Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202124501)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124501

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

29 November 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs in the property including leaks, damp, and mould.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 2–bedroom first floor flat within a 4–storey building. She holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The resident lives with her 4 children in the property. The landlord recorded that the household has vulnerabilities including mental ill-health and one of the resident’s children is autistic.
Records show that the landlord was aware of mould and overcrowding affecting the property in January 2022.
The landlord visited the property on 1 February 2022 and noted mould in the property.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 7 February 2022. She was dissatisfied that she lived in overcrowded conditions and requested to be moved to alternative accommodation. She said that she was sleeping in the kitchen and her belongings were being damaged by damp and mould in the property. She reported disposing of clothes and bedding due to mould damage.
In the following months, the landlord completed repairs to address the damp and mould. The resident reported a leak affecting her property from November 2022.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 10 February 2023 and asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in her property.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 2 March 2023. In summary it said:
1. There was an ongoing leak at the resident’s property which may be contributing towards the damp and mould.
2. A surveyor attended and raised several repairs for the leak to be traced and remedied. It concluded that the whole bathroom needed to be removed.
3. Contractors attended the property to drop off dehumidifiers on 2 February 2023. These were declined by the resident. It clarified it would cover the costs of the dehumidifier.
4. Contractors attended on 23 February 2023 to strip out the bathroom and renew a defective pipe. As the resident was dissatisfied with the work and reported the leak as ongoing, the surveyor agreed to post–inspect the work on 3 March 2023.
5. It raised a mould treatment for when the leak was resolved.
6. The resident should provide the landlord with images and invoices for damaged items so that it could review this.
7. The resident could provide the landlord with further evidence to review her banding for rehousing.
On 7 June 2023, the resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2. She provided further information to the landlord on 26 June 2023 and remained dissatisfied that repairs in her property remained outstanding, she wanted to be permanently moved and requested compensation for damaged items.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 2 October 2023. In summary it said:
1. It was aware that the resident experienced multiple repair issues including concerns about damp and mould.
2. The resident did not want to be decanted during the repairs. Therefore, it arranged for a portable toilet to be placed outside the resident’s property to minimise the impact on her family.
3. A surveyor inspected the property in June 2023 and raised multiple repairs. This included bathroom repairs and redecoration to the bedrooms and living room.
4. The leak had now been resolved.
5. Its contractor would complete all outstanding works to eliminate or minimise the damp and mould moving forwards.
6. It upheld the complaint and offered £350 compensation for its poor handling of the repairs and inconvenience caused to the resident. It offered an additional £100 for delays for it to issue its complaint response.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 10 January 2024. She said that mould continues to affect her property and there is water damage. She reported that they are still overcrowded in the 2-bedroom flat, and she continues to sleep in the kitchen with her daughter.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman notes that the resident raised a more recent complaint with the landlord regarding re-occurring damp and mould and her request to be moved to alternative accommodation. However, having reviewed the case, the resident did not want this case to be referred to the Ombudsman for investigation. As such, the Ombudsman will not consider events from 22 January 2024 onwards, from when the new complaint was logged.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs in the property including leaks, damp, and mould

Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) implies a statutory obligation on the landlord to ensure that the resident’s property is fit for human habitation at the start of the tenancy, and throughout the term. Fitness for human habitation is measured by reference to the matters specified in s10 of the Act. Freedom from damp is listed within the Act.
The landlord must ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. Section 5 says the landlord must ensure that its properties are free of category one hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and the existence of such hazards should be a trigger for remedial action. Damp and mould are listed as a potential hazard.
The landlord’s maintenance policy outlines 2 repair priorities: emergency repairs and non-emergency repairs. Emergency repairs include repairs which immediately affect residents’ health, safety, or security, and would endanger life, or if not repaired would damage the fabric of the building. Such repairs will be completed within 24 hours. For non-emergency repairs, the landlord outlines that these will be completed within 15 working days. These repairs include leaking roofs, blocked drains, sinks, basins, and toilets.
