Longhurst Group Limited (202347088)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347088

Longhurst Group Limited

16 October 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. reports of damp, mould and the repair of the kitchen cupboards within her property.
2. associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a 3 bedroom house. The resident has advised the landlord that she has multiple sclerosis and asthma.
On 25 January 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that there had been reoccurrences of damp and mould in the bedroom at the back of her property. She explained that the ceiling and walls were very damp and dripped with water. She also advised that damp and mould had began to form in the bathroom.
The landlord instructed a surveyor to inspect the resident’s property on 15 February 2023. The surveyor advised the resident that the insulation in her loft needed to be pushed sufficiently into the eaves space of the loft, which would assist in limiting damp and mould growth in the rooms below. The surveyor’s recommendations also included:
1. installation of new environmental vents in the kitchen and bathroom, that detected moisture in the air and turned on automatically.
2. replastering of the bathroom ceiling due to the presence of damp and mould.
On 3 October 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that her kitchen cupboard doors needed repairing as they were loose. On 1 November 2023, the landlord instructed another surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. Additional recommendations were made, which included carrying out a mould wash in the bedroom at the back of the property. Subsequently, the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 3 January 2024, to relay the insulation in the loft and clear the guttering.
On 5 January 2024, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She expressed her frustration with the way the landlord handled repairs, as she was forced to constantly follow up on matters to get them resolved. She advised the landlord that she had recently lost her parents, therefore, she was in no fit state to continue chasing up outstanding repairs. The resident summarised the events that had taken place since her initial report to the landlord on 25 January 2023, and stated that her property had been suffering with damp and mould since she moved into the property in 2016. She also complained that she had made several reports about a leak in the downstairs toilet of her property. However, on each occasion she was told by the landlord’s contractors that the toilet could not be repaired, and she was given plumbers tape as a temporary solution. The resident acknowledged that the repair of her toilet had since been completed but asked the landlord why it had taken so long to resolve.
Finally, she highlighted that the landlord continuously cancelled the damp and mould repair appointments and cancelled the appointments to fix her kitchen cupboard doors. She asked the landlord to get to the root cause of the damp and mould within her property, complete all outstanding repairs, and for it to communicate with her better.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 15 January 2024. It acknowledged its poor communication and accepted that the resident was forced to repeatedly follow up on the progress of works. It advised the resident that her kitchen cupboard doors would be repaired on 19 January 2024. The landlord stated that it would appoint a member of its customer care team to monitor all upcoming appointments and contact the resident after each appointment to ensure the repairs were completed. It also offered the resident the following compensation:
1. £30 for the cancellation of appointments at short notice.
2. £50 for its lack of communication and updates.
3. £25 for repairs repeatedly being rescheduled.
4. £100 for the delay of repairs.
5. £150 for the impact and inconvenience caused to the resident.
On 16 January 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. She stated that the landlord’s actions were having an effect on her health and submitted a medical letter alongside her complaint to support her claim. She also complained that the drainage system for surface rainwater was too close to her property, that her property had no water testing feature, and that the area around her property had no damp proof materials to prevent dampness from occurring.
The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 19 January 2024, to complete the repair of the resident’s kitchen cupboard doors. Following this, on 30 January 2024, the resident and her housing officer discussed the condition of her property and potential rehousing options. Between 6 February 2024 and 15 May 2024, the landlord carried out a mould wash in the resident’s dining room, bathroom and bedroom. It also arranged two further inspections of the resident’s property in regards to the reported damp and mould, and it carried out an asbestos management survey.
On 17 May 2024, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It apologised for its delay to respond to her complaint and admitted that it was responsible for several service failures. It acknowledged that given the resident’s health, it should have completed all works within its agreed timeframes. It advised the resident that it was learning from its complaints and would implement a new process to ensure a streamlined approach when handling repairs. The landlord outlined the outstanding works required, including the replacement of the resident’s flooring once all works had been completed. It also revised its previous offer of compensation and offered the resident:
1. £355 as set out in its stage 1 complaint response.
2. £150 for its delay to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
3. £150 for damage caused to the resident’s wallpaper and flooring as a result of unaddressed damp and mould.
4. £400 for the delay to complete outstanding repairs.
5. £750 for the stress and anxiety caused to the resident.
