Settle Group (202223458)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223458

Settle Group

27 September 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of:
1. repairs to the front fire door.
2. repairs to the rear patio door.
3. damp and mould.
The resident has also complained about the landlord’s handling of the complaint and compensation offered.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s Repairs Policy dated August 2021 states that Emergency Repairs should be made safe within 24 hours of notification and it aimed to turn around an appointed repair (also referred to as routine repairs) within 18 days.
At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord was using several different external contractors due to backlog of repairs built up after Covid-19 pandemic. For ease of reference this report will simply refer to a/the contractor
The landlord’s Damp and Mould Policy provides a number of steps for the landlord to follow:
1. “Questionnaire – We will ask a series of questions to gain a better understanding of the problem. This will help us identify any immediate repairs.
2. Inspection – We will aim to carry out an inspection of your home within 5 working days. Our inspector will look at every room, complete a full inspection and take meter readings in the affected rooms.
3. Mould Clean – Where mould is present in your home and cannot be cleaned easily with household products, we will arrange an appointment to clean these areas, regardless of the cause. Moderate level of mould restricted to a single room should be completed within 3 working days.
4. Repairs – Where we identify that repairs are needed, we will arrange appointments to carry these out. Routine repairs should be carried within 28 working days and structural repairs within 90 days.
5. Follow Up – We will contact you to confirm that the problem has been resolved. This might involve a post-inspection of any completed works.
6. Specialist – If the problem persists, we will arrange for a damp and mould specialist to inspect your home. We will then look to carry out any works recommended by their report.”
The landlord’s Complaints Procedure dated October 2020 (to be reviewed October 2022) states that:
1. Complaints should be acknowledged withing 2 working days.
2. At Stage 1, it aimed to investigate and respond to all complaints within 10 working days. It will advise of delays and inform the resident when they can expect a full response.
3. At Stage 2, it aimed to acknowledge the escalation within 2 working days. It aimed to investigate and respond within 15 working days. It will advise of delays and inform the resident when they can expect a full response.
In 2022 the landlord updated its Complaints Procedure. It now commits to respond to Stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s Compensation Procedure dated November 2021 and Compensation Policy dated February 2022 both state that it can make Discretionary Payments – “these are payments that Settle choose to make due to the negative impact a service failure has had on a customer”. The procedure suggests the following awards:
1. Low Impact – £0 – £50
2. Medium Impact – £50 – £250
3. High Impact – £250 – £500.
The procedure states in the case of a room that is unstable, it can offer compensation based on a percentage of the gross weekly rent. For the living room this is 20%.

