Camden Council (202318030)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318030

Camden Council

5 December 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. Drainage issues causing flooding, gurgling noises, and smells.
2. Damp and mould.
3. Damage to personal possessions.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the secure tenant of the property, which is a one bedroom, basement level flat in a block. The landlord is a council. The resident has physical health conditions, has had multiple major surgeries, and has asthma. He also has diagnosed mental health conditions including post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. The landlord has recorded his medical conditions.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It will also keep in good working order services supplying electricity, gas, water and sanitation. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord has not provided a repairs policy but has told the Ombudsman that this is contained within its tenants’ guide. This says that a resident can report a repair by telephone or online. It will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, essential repairs (which it did not define) within 35 days, and non-essential repairs within 125 days, which it defined as a repair which is not a risk to safety and will not cause serious damage to the property. It also says it will respond to reports of damp and mould within 10 days.
The Housing Act 2004 introduced the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). One of the 29 identified hazards is damp and mould. Landlords have an obligation to minimise or remove the identified hazards.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Damp and Mould ‘It’s not lifestyle’ sets out 26 recommendations for landlords in relation to their handling of damp and mould and complaints relating to this. The landlord has provided a copy of its self-assessment against the recommendations. It has also created a damp and mould policy which sets out its approach. This policy was created in February 2024 which is after the date of the present complaint.
Under the landlord’s complaints policy, it defines a complaint as “When someone lets us know that they are unhappy with our service and they want us to take action to resolve it.” Under the policy it will exclude complaints about matters which occurred more than 12 months before the complaint.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and contact the resident to ensure it understands the complaint. It will respond within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage 2. The landlord will acknowledge the escalation within 5 working days and provide its response within 20 working days. If it needs an extension of time, in exceptional circumstances, it will explain this to the resident.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Paragraph 1.2 states that a complaint should be defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of actions by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.” Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and should address all elements of the resident’s complaint within its response (paragraph 5.8). The landlord should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.10) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13).

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This Service will apply these principles when considering its decisions. However, some matters fall outside of what the Ombudsman can make a determination on.
The resident has raised within his complaint his believe that damp and mould in the property have caused or made worse his medical conditions. This Service is unable to establish legal liability, or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. This is because under Paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. He may wish to seek legal advice from a solicitor or legal advisor about pursuing a personal injury claim through the courts.
In addition, although there is a long history of drainage issues reported by the resident, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of his reports from July 2022 onwards, being within one year of the date of his stage 1 complaint. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that it has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues at the time.

