Amplius Living (202426340)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426340

Amplius Living

28 May 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. A mouse infestation.
2. Damp and mould.
3. Repairs.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since March 2022. The property is a 2-bedroom house and she lives there with her husband and 2 children.
The resident reported damp and mould in October and November 2022. She said this was causing her children to be ill. The landlord completed works to address this in late December 2022 or early January 2023.
On 19 January 2023 the resident reported there was still mould in the property that had not been cleaned, despite other works being completed. The landlord attended to clear the mould the following month. The resident reported the damp and mould was getting worse in March 2023. The landlord said it attempted to inspect on 15 March and 19 April 2023 but no access was given on both occasions.
In May 2023 the resident reported the fence at the bottom of her back garden needed repairing. The landlord told her it did not do fence repairs and this was her responsibility.
In June, July and August 2023 the landlord noted it contacted the resident on multiple occasions to progress the damp and mould issue. On 23 August 2023 it told her it had cancelled the job due to no contact.
On 30 October 2023 the resident reported:
1. Problems with the front and back doors. The landlord noted it attended on 9 November 2023 and completed works to both doors.
2. Damp and mould throughout the property. The landlord inspected on 9 November 2023 and raised a job the same day for works to address this. It recorded this as completed on 15 March 2024.
In December 2023 the resident reported a mouse in her kitchen. The landlord told her it would only send pest control out if mice were in the loft space.
Following a stock condition survey on 20 December 2023, the inspector reported there was no carbon monoxide alarm in the property.
The resident reported her toilet was blocked on 24 December 2023. The landlord noted it attended the same day and unblocked it.
On 18 January 2024 the landlord received a letter before disrepair claim from the resident’s solicitor. This said the resident had reported:
1. Damp and mould throughout the property. Despite the landlord inspecting the property, no works had been carried out.
2. The front and back doors were defective and draughty. When the contractor had attended to complete repairs, they said the front door needed to be replaced, but nothing had been done about this.
3. A mouse infestation in the kitchen. The mice were entering through holes behind the cupboards. The resident had placed traps down but because the landlord had not filled the entrance holes, this was ongoing.
4. The toilet blocked frequently.
5. There was no carbon monoxide alarm in the property. She was told this was an emergency, but was still waiting for it to be fitted.
6. The back garden fence was falling apart, with nails sticking out of it. She had been told this was her responsibility to fix.
At the end of January 2024 the landlord noted it would address the issues raised in the letter of claim as a stage 1 complaint. It logged the resident’s first complaint on 31 January 2024.
The landlord attended the property on 20 February 2024 and confirmed there was a mains powered carbon monoxide alarm in the boiler cupboard.
On 15 March 2024 the landlord inspected the property and identified actions required to address the damp and mould, rodent infestation, blocked toilet and door defects. It noted these were completed in March and April 2024.
In April and May 2024 the resident said she was unhappy the landlord had not responded to her first complaint. She asked to escalate this to stage 2, and the landlord agreed on 13 May 2024.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the first complaint on 20 May 2024. This said it had completed a survey in March 2024 and obtained a copy of the report in April 2024. It confirmed it had escalated her complaint to stage 2.
On 18 June 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 response to the first complaint. It said there had been service failure as works had been raised incorrectly and delayed. It apologised and offered £950 compensation (£50 for complaint handling, £400 for delays to repairs and £500 for distress and inconvenience).
Two days later the resident said she did not feel the landlord had properly considered the impact of these matters on her and her family’s health and finances. She asked for increased compensation of £1,500, and for the landlord to redecorate her bedroom following a mould wash. The landlord replied that it would not redecorate her bedroom but provided her with decorating vouchers. It offered increased compensation of £1,200 (£50 for complaint handling, £550 for delays in carrying out repairs and £600 for distress and inconvenience).
In July 2024 the landlord completed proofing works regarding the mouse infestation. The landlord post–inspected the works on 9 September 2024. It noted all issues were resolved except an ongoing issue with condensation in one of the bedrooms and the back door needed further works. It noted these were completed the next day.
