Lewisham Council (202125843)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125843

Lewisham Council

30 April 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Damp and mould.
2. A pest infestation.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority. In the landlord’s response to this Service it confirmed there were no vulnerabilities recorded on its system. Medical evidence provided as part of the investigation shows that the resident suffers from physical and mental health issues. She uses crutches to mobilise and is registered as disabled.
The property is a 1 bedroom bungalow. The landlord’s records show that the resident was allocated the property because it was accessible and “high medical priority” was awarded.
In February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report her concerns regarding an outstanding repair to the guttering which was causing damp and mould. The damp and mould had caused mould mites which had impacted on her ability to live in the property and on her physical and mental health. The landlord arranged to carry out a survey of the property on 4 April. On 16 August the resident emailed the landlord to set out the impact the ongoing situation was having on her. She told the landlord she had thrown away electrical goods, food and other personal items, due to damage by mites and damp and mould, which she could not afford to replace.
On 25 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to make a stage 1 complaint. The main issues were:
1. The gutters were still blocked and leaking, causing damp and mould in the property.
2. The property and her possessions, including her kettle and oven, were infested with mould mites.
3. She had thrown away her bedding and was unable to cook meals.
4. She was regularly disinfecting the property which was causing her to fall due to her disability.
5. She set out her health issues, advising she was high risk.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 29 March 2022, as follows:
1. It had made a new appointment for a surveyor to attend on 4 April.
2. It said its pest control service could carry out fumigation at a cost to the resident. It confirmed its environmental health service was unable to assist.
3. Its pest control team advised that once the repairs were resolved the mould mites should “ease.”
4. It was sorry the resident felt suicidal and provided details for the samaritans.
On 17 August 2022 the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process. She told the landlord she was “really struggling” because the situation was impacting on her physical and mental health. In her email to the landlord of 25 August she said she was disabled and needed its help.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 22 September 2022 apologised for the delay in carrying out works following April’s survey. Furthermore, it advised that:
1. It had raised a works order to carry out mould treatments to all affected areas and had made an appointment to attend her neighbour’s gutter on 28 September.
2. It offered £100 as a “gesture of goodwill” for the delays and distress caused.
3. It could not compensate the resident for the items she had thrown away and that she would need to claim off her own content’s insurance.
4. It had offered to refer her to adult social care which she had declined. It encouraged her to contact the samaritans if necessary. It also said she could contact its housing management team should she need additional support.
5. It signposted her to escalate her complaint to stage 3 if she remained dissatisfied.
The landlord provided a stage 2 “follow on response” on 15 February 2023, adding that:
1. Its damp and mould team were due to attend March 2022 but this was suspended due to the pest issue. It advised the resident to contact pest control regarding treatments and that the damp and mould inspection would be rebooked once the issue was resolved. It said it had not heard from the resident since 21 March.
2. As agreed with the resident, its pest control team was due to visit on 17 April 2023 to carry out a one off pest control investigation and treatment.
3. It had attempted to clear the gutter in January 2023 however, access was not provided. It attended again on 5 April and cleared the gutter. There was no damp and mould visible at the time of inspection.
4. It reiterated the resident’s right to escalate her complaint to stage 3 of its complaints process.
The resident contacted this Service on 17 May 2023 to express her ongoing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to date. Repairs related to damp and mould remained outstanding and the resident sought compensation for items “ruined by the mites.”

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies & procedures

The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’) requires the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation. Section 10(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as amended by the Homes Act, states that in determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters including facilities for preparation and cooking of food and disposal of waste water, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
The landlord’s repairs guide says it is responsible for repairing gutters and rainwater pipes. It aims to respond to non-urgent repairs within 20 working days.
The public sector equality duty is a legal requirement for public authorities to think about how they can improve society and promote equality in every aspect of their day-to-day business, including the services they provide.
The landlord’s pest management policy says that under the tenancy agreement it is responsible for keeping the home in ‘good repair.’ If an infestation is deemed to have been caused by its not making certain repairs to a property, it may also be held responsible for associated pest control. Likewise, where an infestation means a resident’s home is unsafe or ‘unfit for human habitation.’
The landlord’s complaints policy says that in the event the resident remains dissatisfied with its stage 1 complaint response they can request to escalate to stage 2 within 20 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied they can request to escalate to stage 3 where the complaint will be reviewed by an independent adjudicator.
The landlord’s compensation policy says:
1. It will make a discretionary payment of between £10 and £50 where “services have fallen outside expected service standards” for time and trouble.
2. It will make a discretionary payment for distress and inconvenience, as follows:
  1. Low impact up to £50 where the impact is no greater than a reasonably tolerant person could be expected to accept.
  2. Medium impact £51-£250 resident has suffered a level of inconvenience and/or distress that exceeds what a reasonably tolerant person could be expected to accept.
  3. High impact £251-£1000 resident has suffered inconvenience and/or distress because of a serious or repeat service failure.
Where a resident believes that the landlord was responsible for the damage or loss, they should be sent a copy of its insurance claim form. If a resident claimed it was at fault and wishes to pursue a personal injury claim, contact must be made with its legal services and the insurance section for advice.

