Sanctuary Housing Association (202211644)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211644

Sanctuary Housing Association

27 March 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property and subsequent damp and mould.
The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a two-bedroom house with her daughter and son. Her daughter was diagnosed with sickle cell disease, serious and lifelong health condition, which would increase the risk of infection. The resident was pregnant at the time with a due date in May 2023.

Legal and policy framework

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has an obligation to maintain the structure and exterior of a property including the roof, drains, gutters, external pipes and chimneys.
Under Section 9a of the same act, the landlord has an obligation for the property to be habitable in relation to freedom from damp.
Its then complaint procedure stated as follows:
1. Sanctuary operated a two-stage complaints procedure. It was to respond at each stage within 10 and 20 working days respectively.
2. Where complaint investigations were more complex or need a longer timeframe to provide a customer with a full response, the landlord may extend each timeframe by 10 working days. If a customer remained unhappy following Sanctuary’s Stage 2 response, they were encouraged to provide any additional evidence which had not been considered, The landlord would then review the complaint and provide a “final” response.
Its complaint handling self-assessment on the website states that it now operates a two-stage procedure.
Under its compensation policy it would award the equivalent of 20% of the rent for the loss of a room and up top £50% if more than one room was affected.

Scope

The resident reported that there had been mould and damp issues in the property since 2008. We expect residents to raise complaints within 6 months of the issue occurring, though we would also expect the landlord to apply its discretion depending on the circumstances. In this case, it was evident that the resident’s complaint focused on the events starting with the leak she reported in November 2020. The resident made her complaint in 2021. Therefore, it is fair and proportionate that the Ombudsman will consider the events from November 2020.
Throughout the correspondence, the resident reported the impact of the condition of the property and her health, both mental and physical as well as that of her children. While 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 the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters may be better suited to consideration by a personal injury claim. However, a landlord should carefully consider a resident’s particular circumstances or vulnerabilities, and that of their household, and the cumulative impact of any failings on them when responding to complaints.

