Orbit Housing Association Limited (202335833)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335833

Orbit Housing Association Limited

8 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. reports of damp and mould in the property and the associated repairs.
2. reports of damage to the resident’s personal belongings.
3. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a three-bedroom house under an assured tenancy agreement. At the time of the events complained about, she lived at the property with her 3 children, one of whom was an adult with a newborn baby . The resident’s other children were aged 16 and 17. The landlord recorded that the resident has mental health vulnerabilities.
On 29 January 2024 the resident complained to the landlord that her property had been in disrepair for more than 2 years with damp and mould across the property. She said that floors and walls of the property were falling through and her personal property had been ruined from water damage and mould.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 June 2024. In this it:
1. said that the damp and mould was first brought to its attention on 30 November 2023. It accepted there was a delay in arranging a damp and mould inspection.
2. said it had raised remedial work following the inspection and had completed the majority of this. It said the only outstanding repair was to carry out a damp and mould wash and it had raised a new repair order for this.
3. said in terms of the damage to the resident’s personal property it would consider reimbursing her. It said it needed her to provide a list of the damaged items, photographs and proof of their value before it could do this.
4. offered the resident £367 as compensation consisting of:
  1. £70 for failings in its service.
  2. £200 for distress and inconvenience.
  3. £50 for the delay in responding to her complaint.
  4. £47 for the 47 day delay in carrying out the damp and mould inspection.
The resident escalated her complaint on 25 June 2024. She denied that the landlord had carried out any repairs to address the damp and mould. She also told the landlord the property was unsafe for her and her family to live in.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 August 2024. In this it:
1. said it had reviewed the details of her case and it would carry out another damp and mould inspection to decide what further works were required.
2. stated that it had temporarily moved the resident and her family out of the property. It told her it would complete the remedial work by the time she returned.
3. said it had decided not to reimburse the resident for the claimed damage to her personal property as she had not provided receipts. It said it would review this decision if she provided the receipts later.
4. offered the resident £779.69 consisting of:
  1. the £367 it had offered at stage 1.
  2. £262.69 for loss of service and the resident’s loss of enjoyment of her home.
  3. an additional £100 for distress and inconvenience.
  4. an additional £50 for the handling of her complaint at stage 1.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 19 September 2024 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as this did not reflect the impact that the damp and mould had had on her and her family. The Ombudsman has seen that the resident returned to the property on 29 November 2024 after the landlord had carried out repairs. The resident told the Ombudsman that the damp and mould has returned in the property since the end of the repairs and the problem has not been resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope

In the resident’s correspondence, she has referred to historical issues with the landlord agreeing to a full refurbishment of the property in 2019 which it did not complete. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this investigation does not consider any specific events prior to 16 November 2023 when the initial repair request was first raised. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the events relating to the formal complaint the resident made on 17 January 2024.
We have seen that after the stage 2 response the resident complained to the landlord in December 2024 that it had damaged the carpets in the dining room and hallway of the property during the repairs it carried out. Though the landlord did not log this as a complaint at the time it has confirmed to the Ombudsman that it had now created a new complaint to consider this and will issue a formal response to the resident. Therefore, at this time, we will not be investigating the resident’s later complaint or the landlord’s handling of it as this has not exhausted its complaints procedure. We have referred to events that occurred after the stage 2 complaint on 7 August 2024 where they provide context to the outcome of the complaint we have investigated.
The resident also told the Ombudsman that she believed the damp and mould in the property adversely affected her health. She said that she was experiencing difficulties breathing which improved after she was temporarily moved out of the property.
Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of independent medical reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This will be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation as the courts can make legally binding decisions. If the resident wishes to pursue the impact on her health further, she should seek independent legal advice. The Ombudsman will still consider distress and inconvenience caused from the landlord’s actions.

The landlord’s record handling

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

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

The landlord has been unable to produce a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement with the original tenancy terms and conditions. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to be able to access this key document. The landlord has provided standard terms and conditions it says were applicable when the resident signed her tenancy. The standard terms and conditions confirm the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and outside of the property as well as equipment for supplying water to the property. It states it will give residents at least 24 hours notice of a planned repair unless it is an emergency.
The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy says that:
1. it will ensure it keeps accurate records when a resident makes a report of damp and mould and that it will assess the risk to the resident(s).
