Thrive Homes Limited (202223945)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223945

Thrive Homes Limited

2 May 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:

Concerns relating to cracks in the property.
Report of damp and mould.
Request for a management move.

2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a two-bedroom semi-detached house. The landlord is aware that the resident has respiratory health conditions.

4. The resident has reported being affected by the cracks in the property, and damp and mould since approximately 2018 and is corroborated by the evidence the landlord has provided.

5. Some of the cracking to the property has been caused by the root spread of a tree. The landlord, it’s insurers and the local authority had been trying to reach an agreement on how best to deal with the tree since 2020.

6. The resident initiated a disrepair claim through a solicitor in 2020. A joint memorandum was provided by three independent experts who confirmed that no subsidence had been identified at the property, or any relevant defects under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. They confirmed that the mould in the property was caused by the condensation and humidity levels within the property. Insulating the external walls would limit the effects of thermal expansion but would be considered as an improvement rather than a repair.

7. In April 2022, the resident requested to raise a stage one complaint in relation to the disrepair in the property.

8. The legal disrepair claim was discontinued in June 2022. Later that month, the resident asked the landlord to confirm arrangements for repairs to start. The landlord confirmed in August 2022 that the repair works had been scoped and passed to its insurers to approve.

9. In September 2022, the landlord discussed the resident moving from the property but noted that it had limited stock of 2 beds in the area.

10. In December 2022 Environmental Health contacted the landlord regarding concerns about mould growth of the property and the impact this was having on the resident’s health.

11. After contacting the Service in January 2023 after failing to receive a response to his complaint, the Service requested that the landlord issued a stage one response. The landlord contacted the resident on 29 January 2023 to confirm its understanding of the resident’s complaint.

12. In February 2023, the resident raised concerns around works starting and the impact this would have on his health and asked to be moved from the property.

13. The landlord issued a stage one response on 8 February 2023. It said that:

The negotiations with the insurers and the local authority had caused a long delay in being able to reach a resolution. Works had been scoped on 23 August 2022 and its insurance company were procuring quotes.
The resident had provided evidence that his health was being impacted by the condition of the property and it had arranged for an independent damp and mould survey on 15 February 2023.
It had applied for funding to complete external wall insulation.
It would gather more information from the resident in relation to the damage to his personal items.
Although there had been several delays, they were outside its control, and it was satisfied that it had fulfilled its responsibilities.

14. The resident remained dissatisfied, primarily because the works had not been completed.

15. On 27 February 2023, the resident’s management move requested was considered by the panel, along with doctors’ evidence and the damp and mould report. The request was declined on the basis that there was no indication that an urgent move was required but advice was given on how the resident could move via a mutual exchange.

16. Operatives attended the resident’s address to complete a mould wash. The resident contacted the landlord, concerned with the use of the chemicals in the solution and the impact it could have on his health.

17. A stage two response was issued on 8 March 2023. It said that:

The damp and mould survey identified several cold spots which was not uncommon for the type of property. It was looking to complete the exterior wall insulation in 2023.
It wanted to carry out treatment at the property to remove the mould but acknowledged the resident’s concerns relating to the chemicals used in its mould treatment. It had reviewed the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) data sheet associated with the chemicals it used.
It would relocate the kitchen extractor fan (as recommended in the damp and mould report) which had been part completed.
It acknowledged that works associated with the cracking had taken too long to address and recognised the negative impact this had. It offered sincere apologies that this was not addressed at stage one.
The management move request was declined on the basis that it was taking steps to remedy the repairs.
In recognition of the delays which had disadvantaged the resident, it offered compensation in relation to the Ombudsman Guidance of £1000 for heating costs, retrospectively applied for 4 years in addition to £1000 for the time taken to resolve the cracking in the building and for the frustration and inconvenience caused.
It offered a dehumidifier to help reduce the impact of the damp and mould.
It was awaiting the resident’s response in relation to the loss of belongings.

