Waltham Forest Council (202233473)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233473

Waltham Forest Council

3 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s application to be rehoused.
2. The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated claim for damage caused to her possessions.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints about the conduct of its operatives.
5. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat under a secure tenancy agreement dated 27 September 2004. The resident lives with her adult daughter. The resident reports that she and her daughter live with various health conditions, including asthma.
The resident raised a complaint on 21 June 2023. The resident was dissatisfied that:
1. she had been reporting issues of damp and mould since she had moved into the property but nothing had been done
2. since 2006 she had been providing the landlord with medical evidence that the damp and mould was impacting on her health but the landlord had not responded to this
3. she believed that the damp and mould conditions were life threatening which also had an impact on her mental health
4. on 7 June 2023 she had been told the landlord would make contact with her to discuss the damp and mould but this had not been done
5. the damp and mould conditions had caused damage to her possessions which she believed the landlord was responsible for
6. she wanted the landlord to pay £1,347.99 to compensate her the cost of replacing her damaged possessions.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 11 July 2023, the landlord invited the resident to complete an online claim form.
On or before 7 August 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. The resident remained dissatisfied that:
1. she had been told by the landlord the complaint had been closed which she disagreed with
2. the landlord had not responded to her claim for damaged possessions
3. the landlord had not addressed any of the points she raised in her complaint
4. the landlord’s contractors had inspected her home on 24 July 2023 and told her that a gap between a ventilation unit and the wall was contributing to the damp and mould in her home and that the external walls needed repointing
5. the explanations provided in July 2023 contradicted explanations she had previously been given in May 2023
6. the landlord’s contractors told the resident that the inspection on 24 July 2023 had been a ‘mistake’, and terminated a phone call with the resident when she complained about this
7. on 1 August 2023 she was told the landlord would decant her from the property as the chemicals used to treat the damp and mould may be dangerous
8. the landlord had previously refused to decant the resident from the property and told her the chemicals used to treat the damp and mould were safe
9. the landlord had responded to an enquiry from her MP which was inaccurate and implied she was responsible for the delay in the damp and mould being treated
10. despite at least 9 inspections of the property in 2023, the landlord had not told her what repairs would be carried out, by who, or when.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 13 September 2023, the landlord:
1. confirmed it would carry out the following repairs:
  1. mould wash and redecorate the bathroom, bedroom and living room
  2. repair the balcony above the resident’s home to prevent water penetration and damp
2. explained it would carry out the mould wash one room at a time to allow proper ventilation of the property and assured the resident that the products used were safe
3. confirmed the repairs would not require the resident to be decanted from the property and the information provided on 24 July 2023 was incorrect
4. acknowledged that its stage 1 complaint response was inadequate
5. explained the resident’s complaint had incorrectly been assigned to its insurance team to respond to and that it ought to have been sent to its housing and repairs teams to contribute to its response
6. explained that various appointments had been made in 2023 to complete repairs but these had been cancelled or rescheduled by the resident
7. advised the resident to make a claim on her contents insurance for the damage to her possessions or alternatively make a claim on the landlord’s public liability insurance
8. acknowledged there had been a delay in progressing the repairs related to the damp and mould
9. offered £600 compensation comprised of:
  1. £150 for its complaint handling
  2. £450 for its handling of the repairs related to the damp and mould.
On or around 8 February 2024, the resident raised a further complaint. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had not made any progress in addressing the damp and mould in the property.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 22 February 2024, the landlord:
1. acknowledged that it had not made adequate progress to address the damp and mould since its previous complaint response in September 2023
2. stated it had carried out an ‘interim’ mould wash on or around 12 February 2024
3. acknowledged the resident and her daughter were both sleeping in the living room due to the damp and mould in the bedroom
4. stated a further inspection of the property was carried out on 22 February 2024 and it was awaiting this report
5. offered £275 compensation for its handling of the repairs related to the damp and mould.
On or before 6 March 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. The resident was dissatisfied that:
1. the mould wash in February 2024 had not been effective
2. the landlord had promised on multiple occasions it would take action on the damp and mould but nothing had been done
3. the landlord had not responded to her claims for damage caused to her possessions by the damp and mould
4. she believed the damp and mould conditions of the property were causing harm to her and her daughter’s health.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

In her complaints, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her request to move from the property.
The landlord also acts as the resident’s local authority. The local authority’s management of its housing register and allocation policy are not matters that relate to housing management, they are the exercise of a public function. Therefore, under paragraph 41(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this service has no jurisdiction to investigate the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her request to be rehoused.
This is a matter which comes under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her request to be rehoused, she should contact the LGSCO which may be able to investigate.

