One Housing Group Limited (202444755)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202444755

One Housing Group Limited

28 August 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 repairs to the windows and doors in the property and the associated damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bed flat under an assured tenancy agreement. The resident’s children stay with him every other weekend.
The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 4 March 2024 in which he said:
1. He had contacted the landlord multiple times between 2020 – 2023 via telephone, email and social media, regarding issues with his windows, door, damp and mould and damage to his personal possessions.
2. He has two young children who stay with him every other weekend.
3. He felt the landlord had done nothing to address the issues, except make repeated appointments for surveyors to attend.
4. He had incurred “thousands in damages due to [him] having to try and fix the problem [himself] and replace damaged goods”.
5. Various personal items had been damaged and had to be repaired or replaced including children’s clothing, three bedframes, a mattress and footwear. The resident offered to provide receipts for these items.
6. He had been provided with a doctor’s note which indicated that the damp and mould was having a detrimental effect on his health.
7. He was seeking a completion of the repairs to his windows and door, for the damp and mould to be assessed and rectified, and for compensation for the distress and damage to his possessions.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 5 April 2024. It said:
1. It was “very sorry that [the resident] had to live in this condition for several years without these issues being resolved”.
2. It had booked an appointment for a surveyor to attend on 8 April 2024 to inspect all the issues raised. The landlord said that “all outstanding repairs will be raised immediately” following this visit.
3. It upheld the resident’s complaint due to the delays and inconvenience caused.
4. It had identified that it required better communication and management of works. It said it would address this going forward in its monthly meetings.
5. It would determine the compensation to be awarded to the resident, following the visit on 8 April 2024, so that it could accurately assess the detriment he had suffered.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 6 August 2024. He said:
1. He first reported the issues on 16 March 2020 and since then, he felt that the landlord had done nothing to resolve them.
2. He was attempting to fix the issues himself, and this had cost him money in repairs and in replacing damaged goods.
3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response had committed to repairs being raised. The surveyor appointment had been completed, but no repairs had been undertaken.
4. He was under threat of eviction from the landlord due to falling behind on his rent payments. The resident said that this was due to the increased costs in repairing and maintaining his property.
5. He was attaching evidence of the damage and receipts showing the costs he had incurred in cleaning products, anti-mould paint and replacing his personal possessions. He estimated these costs, to date at £1901.89.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 27 September 2024, in which it said:
1. The resident had initially reported the issues with his windows on 16 March 2020. The repair appointment was cancelled due to COVID-19 but rebooked and the works were shown as completed on 7 July 2020.
2. The resident had initially reported his faulty back door on 4 January 2021. It said an appointment was scheduled for 8 January 2021, where an operative noted “bad condensation” and a leak through the back door into the living area. The report also noted signs of wet rot in the property. The landlord said actioning a repair was postponed due to COVID-19 and re-raised on 8 April 2024.
3. The resident had initially reported damp and mould in the property on 4 January 2021 and in response to this the landlord had:
  1. Booked an appointment on 14 January 2021, but this was “incorrectly cancelled due to no response, although [the resident] did confirm this was suitable”.
  2. Rebooked for 9 November 2021. The resident requested an earlier appointment and the “job was cancelled and not followed up on”.
  3. Re-raised a job on 22 August 2023, following contact from the resident advising that damp and mould was still present and that he had a crack in his ceiling. An appointment was booked for 24 August 2023, but an “incorrect tradesman was sent, due to an internal miscommunication”.
  4. Booked a further appointment on 6 October 2023, however the resident was not home to provide access. The landlord said this was not then rebooked or followed up on.
  5. Raised a new job on 13 August 2024 to carry out an “extensive mould wash throughout the whole property and asses the next course of action”. This was booked for 2 September 2023, but the resident did not provide access.
  6. The appointment was rebooked for 9 September 2023, and the mould wash was completed. Parts of the property were also painted over with anti-mould paint. The surveyor noted that further works were required, including to repair windows and replace the back door. These works were scoped in a further appointment on 16 September 2024 and set to begin on 30 September 2024.
4. It would complete a financial assessment as part of the resident’s disrepair case.
5. It recommended that the resident make a claim on his home contents insurance for the possessions which had been damaged by the damp and mould.
6. It did not have evidence that it had previously committed to paying the resident compensation and asked him to forward evidence of this.
7. There had been a “clear service failure” in the landlord’s communication.
8. It had noted that the resident had “consistently called the call centre and other members of the repairs team to chase these repairs over the last few years … but to no avail”.
9. It was currently undergoing a transformation process and overhauling its processes, systems, staff training and contractors.
10. It apologised for the level of service, stress, inconvenience, lack of communication and poor customer service that the resident had received.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 2 May 2025 seeking completion of the repairs or rehousing. The resident also wanted compensation for the financial losses he said he had incurred, stress, health impacts and landlord negligence.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

