East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202403923)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403923

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

31 January 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of a lack of heating and hot water.
2. The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
3. The associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident told the landlord that her children have various health conditions. These include autism, compromised immune systems and heart conditions.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 27 November 2023 about a lack of heating and hot water at the property. On 5 January 2024, she raised a further complaint about damp and mould within the property. The landlord did not respond to these through its formal complaints process. It instead raised repairs, dealing with the complaints as service requests.
On 22 January 2024 and 29 January 2024, the resident raised further concerns to the landlord. She said that the mould returned despite the landlord cleaning it. She asked it to install insulation in the loft as she believed the lack of this caused the damp and mould. She added that the boiler and downstairs radiator leaked, and she had no heating or hot water. The resident explained that the issues impacted the health of the household. Following these 2 contacts, the landlord logged a formal complaint on 9 February 2024. On 20 February 2024, the resident added that the toilet and bath leaked. She expressed her view that the landlord should replace the bathroom, owing to its age.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 21 March 2024. It:
1. Apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in logging the complaint and extending the time to respond by. It offered her £60 compensation for this.
2. Acknowledged its response to damp and mould reports fell below its expectations. It provided a list of the steps taken following the first report on 23 October 2023. It outlined that it would complete a damp survey on 8 April 2024. It would also complete bathroom repairs on this date too.
3. Offered her £160 compensation for the time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience, caused by its response to the damp and mould reports. It advised her to provide receipts or proof of damaged belongings so it could consider reimbursement for this.
4. Explained her bathroom would be due for an upgrade within the next 12 months. While it could not confirm the exact date, it reassured her it would complete repairs when needed in the interim.
5. Acknowledged failings with its response to a lack of heating and hot water in November 2023. It found she had chased for updates on 4 occasions, and it did not attend an appointment on 1 December 2023. It later resolved the issues on 15 December 2023.
6. Explained it had responded to a further report of a lack of heating and hot water on 19 January 2024. It also responded to reports of leaks from the boiler and a radiator in January 2024. However, it apologised for the delay in fitting a new radiator.
7. Offered her £175 compensation for its response to a lack of heating and hot water.
8. Listed steps it had taken to learn from its mistakes. This included staff training regarding communication and more oversight with its repair’s contractors.
On 25 April 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to the landlord. She said she had no heating or hot water again because of boiler leaks, which meant she had to turn off the boiler. She asked it to install loft insulation throughout the space as mould had returned. She believed it had returned because the landlord had only insulated some areas within the loft. She added that the plasterers did an “awful job.” She also wanted a new bath because it was over 20 years old.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 10 June 2024. It:
1. Apologised for not resolving the boiler repairs as it outlined within its initial complaint response. It last repaired the boiler on 25 April 2024. It believed this had resolved the issues but apologised for the time taken in achieving this.
2. Would arrange for a supervisor to check the quality of the works completed and to check the condition of the radiator pipework. It would then complete any necessary works within a “reasonable timeframe.”
3. Had inspected the loft insulation and re-laid this where needed. It completed a mould treatment on 3 June 2024. It then insulated the loft hatch on 6 June 2024.
4. Acknowledged the plasterwork was not of the standard it expected. It had arranged an appointment to make good the plasterwork on 3 June 2024. However, it had rescheduled this to 13 June 2024 at the resident’s request.
5. Explained it had completed interim repairs to the bathroom while awaiting the bathroom replacement “soon.” It said it would inspect the bathroom on 11 June 2024 to provide a more accurate date for the replacement.
6. Would erect scaffolding on 11 June 2024 to inspect the type of vent tile needed for the bathroom extractor fan. It would confirm the date to install the vent tile after inspecting this.
7. Offered a total of £747.98 compensation, which replaced its previous offer. It also offered £400 in decoration vouchers. The compensation amount consisted of:
  1. £60 offered previously for its complaint handling.
  2. £350 for the time taken to resolve the boiler repair (the lack of heating and hot water).
  3. £250 for the time taken to resolve the damp and mould concerns.
  4. £24.99 reimbursement for the cost of paint and rollers.
