Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202411006)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411006

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

28 April 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
2. The associated complaints.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy for a 4-bedroom house, which began on 14 September 2015. The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 January 2024 and highlighted vulnerabilities in her household, including that her son was Autistic and that both of her sons had been experiencing respiratory problems. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 reply dated 20 November 2024 that it had updated its records to reflect the family’s vulnerabilities.
The resident reported damp and mould issues at an annual tenancy visit by the Housing Officer in June 2023. The resident then reported damp patches on the walls and ceiling to the landlord on 14 November 2023. The landlord raised an order on 14 November 2023 to inspect and report back on any underlying issues causing damp and mould. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 31 January 2024 as she said she had been waiting since June 2023 for the landlord to arrange for a surveyor to inspect the property. She said she had been cleaning the mould and using anti-mould paint for years but the problem kept returning. She advised the landlord that the damp and mould were affecting her children’s health.
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 5 February 2024 in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord confirmed that one of its surveyors and the Housing Officer had attended the property on 1 February 2024.
2. The surveyor had found most of the air vents were closed and advised the resident to open the vents as often as possible. It raised an order for 2 additional vents to be fitted in the bedroom.
3. An order had been raised to repair broken floorboards in the boiler cupboard.
4. The landlord agreed that the upgrading of the bathroom would be added to its programme.
5. It agreed that a specialist damp company would be requested to carry out a survey of the property.
The resident advised the landlord on 5 March 2024 that she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 reply because of the ongoing damp and mould problems and various defects such as noisy floorboards and cracks in the walls/ceilings. She said that she had needed to replace furniture which had been damaged by mould. She also requested a detailed plan of the proposed works.
During March 2024, the landlord raised orders to carry out extensive work in the property, including attaching thermal boarding to the walls. The resident was placed in temporary accommodation in June 2024 to allow the work to proceed. Following completion of the work, the resident returned to the property on 3 July 2024. However, she wrote to the landlord on 5 July 2024 and said there were still a number of outstanding repairs. She also said she was disappointed that her belongings and carpets were covered in dust from the work. The landlord registered the resident’s email as a further stage 1 complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 9 August 2024 in which it listed various work it would deal with and others that it did not consider to be its responsibility. The work agreed included repairs to the loft hatch, making good a hole in the wall, dealing with raised flooring, repairs to a windowsill, plastering the porch and repairing guttering. The work the landlord said it would not deal with included reinstating carpets, squeaking floorboards and removing glue the resident said had been spilt on the kitchen floor. The landlord said it was arranging for the contractor to return to the property to address the outstanding issues and would also arrange for a surveyor to inspect some cracks in the walls that the resident had reported.
We wrote to the landlord on 16 October 2024 and requested it to send a combined stage 2 reply in relation to both of the resident’s stage 1 complaints. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 20 November 2024 which included the following points:
1. The landlord listed the orders it had raised in relation to damp and mould and confirmed that following a surveyor’s inspection it had carried out works on 3, 10 and 17 June 2024.
2. Following concerns raised by the resident about the quality of the work, the landlord had carried out inspections on 26 June 2024 and on 29 July 2024. It had then arranged a further appointment for 22 November 2024 to inspect any outstanding repairs.
3. The landlord concluded it had failed to adhere to its repairs, damp and mould policy, apologised and awarded £500 compensation.
4. The landlord also apologised for poor complaint handling and offered compensation of £150.
5. The landlord offered additional compensation of £125 as a goodwill gesture for damage to the resident’s belongings and £125 for poor communication. This made a total offer of £900 compensation.
6. The landlord upheld the complaint and identified lessons it had learnt from the experience.
The resident contacted us on 4 December 2024 to dispute some of the information in the landlord’s stage 2 reply and to report that some of the repairs were still outstanding. She also said she was unhappy with the £900 compensation offered by the landlord because she had replaced furniture and clothes that had been damaged by mould.
The landlord carried out further repairs in December 2024 and its file note dated 13 January 2025 stated that all works had been completed apart from a damp survey. The landlord’s records show that the survey took place on 29 January 2025 and the works were booked to be carried out on 3 April 2025. The resident advised us on 22 April 2025 that the works had been completed. However, she said she still had concerns about an internal wall that had previously shown high damp readings and the wall/ceiling in the bedroom where water stains were starting to show through again.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident advised the landlord on 31 January 2024 that the reported damp and mould had affected her sons’ health. She said they had both developed coughs. She also advised the landlord that her son had Autism and was distressed because he was unable to sleep in his own bedroom. On 5 July 2024, the resident reported that she had injured her back while carrying a fire door to the bedroom. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer. Consideration has, however, been given to how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about her family’s health and to any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any failings by the landlord.