On 4 October 2024 the resident made a second complaint about the damp and mould, which she said had not been resolved. She confirmed it had post inspected the previous month but felt the surveyor was rude, patronising and dismissive of her concerns. She said they had blamed the problem on her and her family and not suggested a resolution. She advised she had reported damp in the living room floorboards, which had damaged her carpet. She said some clothing and bedding had also been damaged by the mould, and asked for compensation.
The landlord inspected the property on 15 October 2024. It noted the walls in the bedrooms were damp and so was the flooring in the living room. It identified works, which it attended for on multiple occasions between October 2024 and February 2025.
On 24 October 2024 the landlord sent its stage 1 response to the second complaint. It apologised the resident felt patronised by the surveyor and said she should not have been made to feel the damp and mould was her fault. It confirmed the member of staff had been spoken to. It said it did not uphold the complaint as it had not identified any service failure. It confirmed the advice given was correct, but apologised for the way it was delivered. It agreed to reimburse the cost of a new living room carpet, once the works had been completed. It said her complaint had exhausted its internal process because it had investigated this matter at stage 2 of its complaints process previously.
The resident asked us to investigate her complaints in January 2025. She said the landlord had completed mould washes but not addressed the underlying cause of the damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Our investigations generally cover the period 12 months before the resident made their formal complaint to the landlord. In this case, the resident’s formal complaint that completed the landlord’s internal procedure was raised in January 2024. Therefore, the scope of our investigation about the damp and mould includes events dating back to January 2023.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord in November 2022. As this did not complete the landlord’s internal complaints process, we have not assessed the issues raised as part of our investigation. While the resident’s second complaint, raised in October 2024, was only responded to at stage 1 of the complaint process; the landlord confirmed she had exhausted it and her next step was to contact us. Therefore, we have included those matters raised within our investigation.
The resident has told us these matters have negatively affected her family’s health. We do not doubt her comments, but we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her family’s ill-health. She can seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she believes their health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. We have, however, considered any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Mouse infestation

When the resident first reported the mouse infestation in December 2023, the landlord’s repair responsibilities document said it was responsible for rodent infestations (inside) and all infestations of loft spaces, including making good. Therefore, the landlord was responsible for treating the infestation reported by the resident in December 2023. Despite this, the landlord told her it would not take action because it only did so where the mice were in the loft. This was incorrect and not in line with its repair responsibilities document at the time.
We note the landlord updated its repair responsibilities document in May 2024. This says residents are responsible for rodent infestations, except where the fabric of the building is compromised allowing access to rodents in the loft space. On this basis, the landlord would not be responsible for treating the infestation reported, but this change occurred 5 months after the resident first raised the issue, in December 2023. Therefore, the landlord should have accepted responsibility for addressing this, in line with its repair responsibilities guide at the time. Its failure to do so was disappointing for the resident.
More importantly than laying bait for the mice, the landlord was responsible for investigating and addressing any access points. It is of little or no value to lay bait, without taking action to prevent the mice’s access. Therefore, the landlord should have attended in response to the resident’s report in December 2023 to investigate. It was only after the landlord received the letter of claim and a complaint was raised in January 2024, that it agreed to investigate the issue.
The landlord raised a works order for a pest control visit on 18 March 2024. However, this was subsequently cancelled as it had been raised incorrectly. The landlord was made aware of this the following day, but only took action to re-raise the visit 3 weeks later, on 11 April 2024. This was an unnecessary delay.
The second order raised was for an urgent repair, which its repairs policy said it should complete within 7 days. This was in line with its repair responsibilities guide, which said rodent infestations, including making good, would be treated as urgent repairs. The landlord subsequently attended on 18 April 2024, 7 days after the second order was raised and in line with the target timescale for urgent repairs. However, this was 32 days after the first order was raised. Therefore, its overall response to this issue was delayed.
Following its visit on 18 April 2024, the landlord received a report with recommendations for proofing works. Despite receiving this in April 2024, it did not raise a job for the works until 2 months later, in June 2024. The proofing works were ultimately completed on 10 July 2024. This was 3 months after they were identified and this was not in line with the landlord’s 7–day target timescale for urgent repairs.
