Bromford Housing Group Limited (202314418)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314418

Bromford Housing Group Limited

12 February 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. Damp and mould and window repairs at the resident’s property.
2. The reimbursement of the resident’s damaged belongings.
3. Fire safety concerns including cladding.
4. Concerns about the communal areas including the outside space and anti-social behaviour.
5. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. At the time of the complaint, the resident lived on the first floor within a block of flats.
On 20 February 2023, the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord. She explained she had issues with her windows, which required repair. The resident stated that the hinges had rotted away on 2 of the windows. Also, the other windows at her property were letting in water and cold air, which was causing damp and mould. The resident explained that her youngest child kept becoming unwell because of the windows and damp and mould.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 6 March 2023. It explained that the resident would need to take pictures of the damp and mould and email them to the landlord. The landlord also asked the resident questions about the damp and mould and ventilation of her property. In addition, it explained that the entire building had window issues, and it was trying to clarify if its regeneration team oversaw this.
On 6 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response. She explained she had uploaded the photographs of the mould to the landlord’s portal and confirmed that the mould was from water entering through the windows. She also raised concerns about fire safety, including faulty fire alarms, cladding and a single fire exit. In addition, the resident also stated that she was unhappy about the quality of bathroom repairs and that the communal outside spaces, including the basketball court and play area, were not accessible. She also explained that there were concerns about rubbish in the communal areas and the smell of cannabis.
On 13 March 2023, the landlord responded to the resident’s escalation complaint points. However, it did not consider them as a stage 2 complaint and did not provide a stage 2 complaint response. The landlord explained it told the resident how to report the damp and mould and, in relation to the quality of the bathroom repairs, it confirmed it would raise this with its repairs team and provide an update. It also responded to the resident’s concerns about fire safety and explained a specialist contractor had previously inspected the cladding, and the landlord implemented an evacuation strategy, which was one of the 2 recommendation options. The landlord also provided reasons the communal play area and basketball court were out of use and responded about the rubbish within the communal area. Furthermore, the landlord responded about anti-social behaviour concerns, including the smell of cannabis and a neighbour’s behaviour.
On 15 March 2023, the landlord emailed the resident and confirmed that it had escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its process, and it would respond within 20 working days.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 13 November 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint and explained that the complaint handler dealing with her complaint had been away from work. It also acknowledged that it failed to investigate the matter fully. The landlord explained that an inspection would be completed on 14 November 2023 to confirm the required outstanding works. It also confirmed it would support the resident with a way for her to move from her current property. The landlord offered the resident £650 compensation to recognise the issues with damp and mould at her property and its complaint handing failures.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated her desired outcome was to receive a higher amount of compensation.
The landlord calculated a compensation offer of £3,100 which included £700 for the resident’s damaged belongings. However, the resident has confirmed that the landlord did not communicate this compensation offer.
In February 2024, the landlord contacted the resident and offered her an increased compensation offer. The total compensation offer was £5,100, which included:
1. £100 for complaint handling failures.
2. £1000 for poor communication.
3. £2100 for distress and inconvenience
4. £1400 for loss of belongings.
5. £500 for service failure in relation to the windows.
On 19 April 2024, the resident permanently moved to a new property.
In December 2024, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that it would be decommissioning the building.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has mentioned as part of the complaint that the damp and mould impacted her youngest child’s health. We understand this has been a difficult time for the resident and her family. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether there is a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and any specific impact on the resident’s child’s health. It would be more appropriately suited for a court or liability insurer to investigate this as a personal injury claim. Courts can award damages in a different way to the Ombudsman and review medical evidence. However, it is generally accepted that damp and mould can pose a significant health risk. We can consider the general risk, and distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her child’s health.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure, fabric, fixtures, fittings and amenities of the properties and building.
In addition, the landlord’s repairs policy explains that the landlord will respond to an immediate repair within 2 hours and an emergency repair on the same day or the next day, depending on the repair issue. It also states for an appointed and unappointed repair, it will arrange an appointment based on availability of resources and risk.
The landlord’s compensation policy explains that it is at the landlord’s discretion to compensate for the loss and damage to residents’ possessions.
The landlord’s policy in relation to moving resident’s temporarily and permanently states wherever possible it will undertake major and planned repair work whilst resident’s remain in their property unless the extent of works or health and safety reasons make this unsuitable. The policy explains when it is necessary to decant (temporarily move) a resident. In the first instance, it will ask the resident if they have family or friends they can stay with. However, it explains if this is not possible, it will consider a bed and breakfast, hotel accommodation or one of its empty properties.
Furthermore, the policy explains it may agree to rehouse a resident permanently rather than temporarily if an alternative property becomes available within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord’s website includes information about anti-social behaviour. It explains that there are different types of anti-social behaviour such as noise nuisance, neighbour disputes, alcohol and drug related activity and vandalism and environmental issues. The website explains how a resident can report anti-social behaviour to the landlord and anti-social behaviour, which includes criminal activity to the police.

