Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202409408)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409408

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

14 February 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

1. The complaint is about:

a.     The landlord’s handling of repairs to remedy damp and mould in the property.

b.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about noise transference within the building.

2. The Ombudsman has also considered:

a.     The landlord’s complaint handling.

b.     The landlord’s record keeping.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 2-bedroom flat but the resident had turned the laundry room into an additional bedroom. For clarity, this room will be referenced as the laundry room in this report, as this was how it was referenced by the resident during the complaint process.
4. The resident lives with his partner and 2 children. According to the landlord’s records, there were no vulnerabilities within the household. The complaint was raised to the landlord by the resident and at times by the resident’s partner who was also the resident’s representative in this case. In this report, both the resident and the resident’s partner, will be referred to as the “resident”.
5. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 March 2024, expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property since December 2023, unresolved issues with damp and mould, and poor communications.
6. The landlord sent the stage 1 acknowledgement on 15 April 2024. It committed to providing the full stage 1 complaint response by 29 April 2024.
7. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 6 June 2024. The landlord upheld the complaint. It accepted that there had been delays and poor communication in its handling of repairs and the complaint. It offered £250 compensation, which comprised:

a.     £100 compensation for delays fixing the utility cupboard lock and door.

b.     £100 compensation in recognition of delays completing repairs.

c.      £50 compensation in recognition of complaint handling delay.

8. The landlord logged the stage 2 complaint on 26 June 2024, after the resident raised further dissatisfaction. The landlord noted that the resident wanted to email the landlord himself with his reasons for further dissatisfaction, which he did on 17 July 2024. The resident:

a.     Suggested that the landlord’s communications continued to be inadequate, there was unresolved damp and mould throughout the property, and multiple outstanding repairs. He explained the impact these issues were having on the daily lives of his family.

b.     Confirmed that he had been running 2 dehumidifiers in the property at his own expense since December 2023, because the air quality had been so poor.

c.      Said that the landlord had not explained how it was addressing excessive noise transference arising from communal parts of the building and from the property upstairs.

d.     The resident asked the landlord to provide an action plan setting out how it would address these issues.

9. The landlord sent an initial stage 2 acknowledgement on 19 July 2024. It issued a further communication to the resident on 7 August 2024, committing to provide the full stage 2 complaint response by 1 September 2024.
10. The final stage 2 complaint response was issued on 14 October 2024. The landlord upheld the complaint. It apologised for delays in addressing repairs at the property. It responded to the resident’s dissatisfaction about its handling of noise transference, noting that it had been unable to inspect the floor in the neighbour’s property due to issues with access. It committed to completing all outstanding repairs “as swiftly as possible” and to explore alternative ways of gaining access to the neighbour’s property. The landlord made an additional offer of compensation, which amounted to £470. This compensation comprised:
    1. £360 compensation for the loss of use of a bedroom.
    2. £100 compensation for inconvenience experienced and delays completing repairs.
    3. £10 compensation in recognition of the complaint handling delay.
11. The resident told the Ombudsman on 16 January 2025, that all of the internal works within the property had been completed on 11 January 2025. But said there still were several matters that needed to be addressed by the landlord concerning the wider building or within other flats. The resident expressed concern that if the landlord did not resolve these matters in a timely manner, the issues with damp and mould might return in the property. The resident said the landlord should take responsibility for its failings and should pay his out-of-pocket expenses, associated with running dehumidifiers and buying air filters.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

12. This investigation will consider the issues raised by the resident during the landlord’s complaint process and that were addressed by the landlord in its final stage 2 response. Any new issues that arose after the stage 2 response, will be outside the scope of this investigation.
13. The Ombudsman’s assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions between 15 December 2023 and 14 October 2024. This being the date the resident moved back to the property following major works, through to when the landlord’s internal complaints procedure was exhausted. However, this report may reference events outside of this timescale, when taking into account any commitments made by the landlord in the stage 2 response.
14. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is a matter best suited for the courts. But this investigation may consider the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and his family by the situation.

Landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

15. The landlord had a contractual and statutory obligation under the tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. Landlords are expected to complete identified repairs within a reasonable timescale of being notified of a repair issue.
16. The landlord also had an obligation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the property free of hazards, which were so serious that the dwelling would not be suitable for occupation in that condition. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), was introduced in 2005, replacing the Housing Fitness Standard. The purpose of this guidance is to help landlords risk assess the condition of housing from the perspective of avoiding or, at the very least, minimising potential hazards. Category 1 hazards are serious and are likely to present an immediate risk to a person’s health and safety. Category 2 hazards are less serious, less urgent, and present a lesser risk.
17. Damp and mould, and exposure to noise caused by a lack of sufficient sound installation, are considered as potential hazards under the HHSRS. However, landlords are not obliged to improve the soundproofing of a building, beyond the standards that applied at the time it was built.
18. The landlord had a repairs policy, which set out its approach to completing responsive repairs. In accordance with this policy, the landlord will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours. It will complete non-emergency repairs in 15 working days. However, the landlord will apply a “variable timescale” in respect of specialist or major works. Where extensive repairs are required, the landlord will explain what work is to be carried out, agree timescales with the resident, and then project manage the work through to completion.
19. According to the landlord’s damp and mould procedure, the landlord will arrange to inspect the property after receiving a report of damp and mould. The landlord will ensure that all appropriate diagnosis is taken before raising a works order to resolve the source of the problem and its impact. The landlord will proactively update resident throughout the ongoing repair.
20. In accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy, the landlord will consider paying:

a.     £20 a week compensation for the “loss of use” of a bedroom.

b.     Towards the costs of running dehumidifiers, where a property is drying out following a leak or a flood.

c.      Compensation for failing to meet its own service targets, or it has acted unreasonably. In these situations, the landlord would pay:

1. Up to £20 compensation where there has been one instance of mild inconvenience, directly caused by the landlord.
2. Between £20 and £100 compensation, in the event of a succession of service failures and / or the problem has not resolved within a reasonable timescale.
3. Between £100 and £500 compensation, in the event of a serious or prolonged service failure or loss of facilities, resulting in severe stress, disruption, or inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to remedy damp and mould in the property

21. For context, the resident moved into temporary accommodation in November 2023, while the landlord carried out major works to address a historical issue of damp, mould, and water ingress in the main bedroom. The landlord carried out a post inspection survey on 7 December 2023. According to the inspection report, all works ordered by the landlord had been completed satisfactory. The resident returned to the property on 15 December 2023, but soon raised concern that issues with damp and mould were not fully resolved.
22. The resident told the Ombudsman, that when he returned to the property, he could still smell damp and mould. The resident said he immediately reported this to the landlord. The evidence suggests that the resident asked for a “call back” from a manager on 28 December 2023, but he did not receive a response. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 3 January 2024. It has not been possible to verify the working arrangements of the landlord’s staff over the festive period, from the available evidence.
23. The resident claims that the landlord inspected the property on 8 January 2023. This indicates that the landlord responded the resident’s reports, in line with its policies. However, this inspection was not referenced in the landlord’s records, which could suggest there was an issue with the landlord’s record keeping. The resident sent photographs to the landlord on 17 January 2023, showing the condition of the bathroom and the toilet, which appeared to show issues with damp and water damage.
24. The Ombudsman has seen evidence showing that at least 3 property inspections were carried out by the landlord, between 29 January 2024 and 6 June 2024. On each occasion, the landlord identified new repairs issues and committed to completing additional work. This suggests that the landlord was responding to an evolving situation within the property:

a.     At its inspection on 29 January 2024, the landlord identified issues with the sealant around the bath, as well as failed joints on pipes and the ducting in the bathroom. It raised various works orders to remedy damp and remediate damage within the bathroom and the toilet.

b.     Following its inspection on 18 April 2024, the landlord raised additional works to the bathroom, instructed the fitting of external vent covers, and ordered the flooring be lifted in the laundry room to inspect for any damage. The resident said that he had to push really hard for the landlord to accept there was an issue with mould under the flooring in the laundry room, which was a source of frustration.

c.      The landlord inspected the property again on 3 May 2024, after the floor had been lifted in the laundry room, finding evidence of water damage. The landlord responded by instructing remedial works to the flooring and some replastering. The landlord noted in the inspection report that the resident was concerned there could be mould on the underside of the flooring.

