Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202431045)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431045

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

25 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould and the associated repairs.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom house which is owned by the landlord. The resident resides at the property with her 3 children, she says that 2 of her children are asthmatic and one has multiple allergies which need to be managed with medication.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 22 November 2023 about damp and mould in the property which she said had been an issue since she originally moved in in 2014. She said that there were ongoing problems with leaks from the roof which she had reported a year ago and which it had not fixed.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 November 2023. It acknowledged there was a roofing repair open for the property which it had not completed and said it would contact its contractor for an update. It also said it would arrange a damp and mould inspection for the property.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 January 2024. She said she was unhappy the landlord had not provided her with details of when the roofing work would be completed and she wanted this resolved.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 28 March 2024. In this it:
    1. Acknowledged and apologised for its delay in responding to her complaint.
    2. Said that following her complaint in November 2023 it had repaired the roof and all works were now complete.
    3. Offered her £820 as compensation.
  6. The resident responded to the landlord on the same day and disputed it had completed all the repairs. On 18 November 2024 the landlord re-opened the complaint and issue a “revised” stage 2 as she disagreed with facts of its previous response.
  7. The landlord issued its revised stage 2 on 26 November 2024. In this it:
    1. Accepted that though repairs to the roof had taken place in February 2024 some repairs to the interior of the roof space had not been addressed.
    2. Outlined the additional repairs to the kitchen, hallway and bedrooms agreed from its damp and mould inspection on 5 December 2023 and accepted that there had been delays in starting these.
    3. Said it would monitor progress and carry out an inspection when it finished the repairs.
    4. Apologised for its handling of the repairs and offered the resident a further £1,260 separate to its previous offer (for a total of £2,080).
  8. The resident told this Service that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s revised stage 2 response following her escalating the complaint to us. She did not consider the compensation reflected the impact of its actions on her and her household and its repairs in November 2024 did not resolve the damp and mould which required further repairs to the kitchen.     

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident told this Service that there have been problems with damp and mould at the property since she first moved in in 2014. She provided us with a copy of a previous stage 2 response the landlord had issued on 22 July 2015 regarding repairs to address damp and mould. We have not seen evidence she made any further complaints about damp and mould between 22 July 2015 and 22 November 2023.
  2. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that it has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as this Service, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. Therefore, while the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint this investigation focuses on events from 23 November 2022 which was 12 months prior to the current complaint.
  3. The resident has also told us that since the completion of the further repairs to the kitchen in January 2025 damp and mould has returned in the bedrooms of the property. As this is a further issue occurring since the complaint referred to us, we cannot investigate it at this stage. The landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this. The resident will need to contact it and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved.  
  4. The resident told the landlord and this Service that the damp and mould in the property had caused 2 of her children to develop asthma and worsened the health conditions of her third child.
  5. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of independent medical reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This will be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation as the courts can make legally binding decisions. If the resident wishes to pursue the impact on her family’s health further, she should seek independent legal advice. Where there is evidence of a failing by the landlord, the Ombudsman will still consider distress and inconvenience caused from the landlord’s actions.
  6. As part of the complaint process the resident also told the landlord she wanted it to permanently move her and her family from the property as an outcome to her complaint. It advised her on 5 December 2024 that the majority of its properties are re-let to applications from the local authority which left it with extremely limited stock to let to internal residents. It advised her about the process for registering for a mutual exchange.
  7. We can understand the resident’s reasons for wanting to move. However, we would not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing, such as people facing homelessness or fleeing domestic violence. We have recommended that the landlord should continue to support the resident with her request to transfer from her current property and discuss her options with her, if it has not done so already.

Landlord’s handling of leaks, damp and mould and the associated repairs

  1. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
  2. It is our opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, throughout its handling of the repairs to address the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.
  3. The landlord’s repair policy confirms that for assured tenants it is responsible for completing repairs to:
    1. All roofing and rainwater goods including unblocking gutters.
    2. Condensation and mould.
    3. The full hot and cold water supply, including stopcocks and valves.
  4. On 28 December 2022 the landlord created a repair request to address a possible leak from the roof. The following day it updated this to a priority 1 (emergency) repair as the leak had become uncontrollable and had caused the loft to flood. Though it recorded that it attended the property on the same day, due to a lack of adequate records there is no evidence of what repairs, if any, were carried out. It only said it would refer the roofing repair to a contractor. This was a records management failing.
  5. The landlord raised a repair order on 29 December 2022 to carry out a mould wash across the property. This was carried out on 6 February 2023, 39 calendar days later. The landlord did not have a specific damp and mould policy until May 2023. However, its self-assessment in September 2022 against the Ombudsman’s damp and mould spotlight report said it aimed to carry out an assessment which included a clean and shield of mould within 5 calendar days of the report of damp and mould. It significantly exceeded this target.
