Abri Group Limited (202429771)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202429771

Abri Group Limited

30 June 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.
2. The associated complaints.

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom, ground floor flat and the resident has an assured tenancy which began in July 2000. The landlord has advised us that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, however, its records state that the resident’s husband has a chronic lung condition.
Following reports of damp and mould by the resident in September 2021, the landlord arranged for specialist dampness contractors to inspect the property. The inspections were carried out on 6 October and 4 November 2021 by separate contractors. The contractors made various recommendations, including installing extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom and a positive input ventilation (PIV) unit. Both contractors concluded that the property was not suffering from rising or penetrating dampness but that there was evidence of condensation. The landlord’s records show that in November 2021 it carried out thermal boarding to the bathroom ceiling to prevent damp and mould and in April 2022 it installed new extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen.
In 2023, the landlord arranged for a further dampness inspection to be undertaken by a specialist contractor and the survey was carried out on 24 August 2023. The contractor recommended the installation of a PIV unit and the further replacement of the bathroom and kitchen extractor fans. The landlord’s own Surveyor inspected the property on 25 January 2024 and confirmed that a PIV unit should be installed and the bathroom and kitchen extractor fans should be upgraded. He also agreed to arrange a full mould wash and stain-blocking to be carried out and this was completed on 18 April 2024.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 6 June 2024 in which she said that the damp and mould issues had been going on for 12 years. She said there was damp and mould in the kitchen and both bedrooms and the kitchen units were in a poor state of repair. She said that her husband suffered from chronic asthma and his condition had deteriorated in the past year.
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 22 August 2024 in which it stated the following:
1. The resident had reported damp and mould several times in the past and although surveys had been carried out, the recommended works had not been done.
2. The kitchen was due for replacement but the resident had declined the work until the damp and mould issues were resolved.
3. The landlord had replaced various ‘blown’ double glazed window units on 11 July 2024.
4. The specialist dampness contractor had scheduled an appointment to fit the PIV unit and the replacement extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen on 29 August 2024.
5. The landlord provided details of its insurer and said the resident could make a personal injury claim in relation to her husband’s health if she wished to do so.
6. The landlord apologised for the delay in arranging the remedial works and offered £450 by way of an apology.
The resident replied to the landlord on 23 August 2024 and asked for her complaint to be escalated because she said the dampness issue had not been resolved and she had not been given an action plan showing how it would be resolved. She said the amount of compensation offered did not cover her losses over the years, such as carpets, clothing and furniture.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 24 October 2024 in which it included the following information:
1. It apologised for not following up the recommendations made by the specialist dampness contractors in 2021 and for its poor record-keeping.
2. It confirmed that the specialist contractor had installed the PIV and new extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen on 29 August 2024.
3. It mentioned it had trialled a different mould treatment product as the resident had reported that the previous chemical used by the landlord for mould washes had triggered her husband’s asthma. The landlord said it may be able to use the product it was trialling to carry out future mould washes in the property.
4. The landlord concluded that there had been an unacceptable delay in resolving the damp and mould issues and that due to poor record-keeping it had been difficult to establish the exact reasons for the delays.
5. The landlord upheld the stage 2 complaint because it found it had not addressed all of the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 reply.
6. It apologised to the resident, outlined learning it had taken from the resident’s complaints and offered additional compensation of £400.
The resident replied to the landlord’s stage 2 letter on 4 November 2024 and said she was dissatisfied with the stage 2 reply because she wanted the landlord to:
1. Replace the bedroom floor tiles, which she said were broken or loose.
2. Remove the plasterboard in the bathroom, treat the wall and possibly replaster.
3. Remove the plasterboard ceiling in the bathroom and reinspect for dampness as there was a ‘musty’ smell.
The resident contacted us on the same day (4 November 2024) and said she had been living with damp and mould since 2012. She mentioned about the works she was requesting to the bedroom floor tiles and in the bathroom. She said the landlord had arranged for a contractor to carry out a survey of the cavity wall insulation for the whole building. She advised us on 19 June 2025 that the landlord had upgraded the cavity wall insulation during the spring of 2025. She also advised us that the landlord had booked an appointment to carry out a design survey to replace the kitchen, arranged to remove the plasterboard ceiling in the bathroom to check for dampness and agreed that an operative would carry out repairs to the bedroom floor tiles.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident advised the landlord in her stage 1 complaint on 6 June 2024 and on other occasions that her husband’s chronic asthma had deteriorated and had been affected by the reported damp and mould. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent advice if she wishes to pursue this option. We have noted that the landlord had provided the resident with details of its public liability insurer, which the resident could consider as an alternative to taking legal action.