The policy continues that the landlord is responsible for repairs such as the structure and exterior of the home, structural repairs to internal walls, maintaining bathroom suites as per the Decent Homes Standard, and repairing the structure of the property to eradicate penetrating damp.
The landlord’s damp and mould procedure says that when a resident makes a report of damp and mould, its surveyor will carry out a pre–inspection. This is to ensure that an appropriate diagnosis is taken to exclude possible factors before reaching a conclusion and raising appropriate works to resolve sources of the problem and its impact. Following this, the surveyor will proactively keep the resident up to date throughout the ongoing works.
The procedure outlines that the landlord will complete follow on works after 6 weeks to identify whether completed works were successful.
Records show that the resident reported mould and overcrowding in her property on 28 January 2022. In response to the concerns, a tenancy solutions officer attended the property to take photos of the mould. The officer sent photographs to a surveyor and outlined that the mould, “wasn’t terrible but pictures inside the cupboard show it being quite bad.” The officer recorded in an internal email that the property was hot, the heating was not on, and windows were not open. It was appropriate that the landlord attended in a timely manner and referred the relevant information to a surveyor.
The landlord adhered to its damp and mould procedure by completing a damp and mould survey on 21 March 2022. The survey identified mould and damp throughout the property. The surveyor identified that the property was heated by a heat recovery ventilation unit which was defective and likely contributed towards mould build up. Within the living room, mould and damp was noted around the window and on a bed in the living room where the children sleep due to conditions in bedroom 1. Within the kitchen, mould was identified on the wall due to sealant being removed by the resident. It was noted that there was a strong smell of damp in bedroom 1 and mould build up around the window frame. Mould was identified around the window frame and reveals in bedroom 2, and bathroom duct casing had mould build up and damp.
The surveyor recorded that damp and mould in the property was likely caused by a leak in the bathroom and the broken ventilation. They recommended that the ventilation unit was overhauled and the protective casing for the unit was replaced. The report recommended that further investigations were required to identify a possible leak within the bathroom. Following this, remedial works would be required to address the affected areas. A further survey was recommended for after the repairs.
A further survey was carried out on 23 May 2022. This confirmed that works had been completed across the property and the cause of the damp was noted as rectified. The mould had been successfully treated and had not returned, but the report noted that staining would remain until stain blocking was carried out. Although the resident believed that active mould was still present, the surveyor found no evidence of this during its inspection aside from a negligible amount in the bathroom which should be managed by the resident using the extractor fan. They noted that the resident had previously declined redecoration works.
It was appropriate that the landlord completed works to address the damp and mould between March 2022 to May 2022. The evidence suggests that the landlord appropriately addressed the issues and resolved the damp and mould during this time. However, it is concerning that the landlord did not retain any records of what repairs it completed. The Ombudsman is only able to confirm that works were completed through the survey findings.
The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould was reasonable. It followed its damp and mould procedure by surveying the property and completing works. The Ombudsman is unable to confirm whether the landlord completed all recommended repairs due to a lack of repair records during this time. However, the follow up survey in May 2022 did not suggest that any works were outstanding, and the damp and mould was noted as resolved.
It is nevertheless of concern that the landlord took 36 working days from 28 January to 21 March 2022 to arrange a damp and mould survey, and a further 42 working days to confirm on 23 May 2022 that the works recommended by the survey were completed. This unreasonably exceeded its maintenance policy’s 15-working-day non-emergency repair timescale. The landlord’s lack of suitable records of what works it completed and when, other than from its surveyors’ reports, was also inappropriate and contrary to the recommendations for it to keep such records from the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (the KIM report).
The resident reported a leak in her bathroom which seeped to the hallway wall causing damp on 29 November 2022. The landlord raised an emergency work order and attended within 24 hours as per its maintenance policy timescale. It located a leak under the bath and noted that this caused significant damage over time and the bath panel and flooring required replacing. The landlord’s initial response to the leak was timely and it appropriately raised work orders for recommended repairs which were completed on 2 and 12 December 2022. This was within the policy’s 15-working-day timescale for it to do so for such subsequent non-emergency repairs.
