Orwell Housing Association Limited (202326522)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326522

Orwell Housing Association Limited

28 January 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and his request for an extractor fan in the bathroom.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damaged possessions caused by mould and by paint splashes during redecorating.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident was granted an assured shorthold tenancy which began on 16 April 2018. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord has advised this Service that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The property is a one-bedroom, ground-floor flat.
Following contact from the resident, the landlord raised a repair order on 9 February 2023 to investigate damp and mould in the property. The description of the job stated that there was no proper extraction in the bathroom and there had previously been a leak that had saturated the walls. The order also stated that the mould had spread from the bathroom into the hallway and near the front door. The order stated that the resident had submitted photos of the damp and mould.
The landlord inspected the property on 22 March 2023 and raised various repair orders on the same day, including to install an extractor fan in the bathroom, to treat the mould and redecorate the affected areas. The landlord’s records show that a survey to provide a quote for the extractor fan was carried out by an electrical contractor on 28 March 2023 and the mould treatment and redecorations were carried out on 18 April 2023. However, the resident contacted the landlord shortly afterwards to report that the contractor had not used dustsheets and paint had splashed on some of his possessions.
In August 2023, the landlord carried out an inspection of the property as part of a stock condition survey and identified that mould was present in the bathroom, kitchen and around the living room windows.
In October 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord on various occasions to complain about the conditions in the property and the impact on his health. The landlord logged a stage one complaint on 10 October 2023. The landlord replied to the stage one complaint on 19 October 2023, however, the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated as he was dissatisfied with the reply. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 9 November 2023 in which it included the following:
1. The landlord acknowledged that the extractor fan had not yet been fitted in the bathroom. It said it was awaiting confirmation from its electrical contractor that it had received the fan.
2. The landlord said it had previously treated the mould but now said it wanted to arrange for a specialist dampness contractor to inspect the property.
3. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £150. The sum was comprised of £50 for its contractors attending without an appointment and £100 for mould damage to the resident’s shoes and for his possessions being splashed with paint.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 November 2023 and to this Service on 10 November 2023 to say that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation because of the impact the mould had had on his health and wellbeing.
The electrical contractor’s records show that it attempted to install the extractor fan in the bathroom on various dates from October 2023 to February 2024. However, due to access difficulties and the resident’s lack of availability, the landlord was unable to install the fan during this period. The extractor fan was eventually installed on 12 March 2024.
The landlord advised this Service on 23 January 2025 that it had experienced access difficulties in arranging for the damp specialist to inspect the property. It provided copies of letters dated 22 August 2024, 9 October 2024 and 6 November 2024 requesting the resident for access. As a result, the landlord confirmed that it had not yet been able to arrange the survey.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident made various references to the impact of the damp and mould on his health and wellbeing. For example, he wrote to the landlord on 4 October 2023 and said that his long-term health had been affected by the conditions. He also wrote to the landlord on 10 October 2023 and said that the mould had affected his breathing and caused him to hyperventilate. Finally, he wrote to the landlord on 9 November 2023 and stated that the property conditions had caused his relationship with his partner to breakdown and had affected his mental health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this option.
The resident seeks to be compensated for possessions that he reported were damaged by mould and by paint used by a contractor. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to determine negligence or liability in the same way as the courts, or to order damages in relation to these, only a court can offer a definitive and legally binding decision. Similarly, this Service does not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. The Ombudsman has, however, assessed whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s compensation request in line with its policy and procedure and followed good practice when reaching its decisions.
The resident provided this Service with information about events that occurred during 2022. The Ombudsman has considered this information. However, based on the issues that were considered by the landlord in its stage 2 reply dated 9 November 2023 and the availability of evidence, the Ombudsman considers it fair and reasonable to start its investigation from February 2023 when the resident reported the presence of damp and mould.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and his request for an extractor fan in the bathroom

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will not insure the resident’s own furniture, furnishings or possessions. Resident’s are advised to take out suitable insurance to cover these matters.
Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the internal fabric of the premises, including plasterwork, internal floors and ceilings, doors and door frames but not including internal painting and decorating.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it offers a flexible appointment system so repairs can be completed at residents’ convenience. The policy states that it will carry out repairs within the following timescales:
1. Emergencies – 6 hours
2. All other repairs – 21 calendar days.
The responsive repairs policy also states: “In accordance with our Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy we will take responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould in a timely and effective way where there are issues that require repair”.
