Moat Homes Limited (202421080)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421080

Moat Homes Limited

14 April 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
2. The repairs to the back door and the adjacent skirting board.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since November 2017. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association. It noted that the resident has a 13 year old child with limited mobility and asthma.
Between December 2019 and April 2022, the resident made 6 reports about her back door and the adjacent skirting board. During that period, the landlord carried out repairs to the door and the skirting board. In April 2022 the resident reported damp and mould in her lounge, which the landlord addressed in May 2022.
On 11 January 2023 the resident reported damp and mould in her property. She also reported water ingress from a gap under her back door and said that the adjacent skirting board was rotten. The landlord repaired the door on 13 February 2023. In March 2023, the resident reiterated there was damp and mould in her property and said the landlord had not inspected the problem.
The landlord carried out a damp and mould survey on 29 March 2023. It found evidence of condensation in the hallway and recommended to apply a mould wash. Following further reports from the resident in October 2023, and after several attempts, the landlord inspected the property on 29 January 2024. In February 2024 it said that it had completed the repairs recommended by its surveyor
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 6 February 2024. The complaint was about its handling of her damp and mould reports, the repairs to the back door and the skirting board. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 February 2024. It said:
1. In November 2023 the resident raised an issue with damp and mould in her kitchen, the hallway and the bedrooms. It explained there were delays in inspecting the problem because it had not been able to contact the resident and gain access to the property. It inspected the property in December 2023 and shared its findings with the resident on 19 February 2024. It said its appointed contractor would be in touch with the resident to schedule the repairs.
2. It acknowledged and apologised for the delays in completing the repairs and providing her with incorrect information. It upheld her complaint and offered to pay the resident £100 in compensation to reflect the inconvenience its failings caused her.
In March 2024 the resident informed the landlord that the repairs to the back door had not resolved the problem. On 18 March 2024 and 25 April 2024, the landlord inspected the property. It said that it had done some remedial works but found new areas affected by mould and that the repairs to the back door and the skirting board were outstanding. The landlord completed the repairs on 30 May 2024.
In April 2024 the landlord reviewed its earlier offer of compensation and offered an additional £100 to the resident. It said this was to reflect the inconvenience caused to her by the additional delays in resolving the problems.
The resident escalated her complaint on 8 July 2024. She recognised the landlord had completed some of the repairs but she said that it had not replaced the skirting board or completed the redecorating. She also said that she was unhappy with how it had handled her complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 23 August 2024. It said:
1. Following the surveyor’s report on 12 December 2023, it completed repairs to the hallway, the external wall, the kitchen and the bedroom.
2. After inspecting the property on 25 April 2024, it identified additional repairs. On 30 May 2024, it renewed 3 extractors fans. It applied mould wash in the kitchen and the living room, made good and decorated the affected areas with mould resistant paint. It lifted the back door threshold, fitted a new weather board and painted the outside of the back door and its frame.
3. On 23 August 2024 the resident reported that some repairs were outstanding. She said that the back door did not close properly and was letting water in. She also reported an issue with the skirting board in the kitchen, mould behind her television and incomplete decorating works in the kitchen and the living room.
4. It said the surveyor would attend on 5 September 2024 to inspect the remedial repairs and assess whether any repairs were outstanding.
5. It acknowledged that its poor communication, the delays in resolving the repairs and handling the associated complaint caused her inconvenience. It offered to pay £650 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings on her. This was equivalent to:
  1. £500 to reflect the delays and missed opportunities in resolving the repairs at the property.
  2. £150 to reflect the impacts of its complaint handlings failings.

Post internal complaint process (ICP)

On 5 September 2024 the landlord inspected the property. The surveyor recommended for the landlord to carry out the outstanding repairs it found. He said he found no evidence of damp and mould.
The landlord said that in August 2024, it put some repairs on hold at the resident’s request. It also explained that in December 2024, the resident asked it to wait until it had completed the repairs to the roof before doing the internal repairs.
In February 2025, the landlord recognised there had been further delays in completing the repairs and that it had not effectively communicated with the resident. It offered to pay her an additional £200 compensation to reflect the impact on her. It said that in total it had offered £1050 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings on her.
The resident and the landlord informed this service that it completed the repairs in April 2025. As a form of resolution to her complaint, the resident is seeking an apology from the landlord and compensation which reflects the impact the issues had on her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

