Orbit Housing Association Limited (202403133)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403133

Orbit Housing Association Limited

15 October 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about how the landlord has handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom house which the resident moved into in 2021.
In January 2021 the resident reported damp and mould in the property. The landlord says it attempted to visit the property soon after this but was unable to gain access or contact the resident.
The resident reported damp and mould again on 11 January 2023. The landlord communicated with the resident intermittently about organising an inspection for this over the next several months. On 7 November 2023 the resident complained about delays in the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould since 2021. The landlord then completed an inspection on 30 November 2023 and raised works to address the damp and mould it identified.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 23 January 2024. It acknowledged it had delayed in raising works and communicated poorly with the resident from August 2023 onwards. It offered her £368 compensation to put this right. However, it explained that it had tried to contact the resident from January 2023 to August 2023 to organise an inspection, but that she had been unresponsive and repeatedly refused access. It also committed to a list of works it would complete to address outstanding damp and mould. It explained it would not consider her complaint about its actions before 11 January 2023, because her most recent report of damp and mould before this was in November 2021. It also explained that it had tried to contact the resident following this report, but she did not respond.
The resident was not satisfied with this because she felt the compensation offered was insufficient and that the landlord had failed to fully acknowledge its responsibility for the delays. She escalated her complaint to stage 2 in late January 2024. Over the next 2 months the landlord completed some of the works it committed to in its stage 1 response. On 13 March 2024 it then provided its stage 2 response. It reiterated the position it outlined at stage 1 and set out a list of pending works alongside dates by which the resident could expect it to complete these. It also offered £100 in compensation for delays in handling her complaint, bringing the total compensation offer to £468. The resident advised us that she accepted and received this payment.
On 9 April 2024 there was an altercation between the resident and a team of visiting contractors. All parties alleged the other behaved aggressively. The resident then brought her complaint to us on 23 April 2024. Over the next several months the landlord completed some of the works listed in its stage 2 response, alongside some other works which its surveyors recommended following a further inspection in August 2024.
In a phone call with the resident on 3 October 2024 she advised the Ombudsman that the works the landlord has so far completed are having a positive impact on addressing the damp and mould. However, she explained that she feels these works do not go far enough to fully address the issue. She also considers the landlord should have paid her more compensation. To resolve her complaint, she would like the landlord to complete works on both the concrete underneath her living room floor and the gutters of the property. She would also like it provide further compensation for damaged possessions, distress, and loss of use of the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould from 2021 onwards. However, under paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which we typically consider to be within 12 months of the matters arising. As the resident made a formal complaint on 7 November 2023, this investigation will not consider the events that occurred before 6 November 2022 because these did not occur within 12 months of the complaint.
This assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould from 7 November 2022 up to its final response in March 2024. We have also considered the landlord’s actions following this in so far as they relate to commitments it made in its complaint responses.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s policy on handling damp and mould states it will allocate resident’s reports of this to a technical surveyor within 5 working days. It states it will also consider whether an immediate mould treatment is required and communicate its decision with the resident within the same timescale. It states that it will then arrange an inspection within 28 days. It states it will document 3 attempts to make contact with the resident and then, if it is unable to reach them, it will refer the case to a customer referral officer.
The resident reported damp and mould in the property on 11 January 2023. We can see the landlord then raised a mould wash on 30 January 2023. Internal emails note that it had unsuccessfully tried to access the property and contact the resident throughout the 2 preceding weeks. However, there are no direct communication records which corroborate this. The landlord should have kept an audit trail of how it responded to this report and of any attempts to contact the resident as per its policy. Given there are no records of this, we are of the view that it likely did not contact the resident within 5 working days, and this was not in keeping with its policy.
The landlord then wrote to the resident on 1 February 2023 and asked her to contact it to organise a damp and mould inspection and treatment. It was appropriate for the landlord to attempt an alternative means of communication given it had noted difficulties in reaching her by phone, and we consider this was a positive step towards addressing the report.