The resident advised us on 4 November 2024 that she had been living with damp and mould in the property since 2012. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould from 2021. Any reference to the events that occurred prior to 2021 has been included in this report to provide context.
Some of the evidence we have received relates to events that took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 24 October 2024. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response. In this case, we consider it is fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are potential hazards and the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s records show that its Housing Officer visited the property on 22 September 2021 and the resident reported to him that there were areas of dampness in the property and she said the kitchen units were in poor condition. The landlord raised an order on 23 September 2021 for a specialist dampness contractor to inspect the property and the inspection was carried out on 6 October 2021.
It was reasonable that the day after the resident had reported damp to the Housing Officer, the landlord had raised an order for a specialist contractor to inspect the property. The contractor had then carried out the inspection 2 weeks after the order was raised, which was a reasonable timescale given that the contractor had to agree a suitable appointment with the resident.
The landlord’s records show that on 4 October 2021 it raised a further order for a contractor specialising in rising damp to check whether there was any penetrating or rising damp affecting the property. The contractor inspected on 4 November 2021 and found the property was not suffering from either rising damp or penetrating dampness. It did note, however, that there were condensation issues resulting in mould growth. The contractor also said there were practical difficulties in installing a PIV unit due to the layout of the property.
It was reasonable for the landlord to have arranged for the property to be checked for penetrating and rising damp to eliminate these as possible causes of dampness in the property. The contractor carried out the inspection within a reasonable timescale of 1 month after the order was raised.
The landlord’s records show that in November 2021 it carried out thermal boarding to the bathroom ceiling to prevent damp and mould. It was reasonable that the landlord was taking steps to address the reported damp and mould in the bathroom while it was waiting for the report from the specialist contractor that had inspected on 6 October 2021.
The landlord’s records state that the specialist contractor had been experiencing “severe system issues” following the inspection on 6 October 2021 and this had affected its ability to look up any job information, book appointments or give updates on jobs. The landlord received the survey report on 24 March 2022, which was more than 5 months after the inspection. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord chased the contractor for its report or kept the resident updated during this period.
While we understand that the contractor’s system issues were outside of the landlord’s control, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not adequately chased the contractor for the report, nor kept the resident updated of its actions. Had the landlord communicated effectively with the resident during the period of delay, it could have considered interim measures such as offering a mould treatment. The landlord had received the report from the rising damp specialist contractor on 9 November 2021 stating there was mould growth within the property and therefore it was aware that mould was present.
The report received on 24 March 2022 recommended the installation of a PIV unit and new extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen. The landlord’s records show that it installed new extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom on 12 April 2022. The landlord had therefore installed the fans 13 working days after it had received the contractor’s report, which was reasonable. The landlord’s internal emails show that it had chosen to install the fans and then monitor the situation given the difficulties in installing the PIV unit identified by the rising damp contractor. Having received 2 reports from contractors with different recommendations, the landlord was entitled to consider the recommendations and decide on the approach it considered to be most appropriate. In this case, it had chosen to upgrade the fans but not to install the PIV unit.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that the resident contacted the landlord on or about 21 March 2023 to report damp and mould in the property. She requested an inspection and said the flooring in the main bedroom and the windows needed to be looked at during the inspection. In response, the landlord raised an order on 21 March 2023 for a specialist dampness contractor to inspect the property for mould in the bedrooms and the kitchen. As it had been almost 18 months since the last inspection by a specialist contractor and the landlord had since carried out some works to address the reported damp and mould, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a follow-up inspection.
The landlord also booked an appointment for one of its Surveyors to inspect the property on 12 April 2023 because the resident had reported concerns about the cavity wall insulation, the windows, the plastering in the bathroom and the flooring in the main bedroom. It was reasonable for the landlord to have arranged for a Surveyor to inspect the property as the resident had reported various concerns relating to the condition of the property. However, the landlord’s records state that it cancelled the appointment because the order had been incorrectly raised. The landlord’s records state that it phoned the resident on 19 April 2023 to rebook the appointment, but the resident had not answered the call.
