London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202234791)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234791

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

7 July 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:
1. reports of leaks, damp, and mould and associated repairs.
2. reports of concerns about a lack of kitchen storage space.
3. associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy which began in 2015. The landlord is a housing association. She lives in a 3-bed mid terrace house, with a flat above it. The resident lives with her husband, adult child and her 15-year-old child. The landlord is aware that both the resident and her younger child have health vulnerabilities.
According to its records, the landlord carried out works to address damp and mould in the property in 2018. The resident said she was unhappy with the quality of the works and made related complaints to the landlord between 2018 and 2022.
In May 2022 the landlord undertook repairs related to damp and mould in the front bedroom. A damp and mould survey in June 2022 identified mould across the property and associated issues. The landlord cleaned the mould in June 2022 and installed a moisture monitor in July 2022. In Autumn 2022 the resident reported 3 unrelated damp issues, and the landlord made 3 repair visits. In January 2023, it undertook roofing works to the property.
On 29 June 2022 the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould issues and the lack of kitchen storage in her property. She made a further complaint in early 2023. The resident complained about the same issue to the landlord in early 2023 and contacted her MP about the issue on 4 March 2023. On 6 March 2023 she reported an uncontained leak coming from the flat above. She said this was causing significant water flow into her home.
The landlord gave a stage 1 response on 7 March 2023. It upheld her complaint and said it had responded to the leak reported the previous day and made safe. It apologised as it had not completed damp and mould related repairs raised in June 2022. It stated it would book these repairs in.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and associated repairs in emails to it on 11 March, 7 and 26 June,1 August, 4 and 13 September 2023. She contacted her MP on 5 June 2023. The landlord recorded at least 14 investigation or repair visits between March and November 2023.
On 7 November 2023 this Service asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 response. It responded on 14 November 2023 and upheld the resident’s damp and mould complaint. It offered £525 compensation for delays in work, time and effort and £50 compensation for poor complaint handling. It said:
1. as per its complaints policy, it was unable to investigate complaints where the issue occurred over 6 months ago.
2. all leaks from the upstairs flat had now been resolved.
3. it had failed to raise a repair for a leaking drainpipe and to visit when it said it would in 2022.
4. it had completed a heat loss survey in the bedroom and found the radiator was producing sufficient energy.
5. the repairs now needed did not require a decant. It gave information on how the resident could apply for managed housing through the local authority.
6. more storage space could only be arranged in the kitchen if the resident removed a fridge/freezer unit.
7. it apologised for not raising a complaint on 1 August 2023, when the resident requested escalation.
On 14 February 2024 the resident asked this Service to investigate the complaint. She said she was dissatisfied with the work carried out by the landlord and stated there was ongoing damp and mould in her home. She said she wanted the damp and mould fully investigated and any issues resolved. She wanted the landlord to increase the kitchen counter storage space, and she wanted appropriate compensation. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to investigate anything which had occurred more than 6 months ago.
In March 2025, the landlord told this Service that there were no outstanding repairs to the property and that it advised the resident should ventilate her home regularly. On 9 June 2025 the resident told this Service she was still experiencing damp and mould issues in her home.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In correspondence with the landlord, the resident indicated that she wished to be moved permanently into a different property. The Ombudsman is unable to order the landlord to do this. The way the landlord allocates its social housing is governed by its allocation policy which determines the priority of applicants on its waiting lists. The Ombudsman is unable to make orders that could cause an adverse impact on other individuals who may have a higher priority than the resident for the landlord’s properties.
The resident said the issues in her home have had a significant impact on her physical and mental wellbeing. When there is an injury or a pre-existing medical condition that has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of a medical report. This will usually set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial.
As a result, these matters are better suited to consideration by a court as a personal injury claim and if the resident wishes to pursue this concern, she may wish to seek independent legal advice. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the complaint issues.
The resident said she had complained to the landlord about damp and mould in her home since 2015 and wanted us to consider this as part of our investigation. With the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from 2022 onwards. Reference to events that occurred prior to 2022 are made in this report to provide context.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord is a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). Paragraph 10 of the Scheme obliges landlords to provide information requested by this Service. In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence from the time of the complaint to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable.
The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken. Failure to keep adequate records indicates a landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policies and adhere to them, as should contractors or managing agents.

3. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The report identified several gaps in the documents. Many of the landlord’s repair records failed to capture the attending operatives’ findings or a description of the works carried out. Some actions were not recorded in the repair logs, and we had to cross reference them with internal correspondence. This should not have been necessary and is a failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Policies and procedures

The Housing Act 2004 ensures landlords are responsible for assessing hazards and risks within their rented homes. When assessing any such hazards and risks, the assessment should be considered in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which classes damp and mould, electrical and fire hazards as category 1 hazards. Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also requires the property to be free from a hazard and to be fit for human habitation.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a legal duty on landlords to make full, effective and lasting repairs once it is given notice of disrepair.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will:
1. attend within 24 hours when there is an immediate danger. Repair works may make safe and lower the immediate risk, with follow on repairs required.
2. aim to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days.
Under the landlord’s damp and mould policy, which it introduced on 22 May 2023, residents are asked to report damp and mould immediately, even if the problem is small. The landlord will consider a range of interventions, including:
1. giving practical and tailored advice to residents.
2. clean and shield treatments (mould washes) where appropriate.
3. adjust heating controls to help perform better or prevent mould in future.
4. installation of humidity and temperature sensors to remotely monitor.
5. installation and/or upgrading of fans to improve ventilation.
6. undertaking repairs in accordance with repairs policy.
7. regularly monitor situation with follow up calls and if required, additional visits.
The landlord’s allocations policy states that it will give residents options which are appropriate to their needs when approached about rehousing. It states that it will ensure the needs of vulnerable residents are identified and assessed and it will support vulnerable residents with rehousing applications.