In her email dated 4 December 2024, the resident said that she had reported the defective guttering about 6 years ago. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the events from 2023 onwards.
We have received information showing events that took place in relation to the property after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 20 November 2024. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by us as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.

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

The landlord 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 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.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states:
1. Residents can report suspected damp and mould using a variety of methods, including at their annual visit.
2. All initial reports of damp or mould growth will be prioritised as urgent with consideration given to any vulnerabilities.
3. Where damp or mould is reported, a local officer will visit the property within 10 days. The officer will determine the severity of the issue.
4. If a minor repair such as a mould wash is needed, the landlord will arrange for remedial work to be carried out. For more severe cases, a follow-up inspection by a surveyor will be arranged within 10 days of the first inspection.
In 2021, the Ombudsman’s produced a Spotlight report on Damp & Mould, which had various recommendations for landlords, including:
1. Landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions.
2. Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
3. Landlords should ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gesture policy states that it will not pay compensation where:
1. “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”.
2. “There is damage that would ordinarily be covered by the resident’s own household insurance policies (contents, motor, flooding etc), unless it stems from failure on [the landlord’s] part”.
During an annual tenancy visit by the landlord on 30 June 2023, the resident advised the Housing Officer about damp and mould issues affecting the property. On 14 November 2023, the resident then reported that damp patches were affecting her property. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord took action between June and November 2023 in relation to the resident’s report of damp and mould on 30 June 2023. This was inappropriate as it was contrary to the landlord’s damp and mould policy. The policy states that an officer will visit within 10 days to assess the severity of the problem and arrange a mould wash for less severe cases. It adds that for more severe cases it will arrange for a surveyor to inspect the property.
The landlord raised an order on 14 November 2023 to inspect the property and report back on any underlying issues causing damp and mould. The landlord’s records show that on 12 December 2023 it had requested the Housing Officer to inspect the property. However, we have not seen any evidence that the inspection took place, despite us requesting this evidence from the landlord. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not arranged for someone to inspect the property given that the resident had reported damp and mould on 30 June 2023 and 14 November 2023. Without carrying out such an inspection, the landlord could not be confident it had fully investigated the extent or underlying cause of the reported damp and mould.
The landlord’s records show that it replaced a faulty bathroom extractor fan on 21 December 2023 and arranged for a contractor to attend the property on 31 January 2024 to carry out a mould wash. The evidence therefore shows that the landlord took some action to help address the reported mould issues. However, the absence of a comprehensive inspection meant that the resident did not have confidence that these actions would resolve the reported damp and mould issues.
The landlord’s records state that the resident refused access for the mould wash on 31 January 2024 as she had been expecting a surveyor to inspect the property. The resident later disputed this and said the operative had advised her there was no point in doing the mould wash as she had previously washed the mould away and it had returned.
As there are differing accounts of the events on 31 January 2024, we are unable to establish from the evidence provided the precise reason the mould wash did not proceed. However, as the landlord had instructed the contractor to carry out the mould wash, we have concluded that the landlord took reasonable steps to arrange the mould wash. Although as previously indicated, arranging the mould wash should not have been a substitute for carrying out a full inspection, it demonstrated that the landlord had taken action to mitigate the immediate impact of the reported mould.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 January 2024 and said she wanted to make a formal complaint as the property had not yet been inspected by a surveyor. She said she was concerned that the mould was affecting her children’s health as her son had been coughing for months and the cough had got progressively worse. The resident also mentioned that some of her belongings had been damaged by mould and that there were structural cracks affecting the property.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 5 February 2024 and confirmed that a surveyor and a Housing Officer had inspected the property on 1 February 2024. The landlord said that the surveyor had found most of the air vents closed and therefore during the inspection he had advised the resident to open them more often. As the surveyor had identified that most of the air vents were closed, it was appropriate that he had given advice to the resident about keeping the vents open. Ventilation is known to be important in resolving damp and mould issues caused by condensation.
Following the inspection on 1 February 2024, the landlord raised orders to install 2 additional vents in the bedroom (with an appointment booked for 15 February 2024) and repair broken floorboards in the boiler cupboard (with an appointment booked for 12 February 2024). It was reasonable that the landlord had raised repair orders and booked appointments to carry out works promptly following the inspection.