Summary of Events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, her tenancy commencing in July 2010. Her property is a new-build two-bedroom ground floor flat. The property has a hardwood front door which is a fire door to a communal area and wooden patio doors in the lounge at the rear. The property was built in 2011. The resident’s son has developed asthma since 2017 and has a skin condition. The resident states that she suffers from depression and anxiety.
The resident first reported mould in her property in 2018. She states she was advised to clean the mould, keep all trickle vents open and monitor the issue initially. The landlord has advised this Service that it noted mould in the corner of the wall in the living room and a “failed” double-glazed unit in the patio door, so it added the door to its 5-year window and door replacement programme.
On 17 November 2021 the resident submitted a webform stating that she was still experiencing mould on the living room walls and ceiling. She noted that her son had asthma and a heart condition. In response, on 30 November 2021 a surveyor inspected the resident’s property. The surveyor:
1. noted mould and condensation in living room and water ingress from outside. She recommended a mould wash and on 16 December 2021 the landlord raised an order for these works.
2. assessed that the ground level was too high at the rear of the property resulting in a breach of the damp proof course. She recommended that the landlord either form a channel to the grates for drainage or drop the area to expose air bricks. On 22 December 2021 the landlord raised an order to “form a channel to grates for drainage all the way along the back elevation and adjacent side and carry out CCTV survey to downpipe on right hand of entrance door”.
3. noted that the gully was blocked at the right-hand side of the front main door. On 16 December 2021 the landlord raised an order for its contractor to lift the drain and check for blockages.
4. noted that the front door had a gap underneath. On 16 December 2021 the landlord raised an order for its contractor to overhaul the door.
In providing information to this service for this investigation the landlord has stated that it also noted that the patio door was blown at the inspection of 30 November 2021. It advised the resident the unit was due for replacement in 2023 but would be replaced as a repair if there was any delay to the replacement programme.
The landlord’s internal records indicate that it raised a repair for its contractor to overhaul the front door on 16 December 2021. The landlord’s repair records state that the contractor overhauled the front door on 31 December 2021. The landlord has informed this Service that the contractor advised that the door may need replacing as it was letting in a draught, but it did not raise further works at the time. The resident has disputed that the contractor overhauled or otherwise carried out works to the front door.
The landlord’s repair records show that on 6 January 2022 it completed the orders to lift the drain and check for blockages leading to the gully and to carry out a camera survey on the downpipe on the right end of the entrance door. The landlord has advised that the resident had cancelled a prior appointment for 20 December 2021.
The landlord repair records state that on 2 February 2022 its contractor completed the works to install an external drainage channel to the grates. The resident has disputed this.
The landlord’s records state that on 19 February 2022 it completed the mould wash to the resident’s property. The resident has disputed this.
On 22 March 2022 the resident made a formal complaint stating that the works to overhaul the front door, to install the external drainage channel and to carry out the mould wash were showing as completed on her tenancy records but in fact they had not been completed. She noted that it was nearly 4 months since the surveyors had provided reports and that she could not allow viewings for a mutual exchange until the mould issue was resolved. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 24 March 2022 advising that it would investigate the repair issues and would respond within 10 working days.
On 10 April 2022 landlord inspected the resident’s property. It identified “2 men for half a day to remove front door and replace drop down bar and remove glazing to rear door ease door back into shape and heel and toe glazing. drop bar needs ordering for 925mm wide door”.
On 14 April 2022, the resident confirmed that she had not heard from the landlord about her complaint. The landlord’s internal records confirm that the complaint had not been on its complaint’s team tracker therefore it was not aware of the complaint until then.
During the investigation of the resident’s complaint the landlord’s mould wash contractor advised that it had contacted the resident to make an appointment to carry out a mould wash, but she was not available at that time and it had not been able to contact her again until that day, 14 April 2022.
On 25 April 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint by letter. It confirmed that at the inspection of 30 November 2021, the surveyor had recommended that it “check drains for blockages, and outside – path and grass too high – please install grates for drainage”. It advised that a contractor would attend by the end of May 2021. The landlord noted that the surveyor had also recommended to “overhaul front door as gap underneath” and that the contractor would attend by Monday 25 April 2022. The landlord further stated the surveyor had recommended it to “carry out mould wash to living room” and a contractor would be attending on 28 April 2022. The resident has advised that she did not receive this response although the landlord’s copy contained the correct address.
The landlord arranged to inspect the front door with its contractor on 25 April 2021. It found that the floor had dipped and was letting in a draught under the front door, therefore the wooden trim under the door may have to be replaced or the door may have to replaced. It noted that the resident had requested a new door as she did not believe that the floor was the problem.
On 26 April 2022 the landlord reraised the order for its contractor to install drainage all the way along the back elevation and adjacent side and to carry out a CCTV survey to downpipe on right hand of entrance door.
On 27 April 2022 the landlord raised an order for the glass in the patio door to be replaced. On 26 May 2022 the contractor replaced the glass according to its repair records.
There is no evidence that the landlord carried out a mould wash on 28 April 2022 as stated in the complaint response or that it rearranged and completed these works.
On 11 May 2022 the landlord’s contractor provided it with an estimate for French drain works. The landlord’s records confirm that on 26 July 2022 its contractor installed a French drain.
The resident completed a complaint form on 8 August 2022 about delays to works. She advised:
1. The survey from November 2021 had noted that:
  1. the property was built up to nonporous bricks, meaning moisture from underneath the block and beam was not being soaked away due to the incorrect bricks, and that her property had excessive moisture.