The landlord identified failure in its handling of this issue. It apologised and offered compensation, which is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principle to put things right. The total amount offered was £1,150, although this was for its handling of this and other issues, and no breakdown was provided.
Considering the failures identified and the detriment to the resident, £250 is reasonable to put things right. As this is covered by the total offered by the landlord, we find that it has offered reasonable redress to the resident. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to pay the resident the £250 already offered, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Damp and mould

The landlord is responsible for addressing damp and mould in line with section 9(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp.
When dealing with damp and mould, it is vital that landlords not only treat it, but also seek to identify the underlying cause and take action to address this. When the resident reported there was still mould in the property in January 2023, the landlord arranged to clean it. As other works had recently been completed to address the suspected underlying cause, it was reasonable that it only progressed a mould wash at that time.
The resident had told the landlord the mould was negatively affecting her children’s health. Therefore, it was sensible of the landlord to raise this job as an urgent repair, which its repairs policy said it would complete within 7 days. Despite raising the job as urgent, the landlord did not complete this until 22 days later, on 9 February 2023, after it rearranged the job twice. This was over the committed response time for urgent repairs by more than 2 weeks.
This delay meant the resident and her children were left living in a mouldy property for longer than they should have. This amounts to maladministration and made her feel the landlord did not care about the impact on her family. She was also left feeling let down when it repeatedly rearranged the job, as she believed it was not taking the matter seriously.
When the resident reported the damp and mould was ongoing in March 2023, the landlord arranged an inspection. This was sensible for reasons set out above. The landlord said it attended in March and April 2023, but the resident did not give access on either occasion. The resident disputes this and said she was home on both occasions. We do not have sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding this and so cannot comment further. What we have assessed is how the landlord followed up after the noted no access visits.
After the first visit in March 2023, the landlord arranged a second, follow up visit. This was sensible and showed it was taking the matter seriously. After the second noted no access visit, there is no evidence the landlord took any action until 2 months later, in June 2023, when it made further attempts to visit and call the resident. While positive the landlord followed up, there was a delay in it doing so and this amounts to maladministration.
The landlord noted it visited the resident twice in June 2023, and on both occasions she was not home. As these visits were unannounced, there could be no expectation she would be available. It would have been sensible for the landlord to tell the resident about these visits in advance, so she could have made herself available.
It was only by chance, during a third visit on 10 July 2023, that the resident was home. At that time, the landlord agreed to contact her to rebook an appointment for a surveyor to inspect the property. It subsequently noted 2 attempts were made to call her to do so on 21 July and 9 August 2023, but on both occasions she did not answer and voicemails were left. It was after this the landlord wrote to her and said it had closed the job.
Where residents do not consistently engage with a landlord, it is reasonable that it may conclude a matter. Where it does this, it should keep a clear record of its actions and tell the resident, in writing, what it has done and why. In this case, the landlord did that, so its decision to close the job and take no further action at that time, was reasonable.
The works raised following the inspection on 9 November 2023 sought to treat the mould and address the suspected underlying cause, which was sensible. Despite making appointments to attend in December 2023 and January 2024 for this job, the landlord failed to do so. The job was recorded as completed on 15 March 2024, but there is no record of what, if any, works were done.
On 15 March 2024 a further inspection was completed and the landlord noted the insulation in the roof space above the hallway/bathroom needed checking. This was similar to a job raised following the inspection in November 2023, indicating this was still outstanding. This suggests the landlord ‘completed’ the job raised in November 2023 with no works having been carried out. This meant the landlord failed to take any action to address the underlying cause of the damp and mould for several months, despite the resident chasing it up on at least one occasion, in January 2024. This amounts to maladministration and was disappointing for her, particularly as she had told it the impact this was having on her children.
During the inspection on 9 November 2023 the landlord noted a possible remedy was to fit insulated plasterboard to the inside of external walls. During a call on 5 January 2024, the resident asked when these works would be completed. However, there is no record the landlord progressed them, as no works order was raised for this.
