Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Peabody Trust (202217880)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217880

Peabody Trust

19 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. The repair and replacement of the resident’s windows.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 9 October 1978. The property is a 2 bedroom flat and the landlord is a housing association.
  2. The resident has an authorised representative, who has been acting on her behalf. This report will refer to both as the resident, unless it is necessary to refer to the representative for clarity.
  3. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The evidence shows that the resident informed the landlord in October 2022, that she was vulnerable and elderly. In December 2022, she shared with the landlord that she had arthritis and was short of breath.
  4. On 18 January 2022, the resident reported an issue with damp and mould to the landlord. The landlord noted that there were delays booking the appointment with the resident and gaining access from the neighbour’s property. It said this pushed back the repairs completion date and it completed the repairs on 7 March 2022, which included repointing one of the external walls.
  5. On 6 October 2022, the resident’s representative raised concerns with the landlord about its failing to act on the resident’s reports of damp and mould and alleged that it discriminated against her based on her age and race. The following day the resident agreed for the landlord to deal with her concerns as a service recovery.
  6. On 11 October 2022, the landlord asked the representative to complete the relevant authority form so she could act on the resident’s behalf, she returned it on 14 November 2022.
  7. On 17 October 2022, the landlord responded to the resident’s service request and informed her that it had scheduled the renewal of her windows between April 2023 and March 2024. It explained that those were provisional dates and it would contact her when the works were due to begin.
  8. On 16 November 2022, the landlord explained that it had responded to the concerns she raised in October 2022, as a service recovery and not a formal complaint. It acknowledged her request to escalate her service recovery to a formal complaint and logged it on 21 November 2022.
  9. The landlord opened a damp and mould investigation on 18 November 2022. On 24 November 2022, the landlord assessed the issue of damp and mould in the property and 2 days later it carried out repairs to the bedroom window and repointed the external walls.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 29 November 2022. It said:
    1. It completed a stock condition survey in 2021, which concluded that the resident’s windows would not be due for an upgrade for another 3 years. It said that, after reviewing her case, it agreed to bring the window renewal date forward and reiterated that it would replace her windows between April 2023 and March 2024.
    2. It acknowledged her report of damp and mould and said its relevant team would be in touch to rectify the issues accordingly.
    3. It said it had learned from the resident’s complaint and reminded its staff of the importance of keeping clear, accurate and up to date records.
    4. It offered to pay the resident £25 compensation to reflect the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to her. It did not say whether it upheld her complaint.
  11. On 8 December 2022, the landlord’s contractor carried out a full damp and mould survey at the property. It recommended some remedial work to the living room and bedroom windows and provided a quote for the works. Additionally, it said the wallpaper behind the toilet was bubbling and the area required further investigation. On 14 December 2022, the landlord noted that it completed repairs to one window, it did not provide other details. It also noted that on 23 December 2022, it investigated the issue behind the toilets and recommended to hack the plaster, bond the brick and replaster and received a quote from the contractor for the works. The contractor advised that it could not repair the living room window as it was swollen and recommended for a specialist to assess it. The landlord agreed all the appointments with the resident.
  12. On 10 January 2023, the landlord asked a new contractor to inspect the property. The contractor provided a quote for the required remedial repairs to the windows and the wall behind the toilet, which the landlord accepted on 20 January 2023. Between 20 January 2023 and 7 February 2023, the contractor removed mould by the windows in the living room, the bedroom and the bathroom. It repaired the windows wooden frames and applied draught excluders to the bedroom and the living room windows. It also repaired the internal and external walls by the resident’s bedroom and the toilet. The landlord agreed dates which were suitable to the resident to carry out those repairs.
  13. On 30 January 2023, the resident asked the landlord whether her complaint had reached stage 2 as previously requested. She reiterated that her property was cold, which affected her health. She asked the landlord to clarify its plans for the repairs and the outcome of its inspections. The following day, the landlord asked the resident to clarify whether her escalation request was relating to the stage 1 response she received in November 2022. It informed this Service that the resident did not respond or confirm that she wished to escalate that complaint.