  2. the drain outside her son’s bedroom was not connected meaning that rainwater was soaking into the ground not the drain.
  3. The roof was leaking. –
2. Whilst the landlord had attended it did not compete the identified works. It only carried out the works after she had made another complaint. When the French drain was installed, the contractor noted that two drains in the ground were not connected to any guttering on the roof. The sites of these drains were where the main areas where mould was a problem. She believed rain from the roof was permeating into the cavities of the property.
3. The works to close the gaps to her front door had not been completed.
The resident reiterated that her son had suffered from severe asthma for several years since the mould appeared in her property, and also had a heart condition.
The landlord acknowledged the form stating that it understood it had been sent in response to its complaint decision of 27 April 2022 and that it would send its final decision within 15 days.
On 18 August 2022 the landlord inspected the resident’s property and noted:
1. “Gutters and downpipes in working order.
2. Vented overhang drips this is due to condensation build up in communal loft area intermittent.
3. French drains installed to all external boundary line.
4. On excavation x2 soakaway outlets discovered uncapped.
5. Originally dug out for possible RWP downpipe outlet from original build.
6. Engineering brickwork present for damp coarse levels following excavation.
7. Weep vent holes present and drip tray in working order.
8. Tenant has trickle vent on windows throughout property.
9. Tenant refused to let us into the property to see the damp and mould in the living room and bedroom to assess”.
The landlord arranged mould treatment in the living room, a heat loss survey, a carpenter to attend to the door and for the French drain outlets to be capped and CCTV surveys carried out.
The landlord has advised that the resident also reported on 10 August that she was unable to lock the patio doors. Regarding the doors, it raised an order for its contractor: “Faulty lock are rear patio door and front door, Assess and overhaul door threshold secure as bouncing, Possible draught excluder to bottom of door, Door mechanism in working order. Assess internal facing top right-hand side”.
The landlord’s repair records confirm that it carried out the CCTV survey of the brickwork on 2 September 2022. On this date it also dug out and capped the soakaway outlets and backfilled it.
The landlord sent its Stage 2 response on 7 September 2022. It offered compensation of £350 as scheduled repairs had not been carried out 10 months after the inspection. It stated:
1. There was no record of reports of issues with underground drainage, flooding or rainwater between 2010 and 2020 when the developers were responsible for structural repairs. There had been no reports of a roof leak since 2014.
2. The resident had stated that during the installation of the French drain contractors identified the incorrect fitting of an original drain which caused rainwater to soak into the brick work of the block, potentially contributing to her mould issue. It rectified the soakaway in a timely manner once the issue was identified.
3. The heat loss survey to ensure the radiators were the correct size and in the correct location was to be completed on 15 September 2022.
4. Outstanding carpentry work to front door and patio door was to be completed on 26 September 2022.
5. A mould wash to the living room ceiling and low level corners was to be completed on 13 October 2022. (The landlord’s works order stated “three-part mould treatment required Ito living room ceiling and to corner at ground level”)
6. A further damp and mould inspection was to be completed in 3 months.
The landlord’s repair records show that on5 September 2022 it carried out heat loss survey, following which it installed a larger radiator on 5 October 2022.
The landlord has stated that it made appointments to attend to the patio doors on 17 August 2022, 25 August 2022 and 6 September 2022 all of which the resident either cancelled or did not provide access. On 26 September 2022, the landlord inspected the patio and the front door. At the inspection the landlord found that the glass in the patio doors, which had been installed about 6 weeks prior according to the resident, was large and caused the door to drop which caused a gap at the head of the frame. The landlord also confirmed that the drop-down bar at the bottom of the front door was not dropping to seal draughts and also that the threshold was loose. As the door was a fire door, follow on works needed to be passed to its specialist contractor.
Consequently, on 1 November 2022, the landlord raised an order for a contractor to attend assess. After the contractor on 8 November 2022 reported back on the main communal door in error, on 10 November 2022, the landlord asked the contractor to reattend as he had not inspected the resident’s front door. The contractor agreed to reattend on 11 November 2022. However, there is no evidence that it did so at this time or that the landlord chased it up.
Also on 1 November 2022, the landlord asked another window and door contractor to assess why the patio door was coming away from door frame. On 25 November 2022 the contractor inspected the resident’s patio door. Subsequently, on 1 December 2022, it reported that the rear timber doors had dropped and were beyond repair. It provided a quote for replacement anthracite on white PVC French doors.
The landlord’s repair record indicate that it completed the three-part mould treatment on 13 October 2022. The resident has advised this Service that the landlord did not carry out a damp and mould inspection in December 2022 as promised in the Stage 2 response. The landlord has stated that it arranged a post-inspection for 28 November 2022 but did not gain access.
After being notified on 4 April 2023 that the resident had referred her complaint to this service the landlord visited the resident again to ascertain the unresolved issues. It again noted that since the double-glazed unit in the patio door was replaced, the door had dropped. It noted that mould had returned.
On 4 May 2023 the landlord’s contractor inspected the front door and noted the front door had a gap at the top at the leading edge. It suggested either a carpenter refitting the door squarely or installing a new composite fire door. The landlord raised an order for the timber front door to be replaced with a composite fire door.
The landlord agreed an appointment with the resident to attend on 5 May 2023 to carry out mould treatment works and to inspect the property. The landlord advised this service on 24 May 2023 that the works were completed apart from in the resident’s bedroom. It would reattend on 2 June 2023 to complete the mould treatment works. It also advised it would gain an independent survey for the damp and mould issue from a specialist contractor.
The landlord further advised this Service that as its previous works to adjust the front fire door were not successful it would also replace it with a composite door, which had a lead in time of 4 weeks. It also confirmed it would fully replace the patio door on 2 June 2023 due to previous works being unsuccessful too.

