Clarion Housing Association Limited (202405966)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405966

Clarion Housing Association Limited

24 April 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Request for repairs to her garden.
3. Query about gifting of items to residents.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 2 July 2021. The property is a 3 bedroom house.
The landlord’s records show that the resident has osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, hypertension, anxiety and depression.
On 14 November 2023 the landlord’s Leaks, Condensation, Damp and Mould (LCDM) team raised a works order in response to a report from the resident that her bathroom was “constantly mouldy.”
The resident made a further report on 17 January 2024, setting out that mould had returned. It was on the walls, ceilings, doors, floors, window sills and inside drawers.
On 12 February 2024 the resident called the landlord to report that she had an appointment booked for that day but it had not attended. However, it was unable to find a record of the appointment. On 15 February it raised a new job and rebooked the appointment.
Also on 15 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to make a formal complaint. She was dissatisfied that it had missed the appointment and was unable to find a record of it. She was unhappy with the landlord’s general response to her repair requests. She was also concerned that the landlord had gifted air fryers and energy bulbs to other residents but had not offered them to her.
During March 2024 the landlord raised work orders to carry out a mould wash and paint “throughout” the property.
Following its visit to the property on 26 March 2024 the landlord arranged for rubbish to be removed from the rear garden. On 3 April it raised a works order to carry out fencing works to the right hand side of the garden.
On 11 April 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the front door was rotten and needed to be replaced. She was also concerned that the window frames and air vents were causing ongoing issues with damp.
On 19 April 2024 the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response, as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in its complaint response which it said was due to “high customer contact.”
2. When the resident moved into the property it confirmed it would repair a damaged fence and remove rubble from the bottom end of the garden. However, this was not followed up which was a failure to provide a service.
3. Following its discussion with the resident the rubble had been cleared. The fence repair was attended on 18 April 2024 with follow on work to be scheduled.
4. Following its conversation with the resident that day it amended its notes on its repair logs to confirm there were no issues regarding access. This was because it understood the no access prompt on the system caused her some upset and concerns because she had made herself available for appointments. It also emailed its planning department to chase booking for the follow on works to the fence.
5. It inspected the front door repair during March 2023 following a report the door was draughty. It fitted a draught excluder. It attended again during March 2024 and the operative noted that no repair was required but that the resident requested a new front door as she had been “promised” one by its previous contractor.
6. As per its conversation with the resident on 11 April 2024 it no longer had a working relationship with that contractor and therefore had no access to their system. The front door was not due for renewal by the planned investment team until 2036. However, following her report of the door being draughty and rotten it arranged for an assessment to be carried out on 26 April.
7. It had issued 3 jobs relating to damp and mould treatments in 7 rooms. It was put on notice of the problem on 17 January 2024 and appointments were booked for 23 and 30 January 2024. They were reported as no access however, it could see the resident was not told about the appointments.
8. A job was booked for 15 February 2024 although the resident was told it would be 12 February 2024. The operative was late to the appointment on 15 February 2024 and was not given access. The resident reported he laughed at her when she told him he was late. It said this behaviour was “unacceptable” and feedback was passed on with “further training being made available.”
9. It carried out a damp and mould treatment on 7 March 2024. There was failure to provide a service because the repair was not carried out within 28 days. It apologised and said it would investigate ways of stopping that type of issue reoccurring.
10. Its planned investment team advised that the windows were due to be considered in 2027. It raised an order for the windows and vents to be checked on 26 April 2024.
11. It was unable to locate any information regarding a scheme of gifting items to residents. It believed it may have been coordinated by a ‘local HUB’’ as part of its “warm space offer.”
12. The resident disputed this was the case. It therefore made further enquiries but was still unable to locate any information. It was unable to progress the resident’s enquiry without further information from her. It suggested the resident’s neighbours may have been “misinformed” as to the origin of the items.
13. The resident’s previous complaint made on 12 February 2024 was “missed” which led to a delay for which it apologised. It said its contact centre had been asked to review their systems to ensure emails were processed and actioned within appropriate timescales.
14. It offered the resident £450 compensation comprised of:
  1. £50 for the delayed complaint response.
  2. £200 for delays clearing the rubble and repairing the fence.
  3. £150 for the delay completing damp and mould treatment.
  4. £50 for the missed complaint request.
During her phone call with the landlord on 19 April 2024 the resident requested to escalate her complaint for the following reasons:
1. She did not feel the compensation was proportionate to the inconvenience and distress caused by a lack of access to the garden for 3 years.