Internal records note that the landlord then called the resident on 6 February 2023 to book these works, but that she refused access since she was “seeking solicitors’ advice”. There are no further records of contact between either party until 15 March 2023, when the landlord noted the resident had refused access again on the same basis. The resident denies that she refused access here, or at any stage since this.
While we recognise the resident’s account, we must reach conclusions based on the objective evidence available to us. The only relevant evidence we have here is the landlord’s call notes and visit logs with the resident, and these repeatedly state she did not engage with its attempts to progress the damp and mould inspection and treatment until this point. The resident’s occupancy agreement sets out that she is responsible for allowing the landlord access to complete repairs, and so she should have done so. We also note that the landlord continued to make positive attempts to engage with her despite this. Therefore, we consider the landlord acted appropriately from 1 February 2023 until 15 March 2023.
On 21 and 22 March 2023 contact logs note that the resident refused a “mould wash appointment” because she considered the landlord needed to inspect the cavity in the external walls, which she thought was the cause of the damp and mould. We recognise why the resident may have thought that a mould wash alone was not likely to be productive, given that this kind of treatment does not address any underlying causes. However, it can be an effective and appropriate treatment to remove mould across a range of surfaces. Therefore, the resident’s refusal of the mould wash was not helpful.
The landlord’s letter of 1 February 2023 stated that it was seeking to organise both an inspection and a mould wash as per its policy. However, based on the contact logs from 21 March 2023, it appears that the landlord was intending to arrange an appointment for a mould wash only. This was not in keeping with its policy which obliges it to make efforts to schedule an inspection within 28 days of a damp and mould report. However, we note that the resident’s refusal to grant access was likely not the most productive way to progress this.
The landlord then called the resident on 24 March 2023 and booked an inspection for 28 March 2023. There is no evidence that this inspection took place. The landlord then sent the resident a letter on 29 March 2023 asking her to contact it. There are no further contact records between both parties until 31 August 2023 when the resident contacted the landlord to chase an inspection.
It is unclear why the inspection of 28 March 2023 did not go ahead, and we note that this likely contributed to the delay. However, the landlord appears to have attempted to discuss this with the resident via correspondence it sent the following day, and we consider this was a reasonable step towards mitigating any delays caused by the missed inspection. It is not clear why the resident did not respond to this until 31 August 2023, and we consider this also likely had some impact on the delay.
However, following the resident’s response on 31 August 2023, there is no indication the landlord took any action in relation to the report over the next month. This was not in keeping with its policy, and likely contributed to the delay.
The resident contacted the landlord to chase this again on 26 September 2023. Internal records from 4 October 2023 note that an “initial inspection has been completed” but that “relevant jobs have not been raised.” While this initial inspection was a relative progression in its handling of the damp and mould report, the associated records do not document any specific observations. The landlord’s policy on damp and mould sets out a list of specific checks it is obligated to carry out during inspections, such as recording wall and floor surface moisture levels. There is no indication that it considered any of the checks listed in this policy on 4 October 2023, and therefore this inspection was not completed appropriately.
Following this there are no further related records until the resident made more reports on 3 November and 10 November 2023. The landlord then carried out an inspection on 30 November 2023. It is unclear why it took the landlord 3 months from when the resident got back in touch with it on 31 August 2023 to complete an appropriate inspection. This was 63 days past the timescale set out in its damp and mould policy, and we consider this likely delayed a resolution.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will feedback to customers after a damp and mould inspection to make sure they understand the diagnosis it has reached. It also states that it will manage symptoms of damp and mould by increasing mechanical extractions to remove high moisture content, and by remediating any building defects or leaks.
The landlord’s inspection on 30 November 2023 detailed a list of observations about likely causes of the damp and mould, including the presence of ivy on an external wall, and issues with the concrete paths leading up to the property. It also set out the following 5 stage action plan to address it:
1. Installation of ACO drains to the front and side of the property.
2. Removal of ivy from the external walls.
3. Installation of thermal-boards and air bricks to 2 outer walls of the lounge and to side walls in the bedrooms.
4. Relocation of the radiator in the back bedroom from the side wall to underneath the window.
5. Service of the ventilation system of the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete major repairs within 90 days. It classes these types of repairs as those that will take longer than 4 hours or need several different trades or a specialist contractor to complete. The landlord’s records are not explicit as to how it classified these works in line with its policy. However, the planning records for all these works allocate more than 4 hours per job, and so they are all reasonably described as major repairs.