25. The landlord told the resident on 10 May 2024, that issues with damp in the main bedroom “were related to ongoing leaks” from the property above. It noted the resident’s concern about an intermittent issue with “overflowing water” from the neighbour’s overflow pipe. It is understood that the landlord had previously diverted the neighbour’s overflow pipe into a drain. The resident was concerned that the ground was still saturated with water at times, which could impact the exterior wall of the main bedroom, thereby contributing to ongoing issues with damp, mould, and water ingress. It was positive that the landlord committed to gaining access to the neighbour’s property so these issues could be investigated and addressed.
26. It is understood that the neighbour was reluctant to provide access to the landlord to enable an inspection. This was unhelpful to the resolution of the substantive complaint. The landlord’s internal communications indicate that the landlord may have gone to some effort, over several months, to try to secure access to the neighbouring property without success. The Ombudsman was unable to fully assess the reasonableness and urgency with which the landlord was pursing the neighbour for access, from the available evidence. But it was noted that there were special circumstances related to the neighbour, which may have made this particularly challenging for the landlord.
27. The landlord upheld the stage 1 complaint, on 6 June 2024. It accepted that it had not been able to fully resolve the issues with damp and mould in the property, despite it completing major works in December 2023. It accepted that there had been delays completing all of the repairs it had committed to addressing. It offered an apology for the “very poor communication” received from both itself, and its contractors, regarding these repairs. It expressed empathy for the likely frustration caused to the resident, when having to repeatedly chase for updates. This shows that the landlord was taking responsibility for its failings.
28. The landlord endeavoured to put things right at stage 1, by committing to reinvestigate the resident’s concerns about mould under the flooring in the laundry room, by committing to reschedule any outstanding repairs as a priority, and by offering compensation. This was encouraging. But it would have been better had the landlord issued the resident with an action plan, setting out what repairs were outstanding, and an expected timescale for completing those repairs. The landlord could then have reviewed its progress against the action plan, with the resident, at regular intervals. This would have created more certainty for the resident and helped to manage his expectations.
29. The level of compensation offered by the landlord at stage 1, suggests that the landlord recognised there had been a succession of service failures associated with delivering repairs to the property, which had not been resolved within a reasonable timescale. In the Ombudsman’s view, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made a separate offer of compensation, in respect of its poor communications.
30. According to the resident, the landlord’s Damp and Mould Surveyor inspected the property on 19 June 2024. This was appropriate, given the landlord’s commitments given at stage 1. But the Ombudsman was unable to verify the outcome of this inspection from the evidence seen.
31. The evidence shows that a further disrepair, damp, and mould inspection was carried out by the landlord’s Maintenance Surveyor on 28 June 2024. Upon inspection, the landlord identified further damage to the property. The landlord responded by expanding the scope of the works to the laundry room, instructed more repairs to the main bedroom, the kitchen, and the toilet. It also requested a structural survey of the retaining wall, and servicing of the positive input ventilation system. This shows that the landlord continued to be responsive to an ever-evolving situation and was trying new things to resolve the substantive issue.
32. According to the resident, another Damp and Mould Surveyor inspected the property on 1 July 2024. The reason for this inspection and subsequent outcome was unclear from the evidence seen.
33. The resident emailed the landlord on 9 July 2024, stating that he was eager to receive a comprehensive update and the landlord’s plan for addressing damp and mould in the kitchen and the toilet, the outstanding works to the laundry room, the issue with the external overflow pipe, the ongoing dampness in the main bedroom, and repairs to the retaining wall. The Ombudsman saw little documented evidence of the landlord proactively updating resident throughout the ongoing repair, in line with its policies. It is reasonable to assume that the landlord’s surveyors were discussing next steps with the resident during inspections. But these conversations ought to have been recorded.
34. The resident also explained that his teenage child had been sleeping in the living room since February 2024, while waiting for repairs and issues with mould to be addressed in the laundry room. He asked the landlord to complete the repairs to the laundry room before the summer holidays. He also pointed out that he had been running 2 dehumidifiers in the property since moving back into the property, as the air quality had been so poor. He mentioned that the filters in these dehumidifiers had to be changed on a monthly basis, which was creating additional and unnecessary expense.
35. The landlord responded to the resident the following day. It confirmed that repairs had been identified and that it would be raising works orders “shortly”. It committed to notifying the resident of what repairs had been identified and when these repairs would be carried out. The landlord ought to have been clearer about when this information would be received.
36. The resident emailed the landlord the same day, clarifying his reasons for the stage 2 complaint. He described the living conditions within the property to be “intolerable”. He explained the ongoing impact of the situation upon the daily lives and health of his family. He expressed concern about multiple unresolved issues with damp and mould throughout the property and listed all of the repairs he believed to be outstanding with the property and to the wider building. The resident asked again, for the landlord to provide an action plan setting out how these matters would be resolved and by when. The resident had to chase the landlord again on 24 July 2024, for an update, after receiving no clear plan of action from the landlord. This was unreasonable.
37. The resident spoke to the landlord several times between 24 July 2024 and 29 July 2024. The resident raised concern on 31 July 2024, that he had received conflicting information from different teams about its proposal for completing the outstanding repairs. He requested again, for the avoidance of doubt, that the landlord provide him with a clear action plan, setting out what repairs would be completed and by when.
38. The landlord responded by proactively escalating the case to its Damp and Mould Manager. This was encouraging. The landlord’s Damp and Mould Manager made arrangements to meet the resident at the property during the week commencing 12 August 2024. The landlord took decisive action following this, by arranging for its Damp and Mould Manager to take overall responsibility for coordinating and overseeing completion all of the remaining repairs to the property. This was a positive step taken by the landlord, towards resolving the matter for the resident.
39. The landlord upheld the stage 2 complaint on 14 October 2024. The landlord accepted that it ought to have completed identified repairs sooner. It endeavoured to put things right by offering compensation and by committing to complete the remaining repairs “as swiftly as possible, without compromising the quality of the workmanship”. Again, it would have been better had the landlord provided the resident with a clear action plan, detailing the specific works that would be completed, with expected timescales for completion.
40. The level of compensation offered by the landlord at stage 2, suggests that the landlord recognised there has been a succession of service failures and the substantive matter of complaint had not been resolved within a reasonable timescale. The landlord’s offer of compensation took into account the impact caused to the resident arising from the loss of use of a bedroom, which was fair in the circumstances. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered the resident some financial contribution, towards running dehumidifiers in the property. This would have been in line with its compensation policy.

