Sanctuary Housing Association (202103455)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103455

Sanctuary Housing Association

1 August 2021

Our Approach

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

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

The Complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

Repairs to address the damp and mould at the resident’s property.
The resident’s complaint.

Background and Summary of Events

Scope

The resident has referred to issues with damp and mould in the property over the past six years (beginning around 2015). However, the formal complaint brought to the Ombudsman was not raised until May 2021. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred.

As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. As a result, when a landlord has refused to consider historic issues in accordance with its complaints procedure (as is the case here), this Service’s investigations are limited to events which occurred in the six months preceding the formal complaint being made. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.

Therefore, this Service will not comment on the landlord’s actions, or the handling of the repairs, before mid-2019.

Summary of events

In August 2019, the resident reported damp in the property. The landlord arranged for an inspection to take place by its surveyor, who then arranged for an insulation inspection to take place, as well as a damp survey.

The landlord also arranged for a contractor to look at the resident’s broken extractor fan in the bathroom. It was noted in October 2019 that a new fan was needed, as the existing one had tripped out because of the amount of condensation in the room.

The insulation inspection was done on 29 October 2019 and it was found that the cavity wall insulation and loft insulation were in good condition, though it was thought the property would benefit from improved natural ventilation.

On 30 October 2019, the damp survey took place. The contractor noted the bathroom extractor did not work, and the resident had reported water dripping from it. They said the extractor vent ran parallel to the ceiling and had a slight drop back towards the extractor and was not well insulated, so they suspected the pipe was acting as a condenser. They also thought there were un-insulated air pockets above certain areas of the ceiling, resulting in mould formation. Finally, they said there were no damp issues detected that could be attributed to the mould problem, and that elevated humidity and inconsistent heating along with poorly fitted insulation appeared to be responsible. They could not measure the humidity as the resident’s windows were wide open. They recommended the vent pipe for the bathroom extractor did not tilt towards it, and that the vent pipe should be insulated by being wrapped in insulation. Also, the faulty extractor should be replaced, the loft insulation removed and relayed, and that debris between the garden wall and the property be removed.

On 19 November 2019, the resident complained to the landlord about extensive mould issues in her property. She said she had been promised things that had not happened, and had contacted Environmental Health. The landlord acknowledged the complaint, and there was some further correspondence between the parties about the matter. The landlord asked the resident for photos of the damp in the property. It chased the resident for the photos several times over the following few months.

The landlord arranged for repairs to take place, in line with the recommendations made under the damp survey report. These were completed by 21 November 2019, with the exception of the removal of the debris.

In early January 2020, the landlord’s housing manager and the resident’s Councillor had a meeting. The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 January 2020 and advised her that its contractor thought it needed to accurately record moisture levels in the property. It asked the resident to provide access to a third-party company that would install moisture monitoring equipment. It said it could then assess the appropriate course of action. It also said the matter of drying clothes inside the property had been raised, and so it offered to supply and install a rotary clothesline in the garden. It asked the resident to let it know if she wanted to accept this.

The landlord received the photos of the damp on 16 January 2020. It also received confirmation from the area housing manager that moisture data-logging equipment ought to be installed in the property. The landlord booked this in for 14 February 2020.

On 28 January 2020, environment health provided a report. This said there were a number of deficiencies relating to damp and mould at the property. They said there was evidence of condensation and associated mould growth, most noticeably in the bedsitting room on and around the windows, at low height in the front left-hand and rear right-hand corners, and the top of the left-hand side wall and the ceiling edges. There were also some issues with radiators, and said the bathroom did not have any natural ventilation. They made various recommendations, including for the mould to be cleaned, the cavity wall insulation to be checked, repair of a window that did not close properly, repair a radiator that was not working, check the bathroom extractor was working efficiently, and check the feasibility of reinstating internal doors.

Meanwhile, on 3 February 2020, the resident called the landlord to say that maggots were dripping through her extractor fan, and that water was also coming through. The landlord arranged for a plumber to attend. The resident thought the problem was all connected to the damp in her property. It was confirmed on 6 February 2020 that the extractor fan needed replacing.