2. it will ensure its responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Its inspections and repairs to resolve damp and mould will be carried out in line with its repair policy.
3. where extensive works may be required it will consider the individual circumstances of the household (including any vulnerabilities) and whether it is appropriate to move resident(s) out of their home.
The landlord’s repair policy says, for repairs which are its responsibility, it will:
1. carry out an inspection for damp and mould to diagnose the cause of this before beginning repairs.
2. it will prioritise repairs as follows:
  1. for emergency repairs (which pose an immediate risk to health of the resident or the safety of the resident or building) it will make these safe within 4 or 24 hours, depending on what needs fixing.
  2. it will complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
  3. it will complete major repairs (such as those which require several types of trades or scaffolding to complete), which are not an emergency, as part of stock investment programmes. When the landlord created its current repairs policy in March 2024 it stated it would complete major repairs within 90 calendar days.
From the available records the landlord first recorded issues with damp and mould at the property on 16 November 2023 when it attended for repairs to the plasterwork of the property. In this it noted:
1. the kitchen ceiling was bowing in 2 places and was water damaged.
2. the ceiling in the room next to the kitchen was leaking and it would need to remove this to inspect the cause further.
3. black mould was growing underneath the kitchen worktops and near the door.
4. multiple holes were present in the kitchen floor, with the largest being approximately 1 ft by 2 ft.
5. the plasterboard in the dining room was coming away from the wall adjoining the kitchen and was water damaged.
6. the dining room ceiling was water damaged and had a hole in it.
7. mould was growing in the bathroom.
8. multiple other walls across the property were water damaged.
9. the resident had a new–born infant living at the property.
The landlord attended on 23 November 2023 as part of a follow-up to the previous repair. It recorded:
1. it removed part of a ceiling that was collapsing due to water ingress.
2. it had placed weatherboard to channel the water so it would be “easier to now be caught [in] buckets”.
3. the walls and ceilings of more than 1 room of the property were affected and further repairs were required to the roof and ceilings of the property.
From the records provided the landlord did not take any further action until 14 January 2024 when it carried out a damp and mould inspection, 49 calendar days later (excluding public holidays). Though the landlord accepted there had been a delay it did not provide any reason for this other than there was a high demand for damp and mould inspections.
This was not appropriate. The landlord’s self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould said it intended to complete inspections within 28 calendar days. It also said if the report of damp and mould suggested a serious issue it must make contact within 5 working days. Considering the extent of the water ingress, damp and mould described on 23 November 2023 its response did not reflect the urgency of the issue in line with its damp, mould and condensation policy and its self-assessment. There is also no evidence that it considered if it needed to complete any further emergency repairs to make safe the missing flooring at the property before the damp and mould inspection took place.
At the damp and mould inspection on 14 January 2024 the landlord recorded:
1. damp and mould were present in the kitchen, dining room and bathroom.
2. the side extension roofing and rear bay window roof were leaking and required urgent attention. The guttering in the rear of the property was also blocked and disjointed which was contributing to the leaks.
3. the side extension’s flooring (in the kitchen) had rotted below the vinyl sheet and was dangerous.
4. there was a plumbing leak from the first–floor bathroom into the dining room which was causing “considerable damage”.
5. a major works referral was required and these would be referred as urgent.
The landlord raised a repair request for the issues raised in the damp and mould inspection on 17 January 2024. Though at several points the repair request stated the repairs were required urgently the landlord recorded the repair priority as a routine repair to be completed within 28 calendar days. This was unreasonable compared to its damp, mould and condensation policy as its response did not reflect the emergency of the issue.
Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord assessed if it should temporarily move the resident and her family out of the property until it could complete the repairs. This assessment should have taken place due to the extent of the repair issues and its record of the resident’s mental health vulnerabilities and the new–born child in the property. As such the landlord’s lack of action was inappropriate, as it did not act in line with its repairs policy or damp mould and condensation policy.
On 16 January 2024 the landlord attempted to visit the property to carry out a temporary repair to make safe the flooring in the kitchen. The resident said that she was not available to grant access that day but could do this on 17 January 2024 or 19 January 2024 instead. On 23 January 2024 the landlord recorded an attempted visit to carry out mould wash treatment. The landlord recorded that the resident was not available to grant access as she was at work. Due to a lack of adequate records, it is not known whether the landlord had given the resident notice of its planned visits. From the available evidence the landlord did not attempt to visit the property again for either repair or contact the resident further about these.