The landlord raised these works on 7 December 2023 and advised the resident it had done so, as per its policy. The action plan also sought to address building defects and the high moisture content in the property. This was also appropriate and in line with its damp and mould policy.
Internal records indicate the landlord assessed the positive input ventilation (PIV) unit in the property at some stage in early January 2024 but found that it had been disconnected. However, observations noted on 9 January 2024 explain that the PIV unit was not suitable for the property in any case. It also noted that the other works planned would be sufficient to address the damp and mould, and so the PIV unit could remain disconnected.
The landlord then wrote to the resident on 9 January 2024 and advised it was still considering her complaint. It also advised that it had scheduled a visit to service the ventilation system on 6 February 2024. It is unclear why the landlord advised her of this given it seems it had already assessed the PIV unit and found it was obsolete. The landlord should have ensured that updates it gave the resident about further works were accurate and up to date, and we consider its failure to do so here likely caused her some confusion.
The landlord then provided its stage 1 response on 23 January 2024 and acknowledged that it had delayed in inspecting the damp and mould and raising works. However, it explained that the resident had not responded to communications and repeatedly refused access between January 2023 and August 2023. It explained that this had contributed to the delays, and we think this explanation was reasonable. It also explained that it serviced the ventilation system on 3 January 2024. This explanation was misleading given it had already determined that the PIV unit was not suitable for her property. The landlord also explained that it had planned works for 6 February 2024 to fit air bricks and thermal boarding on various walls of the property.
The landlord then attended on 6 February 2024 to fit the thermal boarding. Records from this visit state that the resident refused the works because she considered the plaster needed to be “hacked off” to remove sections she thought were damp before the thermal boarding was installed. The landlord called the resident on 13 February 2024 to discuss her concerns about this but was unable to reach her. The resident got back in touch the following day and requested a call back. The landlord returned her call on 20 February 2024, and she agreed to allow it to fit the thermal boarding without hacking off the plaster.
We recognise the resident disagreed with the approach the landlord wanted to take. However, there was no instruction to hack off any plaster in the works order raised by the surveyor on 7 December 2023. Therefore, the landlord acted in accordance with the professional advice of its surveyor in how it approached the works, and it was appropriate to do so. We also do not consider it was reasonable of the resident to refuse these works, and this likely contributed to further delay.
Following the call on 20 February 2024 there is no record of any contact until 8 March 2024 when the landlord contacted the resident to advise its stage 2 response was delayed. It then provided this on 13 March 2024. It reiterated its stage 1 position and advised that it had scheduled the following dates for works to address the damp and mould:
1. Installation of ACO drains to the front and side of the property by 4 April 2024.
2. Removal of ivy from the external walls by 4 April 2024.
3. Installation of thermal boards and air bricks to 2 outer walls of the lounge and to side walls in the bedrooms by 12 April 2024.
4. Relocation of the radiator in the back bedroom off of the side wall to underneath the window by 4 April 2024.
The landlord acted appropriately by outlining timescales by which the resident could expect these works to be completed. However, we note that the projected timescales are all at least 35 days later than the timescale outlined in its repairs policy. While we accept that the resident’s actions likely contributed to the delay in fitting the thermal boards, we cannot see any similar mitigating factors to explain the delayed timescales for the remaining works, and the landlord did not provide any such explanation to the resident.
In its stage 2 response the landlord also explained that the resident had incorrectly disconnected the PIV unit, and that this had contributed to the ongoing damp and mould. We consider this explanation was inaccurate, given the landlord had received advice from its contractor in early January 2024 that the PIV unit was not suitable for her property. This miscommunication likely caused the resident some confusion.