On 4 February 2020, the landlord advised the resident it would attend on 7 February 2020 to remove the debris from the exterior of the property, and asked her to keep the gate unlocked that day. Unfortunately, the resident did not do so, and therefore the landlord’s contractor could not gain access to remove the debris.

The landlord arranged for its surveyor to carry out an inspection. He attended the property in early February 2020, and advised the following works were required:
1. New bathroom fan – he noted a job had been raised for this.
2. He would request quotes from its contractor to remove the unused roof vent pipe.
3. He would arrange for the vent contractor to look at the issues in the property and consider the possibility of installing a negative pressure ventilation system.
4. He would raise a repair job to balance the radiators.
5. He would raise a repair job to check the window seals and renew where necessary.

The landlord arranged for a new extractor fan to be installed on 4 March 2020, however this appointment was not able to go ahead. The landlord then arranged for the contractor to attend on 26 March 2020 however this too was unable to go ahead due to the lockdown restrictions imposed by the UK government due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The landlord had also arranged an appointment to remove the debris from the exterior of the property in March 2020 which was also cancelled. The landlord confirmed with its housing officer that none of the repairs were considered to be an emergency, and it was noted that the resident had a humidifier in the property, which it had dropped off to her on 30 March 2020.

After the lockdown restrictions had lifted, the landlord arranged for a contractor to fit a new extractor fan on 22 July 2020. However, the landlord was not sure if there were any outstanding repairs, and so it tried to contact the resident on four occasions to establish that all the outstanding repairs were complete, but was unable to reach her.

On 11 August 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to advise it had been trying to contact her to establish that all the work had been completed, and to offer her £100 as a goodwill gesture for the inconvenience.

The resident advised the landlord the following day that there were some outstanding works. She also added that she had a carpet and sofa which were mouldy and needed replacing. The landlord established that the outstanding works related to the clearance of debris from the rear of the property, and the removal of the flue from the roof and the sealing of the void or vent that it led to. The landlord raised a job to have the debris removed, and contacted the housing manager to find out why the flue needed to be removed.

Then on 14 August 2020, the resident told the landlord that the mould had destroyed two sofas, two carpets, two beds, and three rugs, as well as some shelving. The landlord responded and asked her to send it photos.

When the landlord did not receive the photos, it emailed the resident on 4 September 2020 and asked her to send it the photos, or she could accept the £100 compensation it had offered as a goodwill gesture. The resident responded to say she would send it the photos as soon as possible, but she was unwell. She said the £100 compensation was not enough to cover all the damage created by the mould, and she wanted more than that to cover the cost of her sofa, curtains, rug and carpet.

On 9 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord’s housing manager to say a contractor attended the previous month to look at the window seals, but did not have the right materials to carry out the repair. She said this had been booked in again for 22 October 2020, but she thought this appointment was too late.

The landlord continued to chase the resident for photos of the damaged items in her property. On 14 September 2020, the landlord’s surveyor sent an internal email to confirm that it was not responsible for the issues with the windows, as this was down to a lack of adequate heating and ventilation. He further explained the ventilation issue was exacerbated by the failing bathroom fan and subsequent delay in replacement, and an incorrectly sited vent pipe.

On 6 November 2020, the landlord’s surveyor advised that he had asked a contractor to price up the removal of the flue/vent, but had still not had a response. He chased this with the contractor, and was advised that they had attended a few times but were unable to access the property as the resident had not been home.

On 14 December 2020, the landlord provided its initial response to the complaint. It said that all works had been completed, and it apologised for the issues the resident had experienced, and the delays with works being carried out. It said this was due to the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdowns being in place. It said if she still wished to send it photos of damaged items, to please do so within 10 working days. However, in light of the time, trouble and inconvenience she had experienced, it offered her £550 compensation. It said this was broken down as £400 for time and trouble, and £150 for the length of time the complaint had been open.

The resident responded later that day. She said the works had not been completed at the property, and she wanted to discuss the amount she could receive to cover all her expenses, including the carpet, curtains, rugs and her sofa. She asked to keep the complaint open.

The landlord spoke with the resident about the matter, and she advised it that she wanted £3,000 in compensation.