This was inappropriate. The landlord’s self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould said it had developed a no access procedure to ensure missed appointments are followed up. It stated that as part of this procedure it would ring the resident and send a letter. There is no evidence that the landlord followed this procedure. It is of particular concern that it did not follow-up the temporary repair to make the kitchen flooring safe.
From 2 to 4 April 2024 the landlord attended the property to apply waterproofing to the roof of the side extension of the property and clear the guttering. The landlord’s repair logs indicated that though it fixed and cleared the guttering “where it could” it specified it would need to carry out further work to fully address the problems. There is no evidence that the landlord raised a further repair request for this at the time or that a post-works inspection took place to assess if the waterproofing had resolved the leaks to the property. This was inappropriate.
From the available records the landlord did not carry out any further repairs to resolve the problems seen from the damp and mould inspection until after the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord spoke to the resident on 28 June 2024. She told it that no work had been done, the condition of the property was “getting to the point of hurting herself” and there was a baby in the property. The landlord arranged for another inspection and considered temporarily moving the resident. As part of this attendance on 11 July 2024 the landlord recorded that its scaffolder could not attend for 2 months after it raised the works in January 2024 due to a road closure. However, the landlord said it did not follow this up after the road closure ended “so no work has been done”.
This was unacceptable. The landlord did not take meaningful action to progress the repairs raised on 17 January 2024 for 177 calendar days which greatly exceeded the timescales for routine or major repairs from the landlord’s repair policy. Though the road closure was not within the landlord’s control, there is no evidence it assessed if it should have temporarily moved the resident and her family to take account of:
1. the possible delay in completing the work due to the scaffolders not being able to attend.
2. the vulnerabilities of the resident’s household, both in terms of the resident’s recorded mental health vulnerabilities and her newborn grandchild.
3. the previous finding that the kitchen flooring was dangerous.
From its inspection on 11 July 2024 the landlord recorded the following findings:
1. the kitchen floor had completely rotted and the resident still had to work there despite the sinking vinyl.
2. the kitchen/diner ceiling had partly collapsed.
3. the kitchen roof was badly leaking in several places.
4. the bathroom had a leak, likely from badly installed tiles.
5. the rear bedroom had water ingress from overflowing/failed guttering.
6. there was water ingress into the second reception room from a lack of guttering for that part of the property.
7. there were cracks between the fire wall and the chimney.
8. there were “probably other repairs [it had] not identified yet”.
From its findings the landlord recommended that the resident and her family required a temporary move as:
1. the kitchen was dangerous and unusable. The ceiling of the kitchen/diner might also have further plaster collapse at any time.
2. one of the bedrooms was also unusable.
3. it would take the landlord at least 2 to 3 months to complete the repairs.
From the available records the landlord temporarily moved the resident and her family to another property by 18 July 2024. As set previously out, the landlord should have assessed the need to temporarily move the resident and her family much sooner on the basis that:
1. the landlord had already identified that the kitchen was dangerous in its inspection on 14 January 2024. It also referred to the partial collapse of the ceiling during the previous repair on 23 November 2023. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, the kitchen would also have been unusable from 14 January 2024.
2. though the inspection on 14 January 2024 did not refer to the bedroom, the landlord identified the failures with the guttering that caused the water ingress identified in that inspection. On the balance of probabilities, the lack of action by the landlord to repair the guttering is likely (and logically) to have caused the condition of this room to deteriorate and become unusable at some point between 14 January 2024 and 11 July 2024.
The landlord accepted that there were failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs. In its stage 2 response it offered the resident £669.69 for these failings (leaving aside the £100 offered for its complaint handling). In its response to the Ombudsman it outlined that, of this amount, £319.69 of this compensation was calculated on the basis of a 10% rent refund for the partial loss of the kitchen and bedroom for 27 and a half weeks. Consequently, it seems the other £350 was in recognition of factors such as the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The Ombudsman has decided that, in line with our guidance on remedies, this was not sufficient to put things right for the resident. Due to the landlord’s actions the resident and her family were left in a property which it had identified was dangerous and required major repairs to address the leaks, damp and mould. The landlord did not take sufficient action to make the property safe or temporarily move the resident and her family for approximately 6 months after its damp and mould inspection.