The Ombudsman produced a Spotlight report in October 2021 on damp and mould which stated: “Landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions”.
Following contact from the resident, the landlord raised a repair order on 9 February 2023 to investigate damp and mould in the property. The description of the job stated that there was no proper extraction in the bathroom and there had previously been a leak that had saturated the walls. The order also stated that the mould had spread from the bathroom into the hallway and near the front door. The order stated that the resident had submitted photos of the damp and mould. The target date for the job was 2 March 2023 and the landlord’s records show that a visit was carried out on 24 February 2023. However, there are no notes on the landlord’s repairs log to show the outcome from the visit. This was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part as it is essential to maintain accurate records of visits to properties.
An order was raised on 11 March 2023 for one of the landlord’s inspectors to inspect the property for damp and mould and to remove mould from the ceiling and window sills. The landlord inspected the property on 22 March 2023 and raised various repair orders on the same day, including to install an extractor fan in the bathroom, to treat the mould and redecorate the affected areas. The landlord therefore inspected the property within a reasonable time after the order was raised on 11 March 2023 and promptly raised the orders arising from the inspection.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 March 2023 to advise him of the action it was taking following the inspection. It confirmed that a contractor would contact the resident directly to arrange to fit an extractor fan in the bathroom. It was appropriate for the landlord to write to the resident following the inspection to update him on the action it had taken. This would ensure the resident was aware that the landlord was acting on the issues he had reported.
In relation to the extractor fan, the landlord’s records show that a survey to provide a quote for the fan was carried out by an electrical contractor on 28 March 2023. The electrical contractor had therefore carried out the survey promptly within a week of the landlord’s inspection on 22 March 2023 and before the target date on the order, which was 12 April 2023.
On 23 August 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord and requested information on when the extractor fan would be fitted (he also said he had been living with mould in the property and the landlord had not taken action). The landlord’s repairs log shows that an order was raised on 1 September 2023 to approve the electrical contractor’s quote and install the extractor fan. The target date for completing the job was 13 November 2023 as the fan had to be ordered. It meant that over 5 months had elapsed between the electrical contractor’s survey on 28 March 2023 and the order being raised on 1 September 2023.
Under the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, non-emergency jobs should be carried out within 21 days. Therefore, even allowing for the electrical contractor’s survey report to be written and the time needed for the contractor’s quote to be approved, the time taken to issue the order for the fan was unreasonable. The delay meant that the landlord had not been timely in implementing one of the actions it had identified on 22 March 2023 to address the damp and mould in the property.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 October 2023 and apologised for the delay in fitting the fan. It confirmed that the electrical contractor had surveyed the property earlier in the year and said it would therefore ask the contractor to resend its report. The landlord apologised for its error.
The landlord confirmed in its stage one reply that it had agreed an appointment with the resident to fit the extractor fan on 19 October 2023. The landlord’s notes stated that it had offered earlier appointment dates but the resident had not been available on these dates. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord had agreed an appointment with the resident to install the fan. However, the landlord’s notes show that the resident cancelled the 19 October 2023 appointment because he was unwell.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that the contractor phoned the resident on 23 October 2023 to rebook the appointment to install the fan. However, the resident advised the contractor that for personal reasons he could not currently agree an appointment date. The log shows that the contractor phoned the resident on subsequent occasions, including on 31 October, 6 November and 27 November 2023. On each occasion, the contractor left a message for the resident to return its call. Therefore, during this period, the landlord (through its contractor) made reasonable efforts to agree an appointment to install the extractor fan.
In its stage 2 reply dated 9 November 2023, the landlord accepted that the fan had taken longer to deliver than should have been the case and apologised for this failing. It offered £150 compensation, of which £50 was for the contractor arriving without an appointment and for the delay in installing the fan. The other £100 was for damage to the resident’s possessions. As there had been a delay in installing the fan, it was right that the landlord had apologised for its failing and offered compensation. The amount offered by the landlord is considered later in this assessment.
The contractor’s records show that the contractor made a further appointment to install the fan on 19 December 2023 and attended on this date. However, according to the contractor’s records, the resident was not at home and did not answer the phone. The contractor made a further appointment and attended on 30 January 2024. However, the contractor reported that the resident was not at home. The contractor made a new appointment with the resident to attend on 12 March 2024. The contractor attended on this date and fitted the extractor fan.