Damp and mould and window repairs at the resident’s property.

In February 2023, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord about outstanding repair issues with the windows at her property. The resident explained that the hinges had rotted away on 2 of the windows. In addition, she stated the other windows at her property were letting in water and cold air, which was causing damp and mould within her property.
Following the resident’s complaint about the windows and damp and mould, the landlord only completed a repair to the bathroom window, which was completed on 22 February 2023. The landlord failed to arrange for the other windows at the resident’s property to be inspected and made safe. The repair issues with the windows were a potential safety issue, and the landlord knew that the resident had 3 children under 10 years old living in the property with her. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to carry out an urgent inspection of all the windows at the property and complete the necessary repairs to make the windows safe.
On 6 March 2023, the landlord provided it stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It explained there was an issue with the windows on the whole block. The landlord stated it had previously raised the issue with its planned investment team, but due to all the windows on the block requiring replacing. The replacement would need to be considered by its regeneration team, and it would update the resident once it had received further information. It is recognised that window replacement for an entire block would normally be considered as part of a landlord’s major works programme. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to complete repairs to make the windows safe in the meantime.
In addition, in response to the resident’s concerns about the damp and mould within the property, the landlord explained in its stage 1 complaint response that the resident should take pictures of the damp and mould and email them to the landlord. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to attend the resident’s property to inspect the damp and mould as soon as she informed the landlord about the issue. Following its receipt of the damp and mould pictures, the landlord visited the resident’s property in March 2023 and carried out an inspection. The inspection identified several small areas of damp and mould which were mainly around the window reveals and in the corner of the external walls in the bedroom. Also, the notes from the inspection stated that the windows appeared dated, and some did not tilt and turn properly. The landlord acted appropriately by inspecting the damp and mould and windows. However, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to complete the inspection sooner than it did, particularly for the windows, because of the potential health and safety risk.
Following the property inspection in March 2023, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out any repairs to the windows or to resolve the damp and mould. This was unreasonable. Instead of completing any repairs, the landlord arranged for an independent damp survey. The survey took place on 8 June 2023 and the report was issued shortly after this on 26 June 2023. The report explained that the primary cause of the damp and mould was water penetration from the windows because they could not close properly. The surveyor recommended repairs to resolve the damp and mould and window issues, including:
1. Extensive refurbishment of the windows or, alternatively, the replacement of the windows in the bathroom, living room and bedrooms.
2. Relocation of the radiators in all the bedrooms and the living room.
3. A damp and mould wash in the living room and all the bedrooms.
4. Installation of thermal wallpaper in the room, and all the bedrooms.
It was a positive step that the landlord arranged for a specialist damp survey to be carried out at the resident’s property. However, considering the resident first complained about the damp and mould and window issue in February 2023, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange the damp survey much sooner than it did. In July 2023, the landlord raised a job for the radiators to be moved. However, radiator works did not go ahead. The landlord did not complete any of the works recommended by the surveyor, which resulted in the resident and her children living in a property with damp and mould and faulty windows for a considerable amount of time.
On 13 November 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It acknowledged that there had been limited action completed by it to resolve the repair issues. The landlord explained it would review and confirm the outstanding works on 14 November 2023. It also confirmed that it would support her with a move from her current property. The landlord offered the resident £650 compensation to recognise the issues with damp and mould at her property and its complaint handing failures. Considering the landlord failed to complete any of the recommended repairs and there was a potential health and safety risk with the windows the amount of compensation offered was not sufficient to recognise the impact of the delays.