On 27 January 2021, the landlord provided a further complaint response. It said:
1. After the resident reported damp in August 2019, it arranged for a contractor to attend. They requested a surveyor attend to establish the cause of the damp.
1. It therefore arranged for its surveyor to attend in September 2019. The surveyor noted there had been mould previously in the property, but did not think there was an issue, as the resident had kept the mould under control. Given the resident’s concerns about the loft insulation and external walls being cold however, he arranged for an energy contractor to inspect the property.
2. After the resident advised that the mould had got worse, the surveyor reattended in October 2019. The surveyor accepted that the mould had become worse, and arranged for a damp survey to take place. This was done by a specialist contractor on 30 October 2019. They concluded – there were no damp issues detected that could be attributed to the mould problem; elevated humidity and inconsistent heating, along with poorly fitted insulation, appeared to be responsible for the mould; they could not measure the building’s humidity as the windows were wide open. They said that if the resident routinely had the windows wide open when it was cold outside, this could be detrimental, preventing effective heating of the building and should not be necessary if the fixed ventilation was used correctly.
3. The energy contractor carried out an inspection on 29 October 2019 and said – The cavity walls were insulated with polystyrene beans which were in good condition; the log had 300mm of insulation in good condition; there were some items being stored next to the external walls which should be moved away for good practice; and the insulation levels were acceptable, but they thought the property would benefit from improved natural ventilation to reduce the moisture.
4. The landlord’s surveyor arranged for the loft pipe to be repositioned to fall away from the unit; had old insulation in the loft removed and new insulation relayed; arranged for the vent pipe to the loft to be wrapped to stop condensation forming; and the bathroom extractor fan was replaced. These works were completed on 21 November 2019.
5. Then on 22 November 2019, an order was raised for data logging equipment to be installed and, although attempts were made to arrange an appointment with the resident, these were unsuccessful.
6. After meeting with the resident’s Councillor in January 2020, it offered to install a rotary clothesline.
7. It said its contractor had made many attempts to arrange an appointment to install the data monitoring equipment, but had been unsuccessful.
8. Its surveyor attended the property in February 2020 to complete a further inspection, and raised an order for a new fan to be installed, which was completed 22 July 2020. He also asked a ventilation contractor to carry out an assessment for possible installation of a unit to assist with ventilation, and this was installed on 22 July 2020. The gas team attended on 13 July to balance the radiators but could not access the property. Finally, the window seals were checked on 20 July 2020, though as the resident raised further concerns about this, the windows were adjusted on 22 October 2020.
9. On 18 March 2020, it was only able to provide emergency repairs due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which resulted in the repairs being completed outside of its published timescales.
10. All works relating to the damp had been completed, though it noted the resident disputed this. It said that if she wanted the data logging equipment to be installed, she should contact its repairs centre to arrange this.
11. It accepted that the time taken to initially attend, receive reports and complete the recommended works took longer than it would expect. It said delays were then impacted by a lack of access to the property and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. It apologised for the delays, but thought the £550 compensation already offered had been appropriate. It said the maximum amount under its compensation policy had already been offered.
12. Although the resident wanted to claim for a number of damaged items, it had not received any evidence to supports those claims, despite requesting this evidence multiple times. Therefore, it would not consider compensation for this.

The resident asked for additional time to provide her response, which the landlord agreed to.

On 2 March 2021, the landlord’s surveyor noted they were not any further forward with the installation of the data-logging equipment to monitor the heating and ventilation in the resident’s property. He noted that this was because the resident had not engaged with the landlord in respect of the installation.