As part of the complaint, the resident sought compensation from the landlord for the impact of his living situation on his health and welfare, this is known as a personal injury claim. In particular, the resident stated that he had developed asthma and other illnesses because of the damp and mould in the property.
This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, personal injury, therefore we will not consider this element of the resident’s complaint. This Service can give an opinion as to whether the landlord responded in a reasonable manner to the resident’s reports of illness, however, claims of personal injury must be decided by a court of law who can assess specialist medical evidence and make a judgement on the merits of the case.
The Ombudsman understands that this situation has been very stressful for the resident and therefore he may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any act or omission of the landlord.
Similarly, the resident said that he wished to claim for damages as he felt that the landlord had acted negligently. Legal negligence can only be determined by the courts, having assessed and weighed evidence. The court can award damages (payments) to take account of the impact of any negligence, and this can include actual losses incurred, along with compensation for damage to health, lost time and many other factors.
The Ombudsman cannot determine legal liability for negligence or award damages. This report will consider whether the landlord acted fairly, competently and in line with its policies and good practice. Where landlords fall short of this measure, the Ombudsman can award compensation in line with our remedies guidance, which is available on our website.
On this basis, this report will not consider whether the landlord acted negligently or seek to award damages. Should the resident wish to, he may consider taking legal advice around the merits of a negligence claim in the courts.
It is noted that the resident first put the landlord on notice of repairs in his property, and associated damp and mould, in January 2021. Following this the resident made an initial complaint in January 2022 and later engaged a solicitor to undertake a legal disrepair claim in March 2023. This investigation is considering the formal complaint that the resident raised to the landlord in March 2024. In the interest of fairness to both parties, this determination will only consider the period of 12 months prior to the formal complaint being made. References to events outside of this timescale are made for contextual purposes only.

Communication and customer service

Within both complaint responses, the landlord has acknowledged that its communication and customer service that the resident received was poor. It said:
1. It recognised that it needed to have better communication and management of works and would build this into its monthly meetings.
2. It had sent incorrect workman to appointments due to “internal miscommunication”.
3. There had been a “clear service failure” in relation to a “lack of communication and actions to progress [the resident’s] repairs”.
4. It noted that the resident had “consistently called the call centre and other members of the repair team to chase these repairs over the last few years […] but to no avail”.
5. It took “responsibility for the slow action across [the resident’s] repairs over the years and [understood] that this [had] made issues worse”.
6. It apologised for a poor level of service, stress, inconvenience, a lack of communication and poor customer service.
The evidence shows, and it is not disputed, that the resident chased the landlord for repairs and updates over at least 3 years to the time of his formal complaint. The resident used calls, emails and social media to attempt to elicit action from his landlord. This was compounded by the landlord’s own internal miscommunications and a lack of effective progression of these contacts into the complaints team. These were significant failings, which directly exacerbated the resident’s primary repair issues and can only but have caused him additional distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
It is noted that the landlord apologised for this and highlighted some learning that it would implement, in its stage 1 complaint response. It is not clear from the evidence if this was implemented, or how effective this was, as the delays and poor service continued past the stage 2 complaint response and to the time of this investigation. There was no compensation offered or paid by the landlord in respect of its poor communication, customer service or service failures.
This report will not make a finding on the landlord’s communication and customer service separately to the substantive issues, however it is set out here for context as this was a pattern of behaviour, which was prevalent in both the resident’s disrepair and damp and mould cases which are discussed in the sections below.