  14. Following the resident contacting this service, we asked the landlord to issue its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint by 22 August 2024. The landlord agreed with the resident to respond to her complaint on 29 August 2024.
  15. The landlord issued a detailed stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 29 August 2024. It said:
    1. Complaint handling:
      1. It concluded that in October 2022, it responded to the resident’s service recovery within its published timeframe. It acknowledged that its service recovery response had not addressed all the elements of her complaint, such as the allegation of discrimination. It upheld this element of her complaint.
      2. It confirmed that at the resident’s request, it escalated the service request to a formal complaint and responded to her complaint within its published timeframe.
      3. It acknowledged that on 30 January 2023, the resident sent an email mentioning the escalation of her complaint. The landlord responded the following day and explained the process and timescale for requesting to escalate a complaint. It asked her to confirm whether she wished to escalate the complaint it responded to in November 2022.
    2. Repairs:
      1. It reiterated that it would aim to upgrade her windows between April 2023 and March 2024. It said that it promptly attended to the resident’s reports about her windows and damp and mould and made the necessary repairs.
      2. It acknowledged that it could have communicated better with the resident about its plans for the renewal of her windows and what remedial repairs it had done. It upheld this element of her complaint.
    3. It said that after investigating the allegations, it found no evidence it had discriminated against the resident.
    4. It shared the learning it identified from the resident’s complaint and the changes it had made to its complaint team to prevent any failings from reoccurring.
    5. It offered to pay £300 compensation to the resident and said it was made up of:
      1. £150 for time and trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings. It said it was inclusive of its earlier offer of £25.
      2. £150 for its failing to correctly investigate a complaint and the inconvenience caused to the resident.

Post complaints process

  1. Between October 2023 and March 2024, the resident reported more issues with the windows and damp and mould in the property and the landlord completed the remedial repairs it identified. On 8 December 2023, the surveyor informed the landlord that it could no longer fix the bedroom window and it needed replacing. The landlord replaced the resident’s bedroom window on 19 February 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman recognises that the presence of damp and mould at the property has caused the resident some distress. The resident expressed concerns about the potential impact on her health. Unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot establish what caused a health issue or determine liability and award damages. A personal injury claim would usually deal with such matter.
  2. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has reported issues with damp and mould at the property since 2019, and repairs to the windows since 2018. The evidence shows that between 2018 and 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s reports, carried out some damp remedial works and repairs to the windows. Paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the matters arising. In this case, no evidence was seen that prior to November 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of the damp and mould, the repairs or the upgrading of the windows at the property.
  3. Additionally, the evidence shows that following the repairs to the windows in November 2020, the resident made no further reports until October 2022, when she requested the landlord to upgrade her windows. The evidence also shows that following the damp and mould remedial works completed at her property in May 2021, the resident made no further damp and mould reports until January 2022. Therefore, in keeping with the Scheme, whilst the historical reports of the problem offer context to the current complaint, this investigation will focus on events from October 2021 onwards.
  4. The resident said the landlord had discriminated against her. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether the actions, or inaction, of the landlord’s staff amounted to discrimination as it is not possible for this Service to make an assessment of an individual’s motives. Furthermore, allegations of discrimination are legal issues better suited to a court of law to decide.
  5. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns and queries by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident. We will determine whether the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where the Ombudsman has identified failures on the landlord’s part, we can also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Damp and mould

  1. Over the past few years, there has been an increased awareness of the risks to health from damp and mould. It is understandable that residents would be concerned if damp and mould were present in their home. The issue can cause considerable distress to residents, especially residents with certain health conditions and vulnerabilities.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will complete non urgent repairs within 28 days, programmed repairs and specialist works within 60 days. It states that it will aim to make sure appointments were convenient for residents.