On 2 December 2022, the landlord noted that mould and damp had returned. The extent of this was not clearly recorded. However, the landlord attended on 14 December 2022 to paint over mould and damp in the bedroom. This was refused by the resident as she felt that the leak was still ongoing. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer to address the mould. However, further investigations into the recurring damp and mould should have been completed to identify the cause, which required another surveyor’s pre-inspection under its damp and mould procedure.
A further emergency work order for the bathroom leak was raised on 16 December 2022 and records suggest that the landlord failed to respond as an emergency; no completion date or notes were retained. It was unacceptable that it did not adhere to its emergency repair timescales. If it did attend the property, it should have retained clear records to substantiate any action it had taken. Without clear records, the Ombudsman can only conclude that the landlord took no immediate responsive action. This further contradicted the KIM report’s recommendations for it to keep such clear records.
The resident re-reported a leak in the bathroom on 3 January 2023. She advised that it was affecting her bedroom. The landlord attended on the same day with a surveyor. During this visit, they concluded that the whole bathroom needed to be removed to check all plumbing for leaks. It recorded that a surveyor was overseeing this matter. A further visit was necessary given the landlord was unable to access all piping during its attendance.
The landlord did not raise a work order to strip out the bathroom and complete further investigations into the leak until 27 January 2023. This was unreasonable as the leak had been reported over a month ago and no remedial action had been taken. Additionally, associated damp and mould had been reported. The landlord did not record a reason for its delay or inform the resident of its intended plan. It failed to prioritise addressing the leak, damp, and mould.
The landlord outlined in its stage 1 complaint response that its contractors completed extensive works on 23 February 2023. It said that they stripped out the bathroom, defective pipework was repaired, and everything was re-installed. The Ombudsman considers that these investigations should have happened sooner. There were long gaps between landlord visits, which was unacceptable. This is particularly because the resident’s household had vulnerabilities and included dependent children, who were more likely to be affected by failures to deal with leaks, damp, and mould promptly and appropriately.
On 24 February 2023, the resident reported that there was a leak in the bathroom again. This was the day after the landlord had completed extensive works. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised in its stage 1 response that the leak was still ongoing. It attempted to reassure the resident by advising that a surveyor would attend on 3 March 2023 to post–inspect the completed works. This was an appropriate step to attempt to resolve the issue. However, there are no records to corroborate that a surveyor attended on this date. Further, the repair was logged as an emergency, but there is no evidence that the landlord responded to this. These were failings in the landlord’s handling of the matter and is likely to have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, as well as further failures to keep adequate records in her case, contrary to the KIM report.
A contractor attended to carry out a mould treatment to the bedroom and bathroom. However, contractors noted that heavy furniture required moving before the works could be actioned. The matter was subsequently referred back to the landlord without completing all of the works. The contractors identified that the household may require decanting as there were “lots of works.” The job was marked as completed on 6 March 2023. The landlord had nevertheless still not investigated the cause of the damp and mould or identified what works were required to remedy it.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident had not recently reported damp and mould in the property and the extent of damage was not recorded during this time. Nonetheless, the landlord had identified that damp and mould had returned in December 2022 and had not taken sufficient action since then.
The landlord delayed inspecting the leak until 30 March 2023, almost 4 weeks after it committed to post–inspect the property. Given the recurring issues the resident experienced since November 2022 and the reported unresolved leak, the landlord should have prioritised post–inspecting the works.
When the landlord inspected the bathroom, it found an issue with the toilet as there was severe condensation around the cistern to water level height. It also noted a constant leak from the nut of the bath, which was resolved on the day by tightening the valve. The contractor identified a further leak from the shower door and recommended a survey of the bathroom to try to resolve the issues. However, no records were retained to confirm that a survey was completed. It is concerning that the landlord repeatedly failed to action steps it said it would take. There did not appear to be anyone overseeing or co-ordinating the repairs. The landlord’s lack of accountability to resolve the leaks, damp, and mould contributed towards the failings in this case.