Scope

In her complaints to the landlord and this service, the resident reported that the damp and mould in the property had caused harm or contributed to her and her daughter’s physical and mental health. This included asthma and eczema.
The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her or her daughter’s health. However, it is beyond the remit of this service to determine whether there was a causal link between the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and the impact on health.
Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of medico-legal reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, she should seek independent legal advice.
The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s response to the reports of damp and mould in the property, and whether this was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
In her complaints, the resident was dissatisfied that she had raised concerns about the damp and mould since she moved into the property in 2004.
Due to the extensive period of time that has elapsed, it is not possible for this service to conduct a thorough and effective investigation of the actions which may or may not have occurred since 2004, or draw any meaningful conclusions as to whether such actions would have altered the outcome of events which occurred some 20 years later. Therefore, this report focuses on events from February 2023 onwards.

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has significantly impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a significant failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property

The evidence indicates the resident has repeatedly raised concerns about damp and mould in the property since at least 2006. Although it is not the subject of this report, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that it is relevant to note the context in which the resident raised her complaints.
The landlord’s repair policy states it will respond to routine repairs within 21 days, unless the repairs are complex, in which case it will respond within 45 days.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, the Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in:
1. communicating the cause of delays to residents
2. explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays
3. identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.
Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to determine exactly when in February 2023 the resident raised her concerns about the damp and mould in the property, or what specific concerns she raised at the time. This was a failure by the landlord.
Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to verify:
1. if the landlord responded to the reports of damp and mould in or around February 2023
2. whether the landlord’s response was appropriate and consistent with its policy
3. what repairs the landlord identified, if any.
Therefore, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord’s response to the reports of damp and mould was appropriate. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
In an email to the landlord on 18 April 2023, the resident referred to repairs which were due to take place on 24 April 2023. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to determine what this appointment was for, whether it was in fact attended, or whether any repairs were completed at or around this time. This was a failure by the landlord.
Other email correspondence in April 2023 indicate the landlord intended to instruct an inspection of the property by an environmental health officer. No inspection reports or any other contemporaneous records of any inspections have been made available to this service.
Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether any such inspection ever took place, and if it did:
1. when this was and whether it was consistent with the landlord’s policy
2. whether the extent of the damp and mould was identified
3. whether the cause of the damp and mould, or any repairs to address the cause were identified.
Correspondence in June 2023 indicates an appointment was booked for July 2023 for the landlord to complete repairs. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to determine what these repairs were, whether they were the same as the ones referred to in April 2023, or whether they were completed. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
In an email to the landlord on 4 July 2023, the resident asked for an update on the outcome of another inspection that had occurred on that date. She was dissatisfied that the operative was not a chartered surveyor, which she had been told they would be.
Again, no inspection reports or other contemporaneous records of such an inspection have been made available to this service. Therefore, it is not possible to determine:
1. who undertook the inspection and whether they were suitably qualified to do so
2. whether the extent of the damp and mould was identified
3. whether the cause of the damp and mould, or any repairs to address the cause were identified.
In an email to the resident on 5 July 2023, the landlord stated it was not aware of any inspections having taken place. This indicates that it had no system in place to effectively monitor what actions its contractors took when it instructed them to carry out inspections or repairs. This was a failure by the landlord.
In her complaint escalation, the resident explained that another inspection had taken place on 24 July 2023. Again, no inspection reports or other contemporaneous notes of such an inspection have been made available. Therefore, it is not possible to determine:
1. who undertook the inspection and whether they were suitably qualified to do so
2. whether the extent of the damp and mould was identified
3. whether the cause of the damp and mould, or any repairs to address the cause were identified.
The resident was dissatisfied that the information she had been given contradicted the information she had been given at a previous inspection in May 2023. Again, no inspection reports or other contemporaneous notes of such an inspection have been made available. Therefore, it is not possible to determine what inspection was carried out in May 2023, or what the findings of such an inspection were.