Summary of events

The resident’s tenancy started in March 2018 and on 7 August 2018 the resident’s solicitor sent a letter of claim to the landlord alleging disrepair. In an internal email the following day it said there had been mould growth due to a blocked main drain overflowing in the communal electrical room. It said it had cleared the blockage, completed a mould wash and painting in the property. On 15 August 2018 its repairs records included a report from a specialist drainage company which confirmed this. The disrepair claim was settled before issue on a date not known by this Service.
On 9 January 2019 the landlord’s repair records say it completed a mould wash. The resident’s solicitor emailed it on 18 July 2019 and said mould was starting to reappear and the paintwork remained damaged.
The landlord’s repair records state that its drainage company cleared a blocked main drain on 5 October 2020. They attended again on 8 October 2020 and cleared the drain again. The resident’s solicitors emailed it again on 5 November 2020 and said the resident had reported damp and mould in his bedroom was getting worse. It completed stain block and painting on 20 November 2020. Its repair records state its drainage company unblocked the main drain again on 23 May 2021.
Between 5 January 2022 and 28 April 2022 the landlord’s records state its drainage company attended and unblocked the main drain on 4 occasions. The blockages had been reported by the resident, other residents in the block and the landlord’s caretaker. On 20 September 2022 the resident sent a message to the landlord and included photographs and videos of the damp in the property, and of a gurgling sound from his kitchen sink. He asked it to repair the issues and said he was “sick and tired of [the landlord] not doing anything about it” despite his many reports.
The resident used the landlord’s online chat to report the drainage issue on 18 January 2023. He said it was a long running issue, there was a gurgling noise coming from his kitchen sink, a bad smell, and it was disturbing his sleep. He said the main drain needed to be jetted and the landlord said it would raise a repair for this. The landlord had difficulty contacting the resident in January 2023 to gain access relating to issues with the drainpipe. The drainage company attended on 13 February 2023 and jetted the main drain to remove the blockage. They attended again on 31 March 2023 and cleared a further blockage.
On 17 July 2023 the drainage company attended and jetted the main drain to clear a blockage. The resident called the landlord the same day and reported that there was a gurgling noise and bad smell again coming from his kitchen sink and it raised a repair for 7 August 2023. However, he called it again on 20 July 2023 and used its online chat to report that the communal electrical room next to his flat had flooded. It raised an emergency repair and attended the same day to inspect.
The resident called the landlord again the following day, and used its online chat, to report that it had not stopped the flood. It said it had passed the repair to its drainage company who would attend.
On 22 July 2023 the resident used the landlord’s online complaints form to make a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
1. It ignoring his request for it to unblock the main drain.
2. His kitchen sink was blocked.
3. Wastewater was leaking from the communal electrical room into the corridor.
4. He was concerned about damp and mould as this had occurred before due to leaks and he thought it should treat the situation as an emergency.
The landlord emailed the resident the same day to acknowledge his complaint. He called it on 24 July 2023 and said the drain was still blocked and communal electrical room still flooded. He said he had sent it videos of the flood. It confirmed it had booked a repair for the following day. The landlord has not provided a record of this repair to this Service.
On 26 July 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and asked him to provide his address to continue his complaint, as he had not entered it on the online complaints form. It emailed him again on 31 July 2023 to acknowledge his complaint again. It said it would respond within 10 working days. The same day he sent a message to the landlord and said it attended the previous day but did not unblock the drain in the electrical room. He reiterated the issues he was experiencing. He exchanged further messages with it on 1 and 2 August 2023 and it said it raised an emergency repair. It also invited the resident to attend a local repairs event it was holding the following week.
The resident sent a message to the landlord on 4 August 2023 and said it did not attend the emergency repair appointment. He said the situation was getting worse. He sent it a copy of a hospital letter on 7 August 2023. The letter set out his diagnosed mental health conditions. The same day it emailed him to acknowledge his complaint for the third time. Its repairs records say its drainage company cleared the blocked main drain on 9 August 2023. It emailed him again on 16 August 2023 and asked for an extension of time to respond to his complaint by 29 August 2023.
On 22 August 2023 the resident called the landlord. He said he could not breathe due to the damp and mould, which he had been reporting for months. He said he had been reporting it since January 2023. He confirmed the drainage company had unblocked the drain, but the landlord had not repaired the damage to the property even though he had made a complaint. The landlord asked its standard damp and mould assessment questions, and he clearly explained his medical conditions. It booked a mould survey for 11 September 2023, but he said that was too long to wait.
The resident called the landlord on 30 August 2023 and said he had called an ambulance and had been assessed by paramedics. It confirmed it had brought his appointment forward to the following day. It attended on 31 August 2023, completed a mould wash and stain block painting. He emailed it the same day to reiterate his complaint. He said he had been complaining about damp and mould for 3 years, it had damaged his flat and his possessions and clothes. The mould was throughout the property and was affecting his medical conditions. He asked it to resolve the issue.
On 11 September 2023 the resident used the landlord’s online complaints form to make a second stage 1 complaint, which mirrored his first complaint. He also provided a copy of a doctor’s letter to it on 21 September 2023. The letter said he had had a serous chest infection and had been diagnosed with asthma and asked the landlord to address the mould. The landlord emailed the resident on 16 October 2023, in relation to his first stage 1 complaint, and said it could not progress it as he had not provided his address.
The resident contacted this Service, and the Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 20 October 2023 to ask it to provide a stage 1 response. It provided its response on 24 October 2023 in which it:
1. Said the resident made the complaint on 11 September 2023 and apologised for its delay in response, which it said was due to the “complexity of the case”.
2. Defined the complaint as being about the blocked drain and the disruption caused.
3. Said as the drain had been unblocked there should be no further disruption and so it did not uphold the complaint.
4. Explained that it attended after the blockage was reported, and then arranged for the drain to be jetted. It had inspected for mould and carried out a treatment.
5. Set out how the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
On 10 November 2023 the resident, assisted by an advisor, emailed the landlord to request escalation of his complaint. He said the complaint was about the blocked drain, flooding and effect this had had on his health and possessions since 2018. He said he had been consistently reporting the issue and there had been multiple blockages between 2019 and 2022. He said he reported a blockage in May 2023, but it was not resolved until after he attended a repairs event in person on 9 August 2023. However, his walls were still damaged, he had mould and had lost personal possessions.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 21 November 2023. It provided its response on 7 December 2023 in which it:
1. Said the stage 1 complaint was made on 11 September 2023.
2. Concluded it would not uphold the complaint.
3. Explained “Your review request is essentially a request for compensation due to the impact of the flooding on your physical and mental health and the damage to your property and possessions. I do not find grounds to offer compensation in this case.”
4. Said he could seek legal advice to make a personal injury claim or make an insurance claim for his lost personal possessions.
5. Explained it could only consider matters which went back up to 12 months before the complaint under its complaints policy.
6. Said how he could contact this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