After issue of the stage 2 response

41. The landlord initiated robust action against the neighbour, to enable it to secure access, for the purposes of investigating and addressing potential leaks. It also began making arrangements to move the resident into temporary accommodation, while it completed the outstanding repairs to the property.
42. The landlord attended the property on 14 December 2024, to see if there was another way of tracing the water ingress from above. The landlord showed creativity by cutting a hole in the ceiling. In doing so, it was able to identify a corroded fitting under the floorboards of the property above, which it promptly repaired.
43. Having stopped the likely source of water ingress from above, the landlord explored if the remaining internal repairs could be completed with the resident in occupation. As any temporary move was likely to be present additional inconvenience for the resident and his family, this was fair.
44. The landlord inspected the property on 16 December 2024, to help inform its decision about temporary housing and to check on how the property was drying out. The landlord identified water damage within the property to be extensive, requiring intrusive repairs. It proactively assessed the conditions in the property, finding there to be a “slight, category 2 hazard”. The landlord’s decision to continue moving the resident and his family into temporary accommodation was therefore appropriate in the circumstances.
45. The resident and his family moved into temporary accommodation on 19 December 2024. The landlord began repairing the property on 23 December 2024. The resident moved back into the property on 30 December 2024. All of the internal works to the property were completed on 11 January 2025.

In summary

46. The landlord investigated the resident’s reports about damp, mould, and water ingress, and responded to the resident’s evolving concerns. The landlord’s investigations were made more challenging due to difficulties gaining access to the neighbour’s property.
47. The landlord did not always keep the resident informed of the action that it was taking or when repairs would be completed. It missed several opportunities to provide the resident with a clear plan of action for resolving the damp, mould, and water ingress and for completing identified repairs.
48. The landlord recognised at stage 1, that its communications with the resident had fallen short. In the Ombudsman’s view the landlord’s communications continued to be inadequate following issue of the stage 1 response. This was unreasonable and suggests inadequate learning by the landlord from complaint outcomes.
49. The landlord was obliged to complete identified repairs within a reasonable timescale, of repairs being identified. It was evident that multiple repairs were raised and some of these repairs were completed prior to issue of the stage 2 response. The landlord accepted at stage 2, that it had taken longer than might have been reasonably expected, to identify and resolve the damp, mould, and water ingress in the property, and to complete all of the identified repairs.
50. The landlord took decisive action to put things right for the resident in the final complaint response, by arranging for all of the outstanding repairs to be overseen by a suitably qualified manager, who then project managed these repairs through to their successful completion on 11 January 2025.
51. But in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s combined offer final offer of compensation did not fully reflect the detriment to the resident over the duration of the complaint.
52. Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to remedy damp and mould in the property. The Ombudsman makes an appropriate order for compensation later, which has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about noise transference within the building.