Shortly after, on 14 November 2023, the landlord arranged for surveyor inspection at the resident’s property to identify the outstanding works. The inspection confirmed that all the works recommended from the previous damp survey were still outstanding. In addition, the surveyor also recommended the level of insulation to be assessed within the loft area and the roof to be checked for potential leaks. It was unacceptable that all the works from the previous damp survey were still outstanding. The Ombudsman recognises it must have been a difficult time for the resident and her family whilst the works remained outstanding.
At the end of November 2023, the landlord emailed the resident and offered to decant (temporarily move) her to a hotel. On 30 November 2023, the resident emailed the landlord declining the decant offer. The resident explained a temporary move would cause too much disruption to her family and confirmed she only wanted a permanent move due to the repair issues ongoing for so long. The landlord acted appropriately by offering to decant the resident and her family, and we recognise the resident’s decision to decline the decant at the time would have been outside the landlord’s control.
On 7 December 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to let her know that a property she was interested in for a permanent move was due to become available at the start of the year 2024. The landlord acted appropriately by informing the resident about a potential available property. While the resident was waiting for a further update on the new property, the condition of her current property deteriorated. Due to this, the resident agreed to be decanted. The resident informed the Ombudsman that the landlord initially offered her hotel accommodation. However, she explained to the landlord that hotel accommodation would not be suitable for her and her children. The landlord considered the resident’s concerns and agreed to decant the resident and her family to an Air BnB. The landlord took reasonable steps by offering the resident alternative temporary accommodation which was more suitable for her needs. The resident confirmed she stayed at an Air BnB from 2 February 2024 until she permanently moved to her new property.
On 5 February 2024, the landlord emailed the resident with an increased compensation offer. It offered the resident a total of £5,100 compensation and £3,600 of the compensation was to recognise the poor communication and distress and inconvenience for its handling of the window repairs and damp and mould issues.
There was a slight delay with the new property being ready for the resident to move into. On 6 March 2024, the landlord contacted the resident with an update on the new property she showed an interest in for a permanent move. It explained that there was an issue with the electric meter at the property, and it required moving. The landlord explained it was trying to complete the necessary steps to have the property ready for sign up by the end of March 2024. The landlord acted appropriately by keeping the resident updated about the new property and the evidence suggests the delay was beyond the landlord’s control.
The resident permanently moved to the new property on 19 April 2024. The repairs at the resident’s property were still outstanding, and the landlord took reasonable steps by moving the resident and her family to a new property. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that the entire block will be decommissioned whilst the landlord considers the next steps to take with the building.
Overall, the landlord’s compensation offer of £3,600 for the damp and mould and windows issues is reasonable and sufficient to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. The amount of compensation the landlord offered complies with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £1,000 or more where there has been a serious failure by the landlord which had a significant impact on the resident.
The Ombudsman recognises the landlord identified that there was a failing in its handling of the damp and mould and windows, and it ultimately offered substantial redress for this. However, it only offered the compensation recently in February 2024. It is the Ombudsman’s role to consider the landlord’s handling of complaints through its internal complaints process and, in assessing this, we consider the reasonableness of any offers made during the complaints process. Where a landlord makes a reasonable offer of compensation after the end of its complaints process, the Ombudsman may make a finding of service failure or maladministration by the landlord as the offer should have been made during the complaints process. In this case, the resident moved to a new property in April 2024. However, considering the offer of £3600 compensation for the damp and mould and windows was made to the resident after the complaints process ended, and there was not a sufficient offer of compensation during the complaints process, there has been a service failure in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and window repairs at the resident property. To put things right, the landlord should pay the resident the total compensation offer of £5,100 including the £3,600 it offered for its handling of the damp and mould and windows, unless it has paid this already.