Events after the completion of the landlord’s complaints process

18. The landlord completed a full review of the case on 22 March 2023. It increased its offer of compensation to £1,166.66, retrospectively applied for increase in heating costs from July 2018 until May 2023. It confirmed that it would like to offer a dehumidifier to help reduce the impact of the damp and mould while the works were ongoing. Additionally, the resident was reimbursed £4,700 for damage caused to his personal belongings because of the damp and mould.

19. In June 2023, the appointed contractor attended to start works on the repairs. After an altercation with the resident which the contractor reported the resident for being “rude” it advised the landlord that it was unwilling to work on the property, or “work under such conditions” while the resident was in the property.

20. Around the same time, the resident refused a decant because of the stress that this would cause. It is unclear from the evidence when the landlord initially offered the decant.

21. In September 2023, the landlord approved the resident for a management move. A second contractor was appointed in September 2023 to complete the external repair works.

22. The landlord completed a further review of the case on 26 October 2023. It acknowledged times when it had not been clear in its communications and that it had considered the medical evidence the resident had provided but this was not sufficiently addressed in its complaint responses. The driving factor was the resident’s desire to keep himself and his pets safe and it had not always communicated or shown empathy so that the resident felt listened to. It offered an additional £250 in compensation.

23. In agreement with the resident in November 2023, the landlord agreed to treat the mould using detergent and water, to use products the resident was happy with. The treatment was unsuccessful, and the mould returned.

24. The resident requested that the Service investigated his complaint after remaining dissatisfied that there was damp and mould in the property, cracks were still present internally and externally, and he had not received a suitable offer of accommodation. More recently he has confirmed that the external cracks have been repaired, but mould is still present, and while he has been offered a number of properties, none have been suitable.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

25. The resident has reported that his health has been impacted following the treatment of the mould in the property. The Ombudsman does not dispute that the resident has been affected by the circumstances of the complaint. However, is unable to determine whether the actions of the landlord (or lack thereof) impacted the resident’s health in the way claimed in this case. This would be more appropriately considered by a court, where liability can be established. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme where it may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. The Service has considered the way in which the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about her health.

26. The resident’s complaint related to matters raised as part of a disrepair claim in 2020. The historical issues detailed in the background are included to provide contextual background to the current complaint. The investigation will focus on the period from early 2022 when the resident reported cracking and damp and mould at the property, up until October 2023 when the landlord made its final offer of compensation.

27. The Ombudsman acknowledges the concerns the resident raised in relation to his health and this distress this would have caused. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact of his living conditions on his health. While the Service cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced and considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the condition of the property was affecting his health, and whether this response was reasonable in view of all the circumstances.

Cracks

28. The tenancy agreement sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the landlord and the resident. This includes an obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the premises in good repair.

29. The landlord’s published repair times confirm that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours (examples include health and safety hazards), routine repairs have a target time of 20 working days and planned repairs have a target time of 60 working days.

30. There were significant delays in the landlord’s fulfilment of its obligations which resulted in the resident living in a home with cracks for a prolonged period. While the landlord was right to refer the wider issue to its insurers, it nevertheless retains a responsibility to the resident to ensure that any repair reports are correctly responded to.

31. The landlord does not dispute that the property has been affected by cracks, due to its age and construction which have got worse because of a tree root spread. The evidence shows that the landlord consulted appropriately with the local authority and its insurance company to agree on a resolution to reduce/remove the tree to mitigate further damage to its properties. Reaching an agreement took some time and impacted the landlord’s ability to resolve the repairs which the Service has recognised. However, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the case.

32. As the cause of the damage was suspected to be subsidence, the landlord acted appropriately by referring the matter to its insurer to set up a claim. It was for the insurer to conduct the necessary investigations to fully establish the cause of the movement affecting the building.

