Sanctuary Housing Association (202104706)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104706

Sanctuary Housing Association

1 April 2022

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 response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property and the repair to the front door.
The complaint is about the level of compensation for the resident’s damaged belongings.
The complaint is about the complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident signed the assured short hold tenancy agreement with the landlord in July 2018. The property is a two bedroom flat on the ground floor.

Policies and procedures

Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is obliged to maintain and keep in good working order the structure and outside of the property, outside doors, window frames and sills, drains, gutters, external pipes, internal walls, floors and ceilings, major internal plasterwork, skirting boards, doors, door frames and door jambs and it shall carry out repairs within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord is obliged to keep the property free from mould and damp and fit for human habitation as per the Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘the Homes Act 2018). The landlord is obliged to respond to repairs within a reasonable timescale under the Homes Act 2018 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Under the repair policy:
1. The landlord will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours (attend and make safe) and in a second follow up appointment for remedial works.
2. Appointed repairs will be responded to within 28 days.
3. In unforeseen circumstances, such as those where a specialist contractor is required, the landlord must keep the resident informed and provide updates of when the work will be completed.
4. For damage caused to the resident’s items by the landlord, these will be investigated as a complaint.
Under the ‘detailed procedures’ section within the repair policy:
1. Repairs should be diagnosed as accurately as possible at the time of reporting. If this cannot be done, then a pre-inspection can be carried out within 10 working days of the report.
2. Where there are serious or persistent issues, the record of repair history must be consulted to assist with the diagnosis and avoid wasted effort through unnecessary repeated inspections by a surveyor.
Under the complaint policy, the landlord will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. Where a resident requests compensation, evidence will be requested. Under the compensation guidance:
1. The landlord can offer compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience due to its action or inaction, delayed response to complaints, unreasonable delay in the provision of services, additional costs incurred due to action or inaction, loss of facilities including rooms and where repairs have not been completed within published timescales, or damage to / loss of belongings due to its action or inaction.
2. Its payments for recognition of time trouble and inconvenience are from £50 (low effort and impact) to £400 (high effort and impact). For complaint handling the range is from £50 (low impact) to £150 (high impact).
3. The resident can receive a portion of their rent back for the period that a repair is outstanding (calculated as 20% for bedroom and 30% for bathroom). If more than one room is affected, this offer may be increased to a maximum of 50 percent of the rent.
4. Exemptions to payment of compensation include where events occurred under circumstances beyond the landlord’s control, loss of earnings, personal injury claims in excess of £5000 (which will be handled separately by the landlord’s external insurers) or request for costs during a period of decant.
The tenancy management policy (housing procedure) states that:
1. The need for decant may arise for planned or emergency repairs or refurbishment works.
2. The resident is expected to continue paying their rent for the period that they are away from their home (and rent adjustments from rent discrepancies will be adjusted accordingly).
3. The landlord will inform residents that they must advise the local authority that they have been decanted.
4. The landlord will pay ‘reasonable allowances’ based on the principle that the resident should not be out of pocket as a consequence of the decant.
5. Cost should be paid for at the point of booking or billed directly to the landlord (expenses) or they will need to be claimed by the resident and supported with receipts. The landlord will arrange for transport from their property to emergency accommodation during normal work hours or they may be reimbursed on production of valid receipts.
6. The landlord will contact the resident in writing to confirm the expected completion date for repairs and the date that they must return to their permanent home.
7. After a post work survey, the resident should be contacted within 72 hours of their return to ensure that they have returned to the property and works completed satisfactorily.