  5. £62.99 for the damage to curtains in 2 rooms.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said the landlord had not resolved the damp and mould within the property. She was also unhappy with its resolution to the lack of heating and hot water. The complaint became one that the Ombudsman could investigate on 18 November 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the various repairs affected the health of the household. This Service does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing.
The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice regarding this aspect of her complaint. The resident may also be able to make a claim via the landlord’s liability insurance. If this is something she wishes to do, she should make enquiries with the landlord accordingly. We will, however, consider whether the handling of the issues caused any distress to the resident.
The resident said that she had experienced issues with damp and mould since 2007. We do not dispute these comments, and we acknowledge the serious nature of this matter. However, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, when the issues first occurred. This is because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present now. The focus of this investigation will therefore relate to the issues which the resident complained about, which she first reported in October 2023.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a lack of heating and hot water

The landlord has acknowledged that its response to the reports of a lack of heating and hot water fell below its expectations. On 20 November 2023, the resident reported that she had no heating or hot water.
The landlord’s repairs section on its website states that it would deal with reports of a loss of heating within 24 hours, as an emergency, during the winter and colder months. The landlord did this, but it was unable to fix the boiler because it needed to order a specific part. Given that this occurred during the colder months, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with temporary heaters. It should have done this as soon as it was aware of the need to wait for a part to arrive in stock. However, it did not arrange this following its appointment on 20 November 2023. This is a failing.
The landlord scheduled an appointment for 1 December 2023. On the day, the resident called the landlord twice as it had not yet attended. During the first call, it told her it would still attend that day. However, she made contact again in the late afternoon as it had still not attended.
The landlord’s notes show that it did not attend the appointment because it did not have the part available to repair the boiler. It is unclear why it did not update the resident with this information sooner. If it had, this would have understandably offered her reassurance that it took her concerns seriously and intended to resolve the issues as a priority. It is also unclear why it failed to check whether it had the requisite parts the day of the appointment. By not doing so, it raised her expectations that it would be able to reinstate the heating and hot water on this date.
The landlord’s complaint responses state that it later provided temporary heaters to the resident on 12 December 2023. Its repair records show that it delivered the heaters on 4 December 2023. Given that the landlord’s repair records were made at the time of the responding to the repair, the date of 4 December 2023 holds more accuracy.
Nevertheless, it took 14 days for the landlord to provide the temporary heaters to the resident. Given this was during the winter/colder months and that it was aware of the vulnerabilities within the household, it should have ensured that a form of heating remained available throughout this time. It is a significant failing that it did not do so. Additionally, there is no evidence available to show whether the landlord checked whether the household had access to any bathing facilities during this time. This is a further failing.
The landlord provided the resident with £70 of e-vouchers on 12 December 2023. This was to help with the running costs of the temporary heaters. This was appropriate to ensure that she did not incur additional costs during this time.
The landlord later fitted the part and repaired the boiler on 15 December 2023. This took 25 days to do so following the resident’s report. The Ombudsman acknowledges that delay was owing to the necessary part needing to be sourced, and this was outside the landlord’s control. However, it delayed in providing the resident with a temporary heat source, and it failed to provide timely communication and updates throughout this time. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report that she was without heating and hot water was therefore inappropriate overall.
On 19 January 2024, the resident reported a burning smell from the boiler. The landlord appropriately booked an emergency appointment for the following day. However, the resident cancelled this appointment because her gas supplier had isolated the boiler. She confirmed that she still had gas to be able to cook meals. While the appointment did not go ahead, the landlord delivered temporary heaters to her on 20 January 2024, which was appropriate.
The landlord subsequently arranged for its contractor to check the pipework. In doing so on 23 January 2024, it found a small leak. It repaired this on the same day, and the heating and hot water were reinstated. The resident expressed concern that the boiler had caused a leak within the loft space. However, the contractor confirmed that the property did not have any pipes in the loft space. This was appropriate to reassure the resident and to help ease her concerns.