The resident provided her response to the landlord on 25 March 2021. She made the following points:
1. She said she was asking for compensation as goodwill for the years of frustration, lack of service and support, loss of earnings and health issues. She thought £3,000 compensation was reasonable in the circumstances.
1. Around three to four years earlier, she had been recommended to try various things to deter the mould, but the suggestions did not work. However, it was clear that when the landlord’s surveyor recently attended her property, that things were not right and the landlord needed to resolve the situation with the mould.
2. She said the surveyor’s report did not reflect what they had discussed during the home visit, and the repairs took week to arrange, which caused her more stress.
3. She did not believe her bathroom extractor had been working efficiently in the entire time she had lived at the property, and was concerned that her boiler was also inefficient.
4. She had lost earnings due to needing to be present to allow the landlord’s contractors access to the property.
5. The landlord’s contractors had, on several occasions, tried to put a note through her door to say they had called but she was out, yet she had been in and had to go out and stop them from leaving.
6. She said there were various issues with the property that still needed repairing, including kitchen shelves which were mouldy and bowing, windows in the bedroom/living room that needed replacing, her boiler replaced, back door replaced, night connection looked at due to damp, and a metal pipe and object on her roof removed.
7. The landlord’s contractors would either not show, or would not know why they were attending so did not have the right tools or resources.
8. She had to raise concerns about her bathroom extractor fan for years before she was listened to.
9. Although the landlord had eventually replaced the bathroom vent, this was with a like-for-like replacement and was unable to extract steam from the bathroom. Eventually, the landlord installed one powerful enough to suit the needs of the property, but she said this took lots of appointments and led to loss of earnings.
10. The mould was still continuing.
11. She said it had been six years of “torture” and of feeling like she could not live a normal life.

On 31 March 2021, the landlord sent an internal email which noted that new orders had been raised for heating, a new door and windows. It later advised the resident that there was a six to eight-week lead time for the door and windows.

On 9 April 2021, the landlord received a report from a specialist contractor regarding the vent. They recommended the radiator in front of the pipe be repositioned, and the vent pipe removed before blocking the hole. The landlord approved these works.

The landlord asked its surveyor about the further repairs the resident had raised in her complaint.

On 16 April 2021, the landlord’s surveyor advised the landlord that all the repair issues had been completed, with the exception of the removal of the metal vent on her roof. He confirmed the quote had been sent off for that. He also told the landlord that one of the main issues had been lack of access, which had delayed repair work/inspections considerably. He also said that data-logging equipment had now been installed which monitors the heating and ventilation statistics of the property over a three-month period, which would give them an idea of whether the property was being heated consistently, along with adequate ventilation.

On 27 April 2021, the landlord provided its final response to the complaint. It said:
1. Under its complaints procedure, it was only able to look into issues that had occurred within a six-month period of the resident’s complaint being made.
2. It also clarified that it was only considering the resident’s concerns about mould and damp in the property, and said the gas boiler repair, and removal of vent and door/window replacements did not form part of the complaint.
3. Its surveyor had completed an inspection of the property on 2 September 2019, and no mould or damp was present. Nonetheless, it arranged for a cavity wall insulation survey to take place. After the resident advised that the mould had become worse, its surveyor reattended on 17 October 2019 and requested a specialist damp survey take place.
4. On 29 October 2019, the damp specialist carried out an inspection. Then on 30 October 2019, the cavity wall specialist carried out an inspection. Both companies made some recommendations to the landlord.
5. Those recommendations were completed by the landlord’s contractor on 21 November 2019.
6. From 22 November 2019, its contractor made multiple attempts to fit data logging equipment, but had been unsuccessful.
7. After the resident’s Councillor contacted the landlord, it held a meeting on 11 January 2020 to discuss the resident’s concerns. After this, further attempts were made to arrange the installation of the data logging equipment.
8. On 2 February 2020 the landlord arranged for a further inspection to take place at the property. Following this, it agreed to carry out several repairs.
9. Window seals to be checked. Its contractor attended on 20 July 2020, though further works were raised after the resident reported further issues, and the windows were again adjusted on 22 October 2020.
10. It accepted that the works were not completed in line with its published timescales, though it explained that this was largely due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, which meant it was restricted to only entering properties for emergency repairs.
11. The data logging equipment had been installed, and would be in place for three months.
12. It apologised for the initial time taken for the cavity wall specialist to attend and submit their report, and for the time taken to complete some of the repairs. It said it would raise its findings with the appropriate senior managers in order to improve the level of service provided in the future.
13. Although the resident had raised concerns about many appointments not being attended, it said that without specific information of failures, it was unable to review that further. Though it confirmed it had reviewed its contractor’s records for appointments relating to the damp, and had located one failed appointment.
14. It confirmed it was offering the resident total compensation of £560. It explained this was broken down as £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience, plus £150 for the time taken to resolve the resident’s complaint, plus £10 for its contractor’s failed appointment.