Summary of events

The repair records show that in June 2019 there were several repairs raised:
1. The resident telephoned the landlord and reported that he was ‘constantly battling damp and mould’ in the bathroom due to no window or extractor fan (15 June 2019).
2. An inspection was completed within 10 working days (21 June 2019) and the surveyor recommended a new bathroom fan.
3. The front door was warped and to be replaced.
4. The landlord noted required repairs to the kitchen windows (recommended to be replaced with new double glazing).
5. The kitchen fan needed to be addressed (overhauled/cleaned).
The repairs were booked in for June and July, however, the resident reported in July 2019 that the required bathroom extractor fan was not installed. Repair work was carried out to the kitchen fan only (replaced). The front door was also not replaced. The resident reported damp again (18 July 2019).
A further inspection took place within 10 working days. A damp surveyor inspected the property and recorded higher than normal readings on the damp meter, which it attributed to seasonal condensation mould growth. It recommended that the landlord install an extractor fan in the bathroom due to the dated ventilation system and also recommended the resident use a dehumidifier (24 July 2019). The resident told the landlord that he was not happy at the advice given to him by the surveyor, which was that he would have to get new carpets, a dehumidifier and ‘nothing could be done’. He said could not afford to get new carpeting and had a baby due. He felt that the property was unsafe (24 July 2019).
The landlord and resident discussed the repair works in August 2019 and an appointment was booked in for September 2019 and then October 2019. The repairs were not carried out.
Seven months later, in May 2020, the resident contacted the landlord on its social media and complained that the repairs were causing health problems for him and his family (13 May 2020). He reported that the issue had been ongoing for 2 years and his lungs were always burning and it was hard to breath because of the black mould. The resident said he had multiple visits from surveyors and the maintenance team with no resolution and he was left with the cost of cleaning and dehumidifiers. He also reported that his front door was not fire compliant.
In response, the landlord arranged a telephone inspection with its surveyor of the property (20 May 2020). The surveyor spoke with the resident and then it advised the landlord that:
1. There was mould and staining to the walls.
2. There was no extractor fan fitted in the bathroom.
3. The resident had said that operatives turned up but said that there was nothing that they could do (or did not do the repairs). He was ‘very emotionally upset’.
4. The front door was warped and had issues with the lock, there was a concern that it was not fire safety compliant and required replacing.
5. Once lockdown had lifted, the following repairs were recommended: a wall inspection, a new front door and a fan extractor in the bathroom. These were to be carried out after a further physical visit by a surveyor after lockdown, which the resident was advised of.
The resident raised reports about the damp again in June 2020 in a separate discussion with the landlord’s rent team (about his employment status since Covid-19); he said that the property was uninhabitable. The rent team said that it would raise this with the housing officer.
In June and July 2020 the resident chased the landlord for updates. The landlord noted internally that the works had been raised and the resident would be contacted ‘in due course when normal services resume’ (7 July 2020). It did not otherwise update the resident.
Around July 2020 there was a leak in the bathroom. The bathroom leak was reportedly resolved but there remained black mould spots beneath the bath. (This was noted in surveyor reports in August 2020 and July 2021 which considered the background to the resident’s reports. The surveyor noted that there was no working ventilation in the bathroom. The bath leak is not within the scope of this investigation, however, it is referenced here as part of background).
On 18 August 2020 the resident contacted the landlord and expressed his unhappiness at how long he had been left with mould in the property. He iterated formerly made reports about his health and the lack of support which he felt from the landlord. A manager called the resident back the same day and said it would book a physical inspection.
On 20 August 2020 the surveyor provided its feedback to the landlord following a physical damp inspection. The surveyor identified repair issues which had elevated the moisture in the property (such as a bath leak which caused damp to the subfloor) and noted that the use of a dehumidifier had improved condensation, but there remained a positive damp reading on an internal wall and so it recommended a series of repairs.
In August and October 2020 there were unsuccessful repair attempts by the contractors. The job was passed from one contractor to another and each confirmed that they could not carry out the kind of work required. The records are unclear about the exact repairs that were missed (they reference the extractor). As far as this investigation is concerned there is no evidence that the required repairs which had been identified by the surveyors were completed.
In October 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s concern about the possibility of asbestos in the walls (7 October 2020). Some work was carried out to isolate part of the property due to asbestos concerns (12 October 2020) and the contractor flagged concerns over the resident’s welfare and his exposure to asbestos (13 October 2020). The resident was to be decanted on 14 October 2020 to a hotel while the landlord investigated the asbestos. The asbestos concerns and the landlord’s response were not considered under the landlord’s complaint process. These events are referenced here to give background and set out what happened in the process of the damp repairs.
Throughout October and November 2020 there were multiple surveys and inspections with the asbestos contractors and the damp surveyors. There were three inspections in total for the asbestos; the landlord considered that there were no risks but carried out a third inspection following varied results and the resident’s concerns. Plastering works were approved following these in January 2021; the evidence suggests this was in connection to asbestos related works rather than damp repairs.
In relation to the damp and mould work, on 19 November 2020 there was an urgent work order requested by the surveyor per its original recommendation of 2019. The works were raised on 15 December 2020. The resident was advised that there was no danger of asbestos so he could return to the property and other damp works would be raised once quotes were approved (19 November 2020).
The resident disputed that it was safe to return (he explained his family’s health had improved since leaving the property) and also explained that he had moved due to the damp related repairs, which had not been completed. The landlord considered the move was due to the asbestos investigation. There was a misunderstanding about the purpose of the decant and the scope of the works which would be carried out during the decant.
The resident remained in the decant property (hotel) through to March 2021. The landlord paid for the relevant costs of accommodation, food and fuel. The evidence seen shows that the decant team was in contact with the resident in December 2020 to update him about delays to the repairs and to ask if he was happy to extend his stay.
A further damp survey was carried out on 18 February 2021 but the surveyor noted that it was ‘highly restricted’. The surveyor explored the possibility of contributors to the damp elsewhere in the property (eg the bin store due to the damp timbers) but did not inspect these due to access restrictions. It said that condensation issues (which were identified as present in the property) could be masking signs of rising or penetrating dampness, and there was condensation and a lack of working ventilation in the bathroom and toilet.