The landlord said it would arrange for a specialist dampness surveyor to investigate the reported damp and mould issues. The landlord said it would deal with the damp/cold window area in the bedroom and the floor in the loft room once it had received the report from the specialist damp company. The landlord confirmed that the resident had agreed on the proposed action. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that in certain circumstances it may instruct an independent expert to survey the property. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to agree to engage a specialist damp company to investigate the reported damp and mould issues. It was also reasonable that the landlord had agreed the proposed action with the resident as this would reassure her that her concerns were being followed up.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 March 2024 to say she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 reply. She asked the landlord how it intended to address the damp and mould. She also said there were various cracks in the walls and ceilings and the floorboards were very noisy. She requested an in-depth plan for remedial works and a timeframe for the works.
It is not clear from the evidence whether the proposed inspection by a specialist dampness surveyor took place and, if so, when it was done. However, the landlord raised an order on 20 March 2024 to carry out various works in accordance with a specification produced by a surveyor. The works included treatment of the damp walls in the kitchen, living room and hallway, upgrading the wall vents, repairing cracks, applying thermal boarding and renewing the noisy floorboards as necessary.
It had therefore taken the landlord almost 7 weeks from the inspection on 1 February 2024 to the date it raised the order on 20 March 2024. We have noted that the landlord had tried to mitigate the effects of the reported mould by arranging a mould wash on 31 January 2024 and this had not taken place for the reasons discussed earlier. However, we still consider the 7-week delay in arranging the work to have been unreasonable.
The resident had written to the landlord on 31 January 2024 about her concerns regarding the impact of the property condition on the health of her family. Furthermore, the landlord had accepted in its stage 1 reply dated 5 February 2024 that there was a need for further investigation into the reported damp and mould. In accordance with the landlord’s damp and mould policy, it was therefore incumbent on the landlord to prioritise the works given the family’s reported vulnerabilities.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 May 2024 to say that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s lack of communication. She said she had not received a response to her email dated 5 March 2024. She also said she had been advised that the work was due to start but had not been given a firm date. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord provided progress updates or responded to the resident’s email of 5 March 2024, which was unreasonable. A further 7 weeks had elapsed between the landlord raising the works order on 20 March 2024 and the resident chasing the landlord for an update on 9 May 2024. The resident’s emails show she was anxious about the lack of communication and progress regarding the proposed works.
The landlord’s records show that it had decided to move the resident temporarily in order to carry out the work to the property and during May 2024 it had been looking for suitable temporary accommodation. The landlord’s records show that following the temporary rehousing of the resident, the work commenced on 3 June 2024. The resident returned to the property on 3 July 2024 after the work was completed.
While the works were underway, the resident wrote to the landlord to raise various concerns about the quality of the work and the lack of communication. For example, she wrote to the landlord on 13, 20, 21 and 24 June 2024. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord replied to the resident’s emails. This was unreasonable as she had already raised concerns about the lack of communication in earlier correspondence. The resident had mentioned in her email dated 24 June 2024 that her son had Autism and he was finding the disruption to his routine difficult as the family was in temporary accommodation. The resident was therefore worried about any potential delays to the completion of the work.
The landlord arranged for its surveyor and the contractor to attend the property on 26 June 2024, which was reasonable as they were able to check the quality of the work and discuss the resident’s concerns with her while the work was still in progress. The landlord also phoned the resident on 5 July 2024 to check on her wellbeing. This was also reasonable as the resident had moved back to the property at this stage and therefore it was an opportunity for the landlord to note any concerns she had about the property condition.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 5 July 2024 to report various concerns about the work carried out and issues she said were still outstanding. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 9 August 2024 in which it outlined the work it would carry out. It also listed the matters raised by the resident that it considered were not its responsibility and therefore it would not be addressing. As the resident had presented a long list of concerns regarding the work carried out, it was reasonable for the landlord to set out the matters it would deal with and those it would not.
Some of the issues raised by the resident included damage to her belongings and carpets. There were also matters that were disputed between the landlord and the resident. For example, the resident said glue had been spilt on the kitchen floor and the contractor had not adequately covered the carpets, which resulted in them becoming very dirty. The landlord disputed that glue had been spilt on the floor. It also said it had seen photographs and was satisfied that the contractor had taken appropriate precautions to protect the floors and the resident’s belongings before starting work. Based on the evidence seen, we are unable to determine whether the preparations and the quality of the work carried out by the contractor were adequate. However, our view is that the landlord used its stage 1 reply to respond reasonably to the resident’s concerns because:
1. It responded to each of the concerns individually in its stage 1 reply.
2. It set out clearly which issues it would address and which ones it considered to be outside of its responsibilities.
3. It agreed to address the majority of outstanding repairs, including the resident’s reports of gaps around the loft hatch frame, a hole in the wall of the loft bedroom, replacing a light switch, fitting a threshold bar, mould washing the ceiling of the walk-in wardrobe, fitting new extractor fans and plastering the porch area.