In the landlord’s complaint responses, it said that it repaired the boiler on 25 January 2024, but its repair records show this occurred on 23 January 2024. As previously explained, where there is conflicting information, the records made at the time of the repair would hold more accuracy. Therefore, we have assessed that it repaired the boiler on 23 January 2024.
On 29 January 2024, the resident reported a further leak from the boiler and a radiator in the hallway. This had no impact on the heating and hot water. The landlord therefore arranged a routine appointment for 6 February 2024. Due to a lack of detailed records, it is unclear whether the landlord completed any repairs to the boiler on this date. The evidence suggests that a repair was completed as the next entry in the repair’s records relating to the boiler was in April 2024.
Following the appointment on 6 February 2024, the landlord raised a job to replace the radiator in the hallway. It replaced the radiator on 22 March 2024, which was 45 days after the report. This was also 3 days after its deadline to complete a routine repair.
While this was only slightly outside the landlord’s timescale, the evidence suggests that it only acted to arrange the appointment following internal discussions about the complaint. This suggests that it did not proactively manage or monitor the repair. If it had promptly arranged an appointment following the attendance on 6 February 2024, it may have completed the sooner. This may have also reduced any additional distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The resident reported a containable leak from the new radiator on 24 April 2024. On the following day, she told the landlord that she had switched off the boiler because of a leak coming from underneath it. This meant she did not have any heating or hot water again. The landlord attended the property on the same day to replace the pipework to the boiler. It restored the heating and hot water on the same day. The radiator pipework was repaired on 1 May 2024. It is acknowledged that the further issues were the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, the landlord acted in line with its policy and responded to these reports appropriately.
The resident remained concerned that the landlord had not replaced the pipes to the hallway radiator. She felt that replacing the pipes was the only way to prevent further leaks onto her newly laid flooring. Within the landlord’s final complaint response, on 10 June 2024, it said it would arrange for a supervisor to inspect the pipework and arrange any necessary repairs. This was appropriate given the resident’s concerns. However, the complaint response did not provide an appointment date for this, and it should reasonably have done so. Due to a lack of evidence, it is unclear whether the landlord reinspected the pipework to the radiator or not. Therefore, we have made a relevant order below.
The landlord acknowledged failings with its handling of reports of a lack of heating and hot water. It was appropriate for it to apologise to the resident for this. Within its initial complaint response, it offered £175 compensation to the resident. It later increased this to £350 compensation within its final complaint response. This included its original offer of £175 plus the £50 awarded separately in April 2024 for the resident’s heating costs.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the reports of a lack of heating and hot water varied for each separate report. While it attended within its initial emergency repair timescale of 24 hours for each report, it did not consistently respond appropriately. It:
1. Did not provide temporary heaters soon enough following the first report in November 2023.
2. Failed to attend an appointment on 1 December 2023.
3. Provided inaccurate appointment dates in its complaint responses.
4. Did not proactively manage the repair job to replace the hallway radiator, which caused delays.
5. Failed to show what action it took regarding the boiler when it attended on 6 February 2024.
6. Failed to evidence whether it inspected the pipework as it had agreed to do within its final complaint response.
Given the above, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of a lack of heating and hot water. As such, the landlord’s offer of £350 compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified within this investigation. It should pay the resident a further £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to her. An overall award of £550 compensation is in line with our remedies guidance for failings which have had an adverse impact on the resident.

The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould

The Ombudsman produced a spotlight report on damp and mould in October 2021. The report encourages landlords to adopt a zero-tolerance attitude towards such matters. It also encourages landlords to take prompt action when dealing with such reports.
The resident reported damp and mould to the landlord on multiple occasions. On 23 October 2023, she reported this within her bedroom and front room. The landlord responded by completing a mould wash on the same day. This was appropriate.
On 5 January 2024, the resident reported damp and water dripping above and onto her child’s bed. The landlord completed a further mould treatment on 15 January 2024. However, on 29 January 2024, the resident said the mould had returned and the water continued to drip onto her child’s bed. She said her children had health conditions which made them vulnerable to black mould.
In response, on 1 March 2024, the landlord completed an independent damp survey which found condensation and poor ventilation to be the cause of the mould. The survey recommended mould treatment throughout the property and repairs to the toilet window which could not open.