In line with our guidance on remedies the Ombudsman also considers there were aggravating factors in this case. The landlord identified that there was a baby living in the property when it first recorded the issues with leaks damp and mould on 16 November 2023. However, there is no evidence it took this into account when considering the impact of its handling of the damp and mould or associated repairs. Similarly, though the landlord recorded that the resident had mental health vulnerabilities, and noted this on 7 February 2024 shortly after she complained, there is no evidence that the landlord considered how this may have increased the emotional impact of the events on her. Whilst we cannot comment on whether the damp and mould caused an injury to the resident or her family, our view is that the impact on the resident in terms of distress and inconvenience was likely to be significant.
As a result of this, the Ombudsman considers that there were significant failures in the landlord’s handling of the reported damp and mould and the associated repairs which have caused a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. As such this would meet the level of redress for severe maladministration and the compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident should be increased.
In relation to the rent refund, in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, a 10% refund would be consistent with the partial loss of 2 rooms as these are set at 5% regardless of which room was affected. However, as set out previously by 11 July 2024 the landlord recorded that the kitchen was unusable and all the factors mentioned were already present during the inspection on 14 January 2024. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers that to reasonably remedy this impact, the landlord should have offered the full room loss allowance for the kitchen. For a kitchen this is specified as being 25% of rent in the landlord’s compensation policy. As such we have ordered that the landlord provide additional compensation to reflect a total of a 30% rent refund.
As set out previously, the resident has stated that the damp and mould has returned in the property since the landlord finished the repairs on 29 November 2024. As the repairs to the property occurred following the stage 2 response, we have not investigated these. However, as the resident has said the issues with damp and mould have not resolved since her original complaint we have made an order for the landlord to re-inspect the property and assess whether further repairs are required.
In summary there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its landlord’s handling of damp and mould and the associated repairs, in that it:
1. delayed completing a damp and mould inspection for 49 calendar days, despite the severity of the reported issues.
2. did not assess whether the resident and her family should be temporarily moved from the property, following the damp and mould inspection on 14 January 2024, given the findings that the kitchen was dangerous and the extent of the repairs needed. There is also no evidence that the landlord revisited this once it became clear there would be delays in it being able to complete the planned repairs.
3. did not follow-up the emergency repairs to the kitchen flooring and planned mould treatment after it was initially unable to get access to the property.
4. did not raise the further repairs which the landlord identified a for the guttering of the property following its attendances on 2 – 4 April 2024. It also did not complete a post-works inspection to assess if the waterproofing of the roof of the extension had resolved the leaks.
5. did not take meaningful action to progress the other repairs identified as necessary from the damp and mould inspection for 177 calendar days.
6. did not take account of the vulnerabilities of the resident and her family.
Whilst the landlord accepted some failures, it did not recognise them all or award compensation that the Ombudsman considered fair in all the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damage to the resident’s personal property

The landlord’s compensation policy says that in exceptional circumstances it may award compensation in relation to damage to a customer’s property or personal belongings if:
1. the amount is below £5,000.
2. the damage is a direct result of something the landlord has done or failed to do.
3. it has evidence from the customer showing:
  1. proof of ownership of the item(s).
  2. proof of the value of the item(s).
  3. proof of the original purchase date of the items(s).
The landlord’s compensation policy goes on to say that once it has evidence from the customer it will use the original value at purchase and the age of the item, in years, to calculate an amount of compensation it will offer.
Following the stage 1 response the resident sent the landlord a number of photographs on 10 July 2024 showing the damage to her property from the damp and mould. The landlord told the resident she would need to provide receipts for these before it could reimburse her.
The resident contacted the landlord with further evidence in response to the landlord’s request. The Ombudsman has not been provided with copies of this by either party. However, the landlord described that this evidence consisted of:
1. a food shopping receipt for £221.84. The resident said in her accompanying email this was from a time where the water damage had caused her fridge-freezer to short circuit and she had needed to throw out the food.
2. bank statement details for carpet and flooring, for an amount which the landlord did not specify.
3. order details for books, for an amount which the landlord did not specify.