The resident’s reports of other issues with damp and mould

The resident reported damp and mould, a leaking drainpipe, leaking tap, and damp in the bedrooms on 25 May 2022. On 29 May 2022 the resident reported the bathroom floor was lifting away due to damp and mould. The resident has told this Service and the landlord that she had regularly reported damp and mould prior to this.
On 30 May 2022 the landlord completed related repairs to the front bedroom. On 7 June 2022 the landlord undertook a damp and mould survey. This identified visible mould in the bathroom, living room and bedrooms. It recommended additional tiling in the bathroom and that a broken thermostat needed replacing. It advised the resident to ventilate the property more often and to clean built up condensation.
The next day the landlord conducted a mould wash over 10 surfaces. It is positive that the landlord completed some damp and mould repairs within its repairs policy timeframe. However, it did not take steps to monitor the effectiveness of the mould wash and to ensure it had completed a lasting repair. Given the reports made by the resident and that she said she had regularly reported damp and mould, this was unreasonable.
In October 2022 the landlord repaired an uncontained leaking pipe in the kitchen. This was 5 months after the resident reported the issue and was outside of its repairs policy timeframe. The landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in it repairing the pipe in its stage 2 response, but it did not update her about this during the 5-month delay. This was unreasonable.
The landlord did not complete the bathroom tiling and flooring until April 2023, after the resident had experienced a serious unrelated leak, contacted her MP, and made a complaint. This was 10 months after the landlord’s records state it became aware of the issues and was a significant failing when assessed against its repairs policy.
The resident said she was repeatedly complaining about the damp and mould. The landlord recommended that she needed to ventilate and heat the property more often to address this. During 2022 and 2023, the landlord repeatedly struggled to identify what work had been actioned regarding the thermostat. On 8 November 2023 it identified it was replaced on 27 July 2023. However, this work is not noted on the landlord’s repair log.
Irrespective of this, the time taken to action the repairs to the thermostat was outside of its repairs policy timeframe. It is not reasonable that she had to wait 415 days for the thermostat to be replaced, and therefore to be able to control the heating temperature in her home. The delay in the landlord repairing the thermostat, prevented her from following the landlord’s damp and mould policy advice.
The resident told this Service that a damp and mould monitor was installed in the property on 18 July 2022. The landlord did not provide any contemporary evidence of this. On 11 March 2025 the landlord told this Service that a temperature and humidity sensor had been installed in the property. It said that messages had been sent to the resident in the past 12 months advising that humidity was at “concerning levels”, with advice on reducing this.
The resident told this Service that the landlord had not responded to her questions about the sensor after installation. She said she had not received information regarding the sensor’s readings. The landlord has not provided evidence that information was sent to the resident. Given that the landlord had said that the sensor showed that the resident’s actions could help reduce the humidity in her home, its failure to share this information with the resident may have prevented her from following this advice.
On 19 September 2022 the resident again reported a leaking drainpipe was causing damp issues to her son’s bedroom. On 24 November 2022, the landlord’s contractor attended the property and carried out drainage repair works. This was 6 months after the resident had first reported the issue. This was significantly outside of the timeframe that its repairs policy set out and was a failure.
In December 2022 the resident again reported water running down her son’s bedroom wall when it rained. The landlord acknowledged this on 23 December 2022 and said a contractor would be in touch. On 24 January 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended for roofing works. This was 32 calendar days after her report. This was outside of its repairs policy timeframe. In both the drainage and roofing works, there are record keeping failures and it is difficult to assess what work was carried out and if any remained outstanding.
The landlord did not carry out any further work until it responded to the resident’s reports of a leak from her upstairs neighbour in March 2023. On 5 April 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and apologised for the short notice of repairs that had been booked in. It said repairs had taken place on 3 April 2023 to the drains. The landlord’s repairs log shows no record of this visit, and the landlord did not communicate with the resident in advance of this visit. The landlord repairs log shows drainage work took place on 13 April 2023.
The limited repair records made it difficult for the landlord to accurately understand the works required and those already actioned. Record keeping failures mean it is not possible for the Ombudsman to assess if its actions were reasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 March 2023 and asked to be permanently rehoused due to the damp and leak situation continuing. She said she was very distressed. She contacted the landlord again in June 2023 to make the same request.
When the resident informed the landlord that the condition of her home was having a negative effect on them and she wished to be moved, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to establish whether the property remained fit for habitation or if alternative arrangements were needed for the resident until it resolved the issues. It would have been reasonable to share information on the resident’s options for permanent rehousing, as per its allocations policy.
On 24 April 2023 the resident asked the landlord for a copy of the findings from its visit on 22 March 2023 and for a schedule of work with dates. She complained about staff conduct during this visit and said she felt they had minimised her issues. She asked for the same information on 5 May, 7 and 26 June 2023. The landlord did not provide this information and this was not reasonable. The resident has stated that the landlord’s lack of communication with the resident contributed caused her distress and mistrust of the landlord.
On 7 June 2023 the landlord told the resident that further work was needed to patch the liner and descale the drains. It said that all plumbing works had been completed on 5 April 2023 and the electrical light in the hall had been fixed on 22 May 2023. The landlord’s repairs log showed no record of any visits on either 5 April or 22 May 2023.
Internal communication shows that the landlord was not able to confirm what works were agreed during its visit on 22 March 2023. This contributed to a general confusion over what had been assessed, actioned and was still to be completed. It meant that the landlord was unable to set the resident’s expectations on the scale of the work required and contributed to the resident’s confusion.
On 21 June 2023 the landlord carried out a CCTV drains survey. It is not clear why this was undertaken, given that the landlord had previously stated that all plumbing works had been completed. The landlord did not record the findings of the drain survey. On 12 July 2023 the landlord stated internally that the only outstanding works were remedial to the bedroom and kitchen ceiling.
On 24 July 2023 the resident reported a stronger smell of damp and mould spots in the bedrooms. The landlord undertook a damp and mould wash on 1 August 2023. This was within its repairs policy timeframe.
In August 2023 the resident asked for the expected outcome of the new work order and reported that the damp and mould returned after each clean and shield. The landlord’s internal communication show confusion over what actions had been agreed. On 17 August 2023 the landlord undertook some repairs to the render of the external rear wall. It is unclear when or why this was raised.
On 24 August 2023 the landlord told the resident it would be undertaking further repairs following an inspection of the home for damp and mould. The landlord has not recorded this inspection or its outcome. There was a sustained pattern of record keeping failures meaning it was not possible to assess the actions the landlord took.
Between 22 September and 24 November 2023, the landlord’s repair logs state it undertook repairs to:
1. render on the external rear wall.
2. fit an extractor fan.
3. decorate bedroom after mould wash.
4. make good kitchen ceilings.
5. complete a mould wash and stain blocker.
It is unclear from the repair records which dates some repairs took place on and when the jobs were completed. Some repairs (strip wallpaper, paint bedroom walls and make good ceilings) are repeated. The landlord was not managing either the quality of the repairs undertaken or the accuracy of the recorded visits effectively.
The landlord responded to the resident’s request for rehousing on 5 September 2023 and in its stage 2 response. It stated the repairs required at that point did not necessitate temporary housing. It signposted the resident to options to apply for accommodation via the local authority’s processes.
Although the landlord gave a reasonable response, there was a delay of 6 months in responding to the resident. This may have unnecessarily delayed the resident in taking steps to seek alternative accommodation. The landlord did not acknowledge its delayed response and did not acknowledge the resident’s vulnerabilities. This was not in line with its allocations policy.
The landlord did not acknowledge its delayed response and did not acknowledge the resident’s vulnerabilities.
On 10 November 2023 the landlord conducted a heat loss survey and stated that the front bedroom radiator was producing the required heat energy. This was at least 17 months after the resident had reported damp and mould and cold air. This prevented the landlord and resident from accurately identifying the underlying reasons for damp and mould in the home in a reasonable timeframe.