33. The repair works were scoped by the landlord’s insurance company in August 2022. It was a further six months before the works were approved. While the Service does not attribute the delays solely to the landlord, the landlord maintains a responsibility to coordinate the repairs and act as an intermediary between all the parties to ensure that the repairs are addressed within a reasonable time. At the very least, the landlord is expected to maintain regular contact with the resident and provide updates on the case. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on repair complaints identifies that where complex or extensive work is required, landlords should explain what action will be taken and provide timescales, even if they are provisional. There is no evidence that this was done in this case.

34. The Service understands that the landlord was limited in what repairs it could complete while awaiting instruction from its insurance company. However, the landlord is still obligated to ensure that its property does not deteriorate further. The evidence does not conclude that the landlord took any action during the six months to limit the impact of the repairs, or complete smaller repairs to reduce the detriment caused to the resident.

35. In early 2023, the resident expressed his concerns regarding the impact of the internal repairs on his health and had asked to be considered for permanent move. The survey reports made no reference to the property being unsafe, or that there was a requirement for the resident to be moved for works to be completed. However, the landlord used its discretion appropriately to explore a decant even though it was not obligated to. This showed a commitment to addressing the repairs without causing further disruption and inconvenience to the resident, even though it was declined by the resident.

36. The landlord’s stage two response acknowledged that it had taken too long to reach a resolution and appropriately offered an apology for the distress and inconvenience that this had caused. It confirmed that filling the cracks would improve the situation for the resident but may not fully resolve the cold spots in the property, but it was working to ensure that the installation of exterior wall insulation was completed during 2023. While it attempted to put things right for the resident, it failed to give any assurances as to when all the repairs would be completed which would have left him in an uncertain position that is likely to have contributed to his distress.

37. Works to the cracks eventually started in June 2023, 10 months after they had been scoped and four months after the insurance company had approved the works. As noted above, some of the delays were outside of the landlord’s control, but it would have been reasonable for the landlord to show efforts between February 2023 and June 2023 that it attempted to expedite the works, given the length of time already taken. It is noted that the works to the cracks were delayed from June 2023 when the contractors declined to return to the property due to reports of unreasonable behaviour from the resident. The records show that the landlord acted appropriately in arranging for different contractors to carry out the work instead.

38. The Service notes that the landlord did instruct works for the installation of the external wall insulation after funding was granted. While it was not obligated to complete these works, it showed a resolution-focused approach to improve the thermal efficiency of the property for the resident as recommended in the independent report. The landlord went further in reimbursing the resident for additional heating costs for five years which made attempts to ‘put things right’ in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

39. While agreeing to carry out the external wall insulation was proactive on the landlord’s part, the evidence does not suggest that the work progressed as it had hoped. The landlord’s stage one and two responses confirmed that the insulation was scheduled to complete during 2023. The landlord’s post complaint response in October 2023 stated that works to improve the insulation were programmed for April 2024 onwards. The landlord has not explained the reason for this further delay.

40. Despite attempts to put things right, there were shortfalls in the landlord’s communication which failed provide the resident with certainty as to when the works would be completed. This is likely to have exacerbated his frustration that the repairs had not been completed for several years and that the landlord had failed to fully grasp, or empathise with, the situation he was in. Because of this, it necessitated an unreasonable level of involvement on the resident’s part. The resident contacted the landlord on 4, 6 and 7 July 2022 in relation to progressing repairs and again, on 21 October and 7 and 15 November 2022. There is little evidence that the landlord responded with any urgency during those times, or that it satisfied itself and the resident that it had a handle on the repairs. The case shows a “history of miscommunication” which led to time, delay, distress, and inconvenience for the resident in pursing the repairs.

41. At stage two the landlord offered the resident £1000 compensation for the delays in repairing the cracks. It also reimbursed £250 as a contribution towards heating costs, retrospectively applied for four years, totalling £1000.

42. It is encouraging that the landlord completed a review of the case post-complaint completion in March 2023. It increased its payment towards heating costs, retrospectively applied from July 2018 until May 2023 and totalled £1,166.66.