2. Issues with the fencing were ongoing.
3. The landlord had not taken the mould issues seriously.
4. She was dissatisfied with its response regarding gifting of items.
The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 17 May 2024 to carry out fencing works. However, they were unable to finish the job and said they would return within days.
On 24 May 2024 the LDCM team called the resident to advise that an appointment to carry out a mould wash was booked for 10 June 2024.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 7 June 2024, as follows:
1. It apologised for its delayed response.
2. Its stage 1 complaint response said the rubble was cleared and fence repaired on 18 April 2024. The resident advised it attended on 17 April 2024 without fencing materials which resulted in the operative needing to return at a later date. She was told that would happen within days.
3. However the resident received an appointment for 16 May 2024. This was because the tree had to be removed before it could complete the remaining fence works.
4. It apologised that its plan of action was not made clearer during the visit and for the inconvenience for which it offered £15 compensation.
5. The contractor said they would box around the tree. However they did not remove the original small boundary fence and instead installed a fence in front of it to go around the tree.
6. It subsequently agreed to fund the removal of the tree subject to weather conditions and apologised for the delay. Its contractor attended on 8 May 2024 to inspect the tree and the decision was made to remove it. An appointment was booked for 29 May 2024 to replace the fence subject to weather conditions.
7. It confirmed the fence would be continued at the height it had already been started at which was over 5 feet. It intended to remove the small box section that was originally put in place around the tree and replace the missing and damaged fence panels at end of garden.
8. Instead of replacing the fence on the boundary the landlord sited it next to the old fence instead of replacing it. Therefore there were 2 fences in place with a gap in the middle which has reduced size of garden leaving a broken fence in place. It arranged for both fences to be removed and replaced with a new fence on the boundary line.
9. It failed to make good the dividing fence when the property was empty prior to the resident signing up. The tree would also have been removed at that point. Therefore, scoping and coordinating the fencing and tree works was not done in a “timely and coordinated way.”
10. This caused the resident inconvenience for nearly 3 years during which she made reports which did not result in a resolution. The resident was also unable to make “full use” of the garden.
11. 2 jobs were raised for its LCDM team to attend on 10 June 2024. One was for its surveyor to attend to investigate wider issues and the other to treat mould on and around the front door.
12. It inspected the door on 26 April 2024. It was not rotten and was operating as it should. However, there was mould present on the door which the resident had declined to have cleaned.
13. It had taken appropriate action to resolve the LCDM issues.
14. It awarded £515 compensation for failures associated with the fencing works in addition to the £450 offered at stage 1, comprised of:
  1. £15 for the missed appointment.
  2. £500 for time taken to resolve, inconvenience, failure to follow process and having to chase.
The landlord inspected the property on 10 June 2024 and confirmed that there was a “minor” issue with “condensation based mould growth” to some of the window reveals. It did not “consider there to be an inherent issue that would give rise to any issues prejudicial to the health and wellbeing of the occupants.” However, it was concerned about the quality of the mould wash and asked for this to be redone. The surveyor noted that the trickle vents were not operational and should be replaced. The front door was “serviceable” and would not be replaced.
On 10 July 2024 the resident called the landlord to express her dissatisfaction that various works were outstanding but the complaint had been closed.
The repair logs show that an order was raised on 15 July 2024 to replace the trickle vent to the windows.
On 9 August 2024 the landlord provided an addendum to its stage 2 complaint response as follows:
1. The resident had raised concerns about the lack of action taken to resolve issues identified at stage 1.
2. The tree was removed on 22 May and fencing works subsequently took place on 1 June. It reiterated that rubbish was removed from the garden on 27 March.
3. Following the inspection on 10 June it appeared that because mould was still present the initial mould treatment had not been carried out “sufficiently.” It had booked a further mould wash on 9 August. It offered to treat the front door if the resident had changed her position.
4. Works to the trickle vents for the windows were booked for 16 August.
5. It apologised for the failure in service regarding the mould wash.
6. It offered a further £200 in addition to the £515 already offered, comprised of:
  1. £100 for the delayed mould treatment.
  2. £50 for the poor quality of works.
  3. £50 for a “lack” of communication.

Events post internal complaints process.

On 11 August 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to set out her ongoing dissatisfaction with its response because:
1. According to the surveyor the job was not “accurately done” and had not removed the mould. This caused her and her family “significant health concerns.”
2. It denied changing the door which was “contaminated” with “mould extracts” releasing spores into the air. The surveyor acknowledged the issues but did not change the door as promised by a previous contractor.