Repairs to the windows and door and associated damp and mould

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords have a statutory duty to maintain the structure and exterior of its properties, which includes the roof, walls, windows, doors and external fixtures. Once notified of a defect, landlords must make a lasting and effective repair in a reasonable time.
Under Section 9A and 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords have a statutory duty to ensure that their homes are fit for human habitation and are free from ‘prescribed hazards’ which includes damp.
Additionally, Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 defines category 1 and 2 ‘hazards’ under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould can be a prescribed hazard under this legislation if it is in a state that may cause harm to health. Landlords must take appropriate action to remove these hazards or make them safe for residents.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says:
1. It will meet its obligations as set out in its residents’ tenancy agreements and as required by law.
2. It will resolve repairs on the first visit, wherever possible.
3. It will “deliver quality work in a courteous manner”.
4. Respond to emergency repairs within 4 hours (and make safe within 12 hours), complete urgent repairs within 5 calendar days and complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
In addition to its responsive repairs policy, the landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will:
1. Comply with statutory requirements.
2. “Undertake effective investigations and implement all reasonable repair solutions and improvements to eliminate damp including, managing, and controlling condensation.”
3. “Respond to all reports of damp and condensation and complete any repair works/measures in line with their Responsive Repairs policy.”
The Ombudsman’s zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould is set out in our spotlight report ‘Damp and Mould: It’s not a lifestyle’ which is available on our website.
The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted it on 4 January 2021 to report “draughty windows and balcony door which [he] felt was causing mould”. The evidence shows that the landlord raised a job on 4 January 2021, in response to this. An appointment was booked for 14 January 2021 to assess the works, damp, and mould which had been reported. This was cancelled in error by the landlord and there is no evidence that it followed up on this with the resident. This was a failing by the landlord in its communication, and effective management of its repairs process, which may have resolved the matters at a much earlier stage.
The works were reraised over 9 months later on 12 October 2021, following further contact from the resident. The landlord’s records indicate that this job was cancelled the same day but give no reason for this. The landlord rebooked the appointment the following day for 9 November 2021, however this was cancelled by the resident as he did not feel this was soon enough. The landlord said that it sent a text message asking him to rearrange this appointment, which he did not do.
The following period was during the COVID-19 pandemic. The resident said that he had contacted the landlord, via various mediums, throughout 2020 – 2023 to express concerns about the ongoing issues. The landlord’s records indicate that he:
1. Was contacted by the landlord following a complaint on 5 January 2022. During this call he said that he had “an issue with mould.”
2. Called the landlord on 6 January 2022 to discuss mould. He said that “the damp and mould [had] damaged his clothes and shoes and there was no safe place for him or his son to live in.” In particular, he complained that the bedroom window and door were inadequate. The resident requested compensation for the disrepair and damage to his possessions.
3. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 March 2022 to report further issues with damp and mould. A surveyor attended following this (date unknown) and reported “bad condensation” in the bedroom, a gap around the door and “small evidence of wet rot on the outside.”
4. Chased for an update on repairs on 20 February 2023.
On 22 March 2023, the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord and said:
1. The resident was complaining about defects in the property including “damp and mould in the bedroom, one wall is mouldy with the mould running across the bottom of the wall. The window in the bedroom is also mouldy.” They also said that the “damp and mould in the bedroom is causing the bedroom to smell. Additionally, mould is forming on the client possessions.”
2. “The rear door to the property is rotten and insecure” and said that the resident did not feel safe in the property because of this. Additionally, they said that the door had gaps around it which allowed a draught into the property.
3. The resident had been reporting these issues since March 2020 and that a surveyor had previously attended the property, but no works had been completed.
4. The resident did not want to have his child or visitors in the property.
5. They were requesting an urgent inspection of the property as soon as possible, along with a schedule of works for repairs required.
6. They wanted the landlord to send its “proposals for compensation.”
The resident did not receive a response to this letter from his solicitor, so he chased for an update on 6 April 2023 and later the same day raised his formal complaint. There was further evidence of the resident chasing updates to the repairs on at least 13 occasions between 21 June 2023 and 11 March 2024.
Throughout the repairs and complaint process there is evidence of at least three surveys being conducted and these are summarised below:
1. The resident commissioned an expert witness surveyor report, as part of a legal claim against the landlord, on 27 May 2023. This survey said:
  1. Damp and mould was present in the bedroom along with a “strong odour of water when entering the bedroom.”
  2. The rear door to the property was “rotten and insecure.” The surveyor noted that the door and lock were of “poor quality and design” and would “allow water to seep into the property and below into the suspended floor when raining.”
  3. “The walls and floors [were] indicating moderate dampness to the outer walls.”
  4. There was a “lack of rainwater gulley and fall” on the front of the property, adjoining a hardstanding area.
  5. The landlord had breached Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and that the property has ‘prescribed hazards’ (damp and mould growth) under the HHSRS.
2. A survey report conducted by the landlord on 5 June 2024 said:
  1. “Both the bathroom and kitchen fans fail to meet the performance requirements of Building Regulations Part F.”
  2. There was a “leak in the bathroom from the flat above, which [needed] to be stopped.”
  3. “The rear door and some window frames [were] suffering from wood rot – a damp risk.”