We recognise that the presence of damp and mould at the property and the delays in completing repairs have caused the resident some distress. We understand the resident said that this impacted on her health. Unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot establish what caused a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim.
The landlord’s internal complaint procedure investigated and responded to several issues at stage 1 of the complaint. However, the resident had only raised some of these issues at stage 2, that she has asked us to investigate, and the other issues of the complaint have been resolved. Accordingly, this investigation has focussed on and assessed the circumstances of the issues that remained outstanding at stage 2.   
We understand the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of other repairs, which we have not considered as part of our investigation. For example, she said that the roof repairs took longer than expected. She also said that she was concerned about an electric socket in her kitchen.
In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process can be addressed directly with the landlord in the first instance through their complaints process.
We understand the resident reported damp and mould in her lounge in April 2022. We also recognise that between December 2019 and April 2022, she reported repairs to her back door and the adjacent skirting board. However, we did not see evidence that prior to February 2024, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of the damp and mould in her property or the repairs to the back door and skirting board.
Additionally, the evidence shows that following her reports in April 2022, and the landlord completing remedial works she made no further report of those issues until January 2023. Therefore, in keeping with the Scheme, whilst the historical reports of the problem offer context to the current complaint, this investigation will focus on events from January 2023 onwards, approximately 12 months prior to the resident raising the issue as a formal complaint

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that it will complete routine repairs within 21 calendar days. While it will aim to provide a “right first time” repair service, it will promptly book a follow up repair appointment when needed. It said that whenever possible, it will book repair appointments at a time suitable for the resident and confirm it by text.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy came into effect in March 2024. It says it has a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould and will never suggest it’s the resident’s fault. It explains that it will speak to the resident to assess the severity of the problem and determine the timescale of its response. After receiving a damp and mould report, it will inspect the property within a maximum of 28 days. It said that it will share the report detailing its findings and keep the resident updated on what the next actions will be. It will complete minor remedial repairs within 21 days and agree a timescale with the resident for major works.
Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets the requirements for landlords to operate effective complaint handling. In keeping with the Code, the landlord has a 2 stage complaint policy. It states that it will acknowledge residents’ complaints within 5 working days, respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. It also states that if its needs longer to respond, it will contact the resident to explain the reasons for the delay and provide a new date to respond to the resident’s complaint.