Assessment and findings

This Service can consider the issues raised in the resident’s formal complaint of 2022 and only with respect to events occurring from six months prior to that complaint. This is in accordance with paragraph of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which were not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, which would normally be within six months of the matter arising. Matters prior to September 2021 have been noted to provide the background context the resident’s complaint and considered only with respect to the landlord’s handling of the issues arising after September 2021.

Front Door

The landlord initially noted that the front door had a gap underneath at the inspection of 30 November 2021. The gap indicated that the door was not weatherproof. There is no good reason why the landlord then took over two weeks to raise an order for the contractor to attend. The contractor attended to overhaul the door within the timeframe of 18 days for routine repairs according to the landlord’s records although the resident has disputed that it carried out works.
It is not possible for this Service to confirm whether any works were carried out the front door on 31 December 2021. Regardless, the contractor confirmed that was a need for further works as a draught was being let through, which indicated that the door was still not weatherproof. However, the landlord did not take any action taken until over 3 months later, on 10 April 2022 when it inspected the front door. As such, the landlord did not proactively seek to ensure the door was weatherproof during the winter months when draughts were likely to be more extreme and it only inspected after the resident made a formal complaint.
Although the landlord carried out another inspection with a contractor on 25 April 2022, there is no evidence that it took any further action to ensure the front door closed tight and had no gaps until after the resident made another complaint in August 2022. There were further delays as although the landlord had previously carried out inspections with a contractor and decided carpentry works could be carried out, it now decided at the visit of 26 September 2022 that another specialist contractor should now inspect. This suggests that the thoroughness of inspections in this case and the reports of the contractor were inadequate, in particular the importance of the door being a fire door was over under-emphasised. As a result, works to repair the door were unnecessarily delayed.
Whilst the landlord could not foresee that the specialist door contractor who attended in November 2022 would inspect the wrong door, its responsibility to ensure that the door was inspected by a contractor with relevant expertise, so that the required repairs could be identified and ordered remained. There is no evidence that the landlord consistently and proactively pursued the contractor or arranged for another contractor to visit. Again, the lack of action covered the winter months. It was not until another 5 months later, in May 2023 that the contractor visited. Ultimately there was a significant delay by the landlord in taking effective action to ensure that the resident’s front door was in good repair with it carrying out several inspections but only deciding to replace the front door 17 months after the resident had initially reported that the door was not weatherproof.