The resident contacted this service on 5 August 2024 to ask for her complaint to be investigated. She told us that she was unclear as to what works had been completed by the landlord and what remained outstanding, and that she felt as though the landlord had failed to get to the root cause of the damp and mould issue within her property.
On 9 August 2024, the landlord offered the resident an additional £500 compensation, in recognition of the ongoing delay to complete the outstanding repairs.

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated that her property has had reoccurring instances of damp and mould since she moved into the property in 2016. The Ombudsman does not doubt that the resident may have been experiencing issues of damp and mould within her property since 2016. However, what we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, which is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). In accordance with paragraph 42 (c) of the Scheme, we will not consider matters that were not brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. This is because residents are encouraged to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner so that the landlord and the Ombudsman has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion of the events that occurred. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the events that occurred from 25 January 2023 onwards. This is where records indicate the beginning of events leading up to the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord.
As part of her complaint, the resident has said that the landlord’s failure to resolve the damp and mould within her property has had a detrimental affect on her physical and mental health. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health and those with respiratory conditions such as asthma are particularly at risk. The Ombudsman can consider the impact of this general risk, however we will not draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, specific impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters such as these are better suited to a court to decide as the courts have different powers to the Ombudsman. The courts can call on medical expert witnesses and award damages in a different way to the Ombudsman. We have, however, considered any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of any errors by the landlord, as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

Assessment and findings

Legal and Policy Framework

The Equality Act 2010 provides legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals and to advance equality of opportunity for all. The landlord would be required to comply with the provisions for public bodies under the Act. Under the Act the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter, in comparison with persons who are not disabled. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act as this would be a legal matter which would be better suited to a court to decide. However, we can consider whether the landlord has shown it considered its obligations under the Equality Act in its handling of the resident’s concerns.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of its properties in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that works related to damp and mould treatment or works related to kitchen units and worktops, are treated as appointed routine repairs. The landlord should respond to these within 28 calendar days. The policy further states that the landlord is responsible for installing extractor fans as needed.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for financial payments of redress where service failure has been determined. It will make awards of £600 and over for cases where there has been severe maladministration that has had a severe long-term impact on the complainant.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and the repair of her kitchen cupboards within her property.

The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge that the resident has experienced distress and inconvenience over a lengthy period of time, while living with damp and mould. We recognise how upsetting and uncomfortable it must have been to live in a house with high levels of humidity and poor ventilation. This would have been particularly challenging for an individual with asthma.
This service’s spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould, published in October 2021, confirms that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. The report states that landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach; be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about the actions it is planning to take. Where inspections result in recommended works to tackle condensation, damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner. Any deviations from the recommendations should be clearly documented and explained to the resident.
The landlord’s repairs records show that the resident raised her concerns of damp and mould within her property on 25 January 2023, and 21 days later, the landlord instructed a surveyor to assess the extent of the problem. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, the resident’s report was considered as an appointed routine repair and was therefore attended to in line with the landlord’s repairs policy timescales. This was an appropriate response by the landlord.
However, the landlord has failed to provide us with internal records outlining its surveyor’s assessment of the damp and mould within the resident’s property. There are also no records to evidence the next steps the landlord intended to take to address the identified issues. Instead, we have had to rely on information from the resident’s stage one complaint, for a breakdown of the works its surveyor recommended following inspection of the resident’s property. The importance of clear record keeping and management cannot be over emphasised, given the impact it has on a landlord’s effective overall service provision. The failure to create and record information accurately, results in a landlord not taking appropriate and timely action to address reported issues. The landlord’s poor record keeping at this stage suggests that it did not have the resident’s case under control, and in turn, any recommended works to address the damp and mould within her property, were overlooked. This constitutes a service failure by the landlord, and understandably in her stage one complaint, the resident expressed that she felt as though the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s communication throughout the handling of the resident’s case was consistently poor, and on several occasions the resident was left to contact the landlord herself for up to date information. What is especially concerning, is evidence of a 8 month gap between 15 February 2023 and 20 October 2023, where the landlord failed to provide any updates to the resident at all. This was in despite of an email sent by the resident to the landlord on 31 March 2023, expressing her distress with the damp and mould getting worse. Given a landlord’s obligations, the burden of following up on the progress of works should not fall upon the resident. Landlords should have processes in place that ensure residents are provided with regular updates, accurate completion dates, and where possible, an allocated staff member to keep residents reasonably informed. As a consequence of the landlord’s poor communication, the evidence indicates that over the course of 16 months, the resident took significant time and trouble to try and progress outstanding repairs. This is not reflective of the urgent and zero-tolerance approach expected of landlords when tackling issues of damp and mould, as highlighted above from our spotlight report.
