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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202326292)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326292

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

29 November 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

  1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. Damage caused to the resident’s possessions.
    3. The resident’s reports of items having been removed from the property without her consent.
    4. The resident’s request to be moved via a management transfer.
    5. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom flat situated on the top floor of a mid-rise block. The tenancy started on 6 January 2020. The resident lives at the property with her 4 children, including a newborn born in 2024 after she had made her complaint. The landlord has stated it has no vulnerabilities noted for the resident. The resident has explained that she has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and her eldest child is autistic.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 28 November 2022 asking it to start the process to claim compensation for damage caused by mould to her possessions. This was in relation to a leak which had left her with no working boiler or hot water. The resident sent a number of further emails to the landlord in December and January 2023 to inform it that the mould in the property was spreading to a number of rooms. In her email of 8 January 2023, she linked the mould to chesty coughs which she and her children had been experiencing for a number of weeks. She asked the landlord to move her as she considered it was putting her at risk.
  3. The landlord replied on 9 January 2023 to explain that it would arrange for the mould to be cleaned off as soon as possible. It then raised a repair. The landlord’s records show that its contractor attempted to contact and attend to the property a number of times between 10 January 2023 to 18 April 2023 but was unable to gain access. As a result, the contractor closed down the repair.
  4. Following further communication including from the resident’s housing officer, the repair was re-opened in September 2023. A surveyor acting on behalf of the landlord attended the property on 19 October 2023 and set up a schedule of works needed. This required the resident to be decanted from November to December 2023 into a hotel. The resident returned to the property just before Christmas 2023 and contacted the landlord to raise concerns with the work carried out as well as the disposal of a number of her personal possessions. The resident asked the landlord to compensate her for the losses so that she could order replacement furniture and possessions for the property. The landlord’s surveyor scheduled an appointment to inspect the work on 11 January 2024. The appointment took place on 1 March 2024.    
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on the same day (1 March 2024). It stated the resident had initially contacted it about the damp and mould on 8 January 2023 and it had responded the following day. It confirmed that the contractor would carry out remedial work to address the issues that the surveyor had noted when they inspected the property on 1 March 2024. A list of the works was set out in the landlord’s response. It also offered the resident compensation of £1,150 which comprised:
    1. £250 for the poor work carried out by its contractor in December 2023.
    2. £150 for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
    3. £250 for the delay taken in raising the resident’s formal complaint and in providing the stage 1 response.
    4. £500 as a gesture of goodwill for the resident’s missing items. It also agreed to purchase a tumble dryer as the resident’s dryer had been disposed when the property had been cleared prior to the work taking place.
  6. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 8 March 2024. She explained she had been unhappy with the lack of updates and that the landlord’s offer was insufficient for her to purchase furniture, clothes, and the items she said had been stolen by contractors. In addition to requesting a significantly larger compensation offer, the resident asked the landlord to move her to a safe property. She also questioned the start date used by the landlord for her reporting of damp and mould. She explained that the landlord had left her with no hot water and heating in November 2022 for an extended period. She stated the damp and mould had commenced due to this.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 31 May 2024. This followed on from the resident sending it a large number of emails and explaining that she wanted to be moved to a 3-bedroom property. The landlord offered increased compensation of £1,800 which comprised:
    1. £250 for the poor work carried out by the contractor in December 2023.
    2. £300 for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
    3. £500 for complaints handling.
    4. £750 as a gesture of goodwill towards the resident purchasing any missing items.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 response explained:
    1. While the resident had stated the lack of hot water and heating had led to the damp and mould, this issue had previously been investigated and dealt with by it under a different complaint. Therefore, it had not addressed this as part of the current complaint.
    2. A number of appointments in early 2023 had been cancelled at the resident’s request. It understood the resident had been away from home for periods and this had contributed to the delay taken by it in completing the damp and mould works.
    3. Its stage 1 response had not addressed the delay from the time it initially appointed the contractor up to the time the work was completed by it.
    4. Personal items damaged as a result of the repair were not covered under its repairs policy. It said the resident should have made a claim through her home contents insurer. However, in the event the resident did not have contents insurance, she could ask its insurance team to send her a claim form so that she could make a claim through this route.