  6. Following the damp and mould wash there was no record of any further action, until 24 April 2023 when the landlord raised a repair order to fix a hole in the roof that was causing leaks and water damage. From the available records there is no evidence of a further repair request being made by the resident, so it appears it raised this as a result of its attendance on 29 December 2022. Its self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s damp and mould spotlight report said it aimed to raise any repairs required to address damp and mould within 10 calendar days of its attendance. It took it 116 calendar days to raise the roofing repair which greatly exceeded its target.
  7. The landlord cancelled the repair order for the roofing repair, for an unknown reason, and re-raised it on 3 May 2023. From the available records there is no evidence that it took further action on the roofing repair until the resident’s complaint on 22 November 2023. She said in her emails with it that its contractor had inspected the loft on 12 September 2023 and told her it would send it a report. There is no record of any inspection on this date or any information by its contractor.
  8. From the available records there is no record that the landlord took further action on the repair until after the resident’s complaint on 22 November 2023. She said in her complaint the leaks from the roof had been ongoing for a year and there was damp and mould in the property. Its stage 1 response of 23 November 2023 acknowledged the roofing repair order was still open and apologised for the time taken to complete this. However, it did not provide an explanation for what had happened since the original repair request on 28 December 2022. In relation to the damp and mould it said it would arrange an inspection before 7 December 2023.
  9. The landlord originally attempted to attend for the damp and mould inspection on 28 November 2023 but the resident was not available to grant access as she was not given advanced notice of the planned inspection. This was not in accordance with its damp and mould policy which said it would give reasonable notice to residents.
  10. The landlord agreed an appointment with the resident to carry out the damp and mould inspection on 5 December 2023. Though both parties agree the inspection happened on this date, we have not seen a full copy of the inspection report. We have only been provided with a summary of its findings in relation to the roof and the loft space. This was a significant records management failing.
  11. The landlord’s damp and mould inspection of 5 December 2023 made the following observations in relation to the roofing repairs and the loft:
    1. The guttering required cleaning out and a water test.
    2. Ventilation tiles should be added to the front and back elevations of the roof.
    3. The rear felt within the loft space was damaged “in 3 or 4 places”.
    4. Work should be carried out to the loft hatch to add draughts excluders and insulation.
  12. The landlord created repair orders following the damp and mould inspection on 13 December 2023. This was in accordance with its damp and mould policy which said it would record and raise remedial work within 10 days of the assessment. The orders were for it to:
    1. Carry out a water mains test to establish if there was any leak from the water mains supply under the hallway. If a leak was identified it would lag and clean the pipework.
    2. Complete a CCTV drainage survey for the chamber in the living room and odour seal it.
    3. Replace trickle vents on windows of both bedrooms, install trickle vents to the kitchen window and reglaze a blown unit.
    4. Fit thermal boarding to the kitchen, add passive ventilation to both bedrooms and inspect the plasterwork behind the skirting boards in the hallway.
  13. The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 December 2023 to confirm it had approved the quote for the roofing repair. It also told her it had raised the repairs orders a. to c. (as set out in the paragraph above). It did not refer to the order d. items.
  14. The landlord recorded it completed the CCTV drainage survey on 15 January 2024, 33 calendar days after it raised the repair order. It also recorded it completed repairs to the windows of the property on 16 January 2024, 34 calendar days after it raised this repair order. These slightly exceeded the target in its repair policy, of completing routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days. However, in our view it did not exceed this target to such a degree that this was a failing.
  15. The landlord recorded it completed the roofing repair to fix the hole in the roof on 9 February 2024. From the available records the repair order had been varied following the damp and mould inspection to address the findings from about the guttering and ventilation tiles. However, the resident complained on 10 January 2024 that the contractor told her they had not received further instructions about adding ventilation tiles. The landlord recorded in its internal emails it asked its contractor to provide a further quote for this on 12 January 2024.
  16. In total it took the landlord approximately 13 months (407 calendar days) to carry out the repair to resolve the hole in the roof after it first identified this on 29 December 2022. This greatly exceeded its target from its repair policy. As part of its policy it also should have considered adjusting its service standards where a tenant is vulnerable and a delay in completing the repair may put them at risk. The resident informed it about her children’s health conditions as part of her initial complaint though there is no evidence it assessed if it should prioritise the repairs as a result. This was not consistent with its policy.  