Formal complaint escalation and outstanding repairs

Towards the end of February 2021, the landlord received a press enquiry asking for its comments in respect of the resident’s situation. The landlord decided to log this as a complaint. The newspaper asked the landlord for comments on a list of issues, including those relevant to this investigation (damp and the front door).
The landlord emailed the resident directly with an acknowledgement of the complaint. The email contained reference to its limitation on non-urgent repairs due to the pandemic.
The landlord and resident exchanged further correspondence in March and April 2021 about compensation and outstanding repairs still left to do before the stage one response was issued.
In terms of the repairs and the resident’s further concerns:
1. The inspector identified snagging repairs following work which had been carried out earlier in the year and escalated these (3 March 2021).
2. The resident was told that the works and cleaning were due to be completed, following this furniture would be restored from storage (8 March 2021). The resident was happy to return (16 March 2021).
3. On his return, the resident told the landlord that there was still a list of outstanding repairs (to the extractor fan in the kitchen and fan in the bathroom, the front door replacement, the kitchen windows 1 April 2021). The landlord told the resident that it was chasing the door replacement.
4. The resident also raised concern about damage to his belongings (17 March 2021). The landlord said that it would consider these as part of its compensation review. Following further comments about this, the landlord asked the resident to send a list of items for it to consider.
5. The resident reported damage from items left in the property with mould during the decant and also from the handling of his items by the removal company. These were a king size, a single and a cot mattress, a single bed frame, two triple wardrobes and the bedroom carpet. He reported damage from the removal process to two televisions, white goods (tumble dryer) and a laptop (1 April 2021).
6. The resident told the landlord that he and his family were sleeping on the floor due to the damaged mattresses (29 March 2021) and the landlord arranged for an interim payment for the mattresses and bed base, so that the resident’s sleep would not be further disrupted while waiting on the complaint resolution (7-13 April 2021). The landlord explained that its offer of £900 for the mattress and bed frame was calculated based on its research online into the items and the lack of original proof of purchases, this payment was accepted.
7. The resident also told the landlord that he wanted compensation for the council tax charges during the decant period of 14 October 2020 – 17 March 2021.
8. The resident detailed the impact on him and said that he wanted compensation for the ‘neglect, delays, exposure, stress and mental health issues’ and being left in a hotel room for 6 months.
The landlord investigated the resident’s claims with the removal company and its other teams.
1. The landlord was advised that the wardrobes and carpets could be professionally cleaned.
2. It exchanged correspondence with the removals company about the resident’s claims (17 March 2021 and 30 April 2021).
  1. The 65 inch television had been replaced by the removal team but the new television had scratches reported 1 week later by the resident. The supplier had offered to take this back but there was no packaging and so it was refused, it was also refused due to the time passed without the damage reported.
  2. The 43 inch tv was initially advised to be faulty by the resident and not damaged, this has since been said to be damaged and there was insufficient evidence.
  3. The removal company said that the laptop was packaged by the resident and at no point had the packaging been removed.
  4. The dryer was already marked as stated in the inventory.
  5. The sofa (which the resident had also reported) was recorded as soiled in the inventory but no rips were recorded. There was a 2 cm rip and the removal team said that the damage was not consistent with transit damage. The landlord said that due to the circumstances it would look to cover the repair.