4. The landlord agreed to investigate certain matters further, including reported issues with the bathroom lino. It also agreed to investigate the resident’s report of glue on the kitchen floor if she could provide further evidence.
5. The landlord provided evidence of learning by acknowledging the need for it to engage more effectively in relation to major works to check that all works have been completed to a satisfactory standard.
6. The landlord apologised for the work that was still outstanding and said it was in the process of arranging for the contractor to return to address the work.
7. The landlord said its surveyor would assess the structural cracks reported by the resident as this was a new issue.
The landlord raised an order on 25 October 2024 to repair guttering which the resident said was leaking. The landlord’s contractor completed the repairs on 6 November 2024. The contractor therefore completed the work within an appropriate timescale as the landlord’s repairs booklet states that it will complete non-emergency repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply dated 20 November 2024 that its own staff and the contractor had not been able to contact the resident to book an appointment to carry out the outstanding work. Based on the information provided to us, we have not seen any evidence to show that the landlord and the contractor had problems contacting the resident during the period from 9 August 2024 (when it sent its stage 1 reply) to 20 November 2024 (when it sent its stage 2 response). For example, the landlord has not provided copies of emails, letters or text messages to show it had unsuccessfully tried contacting the resident.
Based on the evidence seen, we have therefore concluded that the landlord acted unreasonably by not progressing the works following the inspection on 26 June 2024. Almost 5 months had elapsed between the inspection and the landlord’s stage 2 reply and it had been over 3 months since the landlord had sent its stage 1 reply on 9 August 2024 agreeing the work it would carry out.
The landlord stated in the stage 2 reply that its surveyor had left a voice message for the resident on 18 November 2024 and the resident had called back and booked an appointment for 22 November 2024 to assess/inspect the outstanding repairs. It is unclear why the landlord needed to arrange a further inspection as it had previously attended the property on 26 June 2024 and on 29 July 2024. Furthermore, it had included a list of the work it would carry out in its stage 1 reply on 9 August 2024. In our view, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not arranged a start date for the work by the time of its stage 2 reply on 20 November 2024.
Part of the resident’s complaint on 5 March 2024 was that some of her belongings had been damaged by mould. She wrote to the landlord on 9 May 2024, 13 June 2024, 20 June 2024 and 24 June 2024 and asked whether she would be reimbursed for furniture that she said had been damaged by damp and mould. She also wrote to the landlord on 5 July 2024 and said her carpets and other furniture had been damaged because the contractor had not properly covered them before starting the work.
The landlord said in its stage 2 reply dated 20 November 2024 that the resident would need to claim through her contents insurance for any items damaged by damp and mould. The landlord said it did not usually pay compensation for damaged items. The landlord’s statement that it did not pay compensation for damaged items was in line with its compensation policy. However, the policy also states that where the resident believes the landlord or its contractor have been at fault, the resident can submit a liability claim.
The emails sent by the resident clearly show that she believed the landlord to have been at fault in its handling of the reported damp and mould. Furthermore, the landlord accepted in its stage 2 reply that it had failed to adhere to its repairs, damp and mould policy. Therefore, in line with its policy, the landlord should have signposted the resident to make a claim against its liability insurance. It was inappropriate that it failed to do so.
The landlord offered a goodwill gesture of £125 for damaged personal items. However, the resident stated in her email dated 4 December 2024 that she was dissatisfied with the compensation offered as it did not cover the cost of damaged items. This was therefore another opportunity for the landlord to provide the resident with its liability insurance details, which it did not do. This was again inappropriate as the resident had stated she did not consider the landlord’s offer to be sufficient to cover the costs of the damaged items.
We have produced guidance on complaints involving insurance, which is available on our website. The guidance says that it would not be reasonable to ask a resident to claim for damp and mould on a contents policy. This is because there is usually an exclusion clause for ‘gradually operating causes’ (which would generally include damage caused by damp and mould).