It is unclear why it took 32 days to arrange the survey. This is a concern given the location of the damp and mould and the reported impact on the health of the household. Additionally, it is a failing that there is no evidence provided to suggest that the landlord remained in communication with the resident. The evidence does not show that it took the time to manage her expectations, offer her reassurance or explain what action it would take and when.
On 14 March 2024, the landlord raised jobs for these repairs, which it later completed on 8 April 2024. It replaced the toilet window handle, fitted new aqua boarding to prevent water leaking in the bathroom and installed ply to the WC room. On 25 March 2024 and 26 March 2024, it applied mould treatment to various rooms. This included the bathroom, WC, hallway, lounge, and 3 bedrooms. Its actions after the survey were therefore appropriate to help resolve the issues.
Within the appointment on 15 January 2024, the landlord noted that the property may benefit from additional loft insulation. The resident also told the landlord that the lack of insulation may contribute to the issues with the damp above her child’s bed. She asked for an update regarding the insulation on 20 February 2024. In response, on 23 February 2024, the landlord contacted her to arrange an inspection of the insulation and property.
The landlord inspected the property on 11 March 2024. It is noted that this appointment was the earliest date that mutually convenient for both parties. The landlord later installed insulation above the bay window on 15 March 2024. During the inspection, it also identified a need for a further damp survey. Although the landlord insulated above the bay window, there is no evidence to suggest that it checked the insulation within the loft during this appointment. The resident reiterated her concern with lack of loft insulation causing damp and mould on 19 March 2024. As such, it agreed to inspect this during the damp survey.
The landlord completed the second damp survey on 8 April 2024. This was the first mutually convenient date. The survey identified condensation and black mould. It found the cause was cold bridging from uninsulated inaccessible eaves. It recommended that it should apply a thermal plaster system throughout the upstairs rooms and bathroom to reduce heat loss to the walls. It completed the works on 23 April 2024.
Despite completing the works, the resident reported that the mould had returned on 25 April 2024. She said that the landlord had insulated the alcoves of 4 of the rooms upstairs but it had completed an “awful job” on the plasterwork afterwards. She asked it to insulate the loft and draught proof the loft hatch. In response, on 2 May 2024, the landlord raised an urgent job to check the loft insulation and the standard of the plasterwork. This was an appropriate response.
On 7 May 2024, the landlord inspected the property and added further insulation to the loft. However, it did not raise any repairs regarding the plasterwork. The resident therefore chased this on 21 May 2024. The landlord raised a job on 21 May 2023 to make good the plasterwork, but it should not have been necessary for the resident to chase this. It raised a further job on the same day to inspect damp and mould which had returned.
During an inspection on 23 May 2023, the landlord identified that the bathroom needed an insulated board and extractor fan. It also re-laid the loft insulation on this date after it noted gaps throughout the loft. It tried to complete the works for the board and fan on 28 May 2024, but could not gain access to the property. It returned and completed a mould treatment to the bathroom, toilet, and bedroom on 3 June 2024. It later replaced the extractor fan and insulated the loft hatch on 6 June 2024.
When replacing the extractor fan, the landlord identified that it needed to install a vent tile to the bathroom extractor fan, but this required scaffolding. It later completed the works on 5 July 2024. We acknowledge that it took the landlord almost a month to install the vent tile. However, given that it needed to arrange and erect scaffolding to complete the works, this delay was not unreasonable.
While the landlord took steps to investigate the insulation throughout the property in various areas. This was reasonable. However, it is unclear why it delayed checking the loft insulation. The resident repeatedly asked the landlord to do this. The landlord it identified that further insulation was required in the loft on 15 January 2024. However, no further action was taken for nearly 4 months, when the insulation was re-laid on two occasions in May 2024. This is a significant concern.
Throughout the duration of the complaint, the resident repeatedly asked the landlord to replace her bathroom. She said that her tenancy agreement stated the landlord would replace a bathroom every 10 to 15 years, yet she had lived there for 18 years with the same bathroom. Despite our requests, the landlord has not been able to provide us with a copy of the tenancy agreement and instead has provided a blank tenancy agreement. We therefore cannot assess whether the landlord acted in line with the terms of the tenancy agreement or not.