The landlord then emailed the resident on 25 March 2024 and explained that its contractors would be in touch to arrange a date for the works to be completed. It also advised that it raised the works on 7 March 2024, and so it was still operating within the timescales set out in its policy. We can see that works were raised to fit ACO drains on 7 March 2024, however, these appear to be the same works it raised on 7 December 2023. Therefore, we do not consider this advice was accurate, and it likely confused the resident.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 March 2024 and advised that its contractors had attended the property that day but “found a reason why they can’t do the work”. The resident explained she felt the contractors did so as part of “an ongoing vendetta” against her. There are no records of this visit. The landlord should have documented this visit, and its failure to do so means we are unable to reach a view on what works it attempted on this date or why they were not possible. Following this we also cannot see any evidence that the landlord wrote back to the resident to explain what had happened. It should have done so, and we consider this omission likely caused the resident some distress and confusion.
We can see contractors attended the property on 9 April 2024 to fit the thermal boards to the outer walls. However, statements made by both contractors on 10 April 2024 note that the resident behaved aggressively towards them, so they left the property before completing the works. The resident disputed this and complained to the landlord on 10, 15, 17 and 19 April 2024 that the contractors were aggressive to her. She also complained that the contractors had removed radiators from the walls in 2 rooms and that this was making the house unbearably cold. Beyond the accounts of each party, we have no objective evidence to rely on to assess what happened on 9 April 2024. Therefore, we have not reached a view on whether any party behaved unreasonably or aggressively at this visit.
The landlord called the resident on 23 April 2024 and explained that its contractors had alleged she behaved abusively toward them, and that it needed to complete a review of this before it could resume the works. It also offered to reassess the works required given her suspicions about the contractor, which she refused. We consider it was reasonable for the landlord to take the allegations made by its contractors seriously and to investigate these before attempting to reschedule the works.
The landlord sent the resident a letter on 1 May 2024 formally advising her of the reports made by the contractors and asking her to moderate her behaviour in future visits. It emailed her on 9 May 2024 to explain it had emailed the contractor to chase the outstanding works, and that it would be in touch to arrange an appointment. The landlord and resident then went back and forth for the next couple of weeks regarding the outstanding works and the development of damp and mould within the property, and the landlord explained each time that it was working to reschedule the works.
We can see that the landlord was attempting to reallocate the outstanding works to the contractor throughout May 2024. However, the contractor was refusing to attend the property without a representative from the landlord present at all times. Attempting to allocate the works to an alternative contractor would have been counterproductive given the length of time that it typically takes for landlord’s to successfully tend new contracts. Therefore, we consider it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to reschedule the works with the same contractor at this stage.
The landlord attended on 28 May 2024 and removed the ivy from the exterior wall of the property, which was 83 days later than the 90-day timescale outlined in its repairs policy. It is unclear from the records whether the contractor was due to carry out these works when it attended on 9 April 2024. We recognise that the events on this date had some impact on delaying the works, and we cannot reasonably expect the landlord to have fully mitigated this. We also note that the landlord was making some efforts to resolve things with the contractor to reschedule these works. However, the repair attempted on 9 April 2024 was still 34 days later than the 90-day timescale outlined in its policy, and we cannot see any mitigating explanations which account for this. Therefore, we consider that the landlord delayed unreasonably in commencing the outstanding works on 9 April 2024.
The landlord then raised another inspection on 31 May 2024 in response to an email from the resident on 30 May 2024 advising she was “worried about the foundations of the house”. The resident called the landlord on 6 June 2024 and asked for an update. She also reiterated that she was without radiators and plaster on the walls in 2 rooms. We can see the landlord escalated the contractor’s refusal to complete the works with a senior member of staff on the same day, and this was a reasonable step to take. We note that at this stage the resident had been waiting for almost 2 months since 9 April 2024 for some kind of progress with the works, and that she had repeatedly explained she was without radiators or plaster on the walls. We also accept that the dispute with the contractor caused some unavoidable delays.
However, we consider the landlord could have taken further actions to try and resolve the dispute sooner. For instance, it could have escalated the issue to a senior member of staff sooner than it did. We also cannot see any evidence at this stage that it had considered providing a representative to attend the property as per the contractor’s request. Given this was the condition the contractor set out to resolve things, we would expect the landlord to have at least considered the feasibility of this and documented this consideration. Ultimately, we consider this likely contributed to the ongoing delay.