Damp and mould

The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly for residents so their expectations can be managed. They should also ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with the residents on actions taken to resolve damp and mould.
On 11 January 2023 the resident reported damp and mould in her lounge and by her back door. She also said her young disabled son lived in the property. We saw no evidence that the landlord discussed the matter with her or acted on her report. It did not show that it acted with a sense of urgency once it knew about the problem. This was not in keeping with the Ombudsman’s recommendations that landlords promptly respond to damp and mould reports. This was unreasonable and caused inconvenience to the resident who had to raise the issue again.
The evidence shows that once the resident reported the issue in March 2023, the landlord inspected the problem 26 days later. This was approximately 3 months after she reported the problem in January 2023. While it was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the issue, it did not show that it acted quickly once it realised its failing to act on the resident’s earlier report. Additionally, it did not show it had promptly discussed the problem with her to assess the severity and impact of the issue or considered how quickly it should respond. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould.
In March 2023, the landlord inspected the property, tested the level of moisture and checked the extractors fans. The surveyor found evidence of minor condensation stains by the front door and recommended to apply a mould wash to the affected areas. He also advised for the resident to monitor the areas for 3 months and report any further problems. It is unclear whether or when the landlord carried out the mould wash after its inspection. However, we base our decisions on evidence and in this case, the evidence shows that the resident made no further damp and mould reports until October 2023. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that following its inspection in March 2023, the landlord had resolved the issue.
We recognise that although the landlord found evidence of condensation In March 2023, it did not automatically blame the resident or her lifestyle. It showed that it looked at the property and considered what it could do to help manage the problem. It also advised the resident about managing moisture in the property. Those actions were reasonable and in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould to not automatically blame residents for damp and mould in their properties.
Following further reports from the resident, the landlord made several attempts to inspect the property between October 2023 and December 2023. Unfortunately, the resident had to cancel the inspection several times because her son was unwell and she had a bereavement. The evidence shows that both parties continued to communicate until the inspection took place on 29 January 2024. While we recognise it took approximately 3 months to carry out the survey, the delays were out of the landlord’s control. Additionally, the evidence shows that once the resident cancelled an appointment, the landlord promptly organised a new one. This was reasonable from the landlord, it showed that it was committed to addressing the problem.
Following its inspection on 29 January 2024, the surveyor recommended remedial works such as applying damp and mould wash to the affected areas such as the hallway, the front and back doors and around one of the bedroom window. He also recommended to redecorate the hallway and doors with mould resistant paint. The surveyor noted that it provided advice to the resident on managing the moisture levels in the property. The evidence shows that the landlord raised the works 2 days later, which was reasonable.
In its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint the landlord said that it had shared its findings and a copy of its survey with the resident on 19 February 2024. While this was reasonable from the landlord, it did not show it had provided the resident with a work schedule including timescales for completing the remedial repairs. This caused frustration to the resident who did not feel it had kept her updated on what would happen next. The landlord’s actions were not in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould for landlords to be clear on next steps and manage residents ‘expectations.
In March 2024 the resident informed the landlord that in February 2024, its contractor had not completed the agreed repairs. The landlord inspected the property 2 weeks later and requested a new survey of the property because it found new areas affected by mould. It completed the survey approximately 5 weeks later, which was not in keeping with its damp and mould policy to carry out such an inspection within 28 days of knowing about the problem. The landlord did not explain the delay in returning to inspect the property. This was unreasonable from the landlord and contributed to the resident feeling that it was not taking the issue seriously.
In April 2024 the surveyor acknowledged some remedial repairs took place to address the damp and mould in the property. He also found new areas with evidence of mould such as the lounge and the kitchen cupboard. It recommended remedial repairs such as applying a mould wash, redecorate the affected areas and replace 3 extractor fans. The landlord said it completed the repairs on 30 May 2024, which was slightly outside its published timeframe. It explained it had booked the repairs appointments at times, which were suitable to the resident. This was reasonable and in keeping with its repairs and maintenance policy.