Although the landlord’s records show that it identified several factors potentially causing the damp and mould within the resident’s property, the works to rectify this were severely protracted. During the inspection on 15 February 2023, its surveyor found that the extractor fans in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom needed to be replaced. The landlord’s records confirm similar findings in subsequent visits to the resident’s property on 19 December 2023, 30 January 2024, 8 February 2024, and 9 May 2024. However, despite the repeated recommendations, the evidence shows that only the extractor fan in the bathroom was replaced on 26 June 2024. This was 16 months after the initial recommendation, and the time taken to carry out this work, falls considerably outside the timescales mentioned in the landlord’s repairs policy. It is unclear from the evidence whether the landlord has replaced the extractor fan in the kitchen, as although the landlord’s records state it was upgraded on 28 February 2024, the inspection carried out on 9 May 2024, stated that the fan was poor performing and needed to be replaced. The resident has also advised this service that the replacement of the extractor fan in the kitchen remains outstanding. Overall, the delay to replace the extractor fan in the resident’s bathroom and the lack of clarity over the replacement of the extractor fan in the resident’s kitchen, demonstrates poor record keeping and ineffective repairs management by the landlord. The Ombudsman notes that these failings have caused the resident considerable distress and uncertainty, as she was left faced with the issue of damp and mould within her property, not knowing when works would take place to resolve it.
Similarly, the evidence shows that, during the inspection on 15 February 2023, the landlord’s surveyor recommended that the insulation in the resident’s loft needed to be pushed sufficiently into the eaves space. The landlord’s records confirm similar advice in a subsequent inspection carried out on 1 November 2023. However, the landlord relayed the loft insulation in the resident’s property on 3 January 2024, which was almost a year after it was initially highlighted, and far in excess of the landlord’s repairs timescales, for all categories of repairs. The evidence shows that the landlord consistently failed to manage the resident’s expectations. It carried out various inspections and booked dates for when work would take place, only for those commitments not to be met.
Additionally, the landlord’s records show that during inspections carried out on 15 February 2023, 8 February 2024 and 9 May 2024, recommendations were made for the resident’s bathroom ceiling to be replastered. The evidence confirms that this repair was completed on 17 July 2024, which was 17 months after the initial recommendation. While the Ombudsman notes that 3 months of the delay can be attributed to the requirement of an asbestos survey, there was a period of 12 months following the first inspection, where the landlord failed to act on the recommendations that were made, with no explanation given to the resident as to why. In addition, the evidence shows that it took a further 2 months after the asbestos survey had been completed, for the landlord to replaster the resident’s bathroom ceiling. The Ombudsman finds these delays unacceptable and acknowledges that this would have increased the level of worry, distress and inconvenience the resident had been experiencing throughout the landlord’s handling of her reports.
It is of concern to this service that landlord did not take into consideration the resident’s vulnerability throughout its response to her reports of damp and mould within her property. The evidence shows that the resident repeatedly advised the landlord in numerous correspondences that her property was damp, mouldy and unsuitable for her health, but the landlord failed to take this into account. In the first instance, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have carried out a health and safety risk assessment of the resident’s situation, to identify whether any reasonable adjustments needed to be made, in adherence with its duties under the Equality Act 2010. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident’s housing officer discussed rehousing options with her, this consideration came 12 months after the resident’s initial report of damp and mould within her property. This is a significant failing on the landlord’s part, and the resident has expressed to us that due to the length of time the landlord had failed to address the damp and mould within her property, she felt the landlord’s offer to rehouse her would only cause more disruption.
That said, the Ombudsman must highlight that the landlord did complete some works to address the damp and mould within the resident’s property. The evidence shows that it carried out a mould wash in the bedroom, dining room and bathroom. It also cleared the guttering. This was a positive response by the landlord, and we will take this into consideration when making a determination on this case.