3. The resident had provided the surveyor with an independent mould report. However, they advised her to pay to remove the mould as per the report which was something she felt the landlord should do.
4. She was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered.
An entry on the repairs log dated 3 September 2024 noted that a mould wash was carried out to the front door and surround.
In her telephone call with us on 20 December 2024 the resident said the mould was “constant throughout the property.” She said the family were having wheezy coughs, breathing difficulties and “constant” colds. She said the damp and cold was affecting her joints and causing stiffness. The complaint became one we could investigate on 7 January 2025.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

The landlord’s Leaks, Condensation, Damp and Mould Policy (damp policy) says that it will diagnose and resolve damp and mould in a “timely and effective manner.” It will carry out appropriate works where necessary to minimise damage to the structure, fixtures and fittings of the property.
Its Complaints Policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
Its Compensation Policy says it will consider paying discretionary compensation to recognise a particular adverse effect and impact on a resident.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The repairs log shows that on 14 November 2023 the resident reported issues with damp and mould. She set out her concerns about the impact this was having on her and her daughter. We have been provided with a copy of the landlord’s survey report dated 27 November 2023. However, the contents are empty which is a record keeping failure. Furthermore, the landlord’s assertion in its stage 1 complaint response of 19 April 2024 that the matter was first reported on 17 January 2024 was incorrect.
On 17 January 2024 the resident emailed the landlord again to report that mould was an issue in all 7 rooms of the house. She once again advised that her household suffered from medical issues which was impacted by the mould.
The repairs logs logged no access visits on 23 and 30 January 2024. An internal email dated 6 March 2024 noted that the appointments had been booked without informing the resident so she had not been at home. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 19 April 2024 confirmed the same to the resident. The landlord’s failure was inappropriate because it caused an avoidable delay in its response.
The repairs log shows that on 12 February 2024 the resident called the landlord to say an appointment had been booked for that day but the operative had failed to attend. The landlord was unable to find a record of the appointment. It raised a new job and rebooked the appointment.
During a web chat with the landlord on 15 February 2024 the resident was able to attach a copy of the previous chat when the member of staff confirmed the appointment for 12 February 2024. During the current chat the landlord confirmed that the appointment was never booked. Its failure caused distress and inconvenience to the resident as well as causing further delays in resolving the substantive issue.
During the same chat on 15 February 2024 the resident reported that the landlord’s contractor had not attended the appointment for that day. It confirmed they were on their way but running late. The resident advised she would not give access because they had not called or messaged to update her as a courtesy. The works order noted that the operative was declined access because they were half an hour late.
An internal email dated 6 March 2024 noted that the operative had laughed at the resident when she advised him he was late. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 19 April 2024 apologised for his behaviour and set out steps it had taken to prevent a recurrence which was appropriate.
We have been provided with a survey report dated 15 February 2024 which notes that the resident is vulnerable and has a disability but the rest of the form is blank. This is a further record keeping failure.
The resident instructed her own independent survey which was carried out on 16 February 2024. The report stated there was mould around the windows in the living room, bedrooms, landing and kitchen. There was mould on the utility room door, window and ceiling, throughout the bathroom and on the back of the front door. Photographs were included in the report. It recommended that a mould wash be used to remove the mould and that the source of the mould be addressed to prevent it returning. In an email to us dated 1 April 2025 the resident advised that she shared it with the landlord’s surveyor on 10 June 2024.
During a telephone call with the landlord on 3 March 2024 the resident reported that her front door was “full of mould” and that despite the mould washes the problem persisted. She also said she had been advised she needed new windows and air vents but had not received any communication from the landlord.
An internal email dated 6 March 2024 noted that the damp and mould was “severe.” A works order was raised that same day to carry out a mould wash “as soon as possible.”
We have been provided with a survey report dated 7 March 2024 in which the disability and vulnerability fields were left blank. However, it noted that remedial works were carried out that day. A mould wash and painting was carried out throughout the property. It noted the air vents on the windows were blocked however, it noted that no follow on works were required. It also confirmed that the resident had asked them to leave the front door as she had been promised a new one.
The resident first reported damp and mould on 14 November 2023. It took the landlord 4 months to carry out a mould wash which was delayed due to its failure to manage the appointment process effectively. It therefore failed to adhere to its damp policy to act in a “timely and effective manner.”
This was particularly inappropriate because the resident reported that it was impacting on her health. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this as part of its decision making. Furthermore, its correspondence with the resident failed to address her concerns demonstrating a lack of regard for her welfare and that of her household.