Patio Door

The landlord at the inspection of 30 November 2021 decided to replace the resident’s rear door under a planned programme of works in 2023. However, it identified works at the inspection of 10 April 2022 and raised an order to replace the glass on 27 April 2022. This indicated that it considered that repair works were required in the interim. The glass replacement works were carried out in a month…
There is no evidence that the resident reported further issues with the patio door until 10 August 2022. The landlord noted that the resident could not lock the patio door which was a security concern. The landlord did not attend until over 6 weeks later on 26 September 2022. 3 failed appointments indicate that the landlord made reasonable efforts to inspect and determine what action it should then take. However, thereafter there were unreasonable delays as the landlord took 5 weeks to ask a contractor to inspect and another month before the recommendations were made.
The contractor stated that the door was beyond repair. However, there was a further delay as the landlord did not act on the recommendation or provide an update to resident until after the resident referred her complaint to this Service. It is unclear why it carried out another inspection of the patio door on 4 May 2023 as its contractor had already inspected and provided a quote. Ultimately it arranged to replace the patio doors on 2 June 2023, 6 months after the recommendation by the contractor. The delay was particularly unreasonable as the landlord had accepted that there was a security concern.

Damp and mould

The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021 highlights the general need for landlords to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions, to review their strategies, and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
The resident has attributed her son’s asthma to the mould in her property. She has stated that the landlord did not resolve the mould when she first reported it but advised her that the property did not have correct ventilation. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury can be decided upon by insurers and courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make binding findings. However, this Service can take into account any elevated distress, inconvenience and time and trouble from a landlord’s service failure.
At the inspection of 17 November 2021, the landlord noted that there was mould in the resident’s living room. It noted that several issues including condensation within the living room, a breach of the damp proof course, a blocked gully and condensation. Having identified issues that contributed to the presence of damp and mould it was appropriate that the landlord raised repairs. However, the landlord had missed an opportunity to carry out testing for dampness and moisture, such as by using protimeter readings. This may have assisted the landlord in diagnosing the root cause of the mould.
On 6 January 2022 the landlord checked for blockages in the drainage. However, the resident disputed that the landlord installed a drainage channel to the grates and completed a mould wash in February 2022. After the resident raised a complaint on 22 March 2022 the landlord ascertained when responding that a mould wash had not in fact been completed. It also raised another order to install a drainage channel which suggests that the works were not completed initially. This indicates that its repair records were not accurate and reliable which in turn indicates that it lost oversight over the actions of its contractors. This contributed to a delay in the completion of the works.
In her complaint of 8 August 2022, the resident stated that whilst the French drain now had been installed, there remained drainage problems at her property including drains and gutters not being connected. She believed that as a result rainwater would soak into the building and related these faults to the mould in her property. It was appropriate that the landlord then inspected on 18 August 2022 in order to assess the condition of the property including the soakaway. Having noted that the soakaway was uncapped it carried out repairs to resolve this issue within the timeframe for appointed repairs.
It was prudent that the landlord decided to carry out a heat loss survey as adequate heating can help to prevent the formation of mould. It completed the survey on 15 September 2022. It then installed a larger radiator confirming that it took appropriate steps to ensure the resident’s heating system was adequate.
Aside from the works outside the property the landlord had a responsibility to resolve the mould within the property. The landlord initially identified the need for a mould wash in November 2021. Whilst its contractor initially had difficulty arranging an appointment, the landlord did not show sufficient urgency in ensuring the mould wash was completed given the 3 day target timeframe for the works. After again committing to carry out a mould wash in the Stage 1 response, the landlord failed to complete the works.
Whilst it could not inspect the mould in the property at the inspection on 18 August 2022, it did not rearrange the mould treatment until October 2022. As such it did not show sufficient urgency thereafter to carry out another inspection and/or order works to clear the mould, given the vulnerabilities in the resident’s household.
The landlord also in the Stage 2 response advised that it would reinspect after 3 months. This was appropriate as an inspection would show how effective the works had been in order to resolve the problems of damp and mould. However, again the landlord has not shown sufficient urgency to inspect as there is no evidence that it sought to rearrange an appointment after not gaining access to inspect on 28 November 2022. The landlord only inspected after the resident had contacted this service. Given the potential impact of the mould and the need to satisfy itself that the issue had been eradicated, this was unreasonable.
This service acknowledges that the landlord has carried out further mould treatment works in May 2023. Given that the mould has recurred it is reasonable that the landlord has decided to commission another survey from a specialist external contractor. An order has been made about this.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and compensation offered