Regarding the resident’s kitchen cupboard doors, the evidence shows that on 3 October 2023, she reported to the landlord that the doors were loose, and 3 months later, its contractor completed the repair. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, it was obligated to repair the resident’s kitchen cupboard doors within 28 calendar days. However, the evidence indicates that due to repeated appointment cancellations by the landlord, it failed to adhere to its repairs timescales, which constitutes a service failure.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that during its complaints process, the landlord apologised for the failings it had identified, and advised the resident that it had implemented a new process to handle repairs better. Additionally, during its complaints process it offered the resident £1655 compensation for its failures relating to repairs, and £150 for complaint handling. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
There is some evidence of the landlord acting fairly as it upheld the resident’s complaint at both stages of its complaints process. Additionally, the compensation offered by the landlord, fell within its award scale for severe maladministration. This demonstrates that the landlord attempted to acknowledge the impact its failures had on the resident. The compensation the landlord offered was reasonable as a resolution to the issues up until it issued its final response to the complaint. However, the evidence highlights that at the conclusion of its complaints process, various works to address the damp and mould within the resident’s property, remained outstanding. Therefore, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the compensation offered by the landlord goes far enough to put things right for the resident.
The resident has also reported to us that she is still unclear of the root cause of the damp and mould within her property, and she is unsure of what works have and have not been completed. As such, the landlord has also failed to demonstrate that it has fully identified what steps it should take to avoid further delays and poor communication with the resident, from occurring in the future.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s additional offer of £500 compensation after the conclusion of its complaints process. This was a reasonable response to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its ongoing delay to complete outstanding repairs. However, the Ombudsman must also take into account that some repairs remain outstanding, therefore the landlord’s offer of compensation has not fully resolving the issues for the resident.
Overall, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it complied with its own policies and procedures throughout the investigation of this case. Although it has offered compensation, its protracted delay to carry out repairs in a household with a vulnerable resident, and its failure to demonstrate it behaved competently throughout the handling of the resident’s concerns, has therefore led the Ombudsman to make a determination of severe maladministration.
We will make an order for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss the outcome of the damp and proof survey carried out on 9 May 2024. The landlord should also discuss with the resident, the outcome of any other damp and mould inspections carried out since 5 August 2024 (which was when the resident’s complaint was referred to this service). The landlord should follow this discussion up in writing with the resident, outlining what works it will carry out following the recommendations made by its surveyors. This should include the dates it will carry out these works. It should also clearly set out reasons for any works it will not undertake.
The landlord should review the recommendations identified in its previous inspection of the resident’s property on 8 February 2024. It should write to the resident and set out what works it has already carried out, the dates of any works it intends to undertake, and the reasons for any works it will not undertake.
The landlord should also create an action plan to resolve the damp and mould within the resident’s property, if this has not been fully addressed. This plan should be shared with the resident and it should include a single point of contact to keep the resident informed every 2 weeks on the progress of works until completion.
Regarding compensation, the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which is published on our website, sets out our service’s approach when seeking to resolve a dispute. Where there has been a determination of severe maladministration which has had a significant long-term impact on the resident, the guidance states that landlords should offer residents a financial remedy of £1000 or over, in order to put things right. In view of this, the landlord’s offer of £1655 compensation, which it assigned to its failures relating to repairs during its complaints process, and its additional offer of £500 after its complaints process, was in line with this service’s own remedies guidance. The landlord has offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings. Its offer of compensation was in line with what the Ombudsman would have ordered the landlord to pay if it had not made an offer. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident its earlier offer of £1655 compensation which it offered during its complaints process, if it has not done so already. It should also pay the resident the additional £500 compensation which it offered after its complaints process, if it has not done so already.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint.

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which is published on our website, sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaints handling practices. It sets out the importance of a fair complaints handling process, which includes the expectation for landlords to address all points raised in a complaint, providing clear reasons for any decisions made.
The landlord’s complaints policy (effective February 2023) states that it will aim to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The evidence shows that the resident raised her complaint on 5 January 2024, and the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response 6 working days later. While the landlord responded promptly, its stage 1 complaint response failed to address several aspects of the resident’s complaint. The resident mentioned that the stress of trying to resolve the outstanding repairs was having an effect on her health, and due to the loss of her parents, the overall impact on her was significant. The landlord should have taken the opportunity within its response, to empathise with the resident, and it should have provided an explanation as to why it failed to communicate with her for 8 months. Following this it should have set out how it intended to support the resident while dealing with the damp and mould, particularly because of her health conditions.