The uncontained leak from the upstairs flat

In the first week of March 2023, the resident reported that there was water from an overflowing bath, which was pouring through her ceiling and through the light fixture and alarm system.
The landlord did not record the date it received the report but attended the property and isolated the light switch at some point between 5 and 8 March 2023. In June 2023, the resident told the landlord it had also isolated the fire alarm and had not yet repaired this. The evidence provided regarding this is inconsistent, stating that the same visit and action occurred on 3 different days. It is therefore not possible to assess if the landlord took appropriate action within its policy timeframe due to the landlord’s poor record keeping.
On 9 March 2023 the landlord recorded that it completed an inspection following a leak. Again, the evidence provided by the landlord is inconsistent. This includes internal correspondence with the resident on 9 March 2023 confirming a full inspection for damage caused by the leak and damp and mould in the whole property on 22 March 2023.
This information suggests that an inspection did not occur on 9 March 2023 and that the repair was incorrectly logged. These are significant record keeping failures and show the landlord was unable to identify the visits it had undertaken. This impacted the service the resident received and has meant it is not possible to assess if the landlord fulfilled its obligations in line with its policies and procedures.
On 11 March 2023 the resident reported water pouring through her ceiling again from the upstairs flat. She said she was very distressed. The landlord’s repairs policy said it would respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours.
The landlord had isolated the electrics after the first report of the leak. However, given the large amount of water going through the ceiling for the second time, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to class this as an emergency repair and arrange a visit within 24 hours to assess the damage.
The landlord did not respond to this report until 13 March 2023 when it told her it had contacted its neighbourhood housing lead regarding the leaks and would inspect the resident’s property on 22 March 2023. This was not in line with its policy.
The landlord did subsequently take steps to investigate the cause of the leak and took steps to work with the neighbour to prevent the leak reoccurring in the future. This was reasonable.
On 4 April 2023 the landlord said it could not identify what repair jobs had been raised during its previous inspection on 22 March 2023. There is no evidence of the landlord’s inspection on 22 March 2023 or its findings. This is another record keeping failure that has meant it is not possible to assess if the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
In line with its policy, it would have also been reasonable for the landlord to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and assess how it could offer further support.
The fire alarm was isolated in March 2023. The HHSRS categorises fire as a category 1 hazard. The landlord’s policy states that emergency repairs should be made safe within 24 hours. In June 2023, the resident told the landlord the fire alarm had not been repaired. On 20 May 2024 the landlord repaired the fire alarm. It recorded this had been isolated in the 2023 leak. It did not repair the fire alarm for 14 months, which was a serious failing.

