Bolton at Home Limited (202310451)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310451

Bolton at Home Limited

16 October 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Various repairs including gutters, plastering and pointing, damp and mould, carbon monoxide detectors, bathroom fan, and electrical sockets.
2. Staff conduct regarding a gas safety check at the property.
3. A data breach.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a social housing provider. The property is a three-bedroom house. She moved to the property in March 2017. The landlord has no vulnerabilities or related indicators recorded on its systems.
On 15 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord. She asked for the report of an independent surveyor’s inspection on the property and complained to the landlord about:
1. The landlord’s decision not to fix her guttering.
2. The damp and mould in her bedrooms, that she felt was caused by the guttering issue, and the landlord’s previous responses to the damp and mould reports.
3. The inadequate plaster throughout the house.
4. The data breach that she raised with the landlord, and the response she received.
The next day the resident reported that cracks had appeared in the bathroom and a bedroom. After an emergency visit that day, she contacted the landlord and reported an issue with the pointing. On 23 January 2023 the landlord inspected the plastering and pointing and made recommendations to clear the gutters, replaster areas in the hallway and stairs, and repoint the gable wall to the front and rear of the property. The resident was told that hairline cracks were residents’ responsibility to decorate. Repairs in relation to this inspection were raised on 7 February 2023.
On 17 February 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It accepted there were delays in the plastering and pointing inspection, and that communication could have been better. It offered £100 compensation. The response said:
1. The landlord had no record of the resident’s call to raise a gutter repair, however it accepted she had called. It had raised a gutter repair.
2. It could not investigate the landlord’s comments made about damp and mould as they had been made more than 6 months ago.
3. The landlord apologised for the delayed inspection and told the resident it would be in contact by 28 February 2023 in relation to the plastering and pointing repairs.
4. The survey the resident mentioned in her complaint was a stock condition survey, and it did not identify any repairs. The landlord advised the resident to report any outstanding repairs.
5. The landlord had no record of a reported data breach. It asked for the date and time of the resident’s call so it could investigate. It gave details of how to report a breach.
On 24 February 2023 the landlord cleared and fixed the gutters. On 2 March 2023 it attended to carry out the repointing but due to a bowing gable wall a structural survey was required before any work could go ahead. The survey found the severity of the structural defect to be low. At the request of the resident, the surveyors agreed to look at the damp issues. They reported back to the landlord that there were damp issues, including an electrical socket that had a corroding back box. The property required repointing, and the seals and lead flashing made good.
The resident was unhappy with the structural survey and the lack of progress with her repairs, and on 6 April 2023 she asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process. She added further points to her complaint:
1. On 6 April 2023 the landlord had completed a gas safety check, and the operative had used a bathroom towel to wipe up dirty water.
2. That a carbon monoxide detector, bathroom fan and electrical sockets had all been replaced but the old fixtures and fittings had not been removed.
The landlord added these new complaints to the current complaint and raised a new complaint. In May 2023 the landlord completed a stage 2 complaint response and a stage 1 complaint response for the new complaint. Some of the issues overlapped. The landlord told the resident:
1. The plastering repairs should start in July 2023.
2. A contractor would be in touch to arrange an appointment for the repointing.
3. It apologised if the operative’s recollection of the conversation about the carbon monoxide detector was wrong. It would contact the resident by 2 June 2023 to make arrangements to remove them.
4. It apologised for the operative who used the resident’s towel and explained how it would investigate and the landlord’s expectations of how it’s staff should behave in people’s homes.
The repointing and follow on works were completed on 25 August 2023 and 8 January 2024. The plastering related to this complaint was completed on 10 October 2023 and 12 December 2023.

Post internal complaints process

On 19 December 2023, the landlord completed a full damp report, and on 9 February 2024 it completed some recommended damp work in the living room, kitchen and front door. In July 2024 a further investigation into the damp and mould took place and the resident as of 30 September 2024 is awaiting the outcome.