In summary, there was an unreasonable delay between the electrical contractor’s survey on 28 March 2023 and the fan being ordered on 1 September 2023. However, after the fan had arrived, the contractor made reasonable attempts to install it but this was delayed because of access issues.
In terms of the damp and mould, the landlord had raised an order for the mould treatment and redecorations on 22 March 2023 following the inspection. The mould treatment and redecorations were carried out on 18 April 2023, which was 27 calendar days after the order was raised on 22 March 2023. The work therefore took longer than the landlord’s 21-day target for non-emergency jobs. This was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part as it meant the resident had to wait longer than expected for the mould treatment to be carried out. However, the delay was not excessive.
During April and May 2023, the landlord and the resident exchanged emails about a complaint the resident had previously referred to. The landlord asked if it could carry out a home visit to clarify the details of the complaint and to check the quality of the work carried out. As the landlord had carried out mould treatment and redecorations to the affected areas, it was reasonable for the landlord to request a home visit to check the quality of the work carried out.
During May 2023, the landlord also offered to redecorate the bathroom in a colour of the resident’s choosing. However, the resident declined this offer. As the decorations had been disturbed because of the works, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer to decorate the bathroom in a colour that the resident could choose.
In August 2023, the landlord carried out an inspection of the property as part of a stock condition survey and identified that mould was present in the bathroom, kitchen and around the living room windows. The landlord therefore raised an order on 29 August 2023 to carry out mould treatment. As the landlord had identified the presence of mould during its stock condition survey, it was appropriate that it had raised a further order to carry out mould treatment.
The target date for the mould treatment was 19 September 2023. The landlord’s repairs log states that the job was booked for 10 October 2023. An operative attended on this date and carried out the work. However, the resident contacted the landlord on this date to say that the operative had attended without an appointment. It was inappropriate that the contractor had attended without an appointment as the landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it offers a flexible appointment system so repairs can be completed at residents’ convenience. The resident had contacted the landlord about the lack of an appointment and so was clearly inconvenienced by this.
The landlord apologised in its stage 2 reply for attending at times without an appointment and offered £50 compensation for this and the delay in fitting the fan. As the resident had been inconvenienced by the landlord attending without an appointment, it was appropriate that the landlord apologised for this and offered compensation in its stage 2 reply. The level of compensation offered is assessed below.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 November 2023 and said that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 reply. He said he had been advised by the operative who attended on 10 October 2023 that the contractor had simply painted over the mould (without treating it first) when it attended on 18 April 2023. The landlord has advised this Service that it has no evidence to show the operative painted over the mould without treating it, other than the record of the operative’s attendance.
The Ombudsman has reviewed the description of the job ticket given to the contractor, which clearly states that the contractor should carry out mould treatment and then decorate the affected areas. The landlord therefore acted reasonably by giving clear instructions to the contractor that it should carry out the mould treatment before decorating.
The Ombudsman has also noted that the landlord had advised the resident on 16 May 2023 that it wanted to carry out a home visit partly to check the work that had been completed. The landlord also said in its stage one reply dated 19 October 2023 that it had tried to arrange an inspection to check that the works had been done satisfactorily but had not been able to arrange the visit with the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to have attempted to carry out an inspection as it would have allowed the landlord to determine whether the contractor had satisfactorily carried out the work it was instructed to do.
As the resident had reported on 20 October 2023 that the mould had returned, the landlord said in its stage 2 reply on 9 November 2023 that it wanted to arrange for a specialist damp contractor to carry out a damp and mould survey. It requested the resident to confirm he was happy for the landlord to arrange the survey. As the resident had reported that the mould had returned in the property, it was reasonable for the landlord to propose asking a specialist damp contractor to carry out an independent survey of the property. This would help identify the reasons for the mould and any remedial/preventative work to address the problem.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 and 26 February 2024 to again ask whether he wanted the landlord to arrange for the damp specialist to inspect the property. The resident replied on 2 March 2024 and requested the landlord to arrange for the damp contractor to inspect the property. The resident advised the landlord on 14 March 2024 that the damp contractor had arranged to survey the property on 19 March 2024. However, the landlord’s records show that the appointment did not go ahead and the landlord advised this Service on 23 January 2025 that it had chased the resident on 22 August 2024, 9 October 2024 and 6 November 2024 regarding access for the appointment.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord took various reasonable measures in response to the residents reports of damp and mould, including:
1. The landlord inspected the property on 22 March 2023 and promptly raised orders arising from the inspection, including to carry out mould treatment and to install an extractor fan in the bathroom.