Scope of the investigation

At the time of the complaint the landlord had a 3 stage complaints process. In its stage 2 complaint response of 22 September 2022 and its stage 2 ‘follow on response’ of 15 February 2023 the landlord signposted the resident to its third stage should she remain dissatisfied. Section 5 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that complaints should only go to a third stage if the resident has actively requested a third stage review of their complaint. There is no evidence that the resident did so in this case.
Paragraph 42 a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. In this case the Ombudsman has used its discretion to accept the complaint for investigation on the basis that the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 22 September 2022 was its final response.
This complaint was accepted for investigation by this Service on 31 May 2023. During the period of the complaint the resident contacted the landlord to report dissatisfaction with non-damp and mould related repairs. The resident made a formal stage 1 complaint on 1 August, after this complaint was accepted for investigation. Therefore, the landlord’s response to the resident’s non damp and mould repairs is to be determined under a separate complaint with us under case reference 202337128.
While the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, we will take this into account when considering the resident’s circumstances. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions. This is an accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
We recognise that some of our residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s physical and mental health conditions) could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.

Damp and mould

During a phone call with this Service on 18 April 2024 the resident said that she reported the leak from the guttering into her property as early as 2020 and before COVID-19. The landlord’s repairs logs show that a repair was raised on 21 February 2020 to “trace a leak” from above going into the bedroom and living room. Its records show that the job was completed on 12 June 2020, noting that the gutter was blocked causing water to spill.
On 17 November 2021 the landlord logged a repair to attend to the gutter at the back of the property which was completed on 10 January 2022. However, when the resident emailed the landlord on 17 February she said she had booked 3 appointments to clear the gutters. No one attended the first 2 appointments and on the third, only her gutters were cleared. The gutters belonging to the neighbouring property, where the blockage occurred, where not attended to. The landlord did not provide a response which was inappropriate. This was because it caused the resident distress, time and trouble because she had to make a formal complaint on 25 February in order to try to resolve the issue.
The resident completed an online report form on 15 March 2022 to request that the landlord carry out the repair in line with its obligations. She said she was living in her living room. In an email to this Service on 24 April 2024 the resident said she moved into that room in December 2021 because of “damp and mould on the exterior wall and windows.” She said mould began to form on her mattress and bedding.
The landlord replied on the same day, 15 March, to say that the property condition team would make contact within 10 working days. This caused further distress because it compounded the delay the resident had already experienced in resolving the repair. Furthermore, it failed to respond to provide a response to the resident’s statement about her living conditions. This was inappropriate because its response lacked empathy. Additionally, it showed a lack of regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 29 March 2022 said it had arranged for a damp survey to be carried out on 4 April. The landlord was to provide a copy of the survey for the purposes of this investigation. Despite the front sheet of the survey setting out the resident’s address, the survey did not describe her property. This is because it described a 2 bedroom flat where a child was part of the household. The landlord has been given the opportunity to provide the correct report but has not done so. This is a record keeping failure.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report of damp and mould requires landlords to use data to drive its response to damp and mould. Landlords cannot do so effectively when there are record keeping issues. Furthermore, the landlord’s failure to provide a copy of the survey has hampered the effectiveness of this investigation although it has been possible to reach a determination based on the information to hand.
A wider order was made in a previous determination, case reference 202124577, for the landlord to carry out a comprehensive review of its practices in relation to responding to requests for repairs and record keeping. Therefore, it is not appropriate to make a similar order in this case.