53. For context, the resident made a historical report about noise nuisance from a neighbour in 2020. The landlord offered advice to the resident at that time. But it was unable to progress the matter with the neighbour, due to a lack of supporting evidence from the resident. The landlord claimed to have told the resident that little could be done to improve the sound insulation within the building.
54. Little evidence was provided to the Ombudsman by the landlord and the resident, in respect of this matter of complaint. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s assessment focuses on the reasonableness of the landlord’s stage 2 response, in relation to the resident’s reports about noise transference within the building.
55. The resident expressed concern in the stage 2 complaint, about the landlord’s failure to address his concerns about poor sound insulation within the building, as well as noise disturbance from the neighbouring property due to inadequate underlay. The resident suggested that these issues were significantly impacting the lives his family, who were being constantly disturbed at night. He referenced having a conversation with the landlord in May 2024, when the landlord committed to inspecting the soundproofing within the basement. The resident said that he was still waiting for an update in relation to the landlord’s findings and its proposed next steps.
56. The landlord recognised the likely discomfort experienced by the resident, arising from noise issues within the building. It accepted that there had been a delay in it inspecting the flooring in the neighbouring property. But explained that it had experienced difficulties gaining access. The landlord showed that it was being supportive, by committing to explore alternative ways of establishing contact with the neighbour. The landlord’s response would have been better, had it committed to updating the resident at regular intervals, regarding any subsequent progress made.
57. The landlord explained that soundproofing the building was likely to require significant structural work, which was beyond the scope of its standard repairs. Since landlords are not obliged to carry out improvements to the soundproofing of a building, it was reasonable for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations around this. But the landlord’s response fell short, because it did not clarify its intentions for inspecting the soundproofing in the basement, which the resident believed the landlord had committed to.
58. Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about noise transference within the building. The Ombudsman makes an appropriate order for compensation later, which has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

59. The landlord had a 2-stage complaint process. The landlord aimed to acknowledged stage 1 complaints in 5 working days and issue a full stage 1 response within 10 working days. The landlord aimed to acknowledge stage 2 complaints in 5 working days and issue a full stage 2 response within 20 workings days. If the landlord needed more time to issue a complaint response, the landlord was required to keep the resident informed, providing regular updates and reasons for any delay. Where a resident disagreed with a complaint extension, the landlord would provide the resident with contact details for the Ombudsman.
60. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) stated that landlords must decide whether an extension is needed when considering the complexity of the complaint. If an extension is required, the landlord must confirm the reason for the extension and its expected timescale for responding. Any extension must not exceed a further 10 working days without a good reason.
61. The Code also stated that once the stage 1 complaint had been issued, any new unrelated issues must be logged as a new complaint.
62. The landlord appropriately recognised the resident’s communication of 27 March 2024, as an expression of dissatisfaction. However, it did not acknowledge this as a stage 1 complaint, within expected timescales under its complaints policy.
63. The landlord did not issue the stage 1 response, within the timescale it committed to. The landlord ought to have extended the complaint if it needed more time, in line with its complaint policy.
64. The landlord tried to put things right, by apologising for its handling of the complaint, at stage 1. It offered £50 compensation for complaint handling failures, it itself had identified. The landlord’s offer of compensation was in line with its compensation policy since there had been more than 1 complaint handling failure.
65. The landlord’s repairs team appropriately raised a stage 2 complaint on 26 June 2024, after the resident raised further dissatisfaction. The landlord’s repairs team offered to take down all of the details of the complaint from the resident but the resident said he would rather email the landlord separately with this information. This was the resident’s choice.
66. It was unhelpful that the resident did not email the landlord with details of the complaint until 17 July 2024. But the landlord should have still acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days of the complaint being logged by its repairs team. If the landlord was unclear on the nature and detail of the complaint, it could have proactively contacted the resident to obtain this information.
67. The landlord sent an initial stage 2 acknowledgement, 2 working days after it received the additional complaint detail from the resident. However, its acknowledgement did not clarify a timeline for issuing the full response. This was inappropriate and was likely to have created some uncertainty for the resident.
68. The landlord ought to have raised a new stage 1 complaint in relation to the resident’s concerns about noise nuisance, in accordance with the Code. This is because this was a new and unrelated matter of complaint, which the landlord had not previously considered at stage 1.
69. The landlord sent a further communication to the resident on 7 August 2024, committing to provide the full stage 2 response by 1 September 2024. It is unclear from the evidence seen if this was a second acknowledgement or a complaint extension.
70. The resident raised dissatisfaction on 7 August 2024, about the landlord’s proposed timescale for issuing the stage 2 response. The landlord responded to the resident in a timely manner, on the same day. It explained that its complaint handler had been away from the business unexpectedly, so it needed more time to complete its investigation.
71. Landlords should have processes in place for covering periods of staff absence, to avoid unduly delaying resolution of complaints. The Ombudsman was encouraged that the landlord recognised this as a failure of service at the time and committed to addressing this within the stage 2 response. The landlord might have provided the resident with the contact details for the Ombudsman, in line with its complaint policy.
72. The landlord ought to have issued the stage 2 response by 1 September 2024, given that it had committed to this. However, the landlord did not have approval to release the stage 2 response, due its manager being absent. The landlord did not inform the resident that the stage 2 response would be delayed until 27 September 2024. This was unreasonable. The landlord explained to the resident that it was trying to obtain authority from another manager to release the stage 2 response, which was positive. It tried to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining that this was unlikely to be achieved until the following week. It would have been better if the landlord had given the resident an expected date for issuing the response. The landlord did not issue the stage 2 complaint response until 14 October 2024.
73. The landlord’s offer of compensation at stage 2, in recognition of complaint handling failure, was £10. This suggests that the landlord viewed there to have been a single failure in its complaint handling, which had minimal impact on the resident. However, this investigation found several failings in the landlord’s complaint handling at stage 2, which were likely to have caused continued frustration and inconvenience to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s offer of compensation at stage 2, in relation to complaint handling, was not quite proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation.
74. The landlord’s complaint records suggest thar the landlord considered if there were any learnings that might be taken from complaint outcomes. The landlord identified that it needed to ensure that repairs were completed within a reasonable timescale and that it kept it residents “in the loop”. It may have offered the resident some reassurance, if it had explained how these findings would translate into service improvement.
75. The resident emailed the landlord on 12 November 2024, asking for the compensation it had offered, to be paid directly onto his rent account. The resident told the Ombudsman on 16 January 2025, that no compensation was ever paid. This was inappropriate and unfair.
76. When considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The Ombudsman makes an appropriate order for compensation later, which has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy.