    5. With regard to the items disposed of when work had been carried out on the property, it confirmed that the resident had notified it of the items to be disposed of by marking or ‘tagging them. It had confirmed with the cleaning contactor, which stated it had not removed anything which had not been marked.
    6. Upon her return to the property, the resident’s social worker had assisted her in purchasing new bedding and mattresses. The landlord had assisted in purchasing new white goods. It added the resident might also be able to apply for assistance from the local authority’s household support fund.
    7. It understood the resident had submitted medical information in order for a transfer request to be processed. The landlord confirmed that it was unable to offer the resident a direct offer or a management transfer. It instead had directed her to alternative options, including a mutual exchange, to allow her to move.
  9. The resident did not accept the landlord’s offer of compensation. She confirmed to it on 1 June 2024 that she was unhappy as it appeared it had done nothing since the stage 1 response and had delayed in issuing the stage 2 response. She subsequently referred the matter to the Ombudsman.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The resident has continued to communicate with the landlord since the end of the complaints process in relation to the repairs required at the property. She explained that the landlord and its contractors did not complete the works satisfactorily. This included the vinyl flooring in the bathroom which was not put down as a single sheet/layer. She added that despite agreeing times and dates with the landlord for the contractor to carry out the work, it had still not been carried out by November 2024. She said this was due to cancelled appointments as well as the contractor turning up to do different work to what the resident understood was to be carried out. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told this Service that she raised concerns about the damp and mould in the property before 8 January 2023, which is the date the landlord first documented the issue. She stated that the damp and mould was caused by a lack of heating and hot water, as a result of her not having a working boiler. The landlord has stated that it previously considered the issue of the lack of heating under a separate complaint made by the resident, and therefore did not include it as part of the current complaint. Since the landlord’s records show the issue of mould had been mentioned in the resident’s email to it of 28 November 2022, the investigation has considered the events from that point on.
  2. The resident has continued to liaise with the landlord regarding ongoing repairs. These repairs, with the exception of the vinyl in the bathroom, relate to issues which were not part of the resident’s original complaint. Therefore, as they may not have been considered as part of the landlord’s internal complaints process, these events do not form part of this investigation. The Ombudsman has, however, made a recommendation at the end of this report in relation to the resident’s ongoing concerns.

The landlord’s obligations

  1. The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
  2. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy.
  3. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are potential hazards, and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  4. The tenancy agreement states the resident is responsible for keeping the interior of the property in a proper state of decoration.
  5. The landlord’s repairs policy states that its target response time is 24 hours for emergency repairs and 20 working days for routine repairs.
  6. The landlord’s decant policy states that it will aim to carry out improvement works and major repairs while a resident remains in their home. It will make decisions about decants on a case-by-case basis and will consider a residents health, safety and wellbeing, any vulnerabilities, and moving arrangements before proceeding with the decant process.

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

  1. The landlord completed a self-assessment in February 2023 against the recommendations in the Housing Ombudsman Service’s 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould. The assessment confirmed that it has a new residentled approach to management of damp and mould cases. As part of this it has made several commitments, including:
    1. It will provide clear and concise guidance aimed at identifying what could be causing the problem and “what steps will be taken to rectify this”.
    2. It will visit every resident who has raised concerns about damp and mould to “inspect and understand the issue within 10 days of reporting”.
    3. It will “proactively follow up to ensure works have been completed”.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 28 November 2022 to explain that there was mould which had damaged a large part of the property. This was in respect of the resident’s complaint about the lack of heating, due to a breakdown to the boiler and a leak from the water cylinder situated on the roof of the property. She then continued to exchange emails with the landlord about the damp in the property in December 2022. She also requested the landlord moved her to another property, stating it had moved her to this property due to the repairs at her previous property. The landlord explained that it had been chasing its heating contractor about the lack of heating and that it would set up a formal complaint about the heating. In terms of offering a permanent move to a 3-bedroom property, the landlord stated this was not possible as the issue was “fixable”. Instead, it was looking at moving the resident temporarily to a hotel until the repairs to the boiler were completed. It added that any transfer application would be subject to her to completing the appropriate forms and it assessing her housing needs and providing her with a banding.