Summary

In summary, there were significant failings in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the reports of leaks, damp and mould, which delayed necessary works and caused the resident distress, time, and trouble. These included:
1. several communication failures, including a lack of response to her reports.
2. failing to communicate the findings of the temperature and humidity sensor with the resident.
3. a delay of 10 months in it completing the works to the bathroom tiling and floor.
4. a delay of 5 months in fixing an uncontained leaking pipe.
5. a delay of 6 months in responding to the resident’s request for rehousing.
6. a delay of 6 months to addressing external leaks and drainage works.
7. a delay of over 13 months to repair the heating thermostat.
8. a failure to repair a fire alarm for 14 months.
Although the landlord did complete several damp and mould treatments, it failed to action the further works recommended within a reasonable timeframe. The resident has expressed that she feels these treatments do not provide a permanent solution to the damp and mould and are disruptive to her enjoyment of her home. The landlord has not shown that it monitored if its repairs were full and lasting, in line with its duties under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord offered £200 compensation in August 2023 and £475 compensation in its stage 2 response and apologised to the resident. These were steps towards putting things right. However, it did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint about the fire alarm. The landlord’s poor record keeping exacerbated the situation and further undermined the landlord/resident relationship. The landlord repeatedly failed to provide a service and did not put it right in a reasonable timeframe.
The resident has explained the distress, upset and frustration she experienced. She has said that her housing situation has seriously impacted her mental health and her family’s health. She has said she consistently felt ignored by the landlord over a significant period and that she had experienced “institutional abuse”.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s handling of the repairs amounted to severe maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its failures.
Having considered the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. We order the landlord to pay the resident £1,100. This is equivalent to a percentage of the resident’s rent for the period that the repairs were outstanding. The compensation reflects the loss of enjoyment of the resident’s home and the likely distress and inconvenience caused, including the delay to repair of the fire alarm and thermostat. This should be in addition to any compensation already paid.
The resident has reported that the damp and mould issues are ongoing. We have therefore made orders for the landlord to inspect the property and to review its use of the temperature and humidity sensor.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns around kitchen storage space

In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy states it will find solutions that meet the individual needs of residents. When dealing with resident’s requests, it will:
1. ask if the customer is potentially vulnerable.
2. ask how their condition affects them, what support needs they have and consider how it will respond.
3. record their needs on the system so other colleagues know how to respond in future.
On 29 June 2022 the landlord summarised a conversation between itself and the resident. It noted that the resident was unhappy with the amount of storage space in her kitchen. The landlord said it would feed back to her on this issue. There is no evidence it did so. This was a failure in its service to the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 4 March, 24 April, and 26 June 2023. She said the kitchen was a hazard due to the lack of storage space and she was unhappy with the landlord’s proposed solution, which required that she move or downsize her freezer. She said that her and her son’s health conditions required specific diets which meant the freezer was essential.
The landlord was aware that the resident and her family member has physical impairments that may have a substantial and long-term negative effect on their abilities to do normal daily activities. The Ombudsman’s attitudes, rights and respect spotlight report says that it is the landlord’s responsibility to ascertain what the support needs of its residents are.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated it had discussed the option of removing or downsizing the freezer to install an additional base. However, there are no records of this visit. The landlord has not shown that it followed its aids and adaptions policy. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to ask further questions about the resident’s condition and to consider if her request for changes to her kitchen could be considered under its aids and adaptations policy.
The landlord has not acknowledged its failings and did not take actions to put things right. The Ombudsman considers this did amount to maladministration and has ordered £150 compensation to reflect the detriment to the resident. We have also made an order regarding recording the resident’s vulnerabilities and to write to the resident to confirm its position on the kitchen storage with consideration of its policy.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