Stage one response

On 30 April 2021 the landlord emailed the resident its stage one response. It acknowledged that following the resident’s decant while works were carried out, there was a complaint on his return about damage to his belongings. The stage one response offered the resident the following:
1. Total compensation £1216 (not including the £900 already paid) comprised of:
  1. Damaged items (sofa repair £75, carpet cleaning £150, wardrobe £125)
  2. Impact of living in the property with mould (£400)
  3. 20% rent for this period (£466)

Complaint escalation

The resident was dissatisfied with the stage one response. He contacted the landlord and asked for a call back from a manager as he would be meeting his solicitor (30 April 2021). The resident said that he spent 6 months in hotels, the landlord was not compensating him for his belongings (tumble drier, laptop and television replacement), he experienced loss of employment, ill health and stress due to mould and asbestos in the property (11 May 2021) and he felt that ten to fifteen thousand pounds was more appropriate for the issues that he faced. The investigating officer called the resident and directed him on its process, it explained that it would respond to his complaint by 3 June 2021 (12 May 2021).

Stage two response

On 2 June 2021 the landlord issued its stage two final response:
1. It said that under the complaint policy it could only investigate issues which occurred 6 months prior to the complaint being logged. Previous incidents would not be considered unless directly related to the complaint. It therefore considered the investigation from 1 May 2020.
2. The landlord called the resident on the 20 May 2020 following his reports and recommend a visit to inspect the door, extractor fan, install a bathroom fan and inspect the wall. This was to be carried out once restrictions eased.
3. The resident was decanted between 14 October 2020 – 16 March 2021.
4. Additional delays occurred to the door replacement, this was completed 11 May 2021.
5. It found that there were delays due to the pandemic and then due to additional works required following the decant.
6. It acknowledged that its communication with the resident could have been improved. The landlord apologised for the delay and serious inconvenience caused to the resident in resolving the repairs.
7. It revised and increased its compensation to £1550 (from its original offer of £1216). This was in addition to the £900 accepted for the mattress and bed frame earlier. It explained why it would not compensate the resident further for his damaged items. The landlord’s new offer was broken down as follows:
  1. Nil for laptop as this was packed by the resident and there was no evidence to show that this was damaged by the removal company.
  2. Nil for the tumble drier as the removal company inventory stated that this was marked prior to the move.
  3. Nil for the 43-inch television as this was originally reported as faulty rather than damaged and there was a lack of evidence to support the claim.
  4. Nil for the 65-inch television as this had already been replaced by the removal company and then subsequent damage to the replacement had not been reported immediately and the packaging was disposed of (per the supplier).
  5. £75 was sufficient for the sofa damage as the damage reported to the sofa was inconsistent with transit damage according to the removal company. The landlord viewed the photograph and felt that the offer was appropriate for the repair.
  6. £150 was sufficient for the carpet as the surveyor advised that the carpets could be professionally cleaned.
  7. £125 to replace a wardrobe which was reported as damaged due to mould and damp in the property.
  8. £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
  9. £100 for the complaint handling delay.
  10. £700 as 30% rent reimbursement for period prior to the decant (1 May 2020 – 14 October 2020 167 days).
Following the final response, the resident remained dissatisfied. He explained that the landlord had not called him to talk about the issues and he had been offered more compensation than the amount stated in the final response (£150 for the sofa). He had not been compensated for exposure to asbestos and mould and the landlord missed out issues such as sleeping on the floor for month and the items broken by the removal company (3 – 8 June 2021).
The landlord’s investigating officer offered to review and respond to the resident’s outstanding concerns, however, the resident said he wanted the matter to be passed to a manager. The investigating officer explained why it would be appropriate for them to respond to any queries and review anything in the final response. The resident did not engage further but later reported further repairs to the landlord. At one stage it appears that the matter was referred to his solicitor.
In terms of the repairs, the evidence shows that the resident continued to report mould and damp later in June 2021 in his child’s bedroom under the floor (which he took up to lay laminate down), in the master bedroom, underneath the bath and a damp patch on a wall (19 June 2021). The landlord noted that these repairs should have been completed before the resident returned from the decant and it arranged further inspections in response to the reports rising again. The landlord recorded that the damp had ‘returned’, but it is not clear if the original repairs were completed. There has been a consistent issue identified with the ventilation in the property. In October 2021 the landlord received an email from the resident/his legal representative about a list of wider issues that included the damp. The resident was unavailable to comment on whether there has since been legal action but there is no evidence of this from the case file.

