Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202345642)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345642

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

7 January 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to his reports of:
1. The faulty communal door intercom system.
2. Damp and mould in the main bedroom.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat in a block of 4 flats. The resident is a leaseholder and has lived in the property since at least 2008. He currently lives there with his wife and child.
In June 2008, the landlord carried out some improvement works on the property including damp proofing the wall of the spare bedroom. The resident thanked the landlord and said they would contact the landlord again when the wardrobe had been fitted in the main bedroom so the walls of that room could be insulated against damp as well. It is unclear whether there was any follow-up to this from either the resident or the landlord from 2008 until January 2023.
The resident’s wife reported to the landlord twice, on 9 August 2021 and 25 April 2022 respectively, that the communal door intercom system was broken. This system was shared by all 4 flats in the block, and she reported at the time the system was not accepting key fobs or allowing anyone to ring the flats. People had to ask someone inside to open the door for them or use the backdoor.
On 26 January 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord to raise concerns about damp and mould in the main bedroom. He described the external wall (against which he had a wardrobe fitted) as ‘continuously wet’ and ‘producing black mould’ despite his best efforts to clean away the mould; the wall felt ‘damaged’ and ‘draughty’. He set out the 2008 damp-proofing works to the spare bedroom in his background of events and said he was concerned about the risks to the health of his wife and young child. He also said the landlord had issued residents with a ‘go-to guide’ on damp and mould prevention previously and he had done his best to follow this, however the mould situation was persisting. He also attached photos of the mould.
In response, the landlord asked him to arrange a survey himself as he was the leaseholder, following which it would review the surveyor’s findings and do what it could to support the resident. The resident agreed to this and paid for a specialist to conduct a damp and mould survey on 1 March 2023.
The resident sent the survey report to the landlord on 6 March 2023, with the surveyor’s photographic observations and recommendations summarised as below:
1. All of the gutters were blocked and overflowing.
2. The rear guttering did not catch the rain efficiently and would cause a flow over the wall.
3. The gully down one side was blocked and had no water tap.
4. Some of the exterior window frame sealant was de-bonding.
5. The lintel above the spare bedroom was cracked and some of the mortar joints above it had opened up, causing cold and moisture to get in (the surveyor suggested seeking the advice of a structural engineer).
6. There was damaged/missing pointing and missing brickwork.
7. The hopper and down pipe above the kitchen window were rusty and showing signs of leaking.
8. The electric cables attached to the front exterior wall might be trapping rain behind the cables and directing rain over the damp-proof course.
9. Pepper pot cowls were recommended to be fitted to the redundant chimney pots if these chimneys had not been capped already.
10. Vents should be fitted at a high level in the main bedroom.
The landlord replied on 8 March 2023 to say it had consulted its repairs team and planned to carry out the following actions to resolve these issues:
1. Clear the gutters, then check and correct the alignment of the guttering.
2. Check and repair the gully.
3. Re-inspect the window frame and re-apply silicone sealant.
4. The lintel above the spare bedroom and mortar joints should be re-assessed.
5. Repair the missing pointing and damaged brickwork.
6. Repair the defective downpipe.
7. Clip back the loose cables on the exterior wall.
8. Check if pepper pot cowls had been installed near the chimney pots, if not, install them.
9. It gave the resident permission to fit a vent in the main bedroom.
10. It was seeking advice from the repairs team on the damp insulation of the main bedroom wall.
The records did not show there was more follow-up from the landlord between March and August 2023 despite the resident chasing up and the landlord telling him multiple times it was looking into the matter.
The landlord booked in an appointment on 23 August 2023 to clear the gutters. The resident reported to the landlord on that day the contractor did not keep this appointment. The landlord made an appointment again and the gutter was cleared around September or October 2023 (no exact date provided on the records).
On 17 October 2023 the resident reported that the communal door intercom system was malfunctioning. He said that although this was the first time he had reported it, this was a long-standing issue and all 4 flats in the block had been affected. He explained he was concerned about the security for all residents in the block. The landlord responded the next day to say it would raise repairs.