Scope of investigation

Part of the resident’s complaint is both about the fact her reported data breach did not get logged and the actual data breach. The Ombudsman can investigate activities undertaken by the landlord while it is acting in its capacity as a landlord. On that basis we can consider the landlord’s handling of the process of reporting the breach. We cannot consider or investigate the landlord’s data handling. Paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that we may not consider matters that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) was set up to deal with concerns about data handling by organisations. It considers complaints about data handling, compliance with the Data Protection Act and the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). It can make orders aimed at putting things right. If the resident remains unhappy with how the landlord responded to her concerns about its data breach, and the actions that it took in response, she should refer the matter to the ICO accordingly.
The resident has told the landlord and Ombudsman about other repairs since this complaint, that she is not satisfied with. It is not clear if those repairs are directly linked to the issues reported in this complaint or not. For example, the Ombudsman does not have the technical expertise or information to know if the kitchen ceiling replacement was linked to the damp and mould or repointing. Furthermore, if they are not linked, it is not known if these other repairs have been through the landlord’s internal complaints process. The Ombudsman has acknowledged the resident’s continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s repair service and made orders to remedy this.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of repairs

Gutters

On 20 December 2022, following on from the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her broken gutter report, the landlord raised a repair to clean out the gutters and unblock downspouts. It was raised as a category 5 repair, for completion in 21 days. The landlord completed the repair on 24 February 2023, 67 days later. The landlord’s repairs policy tells us that if delays are expected it will let the resident know the reason for the delay and when the landlord will contact the resident to arrange the repair. The evidence provided as part of this investigation does not show the landlord proactively kept the resident updated about the delay, apart from in the complaint responses. The landlord acted inappropriately by not meeting its published timescales nor keeping the resident updated. It was not customer focused.
The landlord acknowledged that it had not logged the resident’s call about the gutters or the advice it gave her. This poor record keeping meant the landlord could not fairly investigate the complaint. The landlord accepted the resident’s account and upheld this part of the complaint. To try and put things right it:
1. Offered to investigate if the resident knew the date and time of her call.
2. Made the relevant team aware of the complaint to ensure lessons were learnt.
3. Raised the gutter repair.
4. Provided a full explanation as to why there was no current planned gutter clearance programme.
5. Offered a discretionary compensation payment of £100, across 3 complaints.
The Ombudsman determines that the landlord’s remedies in relation to the guttering were fair. It tried to put things right and learn from the complaint.