The landlord attended the resident’s property with a local councillor on 28 April 2023 following concerns they had raised about the resident’s living conditions. The landlord provided an update in writing to the councillor following the visit and said that the leaks were resolved at the end of April 2023 and the area was now dry. It is concerning that the landlord did not retain records to corroborate that repairs had been completed to resolve the leak. The landlord’s record keeping was unsatisfactory throughout its handling of this case, contrary to the KIM report’s recommendations.
The landlord acknowledged within its correspondence to the councillor that several repairs were outstanding. The bath panel required replacing, the bathroom flooring was ripped and needed to be made safe, and the positioning of the toilet looked poor. It also noted that mould was identified in a number of places, particularly above the skirting boards and behind furniture and curtains where ventilation was poor. The landlord said that a surveyor would inspect all of the above on 12 May 2023 and create a full schedule of works with clear completion dates. It was unacceptable that there are no records to corroborate the surveyor’s visit on this date, contrary to the KIM report. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord updated the resident during this time, contrary to its obligation to do so from its damp and mould procedure.
The resident submitted a supporting letter to the landlord from her GP in May 2023. This said that the family’s medical records indicated that they were being treated for a higher than average number of respiratory issues which could be associated with exposure to mould in the property. Additionally, the resident informed the landlord that due to the extent of the mould in the flat she had strong concerns that this was causing an inflammatory reaction in her autistic child, who had developed recurring nosebleeds and headaches. Records suggest that the landlord failed to respond to this letter. The resident was left unsupported even when she reported that her living conditions impacted her household’s health.
The landlord did not evidence a “zero tolerance approach” in its handling of the damp and mould reports, contrary to the recommendation to do so in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (the DM report). It failed to complete its survey to identify a cause of the damp and mould when it recurred or take any sufficient action to address it following this. Further, the landlord should have provided advice and information to the resident about addressing damp and mould. These were steps the landlord should have taken in line with its damp and mould procedure, as well as the DM report.
A ventilation survey was completed on 6 June 2023, which found that mould was present in 2 bedrooms, the hallway cupboard, and in the living room. It noted that in both bedrooms the mould had spread onto the resident’s clothes and furnishings. It identified that the whole dwelling’s necessary rates of ventilation were not being met by the current heat pump and ventilation system. Humidity levels were recorded in some areas to be in excess of 54%. The findings suggest that the mould was extensive.
The Ombudsman would expect to see some assessment of the conditions which the family were living in to identify whether it was suitable for their continued habitation. The landlord failed to show regard to its responsibilities under the Act, the Decent Homes Standard, and the HHSRS. The resident was left unsupported even when she made it clear her living conditions impacted her household’s health.
The survey recommended a centralised mechanical extract ventilation system along with permeability of the structure to provide sufficient air inlet provision. To address the mould, it recommended that the affected areas were sterilised and treated with emulsion paint. It was appropriate that the landlord eventually completed a survey to further investigate the damp and mould. However, the delays for the survey to be actioned were unacceptable.
It was appropriate that the landlord wrote to the resident on 13 June 2023 to outline its intended actions. It committed to follow the ventilation survey recommendations but added that the resident would need to be decanted during this time. In relation to the bathroom repairs, it said it would replace the bath panel and flooring within the next 15 working days. It was positive that the landlord created an action plan for the remaining works. However, the resident had already experienced lengthy delays by this stage and the landlord failed to effectively communicate with the resident prior to this.
Towards the end of June 2023, the resident asked the landlord for clarification regarding when repairs were being completed. She said that she had received messages providing conflicting appointments for the repairs but only one contractor had turned up to fit the bath panel. The landlord’s internal emails from this time suggested that there was confusion regarding when repairs would be carried out. They noted that there had been a further leak, and the bath panel should not be fitted before this was resolved. A staff member requested for contractors to reschedule the outstanding bathroom works. It was unacceptable that the resident was continually not updated on the landlord’s repair intentions, as required by its damp and mould procedure. There were a series of communication failures in this case.