A contractor attended on 6 November 2023 and confirmed the entire door entry system was irreparable and needed replacing. The landlord advised the resident by email on 8 November 2023 that it was waiting for a quote from the contractor. It later said it was expecting this in the week of 14 November 2023 and would update the resident in due course. Following a period with no updates, the resident then chased a reply from the landlord via two emails sent in early to mid-December 2023.
The landlord discussed the matter of the door intercom system internally on 6 December 2023 and questioned why the entire system needed to be replaced, when only one flat in the block had raised the issue. It believed ‘no issue was found with other properties’ and declined the initial quote from the contractor.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 14 December 2023 to say it had no further update. The resident then asked to raise a stage 1 complaint, as he had been chasing for resolutions to the faulty intercom system issues since October 2023 and the damp and mould issues since March 2023. He re-emphasised his concerns that both issues placed the health and security of his family at risk.
The landlord acknowledged his stage 1 complaint on 18 December 2023 and on the same day it assigned a surveyor to inspect the property for damp and mould on 4 January 2024. The surveyor emailed the resident directly to ask for the survey report from 1 March 2023.
On 4 January 2024 the surveyor attended for the scheduled inspection. Their observations and recommendations were as below:
1. They found high levels of moisture in the interior of the flat and mould in the kitchen near the non-vented tumble dryer.
2. The property was not compliant with Building Regulations Part F for ventilation.
3. They recommended replacement of the bathroom extractor with a continuously running fan.
4. They recommended installing a continuously running extractor fan in the kitchen.
5. They recommended closing the trickle vents in the bathroom and kitchen, keeping the bathroom windows closed, removing items from the storage area under the bed and re-programming the timer on the heating.
6. They recommended managing the internal moisture levels before insulating the external wall in the main bedroom.
The landlord asked the resident for an extension of 10 working days to complete its stage 1 response on 10 January 2024 and further asked him to send photos of the damp and mould. The resident stated he had been sending the landlord this information since January 2023 and it had been 14 days since he raised the complaint.
The landlord’s surveyor shared his report with the resident on 15 January 2024 and explained that, as leaseholder, the resident had a duty to improve ventilation within the property. They further sent a list of companies to the resident who could take on the work of installing extractor fans. The resident thanked the surveyor and said while he was happy to bear the costs for the internal works, he was waiting for the landlord to give an update on the rest of the outstanding surveyor’s recommendations for external and structural repairs.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 26 January 2024, summarised as follows:
1. It apologised for the substandard service and delay in approving the quote for the door intercom system causing any upset to the resident.
2. Its security contractor had assessed the issue and confirmed a full system upgrade was necessary. The quote was being approved internally but not confirmed yet and it would update the resident when it could.
3. It offered £80 for the delay in repairs and delay in its stage 1 complaint response.
The landlord then asked the resident on the same day as issuing the stage 1 response to explain what the outstanding exterior repairs for the damp and mould issues were so it could follow these up.
The resident asked the landlord for escalation of his complaint on 19 January 2024. He also re-sent the summary of recommendations from the surveyor’s report of March 2023.
The resident installed new kitchen and bathroom extractor fans on 30 January 2024 and informed the landlord on 1 February 2024. He sought assistance from this Service on 26 February 2024 after receiving no complaint response.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 12 March 2024, summarised as follows:
1. It acknowledged that the progress on the intercom system had been slow and there had been a number of unacceptable delays.
2. Regarding the door intercom, it explained that the quote had been delayed due to the landlord querying the first quote to see if its stakeholders were receiving the best value for money, followed by an administrative error where the quote was logged incorrectly, causing the repairs to stall.
3. It had authorised the quote now and the contractor was ordering the parts needed for the system upgrade. It expected the repairs to be completed on 5 April 2024.