Additionally, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have addressed the resident’s claim that her property had been suffering from damp and mould since 2016. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have reviewed its repairs records over the 12 months prior to the resident’s initial report of damp and mould within her property. This would have provided it with a good understanding of the history of the property and would have demonstrated to the resident that it was taking a holistic approach in its investigations.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response also failed to address the resident’s comments relating to the leak in her downstairs toilet. Additionally, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response failed to address the resident’s concerns relating to the drainage system near her property, the water testing feature, and the area around her property not having damp proof materials. The complaints process should be used as a tool for reflection and learning to help resolve resident disputes at the earliest opportunity. Landlords must ensure that responses provided to residents are specific and tailored to their questions rather than responding with standard content. Generic responses make residents feel they are not being listened to, which is something the complaints process is intended to address. The landlord’s complaint responses at both stage 1 and 2 of its complaints process, did not comply with these principles.
The resident raised her stage 2 complaint with the landlord on 16 January 2024, and 4 months later the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. This was an unreasonable delay for which the landlord has not provided an explanation. That said, the Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord’s offer of £150 compensation for its delay to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint, which demonstrates that it took accountability for this failing.
In conclusion, the landlord’s failure to address the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints in full, amounts to maladministration. This is because in accordance with the Code, it is essential that landlords provide residents with comprehensive responses to their complaints. The landlord’s failure to do this undoubtedly caused further breakdown of the landlord and tenant relationship, which would have aggravated the overall detriment experienced by the resident. Based on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord should pay the resident £300 compensation to address the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident due to its handling of her complaint. This amount replaces the landlord’s earlier offer of £150 and the earlier offer can be deducted from the total compensation if it has already been paid.
The Ombudsman will also make an order for the landlord to review the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints. The landlord should issue the resident with a revised complaint response that addresses all of the points it failed to address. Its response should include:
1. how it will consider the resident’s health conditions while it continues to address the damp and mould within her property.
2. a brief assessment of any reports the resident made relating to damp and mould between 25 January 2022 until 25 January 2023.
3. its comments on the handling of the repair to the leak in her downstairs toilet.
4. its comments on the drainage system, water testing feature and damp-proof materials externally.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and the repair of the kitchen cupboards within her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation. The apology should be made by a Senior member of staff at director level or above. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available to view on our website.
2. Pay the resident the following compensation:
  1. £1655 which it offered during its complaints process, if it has not done so already;
  2. £500 which it offered after its complaints process, if it has not done so already;
  3. £300 in recognition of its poor complaint handling. This amount replaces the landlord’s earlier offer of £150 and the earlier offer can be deducted from the total compensation if it has already been paid.
3. Contact the resident to discuss the outcome of the damp and proof survey carried out on 9 May 2024. It should also discuss the outcome of any other damp and mould inspections carried out since 5 August 2024 (which was when the resident’s complaint was referred to this service).
4. The landlord should follow this discussion up in writing with the resident, outlining what works it will carry out following the recommendations made by its surveyors. This should include the dates it will carry out these works. It should also clearly set out reasons for any works it will not undertake.
5. The landlord should review the recommendations identified in its previous inspection of the resident’s property on 8 February 2024. It should write to the resident and set out what works it has already carried out, the dates of any works it intends to undertake, and the reasons for any works it will not undertake.
6. Create an action plan to resolve the damp and mould within the resident’s property, if this has not been fully addressed. This plan should include a single point of contact to keep the resident informed every 2 weeks on the progress of works until completion.
7. Review the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints. The landlord should issue the resident with a revised complaint response that addresses all of the points it failed to address. Its response should include:
  1. how it will consider the resident’s health conditions while it continues to address the damp and mould within her property.
  2. a brief assessment of any reports the resident made relating to damp and mould between 25 January 2022 until 25 January 2023.
  3. its comments on the handling of the repair to the leak in her downstairs toilet.
  4. its comments on the drainage system, water testing feature and damp proof materials externally.
The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance of the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.