It is reasonable that landlords may need to take a trial and error approach to damp and mould issues as there may be multiple contributing factors. In this case, it was reasonable that the landlord suggested this as a future action, if the other works raised were unsuccessful in resolving this. However, the landlord did not properly explain this to the resident and left her believing it would progress these works immediately. When it did not, this left her disappointed. This amounts to maladministration and highlights the importance of following up inspections in writing to confirm what actions will be taken immediately, and what actions will be considered in the future.
Following receipt of the letter of claim in January 2024, the landlord arranged another inspection. While inspections for damp and mould are a sensible first step for reasons already explained, the landlord had completed one 2 months before and had an active job for works identified. It is unclear why it did not take action to progress these works, which would have been sensible and shown the resident it was committed to resolving this problem.
Following the inspection in March 2024, the landlord raised several works orders 3 days later which included cleaning the mould. It noted this was completed on 22 March 2024. This was 4 days after the order was raised and in line with the 7 day target timescale for urgent repairs.
Another job raised was to check insultation in the roof space above the hallway and bathroom, which it did 22 days later, on 8 April 2024. This was a reasonable timescale and in line with the landlord’s 28 day target timescale for routine repairs.
The final job raised was to check and replace guttering. The order raised on 18 March 2024 was subsequently cancelled due to it being raised incorrectly. Despite the landlord being made aware of this on 19 March 2024, it did not re-raise the job until more than 3 weeks later, on 11 April 2024. This was an unnecessary delay.
This job was ultimately completed on 17 April 2024, 31 days after the first works order was raised. While only slightly over the target timescale for routine repairs, if the landlord had not delayed in re-raising it, it could have completed this much sooner. This was important to show the resident it was taking the matter seriously and committed to resolving it as quickly as possible; which was important as it had been ongoing for nearly 18 months by that point.
The landlord completed a post–inspection in September 2024. This was in line with our spotlight report on damp and mould, which says it is best practice for landlords to schedule follow up visits after works are completed to check the problem has been fully resolved. This ensures the resident is reassured that the landlord is taking the matter seriously and means the onus is not on them to continually report and chase it up.
During this visit, the landlord identified there was an ongoing issue with condensation in one bedroom. It noted this was because there were 3 people sleeping in the room and told the resident to keep the window open at night. It is reasonable for landlords to give advice on how residents can avoid condensation, damp and mould, but this should not be its only response. It should also consider any actions it can take to address the issue. Where advice is given, it is important this is done sensitively, so as not to infer blame on the resident.
The landlord did not do that on this occasion and this left the resident feeling that it was blaming her and her family. This was upsetting for her. The landlord acknowledged this was unfair in its response to the second complaint and confirmed action had been taken in respect of this, which was positive.
The works raised following the inspection in October 2024 included external works to facias, brickwork and pointing. Despite the landlord attending in November and December 2024 and February 2025, these were not completed. Each time it attended, the landlord noted scaffolding was needed but failed to arrange this in time for the next visit, meaning no works were carried out. This was frustrating for the resident and meant she was left disappointed after multiple appointments over a 4–month period resulted in nothing being done. This amounts to maladministration.
The scope of the works changed following each visit between October 2024 and February 2025. Because of this, the landlord arranged an independent survey in March 2025. This was the fifth inspection in a 16–month period and understandably frustrating for the resident to have to give access for another inspection. Due to the change in scope of works and the length of time the matter had been going, it was reasonable for the landlord to suggest an independent survey.
The independent survey recommended works, including installation of a ventilation unit and repairing a broken downpipe. The landlord has told us it raised works orders for these jobs on 13 May 2025. While positive it is progressing these, there has been a delay in it doing so as the inspection was completed 2 months ago.
These jobs have been raised since we told the landlord about progress in our formal investigation, on 7 May 2025. This is a concern and suggests it is our involvement that has prompted the landlord to take action to put things right by resolving the substantive issue; rather than it doing this on its own initiative. This amounts to maladministration.