Plastering and pointing

On 16 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and reported new cracks in the bathroom, box room and landing. The landlord raised an emergency repair and attended on the same day. It raised a follow-on job for an inspection to assess the plastering. The landlord’s response was correct. It accepted responsibility and it attended within its repair policy timescale. The landlord acted appropriately. The resident knew to expect an inspection of her plastering and following her report, the pointing too.
The inspection was raised as a category 4 pre inspection with a 7-day timescale. It was completed on 24 January 2023, 39 days later. The evidence is not clear as to when the appointment was arranged to understand when the resident knew of the delay. Regardless, the delay was not appropriate. Following on from the inspection, plastering and pointing repairs were raised on 7 February 2023, 10 working days after the inspection. The Ombudsman has been unable to establish if this is in line with its policy as no timescales are specified in the landlord’s repair policy.
On 2 March 2023 the plastering and pointing repairs were delayed when the landlord noticed a bowing gable wall and determined a structural survey was required. On 10 and 24 March 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm this. The landlord acted reasonably. The resident was aware of what had happened and the proposed actions.
On 4 April 2024 the survey found the severity of the structural defect to be low with action required, to re point the property and make good any seals and lead flashing. On 18 April 2024 the landlord re-raised the pointing repairs. There was no explanation in the evidence to explain this delay and the Ombudsman determines it was unreasonable. Due to previous service delays and then the survey, the work was already delayed. The landlord should have made it a priority to quickly raise any follow on works after the survey. The landlord acted unreasonably. It may have contributed to the resident’s documented feelings that nothing was getting resolved and the complaint was getting worse.
On 6 April 2023, the resident asked the landlord if the surveyor who carried out the structural survey had the correct qualifications. The landlord addressed the question in its stage 2 complaint response and advised it carried out thorough procurement processes to ensure contractors have the necessary qualifications to carry out structural surveys. The landlord acted reasonably. It provided the resident with a detailed fair response.
The completion of the plastering and repointing repairs were delayed. The work was competed on 25 August, 10 October, 12 December 2023 and 8 January 2024. Considering the reasonable delay caused by the structural survey, the eventual completion dates were still outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timescales. They cannot be considered to be within a reasonable timeframe as stipulated in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord acted inappropriately. It took too long to complete works it had identified in January 2023 and did not keep the resident adequately informed.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether any redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, compensation and a commitment to improve communications in future), was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord apologised for the delay to the inspection and explained it was due to a backlog of inspections and repairs. It offered an apology and a discretionary compensation payment of £100 across 3 compliant issues. The landlord’s stage 2 response gave a proposed start date of July 2023 for the plastering and confirmed a contractor would be in touch to arrange an appointment for the pointing.
The Ombudsman determines that it was not a fair remedy. The resident still had no specific dates for the delayed repairs. There was no apology or valid explanation for the delays, except for the inspection. The landlord appeared to blame the structural survey solely for the delays. As detailed above there were other incidents that contributed to the delays. The Ombudsman has recognised the continued delay to the works and made an appropriate compensation order below.

Damp and Mould

In May 2018 the landlord completed works in relation to damp and mould at the property. In November 2018, the resident reported the mould had come back in one of the bedrooms. The landlord’s repair notes from the time tell us that it assessed the issue as condensation due to poor heating and ventilation and it “advised accordingly.”
In December 2022, the resident’s complaint to the landlord included current issues with damp and mould in the bedrooms and the landlord’s previous responses, which the resident was unhappy with. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response told the resident it could not investigate the comments made as too much time had passed. Paragraph 4.2 of the landlord’s customer feedback policy asks residents to provide feedback within 6 months of the incident happening. The landlord would not be able to fairly investigate comments that were made 4 years ago. The landlord acted appropriately.
However, the resident had specifically told the landlord that there was damp and mould in the bedrooms. Within its damp and condensation policy in place at, the time the landlord can arrange a damp inspection. Although there were works raised related to the gutters, pointing and plastering, it would have been beneficial to complete a damp inspection, to rule any other issues out. The last damp survey was 4 years old. The landlord acted unreasonably. It should have reacted to the resident’s report and its inaction may have contributed to the resident feeling like the landlord did not care or know what it was doing.
Issues of damp and mould remained in the home, and on 19 December 2023 the landlord completed a full damp report. There were no issues found upstairs but it found that damp works in the living room had started but were not complete. The report recommended completing the outstanding work and fixing the possible leak from the stop tap. The work was completed by 9 February 2024. Due to the level of work, this was a reasonable completion timeframe. However, as part of this complaint, the resident complained about the damp and mould in December 2022, and it was not reasonable of the landlord to take so long to fully address the issues, nor leave unfinished work in the living room.
The landlord took too long to grasp the damp and mould issues in the property and resolve them. The repair logs and notes evidence that the landlord did not take a holistic approach to the damp and mould. The issues remain and the resident has told the Ombudsman she had an appointment in July 2024 and there were high readings of moisture. She is waiting to hear the outcome. She also reports historic and current discrepancies between what the person visiting her says about the issues and the work that is then arranged.
The landlord has told the Ombudsman that it is making significant progress in the way it approaches damp and mould interventions. An example of this is the creation of a damp and mould team in 2023, flowcharts to better diagnose the issues and raise the appropriate actions, and the removal of negative blame apportioning language from its policies. Despite this the resident in this case has told the Ombudsman she continues to have a disjointed, delayed and negative experience of the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. Orders have been made below in recognition of this.