Chronology

It was not disputed that the resident had reported that she reported a roof leak in November 2020. The resident requested the relevant repair records on a number of occasions. That evidence was not provided to this Service.
On 19 May 2021, the resident reported that when it rained, water came through the roof and ran into her son’s bedroom ceiling, causing large damp patches. The resident chased the report on 30 June 2021 and 20 July 2021. On both occasions, internally the landlord noted that the contractor stated it had not received a purchase order.
She chased again on 29 August 2021 and on 8 September 2021, according to an internal email, an Income Officer attended the resident’s property. The resident stated that she had already raised a complaint. There was damp and mould in the property which was affecting her daughter, who had a serious health condition. There was damp and mould in an area of 50 cm across in her son’s bedroom. As it got worse every time it rained, the resident considered this was a roof/tile issue. There was “mould in every room and on every window” as well as “rising damp and the front near the porch”. The landlord said it would chase, track and monitor the case through until completion.
On 10 September 2021, the landlord noted that the purchase order for the works had been lost again and the damp patch was 2 or 3 feet across. An operative attended on 14 September 2021 without notice so was unable to access the property and its next available date was 25 October 2021. This was rebooked as her daughter had tested positive for Covid. The records noted that the “target” date had been for 27 July 2021. The next available date for an appointment was on 15 December 2021 when the contractor checked the loft but did not identify an “obvious” leak. The operative believed the issue was with the chimney, but it required another visit. They visited on 18 January 2022 when it was too dark to see. The next available date was 7 February 2022.
She chased again on 20 January 2022. She said she had tried to complain three times on the website. It had tried to “de-escalate” the complaint. The resident was “still very adamant” that she had wanted to complain.
The complaints team wrote to the resident on 23 January 2022 that a formal complaint had been recorded at Stage 1 of its complaints process. It would look into the issues raised and review the repairs “in full”. It would check the outcome and contact her within the next 10 working days. According to the Stage 2 response 3 November 2022, it raised an urgent inspection by another contractor who attended on 22 February 2022 and, according to the landlord, provided a quote for works and scaffolding.
The landlord wrote further on 16 February 2022 that when the complaint was logged, it had raised an order for the roofing works. It had raised a further order to a different contractor who would erect scaffolding to gain a better view of the roof leak and submit a quotation. It would contact her within the next few days. The landlord would then update her of the works required and the next steps. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 23 February 2022.
The resident chased for an update and the landlord chased internally in February and March 2022. On 16 March 2022, the resident reported damp and mould to all the windows other than the kitchen and her son’s bedroom was getting worse with the rain.
The landlord wrote again on the following dates:
1. On 16 March 2022, it stated that it had received a quotation for the works required. It would respond to the complaint once the order had been approved and raised. There was an internal query whether this was “health and safety”, which the Ombudsman assumes referred to safety requirements for the roof works.
2. Between 23-31 March 2023, the works were approved by one team and escalated for further approval by another. The complaints officer diarised this and made clear this was a vulnerable family.
3. On 29 March 2022, it wrote that the works for the roof had been raised. A surveyor would attend to review the internal of the property for any works required following the leak. Another team would contact the resident to book an appointment. It would follow this up and provide a further response once the inspection has been completed.
Internal emails showed there was a shortage of surveyors. At some point, the landlord referred the case to its “wellbeing escalation team”.
On 22 April 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and that it would respond to the complaint once the inspection and report had been completed and any orders were raised. It stated that the roof leak was “resolved”. A surveyor’s inspection was booked for 28 April 2022 to review the damage caused internally. It also gave the resident the option to escalate her complaint to Stage 2 of its complaints process.
The resident reported on 27 April 2022 that the scaffolding was erected but she was awaiting for the work to be done. The surveyor was to view the property the following day regarding damp, leaks and mould. She would await the report from the surveyor before escalating the complaint to Stage 2. She requested a report of all repairs reported and resolved in the property since moving in.
According to the landlord’s records, a temporary repair was carried out on 28 April 2022. The contractor requested an asbestos survey for relevant parts of the roof. According to the complaint response of 3 November 2022, a job was raised to a specialist contractor to carry out an asbestos survey on 28 April 2022 which was undertaken on 13 May 2022 and it received the report on 24 May 2022.