It is not clear if the resident has been told about the proposed works, so we have made an order for the landlord to write to her confirming what works it will be completing and a timescale for these to be done. It should also include a follow up appointment date for October 2025, when the weather turns colder, to proactively check if the damp and mould has returned.
The landlord provided decoration vouchers to the resident in June and October 2024. The resident has reported the damp and mould has been ongoing since then and further investigations/works have been completed. We have identified failure in the landlord’s more recent handling of this issue. Therefore, the landlord should consider whether it will provide further decorating vouchers on completion of the recently raised works. It should confirm its decision in writing to her as part of the written update, ordered above.
The resident told the landlord her belongings had been damaged because of the damp and mould, including carpet, clothing and bedding. We are unable to make a finding in respect of liability, as this needs to be assessed via an insurance claim. What we have considered is how the landlord responded to this issue and whether its response was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord agreed to cover the costs of a replacement carpet, but it did not respond to the resident’s request for compensation for damaged clothing and bedding. Therefore, its response was inadequate as it failed to address all of her concerns. The landlord’s compensation procedure says it will consider offering compensation for damage to belongings due to its action or inaction. By the landlord’s own admission, there has been failure in its handling of this issue. Therefore, it should have considered her request for compensation, or provided her the details to raise this via its insurer. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration.
We have made an order for the landlord to confirm in writing whether it will assess the resident’s claim for compensation and, if so, what information it needs from her; and/or provide her with details of its insurer, so she can make a claim.
Overall, the landlord’s progress in this matter has been slow and at times only prompted by the resident chasing this up. While it has completed a number of inspections, it has not adequately followed up with the identified works after each of these. This means the resident has lost faith in it and understandably feels the multiple inspections were of little or no value.
These delays and lack of action mean the resident is still experiencing damp and mould, despite having first reported this more than 2 years ago. This is particularly upsetting for her, as she has repeatedly told the landlord about the negative impact on her children’s health. While the landlord has raised further works to resolve the issue, it has only done so following our intervention and not on its own initiative.
The landlord identified failure in its handling of this issue. It apologised and offered a total of £1,150 compensation for this and other issues. Considering the full circumstances of this matter, and in consultation with our remedies guidance, £700 is reasonable for this issue. This is because the failures had an adverse effect on the resident and the redress needed is substantial.
We have determined that £250 is reasonable for its handling of the mouse infestation, meaning £900 is left. While the £700 is within the total amount offered by the landlord, it has not done enough to put things right and resolve the substantive issue on its own initiative. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made and a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident the £700 already offered, if not already done so.

Repairs

The resident’s tenancy agreement says she is responsible for putting up and maintaining fencing between properties. In May 2023 she said the fence that needed repairing was separating her garden from a neighbour’s garden. Therefore, it was reasonable the landlord declined to complete any repairs to this and advised it was her responsibility to do so.
The landlord is required to fit a carbon monoxide alarm in the property, in line with the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm Regulations 2022. This says it must install a carbon monoxide alarm in any room with a fixed combustion appliance, including a gas boiler.
When the landlord was told there was no carbon monoxide alarm in the property in December 2023, it raised a routine works order to check this. This was inappropriate, as not having a carbon monoxide alarm is a serious health and safety risk and the landlord has a legal obligation to provide one. Therefore, it should have raised this as an emergency repair, which its repairs policy said it would fix or make safe within 4 hours.
The landlord attended on 20 February 2024, 2 months after the order was raised. This was significantly over the 4 hour target response time for emergency repairs and also over the 28 day response time for routine repairs. This amounts to maladministration.
When the landlord attended, it identified there was a carbon monoxide alarm in the property, which meant there had been no actual risk to the resident and her family. However, the landlord did not know this until it had attended. Therefore, it should have attended more quickly to confirm this. It was worrying for the resident to be told there was no carbon monoxide alarm. The landlord’s delay in checking this meant she was left worrying for longer than necessary. This amounts to maladministration.