Although the landlord sought to assist the resident by offering a goodwill gesture for damaged personal items, our view is that it was inappropriate for the landlord to advise her to claim through her contents insurance and not to signpost her to its liability insurer. We have noted, however, that in its stage 2 reply the landlord did provide the resident with the email address for its insurance team in relation to her report of a personal injury she had sustained.
Overall, our investigation has found the following failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs:
1. The landlord did not act on the resident’s report of damp and mould made at the annual tenancy visit on 20 June 2023 until she reported the matter again on 14 November 2023.
2. The landlord did not inspect the property to identify any underlying causes of the reported damp and mould until 1 February 2024.
3. Following the inspection on 1 February 2024, it took a further 7 weeks to raise an order on 20 March 2024 to carry out the works specified by the surveyor. The delay occurred despite the resident advising the landlord on 31 January 2024 about the impact of the property condition on her family’s health.
4. During this 7-week period, the landlord had not communicated to the resident its plans for carrying out the remedial work, including a firm start date.
5. By the time the resident wrote to the landlord on 9 May 2024, the landlord had not replied to her email dated 5 March 2024 in which she had asked for an in-depth plan and timescale for the works and expressed her dissatisfaction with the lack of communication.
6. During the work to the property in June 2024, the landlord did not reply to various emails sent by the resident expressing her concerns about the quality of the work and lack of communication.
7. At the time of the landlord’s stage 2 reply on 20 November 2024, the landlord had still not progressed the work to the property following the inspections on 26 June 2024 and 29 July 2024.
8. The landlord did not signpost the resident to its liability insurer for reported damage to her belongings, even though it accepted it had not followed its repairs, damp and mould policy.
The landlord accepted in its stage 2 reply that it had failed to adhere to its repairs, damp and mould policy in addressing the resident’s concerns. It apologised for this and offered £500 for poor handling of repairs, delays, inconvenience and distress. It also offered £125 for poor communication, £125 as a goodwill gesture for damage to personal belongings and £150 for complaint handling failures.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and 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.
In this case, the landlord acted fairly by using its stage 2 reply to acknowledge its failings in handling the resident’s reports of damp, mould and other repairs. It accepted that its communication had been poor and upheld the resident’s complaint.
The landlord demonstrated that it had learnt from outcomes by outlining changes it had made, including introducing a revised repairs staff structure and dedicated repairs hub.
Having acknowledged its failings, the landlord sought to put things right by offering total compensation of £750 for its handling of the reported damp, mould and other repairs. We have noted that the landlord chose to offer a sum based on the highest banding of compensation in its compensation policy. The policy says that this banding is for cases where there has been a serious failure in service delivery over a period of time, which has caused a significant level of distress and inconvenience to the resident. Our view is that it was appropriate for the landlord to choose the highest banding of compensation as the failures caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.
We are, however, concerned that at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 reply on 20 November 2024, the repairs agreed in its stage 1 reply of 9 August 2024 were still outstanding. We therefore do not consider that the landlord had put things right at the time of its stage 2 reply.
We have made a finding of service failure, which takes into account all the circumstances, including:
1. The impact of the delays on the resident, particularly given the family’s known vulnerabilities.
2. The landlord had carried out a significant level of work to the property in June 2024, including damp treatment.
3. At the time of sending its stage 2 reply in November 2024, the landlord had not yet carried out the follow-up repairs agreed in its stage 1 reply of 9 August 2024.
4. The landlord acknowledged its failings, offered financial redress at the highest rate in its compensation policy and identified learning in its final complaint response.
We have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation of £150 to the resident in relation to its handling of the damp, mould and repairs. The sum is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where the landlord has made an offer of compensation but it does not reflect the failings identified in our investigation. We have also ordered the landlord to provide the resident with details of how she can make a claim to the landlord’s liability insurer for damaged possessions should she wish to do so.
The resident has advised us that although all of the works specified by the surveyor have now been completed, she still has concerns about an internal wall that had previously shown high damp readings and a wall/ceiling in the bedroom where water stains were starting to show through again. We have therefore recommended that the landlord should arrange a further inspection to check these areas of concern and advise the resident of any further action it intends to take.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process and its complaints policy states:
1. It will acknowledge and log stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days.
2. It will reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
3. If the landlord is unable to respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, it will agree any extension with the resident. It will then respond within 20 working days and provide regular updates.
4. If a resident is not happy with the way the landlord has dealt with a complaint or its decision at stage 1, they should notify the landlord within 20 working days of the stage 1 decision if they wish to move to stage 2.