4. Regarding the damp and mould issues, it acknowledged that a number of recommendations had been made following the survey from 4 January 2024 and the resident had already made changes to improve the ventilation. It would ask the repairs team to provide an update on the external repairs for the brickwork, window casement seals and roof gutters.
5. It offered £100 as financial compensation (the landlord did not specify in its letter what this was for).

Events after the internal complaints process

The resident sought support from his local councillor. The local councillor inspected the site jointly with a member of the landlord’s staff on 14 March 2024, noting the door entry system was not working for the majority of the blocks in the area.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 April 2024 to say the expected visit from the contractor on that day did not materialise. He also informed the landlord that he had not received the compensation payment.
The landlord apologised for this on 9 April 2024 and stated it had passed the matter to the landlord’s head of repairs to advise further.
The contractor attended on 12 April 2024 to complete the door intercom repairs. The resident updated the landlord about this and explained the contractor did not make a prior appointment, so he had no notice. While he happened to be available and the repairs were complete for his flat, his neighbours in the same block did not get their repairs completed the same day.
The landlord and the local councillor representing the resident exchanged a series of emails in early May 2024. The local councillor expressed their dissatisfaction that the landlord did not provide the resident with actual timescales of when the compensation payment would be processed. The landlord apologised again on 8 May 2024 and said it had now sent the request for a compensation payment to the finance team, and it was chasing its own repairs team for an urgent update on the status of the intercom system.
The resident received the compensation payment of £100 on 15 May 2024 and updated the landlord accordingly. He also informed the landlord the new intercom system was installed in April 2024 and appeared to be working fine.
As of December 2024, in response to our enquiries, the landlord has confirmed it had not carried out other work on the damp and mould issues other than clearing the guttering and repairing the downpipes in the period of September to December 2024. The resident states he was still waiting for the landlord to act on the recommended external repairs as raised in the survey report of March 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman has seen evidence of email exchanges between the resident and the landlord dating as far back as 2008 and some from 2021. It is acknowledged that some of the works for the main bedroom wall may have been outstanding from 2008, and some of the repair requests for the communal door intercom system may have been raised in 2021 and 2022. The resident did not chase for further repairs or make a formal complaint until 2023. While the Ombudsman has considered these events as background to the complaint, the primary focus of this investigation is on events starting from January 2023 when the resident first expressed to the landlord in detail his concerns about damp and mould in the bedroom.
After the landlord issued its stage 2 response, it has carried out further repairs and inspections that are directly relevant to the subject matter of the complaint. This investigation will therefore take into account events up to December 2024.
The resident has raised with the landlord his concerns that the mould in the main bedroom may pose a risk to his family’s health including his wife and son. The Ombudsman acknowledges that this must have caused distress and worry for the resident and his family. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any potential personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Relevant policies and guidelines

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the roof, gutters, downpipes, and any external walls. The resident’s lease confirms this.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould (October 2021) highlights that landlords should take a proactive approach and ensure their responses to damp and mould reports are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Landlords should identify complex cases which require specialist diagnoses as early as possible and take appropriate action. It also states that landlords should clearly and regularly communicate with residents on what actions it has taken, and its strategy for managing the damp and mould situation, including interim support such as providing dehumidifiers. Throughout the lifetime of the case including any post-inspections and post-repair monitoring, landlords should review what advice and support it can provide to residents on managing the damp and mould.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) (May 2023) highlights that a landlord should ensure its databases are easy to interrogate, and that the data can be extracted and used. Staff (including complaint handlers) should be able to easily access the information they require for evidence-based practice and informed decision-making.
The Ombudsman notes that while the Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould was not formally published until October 2021 and the KIM Spotlight Report not until May 2023, these reports are a formal recognition of the actions and principles that landlords are expected to have followed in handling repairs and complaints prior to the report publication. Landlords are also expected to have observed the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of treating people fairly and following fair and transparent processes.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aimed to complete any emergency repairs within 24 hours and any general repairs within 10 working days. It stated there were some larger jobs that may require a survey to enable the ordering of materials and the works to be planned in, and this type of work would not be considered part of its repairs and maintenance service.