On 11 April 2024 the landlord raised a works order to inspect the front door as the resident said it was rotten and draughty. Given the outcome of its visit on 7 March 2024 it is unclear why the order was not raised until that date and therefore the delay was unreasonable. It noted that she had also raised her ongoing concerns about the window frames and air vents which contributed to the damp issue. The landlord emailed the resident to say an inspection was arranged for 26 April 2024.
The inspection carried out on 26 April 2024 confirmed that the front door was not rotten and was fully functional. It noted that there was mould on the door but the resident had declined to have it cleaned off. In its stage 1 complaint response of 19 April 2024 the landlord provided an appropriate explanation with regards to commitments made by its previous contractor. The landlord’s position in relation to the door was reasonable in the circumstances.
However, there was no update regarding the windows and air vents which was inappropriate. The landlord’s evidence shows the issue was resolved on or around 15 July 2024 which was 5 months after it was put on notice that they were blocked. This was an unreasonable delay, particularly as they were noted as possibly contributing to the damp issue. It failed to adhere to its damp policy to act in a “timely and effective manner” by carrying out appropriate works where necessary.
There is no evidence that the landlord carried out a detailed damp and mould survey to ensure that it investigated and identified the cause of the mould to prevent the issue reoccurring. The first detailed inspection did not take place until 10 June 2024. This was after the landlord issued its final response and 7 months after the resident first reported the issue. The landlord failed to take action to diagnose the cause of the damp and mould in line with its damp policy.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The £350 compensation offered by the landlord is not considered proportionate to the failings identified in this report. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £600 compensation. It may deduct the £350 it offered if this has already been paid. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to her garden.

During her telephone call with the landlord on 13 March 2024 the resident complained that it had never fixed her garden fence as promised when she moved in. She said she had been chasing for the past 3 years and no one ever called her back. This had caused her “lots of stress.”
A file note confirmed that the landlord visited the property on 26 March 2024. It subsequently arranged for the rubbish to be removed from the rear garden on 28 March 2024.
The repairs log shows that a works order was raised on 3 April 2024 to renew the garden fence, replacing the 3 feet high fence with one that was 5 feet high. A file note confirmed that during an internal discussion on 11 April 2024 the landlord agreed that it would remove the tree on the boundary if it was damaging the fence and/or property.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 19 April 2024 set out its delay in carrying out fencing works and removing rubble from the garden. It had since cleared the rubble and fencing works were scheduled for 18 April 2024. It offered £200 compensation. It was appropriately open and honest about its failings however, it did not acknowledge the detriment caused to the resident over the past 3 years.
When the landlord spoke to the resident, also on 19 April 2024, she said that the fencing issues were ongoing and said she was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 April 2024 because she had received a call to say the fencing works would continue on 16 May 2024. She was dissatisfied because they had first attended on 17 May 2024 (the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response confirmed this to be 17 April 2024) without the fence panels. Most of the allocated time slot was taken up by the operatives collecting the materials so they were unable to finish the job. They had said they would be back in “a couple of days” so she did not think she would be “left for weeks.”
She had also been told they would box around the tree so she would not lose part of her garden. Instead, they erected a new fence in front of the existing fence so there were 2 fences and she lost the part of her garden in between. She set out her frustration at having to chase the matter over a 3 year period.
On 16 May 2024 the landlord raised a works order to replace the remaining section of the boundary fence following removal of the tree so that the fence did not have to go around it.
An entry on the repairs log dated 22 May 2024 noted that the resident was concerned about the height of the new fence. She said the tree had been removed and she was now waiting for the original boundary fence to be replaced. A file note of an internal discussion that took place on 24 May 2024 confirms that the resident had been reporting the fence issue for at least 2 years. It should have been resolved when she moved in. It clarified the need to remove all fencing and install a new fence. A new works order was raised accordingly.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 7 June 2024 the landlord appropriately identified a failing regarding the appointment on 17 April 2024. To try to put it right it apologised and offered £15 compensation for the inconvenience. It also apologised for the miscommunication regarding the timescales for the subsequent follow on works. It appropriately set out the outstanding works and the date for completion. It also appropriately acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the resident by chasing a resolution over a 3 year period.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s response because its failures had an adverse effect on the resident. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord’s complaint responses were appropriately transparent. However, it failed to demonstrate its learning from the complaint. It did not identify what had gone wrong and what it would do differently.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that compensation of between £600 and £1000 are appropriate where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord offered £515 compensation in addition to the £200 it offered at stage 1, making a total of £715. The landlord’s failures spanned a 3 year period during which the resident could not make full use of her garden, causing distress and inconvenience which was compounded by her efforts to try to resolve the issue.