The resident reported that further inspections had taken place on 25 July 2023 and 1 August 2023. Again, no inspection reports or other contemporaneous notes of such an inspection have been made available. Therefore, it is not possible to determine:
1. who undertook the inspection and whether they were suitably qualified to do so
2. whether the extent of the damp and mould was identified
3. whether the cause of the damp and mould, or any repairs to address the cause were identified.
In an email on 14 August 2023, the landlord asked its contractors whether any of the repairs had been booked with the resident. This further indicates that the landlord’s record keeping was inadequate, and that it had no effective means of monitoring what actions were taken by its contractors or when.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord confirmed it would complete the following repairs:
1. mould wash and redecorate the bathroom, bedroom and living room
2. repair the balcony above the resident’s home to prevent water penetration and damp.
Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to conclude with any confidence that this represented the full extent of the repairs that had already been identified.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered £450 compensation for its poor handling of the repairs relating to damp and mould. Given the extent of the failures identified in this report, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s offer of redress was not reasonable.
The evidence indicates no repairs were completed following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in September 2023. In an email dated 23 November 2023, the landlord told the resident it needed to carry out a further inspection of the property due to the length of time that had passed and the resident’s reports that the problem had gotten worse. This should not have been necessary and was a significant failure by the landlord.
In an email on 17 January 2024, the resident told the landlord that an inspection had taken place on 18 December 2023. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to determine whether this is the same inspection referred to by the landlord in November 2023, or what the findings of that inspection were.
In an internal email on 21 December 2023, the landlord identified that no repair orders had been raised. The email stated that the landlord needed to complete the following repairs:
1. mould wash and redecorate the bathroom, bedroom and living room
2. install extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen
3. repoint the external walls.
In an email to the landlord on 12 January 2024, the resident stated operatives installed an extractor fan in the kitchen on 11 January 2024. She was dissatisfied with the quality of the repairs. Again, no repair reports or other contemporaneous repair records have been made available to this service. It is therefore not possible to determine:
1. whether the contractor was appropriately qualified to carry out the repairs
2. whether the repairs were completed to a satisfactory standard
3. whether an extractor fan was also installed in the kitchen.
In an email to its contractors on 17 January 2024, the landlord asked what repairs had been completed. This further indicates the landlord’s record keeping was inadequate, and it had no system in place to effectively monitor what actions were being taken by its contractors, or when.
In an email to the landlord on 25 January 2024, the resident complained that subcontractors had attended on 20 January 2024. She believed that this was to repoint the external walls. The subcontractors were not aware of this, andthis and left without completing any repairs. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to determine what this appointment was for.
In its response on 31 January 2024, the landlord indicated that it was not aware of the subcontractors or what works they had been instructed to do. Despite this, the landlord advised the resident to allow the subcontractors access. This further indicates the landlord’s record keeping was inadequate, and it had no system in place to effectively monitor what actions were being taken by its contractors, or when.
It was also not appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to allow access to her property to agents which the landlord had no knowledge of. This could create an unnecessary risk to the safety of the resident and her daughter. The landlord ought to have checked who the operatives were, andwere and verified the purpose of their access to the property.
In its second stage 1 complaint response in February 2024, the landlord offered £275 for its poor handling of the repairs related to the damp and mould. Given the extent of the failures identified in this report, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s offer of redress was not reasonable.
In an email to the resident on 15 March 2024, the landlord confirmed that the following repairs remained outstanding:
1. repointing external walls
2. install thermal board on the bedroom walls
3. wash, treat and paint walls in the bedroom, bathroom, hallway, living room and storage room
4. redecorate walls and ceilings.
Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to verify whether the repairs to the balcony above the property which the landlord identified in its September 2023 complaint response had been completed. Or in the alternative, why the landlord had decided these repairs were no longer required, and whether this was reasonable.
Considering all the circumstances it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of damp and mould in the property. There is no evidence that the landlord:
1. inspected the property within a reasonable time
2. made reasonable efforts to identify the extent of the damp and mould or its causes
3. made reasonable efforts to complete repairs to address the cause of the damp and mould
4. actively monitored what actions were taken by its contractors or when.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated claim for damage caused to her possessions