The landlord’s record keeping

77. While the Ombudsman was able to determine this case based on the evidence provided, there were noticeable gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request. Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress.
78. The landlord’s record keeping and information management was inadequate. However, the Ombudsman found no detriment to the resident as a result of these failings. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping and information management. But the landlord should identify the reason for the gaps in the information that it provided to the Ombudsman for this investigation and then act accordingly thereafter.

Determination

79. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:

a.     Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to remedy damp and mould in the property.

b.     Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about noise transference within the building.

c.      Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

d.     No maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

 

 

 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

80. The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified by this investigation. The landlord should explain how any learnings identified by the landlord during the complaint process, have been used by it to inform service improvement.
81. The landlord must pay compensation of £1,210 to the resident, which is reduced to £490 if the landlord has already paid the compensation, it previously offered. This compensation may be paid directly into the resident’s rent account if this the resident’s preference. This compensation has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord’s compensation policy, and is broken down as follows:

a.     £400 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused the resident by delays completing repairs.

b.     £200 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, by failings identified in the landlord’s communications.

c.      £360 compensation in recognition of the loss of use of a bedroom.

d.     £50 compensation in recognition of the uncertainty created for the resident, by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about noise transference within the building.

e.     £200 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident by failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.

82. The landlord must endeavour to arrange a face-to-face meeting with the resident at the property. During this meeting, the landlord must:
    1. Liaise with the resident to obtain evidence of any incurred expenses associated with running dehumidifiers, due to water ingress, in the timeframe of the complaint. The landlord must then write to the resident confirming how much it will pay the resident in recompense.
    2. Clarify the steps that it has already taken, or will take, to investigate the resident’s concerns about noise disturbance from the neighbour and inadequate sound insulation.
    3. Commit to sharing any actions arising during the meeting with the resident, in an action plan, with timescales for action. The action plan must be kept under review with the resident, at a regular frequency, to be agreed by the parties.
83. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above order, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

 Recommendations

84. The landlord should write to the resident, committing to a period of periodic monitoring of the property, enabling it to respond quickly if issues with damp, mould, and water ingress return.
85. The landlord should also set out its position and any timescales for action, in relation to the following matters:

a.     Its plan for repairing the retaining wall attached to the bedroom.

b.     Its plan for securing a permanent resolution in respect of the intermittent issues with the neighbour’s overflow pipe.

c.      Its plan for securing access to the neighbour’s property, to rule out and prevent further issues with leaks.

d.     Its plan for resolving flooding in the basement room, adjacent to the property.

86. The landlord should identify the reason for the gaps in the information that it provided to the Ombudsman for this investigation and then act accordingly thereafter.