The landlord’s complaints policy further provides for a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage 1, it should acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and then respond to the complaint within 10 working days; at stage 2 (the final stage) it should respond within 20 working days. These timeframes mirror those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which member landlords are expected to adhere to.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that if it identified that it had failed a customer on multiple occasions around the same issue, this may be considered a serious service failure, and it may offer compensation of around £100 to £250 or more in recognition of the impact of distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the faulty communal door intercom system

The resident raised the intercom issues in October 2023. Historically, the resident’s wife had twice reported the intercom system breakdown in 2021 and 2022. However, as of October 2023, the resident communicated to the landlord that it was the first time he reported this and in his subsequent complaint referred only to the landlord’s inaction from October 2023 onwards. The Ombudsman will therefore focus on events starting from October 2023.
While the landlord initially responded in a timely manner by assigning a contractor to attend in early November 2023, it subsequently failed to follow up properly. Although it sought to reassure the resident the quote for replacement of the system was forthcoming in mid and late November 2023, the quote was in fact not being moved forward. This was a failing in terms of communication.
The intercom system was communal. The breakdown affected all 4 flats in the block and required replacement of the whole system. Despite the contractor asking the landlord for a replacement of the whole system, as the landlord had not recorded anyone else in the block apart from the resident reporting the matter, it appeared to have decided in December 2023 that the problem was isolated to the resident’s flat and it was therefore unnecessary to replace the system in whole. This led the quote being declined in December 2023. The landlord did not explain this to the resident at the time, nor has it acknowledged this in its complaint responses.
The landlord could have sought clarification from the contractor or the resident about the extent of the issue. However, it did not appear to have done this until after the resident raised a complaint in December 2023. Later, it accepted that it needed to replace the entire system. However, as the landlord acknowledged at stage 2, it then made an administrative error which contributed to further delays, indicating poor internal communication and failings with knowledge and information management.
The landlord made a commitment in its stage 2 complaint response that the contractor would complete the intercom repairs by 5 April 2024. The contractor missed this appointment. According to the resident, they attended again on 12 April 2024 without an appointment. Although the contractor was able to complete the replacement for the resident on that day, the situation with delays and missed appointments would have caused frustration and upset to the resident, for which the landlord has not yet made any offer of redress.
In summary, the door intercom system was not fixed from October 2023 until April 2024. The resident experienced around 6 months of distress and inconvenience, during which the security of all residents in the flat was compromised. This well exceeds the 10-day general repair target timescale in its repairs policy, even factoring in the time for the contractor to order the parts necessary for replacement.
The landlord has offered £100 to the resident at stage 2 (without specifying what this compensation was for). The Ombudsman considers this was not adequate to reflect the impact to the resident as described above.
Due to the reasons set out above, there is maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the faulty communal door intercom system.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the main bedroom

The resident first reported the damp and mould issues in January 2023. While the mould growth was located inside the main bedroom (within the interior of the flat), he reported a suspected external cause – the damp-proofing of the main bedroom wall. In response to the landlord’s queries, he provided photographic evidence of the mould growth which was situated next to the external wall. He also emphasised that he had already followed the landlord’s general advice on damp and mould prevention which it had previously provided to resident.
From this information, and also given that the property was one of a block of flats, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out a survey of the exterior, to check and then act on any external or structural factors causing or contributing to the mould inside the flat. If the survey had found that the exterior and the structure of the building was sound and the only possible factors causing the mould growth were interior such as ventilation or condensation, it could then have supported the resident with advice on what to do, as that would be within the resident’s repairing obligations.
However, the landlord asked the resident (who was a leaseholder) to arrange and pay for a specialist survey himself, with the promise that it would then consider the recommendations. It said it would act on what is within its obligations and provide support to the resident. Nevertheless, the resident agreed to this and arranged a specialist in-depth inspection of both the exterior and the interior of the flat.