While the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to not replace the bathroom, the landlord is entitled to assess its stock and decide the most appropriate action as to whether to repair or replace components.
In line with the Decent Homes Standard (DHS), the landlord must provide reasonably modern facilities which is considered to be 30 years old or less for a bathroom. There is no evidence to suggest that the bathroom was of such age. It was appropriate for it to instead complete repairs to resolve the concerns that the resident had. The landlord can make suitable repairs in the bathroom where possible rather than replacing it.
On 30 January 2024, the resident reported a containable leak from the toilet. The landlord’s records indicate that a repair was completed on 6 February 2024. However, within its complaint response, the landlord advised that it could not gain access to the property on this date. It is therefore unclear what happened in response to the report made on 30 January 2024, and whether the landlord responded appropriately to this repair.
The resident raised further concerns with the toilet leaking on 20 February 2024. She said that it had not resolved this despite an attempt on 6 February 2024. She also added that the bath also had leaks occurring close to the electrics, and that she was concerned about this danger. There is no evidence that the landlord completed any repairs to address this until 18 March 2024.
It is noted that the landlord had offered an earlier appointment, but that this was not convenient for the resident. However, despite this, the landlord should have considered responding to the resident’s health and safety concerns within its emergency repair timescale of 24 hours. Instead, it took nearly 3 weeks for it to respond to the repair. This was not appropriate given the concerns related to health and safety. The landlord was aware of the reported vulnerabilities and children within the household. It is therefore a failing that there is no evidence that it appropriately considered the impact of such concerns.
Given the resident’s ongoing requests for the landlord to replace the bathroom, it was appropriate for the landlord to agree to inspect this within its final complaint response. An asset surveyor inspected the bathroom on 11 June 2024. On 14 June 2024, it decided that it would add her property onto the current year’s bathroom replacement programme. It later completed the bathroom replacement in November 2024.
Due to a lack of evidence provided, it is unclear whether the landlord installed an insulated board to the bathroom which it identified as required on 23 May 2024. It is therefore unclear whether the resident remained with the outstanding repair for around 6 months. It is therefore a failing that it cannot evidence whether it did so.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It:
1. Delayed arranging the first damp survey in March 2024 and provided no evidence to show it updated the resident during this time.
2. Delayed its inspection of the loft insulation despite concerns raised by the resident and during repair works.
3. Failed to evidence that it considered the impact of the repairs, and whether it needed to adjust its repair timescales, based on the vulnerabilities within the household.
4. Failed to evidence that it responded to the resident’s health and safety concerns with the leaks possibly affecting the electrics.
5. Did not proactively monitor and manage the repairs, which caused the resident to spend time and trouble chasing these.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £250 within its final complaint response. It said this reflected the distress and inconvenience caused by its time taken to resolve the reactive repairs. Considering the above, this amount was not proportionate to the failings identified within this investigation. As such, the landlord should pay the resident a further £500 compensation. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which have had an adverse impact on the resident.
When the resident brought her complaint to this Service, she advised that she still experienced problems with damp and mould. However, it is unclear if that remains the case. The landlord should contact the resident to confirm whether there are any outstanding repairs required. It should then arrange an inspection of the property, if needed.

The associated complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it can try to resolve issues and offer a resolution within 1 working day. If it cannot do this, it would log this as a formal complaint. It also states that its efforts will not obstruct residents’ access to the complaint’s procedure.
Following the resident’s complaints raised on 27 November 2023 and 5 January 2024, the landlord raised repairs rather than responding through its formal complaints process. It later told the Ombudsman that it now “recognised” both requests were an attempt at making a complaint. Therefore, the landlord did not respond appropriately in line with the Code to log the resident’s complaints.