4. delivery details for 2 beds for a total value of £394.94
5. order details for curtains for a value of £46.04
6. an order detail for an unspecified item for £205.77.
7. another order detail for an amount which the landlord did not specify. The landlord said that there was also no record of what the item was in the information the resident provided.
In its email of 25 July 2024, where it set out the above information, the landlord told the resident it would not reimburse her for any of these items. It told the resident that unless she provided the transactional receipt provided with the goods she had said were damaged it would not compensate her for these.
This was unreasonable. The landlord’s compensation policy says that a receipt would satisfy all the requirements for the customer to prove their ownership of the item, its value and its purchase date. However, it does not specify that a receipt is necessary to evidence these. As such the landlord’s insistence that the resident had to provide a receipt before it would consider providing compensation was not consistent with its compensation policy.
It was reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident it could not consider her request for compensation where she had not explained what the ordered items were or proved that these had been damaged as a result of the damp and mould. However, the landlord’s account of events show that the resident provided purchase orders and/or delivery details for specific items with a specified value. It could have reasonably considered if there was evidence from the resident’s photographs that these items had been damaged by its actions. As the landlord’s calculation from its compensation policy only uses the item’s age in years we are not of the view that the landlord reasonably required an exact date of purchase to do this.
As such there was a failing in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement for the damage to her personal belongings which it has not attempted to put right. In line with our guidance on remedies there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of damage to the resident’s personal property. Considering the nature of the failing, rather than order the landlord to provide a specific financial remedy, we have ordered the landlord to review its decision on whether to reimburse the resident for the damage to her personal property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. Its complaint policy says that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of logging the complaint. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the resident escalating the complaint.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint-handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service they provide, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and improvement. The Code was updated in April 2024, following the previous version in 2022 that was in place during the start of the events complained about. We will refer to this as the Code where the Ombudsman’s expectations did not differ between the 2 versions, otherwise the version will be specified.
As set out previously the resident first complained to the landlord on 29 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 February 2024, 7 working days later. This was inappropriate, in line with the 2022 Code the landlord should have acknowledged this within 5 working days.
Following the acknowledgement the landlord wrote to the resident on multiple occasions to say that it was extending its timescale to respond. It wrote to the resident:
1. on 21 February 2024 to say that it was still investigating her complaint and would respond by 6 March 2024.
2. on 6 March 2024 to say that it was not in a position to issue a full response and was reviewing her reporting history. It said it would aim to respond by 5 April 2024.
3. on 5 April 2024 to say it was still investigating and was intending to respond by 7 May 2024.
4. on 7 May 2024 to say it was still investigating the complaint and reviewing her reporting history. It said it would aim to respond by 11 June 2024.
This was unacceptable. In line with the Code a landlord must issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days. It must not extend this timescale by more than a further 10 working days without a good reason, which it must explain to the resident. The 2022 version of the Code also stated that any extension beyond a total of 20 working days must be agreed between the resident and landlord. The landlord extended its timescale to respond on 4 occasions without providing a detailed explanation for this or agreeing this with the resident.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 12 June 2024 and told the landlord to issue its stage 1 response by 19 June 2024. This should not have been necessary. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to handle complaints in a way that is consistent with its policy without the involvement of this Service. Furthermore, the landlord attempted to tell the resident it would need a further 10 working days to respond following 19 June 2024. The Ombudsman needed to inform the landlord that, in line with the Code, it was not able to make a further extension without agreeing this with the resident.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 June 2024, 98 working days after the resident’s original complaint. This was unacceptable, the landlord greatly exceeded the timescales of its policy and the Code to issue its stage 1 response.
As part of its stage 1 response the landlord stated the majority of the repairs from the damp and mould inspection had been completed, with the only exception it referred to being the mould treatment. The landlord provided no explanation for this statement in its stage 1 response. As set out previously, its surveyor who attended on 11 July 2024 directly contradicted this, accepting that the landlord had followed up the required work. The landlord’s response to the resident was inappropriate. It did not adequately investigate the resident’s complaint and provide a clear reason for its decision, as it would be expected to do in line with the Code.