Carbon monoxide detectors, electrical sockets and bathroom fan

The resident added these issues to her complaint when she escalated to stage 2 of the internal complaint process. In summary the complaint was about the landlord leaving redundant items in place. The landlord accepted them. As there were already multiple complex issues within the complaint, it may have been more appropriate to raise a new complaint at this point.
On 19 May 2023 the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response addressed the resident’s concerns by:
1. Explaining it was standard practice to replace sockets with blank plates as removing sockets and cabling can be very disruptive, damaging decorative features.
2. Noting that blanked electrical outlets may still have energised cables behind and be an integral part of the wiring circuit, so blanked plates were used.
3. Offering to remove the old carbon monoxide alarms, and test any sockets to see if they are live or can be removed.
4. Noting if the resident did decide to have them removed any redecoration would be the resident’s responsibility.
A new stage 1 complaint response was sent on 30 May 2023 that also addressed these issues. The response said:
1. The landlord’s operative reported that the resident did not want the carbon monoxide detectors removed as they may leave screw holes. If this was not the case the landlord offered an apology and to speak to the operative.
2. The landlord would contact the resident by 2 June 2023 to arrange to remove the old detectors.
Following these responses the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the operative’s comments. The landlord contacted the resident, apologised and advised the operative would be spoken to about his conduct. The resident confirmed she had removed the redundant carbon monoxide detectors. The landlord acted reasonably. The landlord quickly followed up the resident’s concerns and listened to her. It was customer focused.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about redundant items was reasonable, in relation to the electrical sockets and the carbon monoxide detectors. It investigated, provided comprehensive responses and an appropriate apology. However, it did not provide any response about the redundant bathroom fan component. It was unreasonable that it did not. Landlords must make sure they address all parts of a resident’s complaint and if they are unsure of the complaint, to confirm it with the resident. By missing this part of the complaint, it may have contributed to the resident feeling the landlord was not competent.
The resident and the surveyor who completed the structural survey told the landlord about an electrical socket back box that was corroding. This issue did not form part of the resident’s initial complaint, so the Ombudsman has not had the opportunity to investigate its handling of the report. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to revisit this matter with the resident and resolve any of its outstanding responsibilities.

Landlord’s remedies

In summary the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property. While there is evidence of some detailed responses to the resident’s queries, there is less evidence of proactive communication and a joined-up approach to the repairs. The completion of repairs was delayed, outside of the landlord’s timescales and not within a reasonable timeframe. Some of the issues remain unresolved.
Considering the following failures identified by the landlord and additional failures identified by this report, the Ombudsman, in line with our remedies guidance, finds that a compensation payment of £600 is appropriate:
1. Extended delays to the plastering and repointing work after 19 May 2023.
2. Delays to damp and mould investigations and remedies.
3. No response from the landlord about the redundant bathroom fan component.
This level of financial compensation is proportionate for cases where the landlord has acknowledged its failings but not addressed the detriment to the resident and the offer made by the landlord was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. This includes a lack of non-financial remedies where the landlord did not evidence it was learning from the complaint, until it came to the Ombudsman. Orders in line with this finding are made below.

Landlord’s conduct in relation to a gas safety check at the property.