The resident phoned the landlord on 24 May 2023 to say she was unhappy the previous Surveyor inspection had been cancelled and also said the specialist contractor had not yet contacted her. The evidence seen by us indicates that a Surveyor’s inspection did not occur until January 2024. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not attempted to contact the resident to rebook the Surveyor’s appointment after it tried ringing her on 19 April 2023. We would expect the landlord to have emailed the resident if it was unable to reach her by phone.
The landlord’s records show that when it spoke to the resident on 24 May 2023, it offered to carry out a mould wash in the property. However, the resident had declined this as she said the chemicals used to treat the mould affected her husband’s lung condition. We have not seen any evidence that the resident had previously advised the landlord that the mould wash chemicals affected her husband’s lung condition. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to have offered to carry out a mould wash at that stage as the resident had reported the presence of mould.
The specialist contractor surveyed the property on 24 August 2023, which was 5 months after the landlord raised the order. The delay in carrying out the inspection was unreasonable as the resident had chased the landlord about the inspection on 24 May 2023 and had advised the landlord that her husband had a chronic lung condition.
Following the inspection on 24 August 2023, the specialist contractor sent its report to the landlord on 7 September 2023, which was a reasonable timescale following the inspection. The report recommended the installation of a PIV unit and the further upgrading of the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen. The report stated that the property was clear of mould at the time of the survey.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 December 2023 and reported severe mould in the property. She said her husband had severe, chronic asthma. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not communicated with the resident about the next steps following the contractor’s inspection on 24 August 2023. The lack of communication and follow up was particularly unreasonable because the resident had advised the landlord on 24 May 2023 of her concerns about the impact of the reported damp and mould on her husband’s chronic lung condition.
The landlord’s own Surveyor inspected the property on 25 January 2024 and concluded that there was a general problem with condensation in the property. He agreed with the specialist contractor’s recommendations that it needed to install a PIV unit and upgrade the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. The Surveyor also said he would arrange a full mould wash of the property and stain blocking. The landlord raised an order on 26 January 2024 to treat mould and carry out stain blocking in both bedrooms, which was reasonable as the Surveyor had identified the need for these works.
The mould wash was carried out on 18 April 2024. The landlord’s notes state that the mould wash had initially been scheduled with the resident to take place on 18 March 2024, however, the appointment had to be rescheduled due to “staff availability”. The appointment was then rescheduled again to 25 March 2024 as the resident was unavailable. An operative attended on 25 March 2024 but the resident was not at home. It was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that the initial appointment had to be changed due to the staff availability. It meant that the resident had to wait longer for the mould wash than would otherwise have been the case. The evidence suggests that the landlord then took reasonable steps to carry out the mould wash on 25 March 2024 but was unable to obtain access.
During the mould wash carried out on 18 April 2024, the operative identified that some of the double-glazed windows suffered from internal misting. The landlord raised an order to replace 3 of the sealed units and the work was completed on 11 July 2024. It was appropriate that the landlord had promptly raised an order to carry out the follow-on work. The work was then completed within a 3-month period, which was reasonable as the sealed units had to be measured and manufactured.
The PIV unit and the extractor fans were fitted on 29 August 2024 after the landlord approved a quote for the works on 11 June 2024. The work was therefore carried out 7 months after the Surveyor’s inspection on 25 January 2024. Although during this time the landlord had carried out a mould wash and stain blocking, the time taken to arrange and carry out the fitting of the PIV unit and the extractor fans was unreasonable. It demonstrated a lack of urgency on the landlord’s part, despite being aware of the vulnerability of the resident’s husband.
In its stage 1 reply dated 22 August 2024, the landlord addressed the resident’s reports that her husband’s health had declined due to damp and mould. The landlord said that as its staff were not medically trained, they were not in a position to decide whether the property conditions had contributed towards the reported decline in the health of the resident’s husband. The landlord provided details of its liability insurer and said the resident could submit a personal injury claim if she wished to do so. The advice given by the landlord was appropriate as it was in line with its Putting Things Right Policy, which states that personal injury matters fall outside its complaint process and should be referred to its insurers.
On 22 October 2024, the landlord raised an order for a specialist insulation contractor to carry out a survey of the cavity wall insulation for the block. This was reasonable to assess the effectiveness of the cavity wall insulation and to determine whether it was contributing to the reported damp and mould. As a result of the survey’s findings, the cavity wall insulation for the block was upgraded during spring 2025.