A landlord’s complaint handling should aim to resolve issues quickly, effectively, and fairly. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out what good complaint handling looks like. The Code and further guidance are available on our website.
The Code states that at the completion of each stage of the complaints process, the landlord should write to the resident advising a number of details:
1. The complaint stage.
2. The outcome of the complaint.
3. The reasons for any decisions made.
4. The details of any remedy offered to put things right.
5. Details of any outstanding actions.
6. Details of how to escalate the matter if dissatisfied.
The Ombudsman is clear that effective dispute resolution requires a process designed to resolve complaints. Where something has gone wrong a landlord should acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. It should also name any learning to ensure failings are not repeated.
The landlord’s complaint policy defined a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord or those acting on its behalf. Complaints could be made in a variety of ways, including directly to any colleague.
The landlord’s policy stated stage 1 complaints would be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response within 10 working days of logging the complaint. The resident expressed dissatisfaction on 29 June 2022. This was acknowledged by the landlord but dealt with at service level. This delayed the resident in escalating her complaint by 8 months. This caused the resident inconvenience as she then had to raise another formal complaint. This was not in line with its policy.
On 4 March 2023 the resident contacted her MP and landlord. She repeated her complaints. She said she felt like she was “experiencing institutional abuse”. The landlord acknowledged this within its policy timeframe. It responded on 7 March 2023, which was within 10 working days. This was appropriate.
The landlord’s policy says stage 2 complaints would be acknowledged within 5 working days and a final written response provided within 20 working days. If further time was needed, the landlord would explain the reasons why in writing. The resident responded on 11 March 2023 to escalate the complaint. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and was very distressed. The landlord did not follow its policy and did not acknowledge this as an escalation.
The resident further expressed dissatisfaction with the complaints process on 7 and 26 June, 1 August, 4 and 13 September 2023. The landlord dealt with some of these complaints at service level. This was not in line with its complaints policy.
The failure to escalate caused the resident time and trouble because she then had to ask this Service to intervene. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 response on 7 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 8 November 2023. This was 168 working days after the resident first escalated her complaint and was not reasonable. The resident was caused significant time and trouble in having to chase the landlord and approach this Service.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 14 November 2023. This was 172 working days after the resident first said she was unhappy with the stage 1 response. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy or the Code and was a failure.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it stated it would investigate issues in the previous 6 months. The Code states that a landlord must accept complaints referred to them within 12 months of the issue occurring, or the resident becoming aware of the issue.
Landlords must consider whether to apply discretion to accept complaints outside of this timeframe where there is good reason to do so. That the landlord would only investigate issues in the previous 6 months was not compliant with the Code. It did not consider the resident’s continued expressions of dissatisfaction and the landlord’s failure to acknowledge these.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered £50 compensation for complaint handling issues. However, it failed to put matters right by addressing all the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity. It took limited steps to put things right and to resolve the underlying issue. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay £150 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by the failures outlined above. This is in line with our remedies’ guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about kitchen storage space.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of this report, the landlord must:
1. apologise to the resident for the failures identified in the report. The apology should be from the Chief Executive Officer and should be in writing.
2. pay compensation to the resident of £1,400. This is in addition to any compensation previously offered, which should be reoffered to the resident, if not already paid. This is made up of:
  1. £1,100 for the loss of enjoyment of her home and the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of her reports of leaks, damp and mould. This is in line with our remedies guidance and considers the resident’s rent when assessing the loss of enjoyment.
  2. £150 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about kitchen storage.
  3. £150 for the time and trouble caused to the resident in resolving the complaint issues.
3. inspect the resident’s property to address her concerns about the ongoing damp and mould. The landlord should provide a copy of the inspection report to the resident and this Service which should set out any outstanding repairs.
4. if there are outstanding repairs, the landlord should provide in writing schedule with a timeline of when the repairs will be completed, which should then be adhered to. This should be sent to the resident and this Service.
5. review its use of the temperature and humidity sensor. This should include a decision on whether to continue use of the sensor and if so, an action plan to ensure the information is sent to the resident. Evidence of this review should be shared with the resident and this Service.
6. ensure it has accurately recorded the resident’s and her family’s vulnerabilities.
7. write to the resident to confirm its position on the kitchen storage with consideration to its aids and allocations policy.
8. provide documentary evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days.