  4. There were approximately 2 square metres of mould in the bathroom and bedroom.
  5. It recommended that the landlord install continuous fans in the bathroom and kitchen and carry out mould treatments in the bedroom and bathroom.
3. A further survey commissioned by the landlord on 5 August 2024 said:
  1. The living room door was “old and rotten at various sections with gaps, defective and rotten frame. [The] lock [was] defective and not secured.” It also noted that the door scraped along the floor and that it required renewal.
  2. The surveyor had “not found any evidence of mould in the living room,” but that there was “evidence of mould found in the bedroom […] on the window frames, internal wall to the front elevation and under the tenant’s baby cot”.
  3. A moisture reading to the wall and skirting below the window indicated the “presence of moisture”, which was attributed to “ingress through the external brick work”. The report also noted that “rain water may be seeping through under the paving slabs outside as there is no form of drain or water into the gulley”.
  4. “The external ground level [was] the same as the internal floor level [and] this may be contributory to the water ingress”.
  5. The seals around the “timber sash window frame [were] mouldy and appear to be failing”.
  6. It recommended a mould wash, resealing of the windows and door and installation of a drain. A decant was not recommended.
The evidence shows that, in response to the resident’s reports and complaints, and the surveys listed above, the landlord:
1. Arranged appointments to assess the damp and mould. On one occasion this was cancelled in error, on another occasion the wrong tradesman was sent and in two other cases the appointments were not rescheduled following changes or no access visits.
2. Raised works in January 2021 to repair the balcony door, to be completed after Covid, however these were not assessed again until 8 April 2024. This was over 3 years from the initial appointment. There is no evidence that these works were raised as a new job for completion following this assessment.
3. Emailed the resident on 23 August 2023 to advise that it had raised a job for a mould wash to be completed.
4. Attended the property on 24 August 2023 following the resident’s submission of a disrepair claim on 24 March 2023, 5 months previously, and several chasing calls and emails. The operative found “that the bathroom ceiling was damaged from a previous leak. He said it required reboarding and skimming”. The contractor also noted that the resident had “carried out a mould treatment and painting himself”.
5. Completed a survey of the property on 5 June 2024, as set out above.
6. Completed a further survey of the property on 5 August 2024, as set out above.
7. Completed works to repair the resident’s windows, gutters and “various minor works to the exterior of the property” on 27 August 2024. The exact scope or completion status of these works is not clear from the evidence provided.
8. Completed a mould wash to the resident’s windows, bedroom and bathroom on 9 September 2024. The landlord also applied anti-mould paint.
9. Attended on 16 September 2024 to scope the remaining works and these were set to be completed on 30 September 2024.
Throughout the complaint and associated repair processes, there was evidence of a lack of oversight, management and planning. Repeated survey appointments identified the same issues, but no repairs were undertaken to address this. The resident had to repeatedly chase for updates, which appear to have restarted the process on each occasion. The evidence also shows that there were protracted periods where the resident and his solicitor did not receive replies to their correspondence from the landlord. This was a significant failing which can only have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and time and trouble for him (and his representatives) in progressing the matter.
It is noted that the landlord was not able to access the property on some occasions, however there is limited evidence of the landlord contacting the resident or pursuing these repairs, beyond sending a single text message or call on each occasion, asking him to rebook the appointment. The landlord has a legal duty to ensure that its properties are in good repair and free from hazards and sending one text message following a missed appointment is not proportionate when seeking to address the disrepair issues he was raising.
The landlord was put on notice several years prior to the formal complaint, that there were issues with the resident’s windows and door and that this was potentially cause damp and mould in the property. Its own surveyors noted condensation, damp, signs of wet rot and leaks. In response to this, the landlord has apologised, undertaken surveys and a mould wash, but appears not to have completed any other substantive action to address the causative issues. The landlord’s evidence submission to this Service noted that its “disrepair team [had] confirmed that there are ongoing repairs” at the time of investigation.
As noted above this investigation will focus on the period from March 2023 to the date of this report. During this period the resident had been forced to reside in a property with damp and mould as a result of the landlord’s failure to provide an enduring remedy to the damp and mould within the property. This was a missed opportunity to address the presenting issue at the earliest opportunity which caused adverse impacts to the resident and can only but have caused damaged to the landlord and tenant relationship.
As part of the resident’s complaint, he also noted that he had incurred considerable expenditure through attempting to rectify the damp and mould issue himself and through replacing damaged furniture and possessions which had been damaged by mould. As of 6 August 2024, the resident estimated his costs to be around £1901.89 and these included:
1. Damp and mould paint.
2. Cleaning products.
3. 2 bedframes and a mattress.
4. Clothing and footwear belonging to the resident and his children.
5. Wallpaper that the resident had installed in his bedroom.
6. A wardrobe.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord recommended that the resident raise a claim to his home contents insurance for these items. There is no indication that the landlord considered compensation, or making a referral to its own insurer for these matters. Given the delays, lack of repair and poor service received by the resident, this was not a proportionate response. It is not clear whether the resident progressed a claim with his insurer. An order has been raised in respect of this below.
Aside from providing apologies to the resident, there has been nothing to indicate that the landlord has provided any redress to the resident, particularly compensation. This is not proportionate in response or speed to the level of disrepair or the time that it has remained unresolved. Additionally, the landlord referred the resident to his own insurer to raise a claim for the damage to his possessions, however it does not appear to have considered passing the matter to its own insurer, despite acknowledging that it had not responded to the issues for several years.
