belongings. The Ombudsman cannot hold the landlord responsible for this.
The evidence indicates the landlord states the property was ready by 24 March 2024.

The landlord’s redress

In summary the Ombudsman has seen evidence of failings by the landlord in its handling of the repairs in that:
1. there is no evidence the landlord completed a mould wash in December 2022, as it said it did.
2. the landlord took 76 days, following the initial inspection on 14 December 2022, to arrange a damp and mould survey.
3. there is no evidence of what the landlord instructed its external contractor to inspect as part of the damp and mould survey carried out in March 2023 or that it discussed this with the resident
4. the landlord did not correctly carry out the mould wash on 29 March 2023. It also did not arrange a further mould wash to remedy this.
5. there was no evidence of what the landlord did to chase up the damp and mould survey report from its external contractor after it exceeded the expected timescale for providing this. This resulted in the landlord not taking action on the recommendations for addressing the damp and mould or servicing the MVHR until 93 calendar days after the survey was completed.
6. As a result of these failings it took the landlord around 6 months from the resident’s first report of damp and mould to identify the cause of this in its specialist survey on 21 June 2023.
7. the landlord arranged a follow-up mould report in June 2023, it did not confirm it would rehouse the resident temporarily until 5 July 2023. It did reasonably agree to contribute to the resident’s travel costs during that period.
8. the landlord took from July 2023 until March 2024 to complete the repairs and it is not evident that it ought to have taken 8 months to have completed the works.
The resident described that she was living in a property with recurring damp and mould during this period which prevented her from enjoying the property and caused damage to the internal decorations. Whilst we cannot comment on the resident’s claims that the damp and mould caused an injury to her, our view is that this would have adversely impacted her in terms of distress and inconvenience.
The landlord accepted in its responses to the complaint there were delays in arranging the first damp and mould survey and in obtaining the findings of this. It also acknowledged that the mould wash was carried out incorrectly. As a remedy, the landlord offered the resident a total of £3,475.12 which included £2,332.20 as a 50% rent deduction during the decant. The landlord also redecorated the property following the repairs.
The landlord’s decision to both provide the resident with alternative accommodation and to provide the resident with a 50% rent reduction was not something it was required to do in line with its decanting customers policy. This went beyond what the Ombudsman would have expected, as the resident was offered suitable alternative accommodation during that period and a reduction in her rent.
Usually the Ombudsman would order compensation to be paid where there had been errors by the landlord, which had caused a significant impact on the resident. An indicative award made by the Ombudsman would be around £3,477.26, made up as follows:
1. 75% of the rent paid, (based on the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s average rent statistics) from 8 December 2022 until 5 July 2023 – for the delays and errors in having to live in a home affected by damp and mould.
2. Then compensation based on 10% of the rent paid until 24 March 2024 when the property could be relet. This would recognise that there was still some delay during the period the resident remained away from home until she could move home. Nevertheless, the landlord was not responsible for all delays during this period and it still provided the resident with safe and secure accommodation and storage for the resident’s household goods. That would be fair.
The calculation would be:

8 December 2023 to 5 July 2023 = 30 weeks

75% of £132.72 multiplied by 30 weeks = £2,986.20

10% of £132.72 multiplied by 37 weeks = £491.06

Total: £3,477.26

This means that the landlord’s offer of compensation of £3,475.12 made by the landlord was of the type of award the Ombudsman would make and was therefore appropriate to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
It is for these reasons that the Ombudsman has concluded there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the repairs. Had the Ombudsman considered this case it is likely we would not have awarded compensation to the resident to reduce her rent during the decant, in line with our guidance on remedies. As such the landlord’s offer of compensation to address the impact its failings had on the resident would likely have been higher than an award that would have been made by this service.

The landlord’s complaint handling

During the period of this complaint, the landlord had a 3-stage complaint procedure. Its policy stated that it would respond:
1. at stage 1 within 10 working days of the complaint being made.
2. at stage 2 within 20 working days of the customer escalating the complaint.
3. at stage 3 the customer had the option of referring the complaint to the Independent Complaints Panel or to this service directly. The policy does not specify any timescales for how quickly the Independent Complaints Panel should respond to the complaint.
The resident made her initial complaint on 13 December 2022. From the available records the landlord did not acknowledge this complaint until 28 February 2023, we have not seen any explanation for this delay. This was inappropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 24 March 2023, as it did not have the results of the damp and mould survey by that time, it told her it would write to her again with an offer of compensation. Due to a lack of adequate records, it is not clear what information it gave the resident until it issued its second stage 1 response on 7 June 2023. In total the landlord took 119 working days to complete stage 1 of its complaint process following the resident’s initial complaint. This was a significant failure by the landlord as it greatly exceeded the timescales set out in its policy and the Code.
The resident escalated her complaint on 8 June 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 October 2023, 99 working days later. This was a failure by the landlord.
The Code at the time of the events complained about (version published March 2022) permitted a landlord to have a stage 3 to its complaints process only if the resident actively requested a third stage review. In this case, the landlord’s stage 2 response made it clear that referring the case to its Independent Complaints Panel was optional. The resident actively requested the Independent Complaints Panel consider her complaint.
As set out previously the landlord’s policy does not specify how long the Independent Complaints Panel would take to complete its consideration of a complaint. In line with our Code at the time though we expected that landlords must respond to stage 3 of a complaint within 20 working days of the resident escalating the complaint. In this case the landlord’s Independent Complaints Panel issued its response on 15 April 2024, 105 working days after the resident escalated her complaint to it.
In summary, there was maladministration by the landlord’s complaint handling as there were significant delays in it acknowledging the original complaint and responding at each stage of its complaint process. Though the landlord provided redress for the substantive repair issue it did not acknowledge its failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint or attempt to put this issue right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of reports of damp and mould at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 41.a of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has not investigated the following complaints as there is no evidence they have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure:

The landlord’s handling of:

a rent review in February 2024.
lost or stolen personal possessions whilst they were in storage.
a managed move application.
further and additional repairs to the property and common parts.

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of this determination:
1. issue the resident with a written apology to recognise the landlord’s delays in handling her complaint and the impact this had on the resident
2. pay the resident an additional £200 in recognition of the time and trouble of pursuing a complaint and the frustration caused by the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling
3. provide this service with evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident the £3,475.12 it offered during the complaint procedure for its handling of the repairs if it has not already done so.