The reimbursement of the resident’s damaged belongings.

In February 2024, the landlord also offered the resident compensation for her damaged belongings as part of the £5,100 compensation offer. Some of the resident’s belongings were damaged from the damp and mould within the property. The landlord offered the resident £1,400 compensation for her damaged belongings.
Prior to the landlord making the £1,400 compensation offer for the damaged belongings to the resident. The landlord arrived at a figure of £700 compensation for the damaged belongings. However, the resident has confirmed that it did not communicate this offer to her.
The resident emailed the landlord with the list of her damaged items and her estimated value of items, which totalled approximately £2,786. As the landlord’s offer amount of £1,400 was different to the resident’s estimated value of the items, it is unclear how the landlord arrived at its figure for the damaged belongings. Therefore, on 22 November 2024 and 16 January 2025, we asked the landlord to provide all correspondence relating to this offer, including how it had arrived at the figure it had offered, and all receipts/evidence the resident provided to support of her request for reimbursement. The landlord failed to provide us with any information on evidence on how it arrived at the figure of £1,400 for the resident’s damaged belongings. The Ombudsman, therefore, cannot assess this issue in our current investigation. This is because the landlord has not provided the necessary information for us to assess whether the reimbursement it has offered the resident for her damaged belongings was reasonable.
The lack of information as to how the landlord arrived at the figure it offered the resident for her damaged belongings amounts to service failure by the landlord in its handling of the reimbursement of the resident’s damaged belongings. The landlord is ordered to set out to the resident and the Ombudsman how it arrived at the figure and how it reimbursed the resident for each item and explain the evidence it relied upon. If it cannot do so, it should reassess the figure it has offered. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to this issue, she can escalate this matter further with the landlord, and she may be able to refer it to the Ombudsman for a separate investigation once it has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Fire safety concerns including cladding.

In March 2023, the resident raised concerns about the building’s fire safety and cladding. She stated alarms had been fitted because of the external cladding on the building not being safe. In addition, she also explained that there was a fault with the fire alarms, as they would go off frequently and in the middle of the night. The resident also stated that she was concerned there was only one available fire exit.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on dealing with cladding complaints outlines 3 key points we will consider when investigating a complaint about fire safety and cladding. The points are:
1. What are the landlord’s long-term plans for compliance with the guidance and are these fair and reasonable?
2. How has it communicated with residents regarding the situation and was this communication appropriate?
3. How has it responded to the individual circumstances of the resident?
On 13 March 2023, the landlord provided the resident with a response to her concerns about the building’s fire safety and cladding. It explained the survey of the cladding was completed in September 2020. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the survey report. The landlord stated the report indicates that some panels used in the building’s construction contained a foam inner core that were assumed to be combustible. It also explained that the report noted that the walls between the flats were solid brick construction with concrete slab floors, which meant there was a slight possibility that a fire which begins in one home could spread externally in a vertical direction, so from a ground floor property to an upper floor property. The landlord stated it was very unlikely to spread horizontally.
In addition, the landlord confirmed the survey report recommended 2 options for the landlord to consider and implement in relation to the cladding. The options included:
1. Remove all the cladding from the external wall system or
2. Change the evacuation strategy to a simultaneous one.
The landlord explained it opted for the quicker fix of installing detection alarms in all the rooms that opened on to the external façade and linking these to enable a simultaneous evacuation strategy. It explained that fire action notices were all updated, and letters sent to all residents notifying them of the changes. The landlord did not provide us with a copy of the letter sent to residents about the changes in its file submission. Therefore, it is unclear of the exact date of the implementation of the evacuation strategy. However, a fire risk assessment report of the building from May 2022 confirms that the evacuation strategy alarm system was in place at the time of the fire inspection assessment. The landlord provided a reasonable response to the resident about her concerns about the cladding. It also took the appropriate action by implementing the simultaneous evacuation strategy recommended in the external cladding survey report.
In response to the resident’s concerns about the building having a single fire exit, the landlord explained residents are required to react to the fire alarm sounding and make their way out of the building, but this should not be too alarming. It also stated that the resident should have sufficient time to safely walk past any other flats that might be on fire to the protected staircase. The landlord explained if residents were to find themselves in a position that they could not walk along the balcony past a property on fire, they could wait in their home or on the balcony until the fire service had dealt with the incident. The landlord’s response about the single fire exit was reasonable and the fire risk assessment report from May 2022 also confirmed that there was an adequate design of escape routes and adequate provision of exits.
The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the faulty fire alarm system going off in its response sent on 13 March 2023 and in its stage 2 complaint response. It also did not confirm whether it would investigate the issue. This was unreasonable. Therefore, there has been a service failure in this aspect of the complaint. However, as the resident is no longer living at the property and the building is being decommissioned, it would not be appropriate to ask the landlord to investigate the alarm system at this stage. Although as referenced above, the landlord is ordered to pay the £5100 compensation it offered after the complaints process, unless it has paid this already. This compensation is reasonable for the landlord’s communication failings with regards to the fire alarm system as well as its other errors set out above in this assessment.