As set out in the previous section, these failings were all exacerbated by the landlord’s poor customer service and communication with the resident throughout the entire period of the complaint. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had “consistently called the call centre and other members of the repair team to chase these repairs over the last few years […] but to no avail”. This can only but have increased the level of detriment, time and trouble experienced by the resident in pursuing these matters.
Taking these factors together, there has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows and doors in the property and the associated damp and mould. Orders and recommendations have been made in respect of this below.
As part of this, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £2315 for loss of amenity and full enjoyment of his property. This is calculated based on the percentages in the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance for loss of amenity in a bedroom and bathroom over the 29 month period from March 2023 and the date of this report. Additional compensation has also been ordered for associated distress, inconvenience, time and trouble and this is set out below.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint policy in which it commits to responding to resident complaints in the following timescales:
1. Stage 1 – 10 working days.
2. Stage 2 – 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says:
1. It will pay compensation “in a manner that is fair and proportionate and represents value for money”.
2. It is not a replacement for home contents insurance.
3. Compensation can be made “if there has been mismanagement, a delay in service, and/or additional costs have been incurred due to a service failure”.
4. Compensation for a missed appointment would be £10 per appointment.
5. Compensation for loss of use of a room would be:
  1. Kitchen – 25% of weekly rent.
  2. Bathroom – 10% of weekly rent, where there is only one bathroom.
  3. Bedroom – 30% of weekly rent, in a one-bedroom property.
6. Discretionary compensation of between £50-1000, depending on severity, can be paid for:
  1. “Unacceptable delays in providing services which have resulted in serious distress or inconvenience”.
  2. “Unacceptable responses to upheld or partially upheld complaints which have caused distress or dissatisfaction due to poor complaint handling.”
  3. “Additional costs incurred as a result of a failure in service.”
The landlord’s complaint responses show that it was aware that the resident had been raising the repair issues outlined in this report for several years, since 2020. It also noted that he had contacted the landlord, via various channels, over an extended period.
The landlord’s complaint policy, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) define a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of actions by [the landlord], [its] staff or those acting on [its] behalf, affecting an individual resident or group.”
On this basis, it is unclear why the landlord did not raise a complaint at an earlier point in this process, given that it was aware of the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction in this case, related to its repair timescales. This was a failing, which left the resident needing to chase the landlord over a period of around a year, before his complaint was registered and investigated.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it was “very sorry that [the resident] had to live in this condition for several years without these issues being resolved” and that a survey would be undertaken on 8 April 2024. It said that after the survey, “all outstanding repairs [would] be raised immediately”. It also said that compensation would be considered, following the survey, to accurately assess the level of detriment the resident had suffered.
Having given these assurances, there then appears to have been no action taken to complete the repairs or to provide any level of compensation. This can only but have caused the resident additional distress and caused further damage to the landlord and tenant relationship.
Further to this, within its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord requested from the resident, evidence of when he had been promised compensation as it “could find no record of this”. Given that this assurance was made within its stage 1 complaint response, it is concerning to note that the landlord did not have sufficiently accurately records to identify this and instead needed to seek this evidence from the resident. Again, this can only have caused further distress, inconvenience and time and trouble for the resident, in providing information which the landlord itself had previously given.
Given that the repairs remain outstanding at the time of this investigation, the landlord’s complaint process has been ineffective in bringing resolution to the resident’s concerns.
It was positive to note that the landlord offered some redress to the resident, in the form of apologies, and outlined some learning that it would be taking forward, including better communication and management of works. It said it would address this in its monthly meetings.
Notwithstanding this, it is concerning to note that the landlord did not, at any point within its complaint process, offer compensation to the resident. Its compensation policy sets out several criteria which were met in this case, including service failures, delays, loss of use of a room, missed appointments and incurred costs, but none of these appear to have been used to assess a possible award of compensation. This was a significant failing and a missed opportunity to provide the resident with meaningful redress while the repairs were progressed.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling process was not initiated for around a year after the landlord was first put on notice of the resident’s dissatisfaction. Furthermore, it failed to provide a resolution to the resident’s concern or provide the full range of redress which it had available. On this basis, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling in this case. Orders and recommendations have been made in respect of this below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there has been:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows and door in the property and the associated damp and mould.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior officer to apologise to the resident in person.
2. Pay the resident £2915 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £2315 for the resident’s loss of amenity and enjoyment of his home over a period of 29 months.
  2. £400 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident in pursuing these matters over a period of 29 months.
  3. £200 for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.