Assessment and finding

Repairs

The resident reported the damp and mould in June 2019 and the landlord identified works following an inspection to diagnose the repair within a reasonable timeframe (10 working days). However, the works were not then completed within a reasonable timescale following the inspection and diagnosis (28 days or by the agreed appointment time). The works were due in July 2019 but remained outstanding. Therefore, the landlord did not carry out the repairs as within an appropriate timescale.
The landlord failed to carry out the required repairs to the property in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and in accordance with the findings of its inspections for just under 2 years. This was not in accordance with its repairing obligations.
Similarly, the door replacement was also raised in 2019 but not completed until May 2021. A delay of nearly two years. This was not appropriate.
Although it is acknowledged that the pandemic played a part in the delays to the landlord’s repair services during national lock downs, the landlord was still able to carry out its repair service at other times. Given that the resident had already complained for a year before the pandemic, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to appropriately prioritise any remedial work to the resident’s property.
There were delays to the damp repairs around October and November 2020 due to the investigations into asbestos. The repair policy takes this into account and allows for the standard timescale for repairs to vary if it is referred to a specialist contractor. However, the landlord failed to carry out the relevant damp repairs once it had completed its asbestos related investigations. Although it did raise an urgent repair for December 2020 it did not carry out the damp repairs within its published timescale as these remained outstanding at the point where the resident returned to the property in March 2021.
There was a lack of clarity in the communication with the resident and in respect of the repairs which were to be completed during the decant. The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations reasonably.
There were multiple inspections and a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the landlord followed its repair procedure which states that: where there are serious or persistent issues, the record of repair history must be consulted to assist with the diagnosis and avoid wasted effort through repeated inspections by a surveyor. This did not happen. Instead, the same recommended works seen in multiple surveyor reports indicate that there were duplicated efforts and protracted diagnoses of the issues by the landlord. The landlord did not assess or identify this in assessing its response to the repairs under the complaint process.
At the close of the complaint in June 2021 it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide details of the repairs that it completed and to also include an acknowledgment of how long these took to the resident in the complaint response. The evidence suggests that there remained mould and damp in the property, as the resident had removed the flooring and identified this in June 2021. However, the actions after the date of the final response are not within the scope of this assessment.

Compensation

The resident sought compensation for the exposure to the asbestos and the damp and mould, as well as the impact of the overall delays and decant on his mental and physical health. This service is unable to assess or decide on any claimed decline of mental or physical health or personal injury as a result of the landlord’s actions or inactions. The resident may seek independent legal advice about this as such matters are more appropriately decided by the courts or a personal injury claim.
The landlord appropriately awarded compensation on the grounds of loss of room prior to the decant period, however, there was an error in its calculation of the start date and the affected rooms:
1. It calculated this as 30% of the rent for the period of 1 May 2020 – 14 October 2020. The repairs were reported and inspected in June 2019. They were originally scheduled for July 2019. The landlord calculated the compensation from May 2020, rather than from July 2019, which is not correct.
2. The evidence suggests that there was damp on an internal wall inside of the property and this affected more than one room, so the percentage should have been calculated as 50% of the rent rather than 30% as per its policy (as set out in the background section of this report).
The landlord provided relevant invoices documenting its payments from 14 October 2020 – 18 March 2021 for food, hotel stay and fuel. This was appropriate. It was in line with its policy to cover such costs during the decant by offering a ‘reasonable allowance’.
The resident also sought compensation for the council tax payment during the decant period. The landlord did not respond to this point under its complaint process, which would have been reasonable to do so. The resident experienced time and trouble.
The landlord offered compensation at the highest end of its guidance for time, trouble and inconvenience (£400) which was resolution focused. However, given the further failures identified by the Ombudsman, the redress is not proportional to the entirety of the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced. He was living with damp conditions for an unreasonable length of time before the decant. He had multiple surveyors and inspections with repeated and identical findings which then remained unaddressed. The resident and his family had to adapt to the changes and disruptions in their circumstances and when they were decanted they returned to find that the repairs they had expected were not carried out; nor had the resident been communicated with reasonably about the works.