It noted mould growth in the bathroom and living room and on and around windows. It gave advice for ventilation and heating. It said there would be no further action as it was “condensation related”. It raised a job to apply, or provide, mould paint, cleaner, stain block, and filler, and a finish paint.
The landlord wrote again as follows:
1. On 4 May 2022, it had received the “results” from the inspection and the landlord was arranging for the “relevant works” to be completed. It would follow up in the week beginning 17 May 2022. Internally, it noted there was asbestos cement on the roof.
2. On 24 June 2022 that it was awaiting an asbestos report. It apologised for the delay in writing.
Internally, the landlord discussed the need for an asbestos report, a party wall agreement, and works to the shared chimney. The resident continued to chase the landlord and the landlord chased internally. According to an extract from its repair records, works to the roof and chimney had been raised on 18 July 2022. They were waiting for approval to start the works.
The resident reported on 9 August 2022 that she had had no updates. She had requested a copy of the building work report, the asbestos report, and records works since November 2020.
The landlord replied on 9 August 2022 with its Stage 1 “Interim Complaint Response”. The complaint was described as relating to a roof leak and internal remedial works.
1. It had received a quotation from the roofing contractor for the works required and due to the value, which was sent “to be reviewed” “to the relevant team” on 5 August 2022. It had sent an urgent request for the works to be reviewed and the works to be raised.
2. The asbestos survey confirmed there was asbestos detected but if the asbestos needed to be removed an order would be raised.
3. It appreciated that there have been delays which it would address in its “full response” once the works went ahead.
On 13 September 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it was awaiting authorisation for the roof works and there was “work going ahead in the background”. The surveyor was completing further investigations. It would update her in the week commencing 26 September 2022.
On the same day, the resident replied that the situation had “heavily affected” her mental and physical health as well as that of her daughter.
On 22 September 2022, she asked to escalate the complaint to Stage 2. She was “saddened” that after 14 years of living in the property, she and her family had been treated like “second class citizens”.
The landlord continued to chase internally, highlighting that this case was a complaint and referred to this Service being involved. It wrote again to the resident on 6 October 2022, 12 October and 13 October 2022, referring to the resident’s “open” Stage 1 complaint. On 12 October 2022, it stated that it had progressed the complaint to Stage 2. A party wall agreement was being drawn up. It asked whether the temporary repair had “held”.
Internally, again highlighting the family’s vulnerability, it queried whether the mould paint works could go ahead, given a temporary repair had taken place. The surveyor replied “it could not comment”.
The resident wrote on 14 October 2022 disputing that temporary work had been carried out done in April. The surveyor had told her to request £70 for paint to cover the damage of the current leak and previous ones, to clean the mould in the property regularly and leave the fan on in the bathroom most of the time. This was not helpful as she had a child with a life-threatening illness and that the poor condition of the property was affecting her physical and mental health. She did not think the solution to mould was getting tenants to use toxic chemicals on a regular basis with a home that children live in. The solution was to fix the issue with the ventilation. The leak had created high levels of moisture in the air which has caused their belongings to go mouldy, the wooden floor was damaged and also furniture and the underlay on the stair carpet had disintegrated. She referred to her daughter’s OCD and her son was getting regular fungal skin lesions. He was sleeping in the living room. She was sleeping in their dining room on a sofa. They were overcrowded. She had fractured her pelvis 5 years previously. Social housing did not mean being treated “so disgracefully”. She had been told that the reason for the delay was due to finance being approved. Her neighbour had contacted the landlord several times. She was still awaiting a full copy of all of the repairs raised since she moved into the property in 2008.
On 19 October 2022, the landlord wrote that it had raised the concerns regarding the lack of temporary repair and internal works and contacted its SAR team regarding the request for records. Internally, it discussed carrying out the works and look at the party wall agreement later.
It wrote again on 1 November 2022 that as weather conditions were likely to worsen over the coming months, it was agreed to attend and carry out the necessary repairs to the chimney.
The resident replied the same day 1 November 2022. She asked about a humidity test and precautions regarding asbestos.
The landlord wrote on 3 November 2022 that while the Stage 2 response was due, the chimney works were not complete therefore it was providing an interim response. It would monitor the situation until the chimney repairs were complete and provide a final response with any offer of goodwill.
1. The first report it had been able to identify the leak into her son’s bedroom was logged on 19 May 2021. It set out the chronology of events. This was large reflected in the landlord’s records, with some differences noted above.
2. It was not making an offer of redress at that stage as the works remained outstanding but would be reviewed once the chimney works were completed and the internals works could be arranged. It would also consider a ”goodwill gesture” for the delayed response to the complaint. It would then take into account the full impact of the time taken for the works to be completed and inconvenience caused.