  3. The landlord initially acted appropriately on being made aware of the damp by the resident. It had resolved the leak and explained that it needed to wait for the damp to dry out before it could complete repairs. However, the situation was compounded as the resident had no heating for an extended period due to her boiler not working. While the landlord had offered the resident temporary heaters for the time that it was chasing up about the boiler, there is no indication it offered the resident dehumidifiers to extract the moisture and to stop the spreading of mould. This was a missed opportunity that may have prevented or reduced further damage.
  4. The landlord instructed a contractor on 9 January 2023 to attend to determine the repairs needed. The contractor attempted to contact the resident several times and eventually closed the repair because it was unable to gain access to the property. The landlord has provided no evidence to this Service that the contractor explored alternatives means of contacting the resident. On the first 3 occasions in January 2023, the contractor did not speak to the resident but stated it had left a message. On another occasion, after booking in a visit on 7 February 2023, this was cancelled due to the resident becoming unwell. It is clear the resident was in regular email communication with the landlord over the damp and mould and the impact this was having on her. However, despite this, the repair was closed down. The landlord has not provided any evidence to this Service that, following the contractor closing down the repair, it communicated this to the resident. This was not appropriate and was a failing by the landlord. The landlord would have been aware that the damp and mould was unresolved, but took no further steps to progress the repairs. 
  5. Although the landlord explained it picked up the repairs following the resident’s communication in September 2023, its approach was contrary to this Service’s spotlight report. This required landlords to take a pro-active, zero tolerance approach to damp and mould, ensuring that their responses to damp and mould were timely and reflected the urgency of the issue.
  6. Following the landlord picking up the repairs on 13 September 2023, it attempted to arrange for a contractor to attend the property. Due to cancellations by both the contractor and the resident, this appointment was scheduled for 3 October 2023 but was then closed by the contractor as it was unable to gain access. The landlord’s approach at this time was not appropriate. Given the length of time that had passed since the landlord inspected the damp and mould, it would have been reasonable for it to schedule another inspection rather than book in repairs with its contractor. Though it subsequently did this on 19 October 2023, this followed on from the resident and her social worker specifically requesting an inspection. It was not clear whether the landlord would have arranged a further inspection if they had not requested it.
  7. The landlord’s surveyor drew up a schedule of works following the inspection on 19 October 2023. The landlord then agreed to decant the resident while the works were carried out by a different contractor to the one which had initially tried to contact her between January and April 2023. The decant was scheduled to be for 2 weeks from 20 November 2023. However, the decant was extended by the landlord until 22 December 2023. This was because, when the contractor had attended on 22 November 2023, the property had not been cleaned or cleared of damaged goods. The landlord confirmed that cleaning had been scheduled to take place between 24 and 27 November 2023. It asked the contractor whether it could now start work at the end of the month (28 to 29 November 2023). The contractor moved the start date proposed back by a further day, on the understanding that the property would be ready by then.
  8. When dealing with the decant, the landlord asked the contractor how much time it needed to carry out the work and how much leadin time it required beforehand. It made the contractor aware that it could only decant the resident for a maximum of 2 weeks and that she would need to return to the property by 4 December 2023. The contractor explained that it required 10 days leadin time. The landlord’s reluctance to change the resident’s return date impacted on the amount of work that the contractor could complete in the time the property was clear. The landlord had asked the contractor to do only the works which involved chemicals while the resident was decanted and advised that other works could be carried out with the resident in situ. Given that the resident had 3 young children, including 1 with vulnerabilities known to the landlord, this was not reasonable.
  9. Although the landlord did eventually extend the decant by over 2 weeks, this was in response to the contractor explaining that the repairs had not been fully completed and that the electrical test at the property had failed, and so further work was required. The landlord had also asked it to look at the resident’s shower. The contractor confirmed that the works were completed on 13 December 2023. This was 9 days before the resident’s decant was due to end. Despite this, when the resident returned to the property it was missing items of furniture such as beds and some white goods. While the landlord had informed the resident on 7 December 2023 that furniture would be ordered by it, the resident wanted to order her own furniture to replace those damaged by the mould. This was reasonable.