The resident escalated her complaint on 25 June 2024 and stated the landlord had not completed any of the work agreed upon from 14 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 9 July 2024, 10 working days later. This was inappropriate, the Code says a request to escalate a complaint to stage 2 must be acknowledged and defined within 5 working days. That said, we note that the landlord had been attempting to contact the resident to discuss her complaint before this which mitigates the impact of this failing.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 August 2024, 21 working days after the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation. This was inappropriate as it was outside of the timescales of the landlord’s policy and the Code, however we recognise the short nature of the delay would limit the impact this had on the resident.
In relation to the content of the stage 2 response the landlord stated that it had reviewed the details of the resident’s case and had discussed this with its damp and mould team. It outlined the action it was planning to take to investigate the damp and mould in the property. However, the landlord’s response was brief and did not provide the resident with any explanation why the damp and mould repairs had not been carried out following the inspection on 14 January 2024 as set out in the definition of the complaint.
This was inappropriate as it was not consistent with the expectations of the Code that a landlord must address all points from the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for its decisions. Considering the inaccurate information in the landlord’s stage 1 response, we do not consider that the landlord gave the resident a meaningful explanation at any point in its complaint process regarding why the delays in its response to the damp and mould happened.
The landlord accepted that there was a delay in providing its stage 1 response and at stage 2 offered the resident £100 for this and the distress and inconvenience this caused. It did not acknowledge or provide a remedy for any of the other complaint handling failings. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was not a reasonable remedy considering the extent of the delays and other complaint handling failings. We have therefore ordered it to pay the resident the above award plus additional compensation to fully recognise its delays and other failings. The landlord also provided no explanation of what it would do to reduce the likelihood of a similar issue happening to another resident, which we would have expected it to do in line with our guidance on remedies.
In summary there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling, in that it:
1. delayed acknowledging the resident’s complaint at stage 1.
2. significantly delayed responding to the stage 1 complaint, taking 98 working days to respond and requiring intervention by the Ombudsman.
3. did not adequately investigate the complaint at stage 1 and incorrectly told the resident that it had completed the majority of the repairs ordered following the damp and mould inspection.
4. delayed acknowledging and responding to the resident’s escalation request at stage 2.
5. did not provide the resident with a meaningful explanation at stage 2 about why the delays in its response to her reports of damp and mould had happened.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damage to her personal belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of this determination:
1. provide a copy of this decision to its Chief Executive and ask them to issue the resident with a written apology. This must recognise the landlord’s failings in its handling of the reports of damp and mould and the subsequent complaint. It must also recognise the impact these had on the resident.
2. pay the resident a total of £2459.07 in compensation comprised of:
  1. £1,200 (inclusive of the £350 it previously offered) for the resident’s distress, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of her home caused by the delays in it responding to her reports of leaks, damp and mould.
  2. £959.07 (inclusive of the £319.69 it previously offered) to reimburse the resident for the full loss of use and enjoyment of the kitchen and the partial loss of use and enjoyment of the bedroom for the time period complained about.
  3. £300 (inclusive of the £100 it previously offered) in recognition of the time and trouble of pursuing a complaint and the frustration caused by the significant failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. the landlord must review its decision not to offer any compensation for the damage the resident stated the leaks, damp and mould caused to her personal belongings. It must give the resident an opportunity to provide any further information proving her ownership of, and the value and age of the items. It must then consider whether it will offer a contribution under its compensation policy or provide details to the resident of its liability insurer. It must write to the resident within 28 days of the date of this determination setting out how it will handle the claim for damaged contents.
4. instruct an appropriately qualified surveyor to complete a survey to inspect the property. The landlord must ensure that an appointment is made to go ahead with the resident at a mutually convenient time within the next 28 days. The purpose of the survey is to establish if there are any ongoing issues with leaks, damp and mould at the property and what further repairs, if any, need to be completed.
5. provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any monies she may owe the landlord.
The landlord must carry out a management review of the resident’s case. This should consider:
1. how the delays in responding to the reports of leaks, damp and mould occurred in this case and its practices regarding how it deals with, responds to and monitors these and the associated repairs. This is to ensure that they are recorded, investigated and responded to in a timely manner.
2. how the complaint handling failings occurred and how the landlord will make improvements to reduce the likelihood of a reoccurrence
3. any staff training that may improve its future response to similar cases.
The landlord must provide a written report to the Ombudsman setting out its findings to the management review specified in paragraph 67 of this report. The landlord must provide this report within 56 days of the date of this determination.