The landlord informed this service that on 5 June 2024, the resident said that although it had completed most of the repairs, some were outstanding. It explained to the resident that it would be in touch once it spoken to its contractor about the issues she raised. Understandably, 2 weeks later the resident expressed her frustration at the landlord’s lack of communication about a resolution. She also described the accumulative impact of its failings in completing some of the repairs for 6 months. The delays in responding to the resident and the landlord’s lack of oversight of the repairs caused inconvenience to the resident who had to raise the issue as a stage 2 complaint.
Our Spotlight Report on damp and mould says that landlords should recognise that damp and mould can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of residents. While the landlord knew the resident’s disabled son had asthma and she was diagnosed with cancer, we saw no evidence it considered this. The landlord should have considered the household’s vulnerability or reasonable adjustments in its handling of the repair. We cannot determine whether the landlord should have made reasonable adjustments. However, we would have expected the landlord to discuss this with the resident. This would have reassured her that it had considered their needs when addressing the damp and mould.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the resident said that that it had not fully completed the decorative works and some mould was present in the lounge. It organised for an inspection on 5 September 2024. While this was appropriate to understand the scope of the issues, it should have done this sooner. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to check the outcome of the repairs following its survey in April 2024. Especially after its failings in completing some of the repairs in January 2024. The landlord did not show that it had learned from its earlier lack of oversight and ensure it had completed the agreed repairs. This was unreasonable and caused inconvenience to the resident who had to repeatedly raise the issues.
Following its inspection on 5 September 2024, the landlord raised works to complete the redecorating of the kitchen and the lounge. The landlord informed this service that while it completed some of the repairs, the resident put the remaining works on hold in August 2024. The landlord said it booked the repairs for 18 November 2024, but it is unclear if it carried out the repairs on that date. We saw no evidence that the resident reported it did not attend as planned. Without evidence, we cannot determine there was failure by the landlord.
The landlord said that in December 2024, the resident had asked it to wait until it completed the roof repairs before finishing the internal works. While we understand there were delays in completing the roof repairs, as explained earlier in this report, we did not consider those as part of this investigation. The landlord said it completed the roof repairs on 11 March 2025 and the redecorating works 22 days later. The evidence shows that once it completed the roof repairs, the landlord promptly completed the internal redecorating, which was reasonable.
We recognise the landlord identified and acknowledged its failings during and after its internal complaint process. The evidence shows it investigated its handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports from November 2023 onwards. However, the resident also reported damp and mould in January 2023 and the landlord inspected the issue in March 2023. We understand there was a gap of approximately 6 months between its application a mould wash after its inspection and the resident’s second report. Nevertheless, it would have been good practice for the landlord to have considered its handling of her earlier report to ensure that it had a clear picture of the extent and origins of the problem and its handling of the matter.
The landlord apologised for its failings and offered to pay £900 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact on her. It offered £100 in February 2024, a further £100 in April 2024, an additional £500 in its stage 2 response and then a further £200 in February 2025. While in this case it was right for the landlord to offer compensation to the resident and review its offer once it identified further failings, we cannot make a finding of reasonable redress. This is because the landlord compensation offer was in relation to its handling of several repairs. It did not say how much of its compensation offer was in relation to its handling of damp and mould.
After considering the evidence of the case, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports. We recognise that the landlord inspected the property 4 times between March 2023 and September 2024. We also understand the landlord acted on its surveyor recommendations.
However, the evidence shows there were delays in completing some the surveys and it did not always act with a sense of urgency. Furthermore, the evidence shows that the landlord’s lack of oversight of the repairs contributed to the delays in resolving the matter. It also recognised it had not effectively communicated with the resident on the issues. Additionally, it did not show that it consider whether the damp and mould presented a risk to the resident’s son health.
The evidence shows its failings causes inconvenience to the resident who had to raise the issues several times and chase the landlord for completion of the repairs. Additionally, during the same period she had a bereavement, she was diagnosed with cancer and her son had surgery. While we recognise the landlord is not responsible for those events, its failings added to her distress.
In accordance with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £575 and this is equivalent to (this is inclusive of the offer made by the landlord):
1. £300 to reflect the delays in resolving the matters.
2. £200 to reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble and distress caused to the resident. This also reflects the accumulative impact of the landlord’s failings.
3. £75 failings to assess the potential risk to the household health.