On 18 March 2024 the resident emailed this Service. He said he had black mould which was dangerous for his health. He was having to clean the walls himself. He used the landlord’s online chat to tell it he still had mould, and that he had asthma, on 21 March 2024. He obtained a letter from his doctor dated 22 April 2024 in which she said she was concerned about black mould making his asthma worse.
The resident has told this Service that the landlord inspected for mould on 2 August 2024 and painted over it on 3 August 2024. He said it did not help him to move furniture and he does not believe it will stop the mould from coming back. He also said that he has had to dispose of his sofas and bags full of clothes, but that he did not make any lists or take any photographs of these damaged items at the time. He said he has also had to leave the property for periods of time and stay with family due to the conditions and affect they were having on his health.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of drainage issues causing flooding, gurgling noises, and smells

There is a clear history of issues with the main drains which run underneath the block. From the landlord’s records jetting to unblock the drains has been required at least 11 times since the start of the resident’s tenancy. The issue has affected other flats in the basement of the building as well as the communal electrical room and communal corridor. Each time the drainage company have reported the cause to be a build-up of fat/grease, or other items have blocked the pipes.
In September 2022 the resident reported gurgling noises coming from his kitchen sink. The sink connected via pipes to the main drain, and gurgling, blockage or smells coming from the sink were evidence of issues with the main drain. There is no evidence that the landlord took any action following this report which was a failing.
After the resident reported a blockage in January 2023 the landlord correctly raised a jetting repair and completed this within its essential repairs timeframe under its policy. It also attended again at the end of March 2023. The resident has said that he reported a blockage again in May 2023, but the landlord does not have a record of this. It attended on 17 July 2023 to unblock the drain and on the same day the resident reported drainage issues, although it is not clear which happened first. It did book a new repair date within its policy timeframe.
The landlord correctly raised an emergency repair, in line with its policy, when the resident reported flooding. It attended the same day but failed to send the correct type of contractor and so failed to stop the flooding or make safe. It said it raised a repair for its drainage company but failed to make a record of this. Although the drainage company attended promptly, it did not resolve the issue. After the resident continued to report the flood, the landlord said it raised a new emergency repair, but then failed to attend this or make any records of this. Rather than offering to inspect or visit the block, it instead invited the resident to attend an in person local repairs event the following week. This invitation failed to demonstrate it understood the urgency of the matter.
After the resident attended the repairs event, the landlord’s drainage company cleared the blockage and stopped the flood on 9 August 2023. This was well outside of its timeframe for emergency repairs and was a significant failing. The resident had been left with a blocked sink, foul smells, and wastewater in the communal corridor. There is also no evidence whether the landlord completed a full sanitation clean which it should have done.
The landlord should have considered the repairs history for the block and the property, the frequency of drain blockages, and the resident’s tenacity and persistence in reporting and providing evidence of the issues. It failed to do this and failed to resolve the blockage and flood within its policy timeframe or within a reasonable time. It also failed to consider the effect this was having on the resident, or that the resident had medical conditions and vulnerabilities. There was maladministration, which caused significant distress, worry, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident in pursuing the repair. To reflect this impact, an order has been made that the landlord pay £1,000 compensation, which is in line with our guidance on remedies for the significant impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord completed 3 mould washes and painting in the property between 2018 and 2020 when the resident’s solicitor reported damp and mould.
After the resident reported damp and mould to the landlord in September 2022 it failed to take any action. The resident provided photographs and videos of the inside of the property reporting repairs. The landlord did not follow its repairs policy as it failed to inspect or raise repairs.
When the resident raised his first stage 1 complaint in July 2023, he said he was concerned about damp and mould, but the landlord failed to act upon this. Despite him consistently reporting a flood (addressed above), it failed to follow-up with him about any water damage, damp or mould in the property. It invited him to attend a repairs event when it could have offered to visit him instead. It should have investigated his concerns, but it did not.
On 22 August 2023 the resident called the landlord and said he could not breathe due to damp and mould. The Ombudsman has listened to the recording of the call. The landlord asked relevant questions, from a script, to assess the severity of the mould, which was appropriate and positive. The resident very clearly explained the type and amount of mould, and his various and serious medical conditions and history. Despite this the landlord offered an inspection appointment which was over 2 weeks away. The landlord has not provided a copy of its policy or process for dealing with damp and mould at that time, and said its policy was implemented in February 2024. However, considering the resident’s medical conditions, it should have prioritised an inspection as a matter of urgency.
Positively, the landlord did bring the inspection appointment forward. However, it has failed to provide any record or report of the inspection. While it completed a mould wash and painting, there is no evidence it investigated the cause of the damp or considered solutions to prevent its re-occurrence. There appeared to be a practice of covering the issue rather than solving it which was a significant failing.
The resident continued to report mould in September 2023 through his second stage 1 complaint and supplying a doctor’s letter confirming he had asthma. The landlord took no action following these further reports of mould which was a failing. He reported mould again on 10 November 2023 within his escalation request and the landlord took no action. Within it stage 2 response, it said his complaint was simply a claim for compensation, which was incorrect. The resident was pleading with it to finally resolve the damp and mould, and it was not listening.
Despite the resident continuing to report mould, and supply medical evidence, there is no evidence the landlord took any action. It recently carried out a further mould wash and paint but has not addressed the cause of the damp or solution to it. The resident, with serious medical conditions, mental health conditions, and who has had multiple major surgeries was consistently pleading with the landlord to resolve the damp and mould. On the occasions it did act, it simply wiped and painted over the problem.
Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to minimise the disadvantages suffered connected to a person’s protected characteristics of which disability is one. Due to the resident’s multiple and serious medical conditions, and his and his doctor’s concerns for his health, it should have had due regard to its obligations under the Act. However, there is no evidence that it did. It failed to consider his specific circumstances, his vulnerability, and the potential impact of damp and mould on his health.
The landlord also failed to follow the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. It did not learn from outcomes, was not proactive in resolving the underlying issue to put things right, and showed little regard for the resident’s health conditions which was not fair. It left him to live with a hazard under the HHSRS. There was severe maladministration.
To reflect the high level of distress, worry, frustration, inconvenience, as well as the high level of time and trouble caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £5,200 compensation to the resident. This amount is to reflect 40% of the rent charged from 20 September 2022 until 3 August 2024, during which time the resident has had severely restricted enjoyment of the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to personal possessions