  17. The resident had requested the landlord escalate her complaint on 8 January 2024 due to the lack of information about when it would repair the roof. Its stage 2 response of 28 March 2024 stated that she had raised her complaint about damp and mould on 22 November 2023. It said it had since repaired the roof and “all works are now complete”. It did not provide an explanation of the time taken to complete the roofing repair since she made the repair request on 28 December 2022. It offered her £820 as compensation, as it did not break down this amount further it is our understanding this was in recognition of the time taken to resolve the roofing repair.
  18. After the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 28 March 2024 the resident responded on the same day. She denied it had completed all the repairs from its damp and mould inspection and reported that there was severe damp and mould in the hallway of the property which it had not resolved. As set out previously her escalation request on 8 January 2024 referred solely to the repairs to the hole in the roof, which it repaired on 9 February 2024. Considering the delay in issuing the stage 2 response it may have been better if it had discussed the complaint with her again to establish whether there were any outstanding issues. Nevertheless, as the subject of her escalation request was specifically about the repair to the hole in the roof we have not seen that its response was inaccurate or that it did not address the complaint she asked it to escalate.
  19. In the landlord’s internal emails on 2 and 3 April 2024 it said:
    1. It had scheduled the plumbing work to assess if there was a leak from the water mains supply under the hallway for 18 April 2024.
    2. It had referred the repair order to fit thermal boarding to the kitchen, add passive ventilation to the bedrooms and inspect the plasterwork in the hallway to a contractor in December 2023. However, the contractor had since gone into liquidation and it would need to refer this to its minor works team.  
  20. On 3 April 2024 the landlord sent the resident a copy of the recommendations from its inspection on 5 December 2023. She responded on the same day to ask what was happening with the repairs for within the loft space and said the roofing contractor had only carried out repairs to the exterior of the roof. It informed the resident on 4 April 2024 that it had referred the work to the kitchen, bedrooms and hallway plasterwork to its minor works team. It did not respond to her query about the internal loft repairs. This was unreasonable, in line with its policy it should have told her how it was intending to respond to the identified repairs to the loft space.
  21. On 23 April 2024 the landlord created the repair order for its contractor to add thermal boarding to the kitchen, add passive ventilation to the bedrooms and inspect the plasterwork in the hallway. From the available records we have not seen an explanation of why it took 19 calendar days to raise this repair order after it told the resident it would do this.
  22. On 26 April 2024 the landlord recorded the completion of the repair order for the water mains test. It recorded it found a leaking water valve in the pipework under the hallway, which it renewed. There is no explanation why the repair did not take place on 18 April 2024, as it had originally scheduled. It took a total of 135 calendar days for this repair to be completed which significantly exceeded the target of 25 calendar days from its policy. Furthermore, as it had identified a possible leak from the water mains supply and the resident had reported severe damp and mould in the hallway it would have been reasonable for it to assess if it should prioritise this repair. It did not do this.
  23. In relation to the repairs to the kitchen, bedrooms and hallway plasterwork the landlord’s contractor said it contacted the resident by email on 28 June, 2 July and 3 July 2024 to arrange a date to begin the work but had not received a response from her. We have not seen copies of the emails referred to. The landlord contacted the resident to arrange the repairs. She replied on 5 July 2024 it had scheduled the repairs to the kitchen, hallway and bedrooms to begin on 17 July 2024 but that she had heard nothing further about the repairs to the loft space. There is no evidence it responded to her about these further repairs.
  24. The repairs were not carried out on 17 July 2024. The landlord’s contractor rescheduled the works to begin on 22 July 2024, however it cancelled this due to a vehicle breakdown. After this it rescheduled the works to begin on 26 July 2024 though there is also no evidence that any repairs took place. Though the vehicle breakdown was not within its control, the repeated changes to the appointments were not consistent with its policy to provide a reliable repairs service to residents.
  25. The landlord recorded internally on 29 August 2024 the repairs to the kitchen, bedrooms and hallway plasterwork were still outstanding and it would need to contact the resident again to arrange an appointment. It did not do this until 1 October 2024 and the delay in contacting her has not been explained. Following this it originally scheduled the repairs to take begin on 28 October 2024, but it changed this to 11 November 2024 on her request.
  26. The resident told the landlord and this Service the repairs took place over 3 days from 11 to 13 November 2024. As such it took approximately 11 months (336 calendar days) for it to carry out the repairs, which greatly exceeded the target of 25 calendar days from its policy. As with the roofing repair there is no evidence it considered adjusting its service standards due to the vulnerability of her children’s health conditions, which she had informed it of in her original complaint.