The landlord’s repair responsibilities document says it is responsible for internal toilet blockages. It confirms it will treat these as emergency repairs if there is only one toilet in the property. The resident’s letter before claim said she had reported toilet blockages on 3 occasions in around January 2024.
We have only seen records of one report made on 24 December 2023, and so can only assess the landlord’s handling of this incident. On that occasion, the landlord raised an emergency works order at 13:40 and noted it attended less than 1 hour later, at 14:37. This was in line with the 4 hour target timescale for emergency repairs.
When the resident raised the repeated blockages within the letter of claim and during the subsequent inspection in March 2024, it was reasonable the landlord treated this as a routine repair. This is because the toilet was not blocked at that time, but it wanted to investigate it. The landlord attended 30 days later, on 16 April 2024. This was 2 days over the 28 day target timescale for routine repairs. As this was a minor delay and it was not an urgent matter, this was not a failure.
The landlord is responsible for repairs to external doors in line with its repair responsibilities document. This says it will classify these as routine repairs, which it will complete within 28 days. Where the landlord can resolve a door fault with a repair, it is reasonable that it does, rather than a replacement. However, where a door can no longer be repaired and/or the repairs repeatedly fail, it should consider replacing this.
Between October 2023 and January 2025 the landlord raised at least 5 works orders for door repairs. Three of these, raised in October 2023, September 2024 and January 2025 were completed in 11, 1 and 21 days (all within the 28 day target timescale for routine repairs). However, the jobs raised in March and October 2024, were completed in 30 and 46 days, which were over the target timescale for routine repairs. These were failures that amount to maladministration.
The resident said when the contractor attended in November 2023, the operative told her the front door needed to be replaced. From the records provided, there is no evidence this was noted by the operative following the visit. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence this was recommended at that time, it was reasonable the landlord took no further action.
However, following a subsequent visit on 16 April 2024, the operative noted the front door had been overhauled many times and was “not economically repairable”. Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord took any action. This amounts to maladministration and was disappointing for the resident. We have made an order for the landlord to inspect the front door to identify if it needs replacing. A written update should be sent to the resident confirming the outcome, including any works it will complete (repairs or replacement) with a timescale for these to be completed.
Similarly, following a visit on 12 February 2025, the operative noted the back door “was not economically repairable”. The landlord subsequently completed an inspection on 4 April 2025 and noted the door was repairable and recommended works to address the faults. The landlord was entitled to rely on the expert opinion of its surveyor. Therefore, it was reasonable that it decided not to replace the door and complete repairs instead. While reasonable, there is no evidence it told the resident this. This communication failure amounts to maladministration and left her feeling let down.
The landlord has told us it raised a job for the door repairs on 16 May 2025. While positive, this was more than a month after the inspection and appears to have been done in response to our enquiries of the same date. This is a concern and further evidence of the landlord’s failure to independently put things right for the resident, by resolving the substantive issues.
The landlord identified failure in its handling of the repairs, apologised and offered compensation. We have attributed £950 of the £1,150 offered by the landlord to other issues, leaving £200 remaining. Considering the failures in its handling of the door repairs and carbon monoxide alarm, this amount is insufficient to address the failures identified or the detriment to the resident. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation (inclusive of the £200 already offered). This amount is reflective of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble experienced.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days, and respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s first stage 1 complaint on 1 February 2024 and the second stage 1 complaint on 11 October 2024. This was 1 and 5 working days after the complaints were raised, and in line with the landlord’s target timescale, set out in its policy.
The landlord’s complaints policy said, where it could not meet the 10 working day timescale for stage 1 responses, it would tell the resident and keep in contact with them until the complaint was resolved. It confirmed this should not exceed a further 10 working days, but if this was required, it should be agreed by both parties.
The landlord extended the deadline to respond to the first stage 1 complaint on 27 February, 18 March, 1 April and 10 May 2024. On each occasion it told the resident, but, as this had exceeded a further 10 working days, it should have agreed this with her. While the landlord noted it made attempts to phone her on each occasion prior to extending, it did not get her agreement and so should not have continued extending without obtaining this. This was a failure that amounts to maladministration.