The resident first raised that damp and mould had damaged his personal possessions on 31 August 2023 in his email to the landlord. He did not say which possessions were damaged or when. He also raised the issue as part of his request to escalate his complaint.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord said it did not have cause to offer compensation but said he could make an insurance claim against it. It provided a website link to a claim form and has since confirmed that the resident did not make a claim.
While the Ombudsman is sympathetic to the resident’s loss of personal possessions, he has confirmed that he did not take any photographs of damaged possessions. He did not make any record of what was damaged and disposed of. Without this evidence it is not possible for the landlord, or its insurers, to assess a claim if he had or was to make one. It was within its policy to ask a resident to make an insurance claim against its liability insurance if damage to personal possession was alleged and it did this. There was no maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident used the landlord’s online complaints form to make a stage 1 complaint on 22 July 2023. It acknowledged it the same day, in line with its complaints policy, but asked him to provide his address 4 days later. Although he had not included his address with his complaint, he had provided his name and so the landlord would have been able to find this on its system had it tried. No explanation has been given as to why it did not do this. However, and despite this, it acknowledged his complaint for a second time on 31 July 2023 which was a failing.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint for a third time, which was illogical and contrary to its policy. It then asked for an extension of time on 16 August 2023. The landlord’s emails created a legitimate expectation that it was considering the resident’s complaint. However, it then emailed him on 16 October 2023 and said it could not progress his complaint as he had not provided his address. By this time 61 working days had passed, against the landlord’s policy timeframe of 10 working days to respond to a stage 1 complaint. There was an unreasonable delay in closing the complaint, which it should not have closed in any event.
In the interim, due to the lack of response, the resident raised a second stage 1 complaint which covered the issues he raised in his first one on 11 September 2023, before the landlord closed the first complaint, and included his address. There is no evidence it acknowledged this complaint which was a failing in breach of its policy.
After the Ombudsman emailed it, the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 24 October 2023. This was 67 working days after the resident raised his first complaint, and 32 working days after he re-raised it, both of which were in breach of its policy timeframe and paragraph 5.1 of the Code.
While the landlord apologised for its delay, it incorrectly said that the complaint was first made on 11 September 2023. It failed to acknowledge when the complaint was first made or account for its mishandling which was a failing. It also said the delay was due to it being a complex case, which was simply not correct, and disingenuous.
The landlord delayed in acknowledging the stage 2 complaint in breach of its policy, although it did provide its response within its policy timeframe and in compliance with the Code. Within its response it correctly said that it could only consider matters going back 12 months under its policy and gave appropriate advice about making a personal injury and or insurance claim. However, it failed to grasp the central issues of the complaint, that drainage and flooding issues had caused re-occurrences of damp and mould in the property. Instead, it defined the complaint as simply a request for compensation. This confirmed that it had failed to understand the complaint.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, inspections, communications and complaints. The handling of this complaint calls into question its effectiveness in record keeping and or its ability to interrogate its records to accurately respond to complaints. It would have been helpful if it had considered the repairs history of the block and property, the resident’s history of reporting repairs, and his communication around his complaint to have produced a meaningful response. Its failure indicates that its processes and complaint handling were not operating effectively.
Overall, there was maladministration, which caused further inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident in pursuing his complaint. To reflect this, an order has been made that the landlord pay £400 compensation to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of drainage issues causing flooding, gurgling noises, and smells.
2. Complaint handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to personal possessions.