  3. The Ombudsman acknowledges that in November 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it had not received any reports of damp and mould since earlier that year. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported damp and mould in the property in January 2022. We recognise that the resident was surprised at this, suggesting that she believed she made reports after that date. Whilst the Ombudsman is not doubting the resident’s account, we saw no evidence that the landlord received damp and mould reports between March 2022 and October 2022. Therefore, we cannot determine there was a service failure from the landlord in its handling of damp and mould between those dates. This is because the Ombudsman is an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence provided.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. In this case, the resident reported an issue with damp and mould on 6 October 2022. The landlord did not show that it discussed the problem with the resident at the time of her reports to understand the severity of the issue and determine how quickly it should respond. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to reassure the resident that it took the issue seriously and was committed to address the matter with urgency.
  5. Furthermore, while it opened a damp and mould investigation on 18 November 2022, and inspected the property on 28 November 2022, this was several weeks after the resident reported the problem. The landlord did not show that it acted with a sense of urgency in keeping with its obligations and the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould. This was unreasonable from the landlord, its lack of urgency also caused distress to the resident, who felt unheard.
  6. Additionally, in October 2022, the resident informed the landlord that she was vulnerable and elderly. The evidence did not show that the landlord considered whether it should make reasonable adjustments while addressing the problem. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord should have made reasonable adjustments in its handling of the issues. However, we would have expected the landlord to discuss this with her. This would have reassured the resident that it considered her needs and vulnerability. The Ombudsman acknowledges that there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord’s failings to have this discussion impacted on the overall outcome for the resident.
  7. It is essential for landlords to communicate effectively with their residents throughout their service delivery. This is especially true in cases of damp and mould, where residents are often concerned about the issue impacting on their health. While the Ombudsman understands that finding the root cause of damp and mould and resolving the issue can take time, this can make a resident feel unheard and impact on their relationship with their landlord. Therefore, it is important for landlords to remain transparent with the residents on their decision making, their plans and the actions taken to resolve the issue. This shows to residents that their landlord is listening and they can trust it to take steps to put things right.
  8. In this case, the evidence shows that the landlord carried out several inspections, including one damp and mould survey at the property between November 2022 and January 2023. However, the landlord did not show that prior to its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint in August 2023, it shared the outcomes of its inspections and survey with the resident. This was unreasonable from the landlord, it should have provided regular and timely updates to the resident on its findings and progress in resolving the matter. It was not in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould to share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Its failings to communicate effectively with the resident about its actions in resolving the matter caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  9. The Ombudsman acknowledges that following its inspections of the property in November 2022, December 2022 and January 2023, the landlord promptly acted on the recommendations of the surveyors. For example, following the damp and mould inspection in November 2022, it carried out the remedial repairs to the walls within 6 days. Additionally, after its inspection in December 2022, it acted on the recommendations to remove wallpaper from behind the toilets within 6 days. It also recalled the surveyor to inspect behind the toilets 9 days after it removed the wallpaper. Those were reasonable timeframes for the landlord to act on the recommendations from its experts. Its actions were also in keeping with its repair policy to complete such repairs within 28 days. Its actions should have reassured the resident that it was committed to resolve the problem.
  10. The evidence shows that the landlord received quotes from 2 different contractors to complete the remedial repairs behind the toilets and the windows. The Ombudsman understands that visits from several contractors caused inconvenience to the resident, especially as she would not have seen any progress on resolving the issues during that time. However, landlords are expected to manage funds appropriately and provide value for money, therefore it was understandable that the landlord got several quotes for the repairs.
  11. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord received the first quote for the recommended remedial repairs on 23 December 2022 and the second on 13 January 2023. We understand that getting quotes may have delayed the completion of the repairs especially as this was over the Christmas period. However, the time it took to get the quotes was out of the landlord’s control as some trades do not work during the Christmas period. The evidence shows that the landlord communicated the urgency of the matter to its contractors and once it confirmed which contractor would do the work, it started the repairs within 10 days. This was a reasonable action from the landlord and in keeping with what is expected from landlords in such cases.