On 12 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to confirm that the gutter was still blocked and the leak ongoing which meant the damp and mould was not resolved. The landlord replied to say that the repairs complaints coordinator would reply in 7 days. The resident replied on 16 August to express her dissatisfaction that a further 7 days was added onto the delays she had already experienced. The landlord replied on the same day, 16 August, to apologise and advise the resident she could escalate her complaint to stage 2 if she wished. While it was appropriate of the landlord to signpost the resident to the next stage of the complaints process. It would have been more helpful to the resident if it had tried expedite the process and provide a timely resolution.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 22 September 2022 said there was a delay in carrying out works following April’s survey which it said was “due to an administrative error”. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. While it was appropriate that the landlord addressed the delay, its response lacked transparency because it did not go far enough to explain what administrative error had occurred. Furthermore, it did not say what it would do differently to prevent it happening again.
It also appropriately acknowledged the need to put things right by raising an order to carry out “mould treatments to all affected areas (…).” However, there was no reference to unblocking and repairing the leaking gutter which was the cause of the substantive issue. Its response was therefore inappropriate. It offered £100 for the delays and distress in relation to a number of works ordered by the surveyor, some of which were non damp and mould related, including the mould treatment.
On 12 October 2022 the resident declined the offer of £100 compensation which she felt was not proportionate to the loss she incurred through damage to her possessions. She also did not feel that it reflected the detriment caused to her physical and mental health. On 13 October the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it was seeking clarity on the repair to the guttering. However, it subsequently failed to provide a further update which was inappropriate. This was because the resident was caused inconvenience, time and trouble in chasing the landlord for a response in her email of 21 October.
In the same email of 21 October 2022 the resident confirmed that the mould wash had been carried out. On 10 January 2023 the landlord logged a repair to remedy a damaged gutter which was causing a leak which was completed on 2 July. In its stage 2 complaint response of 15 February 2023 the landlord said it had attempted to attend to the gutter issue in January but access had not been provided. It said it made a further attempt on 5 April and was able to carry out the necessary works.
The resident first reported issues with damp and mould caused by the leak from overflowing gutters in February 2020. The landlord’s repair logs show that it attended to the issue in June. On 17 November 2021 the landlord logged a repair to attend to the gutter at the back of the bungalow which it said was completed on 10 January 2022. The resident disputes this because on 17 February 2022 she said the neighbouring gutter, which was the source of the problem, was not unblocked. While this investigation does not dispute the resident’s account without independent evidence either way, this investigation cannot make a determination on this point.
However, having put the landlord on notice in her email of 17 February 2022 the landlord failed to attend to remedy the issue with the gutter until January 2023 at the earliest. This was almost a year later which was well out of its repair response target of 20 days. The mould wash was carried out in between 22 September and 21 October 2022, 7 months after the issue was first raised on 17 February. Its response was not in line with the spotlight report on damp and mould which requires landlord to have a zero tolerance approach and to act quickly and efficiently to deal with the root cause and associated works. It failed to have due regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act.
The landlord’s failures caused frustration, distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident. They amount to severe maladministration because they were serious failings which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.
During 2022/23 the rent was £101.35 per week. The Ombudsman considers it appropriate to require the landlord to provide financial redress which recognises that the resident was unable to live in her bedroom due to damp and mould. The period considered for this calculation is 15 March 2022 (when the landlord was put on notice) to 21 October 2022 (when the mould wash was confirmed as complete), which is 31 weeks. It also takes into account that there are 4 rooms in the bungalow.
In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to require the landlord to pay the resident £785.46 compensation. This is an amenity loss calculation for the bedroom which was unsuitable for use £25.33 x 31 = £785.46.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.
This investigation also considers that the landlord’s failings caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out that compensation in the range of £600 to £1000 should be awarded where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. Compensation may be higher where there was a severe long-term impact. Therefore, in line with the guidance the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £1000 for distress and inconvenience.