Internal emails indicate the landlord then called the resident on 12 June 2024 to book an inspection for 18 June 2024, but she refused. Further records indicate the landlord attempted to contact her a few more times until 27 June 2024 to chase this but she did not respond. Call logs indicate it tried unsuccessfully to contact her again on 27 July 2024. While we recognise the resident was unhappy about the alleged behaviour of the contractor, she was obliged to engage with the landlord as per her tenancy agreement to organise the inspection she requested on 30 May 2024. We also consider this likely contributed to the ongoing delay.
The landlord then completed an inspection on 2 August 2024. It is our understanding that this inspection was raised to reassess the causes of damp and mould and any required works. The landlord raised it on 31 May 2024, and it therefore took 31 days longer than the timescale outlined in its damp and mould policy to complete the inspection. However, we do not consider this was due to any failing by the landlord. We can see it had repeatedly engaged with the resident to schedule the inspection throughout June and July. We also consider that had she engaged with these attempts, it would likely have been completed sooner.
The inspection found damp and mould in the living room, kitchen, and both bedrooms. It also identified a high damp reading at the living room floor up to 1 meter. The surveyor proposed the following works to address this:
1. Remove the plaster of exterior facing walls and reskim.
2. Repoint open mortar joints.
3. Repoint brickwork.
4. Install fans.
5. Install a French drain around the permitter of the property.
6. Cut back concrete and fill with pea gravel.
7. Inspect the downpipe at the side of the property and ensure structural integrity.
8. Install of thermal boarding in the lounge and both bedrooms.
9. Apply mould treatment on the bathroom ceiling and exterior facing walls in both bedrooms.
10. Reinstall unattached radiators.
11. Install air bricks in both bedrooms.
12. Overhaul front elevation guttering.
13. Relay loft insulation.
14. Lift and relay slabs at front door to run into drain.
This action plan sought to address building defects and the high moisture content in the property. Therefore, this was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy. It is our understanding that these proposed works then replaced the previous works as they were based on a more up-to-date surveyor’s inspection, and we consider this was reasonable. We also note that the resident requested a reassessment on 30 May 2024 which prompted this inspection.
We can see the landlord raised some of these works on 5 August 2024, and the remainder on 7 August 2024. We can see the contractor responded to the orders raised on 5 August 2024 and explained that it would not attend the works without a landlord representative present. It also explained that the landlord had still not updated it on whether it would facilitate this. The landlord should reasonably have reached a decision on this by this point, given the inciting event occurred 4 months prior. It also should have communicated this decision with the contractor and the resident to manage both their expectations, and we consider its failure to do so resulted in further delay.
In a phone call with the Ombudsman the resident advised that the landlord completed most of the works above in late September. Unfortunately, the landlord’s records do not document which of these works it completed or when. The records indicate the works were planned for a 3-day period from 25 to 27 September 2024. Therefore, it seems reasonable to accept it completed some of these works over this period. Given it raised the works on 5 and 7 August 2024, the landlord completed them within the 90-day timescale set out in its repairs policy.
However, the resident has advised that the landlord has failed to-date to reinstall the radiators, fit air bricks in the walls, address the external guttering, or address the concrete underneath the living room floor. She also advises that the works completed so far have not fully addressed the damp and mould.
The landlord should have kept an audit trail of the repairs it completed and documented whether these had been successful. Its failure to do so means we are unable to determine whether the repairs were completed, or if not, why not. It also means we are unable to reach a view on the relative success of each repair. Therefore, we will make an order for the landlord to evidence which of the works raised in August 2024 it has completed. Following this, it must it fulfil any works which remain outstanding from this list. We will also make an order for it to inspect the property and provide the resident an up-to-date position on any damp and mould.
Ultimately, we consider the landlord delayed unreasonably in progressing the works at various points from March 2023 to present, and so we will make an order for compensation to put this right. However, this order will take into account that some of these delays were unavoidable due to the dispute with the contractor. It will also consider how the resident’s own engagement with the landlord contributed to delays.