The landlord’s failure to log the resident’s complaints caused her to spend time and trouble making further complaints. She contacted the landlord again on 22 January 2024 and 29 January 2024 to raise further complaints. This would have understandably caused her avoidable distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. Both the Code and the landlord’s policy states that the landlord should log a complaint within 5 working days of receiving it. However, it logged the formal complaint on 9 February 2024. This was 14 working days after receiving the complaint on 22 January 2024. There is no evidence to suggest that this delay was unavoidable, and this was therefore a failing.
Both the Code and the landlord’s policy states that it must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of logging the complaint. If the landlord needs more time to respond to a complaint, it can extend this by 10 working days.
The landlord extended its response time twice and provided its complaint response on 21 March 2024. It therefore took a total of 43 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint. While it was appropriate for the landlord to remain in contact to manage her expectations, in line with the Code, the landlord should only extend the period to respond once. Its overall time taken to respond to the complaint was therefore not in line with its policy or the Code.
Within the landlord’s initial complaint response, it acknowledged some failings in its complaint handling. It offered her a total of £60 compensation. Of this, £10 was for its delay in logging the complaint and £50 was for the delay in providing its response.
On 26 March 2024, the resident told the landlord that she was unhappy with the compensation offered. She provided a list of belongings which she said were damaged because of the outstanding repairs. The landlord responded to this without escalating her complaint. This was reasonable in the circumstances as the resident’s only concern raised at that time was the compensation levels.
The landlord acted reasonably in response to the resident’s request for increased compensation. It asked her for receipts and evidence of the items and costs incurred. This was in line with its compensation policy where it outlined that it required evidence to consider compensation requests. Following evidence from the resident, it awarded her a further £74.99 compensation. This included £24.99 for the cost of purchasing paint and rollers, and £50 for her heating. It outlined it had previously offered her £70 in e-vouchers for the running costs of the temporary heaters. It also later offered to reimburse her £62.99 towards damaged curtains.
While the resident understandably felt the amount offered did not cover her full heating costs during this time, the landlord acted reasonably to explain its decision. It said that the £50 reflected amounts towards the cost of buying her own temporary heaters and for the electricity bill while using them. It explained it had calculated this given the lack of receipts for this purchase and that not all the electricity would have been for the heating. The landlord’s explanation and offer, in addition to the voucher, was reasonable in the circumstances.
On 25 April 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to the landlord. It acknowledged the complaint on the same day. In line with the landlord’s policy and the Code, it should provide a response within 20 working days. It can extend this by a further 20 working days if it needed more time. The landlord later told her that it needed further time and that it would provide its response by 10 June 2024, which it later did. Its actions were therefore in line with its policy and the Code.
In the landlord’s final complaint response, it advised the resident to claim on her own content’s insurance regarding any damaged clothing. This was appropriate advice in the circumstances and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. It also said that if it damaged any further belongings during future works, she should provide evidence of this. This was also appropriate to help reassure her of its intentions should any further damage occur.
The landlord did not offer any further redress for its complaint handling failures in its final complaint response. It reoffered the £60 compensation. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have reflected on its overall handling of the complaint. As the landlord did not do so, it failed to acknowledge its handling of the complaints raised in November 2023 and January 2024.
As the landlord failed to do this, it did not reconsider its position, and the level of redress offered. This was a missed opportunity. As such, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord should pay a further £90 compensation to reflect the level of distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble, caused to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a lack of heating and hot water.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the associated complaint handling.

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation. It should include specific examples in reference to each complaint point.
2. Pay the resident the £747.98 compensation offered within its final complaint response if it has not already done so.
3. Confirm with the resident that she has been able to use the £400 decorating vouchers offered within its final complaint response. It should offer to resend the vouchers if she has been unable to use it yet due to the expiration date of these.
4. Pay the resident a further £790 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It should pay this directly to the resident and not to her rent account. This consisted of:
  1. £200 for its handling of reports of a lack of heating and hot water.
  2. £500 for its response to reports of damp and mould.
  3. £90 for its associated complaint handling.
5. Contact the resident to confirm whether there are any outstanding repairs required. As well as considering any issues reported, it should especially ask about any outstanding repairs related to damp and mould and issues with the pipework and leaks throughout the property. It should then complete an inspection of the property, if needed, within this timescale.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.