  10. Following an enquiry from the resident, the landlord informed her on 13 December 2023 that she could have a bed frame from a specified retailer, but that it was unable to order it. It said she would need to pay for it upfront and it would reimburse her. In response to this, the resident explained she would accept the mattresses the landlord would provide, and once she had received her compensation for the damaged goods, she would purchase her own items including bed frames. The landlord stated it had misunderstood that the resident would be staying with her partner’s family over Christmas and would not be at the property. However, irrespective of the resident’s arrangements, it should not have ended the decant when there was insufficient furniture in the property, especially as the resident was pregnant and had 3 other children. Two of her children were under 3 years old at the time
  11. After returning to the property, the resident raised a number of concerns with the repairs that had been carried out. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging for its surveyor to inspect the work together with the contractor. The inspection was initially booked for 11 January 2024. As the resident had returned to the property just before Christmas, while she had sent the landlord a number of emails, it did not respond until 8 January 2024 when it contacted the surveyor. Although the landlord would have delivered a limited service over the festive period, it was aware of when the resident was due to return to the property and her circumstances. It therefore would have been appropriate for it to check she was satisfied with the work before Christmas. This was a missed opportunity by it.
  12. The post inspection was rearranged a few times in January 2024. The resident explained on 11 January 2024 that she could not make the afternoon appointment and asked if it could be rearranged for the morning. The landlord explained it was unable to change it at short notice and it was rescheduled for 16 January 2024. As the inspection also involved the contractor, this was reasonable. However, the landlord has not provided this Service with any explanation as to why the inspection was rescheduled from 16 January 2024 to 25 January 2024, and then subsequently moved to 1 March 2024. Given that the purpose of the inspection was to identify the remedial works that were needed, this delay of just under 2 months was not appropriate.
  13. The inspection identified remedial works which were to be undertaken. It also identified some issues which did not relate to the work the contractor had originally carried out. This included indentations and marks on the walls in various areas. The contractor agreed the works it would re-attend and carry out. It confirmed on 6 March 2024 that it would contact the resident to schedule those works. It explained that the remaining works were the responsibility of the landlord and not the contractor. The works were completed on 12 April 2024, with the exception of the vinyl flooring to the bathroom. This was because the resident wanted work outside of the contractor’s schedule of works for the flooring. The completion date was a month after the date the contractor had told the landlord it would contact the resident. The landlord explained that the delay was due to confusion about whether the landlord or the contractor was going to agree a date with the resident for the works.
  14. The landlord offered £250 in its stage 2 response for the poor work carried out by the contractor, as well as £300 for the trouble and upset caused to the resident. The landlord recognised its failures and offered financial redress in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration. However, its offer did not appear to factor in the resident’s individual circumstances. Importantly, the landlord has not provided any evidence that it carried out a risk assessment at any point, or that it considered the resident’s household’s vulnerabilities in its decision making.
  15. In summary, the landlord’s failings in not acting in accordance with its stated approach on damp and mould, not providing the resident with dehumidifiers, appearing not to take any action between April and September 2023, not undertaking a further inspection following this gap of 5 months, and expecting the resident to return to an empty property following items having been disposed of in August 2023, amount to severe maladministration. While the landlord has made a compensation award of £550, the Ombudsman considers that this does not reflect the number and extent of its failings. Instead, the Ombudsman has made an award of £1,000 in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of the damp and mould. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of damage caused to the resident’s possessions

  1. The resident asked to be compensated for possessions that she reported were damaged by damp and mould. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to determine negligence or liability in the same way as the courts, or to order damages in relation to these. Only a court can make a definitive and legally binding decision. Similarly, this Service does not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which may be covered by insurance. The Ombudsman has, however, assessed whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s compensation request in line with its policy and procedure, and whether it followed good practice when reaching its decisions.