Generally, landlord’s are not responsible for damage to a resident’s possessions except where the damage has been caused by the landlord’s negligence or actions. This is standard across the housing sector.
In her complaint in June 2023, the resident provided the landlord with a detailed breakdown of possessions which had been damaged by the damp and mould and the estimated cost to replace each item. This totalled £1,347.99. This included:
1. furniture
2. clothing
3. towels
4. bedding
5. mattress
6. picture frames
7. shower curtain
8. bath mat.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord advised the resident to make a claim for damaged possessions on her own contents insurance. It also stated it had passed the resident’s claim to its insurance team to assess, and it would make contact with the resident about this separately. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
There is no evidence that the landlord has, as of the date of this determination:
1. considered to what extent it is liable for the damage to the resident’s possessions, if at all
2. considered the resident’s claim
3. provided the resident with its decision.
This was not appropriate. Where a resident has made a claim for damage to possessions for which they believe a landlord is liable, the Ombudsman expects landlords to:
1. investigate and consider to what extent it is liable
2. provide the resident with a decision
3. make a reasonable offer of remedy where appropriate.
The Ombudsman also expects landlords to be able to do this within a reasonable time and without the involvement of this service. It should not be necessary for the Ombudsman to order the landlord to respond to a claim it is already aware of. This was a failure by the landlord.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s claim for damage caused to her possessions. There is no evidence that the landlord has considered the extent of its liability, and has unreasonably delayed in providing the resident with its decision.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints about the conduct of its operatives

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it remains responsible for the quality of any service its contractors provide, and for addressing any complaints users may have about those contractors.
Where a complaint is made about the conduct of a landlord’s operatives, the Ombudsman expects landlords to investigate the incidents complained about within a reasonable time. The Ombudsman also expects landlords to inform residents about the outcome of its investigation, what decision it has reached, and why.
In her complaint escalation in August 2023, the resident described an incident which occurred on 24 July 2023. The resident described a telephone call with the landlords contractors, in which
1. contractors wanted to rearrange an appointment for 26 July 2023
2. when the resident explained that she could not accommodate this date, the contractors told her they would not change it
3. when the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the contractor’s response, the contractor warned her they would terminate the call due to her ‘tone’
4. she was told that the inspection on 24 July 2023 had been a ‘mistake’
5. when the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the contractor’s explanation, they terminated the call.
In an email on 12 January 2024, the resident raised a complaint about another incident involving the landlord’s contractors. She had been repeatedly told that an appointment to fit an extractor fan on 11 January 2024 would be attended between 12:30pm and 5pm. She was also told that the operative would make contact with her before their arrival.
The resident described that:
1. the operative attended at 10:30am whilst the resident was not at home
2. the operative then called the resident, but did not introduce themselves or explain the purpose of their call
3. when she returned home approximately 10 minutes later, she contacted the operative who returned to the property
4. upon answering the door, the operative did not introduce themselves to the resident, and said to her “you were the one who shouted at me and had a go at me, you went off on one and I told you I was an electrician, and I said I would never come back here”
5. the contractor entered the resident’s bedroom without her permission, which he did not have a reason to be in
6. the contractor then left the property to collect equipment, and upon their return, the contractor was joined by another operative
7. the second operative also did not introduce themselves
8. when the contractors left, she identified that they had drilled through the bathroom wall and into the hallway, and the contractors also did not clean up after the installation
9. she immediately called the contractors to report this and was told someone would call her back
10. she called the operative who had attended and was told “I thought I had cleaned up and I was not working in the passage” before they ended the call
11. she received no further contact from the contractors or the operative.
There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged these reports, investigated the incidents, or explained to the resident what action it would take in response, if any at all. This was a failure by the landlord, and would reasonably have caused the resident to feel it was uninterested in her concerns.
Considering all the circumstances, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint’s about the conduct of its operatives. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord’s handling of these complaints was reasonable or appropriate in the circumstances.