2. The landlord wrote to the resident shortly after the inspection to advise him of the action it had taken.
3. An electrical contractor surveyed the property on 28 March 2023 to determine the type of fan to install and the location.
4. A mould wash was carried out by the landlord’s contractor on 18 April 2023.
5. The landlord said to the resident on 16 May 2023 that it wanted to arrange a home visit to check the quality of the work carried out (and obtain clarification regarding his complaint).
6. After identifying further mould problems during its stock condition survey in August 2023, the landlord raised a further order for mould treatment and the mould treatment was carried out on 10 October 2023.
7. The landlord advised the resident in its stage 2 reply that it wanted to arrange for a specialist damp contractor to carry out a damp and mould survey of the property.
However, this Service has also found the following failings in the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould:
1. There was a delay of over 5 months in progressing the installation of the extractor fan for the bathroom. The electrical contractor had surveyed the property on 28 March 2023 and the order/approval was given to install the fan on 1 September 2023.
2. The contractor had attended on 10 October 2023 to carry out the mould treatment without an appointment.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case, the landlord acted fairly by apologising in its stage 2 reply for the contractor attending without an appointment and acknowledging that the installation of the extractor had taken longer than it should have. The landlord offered compensation of £50 for these failings and £100 for damaged possessions.
The Ombudsman has considered the compensation offered by the landlord and has concluded that the amount offered was not proportionate to the level of detriment experienced by the resident, particularly the delay in relation to the extractor fan. The Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System guidance identifies reduced ventilation levels as one of the causes of mould growth and as part of its inspection on 22 March 2023 for damp and mould, the landlord had itself identified the need for the extractor fan in the bathroom. The evidence therefore suggests that this was an important part of the landlord’s solution to resolving the mould issues in the property.
The resident chased the landlord on various occasions regarding the installation of the extractor fan, for example, he asked the landlord about the fan on 16 May 2023 and 23 August 2023. The resident was therefore inconvenienced by having to chase the landlord as a result of the delay. The Ombudsman has therefore found there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and his request for an extractor fan in the bathroom. An order has been made for the landlord to pay further compensation of £150, which reflects the fact that the landlord made an offer of compensation but was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damaged possessions caused by mould and by paint splashes during redecorating

The complaints and compliments policy states that where a resident has incurred any loss, they should provide any photographic evidence, receipts and bills to support their request. The landlord will then consider all of the evidence provided to decide whether compensation is payable.
The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted the landlord on or about the 25 April 2023 to report that the contractor had not used dust covers prior to painting the bathroom ceiling. As a result, the resident said that a number of his possessions had been splashed with paint, including toiletries, a shaver, a water floss machine and perfume bottles. The landlord’s notes state it advised the resident that it might be able to clean the items affected by the paint. The resident wrote to the landlord again on 16 May 2023 and confirmed that he was happy to show the landlord the items that had been splashed with paint.
As stated earlier in this assessment, the landlord attempted to carry out a home visit in May 2023 to discuss the resident’s complaints but was unable to agree this with the resident. It was reasonable that the landlord had offered to visit the resident at home as this would have provided the landlord with an opportunity to examine the damaged items. The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 October 2023 and again asked if it could visit the resident at home to discuss his complaints. The landlord mentioned n its email that it had previously offered to clean the items that had been splashed with paint. In the Ombudsman’s view, it was reasonable that the landlord had initially offered to clean the items the resident said had been splashed with paint. This may have resolved this aspect of the complaint if the land had been able to clean the affected items.