  2. The resident’s numerous emails to the landlord from November 2022 made it clear that in addition to resolving the issue of the damp and mould in the property, she also wanted to be adequately compensated for the damage caused by the mould to her possessions. Despite this, the landlord did not address the issue until the time of its stage 2 response in May 2024. In its earlier emails it referred the resident to submit a claim against her contents insurance policy, even after she had informed it, she did not have any contents insurance. Having such a policy was not a requirement of her tenancy. This landlord first advised the resident to do this 18 months after she raised the matter with it. This was not reasonable.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will not pay compensation where “there is damage and the resident believes that we, or a contractor working on our behalf, are at fault, in these cases a liability (insurance) claim can be made where negligence will need to be evidenced”. As the resident claimed that the landlord was liable for the damage to her possessions due to damp and mould in her property, it was in line with the policy that the landlord should have advised her to make a liability claim to be determined by its insurance team. However, the landlord did not do this initially. While it did mention the issue in the stage 2 response on 31 May 2024, the reference was brief, and it did not reiterate its advice when the resident responded to it over the matter of compensation. This was a failing by it.
  4. In summary, the landlord did not take timely steps to advise the resident to refer any claim for damaged personal possessions to its insurer. Its delay in doing this resulted in the resident discarding the damaged possessions. The level of evidence and delay may have prejudiced any claim being considered by the landlord’s insurer, due to the time sensitive nature of claims. The landlord’s failings in this regard were not limited to an isolated incident, and their repeated nature amounts to a finding of maladministration. The Ombudsman considers an award of £500 is appropriate for the landlord’s failings, which would have had a significant impact on the resident. 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of items having been removed from the property without her consent

  1. The resident has explained to both the landlord and this Service that, during the course of her contact with the landlord over the repairs, there were 2 instances of her items having been removed without her consent. The first instance was the replacement flooring she had purchased, which she said cost £674. She stated that she left the flooring downstairs, as she lived on the top floor of the building, and that the flooring disappeared. The resident held the landlord accountable and stated that its contractors had removed the flooring. The second instance occurred during the decant period in December 2023. While the resident had tagged the items in the property to be disposed of as part of an environmental clean, she stated the landlord’s operative removed items which were not marked to be disposed of. She said this included items which she had stored away out of sight.
  2. The landlord asked its contractors about both incidents. The operatives reported that they had no knowledge of the flooring being removed and/or disposed of. The landlord added that the resident should have been referred to contact the police at the time. It has not provided any evidence that it directed the resident to do this at the time, or that it even provided a response to the allegation she made. This was unacceptable, particularly in view of the upsetting nature of the matter and the resident’s obvious distress.
  3. In terms of allegations of theft, the police are best placed to investigate criminal matters. However, in addition to this, it would have also been appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to submit a claim to her contents insurer, or (if she did have contents cover) for it to provide details of its own insurer for a claim to be submitted. This was a failing by the landlord.
  4. The resident explained that a number of items that she had not requested to be disposed of were removed from her property without her consent while she was decanted. This included her Wi-Fi router. To investigate this, the landlord contacted the contractor which had conducted the clearing of the property. This was an appropriate course of action. The contractor stated it had only disposed of items which the resident had marked to be disposed of. This included the white goods and furniture in the property. As the contractor’s version of events differed from the resident’s, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude it could not evidence a failure. In the circumstances, in the absence of any corroborating evidence, it was a fair and solution-focused approach for it to offer a goodwill gesture. This demonstrated a willingness to put things right for the resident.
  5. Again, as there was an allegation of theft having occurred, the landlord should have advised the resident to contact the police. It should also have referred the matter to its insurer for a claim to be considered. However, it failed to do either of these things at the time of its stage 1 response, although it did mention the option of its insurer in its stage 2 response.
  6. In summary, the landlord failed to advise the resident to refer any alleged theft to the police as the most appropriate body to investigate criminal activity. It also failed at stage 1 to refer the matter to its insurer. The impact of this would have been to cause the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience, as well as potentially cause her prejudice due to the delay in presenting the matter to the landlord’s insurer. The landlord made a goodwill gesture of £750 in relation to this issue at stage 2. This offer is in line with this Service’s recommended range for maladministration which resulted in significant impact on the resident. As a result, the Ombudsman considers that reasonable redress has been offered for the failing by the landlord, and that no further compensation is due.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved via a management transfer

  1. The resident requested that the landlord move her on a number of occasions. She referred to the reasons for this to be the conditions in the property and overcrowding. The resident explained that the landlord previously moved her to the property under a management transfer as a result of the outstanding repairs to her former property. She considers her current circumstances are similar in nature and that the landlord should progress a management transfer for her.