Therefore, the compensation offered by the landlord is not proportionate to the failures identified in the report. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £900 compensation. It may deduct the £715 it has offered if this has already been paid.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s query about gifting of items to residents.

In her stage 1 complaint of 15 February 2024 the resident expressed dissatisfaction that items such as air fryers and energy saving light bulbs had been offered to some residents but not to her.
An internal email dated 16 April 2024 confirmed details of a scheme where slow cookers and other warm/cost saving items were offered as part of a ‘warm space offer.’ Residents had to meet certain criteria to be eligible.
Its stage 1 complaint response of 19 April 2024 acknowledged that during its conversation with the resident earlier that day she had said the items were not provided by this scheme. The resident said she believed the items were offered by its planned investment team. However, when it contacted the team that same day they confirmed they were not responsible. It advised it would be unable to take the matter further without more information.
There is no evidence that further information was provided. Therefore, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s complaint and its response was reasonable in the circumstances. There was no maladministration in its response.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that a resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such. Whenever a resident expresses dissatisfaction landlords must give them the choice to make a complaint.
On 12 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to report her dissatisfaction that its contractor had failed to attend the appointment. The landlord agreed that it had missed the opportunity to raise a formal complaint on that day.
Its stage 1 complaint response of 19 April 2024 appropriately acknowledged and apologised for its error. It also offered £50 compensation to try to put things right.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 15 February 2024 to set out her complaint in detail. The landlord issued its response on 19 April 2024 which was 45 working days later and 35 working days over its target. The response appropriately apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation.
On 19 April 2024 the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord emailed her on the same day to acknowledge the complaint and to confirm it would respond within 20 working days. On 23 April 2024 it emailed the resident to confirm that her complaint had been passed to its customer solutions team.
In a further update to the resident dated 1 May 2024 it confirmed it would provide its response by 28 May 2024. This timescale was inappropriate because it was 25 working days from the date it acknowledged the complaint and outside its timescales. The response was issued on 28 May 2024 which was 5 working days out of time. It is acknowledged that the detriment caused by the short delay was low.
The Code requires landlords to address all points raised in the complaint. In its email to the resident of 19 April 2024 the landlord confirmed that issues relating to damp and mould formed part of her stage 2 complaint. It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord failed to provide a response regarding the substantive issue.
Its error caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who contacted the landlord to discuss the matter. An internal email dated 28 May 2024 noted that the landlord spoke to the resident who said that damp and mould formed part of her complaint but it was not included.
In its email to the resident dated 3 June 2024 the landlord said it could not see that damp and mould had formed part of the stage 2 complaint. This was an oversight given the evidence set out above. However, it said it would carry out an investigation and provide an amended response to amalgamate all the information in one letter. It said it would provide this by 17 June 2024.
The amended response was issued on 7 June 2024. While this was an appropriate way to resolve its earlier failure, its response failed to acknowledge its error. It also failed to consider how it might compensate the resident for the additional delay in providing a resolution to her complaint. The final response was issued 33 working days after the complaint was escalated which was 13 working days out of time.
The resident had also expressed her ongoing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to her complaint about gifting of items. However, it again failed to provide a response on this point. It would have been appropriate for it to do so, even if only to reiterate its position set out at stage 1.
The Code states that a landlord’s stage 2 response is their final response. If a resident remains dissatisfied they should be referred to us so we can investigate the complaint.
The resident phoned the landlord on 15 July 2024 to report her dissatisfaction with its response. On 9 August the landlord provided a third stage 2 response, titled “addendum – stage 2 final response to your complaint.” This was inappropriate because it prolonged the time taken by the resident to exhaust its internal complaints process before escalating the matter to us.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to her garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s query about gifting of items to residents.
In accordance with paragraph 52 there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1650 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord may deduct the £350 it has already offered if this has already been paid.
  2. £900 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s request for repairs to her garden. The landlord may deduct the £715 it has offered if this has already been paid.
  3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. The landlord may deduct the £100 it has offered if this has already been paid.
3. Contact the resident to establish if there is still damp and mould present in the property. If so, it should arrange for a qualified surveyor to carry out a detailed damp and mould survey. It should then write to the resident to set out a schedule of works including timescales.
Evidence of compliance with the orders above should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.