The Ombudsman’s investigation has focused on how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct, rather than the actual conduct of the staff. Staff or contractor conduct is an issue for the landlord to address internally and it is not for the Ombudsman to investigate.
On 6 April 2023 the landlord attended the resident’s home to complete its yearly gas safety check. The landlord used one of the resident’s bathroom towels without permission to mop up some water. Upon receiving this complaint, the landlord told the resident it would investigate. Paragraph 4.12 of the complaint handling code (the Code) at the time states that any staff member who is the subject of a complaint, must also be given a fair chance to set out their position and comment on any adverse findings before a final decision is made. The landlord acted appropriately. It was fair to ensure both parties had an opportunity to respond to the allegation.
The landlord spoke to the operative and their manager to understand their account of the allegation. The evidence provided as part of this investigation shows that the landlord’s operative admitted what they had done. They understood they should have asked the resident and apologised for the inconvenience caused by their actions. The evidence points to a thorough investigation of the matter. The customer feedback policy at the time of the complaint did not include how complaints about staff were dealt with. The landlord acted reasonably in the way it decided to handle the complaint. Its new customer feedback policy contains a section on staff complaints and how they will be dealt with. This is a welcome addition and now aligns more closely with the Code.
On 19 May and 30 May 2023, the landlord apologised in writing for the operative’s behaviour. It set out its expectations of how landlord staff should behave in resident’s homes. The landlord said any individual training requirements would be acted upon, and they would be reminded of the landlords’ service levels and obligations. The landlord followed the dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord acted reasonably, and its remedies were proportionate to the failing.
The landlord told the resident it could not provide any personal information about the operative or any internal disciplinary processes. This is in line with GDPR 2018, and the landlord has since included this explanation in its 2024 customer feedback (complaint) policy. There is an element of trust involved that the landlord would do what it says. The landlord acted reasonably. By explaining the limitations of its response, the resident could understand the information that had been shared.
The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of staff conduct. Once the landlord was made aware of the complaint it investigated promptly, shared the outcome with the resident and apologised appropriately.

Resident’s report of a data breach

The landlord accepted that the resident had called to report a data breach, and it had not been logged on its systems. On 3 February 2023 the landlord asked the resident for the date and time of the call so it could investigate further. The landlord was open to finding out what had happened. The landlord acted reasonably in asking the resident for more information. It was professionally curious.
On 17 February 2023, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response partially upheld the complaint because the data breach was not logged on its systems. It reiterated its willingness to investigate if the resident could provide the date and time of the call. The landlord provided the contact details for the resident to log the data breach. Although the landlord could have gone further and offered to talk to the resident and log the data breach on her behalf, it did provide the resident with a simple way to log the breach directly to the correct team. The landlord acted reasonably. It provided information to resolve the situation.
The landlord offered £100 discretionary compensation, in line with its compensation and redress policy to offer compensation when its service has fallen below expected levels. The payment was for 3 areas of the complaint, delays and 2 miscommunications. The Ombudsman considers this a fair remedy, as per our remedies guidance, for service failure, where a payment of £50-£100 is an appropriate level of redress, proportionate to the failing.
Therefore, the Ombudsman determines that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress prior to this investigation, that resolved the complaint satisfactorily. The landlord investigated, apologised, provided information on how to log the reported data breach, and a financial remedy.