  12. Landlords are also responsible for ensuring they communicate effectively with their contractors. For example, landlords should make clear which contractor is to complete the job and update their systems accordingly to reflect this. In this case, the landlord acknowledged that it did not record or communicate effectively with two of their contractors. This resulted in a contractor turning up to start a job, which the landlord had given to another. This was unreasonable, it was confusing for the resident and caused her inconvenience. This also did not convey to the resident that the landlord was effectively managing the required repairs.
  13. In Summary, the Ombudsman determines that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Whilst it responded to the resident’s reports and carried out remedial repairs, it did not show that it acted with urgency and effectively communicate with all involved. It also failed to keep the resident informed and showed that it had considered the resident’s vulnerability. We acknowledge that in its stage 2 response to her complaint, the landlord offered £150 compensation to the resident for time, trouble and inconvenience. However, it also concluded that its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould was appropriate. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the compensation it offered was not in relation to this element of her complaint. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is published on our website, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £400 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings on her.
  14. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord provided evidence that since the issues raised in this complaint, it completed its self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould and is currently implementing its actions plan to meet the Ombudsman’s recommendations for improvement. The landlord has also provided a copy of its damp and mould policy, which became operative in February 2023. The Ombudsman is satisfied that it showed that the landlord has implemented measures to prevent the failings identified in this report from reoccurring. Therefore, no additional orders are made.

Repairs and upgrade of the resident’s windows

  1. In October 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that it had not replaced her windows with doubled glazed windows, which she felt was needed. Its complaint policy states that a service request does not always need to enter the complaint process, it states that the landlord can respond to such request under its service recovery process to resolve the issue faster.
  2. In this case, the Ombudsman understands that the resident’s representative raised the issue prior to showing that she had the authority to act on the resident’s behalf. We recognise that this may have delayed processing the service request by a few days. Nevertheless, on 11 October 2022, the resident agreed for the landlord to investigate the matter under its service recovery process, which was in keeping with its complaint policy. The landlord responded to her concerns about upgrading her windows to double glazing 4 working days later, which was reasonable.
  3. In its response to the resident’s request for doubled glazed windows, the landlord explained that it had reviewed her case and concluded that it was unable to upgrade her windows that financial year. It said that the window renewal for her property was scheduled between April 2023 and March 2024. Whilst the Ombudsman cannot determine when landlords should replace residents’ windows, we can consider their response to such request. In this case, the landlord promptly clarified its position with the resident and provided her with a timeframe for the works. This was reasonable from the landlord.
  4. The Ombudsman understands that the resident feels that she would benefit from having her windows upgraded to doubled glazing and she believes that this would help with keeping her home warm and comfortable. We also acknowledge that whilst landlords are responsible for renewing items such as boilers, kitchen, bathrooms and windows within their properties, they are also expected to manage funds appropriately. It is often necessary for landlords to balance resident’s wishes against their obligations as landlords, what is necessary and budget restrictions. One of the steps landlords can take to manage this, is to carry out stock surveys across their housing stock to assess the lifespan of items such as windows. They then decide when such items will need replacing. This is often referred to as planned works and is usually planned several years in advance.
  5. In this case, the landlord said that it carried out a stock survey in 2021 and determined that the resident’s windows would not need replacing within the following 3 years. However, the landlord said that after reviewing her case, it decided to bring the upgrade for her windows forward by one year. It did not explain its reasons for bringing the upgrade forward, which would have been helpful and may have shown the resident that it was acting in her best interest. It also explained that it was unable to do the work sooner as its investment team was fully booked. This was understandable because such works are usually planned at least 1 year in advance. Nevertheless, bringing the renewal date for the windows forward was reasonable from the landlord. It showed that it recognised that the windows were coming towards the end of their lifespan and was sensitive to the resident’s needs and wishes by agreeing to do the work as soon as it was able to.