Pest infestation

When the resident emailed the landlord on 17 February 2022 she set out the impact the mites were having on her, including that she was disabled, isolated and unable to cook. She was concerned that 2 different housing officers had given her conflicting information about whether it would carry out a free fumigation. She also reported that an officer had made a flippant comment in response to concerns raised about her mental health by saying “she should just turn up at Maudsley and get help.”
The landlord’s reply of 18 February 2022 provided information from its environmental health team on steps the resident could take to combat the mites and advised that the matter was being investigated. Its response lacked empathy because it failed to address the detrimental impact caused to the resident and failed to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Furthermore, the nature of the reply suggested to the resident that it did not take her situation seriously.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sets out that the landlord should satisfy itself that the repair is or is not its responsibility. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have inspected the property at this point to ensure that it was not responsible for the pests as set out in its policy.
The resident sent a further email on 21 February 2022 to say she had already taken the steps advised by environmental health but they had not helped. She said “no one is helping me or replying back to me, so be it if my mental and physical health worsens.” The resident did not receive a reply which was particularly inappropriate given the nature of her email. Furthermore, she was caused inconvenience, time and trouble because she emailed the landlord again on 25 February to advise that she intended to contact her MP to get a resolution.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 29 March 2022 referred to advice previously given to the resident on 10 February that its pest control service could assist at a cost to the resident. It said that its pest control team had advised that once repairs have been carried out the problem should improve.
In the resident’s undated response to the landlord she said she had contacted the pest control team and explained she was disabled. She said the call handler had said “let me stop you right there. I’m fed up of hearing sob stories, I hear them all the time!”. She advised the landlord that she was seeking compensation for items “ruined” by the mites, including her beds & mattress, bedding, duvet, pillows, pressure cooker, microwave, oven. She advised that the mites were impacting on her physical health because they had caused a fungal infection on her feet. The ongoing situation was detrimental to her mental health.
There is no record that the landlord replied which was inappropriate. This is because it compounded the resident’s frustration and disappointment that she was not being heard, causing additional distress.
Furthermore, the resident was caused additional distress, inconvenience, time and trouble when she had to email the landlord on 16 August 2022 to chase a response. She said that she had thrown away “hundreds of pounds” of food. She said she was anaemic and had “many serious” health conditions including lopo-lymphoedema (swelling of the body tissue mainly in the arms and legs) which meant the bites could “cause serious damage.” She said she was having black outs from stress and was having to bleach the worktops several times a day which was difficult due to her mobility issues.
The landlord’s response sent on the same day, 16 August 2022, once again lacked compassion and empathy. It said it noted her dissatisfaction and advised she could escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process.
It failed to acknowledge the nature of the resident’s complaint and the significant impact it was having on her health, demonstrating once again a lack of regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. It also failed to have due regard to its responsibilities under the Human Rights Act 1998.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 22 September 2022 reiterated the advice of its pest control team that the mites should improve once it carried out the repairs. Considering this advice, the fact it accepted its delay in carrying out the repairs and had undertaken to carry out mould treatments, it would have been appropriate for it to consider assisting the resident with regards to carrying out a pest control treatment. That it did not was a failure showing once again a lack of regard for the resident’s safety and wellbeing.
Its response also said it would not compensate the resident for the items she had thrown away and that she should claim on her own insurance in the first instance. Given that it accepted its delay in carrying out the repairs and had undertaken to carry out mould treatment it would have been appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to make a claim on its liability insurance so that it could undertake a formal assessment of liability. That it did not do so at that time was a failure.
This investigation notes that the landlord provided a claim form to the resident on 22 November 2022. This investigation does not know if the resident submitted a claim.
The landlord issued a stage 2 follow on complaint response on 15 February 2023 in which it offered to carry out a one off pest investigation and treatment on 17 April. While this was a positive step it came a year after the resident formally raised the issue and it should reasonably have acted sooner. In an email to the landlord on 24 August the resident confirmed that the treatment was carried out in March and the matter had been resolved.
The landlord accepted that it had not carried out repairs related to damp and mould in a timely manner. There was a direct cause and effect between the lack of progress with the repairs and the ongoing pest infestation. Its pest management policy says that if an infestation is deemed to have been caused by its not making certain repairs to a property, it may also be held responsible for associated pest control. Likewise, where an infestation means a resident’s home is unsafe or ‘unfit for human habitation.’
Had it carried out the initial inspection as it should have, then it would have been in a better position to have treated the pests earlier. This would have saved the resident the distress and inconvenience of her experience.
Regardless, considering its policy, the resident’s vulnerabilities and the landlord’s obligations under the Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018, the landlord failed to support the resident by carrying out pest control treatments while it arranged the necessary repairs. This was unreasonable because it compounded her distress, impacted on her wellbeing and eroded the landlord/resident relationship which was unreasonable.
The landlord delayed signposting the resident to make a claim on its liability insurance. There are examples where it failed to provide any response to the resident’s communication, even when she expressed her distress in clear terms. When it did reply its responses lacked empathy and were inappropriate.
The landlord failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and her individual circumstances. It also failed to have regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act.
The failings amount to severe maladministration because there were serious failings by the landlord which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. The landlord’s response to the failures exacerbated the situation and undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
During 2022/23 the rent was £101.35 per week. The Ombudsman considers it appropriate to require the landlord to provide financial redress which recognises that the resident was unable to cook in her kitchen due to mould mites. The period considered for this calculation is 17 February 2022 (when the landlord was put on notice) to April 2023 (when the pest treatment was carried out), which is 58 weeks. It also takes into account that there are 4 rooms in the bungalow.
In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to require the landlord to pay the resident £1450 compensation. This is an amenity loss calculation for the bedroom which was unsuitable for use £25.33 x 58 = £1450.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.
This investigation also considers that the landlord’s failings caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident. The Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out that compensation in the range of £1000+ should be awarded where there was a failure which had a severe long-term impact. Therefore, in line with the guidance the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £1500 for distress and inconvenience.