The landlord raised a work order to locate the leak. As part of this, the landlord had to remove the bathroom again and relay flooring. This would have caused significant disruption to the resident. The landlord had attended multiple times and previously completed significant works. The repeat visits likely caused inconvenience to the resident and exacerbated the situation.
The landlord contacted the resident to book the remaining bathroom repairs for 10 to13 July 2023. The landlord repaired the leak and completed remedial works on 13 July 2023. These were completed on 18 October 2023. This was significantly outside of the 15–working–day timeframe which the landlord previously advised the resident the repairs would be completed by under its maintenance policy.
Within correspondence to a local councillor, the landlord acknowledged that its repairs service had taken too long. It explained that its service had been impacted by the termination of a contractor for poor performance and its service would improve moving forwards. However, the landlord failed to explain this to the resident, or to identify the extent of its delays within its complaint responses. This was unreasonable and suggests a lack of investigation into the complaint.
The landlord failed to prioritise recommended repairs from the ventilation survey to resolve the damp and mould. It treated the mould on the walls within the bedroom and living room in June 2023, but did not raise a work order to install a centralised mechanical extract ventilation system. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord recorded that the resident needed to be decanted for this to be completed and she refused this. However, it was insufficient for the landlord to not follow the recommendation or take any further action because of this.
Moreover, the landlord did not include installing a centralised mechanical extract ventilation system as part of its action plan within its final complaint response. It was unreasonable that the landlord lacked urgency to address the damp and mould within the property, particularly given it had been identified as being present in multiple rooms of the property and reportedly affected the households’ health. The landlord failed to take sufficient steps in response to the recurring mould for a prolonged period, contrary to its damp and mould procedure.
The landlord informed the Ombudsman that there were no outstanding repairs to the resident’s property on 6 September 2024. Further, the resident suggested that a ventilation system had been installed to her property during contact with the Ombudsman on 10 January 2024. However, there are no records to confirm when the landlord installed the new ventilation unit in the resident’s property, further contradicting the KIM report’s recommendations.
Overall, the Ombudsman has identified a series of failings from December 2022 until October 2023 in the landlord’s handling of the leak and repairs. The landlord was unable to evidence that it took appropriate action. Where it completed repairs, the landlord was frequently unable to substantiate these with records and often failed to adhere to set timescales. Further, the majority of repairs to address the leak were unsuccessful. This led to the resident experiencing lengthy delays, multiple visits, and significant disruption.
In response to the damp and mould reports, the landlord’s initial response was slow but otherwise appropriate. However, from December 2022 when the landlord identified the recurrence of mould, the landlord consistently failed to take appropriate action to investigate a cause and complete repairs to address this. When it completed a survey in June 2023, it was unable to evidence that it followed the recommendations to appropriately resolve the mould and damp. Further, it was unacceptable that the landlord did not respond the resident’s health concerns and continued not to prioritise resolving the matter following this.
Considering the above, a finding of severe maladministration is deemed appropriate.
Within its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged delays to attend to repairs and the inconvenience caused. It compensated the resident £350 for these failings. The Ombudsman does not consider this amount reflective of the significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Moreover, the landlord failed to acknowledge the extent of its failings in its complaint responses or take proportionate action to put things right. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
To put things right, the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident an additional £1,000 for its delays and failings in its handling of the leaks, damp, mould, and repairs within this case. Further, the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident another £650 (plus the £350 already offered by the landlord) for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings and poor communication. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommendation of compensation from £1,000 for serious failings over a significant period of time, which had a seriously detrimental long-term impact on the resident.