The complaint is about the level of compensation for the resident’s damaged belongings.

In respect of the damaged items, the Ombudsman cannot operate in the same way as a court does and cannot make binding decisions on matters such as liability or payment for damages. The Ombudsman can consider the resident’s complaint and if the landlord responded reasonably, such as whether it investigated this and how it made its decision.
The evidence shows that the landlord investigated the resident’s claims with the removal company and sought advice about the items such as the wardrobes and carpets. It decided to rely on the advice that these items could be cleaned, and offered compensation towards this, which was reasonable. The resident disputed the level of compensation for one of the items as he said that this was lower than what he had been told (£75 for the sofa). However, there is no evidence to corroborate this. The landlord explained the reason for its offers for the sofa repair and carpet cleaning, which was reasonable.
The landlord investigated the resident’s claims about specific damage to some of the items. The removal company and landlord established that there was no evidence that the items had been damaged by the removal company. The landlord explained this to the resident which was reasonable.
In respect of the resident’s concern about the replacement television, the landlord took reasonable steps as the removal company acting on its behalf arranged a replacement. The resident’s further concerns about the television are acknowledged but at this stage the landlord had already taken reasonable steps to address the damage caused during the removal process. The resident may seek independent advice (eg with Citizens Advice) about further disputes he may have with the television supplier, in respect of any relevant consumer rights.
Overall the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damaged items was reasonable as it paid for the replacement or repair of items where it had evidence that it had been responsible for the damage.

Complaint handling

The landlord logged the stage one response on 22 February 2021 but responded outside of the published timescales on 30 April 2021. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its complaint handling and offered £100 compensation which was reasonable for this delay. However, there were further complaint handling failures which the landlord did not identify.
The landlord considered the scope of its complaint investigation from May 2020. This was unreasonable; the evidence shows that the resident raised concerns about the damp and mould from June 2019 and expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response at various points before May 2020. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to extend the scope of its complaint investigation to include the historic reports and its response. This would have been in line with the dispute resolution principles to be fair and to put things right.
The resident expressed his frustration and concern about the damp and mould repeatedly, but the landlord failed to register this as a complaint. This was unreasonable as it affected his access to quick redress. In addition, the landlord missed the opportunity to have oversight through its complaint process of the resident’s repairs experience at an earlier point in the repair journey.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concern about asbestos. The resident raised this as part of his complaint escalation concerns after the stage one response, such as his concern about the exposure to the asbestos. The landlord did not address this in its subsequent complaint response which was not appropriate.
Similarly, the landlord failed to respond to the dispute about the council tax repayment.
Overall, the landlord did not register the resident’s dissatisfaction as a complaint when he first reported his concerns, nor did it address all of the complaint points.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report damp and mould in the property and the repair to the front door.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s complaint about the level of compensation for the resident’s damaged belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not complete the repairs within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord did not calculate appropriate redress as the repairs were raised in June and scheduled for July 2019, rather than May 2020. The landlord did not evidence that it sufficiently compensated the loss of room.
The Ombudsman cannot appropriately assess complaints or claims of damages or personal injury so these elements of the resident’s complaint about the level of compensation are out of scope. The landlord otherwise took reasonable steps to compensate the resident’s damaged items as it investigated the resident’s claims and explained its decision to the resident.
The landlord missed opportunities to engage in the full scope of the resident’s complaints and at the earliest opportunity.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange an independent damp inspection of the property to see if there is structural, rising or penetrating damp and carry out any recommended works within 4 weeks of the inspection.
2. Pay the resident:
  1. £3164.21 (50% of the rent for the period prior to the decant, to be reduced by the amount already paid in the original rent refund)
  2. £200 for distress and inconvenience
  3. £100 for the time and trouble for the complaint handling
  4. Re-offer the resident £850 (unless already paid) comprised of:

(1) £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience

(2) £100 for the complaint handling

(3) £75 for the sofa repair

(4) £150 for the carpet cleaning

(5) £125 for the wardrobe