  2. The landlord’s housing allocations policy sets out the different banding levels it gives residents when they want to move homes. The bands range from A (the highest need to move) to D. Band A is awarded for cases where there is a life-threatening medical condition or an imminent personal risk. Band B is awarded to residents with a medical need which is adversely affected by their housing situation, overcrowding, or when an urgent need to move is agreed in liaison with social services.
  3. The landlord lists its available properties online. All eligible residents can bid for them using the banding priority the landlord provided.
  4. The landlord has a management transfer policy which sets out the grounds on which it might directly offer a property to a resident outside the usual bidding process. It states that this option is for exceptional cases involving the safety and wellbeing of a resident or their family. In this case, the landlord explained that the resident did not meet the criteria for a management transfer. It noted that it had sent her a medical transfer form which she had not yet returned to it. As a result, it was unable to assign her a banding. Due to this, it was unable to move her.
  5. In her complaint to the landlord and the Ombudsman the resident has explained how the effects of her current living situation have impacted on her and her family’s health and wellbeing. The evidence supports her explanations about the impact on her. However, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether a landlord has acted reasonably in the circumstances of the complaint. It is not to substitute our own decisions for the landlord’s. That means that one of the things we have considered is how the landlord addressed the supporting details she provided to it.
  6. Taking all matters into account the Ombudsman find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved via a management transfer. This is because the landlord acted in accordance with its housing and management transfer policies.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. Stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. Complaints at either stage will be acknowledged within 2 working days.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy states that a complaint is “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made and that it does not need to include the word “complaint” for it to be considered as one.
  3. From the evidence provided to this Service, the resident contacted the landlord in November 2022 about the lack of heating. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 response that she emailed it on 8 January 2023 regarding damp and mould. Despite the resident expressing her dissatisfaction with the actions of the landlord over the issue, it did not identify a formal complaint at the time, and instead focused on the repairs. The landlord has not provided this Service with any evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s complaint at that time, or confirmed with her whether she wished to make a complaint. It issued its stage 1 response on 1 March 2024, 14 months after the resident had raised her dissatisfaction with the damp and mould. This was significantly outside the timescales within its complaints policy.
  4. Following the resident’s request for an escalation on 15 March 2024, the landlord acknowledged this on 17 March 2024, within the timescales contained in the complaint policy. It did not, however, issue its stage 2 response within the policy timescale. Instead, the stage 2 response was not issued until 31 May 2024, 11 weeks later. This was considerably outside the timescale set out within its complaints policy.
  5. The landlord made an offer of £250 for its complaint handling failures at stage 1. Following the escalation to stage 2, it increased this offer to £500. It explained that the increase was because it had lacked empathy in its response at stage 1 and that it had failed to address both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses in line with its complaints policy. The landlord’s offer of £500 for complaint handling is considerably higher than the amount it says it will offer in its compensation guide where there had been a high impact on the resident. The landlord’s policy sets out an amount of £250 for this degree of impact, although it adds it can award higher levels of compensation “where there have been multiple failures, or the resident has experienced exceptional hardship”. Given this, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer of £500 for the complaints handling constitutes reasonable redress for the failing by the landlord, and that no further compensation is due.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damage caused to the resident’s possessions.
    3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved via a management transfer.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of items having been removed from the property without her consent.
    2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 6 weeks (to allow for the Christmas period) the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be made in writing by its chief executive officer.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,500, made up of the following aspects:
      1. £1,000 for its failures in handling the resident’s concerns about damp and mould.
      2. £500 for its handling of the damage caused to the resident’s possessions.
    3. Provide the resident with details of its insurer for her to submit a claim for her damaged possessions, in relation to the allegations of theft of her flooring and items removed without her consent. If its insurer is unable to consider a claim due to the length of time that has passed, the landlord should consider alternative options for addressing this matter. It should provide an update to the resident and this Service within the 6 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £750 it offered as a gesture of goodwill in its stage 2 response in relation to the items removed from her property without her consent.
  2. The landlord should pay the resident the £500 it offered at stage 2 in relation to its complaints handling.
  3. The landlord should contact the resident to determine if she has any further concerns following the end of its internal complaints process in May 2024. If she raises any such concerns, it should respond to these in accordance with its policies and procedures.