The resident’s concerns about the communal areas including the outside space and anti-social behaviour.

The resident raised concerns about the communal outside space as part of her escalation request. She stated the play area was out of use and had been out of use for a considerable length of time. She also explained that the basketball court had been locked and out of use due to it being damaged. In addition, she stated that other residents regularly left rubbish in the communal areas, including broken glass. She also explained cooking oil had been poured down the communal stairs and there were items at the bottom of the stairs and under the stairs.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the communal outside space in its response sent to the resident on 13 March 2023. It explained that the play area had been sectioned off to keep customers safe, and it stated that it had previously informed its planned investment team about the condition of the play area. The landlord also confirmed that it had a planned steering group meeting on 22 March 2023 and the play area would be discussed as part of the meeting. The landlord confirmed it would provide the resident with a further update when it had one. The landlord’s response was reasonable as it clearly explained its position to the resident, and it acted fairly by closing off the play area for safety reasons. As above, because the building has now been decommissioned, the landlord would not be expected to take further action regarding the play area now.
The landlord explained to the resident that its caretaker should open the basketball court daily for resident use. It confirmed it had checked the CCTV, and it showed there were children playing in the area. The landlord stated it had raised a job to have the court cleaned, due to there being broken glass on the courts. It stated that the cleaning of the basketball court would take place on Friday 17 March 2023, and it would reopen on Monday 20 March 2023. The landlord’s response was appropriate. It showed it had carried out a thorough investigation and it agreed to take the necessary steps by arranging for the broken glass to be removed and the basketball court to be cleaned.
The landlord also provided a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns about rubbish in the communal areas. It explained to the resident that it had raised the issues about the rubbish with its caretaker, who attended the estate daily. The landlord also stated that there was a weekly lorry clearance which removes any bulky items from communal spaces and if there are items that the caretaker could not remove, the clearance teams would remove them for her. It also explained an inspection of the blocks was completed quarterly in addition to regular visits. However, it confirmed it was completing a joint fire audit of the building at the end of March 2023 and would look into the issues raised by the resident during the audit. The landlord also explained if in the future she experiences further issues with rubbish in the communal areas, she could raise them on the landlord’s portal. As this was the first time the resident raised concerns about the rubbish, the landlord took the appropriate steps to resolve the issue.
In addition to the concerns about the communal area, the resident also raised concerns about anti-social behaviour. She explained the basketball court had been trashed, and she could smell cannabis regularly within the building. The resident also explained she had concerns about an incident with her neighbour’s behaviour where she could hear arguing and fighting.
The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns on 13 March 2023, and it explained that it was aware of the perpetrators who damaged the basketball court. The landlord confirmed the perpetrators did not live on the estate and were dealt with by the appropriate agencies at the time. In relation to the smell of cannabis, the landlord explained it was an illegal drug, and if it has evidence of residents smoking cannabis in their properties, it has a zero-tolerance approach to this. The landlord stated if evidence was provided, it could take the appropriate actions in relation to a resident’s tenancy. The landlord explained the resident can report these incidents via the portal or to her housing officer directly if she has evidence for it to investigate. The landlord responded appropriately by confirming that the incident with the damaged basketball court had been dealt with. In addition, its response was also reasonable about the report of the smell of cannabis and in line with its anti-social behaviour policy. However, it would also have been good practice for the landlord to let the resident know she could report any drug–related activity to the police.
The landlord explained the resident reported an incident about her neighbour’s behaviour on 12 January 2023. It stated it could not share the outcome of the incident due to data protection reasons. However, it explained, if there were further incidents where she feels that a neighbour or resident was at risk, it would ask that she contacts the appropriate emergency services. The landlord also explained if she feels the behaviour meets the threshold for anti-social behaviour, it can come out and meet with her and look at the evidence to open a case accordingly. The landlord’s explanation was correct that it could not discuss with the resident what action it had taken in relation to her reports about the neighbour, because of data protection, as a landlord cannot disclose details about a neighbour, or its actions taken against them due to confidentiality. It was also reasonable for the landlord to offer to open a case and assess the evidence if the resident reported further incidents of anti-social behaviour.
Overall, the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns about the communal areas, including outside space and anti-social behaviour, were reasonable and sufficiently addressed the concerns which were raised. Therefore, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about this.