43. A further response was sent in April 2023 when the landlord provided the resident with a collated works programme. Had the landlord done this at an earlier opportunity, it could have reduced the level of involvement expended on the resident’s part. The landlord’s learning was limited, and it did not evidence that it had fully understood the failings, or explained what it could do to prevent similar mistakes or improve its service in the future.

44. The Service has considered the mitigating factors which contributed to the delays in the works being completed. This included the resident’s concerns with internal repairs to the cracks being completed while he was in the property and his refusal to accept a decant to complete the repairs. Additionally, the landlord needed to procure a second contractor after the original contractor refused to return to the property after reporting the resident for unreasonable behaviour. These factors have been considered when considering the level of redress offered for the delays in repairing the cracks in September 2023.

45. A second review was completed in October 2023, which the landlord said was to reassess the situation following the resident’s management move approval. It acknowledged a breakdown in communication and a loss of trust and that it was sorry that it had not taken a holistic approach to the repairs before that point. It confirmed that the internal cracks would be completed when the resident had moved from the property to minimise the stress and disruption. While it is positive that the landlord has taken opportunities to review its handling of the case, it again failed to identify how it would improve its repairs service to prevent similar mistakes from happening.

46. Overall, the resident went to considerable time and trouble to progress the repairs which caused frustration, distress, inconvenience, and expense to the resident; led him to feel issues raised were unresolved; and undermined his confidence in the landlord. As noted above, the landlord acted in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles by taking action to try and ‘put things right’ for the resident. It acknowledged its failings, apologised and offered £1000 in compensation which was in line with Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.

47. While the landlord did take a point of learning from the case, specifically that it was important for staff to have the skills and knowledge to identify root causes and offer remedies at the earliest opportunity, it should have identified this during the complaints process, or when it reviewed the case in March 2023. Therefore, a finding of service failure has been made.

Damp and mould

48. The landlord provided the Service with published information on how it would respond to damp and mould, in addition to providing a Service Delivery Statement (SDS), which the Service has used to assess its handling of the damp and mould. At the time of the complaint, the landlord did not have a damp and mould policy in place.

49. Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.

50. The landlord’s SDS confirms that the delivery of its method is “vital to ensuring the service meets the expected standards.” It confirms that an initial inspection of the property should be completed within 28 days in it is minor mould cases (1 area or 1 room). Moderate mould cases (mould is present in a larger area) should be inspected in 14 days. Severe mould (mould in multiple rooms) inspected within 2 days. A mould wash to affected areas should be completed within 7 days of the report.

51. The evidence does not show that the landlord followed the SDS in this case. Despite being alerted to mould in several rooms of the property on 28 February 2022, it completed a mould wash 8 working days later, with no evidence to indicate that an inspection was completed within 2 working days to assess the mould. This was a departure from its SDS, and a failing on the landlord’s part to appropriately consider the respiratory condition of the resident and adapt its response appropriately to consider the vulnerabilities in the household.

52. Additionally, without a record that an inspection was completed prior to the mould wash, there was also no evidence that a “dynamic risk assessment” was completed. This is a further departure from the SDS and a failing on the landlord’s part to assess the potential risk to the resident.

53. The evidence confirms that the landlord raised works on 23 November 2022 to install a humidistat in the kitchen, service the fan in the bathroom, clean and replace the filters. This was an appropriate step to take as fans are considered an effective way of addressing moisture in a property. However, it does not appear to have taken any action in relation to the Environmental Health contact in December 2022.

54. It has been difficult to accurately establish when the humidistat was installed, but the records show that the job was raised again on 15 February 2023 and the landlord confirmed in its stage one response on 8 March 2023 that it had been “part completed.” The records show that a further job was raised in relation to the fans on 28 April 2023 and therefore it is reasonable to assume that the completion of all the works was outstanding during this time. This was a departure from the landlord’s 60 working day target timeframe, and 48 days (up until that point) outside of its prescribed timeframe to complete.