During 2023 and 2024, the landlord attempted to carry out a design survey so it could replace the resident’s kitchen units as part of its kitchen renewal programme. The landlord’s notes state that the resident had advised the landlord that she did not want the survey to take place until the damp and mould issues had been resolved. The landlord’s Surveyor addressed this with the resident at the inspection on 25 January 24. He agreed that the contractor carrying out the kitchen renewal would treat the mould on the walls behind the kitchen units before fitting the new units. This was a reasonable proposal as it would give the resident reassurance that the kitchen units would not be installed until the walls had been properly treated.
In its stage 2 reply dated 24 October 2024, the landlord noted that the resident had declined previous mould washes because the chemicals used had triggered her husband’s asthma. The landlord said it had recently trialled a different mould treatment product and may be able to offer this. It was reasonable that the landlord had investigated an alternative product that might have less of an impact on the resident’s husband. It demonstrated a willingness on the part of the landlord to adapt its service to the needs of the resident’s household. The landlord’s approach was also in line with its Repairs Policy, which states: “Where practical, consideration will be given to sourcing products suitable for vulnerable residents”.
Overall, we have identified the following failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould:
1. There was a period of more than 5 months between the specialist contractor inspecting the property on 6 October 2021 and the landlord receiving the report on 24 March 2022. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord adequately chased the contractor, kept the resident updated of progress or considered interim measures such as mould treatments during this period.
2. The landlord did not take sufficient steps to rebook the Surveyor’s inspection after cancelling the appointment on 12 April 2023.
3. There was a period of 5 months between the landlord ordering a follow up inspection by a specialist dampness contractor on 21 March 2023 and the contractor inspecting the property on 24 August 2023.
4. There was a lack of communication and follow–up after the contractor’s inspection on 24 August 2023, even though the landlord was aware of the resident’s concerns regarding the impact of the reported damp and mould on her husband’s health.
5. It took 7 months after the Surveyor’s inspection on 25 January 2024 to install the PIV unit and the upgraded extractor fans on 29 August 2024.
The delay in progressing various remedial works showed a lack of urgency by the landlord and was contrary to its Damp and Mould Policy in operation from 2022. The policy stated “we’ll respond quickly to initial reports of damp and mould and promptly act upon the recommendations given by damp and mould specialists”. The lack of communication was also contrary to the policy which said, “we’ll keep customers fully informed on what work is required…”. The landlord had been advised in May 2023 about the resident’s concerns regarding the impact of the reported damp and mould on her husband’s health. This should have prompted greater urgency.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s lack of urgency and missed opportunities to progress remedial works caused the resident distress, particularly because of her concerns about the impact of the reported damp and mould on her husband’s health. The resident expressed these concerns to the landlord on 24 May 2023. The resident also expressed frustration at the lack of communication from the landlord.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging there had been an unacceptable delay in resolving the reported damp and mould issues and due to its poor record keeping it had been difficult to determine the reasons for these delays.
The landlord sought to put things right by apologising for its failings, completing the works recommended by the specialist contractor and its Surveyor, providing the resident with details of its insurer so she could consider making a personal injury claim and by offering compensation. The landlord also mentioned in its stage 2 reply that it may be able to use a different mould wash treatment as the previous chemical used had affected the resident’s husband.
In terms of learning from outcomes, the landlord said in its stage 1 reply that it had created a tracker to monitor outstanding quotes from contractors to avoid future delays and was now proactively chasing contractors for any outstanding quotes. The landlord also said in its stage 2 reply that it had highlighted the problems caused by its poor record keeping to the Damp, Mould and Disrepair Manager for future learning.
In terms of compensation, the landlord offered the following sums:
1. £450 at stage 1 (£50 for the delay in responding to the complaint, £50 for poor communications and £350 for the poor standard of service received leading to delayed work).
2. £400 at stage 2 (£150 for inconvenience caused by the delays in completing the work, £150 for the distress caused by the delays and £100 for the problems caused by poor record keeping).
The landlord therefore offered a total of £800 for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and £50 for complaint handling. The sum offered for complaint handling is considered below.
We have considered the landlord’s offer of compensation for its handling of the reports of damp and mould. The offer was in line with the landlord’s Putting Things Right guidelines for cases where a resident “has been the subject of a persistent failure, over an unacceptable timeframe”. It states that cases where its actions cause significant distress may be considered for compensation of around £500 or higher. The sum offered is also within the range of financial redress recommended in our own Remedies Guidance for failings which had a significant impact on the resident. For these reasons, in our opinion, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which was reasonable in the circumstances.