The associated complaint.

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy includes the same timescales as referenced in the Code.
The Code also states that a landlord must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
The resident submitted her initial complaint to the landlord on 20 February 2023. Following this, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 6 March 2023. The response was on time and within the 10 working days timescale referenced within the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy.
On 6 March 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and provided valid complaint points for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord failed to log the resident’s email from 6 March 2023 as an escalation request. Instead, it responded to the resident’s complaint points but not as part of a stage 2 complaint response. It eventually sent an acknowledgement on 15 March 2023 stating it had escalated her complaint to stage 2. Following this, there was a considerable delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 complaint response and this was not sent to the resident until 13 November 2023. The delay was unreasonable and would have delayed the resident from bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman, causing her inconvenience.
The resident raised as part of her escalation request email on 6 March 2023 that she was unhappy with the quality of the bathroom repairs completed by the landlord’s contractor. However, the landlord failed to provide an adequate response to this complaint and stated in its email sent to the resident on 13 March 2023 that it would raise the issue with the repairs team. There is no response about the bathroom repairs in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response and the landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with any evidence on the action taken in relation to the quality of the bathroom repairs.
As the landlord failed to address this part of the complaint, the Ombudsman does not have enough information to consider this part of the complaint in our current investigation. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to investigate the resident’s complaint about the quality of the bathroom repairs. If the resident remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response, she may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman as a separate complaint at that stage. The landlord’s failure to investigate this issue would reasonably have caused the resident inconvenience and may have made her feel the landlord was not listening to her.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that it did not deal with the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy. It also acknowledged that there had been a delay in it providing its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord apologised for the complaint handling errors and also offered the resident compensation to recognise the error. The landlord offered the resident overall compensation of £650 which was for the handling of the damp and mould, but also to recognise its complaint handling errors. In addition, in February 2024, the landlord offered an increased compensation offer of £5,100 to the resident, which included £100 for its complaint handling errors. The compensation offered by the landlord is sufficient to recognise its complaint handling errors. However, as the landlord failed to adequately address the resident’s complaint point about the quality of the bathroom repairs, there has been a service failure by the landlord in the handling of the associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and window repairs at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the reimbursement of the resident’s damaged belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s fire safety concerns, including cladding.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns about the communal outside space and anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about the quality of the bathroom repairs, in line with the timescales in its complaints policy.
2. Pay the resident the £5,100 compensation it offered in February 2024 if it has not already done so.
3. Provide a written explanation to the resident of how it arrived at the figure it has offered her in reimbursement for her damaged belongings. If it is not able to do so, it should reassess the figure it has offered her and write to her to confirm its revised offer, explaining what this offer is based on. The landlord should also provide a copy of the written explanation to the Ombudsman.
The landlord must comply with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report, providing evidence to the Ombudsman that it has done so by the same date.