Complaint Handling

The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that effective complaint handlers should be able to act sensitively and fairly and be trained to handle complaints and deal with distressed and upset residents.
The resident’s stage 1 complaint of 15 March 2022 set out the consequences of the landlord’s alleged failure to attend to blocked gutters, which caused damp and mould, for almost a year. This included the presence of mould mites in her cooking equipment including her microwave, oven and kettle. She said she had to throw away food, bedding and other personal items and was not able to cook. She described the impact the situation had on her physical health, including falls while cleaning the property because she was “unstable” on her feet. She also said it was having a negative impact on her mental health because she felt “ignored” and had been left to live in a confined space (her living room).
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 29 March 2022 confirmed that it had contacted the resident to discuss her complaint which was positive. It was also appropriate that it had arranged for its housing officer to visit the resident on 31 March. However, the general tone of the response lacked empathy and failed to demonstrate a genuine concern for the impact set out by the resident which was inappropriate.
In the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 17 August 2022 she again set out how the situation was having a significant impact on her. This included her physical health, such as bruising caused by falls incurred while trying to clean the property, and mental health, including suicidal thoughts. She said she was “really struggling” and felt the landlord did not care.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 22 September 2022 set out the action taken by its housing officer during a visit to the resident on 1 April. However, the tone of the letter once again lacked empathy and did not reassure the resident that she had been heard or that the landlord took her complaint seriously which was inappropriate. Furthermore, it undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
The Housing Ombudsman’s principles of dispute resolution are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord did not use the resident’s complaint to resolve the substantive issue. Furthermore, it failed to use the complaint as an opportunity for learning, and to identify ways to improve its service for residents. Its stage 2 complaint response of 22 September 2022 failed to provide details on the administrative error that had occurred and what it would do differently to prevent it from happening again.
The Code says that 2 stage complaint procedures are ideal because this ensures that they are not unduly long. The updated complaints policy on the landlord’s website comprises of 2 stages therefore an order has not been made in relation to this matter.
The overall tone of landlord’s complaint responses at both stages were inappropriate and failed to give sufficient weight to the impact the situation was having on the resident. It failed to learn from the complaint in order make improvements to its services. This had an adverse effect on the resident because it compounded her disappointment and distress that the landlord was failing to support her.
The failures amount to maladministration and the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation which is consistent with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. It is also consistent with the landlord’s policy on compensation for the medium bracket for distress and inconvenience.

Record Keeping

In its response to this Service the landlord advised that “there are no known vulnerabilities recorded on our system.” This is a record keeping failure because the landlord’s own evidence does not support its position.
This includes an internal email dated 24 April 2018 relating to a ‘homesearch recommendation’ which matched the resident with the 1 bedroom bungalow. The note says “this match is for an accessible property, and community occupational therapist must be involved in the viewing.” In her email to the landlord on 12 October 2022 the resident pointed out that she was allocated the property due to her health and mobility problems. During her correspondence with the landlord the resident repeatedly highlighted her disability and health conditions.
This was a record keeping failure. A wider order was made in a previous determination, case reference 202124577, for the landlord to carry out a comprehensive review of its practices in relation to responding to record keeping. Therefore, it was not necessary to make a similar order in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £4885.46 compensation comprised of the following:
  1. £785.46 for the amenity loss caused by the landlord’s failures in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  3. £1450 for the amenity loss caused by the landlord’s failures in its response to the residents reports of a pest infestation.
  4. £1500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures in its response to her reports of a pest infestation.
  5. £150 for the disappointment and distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
2. Arrange for the Chief Executive to apologise to the resident in writing, or face to face and followed up in writing, depending on her wishes. A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman also within 4 weeks.
The landlord should set out its position on the damage to the resident’s possessions in writing. It should refer the resident to its public liability insurers to make a claim for her possession if she still wishes to do so. The landlord should advise the Ombudsman of the outcome, also within 4 weeks.
Within 8 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should:
1. Review the case against the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on:
  1. Damp and mould.
  2. Attitudes, respect and rights, particularly in relation to vulnerability and the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act.
2. Carry out staff training on attitudes, respect and rights by completing the module on the Housing Ombudsman’s landlord learning hub.

The outcome of the review and confirmation of training should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks of the date of the determination.