The landlord must pay this compensation directly to the resident and not apply it to his accounts, unless he requests this.

Engage with the resident regarding the costs that he has said he incurred during the course of this complaint and seek to reach a mutually agreeable financial resolution. If this is not possible, the landlord must refer the matter to its insurer to consider. The landlord should provide the resident and this Service with its final position in writing.
Undertake a survey of all remaining works in the property; to include the windows, door, damp and mould, water ingress and other recommendations made in previous reports. The survey report must be provided to the resident and this Service and must include a schedule of works showing when these repairs will be completed. Any repairs identified must be completed in a period not exceeding a further 12 weeks and subject to a post-completion survey to ensure their efficacy. This must be shared with the resident and this Service.

Within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to conduct a strategic review of this case. The review must be carried out by a suitable manager independent of the service areas complained about and must identify, as a minimum:
1. The causes of the significant delays to completing repairs in this case. This must include an assessment of why the surveyor’s reports were not acted upon and why the repairs remain outstanding at the time of investigation.
2. Why it did not provide the resident with financial redress during its complaint process, despite the thresholds in its compensation policy being met on numerous occasions.
3. The impact that its internal and external communications, customer service and complaint identification and escalation processes had on this case. This must include an assessment of whether the previous learning identified has been implemented, how effective this has been and if there are further changes necessary to prevent a reoccurrence of the poor customer service experienced by the resident in this case.
4. What learning can be taken from this case to prevent a reoccurrence in future.
5. How the landlord can implement the learning identified through staff training, process changes, policy changes or other factors. This must include an action plan showing how this learning will be implemented in a period not exceeding a further 12 weeks.

The case review report and action plan must be shared with the resident, this Service and the landlord’s governance board or equivalent.