The resident submitted a formal complaint on 22 March 2022. Although the landlord received and acknowledged the complaint at the time, the complaint was not registered on the complaints team tracker. As a result, the complaint would not have been investigated had the resident not pursued a response on 14 April 2022. This indicates that the landlord’s systems for registering, allocating and tracking complaints is not sufficiently robust. An order has been made in this regard.
The landlord accepted the resident’s complaint of 8 August 2022 as an escalated complaint. The landlord’s inspection of 18 August 2022 enabled it to provide an informed response to the issues complained about but the response of 7 September 2022 was outside the stated 15 working day timeframe. The delay did not cause significant detriment; however, it is good practice for landlord to send holding responses when it cannot send a response by the advised date. A recommendation has been made in this regard.
The landlord in its Stage 2 response offered £350 compensation. It is important that landlords seek to put matters right after identifying service failures using remedies such as compensation. The landlord noted that there had been a delay of 10 months in completion of works but also that works were outstanding therefore further action was required to resolve the complaint; however, it did not increase its compensation offer to reflect further delays. It did not offer compensation for the failings in its complaint handling. Taking account also of the elevated impact of the delays on the resident’s household due to their health conditions, whilst this Service acknowledges the landlord’s offer of redress, it is not considered to be proportionate to the circumstances of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the front fire door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the rear patio door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the complaint and compensation offered.

Reasons

Ultimately there was a significant delay by the landlord in taking effective action to ensure that the resident’s front door was in good repair with it carrying out several inspections but only deciding to replace the front door 17 months after the resident had initially reported that the door was not weatherproof.
The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s reports about her patio doors, both in arranging an initial inspection, then in acting on the recommendation of its contractor. Ultimately it arranged to replace the patio doors on 2 June 2023, 6 months after the recommendation by the contractor. The delay was particularly unreasonable as the landlord had accepted that there was a security concern.
The landlord delayed in completing works originally identified at the inspection of 17 November 2021 to remedy the damp and mould. There is also no evidence that it carried out a mould wash. After the resident’s escalated complaint of 8 August 2022, it did not show sufficient urgency to carry out another inspection and/or order works to clear the mould, given the vulnerabilities in the resident’s household. After committing to carry out another inspection 3 months after mould treatment works, the landlord has also not shown sufficient urgency to do so.
The response to the resident’s complaint was delayed and would not have been sent had the resident not pursued a response on 14 April 2022. Whilst this Service acknowledges the landlord’s offer of redress in its Stage 2 response, it is not considered to be proportionate to the circumstances of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next 4 weeks the landlord is ordered:
1. to arrange for a senior member of staff to send an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. to pay the resident compensation of £1250 comprising:
  1. £300 compensation for her distress and inconvenience arising from the delay in carrying out repairs to her front door.
  2. £300 compensation for her distress and inconvenience arising from the delay in carrying out repairs to the patio door.
  3. £600 compensation for her distress and inconveniences arising from the delay in carrying out works to address the reports of damp and mould.
  4. £50 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience and time and trouble arising from the failings in its complaints handling.
3. to complete the patio replacement works if they have not already been completed.
4. to complete the installation of a new front door if these works have not already been completed.
5. to arrange for the independent survey of the damp and mould and provide a timeframe for completing any recommended works, if this has not already been completed.
6. to review its systems for registering, allocating and tracking complaints to ensure no complaints are lost.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord takes measures to ensure that its repairs systems accurately record the status of repair orders, including whether the repair has been completed.
2. The landlord takes measures to ensure that it sends holding responses where it cannot respond to a complaint within the given timeframe.