The landlord told the resident it was extending the deadline because it was investigating the issues and completing works. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says a complaint response must be provided when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed.
Therefore, the landlord should not have continued extending the deadline past the inspection of 15 March 2024, as it had enough information at that point to respond to the concerns raised. While there were still works outstanding, the Code says that outstanding actions must be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident. The landlord’s failure to do so amounts to maladministration.
The landlord sent the stage 1 response on 20 May 2024, 76 working days after the complaint was raised. This was significantly over the committed response time, set out in the landlord’s policy. This amounts to maladministration and caused the resident to lose faith in the landlord’s complaints process.
The landlord’s stage 1 response contained very little information and made no assessment of its handling of the issues. This is because it had already agreed to escalate the complaint to stage 2, before it issued the stage 1 response. This was inappropriate as the landlord should have provided a stage 1 response so the matter could be properly reviewed at stage 2, if requested.
The landlord’s decision to escalate the complaint to stage 2, without having responded at stage 1, meant the complaint was only considered once by the landlord and not properly reviewed, in line with its complaints policy. This was a missed opportunity to put things right for the resident sooner and amounts to maladministration.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response to the first complaint on 18 June 2024, 20 working days after the complaint was escalated. This was in line with the target timescale, set out in its policy. While the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint before this date, it should not have agreed this, until after it issued the stage 1 response. As this response was issued on 20 May 2023, we have assessed the timescale from this date, rather than the date the request was made.
The landlord sent the second stage 1 response on 24 October 2024, which was 14 working days later. This was over the target timescale of 10 working days and so a minor failure.
The landlord told the resident in the second stage 1 response that, because it had investigated the damp and mould at stage 2 of its complaints process previously, her complaint had exhausted its process. While the resident’s complaint was about the same issue (damp and mould), it was about new matters that had happened since the first stage 2 response was sent in May 2023, including staff conduct during the post–inspection in September 2024.
Therefore, the landlord should not have declined to escalate the complaint on the basis that it had already responded at stage 2. This was an error that amounts to maladministration and made the resident feel the landlord had washed its hands of the issue. It was also a further missed opportunity for the landlord to put things right for the resident.
In the second stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged its surveyor had mishandled the conversation about damp and mould during the post inspection; and this had caused detriment to the resident. However, it concluded there was no evidence of service failure because the advice given was correct. This was inappropriate as despite the advice being correct, there had been service failure in the way the information was relayed. This was confusing for the resident, as the landlord accepted this and apologised, but failed to uphold the complaint. This made her feel it did not want to take accountability for its actions and amounts to maladministration.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It acknowledged failure in its handling of the first complaint, but not the second. It apologised and offered £50 compensation. Considering the multiple failures we have identified across both complaints, and the detriment to the resident, the redress offered is insufficient. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate.
We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation, inclusive of the £50 already offered, which is reflective of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she experienced as a result of the failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of her reports of a mouse infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Reports of repairs.
3. Formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Written to the resident confirming what works it will be completing in respect of the damp and mould, if not done so already. This should include:
  1. A timescale for these to be completed.
  2. A follow up appointment date for October 2025, when the weather turns colder, to proactively follow up and check if the damp and mould has returned.
  3. Its decision on whether it will provide additional decoration vouchers on completion of the works.
2. Confirmed in writing to the resident whether it will assess her claim for compensation for damaged items due to the damp and mould. If so, tell her what information it needs from her to complete this; and/or provide her with details of its insurer, so she can make a claim.
3. Paid the resident £1,200 compensation, made up of:
  1. £700 already offered for its handling of her reports of damp and mould, if not done so.
  2. £300 for its handling of her reports of repairs (inclusive of the £200 already offered, if not done so).
  3. £200 compensation for its complaint handling (inclusive of the £50 already offered, if not done so).
4. Inspected the front door to identify if it needs replacing. A written update to be sent to the resident confirming the outcome, including any works it will complete (repairs or replacement) with a timescale for these to be completed.

Recommendation

The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £250 already offered for its handling of her reports of a mouse infestation, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.