  27. The landlord reopened its complaint file on 18 November 2024 from the resident’s continuing dissatisfaction with the repairs, and as she had disputed the factual accuracy of its previous stage 2 response from 28 March 2024. In its internal emails on 21 November 2024 it noted it had not completed the internal roofing repairs to the rear felt and to insulate the loft hatch. It also said it would ask its contractor to investigate the poor workmanship she had provided photographs of.
  28. In its revised stage 2 response of 26 November 2024 the landlord told the resident:
    1. With the repairs to the kitchen, bedrooms and hallway plasterwork it had originally referred this to a contractor in December 2023 but they had ceased trading. After it re-raised the repair order on 23 April 2024 work had commenced “at the end of July 2024” and its contractor returned on 11 November 2024. It acknowledged she had raised concerns about the quality of the work in November 2024 and would arrange an inspection to assess if it had completed the repairs to a high standard.
    2. With the roofing repairs it accepted that, though it completed the external roofing works on 9 February 2024, it had not addressed the repairs to the internal loft space. It would inspect the rear roofing felt on 29 November 2024 and would refer the work to insulate the loft hatch to its contractor.
    3. It accepted it had neither managed the repairs nor communicated effectively with her. In line with its repair policy it should have taken account of the vulnerability of her children in terms of prioritising the repairs to the property, it acknowledged that it did not do this.
    4. It would offer her a further £1,260 in addition to the £820 offered from its previous stage 2 on 28 March 2024. This further offer comprised £960 for her distress and inconvenience and £300 for the time and effort to resolve the complaint and its complaint handling. Though she said the events had affected the health of her household it could not consider a financial remedy for this as part of its complaint process.
  29. In total, leaving aside the £300 for its complaint handling, the landlord offered the resident a total of £1,780 for the inconvenience and distress caused by its handling of the repairs since December 2022 across both of its stage 2 responses. In our view its offer was proportionate to put things right. There is evidence of a series of significant failings in this case in addressing the causes of the leaks, damp and mould which would have likely had a serious detrimental impact on her. However, compared to our guidance on remedies, its offer of £1,780 as compensation is consistent with what we would order for an impact of this nature. We also note it took its lack of a response about her children’s health conditions into account when making its offer of compensation. This was appropriate, as in line with our guidance on remedies this would be an example of an aggravating factor which would have understandably increased the emotional impact of the failings.
  30. The landlord’s stage 2 responses did not specify what action it would take to reduce the likelihood of similar issues in its handling of the repairs happening to another resident. However, the Ombudsman’s special investigation report in July 2023 into the landlord found it responsible for a series of significant systemic failings affecting residents, including in its handling of damp and mould cases, repairs and vulnerable residents. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including reviewing its vulnerable residents policy, its repair policy and addressing situations where it had failed to follow its repairs policy. The landlord responded to us in September 2024, describing how it had responded to the recommendations from the special investigation report and had made changes to its service. As the majority of events of the current complaint took place before and during the time of our special investigation, we have not made orders or recommendations in this case for the landlord to review its handling of the repairs in addition to those made in the special investigation report.
  31. We are aware the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the actions it agreed following the revised stage 2 response of 26 November 2024 and have considered these as part of our investigation. On 1 December 2024 she contacted it again and stated that she did not consider the total compensation reflected the level of distress caused. She said this was because it did not reflect her lost annual leave from waiting for repairs or her expenses from the kitchen being out of use between 11 to 13 November 2024. It agreed to reimburse her for £174.48 based on her expenses from the kitchen being unusable over 3 days but did not offer additional financial remedy for lost annual leave. In line with our guidance on remedies this decision was reasonable, we would not order a landlord to reimburse a resident for time off work or lost wages. As set out previously, we consider that the offer of compensation across both of its stage 2 responses was proportionate for the inconvenience caused.
  32. From the available records the landlord completed the repair to interior of the loft on 29 November 2024. The resident did not raise any further concern about this but told it on 14 January 2025 that she had not heard anything about the planned inspection for the work carried out on 11 to 13 November 2024. It arranged for this inspection to take place on 21 January 2025.
  33. On 6 February 2025 the resident complained to the landlord again. She stated:
    1. Following the inspection the landlord had agreed to redo some works in the kitchen which it had not completed to a satisfactory standard. It had scheduled this work to be completed between 29 to 31 January 2025.
    2. On the 29 January 2025 the operative from the landlord’s contractor attended with no tools. She said this delayed the start of the repairs and caused her inconvenience by them using some of her household items to carry out work.
    3. The operative was replaced on 30 January 2025. The resident confirmed she was happy with the standard of work completed but the contractor had needed to work beyond 5pm on 30 and 31 January 2025 to make up for the lost time. She said this was inconvenient and intrusive.