  6. The Ombudsman acknowledges that between November 2022 and February 2023, the landlord acted on all reports from the resident about the windows and completed several repairs to the windows in keeping with its repairs policy. The landlord’s repeated visits caused inconvenience to the resident, however, it showed that it completed the repairs to the windows at a time suitable to the resident. As explained by the landlord in its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint, landlords are under no obligation to replace items such as windows unless they are beyond repair. Additionally, in December 2023, the landlord’s surveyor said that it could not repair the bedroom window and recommended for the landlord to replace it. The evidence shows that the landlord promptly requested a quote to upgrade the resident’s bedroom window. This was reasonable from the landlord. It showed that whilst it was mindful of managing its funds appropriately and only upgrade items when needed, it also changed its position as soon as it received evidence that the upgrade was necessary.
  7. The Ombudsman acknowledges that while the resident requested the landlord to upgrade her windows to double glazing in October 2022, she did not specifically report a repair. However, the landlord advised on 16 November 2022, that although the windows were not due for an upgrade, it would inspect their state of repairs. This was reasonable from the landlord, it showed that it was keen to identify and resolve any issues with the windows. It inspected the property on 24 November 2022 and completed the remedial repairs 6 days after that. Additionally, after its inspection in December 2022, it completed the repairs to one window 6 days later. Those were reasonable actions from the landlord, it acted in keeping with its repairs policy to complete routine repairs within 28 days.
  8. As mentioned earlier in this report, the landlord received quotes from 2 different contractors in December 2022 and January 2022, to complete the damp and mould remedial repairs and the repairs to the windows. The Ombudsman acknowledges that requesting 2 quotes may have delayed the completion of the windows repairs. However, the evidence shows that once the landlord accepted allocated the work, it started the repairs to the windows within 14 days and completed all the repairs 25 days after accepting the quote. The evidence shows that the landlord and the resident remained in contact and agreed appointments which were at a time suitable to the resident. Those were reasonable timeframes for the landlord to complete the agreed repairs. This should have reassured the resident that it was committed to resolve the problem. This was also in keeping with its repair policy.
  9. Nevertheless, and from its own admission, the landlord could have communicated better with the resident. It acknowledged in its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint that it did not update her on the upgrading and repairs of her windows. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise, it had failed to adequately update the resident between November 2022 and February 2023. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to share the outcomes of its inspections with the resident and update her on its plans to resolve the issue of her windows. This would have reassured her that the landlord was acting on her concerns and was working to resolve the problem.
  10. In summary, the evidence shows that the landlord promptly made its position clear about upgrading the resident’s windows, it also acted on all the recommendations from surveyors and promptly repaired her windows. However, and from its own admission, the landlord did not appropriately update the resident on its findings and plans to remedy the issue. Whilst the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord’s failings caused inconvenience and distress to the resident, the evidence did not show that this affected the resident’s overall outcomes. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings. It also offered to pay £150 in compensation to the resident to reflect the time and trouble and inconvenience caused to her by its failings. It is the Ombudsman opinion that the landlord’s total offer reflected the failings identified in this report. Therefore, the Ombudsman determines that, in all circumstances of the case, the level of compensation was reasonable redress.

The associated complaint

  1. As previously mentioned in its report, the resident raised concerns about the damp and mould at her property and the upgrade of her windows to double glazing. She agreed for the landlord to respond to her concerns as a service recovery. However, the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requested to escalate her service recovery to a formal complaint, which the landlord logged as a stage 1 complaint 5 days later. This was reasonable from the landlord. It was in keeping with its policy to escalate a service recovery to a stage 1 complaint at a resident’s request and to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
  2. The landlord’s complaint’s policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. In this case, the landlord issued the resident’s stage 1 response within 9 working days of her requesting to escalate her service recovery. This was reasonable from the landlord and in keeping with its complaint policy.
  3. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which outlines the requirements for landlords to operate effective complaint handling. In this case, and from the landlord own admission in its stage 2 response, it failed to address the residents’ concerns about discrimination against her in its stage 1 response to her complaint. This was unreasonable from the landlord and not in keeping with the Code to respond to all the elements of a resident’s complaint. Additionally, this caused distress to the resident who had to wait approximately 9 months for the landlord to investigate and respond to this element of her complaint. This was inappropriate from the landlord, especially when considering the sensitive nature of the allegations and the impact on the resident.