The resident responded to the landlord on 27 April 2021. She said the recent issues did have a past history, and the same issues had applied for the previous six years. She asked to be re-housed. The landlord responded and said it could not consider the historic issues, and it was unable to review a request for a home move as part of the complaints process – though it had forwarded her request to the housing team and ask that they contact her.

After the resident’s MP got in touch with the landlord about the matter, the landlord responded on 10 May 2021. It confirmed that the complaint had been concluded, and that the gas boiler repair, removal of the vent and door/window replacements did not form part of the complaint. It also said that on 4 May 2021, it attended and replaced the rear door, and the outstanding repairs were the replacement windows which had been ordered, and the roof vent – and that its contractor would be in touch with the resident directly about this.

The landlord provided details of the repairs logged to this Service. This showed that the data logging equipment had previously been installed at the property, but the data had been compromised when the landlord provided the resident with a dehumidifier. It also showed that a contractor was due to attend on 2 September 2019 to replace the extractor fan, but could not make that appointment.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s complaints procedure says it operates a two-stage process. A front-line resolution, and then an investigation. It says the front-line resolution response should be provided within 10 working days, though it says there are occasions where this will not be possible, and if that is the case, its staff will inform the resident when the response will be provided. The investigation response should be provided within 20 working days.

The landlord’s complaints procedure also says that it is not appropriate for a complaint to be raised about issues that occurred more than six months previously.

The landlord’s compensation guidance says the landlord will not issue compensation where the resident cannot evidence that they have incurred costs as a direct result of the event. The compensation guidance also says that £10 compensation will be paid for its failure to attend an appointment; payments of up to £400 may be made in recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience of a service failure (with £151-£500 recognising high effort and high impact); and payments of up to £150 for poor complaint handling (with £101-£150 recognising significant difficulties in raising a complaint, delayed response and poor-quality correspondence).

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, and will aim to respond to non-emergency repairs within 28 days.

Assessment and Findings

Repairs to address the damp and mould at the resident’s property.

After the resident reported damp in mid-2019, the landlord took appropriate action by arranging for its surveyor to carry out an inspection. It was determined that the resident was keeping the issue under control. Nonetheless, the surveyor arranged for two inspections to take place by specialist contractors – an insulation inspection, and a damp survey. That was because the resident had raised concerns about the loft insulation, as well as her observation that the external walls were very cold. This was a reasonable response.

After the insulation survey and the damp survey had been carried out, the landlord took on board the recommendations, and took several actions. It arranged for the loft insulation to be removed and new insulation installed; the broken bathroom extractor fan was replaced; and it also arranged for the vent pipe to be wrapped in insulation and also be repositioned. This was done within 28 days, in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, which was appropriate.

The landlord also decided to install moisture monitoring equipment, to help it determine whether there were other steps it needed to take in order to reduce the moisture in the property. Although the resident initially allowed this to be installed, unfortunately, the data was compromised when the landlord provided the resident with a de-humidifier. Though it was appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with a de-humidifier, because it was aware that any non-emergency repairs would be delayed as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. Later on, the landlord wanted to reinstall the moisture monitoring equipment, however the resident was reluctant to agree to this. This caused some delay before the equipment was reinstalled. The landlord was not responsible for this delay.

The landlord had already established (through the damp survey that it had arranged) that there was no damp in the property that it needed to address, and that the mould was due to the high levels of humidity in the property and inconsistent heating. However, it is apparent that the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously about the mould in her property, and was taking appropriate steps to establish what it could to do in order to reduce the mould. It thought the moisture monitoring equipment would assist it in establishing what else it could do, and it also arranged for a ventilation unit to be installed. It also gave the resident advice about drying clothes in the property, and offered to install a clothes line for her in the garden. These were appropriate and proportionate actions in response to the concerns raised by the resident.

The landlord was aware in October 2019 that the resident’s bathroom extractor fan was broken. It arranged for this to be replaced, though unfortunately it then broke again. This was the case from early February 2020. The job was booked for 4 March 2020, which would have been within the landlord’s repairs guidance, but could not go ahead due to the Covid-19 pandemic. As a result, the new extractor fan could not be fitted until 22 July 2020, which was five months after the repair job had been raised. The landlord was not responsible for the delays, but given that it was known the broken extractor fan was contributing to the moisture in the property, it is accepted that this caused the resident inconvenience.