The landlord is also ordered to put things right by apologising to the resident, and by providing her and the Ombudsman with a schedule of works for it to complete the outstanding leak, damp, and mould repairs at her property. It shall provide her with regular proactive updates on the progress of its works until their completion, and re-offer her a decant for the duration of the repairs. The landlord is additionally ordered to learn from the outcome of the resident’s case by reviewing its databases in line with the KIM report, and its communication failings identified by this report.
The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy or practice under paragraph 54.f. of the Scheme in relation to responding to damp and mould repairs, particularly concerning vulnerable residents and the timeliness of action taken. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the case already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to the landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a 2-stage process. It aims to respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 7 February 2022 using the landlord’s webform. She complained about overcrowding in her property and requested for her banding to be reviewed. Additionally, she raised concerns about damp and mould in her property. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to this complaint. This was unacceptable.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman in January 2023 as she had not received a response to her complaint. She informed the Ombudsman that she had complained about damp and mould in her property. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 10 February 2023 and asked it to respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property within 10 working days.
They landlord issued a response on 2 March 2023. This was slightly over the 10–working–day timeframe provided by the Ombudsman, but the delay was not significant.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 7 June 2023. As part of this she said she had requested a safety assessment on her home by the landlord. The escalation request did not contain much information relating to why she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not contact the resident to obtain further information about her escalation request. As the resident had received no response or acknowledgment from the landlord, she contacted the landlord again on 26 June 2023 and said she previously requested for her complaint to be escalated but received no response.
On the same day, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the complaint and issued an acknowledgement letter. This summarised that she was unhappy with the progress of repairs in her property and the landlord’s handling of her home move request. It noted that she wanted to be moved permanently to resolve the complaint.
There were further delays for the landlord to respond and it did not issue a final response until 2 October 2023. This was over 16 weeks after the resident initially requested to escalate her complaint. The delays to respond were substantial. Further, the landlord failed to respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint in its final response. It did not respond to the resident’s request to move or her request for compensation for damage caused to her belongings. The landlord included these points within its acknowledgement letter which it sent to the resident, but did not address them in its stage 2 response. This is likely to have caused frustration to the resident as she experienced delays to receive a response which failed to address all aspects of her complaint.
Within its stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for its delay to respond at stage 2. The Ombudsman considers the compensation offered proportionate for this failing, as our remedies guidance recommends awards of up to this amount for delays in getting matters resolved. However, it is insufficient to account for the further failings identified. To put things right, the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident an additional £150. This is comprised of £50 for the landlord failing to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s original complaint raised on 7 February 2022 and £100 for failing to respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint at stage 2. This is in line with the remedies guidance’s recommendation of awards of over £100 for failures that adversely affected the resident.
The landlord has suggested to the Ombudsman that the resident experienced delays due to capacity issues within the complaints team. It is positive that the landlord said that it has since expanded the team to ensure it responds to all complaints within the outlined timeframe.
Overall, given the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, including it not adhering to its complaints policy, the Ombudsman has identified maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs in the property including leaks, damp, and mould.
2. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report, take responsibility for these, and acknowledge their impact on her.
2. Compensate the resident a total of £2,250. This is comprised of:
  1. £1,000 for the landlord’s delays and failings to appropriately respond to the reports of the leaks, damp, mould, and repairs within this case.
  2. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings and poor communication (this amount is inclusive of the £350 already offered by the landlord within its stage 2 response).
  3. £100 as already offered by the landlord for its delays to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
  4. £50 for the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in February 2022
  5. £100 for the landlord’s failure to respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 response.
3. Provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a schedule of works for it to complete the outstanding leak, damp, and mould repairs at her property. It shall provide her with regular proactive updates on the progress of its works until their completion, and re-offer her a decant for the duration of the repairs.
4. Review its existing databases to ensure it can capture required information, and train staff on using the systems in line with the KIM report. The landlord should share its findings with the Ombudsman.
5. Review its communication failings identified in this report to determine what action has been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these. The landlord should confirm to the Ombudsman the outcome of this review.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks from the date of this report.