The landlord stated in its stage one reply dated 19 October 2023 that it had previously requested photos of the items splashed with paint to see if they could be replaced or cleaned. However, the landlord said that the resident had not supplied these to date. As the resident had not yet agreed to the landlord carrying out a home visit, it was reasonable for the landlord to request photos of the damaged items to see if they could be replaced or cleaned.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply dated 9 November 2023, the landlord did not dispute the resident’s report that items had been splashed with paint. It accepted that it had not yet reimbursed the resident for the items. It apologised that the items had been affected by paint splashes (and apologised for other failings). It offered the resident £100 for items that had been splashed with paint or had been damaged by mould.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will ensure that its contractors are trained in and provide a high level of customer care. The failure of its contractor to cover the resident’s belongings prior to redecorating did not provide the required level of customer care. Therefore, it was appropriate that the landlord had apologised for this failing and, having previously offered to clean or replace the damaged items, it was reasonable that it offered compensation.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 October 2023 and stated that mould had been growing on his clothes and had damaged his shoes. He attached photos that he said he had previously submitted showing mould in the property and on his shoes. In its stage 2 reply dated 9 November 2023, the landlord confirmed that the resident had produced evidence of a pair of shoes that had mould on them. The landlord therefore offered the resident compensation of £100 to cover the damage to the shoes and the items that had been splashed with paint.
Where a resident reports that their possessions have been damaged by damp and mould, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to assess the claim itself or refer the matter to its insurer. In this case, the landlord assessed the claim itself and offered compensation. The Ombudsman’s view is therefore that the landlord acted reasonably.
As indicated in the scope of this investigation, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the amount offered by the landlord for the damaged items was reasonable as this Service does not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It will reply to stage one complaints within 10 calendar days and stage 2 complaints within 20 calendar days. The landlord’s complaints and compliments policy states that if the landlord is unable to respond within these timescales, it will contact the complainant in writing to set out what it is intending to do to resolve the complaint and by when. It will also provide new timescales for a response.
The resident emailed the landlord on or about 25 April 2023 to say that in addition to his previous complaint he was disappointed that the contractor had not placed covers down before painting and this had resulted in paint splashes on some of his possessions. The resident had therefore expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the painting and had referred to an ongoing complaint.
The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to log a formal complaint following such expressions of dissatisfaction. However, internal emails sent by the landlord during April and May 2023 show that it was uncertain about the subject of the resident’s complaint. The emails referred to previous issues that the resident had raised regarding the quality of his bathroom. The landlord therefore wrote to the resident on 16 May 2023 and requested a meeting with him to clarify the subject of his complaint. Given the landlord’s uncertainty about the subject of the resident’s complaint, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer to meet the resident so it could fully understand the complaint. This would enable it to investigate and respond to appropriately to the complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 23 August 2023 and stated that the extractor fan had not yet been installed and stated that he had been living with the mould and no action had been taken to resolve the issue.
Following further email exchanges, the resident wrote to the landlord on 4 October 2023 and stated that his complaint was about the property conditions and delays and therefore he wanted a response to his complaint. The resident also wrote to the landlord on 10 October 2023 to report that an operative had arrived to carry out work on that day without an appointment. The resident also reported that mould was affecting his health. He therefore requested an update regarding his complaint.
The Ombudsman’s view is that the resident had expressed dissatisfaction on 23 August 2023 with the landlord’s handling of the mould issues and had referred to the delay in installing the extractor fan. He had then reiterated his dissatisfaction on 4 October 2023. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord had not logged a complaint following the resident’s email of 23 August 2023, nor immediately after his contact on 4 October 2023.
The landlord’s complaints and compliments policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service or lack of action by the landlord. In this case, the resident had clearly stated that in his view the landlord had not acted regarding the mould issues and had delayed installing the extractor fan. The landlord’s delay in logging the complaint earlier meant that the resident experienced a delay in the investigation and response to his complaint.
The landlord logged a complaint on 10 October 2023 and acknowledged the complaint on 11 October 2023. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 19 October, which was within its 10-calendar day target for stage one complaints from when it logged the complaint on 10 October 2023. The landlord had therefore replied within an appropriate timescale after logging the complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 October 2023 and asked the landlord to escalate his complaint as he was dissatisfied with the stage one response. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day, which was reasonable and sent its full response on 9 November 2023. The landlord had therefore sent the response within its 20–calendar day target after receiving the stage 2 complaint. The landlord had therefore replied within an appropriate timescale.
Overall, this Service has found there was a service failure by the landlord as it did not log a stage one complaint for the resident until 10 October 2023, even though the resident had expressed dissatisfaction with the service on 23 August 2023 and 4 October 2023. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation of £50, which is within the range of sums identified in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as appropriate for service failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and his request for an extractor fan in the bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damaged possessions caused by mould and by paint splashes during redecorating.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £200 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £150 for the delay in ordering the extractor fan.
  2. £50 for complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should reoffer the resident the £150 offered in its stage 2 reply if this has not already been paid.