As of January and March 2023, the landlord had reassured the resident in a series of emails that it would review the findings made by this independent surveyor and act in line with their recommendations. After the resident shared the survey report, which contained detailed photographic evidence of the exterior and structural issues, the landlord sent an email to the resident to list out what areas on which it could act to resolve issues (including but not limited to the brickwork, window seals, downpipes and gutters). This email further gave rise to expectations that these repairs would be carried out in due course although no timescales were given. The landlord also advised the resident to fix the vent in the main bedroom as that would fall under his responsibility as leaseholder, further implying that the rest of the recommendations concerning exterior and structural work would be the landlord’s responsibility.
There was no follow-up from the landlord until August 2023 when it arranged to clear the gutters. After that, the landlord did not carry out further work until the resident raised his complaint in December 2023.
In January 2024, as part of the response to the complaint, the landlord arranged another damp and mould survey by its own surveyor. The surveyor contacted the resident directly to ask for a copy of the report from March 2023.
This was an opportunity for the landlord to review and verify the observations from March 2023 to see if there was any change and update the resident on these recommendations from 10 months ago. As set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report, the landlord should take timely action and communicate a clear strategy for damp and mould management to the resident with clear timescales. However, from the records, the landlord failed to make use of this opportunity to create a comprehensive strategy to tackle these issues or communicate effectively with the resident.
The bulk of the January 2024 survey focused on the interior of the flat and internal humidity/moisture levels, particularly the bathroom, the kitchen and the smaller bedroom. While the surveyor did refer to the March 2023 survey, they made no observations on the exterior findings made by the previous survey, other than stating at the end that ‘the management of the moisture levels need to be addressed before further consideration given to the insulation of the main bedroom external wall’. They made further recommendations about installing or changing the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen, adjusting the heating system to automate, and other actions that the resident could do to improve ventilation. It made no mention of any work there was to be verified or carried out by the landlord.
Given the surveyor’s reference to the outstanding insulation of the main bedroom wall and his reference to the March 2023 report before conducting their survey, there is no evidence that they intended to exclude or contradict the findings and recommendations from March 2023. In any event, the report made no attempt to verify the exterior or structural issues that the previous survey had pointed out.
The Ombudsman considers this report should have been viewed as supplementary to the March 2023 report, rather than overriding or substituting any part of the previous report. However, in subsequent actions and its complaint responses, the landlord has for the most part only referred to the January 2024 report. It made no further attempt to address the outstanding recommendations for exterior repairs or review what the current condition of the exterior was.
There was no record to show the landlord did any follow-on repairs other than clearing the gutters and doing some repairs to the downpipe. From the landlord and the resident’s accounts, the gutters were cleared around September or October 2023. It is unclear when the downpipe repairs were done. This means essentially the landlord had not honoured most of the commitments it made in March 2023, about following up with the recommendations of the independent survey after the resident paid to have it done.
The complaints process (January to March 2024) was another opportunity for the landlord to review what has happened so far, what were the outstanding issues causing persistent damp and mould, and to share its strategy for a way forward.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord again missed this opportunity. The landlord acknowledged to the resident at stage 2 that it was aware the resident had already done what he should to install the extractor fans and improve ventilation. It briefly stated that it knew there were several outstanding recommendations for exterior repairs around the brickwork, sealing and gutters. It said it expected the repairs team to get in touch with the resident about these, but did not give a timescale. There was no strategy or action plan within the stage 2 response about how the landlord intended to manage the damp and mould.
Following the complaint response, the resident kept waiting for and pursuing the expected follow-up from the repairs team. The landlord’s repairs team did not follow up. This indicated failings not just in management of the damp and mould, but also in the internal and external communication, and information management.
Overall, the landlord failed to recognise it should have been its responsibility to carry out a damp and mould survey in March 2023. It failed to honour its commitments to accept and act on the findings from the independent survey of March 2023. It also missed opportunities to formulate and share a clear, comprehensive damp and mould management strategy. There was a knowledge and information management issue as the landlord subsequently failed to keep track of what it has done and what was yet to be done.