55. In February 2023, a year after the resident had made reports of mould, the landlord instructed an independent survey. This was a reasonable action but should have happened sooner. It concluded that there was an imbalance within the property between structural temperatures, ambient temperatures, and relative humidity. It noted the issue began with the breakdown of the external render which made it difficult for the resident to effectively manage the overall temperature of the property. It suggested that a dehumidifier would help in the very short-term, and that the render needed to be repaired to prevent continued water ingress of albeit small volumes of water. In the long term, the report recommended that the landlord fit external wall insulation to address the issue. It was the expert’s opinion that the mould germination was “moderate.”

56. The evidence shows that a dehumidifier was offered on 8 March 2023. While it followed up on some of the advice and recommendations made in the independent report, the landlord should have acted on the recommendations sooner, or considered if further temporary repairs to minimise further detriment to the resident were possible, while the larger remedial repairs remained outstanding.

57. The landlord did not comply with the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published in 2021) as it failed to share the outcome of the independent survey with the resident to help him understand the findings and be clear on the next steps. This resulted in the resident requesting that the landlord send him a copy of the report.

58. The resident expressed his concerns about the chemicals within the mould wash, and the impact he reported they had on his health. The resident advised the landlord that he was trying to tackle the mould with a vinegar and water solution. There is evidence that the resident was unhappy for contractors to treat the mould with chemicals which did cause some delays in tackling the problem and caused difficulties in treating the mould. It was a reasonable response for the landlord to use a water detergent solution. However, it advised that if it were not effective, it would need to reconsider a more robust approach. This was a reasonable approach to take.

59. Its stage two response considered the remedial repairs to the property would not be completed imminently but it still needed to address the mould. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns around the chemicals but had tried to offer reassurance that its products were reviewed in line with the COSHH, and treatments were completed by operatives who had received the required training.

60. The landlord also offered eco-friendly sprays in October 2023 as another alternative which was reasonable. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered suitable alternatives at an earlier stage, and at the point that the resident reported that the chemicals were impacting on his breathing.

61. The landlord’s offer to reimburse the resident for damage to his personal items, totalling £4,066 showed a resolution-focused approach to remedy the matter, rather than referring the resident to its insurers. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered the adverse effect and the inconvenience that was caused, and continues to cause, to the resident over a significant period and award additional compensation on this basis. Further, the resident reports that the mould is still present, and it is unclear whether the landlord has yet installed the external wall insulation as it had previously agreed to do, and as recommend by the damp specialist in February 2023.

62. In view of the failings identified, a finding of maladministration has been made, and orders made below for remedy. The amount ordered is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guide which sets out amounts of between £100 and £600 where there has been an adverse effect on the resident, but no permanent impact.

Management move

63. The landlord’s policy on management moves confirms that grounds for awarding a management move can include (but are not limited to), re-housing victims of anti-social behaviour, domestic abuse or separating joint tenancies. The process sets out how residents can ask for a review of the panel’s decision if they do not agree with a decision to decline their request.

64. The resident’s case was put forward to its panel on 16 February 2023 which reviewed doctors’ letters dated 19 December 2022 and 17 April 2023. It was reasonable that the landlord confirmed it would await the outcome of the damp and mould inspection, to ensure it reviewed all the information to make an evidenced-based decision, in accordance with its policy.

65. The management move was initially declined on 27 February 2023 on the basis that there was no indication that an urgent move was required from the information that had been supplied. It added that it was working to resolve the issues with repairs to the property and the resident had been provided with advice on how to pursue a mutual exchange. It is also worth noting that the landlord, although not obliged to, offered the resident a decant to ensure the swift resolution of the repairs and to ensure that he was not caused distress or disruption while the repairs were being completed. While the Service understands the reasons for the resident’s refusal of a decant, it was a reasonable response from the landlord that considered the circumstances of the resident, including his health conditions.