The landlord’s complaint handling

This service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. This includes an expectation that landlords will:
1. respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days
2. respond to escalations at stage 2 within 20 working days
3. respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint
4. provide the resident with detailed and accurate information about how they can escalate their complaint through the landlord’s process, or to this service.
The landlord operated a 2-stage complaints policy. The policy states that the landlord will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 20 working days of the complaint being logged. The landlord will provide a stage 2 complaint response within 25 working days of the complaint being escalated.
The resident raised her complaint on 21 June 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 11 July 2023, which was 14 working days later. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the Ombudsman’s expectations.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response asked the resident to complete an online claim form. The response did not:
1. acknowledge or respond to any of the points raised in the resident’s complaint
2. explain to the resident how she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was not acceptable, as it was not consistent with the Ombudsman’s expectations as set out in the Code. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
The resident escalated her complaint on 7 August 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 13 September 2023, which was 27 working days later. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
It is positive to note the landlord did acknowledge its poor handling of its stage 1 complaint response, explained this had been caused by the complaint being incorrectly assigned to its insurance team, and apologised for this.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered £150 compensation for its poor complaint handling. Considering the extent of the complaint handling failures identified in this report, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s offer of redress was not reasonable.
The evidence indicates the resident raised further complaints on 12 January 2024, 17 January 2024, 25 January 2024 and 5 February 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord identified these complaints. This was a significant failure by the landlord and a missed opportunity to resolve the resident’s complaints.
On or around 8 February 2024, the resident raised a further complaint. A copy of the resident’s complaint has not been made available to this service. This further indicates the landlord has not maintained adequate records.
The landlord provided its second stage 1 complaint response on 22 February 2024, which was 10 working days later. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy and the Code.
The resident escalated her second complaint no later than 6 March 2023. Under its policy, the landlord ought to have provided its stage 2 complaint response no later than 4 April 2024.
In correspondence with this service, the resident explained she received a letter from the landlord on 22 April 2024. The landlord explained it would be delayed in providing its stage 2 complaint response, but provided no revised deadline for it to do so. This was 12 working days after the deadline for the landlord to provide its complaint response had already passed.
This was not appropriate. Where a landlord needs further time to consider and respond to a complaint, the Ombudsman expects it to contact the resident before the response deadline and agree a reasonable alternative. This was a failure by the landlord.
The landlord’s poor complaint handling was also demonstrated by the quality of its communications more generally. The evidence indicates that the resident reported on multiple occasions that the landlord and its operatives had promised to contact her about her complaints or the repairs, but did not do so.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints, in that it:
1. provided an unacceptable complaint response
2. has not responded to all aspects of the resident’s complaints
3. unreasonably delayed in providing its complaint responses
4. has failed to maintain adequate communication with the resident about her complaints.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 41(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her application to be rehoused is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated claim for damage caused to her possessions.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints about the conduct of the its operatives.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. pay the resident £2,300 comprised of:
  1. £1,600, for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delay in responding to the damp and mould and its poor record keeping, which is £100 for each month the delay has been ongoing
  2. £100 for the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s claim for damage to her possessions
  3. £250 for the landlord’s poor handling of the resident’s complaints about its operatives
  4. £350 for the complaint handling failures and poor communication identified in this report
2. provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the above payment
3. consider to what extent it is liable for the damage caused to the resident’s possessions, provide the resident with a detailed explanation of its decision, and provide a copy of this to the Ombudsman
4. instruct an appropriately qualified professional to conduct a damp and mould survey of the property to:
  1. identify the cause of the damp and mould
  2. identify repairs to address the cause of the damp and mould
5. provide a copy of this report to the resident and the Ombudsman
6. provide the resident with an apology from its Chief Executive.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 56 days of the date of this determination:
1. make all reasonable efforts to complete all repairs the landlord has already identified, in addition to any repairs identified by the damp and mould survey, and provide evidence of this to the Ombudsman
2. make a reasonable offer of redress including a detailed explanation of its offer, if it decides it is liable for the damage caused to the resident’s possessions
3. provide evidence of its offer to the Ombudsman, if one is made.
Within 56 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must review how it handles complaints about its contracted parties:
1. in reviewing the handling of complaints about contractors, it must include the following:
  1. conduct a lessons learned review based on the failures identified in this report and consider why the failures occurred
  2. what it could do to prevent them from occurring in similar cases in future
  3. decide whether it needs a procedure on contract enforcement of contractors if it does not have one
  4. if it does need a procedure on contract enforcement, it should recommend this to those responsible for governance
  5. consider if more training is required for front-end staff in respect of holding contractors to account and contract management
  6. consider how it gather intel about the performance of its contractors for contractor management, and whether its methods are suitable and fit for purpose
2. the landlord must produce a report for the Ombudsman confirming the outcome of its review, which must include a confirmation from the relevant executive director that any actions arising from this report have been approved.

Recommendations

As of 1 April 2024, compliance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code became a statutory requirement of social landlords. The landlord’s policy at the time of the resident’s complaint is not consistent with the Code. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord self-assess its policy against the new Code to ensure it is compliant.