The repairs to the back door and the adjacent skirting board

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates an implied term in tenancy agreements that a landlord must make repairs to the structure and the outside of its properties and do so within a reasonable timeframe. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that this includes repairs to outside door and door frames.
On 11 January 2023 the resident reported water ingress from a gap under her back door and explained that because of this the adjacent skirting board had been damaged. She also said she experienced heat loss because of a gap under the door. The landlord said that it sealed the back door and installed draught excluders 33 days later, which was not within its published timeframe. The landlord did not show that it explained or discussed the reasons for the delay with the resident, which was unreasonable.
Additionally, the resident reported damages to the skirting board next to her back door in January 2023. The landlord did not show that it had addressed the problem when it repaired the back door. This was unreasonable and caused inconvenience to the resident who had to raise the issue again.
In November 2023 the resident reported that the back door’s paint was coming off, the wood around it was rotten and water was coming in. She also reiterated that the adjacent skirting board was water damaged. In January 2024 and after several attempts, the landlord inspected the problems. On the recommendations of its surveyor, the landlord raised jobs to remedy to the issues. It said it would lift the back door low threshold, fit timber weather board to the door, decorate the back door and its frame, and fit a new skirting board.
In its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint, it said that its contractor would complete the works recommended by its surveyor and make an appointment with the resident. This included the repairs to the back door and the skirting board. While we understand the landlord appointed a contractor to complete the works, it retained the responsibility for completing the repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
While investigating the resident’s complaint, we would have expected the landlord to investigate the progress of the repairs with its contractor. It should have confirmed the timeframe for completing the works and shared this with the resident. This would have reassured her it had oversight of the works and was acting to resolve the problem. Its failings to do so, caused frustration to the resident who felt it was not effectively communicating with her on the matter. This was unreasonable from the landlord and its failings impacted on its relationship with the resident.
The landlord said that in February 2024, it completed the remedial repairs. However, following further reports from the resident it inspected the property in April 2024. The evidence shows that its surveyor reiterated its earlier recommendations to resolve the issues with the back door and the skirting board. Although the landlord had raised a work order for the repairs recommended by its surveyor in January 2024, its appointed contractors had not completed the repairs as agreed. We would have expected the landlord to have oversight of the repairs to ensure those were completed. Its lack of oversight was unreasonable and contributed to the delays in resolving the problems.
Furthermore, while its contractor completed remedial repairs to the back door and the skirting board in May 2024, it did not complete some of the agreed repairs. For example, although the landlord said it would fit a new skirting board, the evidence shows that in May 2024, it painted the skirting board instead of fitting a new one. While we understand the landlord appointed a contractor to do the repairs, it retained the obligations for completing the repairs and doing so within a reasonable timeframe. Its lack of oversight of the repairs was unreasonable and caused inconvenience to the resident, who had to raise the issue several times.
Following its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord inspected the property on 5 September 2024. It then raised a work order to replace the skirting board and check if it needed to do further adjustments to the back door. We understand the landlord planned to do the repairs to the back door on 20 September 2024, unfortunately the resident had to cancel as she was in hospital. The landlord rebooked the work for 4 November 2024 and then for 18 November 2024. It is unclear whether the appointments went ahead. However, we saw no evidence that the resident reported it did not attend as planned. Without evidence, we cannot find there was failure by the landlord.
The landlord said that in December 2024, the resident had asked it to wait until it completed the roof repairs before finishing the internal works. While we understand there were delays in completing the roof repairs, as explained earlier in this report, we did not consider those as part of this investigation. The landlord said it completed the roof repairs on 11 March 225. The evidence shows that once it completed the roof repairs, it completed the repairs to the back door and skirting board 22 days later. This was reasonable by the landlord. It showed that once it could go ahead with the repairs, it completed them within its published timeframe.
Overall, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the back door and the skirting board. The evidence shows that between January 2024 and September 2024, the landlord inspected the property at least 4 times. It provided 3 detailed reports recommending remedial works to the back door and the adjacent skirting board. We recognise that it made several attempts in resolving the problem. However, its lack of oversight of the repairs contributed to its failings in resolving the matter within its published timeframe. From its own admission during its internal complaint process, there were missed opportunities to resolve the problems sooner.
As mentioned earlier in this report, we recognise the landlord identified and acknowledged its failings during and after its internal complaint process. The evidence shows it investigated its handling of the repairs to the back door and skirting board from November 2023 onwards. However, the resident had reported the issue in January 2023. We understand that following the repairs it completed in February 2023, there was a gap of 9 months between the resident’s first and second report. Nevertheless, it would have been good practice for the landlord to have considered its handling of her earlier report to ensure that it had a clear picture of its handling of the matter.
It apologised for its failings and offered to pay £900 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact on her. While in this case it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation to the resident and review its offer once it identified further failings, we cannot make a finding of reasonable redress. This is because the landlord compensation offer was in relation to its handling of several repairs. It did not say how much of its compensation offer was in relation to its handling of the repairs to the back door and the skirting board.
Additionally, we understand the landlord asked the resident to provide copies of her utilities bills. It explained that after she reported heat loss from the gap under the back door, it wanted to establish whether she had an increase of usage. It said that although it had requested further information, she had only provided her current bills. It explained that because of this, it had been unable to establish whether it should pay her compensation to reflect an increase of energy usage. The evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to assess this aspect of its compensation offer to the resident.
In accordance with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, we order the landlord to pay the resident £400 and this is equivalent to (this is inclusive of the offer made by the landlord):
1. £250 to reflect the delays in completing the repairs.
2. £150 to reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble and distress caused to the resident. This also reflects the accumulative impact of the landlord’s failings.

The associated complaint

The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 6 February 2024. It acknowledged and responded to her complaint within 10 working days. This was reasonable from the landlord. The evidence shows that it acknowledged and responded to her complaint in keeping with its complaint policy and the Code.
The resident escalated her complaint on 8 July 2024. While it promptly acknowledged her request, it responded to her stage 2 complaint 17 days outside its published timeframe. We recognise that the landlord apologised and acknowledged its complaint handling failings in its stage 2 response. It also offered £150 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact on her. It is our opinion that the landlord’s offer reflected the failings identified. Therefore, we determine that, in all circumstances of the case, the level of compensation amounts to reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs to the back door and the adjacent skirting board.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident in relation to its handling of the associated complaint, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This results in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, we order the landlord to:
1. Pay £975 compensation directly to the resident and this is equivalent to (this is inclusive of the offers made by the landlord. It should deduct from this amount any compensation already paid to the resident.):
  1. £575 to reflect its failings in its handling of the damp and mould and the impact caused to the resident.
  2. £400 to reflect the impact of the delays in completing the repairs to the back door and the adjacent skirting board.
2. Reiterate its offer to assess the resident’s potential increase of energy usage and establish whether it should pay her additional compensation. The landlord should clearly explain the information it needs from the resident to assess this. The resident can choose whether she would like to consider its offer and provide the information needed.

Recommendations

We recommend for the landlord to make good on its offer to pay the resident £150 compensation for its complaint handling failings, if it has not already paid it.