As a result, the resident has been left in a position of distress, uncertainty and worry over the mould situation for around two years (January 2023 to December 2024) including concerns over how the mould may affect the health of his family.
The resident has explained to this Service that he was not seeking money back for the 2023 specialist survey, which cost £260. The outcome he was seeking was for the landlord to keep its promises and complete repairs. Nevertheless, the landlord should act fairly and put things right for the resident. An order has been made below for financial compensation to reflect the impact of ongoing distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inaction. The lack of action in carrying out an initial survey has been considered in this order.
Given that the issues remain outstanding and there is still uncertainty over the cause and extent of the problem, and to re-establish trust between the parties, the Ombudsman will also set out further orders for an updated survey and follow-on works in the section below.
Due to the reasons set out above, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the main bedroom.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving damp and mould investigation. As a result of these, the Ombudsman previously issued a wider order to the landlord under paragraph 54.f of the Scheme, as part of case 202218444. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the cases 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. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident’s original complaint of 14 December 2023 set out his concerns about the damp issues and the door issues both posing a health and security risk. The landlord’s stage 1 response however did not address the damp and mould issues, only responding to the door intercom repairs. The stage 1 response was also issued late (on 26 January 2024) despite the landlord asking the resident for an extension.
The incomplete response and delays caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident, although the Ombudsman acknowledges that the complaint was progressed over the winter holiday period which understandably affected response times.
The landlord offered £30 to the resident at stage 1 which the Ombudsman considers not adequate as the stage 1 response failed to address the damp and mould, which was a very significant part of the resident’s concerns.
While the stage 2 complaint response provided a clear explanation as to what caused the delays on the door intercom system and an apology for this, it addressed the damp and mould issues only in brief. There was insufficient examination of the history of the case. The landlord made no acknowledgment of what had happened on the case and passed the matter back to its own repairs team, stating the repairs team would get in touch with the resident without providing a timescale.
Stage 2 of the internal complaints process is intended to be an opportunity for the landlord to review what it had done so far and set out a clear pathway forward for resolution, including timescales. The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord did not make use of this opportunity.
At stage 2, the landlord offered a total of £100 in financial compensation but did not specify what this was for. The Ombudsman considers this sum was not sufficient to reflect the full impact of distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord was subsequently unable to keep the commitments it made at stage 2, as mentioned above. The contractor for the intercom system missed an initial appointment and the repair was late, and the repairs team ultimately did not get in touch with the resident about the damp and mould. Further, the £100 offer of financial compensation was not processed until early May 2024, despite intervention from the local councillor. The delays undoubtedly caused more distress and frustration.
Due to the reasons set out above, there is maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the faulty communal door intercom system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the main bedroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report and acknowledge the impact its handling of the damp and mould issues and door intercom issues has had on the resident and his family.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £1,650 (inclusive of the £100 which was previously paid). The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears and is comprised of:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports of the faulty communal intercom system.
  2. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the damp and mould issues.
  3. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to have conducted a review of the two surveys from March 2023 and January 2024, and an additional on-site survey to address the exterior and interior issues found in both previous surveys. It must also address the insulation/damp-proofing to the main bedroom wall. For this purpose, it must assign an independent external damp and mould specialist with no prior involvement in the case. The landlord is to share the full survey report with the resident and agree a comprehensive works plan with specific timescales to conduct any remedial works recommended by the specialist. A copy of the survey report and works plan is to be sent to the Ombudsman.
The landlord is to provide the resident and the Ombudsman with monthly progress updates until all works agreed in the works plan are completed and post-inspected.
Within 16 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to contact the resident again to check if the remedial works has resolved the mould situation and agree on any follow-on works. A copy of the correspondence between the parties is to be sent to the Ombudsman.