Our finding of ‘reasonable redress’ takes into account all the circumstances, including:
1. The service failings identified by our investigation and their impact on the resident and her household.
2. The action taken by the landlord to address the reported damp and mould, including:
  1. Arranging inspections by specialist dampness contractors and its own Surveyor and implementing their recommendations, albeit after some delays.
  2. Offering mould washes and stain blocking.
  3. Carrying out thermal boarding in the bathroom.
  4. Arranging for a specialist contractor to check the cavity wall insulation.
  5. Replacing the defective double-glazed window units.
  6. Giving consideration to using an alternative mould wash product to reduce the impact on the resident’s husband.
3. The landlord acknowledged its failings, offered reasonable financial redress and identified learning in its complaint responses.

The associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord may extend these timescales for responding. However, the extensions will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2 without good reason. The landlord will explain the reasons for any extensions of time to the resident and agree how often it will provide the resident with an update on progress with its investigation.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 6 June 2024 and it was logged by the landlord on 7 June 2024. The landlord sent an acknowledgement on 10 June 2024, which was 2 working days after receiving the complaint. The landlord had therefore acknowledged the complaint within an appropriate timescale that was in line with its policy.
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 22 August 2024, which was 53 working days after sending its acknowledgement. During this period the landlord wrote to the resident on 20 June 2024 to advise that it was waiting for information in order to respond and said it needed to extend the timescale by an additional 10 working days. The resident replied on the same day to agree the extension. As the landlord needed more time to gather information for its response, it was reasonable that it had agreed an extension of time with the resident.
The landlord then wrote to the resident on 9 July 2024 to acknowledge that it had not yet replied to the stage 1 complaint. It said it was chasing the specialist dampness contractor for an earlier date to fit the PIV unit and would offer redress for the delay in replying to the stage 1 complaint. The landlord then took a further 32 working days to send its stage 1 reply on 22 August 2024. The delay in the landlord responding to the stage 1 complaint was inappropriate as the resident had been waiting an additional 35 working days since the new timescale she had been given in the landlord’s letter of 20 June 2024.
The evidence also shows that the landlord did not provide adequate progress updates to the resident while she was waiting for the stage 1 response. This prompted the resident to write to the landlord on 7 August and 16 August 2024 to request updates regarding her complaint. It was inappropriate that the landlord had not proactively kept the resident updated of progress regarding her complaint. The landlord’s Complaint Policy states that during any extension of time it will agree with the resident how often it will provide progress updates. In this case, we have seen no evidence that the landlord agreed the frequency of updates with the resident.
The delay in sending its stage 1 reply and the lack of progress updates, caused further inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident in having to chase the landlord for updates regarding her complaint. In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for the delay in replying and offered compensation of £50 by way of an apology for its complaint handling. The amount offered is within the range of sums suggested in our Remedies Guidance for service failures that have resulted in inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. In our view, the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation were proportionate and reasonable to put things right in terms of its handling of her stage 1 complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 August 2024 and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 3 September 2024, which was 7 working days after the resident had asked for her complaint to be escalated. It was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord that it had not acknowledged the complaint within the 5-working day timescale stipulated in its policy. In its stage 2 reply, the landlord apologised for the delay, which in our view was an appropriate way to address the oversight.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 24 October 2024, which was 37 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The time taken to reply was therefore longer than the 20 working days stipulated in its policy. However, during this period, the landlord wrote to the resident on 27 September 2024 and apologised for the delay. It advised her that it would send its stage 2 reply by 29 October 2024.
The landlord’s records show that it also phoned the resident on 16 October to discuss the complaint but, according to its notes, it was unable to have the discussion because the resident refused to answer the initial data protection questions. The landlord therefore sent a follow-up email to the resident on the same day summarising its understanding of the complaint.
Although the landlord exceeded its policy timescale for stage 2 replies by 17 working days, it had advised the resident of the need for the extension and it sent its stage 2 letter by the deadline advised in its extension letter. The landlord had also tried to discuss the complaint with the resident prior to sending its response. We have therefore concluded that the time taken by the landlord to reply to the stage 2 complaint was not unreasonable in these circumstances.
Overall, we have found that although the landlord failed to respond to the stage 1 complaint within an appropriate timescale, it apologised and made a reasonable offer of redress. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s overall complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaints.

Recommendation

The landlord should reoffer the resident the £850 offered during the complaints process if this has not already been paid. Our findings of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the reported damp and mould and the associated complaints are made on the basis that this compensation is paid.