Associated complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint in 3 working days. This was in keeping with the landlord’s customer feedback (complaint) policy at the time and the landlord acted appropriately.
Within its acknowledgement and a further 2 times the landlord asked the resident for a 10-working day extension. The final stage 1 complaint response was provided on 17 February 2023, 40 working days after the landlord’s complaint acknowledgement. The landlord’s customer feedback (complaint) policy allowed for an extension of 10 working days beyond the standard 10 working day timeframe. Paragraph 5.2 of the complaint handling code (the Code) at the time tells us that if an extension over 20 working days is required it should be agreed by both parties. The evidence provided as part of this investigation demonstrated that the landlord explained why it asked for extensions and that the resident agreed. The landlord acted reasonably in seeking the resident’s agreement to the extensions and acted appropriately in keeping with the Code.
Despite the finding above, it would have also been appropriate to offer the resident a discretionary compensation payment to recognise that the landlord’s service had fallen below expected levels. The landlord has told the Ombudsman that it should have offered £50 compensation in the stage 1 response, in line with its compensation and redress policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process on 6 April 2024. She felt the issues were not resolved and were getting worse. Her escalation was outside of the landlord’s 28 working day timeframe for escalations. However, the landlord recognised that since its stage 1 complaint response the resident had been communicating with the landlord to try and resolve the outstanding issues. The complaint was unresolved, the resident dissatisfied, and it was reasonable of the landlord to allow the escalation to stage 2, outside of its policy’s guidelines.
The resident had expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 complaint response on 27 February, 10 March and 6 April 2023. It was not until 6 April 2023 that she explicitly asked for the complaint to be escalated. The landlord should have recognised her dissatisfaction in the earlier communications and discussed the case and opportunity to escalate the complaint with the resident. Both the landlord’s complaint policy and the Code recognise that if the resident is not satisfied with any part of the complaint, it must be progressed to stage 2. The landlord acted inappropriately and in doing so delayed the resident’s opportunity to use the Ombudsman’s investigation services.
When the landlord accepted the stage 2 escalation, it acknowledged the complaint in 4 working days and provided a full response on 19 May 2023, 23 working days after the acknowledgement. It had asked for an extension on 9 May 2023 and provided a response well within its new proposed deadline (23 May 2023). The landlord operated within the guidelines of its policy and the Code and therefore acted appropriately.
During the stage 2 process, the resident provided the landlord with further complaint information, some related to the current complaint and some about new issues. In the landlord’s stage 2 acknowledgement it told the resident it would open a new complaint for the complaint about its staff member as this was an unrelated matter to the original complaint. The landlord raised a new complaint, and the resident received a stage 1 complaint response that repeated some of the information from the 19 May 2023 stage 2 complaint response, which had included a response about the staff complaint.
The landlord’s mismanagement of the complaint caused confusion for the resident. The landlord should have ensured any related issues remained in the first complaint and any new issues were a new complaint. As there were already multiple complex issues within the complaint, it may have been more appropriate to raise a new complaint. In its correspondence to the Ombudsman, the landlord has recognised this failure. The landlord acted unreasonably. Its actions may have meant the resident was unsure as to whether her complaint had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.
The landlord did not address all the resident’s complaints. It did not investigate or provide any response about the redundant bathroom fan component. Paragraph 5.6 of the Code tells us that landlords must make sure they address all parts of a resident’s complaint. It was inappropriate that it did not.
The new complaint was responded to within 27 working days, outside of the landlord’s timescales and the Code. There is no evidence provided to suggest an extension was requested or agreed. The landlord acted inappropriately.
Apart from the 30 May 2023 landlord’s stage 1 response, the other responses did not offer any apologies or redress for the complaint handling failures. The landlord has told the Ombudsman that it should have offered:
1. £50 at stage 1 for not meeting the complaint timescales, increasing to £100 at stage 2 for not recognising this at stage 1.
2. £50 for the failure of the investigatory manager to contact the resident to reach a resolution.
3. £50 for further delays in complaint handling.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. Had it offered the compensation it has outlined above, with an apology and how it intended to improve its service, a finding of reasonable redress could have been determined. At the time of the complaint the landlord did not implement the dispute resolution principles of being fair, putting things right and learning from outcomes. Orders are made below in recognition of this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Service there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of various repairs including gutters, plastering and pointing, damp and mould, carbon monoxide detectors, bathroom fan, and electrical sockets.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Service there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of staff conduct in relation to a gas safety check at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Service there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a data breach.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Service there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. This must be a written apology, and a copy of this letter should be sent to the Ombudsman.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay £800, made up of:
1. £600 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience incurred because of the landlord’s failures in relation to its handling of the resident’s repairs.
2. £200 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience incurred because of the landlord’s failures in relation to its associated complaint handling.
3. This payment must be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any rent arrears or other amount owed.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should write to the resident and set out:
1. Any outstanding repairs and their appointments or timescales.
2. Any new repairs and their appointments, inspections or timescales.
3. Confirmation of the landlord’s position and actions regarding the electrical socket with the corroding backbox and the redundant bathroom fan component.
4. An overview of the damp and mould in the property and the landlord’s position and plan of action, if relevant.

Recommendation

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to pay, if it has not done so already, £100 offered at stage 1 of the complaint process.