The resident advised the landlord that the mould had damaged some of her contents in the property. The landlord asked the resident on several occasions for photos of the damage, so it could consider compensation for this. Despite this, the resident did not send photos to the landlord, and so the landlord advised the resident in its complaint response that it would not consider compensation where it did not have evidence to support the resident’s claims that her contents had been damaged. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.

The resident told the landlord that its contractor had not attended appointments. The landlord could only find evidence of one occasion where that happened, which is reflected in the information provided to this Service. The landlord offered the resident £10 compensation, which was fair in accordance with its compensation policy for failed appointments.

During the landlord’s complaints process, the resident raised concerns about other repairs, including the back door, and her boiler. These were addressed by the landlord as these had not formed part of the resident’s initial complaints. This was fair. The landlord highlighted this in its complaint response.

Although the resident had told the landlord on several occasions that she thought the vent pipe needed to be removed, the previous reports that the landlord had commissioned did not support that course of action. Recommendations had been made by the damp survey contractor in respect of the vent pipe, and those recommendations were followed by the landlord, which was appropriate. However, in April 2021, a specialist contractor advised the landlord that the vent pipe ought to be removed.

Whilst it is appreciated that the resident would have found it frustrating that it took so long for the landlord to accept that the vent pipe needed to be removed, it was reasonable for it to have relied upon the advice it had previously been given. The landlord suspected in September 2020 that the vent pipe would need to be removed and asked its contractor to provide a quote for this. However, this was not the recommendation it had received from the damp survey. Once it received a recommendation to remove the vent pipe (in April 2021), it agreed to do so, which was appropriate. Though it is noted that whilst the landlord raised the repair job, the job was not completed within 28 days, as per its repairs policy.

The landlord accepted that there had been delays with some of the repairs, and that the repairs took place outside its non-emergency repair timeframe of 28 days. Though it is also the case that the majority of the delays appear to have been caused by the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the resident contributed to some of those delays, by not allowing the landlord to install moisture monitoring equipment for the second time, and not giving the landlord’s contractor access to the garden for it to remove the debris.

Nonetheless, given the impact to the resident of the delays, the landlord offered her £400 compensation for the time and trouble she had been caused. That was the maximum amount of compensation available under the landlord’s compensation policy, which was fair.

In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted the complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress. As the landlord has done so here, no further action is required.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s complaints procedure says that it will aim to provide its front-line resolution within 10 working days. The resident initially complained to the landlord on 19 November 2019, yet it did not provide its front-line resolution response until 14 December 2020, over a year after it had received the complaint.

Although the landlord’s complaints procedure allows it longer than 10 working days in which to respond in full to a complaint, there was no need here for the landlord to delay issuing its response, even though the repairs had not been completed.

The landlord therefore failed to demonstrate effective complaint handling, and it is considered that its delay in responding to the complaint would have caused the resident unnecessary frustration. The landlord accepted this in its response to the resident’s complaint and offered £150 compensation, which was the maximum available to it under its compensation policy. That was appropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, in respect of the landlord’s handling of:
1. repairs to address the damp and mould at the resident’s property; and
1. the resident’s complaint;

the landlord has offered redress which, in the ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord took appropriate action in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. It arranged for suitable investigations to take place, and acted upon the recommendations given to it by the specialists. However, a number of actions were required by the landlord, and some of those were significantly delayed. That was largely due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, though the landlord accepts that the resident was caused inconvenience as a result of that. It therefore offered her £400 compensation for this, which was a reasonable amount. It also accepted that its contractor had missed one appointment with the resident, and so it offered her £10 compensation, in line with its compensation guidance.

Although the resident did not complain about the landlord’s complaint handling, the landlord accepted that it took too long to provide its response to the resident’s complaint. Whilst the landlord may have been trying to be helpful by arranging for the repairs to take place before providing its response to the resident’s complaint, there was no need for it to do so. Given the delays, the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation, which was an appropriate amount to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident by its delay.

Recommendations

The landlord to pay the resident £560 compensation previously offered, as the finding of no maladministration has been made on the basis that this compensation will be paid.