    4. She and her children did not have use of the kitchen and front room over the 3 days and she wanted reimbursement of her expenses from the kitchen being unusable.
  34. The landlord told the resident it did not consider this was a new complaint as it related to the work it had agreed to carry out from its revised stage 2 response of 26 November 2024. It said that though it would not be responding further it would reimburse her £156.55 for her further expenses from the kitchen being unusable over the 3 days. In our view this response was proportionate compared to our guidance on remedies. We recognise she would have experienced some further inconvenience or distress from the events on 29 to 31 January 2025. However, we do not consider the impact of these was so significant that it shows the previous offer of remedy from 28 November 2024 was no longer proportionate to put things right. It also agreed to reimburse her for her expenses from not being able to use the kitchen which was the outcome she specified that she was looking for. Taken together the landlord’s offer of reimbursement following the revised stage 2 totalled £331.03, which was in addition to the £1,780 it had previously offered for its handling of the repairs.
  35. In summary the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was a reasonable remedy to put right the complaint and the Ombudsman has not made any further orders.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. As set out previously, the resident made her initial complaint to the landlord on 23 November 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint on the same day. There is no record that it discussed the complaint with her before issuing its response to set out how it understood her complaint and the outcome she was seeking. In line with the principles of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) if the landlord considered it could agree action immediately to resolve the complaint it should have kept suitable records to demonstrate this. The version of the Code that was in place during the time of the events complained about was published on 9 March 2022.
  2. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 8 January 2024. She specified in her email that she was unhappy with the lack of details about when the landlord would repair the hole in the roof and the time taken to resolve this. She did not refer to the other repairs raised following the damp and mould inspection on 5 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on the same day, which was in accordance with the expectations of the Code.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 28 March 2024, 80 working days after the resident’s escalation request. It advised her in its acknowledgment that there would likely be a delay due to it having a large volume of cases. It apologised for the delay in its stage 2 response though did not take further action to put things right. The Code stated that landlords must respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of escalation. It allowed landlords to extend this response but said this must not exceed a further 10 days without good reason and any extension beyond 10 working days should be agreed by both parties. There is no evidence that it discussed or agreed the likely timescales for its stage 2 response with her. As such it significantly exceeded the timescales of the Code.
  4. The current Code since 1 April 2024 says that a complaints process with more than 2 stages is not acceptable under any circumstances, so as to not make the complaint process unduly long or delay access to the Ombudsman. It says the stage 2 response should be a landlord’s final response, it does not make specific provision in what circumstances a landlord may consider revising its offer of remedy from its stage 2 response.
  5. On 29 June 2024 the resident told the landlord that she had received the cheque for the financial remedy from the stage 2 response of 28 March 2024 but did not accept it. She said she did not consider it was appropriate for it to have closed the complaint when the repair issues were ongoing. When it re–opened the complaint on 18 November 2024 it was explicit that the purpose of this was to review its previous stage 2 decision as she had said it was factually inaccurate as the repairs were not complete. The 100 working day time period between her raising this concern and its decision to review its stage 2 response has not been explained. However, its decision to re-open her complaint was reasonable to put right the concerns that she had raised.
  6. In its revised stage 2 response it apologised that it had not addressed the resident’s concerns in its previous stage 2 of 28 March 2024 and it had been necessary to review this. It also acknowledged there had been failings in its communication with her and that it did not address her concerns in a timely manner. It apologised for these and offered her a total of £300 for poor complaint handling and her time and effort in getting the complaint resolved. In the Ombudsman’s view, compared to our guidance on remedies, the actions the landlord took were appropriate to put right the failings we have seen. As such we have made a finding of reasonable redress
  7. The landlord did not provide an explanation of what it would do to reduce the likelihood of similar complaint handling issues happening to another resident. However, the Ombudsman’s findings in the previously mentioned report on the landlord also found it responsible for a series of significant systemic failings in its complaint handling. The Ombudsman required it to make changes including reviewing its complaint handling performance to bring this in line with the expectations of the Code. Its response of September 2024 described how it had responded to the recommendations from the report and had made changes to its service. As the majority of events of the current complaint took place before and during the time of our special investigation, we have not made orders or recommendations for the landlord to review its complaint handling in addition to those made in the special investigation report.  

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, its handling of the leaks, damp and mould and the associated repairs satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves its handling of the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
    1. Pays the resident the £2,080 it previously offered across both of its stage 2 responses, as well as the £331.03 for the reimbursement of her expenses, if it has not already done so.
    2. Contacts the resident to discuss her options for moving from the property permanently and assess if there is any further support or advice it can provide her with.