The landlord’s compensation policy does not set out how it should calculate redress payments. Therefore, we have used our guidance on compensation to determine this. Our guidance sets out that payments between £100 to £600 are typically suitable to redress a failure which has adversely impacted the resident.
We consider the landlord delayed unreasonably in organising an inspection from 31 August 2023 to 30 November 2023, and that this likely caused the resident distress. We also accept that the resident was concerned about the health impacts of damp and mould during this period. With these considerations in mind, we would typically make an order around the mid to upper level of our compensation scale. In its stage 1 response the landlord offered the resident £368. Having considered this, our view is that this payment is appropriately situated on our scale, and so we consider it is sufficient to put right the impact caused to the resident during this period.
It is our view that the landlord delayed unreasonably in beginning to attempt the works on 9 April 2024, and we consider this likely caused the resident some distress. We also consider the landlord failed at times to take reasonable action to try and progress the works from 9 April 2024 to August 2024. However, we also note that the resident sometimes refused to engage with the landlord’s attempts to do so during this period. With this in mind, we consider it appropriate that the landlord pays the resident £300 to put right the impact caused by its own omissions during this period.
The resident has explained she considers the landlord should reimburse her for possessions she says were damaged by damp and mould. We have seen no indication that she has made a claim for this via her own contents insurance or the landlord’s liability insurance. Therefore, we will recommend that the landlord provides details of its liability insurance to the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy obliges it to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days. It states it will then provide stage 1 responses usually within 10 working days of this. If an extension is required the policy obliges it to explain this to the resident and set out a date by which it will provide its response. It states that extensions will not exceed another 10 working days without good reason. For stage 2 complaints, the policy obliges it to acknowledge them within 5 working days and provide responses within 20 working days. If an extension is required, it states the landlord will agree this with the resident, and that it will not exceed 20 working days without good reason.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 7 November 2023 and the landlord acknowledged her complaint the following day in line with its policy. We can see the landlord then wrote to the resident on 5 January 2024 and advised that it was still considering her complaint. It explained that this was due to “the Christmas period approaching”, and that it may not be able to progress things until the new year. Given the letter is dated 5 January 2024 and the Christmas period was over, this was not a reasonable explanation for the delay. We consider this likely confused the resident and undermined her confidence in the complaints process.
The landlord also sent the 5 January 2024 extension letter 21 working days later than the timescale set out in its policy. It also did not provide a timescale by which she could expect a response as per its policy. It then provided a stage 1 response on 23 January 2024, which was 42 working days later than it should have. We consider these omissions likely caused the resident distress.
The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 29 January 2024 and the landlord acknowledged it on the same day in line with its policy. On 8 March 2024 it advised the resident its stage 2 response was delayed and that it hoped to have completed its investigation by the following week. The landlord then provided its stage 2 response on 13 March 2024. This was 13 working days beyond the timescale outlined in its policy. The extension letter was also sent 10 working days later than it should have been as per its policy. However, we note that this letter did outline an approximate timescale for when she could expect progression. We also note that it sent the stage 2 response 3 working days after this extension letter which was in line with its policy.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged “delays in handling [the resident’s] complaint” and offered her £100 for this which we also understand the resident has accepted. However, its stage 2 response did not go into any detail about these delays, the likely impact of them, or at which complaint stage they occurred. Therefore, we do not consider the landlord has fully acknowledged the full impact of the delays. Typically, we would order a payment at the lower to mid-level or our compensation scale to put right this kind of minor distress. With this in mind, we will order the landlord to pay the resident a further £50 as redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £350 compensation, this is in addition to any previous compensation it has awarded and comprises:
1. £300 for its unreasonable delays in progressing the works throughout 2024
2. £50 for its complaints handling failures.
The landlord is to evidence which of the works it has completed that it raised in August 2024. The landlord is then to fulfil any works which remain outstanding from this list.
The landlord is to inspect the property and provide the resident an up-to-date position on damp and mould.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should provide details of its liability insurance to the resident.