66. The works to the property were still ongoing when the landlord sent its stage two response on 8 March 2023.

67. The resident was advised that he could supply further medical evidence and appeal the management move decision. It was later agreed in September 2023 that the resident was approved for a management move. The evidence shows that the landlord handled the resident’s requests for an urgent management move within its policies and procedures.

68. It is positive to note that the resident’s management move was approved in September 2023. The resident has been offered permanent moves, but he remains frustrated that he has not been offered a “like for like” property. The landlord is limited in the properties that it has to offer and cannot guarantee the frame in which a “like for like” property may become available. It has provided reasonable assurances that it would contact him as soon as a suitable property becomes available, and no maladministration has been found in its handling of the request.

Complaint handling

69. The landlord’s complaint policy consists of a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should provide a response within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should provide a response within 20 working days. If at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to offer an explanation and provide a new timescale, this should not exceed a further ten days.

70. The landlord’s records confirm on 8 April 2022, the resident requested that a complaint was raised at stage one of the landlord’s complaints process in relation to the shower. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 3 May 2022 which was appropriate.

71. The resident sought advice from our Service in relation to the disrepair in the property. An email was sent to the landlord on 23 January 2023. The landlord issued a response on 8 February 2023 and acknowledged that it incorrectly raised the matter as a resolution on a ‘there and then’ basis. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise its failings, and the impact this would have had on the resident. It identified learning in its complaints process which demonstrated a willingness to learn from its mistakes. However, it did not describe the action it would take to avoid a reoccurrence of the mistake.

72. The landlord took steps to reconsider the case by undertaking two further reviews and issuing post complaint responses, which it confirmed were not additional complaint responses. While it is positive to see that the landlord continued to try to seek an effective resolution, it should have used the two-stage complaint process itself to have resolved the matter, rather than requiring two additional responses, and the resident to approach the Ombudsman. However, it is worth noting that even though the landlord completed two reviews, post its internal complaints process, the resident was not adversely affected by this, or delayed in approaching the Service.

73. In its final post-complaint response issued in October 2023, the landlord referenced communication failures and a lack of empathy in its responses. While it was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for failings and offered £250 for the failings in its overall communication and a lack of empathy, this was significantly delayed and offered outside of the complaints process.

74. While it demonstrated that it had heard the resident and understood his concerns, it missed the opportunity to repair the landlord-resident relationship and resolve the issues at an earlier opportunity. There is little evidence that the landlord took steps to learn from outcomes and implement improvements post-complaint response or as part of its investigations that all repairs were satisfactorily resolved and or completed. Therefore, an additional compensation award has been made for the inconvenience caused by the failings in the complaint handling.

Determination

75. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of cracking to the property.

76. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to:

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

77. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the request for a management move.

Orders

78. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
Pay the resident compensation of £500, made up of:
1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures to resolve the damp and mould in the property for a prolonged period and the distress and inconvenience this caused to the resident.
2. £200 for the failings in its complaint handling and for significantly delaying an offer of compensation by seven months, post completion of the complaints process.
Payments should be made directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears that may be owing. The above amount is in addition to the landlord’s previous offer of £1000 for the impact of the failings addressing the cracks, and £250 for the failing in the complaint handling.

79. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

Contact the resident to establish whether he is continuing to experience damp and mould in his property, and if so, arrange a further inspection to identify what works are required, advising both the resident and the Ombudsman of the outcome of this inspection and any actions that would be taken to address the situation. This should include an update on the planned installation of external wall insulation. The surveyor who completes any inspection should familiarise themselves with the history of the case in advance of the visit.

80. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out a management review of the resident’s case and provide a copy of the review to the resident and the Service. This should consider the evidence that was available (or may have been available at the time) in relation to the resident’s reports, any missed opportunities there were to resolve the repair issues at an earlier date, points of learning that can be taken from the case, and actions it could take to improve its future response to similar cases.

81. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders also within 8 weeks.

Recommendation

82. It is recommended that the landlord continues to offer suitable properties to ensure that the resident is moved as soon as feasible.