5. If the landlord is unable to respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days, it will agree an extension with the resident. It will then respond within 30 working days and provide regular updates.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 January 2024 and said she wanted to make a formal complaint about damp and mould. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 5 February 2024, which was 3 working days after it received the complaint. The landlord therefore responded to the complaint within an appropriate timescale.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 March 2024 to say she was dissatisfied with its stage 1 response. The resident sent her email 21 working days after the landlord had issued its stage 1 decision. It was therefore slightly outside the 20-working day deadline stipulated in the landlord’s complaints policy for residents to request the escalation of their complaint to stage 2. In this situation, we would expect the landlord to either escalate the complaint or write to the resident explaining its reasons for not escalating it. Our complaint handling code in operation at the time of the resident’s complaint stated: “In instances where a landlord declines to escalate a complaint it must clearly communicate in writing its reasons for not escalating [the complaint]”. In this case, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s escalation request and this was unreasonable.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 May 2024 and said she had not yet received a reply to her email dated 5 March 2024 and she was dissatisfied with the lack of communication regarding the proposed remedial works. The landlord did not log the email dated 9 May 2024 as a complaint. This was inappropriate as the resident had clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the level of communication. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as: “An expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by [the landlord] …”. The landlord’s failure to log the complaint was therefore not in line with its policy.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 June 2024 to say she was unhappy with the work carried out by the contractor. She then wrote on 24 June 2024 to say she was frustrated with the lack of communication from the landlord. Neither of these emails were treated as complaints even though they again expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service. This was inappropriate as it was contrary to the landlord’s complaints policy.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 July 2024 and outlined a number of areas of dissatisfaction with the work that had been carried out. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within an appropriate timescale on 8 July 2024.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 August 2024 and asked whether she would agree a 10-working day extension to the deadline for responding to the stage 1 complaint due to its complexity. The resident replied on 5 August 2024 to say she was unhappy that the landlord had not yet dealt with her complaint. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 9 August 2024, which was 24 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint on 8 July 2024. The overall time taken for the landlord to respond to the complaint was inappropriate. The resident had not agreed the extension of time and the landlord’s complaints policy says that, even with an extension of time, it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days.
Following contact from the resident, we requested the landlord on 16 October 2024 to combine the issues from both of the stage 1 replies it had sent and provide a consolidated stage 2 response. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint by phone on 28 October 2024, which was 8 working days after we contacted the landlord. The time taken to acknowledge the complaint was inappropriate as it was outside of the 5-working day timescale stated in its policy.
The landlord issued its stage 2 reply on 20 November 2024, which was 17 working days after it had acknowledged/logged the complaint. The landlord therefore sent its stage 2 reply within an appropriate timescale in line with its policy.
Overall, we have found the followings failings in the landlord’s complaints handling:
1. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s escalation request dated 5 March 2024.
2. The landlord did not log the resident’s emails dated 9 May 2024, 21 June 2024 or 24 June 2024 as complaints even though she had expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s services.
3. The landlord extended the timescale for responding to the resident’s complaint dated 5 July 2024 even though she had not agreed to an extension.
4. There was an overall delay in the landlord responding to the stage 1 complaint.
5. There was a delay in the landlord acknowledging the stage 2 complaint after it was contacted by us in October 2024.
In its stage 2 reply dated 20 November 2024, the landlord apologised for its poor complaint handling and offered £150 compensation to put things right. It also outlined the learning it had taken from its failings by confirming it had introduced a new complaints team and a new complaints policy.
The amount of compensation offered by the landlord was in the range of sums suggested in its compensation policy for situations where the landlord “has markedly failed to meet service standards and this failure has caused inconvenience and distress that has not been manageable for the resident”. In this case, we have found that the landlord had failed to meet its complaint handling service standards on various occasions and this had resulted in inconvenience and distress for the resident as she then had to chase the landlord for replies. Our view is therefore that the amount of compensation offered by the landlord for its complaint handling failings was reasonable.
Overall, we have found that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in terms of its complaint handling because it acknowledged its failings, apologised, offered reasonable compensation to put things right and demonstrated that it had learned from its mistakes.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to provide evidence that it has:
1. Written to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Paid the resident a total of £150 compensation for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and the associated repairs.
3. Provided the resident with details of how she can make a claim to the landlord’s liability insurer for damaged possessions should she wish to do so.

Recommendations

The landlord should arrange a further inspection to check the resident’s concerns about possible damp on the internal wall between the kitchen and living room and watermark stains in the bedroom.