  4. The evidence shows that once the Ombudsman requested the landlord to provide the resident with a stage 2 response to her complaint, it responded within the timeframe it agreed with her. While this was appropriate and in keeping with its policy and the Code, the evidence shows this was 7 months after she contacted the landlord and asked whether her complaint had reached stage 2. This was also after the involvement of this Service, it should not require our involvement for a landlord to respond to a resident’s complaint. This was unreasonable from the landlord.
  5. In January 2023, when the resident asked the landlord about the stage at which her complaint was at, she also asked for feedback on the inspections completed and for clarification on the repairs to the windows. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord contacted her the following day asking whether her request to escalate her complaint was in relation to the complaint it responded to in November 2022. We also acknowledge that it correctly advised her that a request to escalate a complaint to stage 2 should be made within 10 days of receiving a stage 1 response. This was reasonable from the landlord, it was seeking clarification, trying to understand the resident’s wishes and explaining its policy in relation to complaint escalation.
  6. However, the landlord did not show that it wrote to the resident to make its  position clear about her complaint. It did not explain whether it rejected her request to escalate her complaint and its reasons for doing so if it had. This would have been in keeping with the Code and its complaint policy to explain in writing to a resident if it rejected their complaint request and why. The evidence did not show that in January 2023, the landlord satisfied itself that the resident considered the matter closed and the issues resolved. This was unreasonable from the landlord and left the resident with unanswered concerns for several months. The evidence shows that the resident did not consider the matter resolved as she contacted this service for support in resolving her complaint.
  7. The Ombudsman does not dispute that the resident’s request to escalate her complaint was outside the landlord’s published timeframe to do so. However, the content and tone of her email clearly expressed a dissatisfaction with the service she had received from the landlord. The Code states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service and whenever a resident expresses dissatisfaction landlords must give them the choice to make a complaint. In this case, the landlord did not show that it offered the resident to make a new stage 1 complaint or to discuss what she remained unhappy with. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to do this, it would have shown that it was committed to the principle of dispute resolution and keen to resolve any outstanding issues with the resident. Its failings caused the resident inconvenience as she had to request support from this Service in seeking a resolution to her complaint.
  8. Good complaint handling is essential to rebuild trust with residents. In this case, the Ombudsman recognises that in keeping with its complaint policy the landlord issued its stage 1 response within its published timeframe. Whilst this was reasonable from the landlord, the evidence shows that it did not respond to her complaints in keeping with its policy and the Code. For example, it did not respond to all the elements of the resident’s complaint at stage 1. Additionally, it did not correctly handle the resident’s reports of dissatisfaction in January 2023. This delayed her concerns being answered and prevented her from accessing our Service sooner, causing her distress and inconvenience. Therefore, the Ombudsman determines that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  9. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord recognised some of its failings in its stage 2 response and offered to pay the resident £150 to reflect the impact of its failings. However, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the level of compensation offered by the landlord is too low and does not reflect the failings identified in this report. In line with the Ombudsman compensation remedies, which are published on our website, the  Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £200 in compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident in relation to her complaint about the repairs and replacement of her windows prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This results in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to write an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £600 directly to the resident, this is made up of:
    1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
    2. £200 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling (the landlord should deduct £150 from this amount, if it has paid the £150 compensation it offered to the resident at stage 2 for its complaint handling failings).
    3. The landlord is to provide evidence to this Service that it has paid the compensation to the resident or taken reasonable steps to comply with this order.
  3. The landlord is to update the resident’s vulnerabilities on its housing management system and provide evidence to this service once it has done this.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is to make good on its offers to pay the resident £150 to reflect the impact of its failings in its handling of the repairs and upgrade to her windows.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord write to the resident to update her on the timescale for her remaining windows upgrade to doubled glazing.