Reasons

There was severe maladministration as the landlord failed to acknowledge the ongoing damp and mould in the property despite the resident continuing to report it. When it did inspect it did not provide a report or show it had considered the causes or how to prevent re-occurrence, but simply painted over the issue. It failed to consider the resident’s various medical conditions or the effect he said it was having on him in its response.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of drainage issues causing flooding, gurgling noises, and smells as it did not complete repairs within its policy timeframe or a reasonable time. It failed to act on the resident’s initial reports and failed to treat the repairs following the flood as an emergency.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling as it mismanaged the resident’s first complaint. It gave multiple acknowledgements and conflicting information. It did not provide its stage 1 response in line with its policy timeframe or in compliance with the Code. It did not acknowledge its failings and failed to respond to the complaint adequately and fully at stage 2.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to personal possessions as it followed its policy and informed him how to make a claim against its insurance if he wished. It also could not have considered the matter itself as he had not provided any evidence of his damaged possession.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from the chief executive for its failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £6,600 made up of:
  1. £1,000 for the significant distress, worry, inconvenience, time and trouble caused for the resident by its failings in handling the repairs.
  2. £5,200 for the high level of distress, worry, frustration, inconvenience, as well as the high level of time and trouble caused by its failings in handling damp and mould.
  3. £400 for the further inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
3. Contract an independent surveyor to carry out an inspection of the property and produce a report. The report is to include whether any damp or mould is present, what in the expert’s opinion the causes are if present, and what repairs it can complete to resolve the damp and mould and prevent re-occurrence. It is to provide a copy of this report to the resident and this Service.
4. Carry out a survey of the main drains for the block and produce a report on their condition, and any improvements or repairs which could be made to improve their functioning or reduce the likelihood of blockages.
5. Under paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, write to all residents of the block to ask if they have been affected by the drainage and flooding issues or if they have damp and mould in their properties.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Complete any repairs or improvements recommended by the surveyor in relation to the inspection ordered at paragraph 67(c) above.
2. Complete any repairs or improvements recommended following the survey of the drains ordered at paragraph 67(d) above.
3. Under paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, if it receives any reports from other residents following order 67(e) above, it is to complete any surveys, investigations or repairs as needed and provide details of its actions to this Service.
The landlord is ordered to confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within the stated deadlines.

Wider Orders

The Ombudsman made a wider order under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme regarding the landlord in case 202220378 in relation to leaks, damp and mould on 25 October 2023. This order included a review of its failings in its lack of consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the impact the situation was having and its complaints handling. As that order was made during the events of the current complaint, no further orders have been made here.