On 17 November 2022, in response to an email from the landlord, the resident reported that the contractors did not attend a recent appointment. The mould in the room of the leak was getting increasingly worse and she had to dispose of furniture, clothes and paperwork. The family were struggling with the smell and experiencing respiratory distress from the damp in the air. The downpipe to the rear of the property was removed when the scaffolding was put up in April. Every time it rained, it sounded like “a shower” on the window. The water was “splashing” against the property “causing algae on the patio” and “damp in the wall”. Mould was growing inside the property. She was 14 weeks pregnant, she had a back injury and was sleeping on the sofa. Her son was constantly sick and her and her daughter’s mental health was impacted. She requested temporary accommodation. She had been unable to use one room for at least 22 months.
In response to a further enquiry by the landlord, the resident wrote on 28 November 2022 that the contractors had not contacted her. She reported that her midwife stated that the property condition was unacceptable. She was concerned that the mould had got worse.
The landlord continued to discuss how to approach the repair internally, given it was a shared chimney.
On 30 November 2022, the resident reported that an appointment was arranged for the following week, subject to weather conditions. She reported a new issue, namely that when there was heavy rain, she could hear water dripping into the fireplace.
The resident wrote on 8 December 2022 that the works were re-booked in for 15 December 2022, weather permitting. The scaffolding was booked to be dismantled on 19 and 20 December 2022.
On 6 January 2023, the resident reported that the repair had been completed and the scaffolding removed. The guttering still needed to be put back. The contractor had not re-attended (the day before). She was feeling “beyond helpless” and “exhausted”.
On 9 and 16 January 2023, the landlord wrote that it had chased the contractors and escalated this to its head of service and surveyor. It expressed sympathy with her situation.
In response to the landlord’s further enquiry, the resident reported on 16 January 2023 that she did not want to deal with the contractor directly any more. The heavy rain from the guttering was affecting her sleep, due to the lack of the downpipe.
On 24 January 2023, the resident reported two more further “small” leaks.
The surveyor attended on 25 January 2023 and reported internally on the following day as follows:
1. The water ingress around the chimney was resolved but the dislodged downpipe from the guttering was allowing water to saturate the lower part of the rear wall.
2. It recommended the following:
  1. “air vent, clean, treat, decorate rear room with replacement laminate flooring following roof leak above”.
  2. The extractor fan to be converted to a specific fan.
  3. “Other” areas of isolated mould on the bathroom ceiling required treatment.
  4. Internal dryline boarding to rear wall and upper front bedroom required treatment.
  5. There was some minor water staining to the kitchen extension ceiling and front bay.
3. It noted that the rear bedroom was not in use following the water damage from the chimney and displaced downpipe. The resident referred to damage to belongings.
On the same day the works were “fast–tracked”.
On 2 February 2023, the landlord stated that it had raised the work identified. The resident requested a copy of the surveyor’s report. There followed internal chasing, chasing by the resident and for the surveyor report.
On 16 February 2023, it was noted that the area with signs of a leak in the living room was now wet.
On 27 February 2023 the landlord sent the resident a list of the proposed works. They included:
1. Repair to the guttering.
2. Review the roof, loft, flashings, and vent tile to ensure they were waterproof.
3. Mould painting and stain blocking internally.
4. Upgrade fan.
5. Replace window trims.
6. Provide a passive vent with a permeable membrane, or similar, in a bedroom window.
On 2 March 2023, the landlord wrote that the contractors were to inspect the works on 16 March 2023, with a view to completing the works by the end of April. It would provide a final response to the complaint. There followed more internal chasing and a reference to staff shortages.
On 9 March 2023, the resident felt she needed an advocate as she felt unable to deal with the issues any more. She was still having to sleep on the sofa and her son sleep in a “makeshift” room. The downpipe was still missing. He was sick again due to the mould and having to “live like this”.
There followed an email exchange regarding a possible move. The landlord provided forms and advice. The landlord continued to chase internally and the contractors. It referred to involvement by the MP. It considered whether to organise a clean/treatment of this in advance of the “wider work”. The landlord noted there was “nothing major, mainly the bathroom and corners by the beds and a small amount on the suitcases in the back bedroom. The back bedroom upstairs she said had got a lot better since the roof leak was fixed.”
On 20 March 2023, the resident reported that the contractor had attended and was arranging the works to be completed by the end of April 2023.
On 3 April 2023, the landlord wrote with its “final” Stage 2 response as follows:
1. It set out the chronology of the events since 3 November 2022.
2. It apologised for the further delays.
3. The complaint in relation to the delayed works was upheld. There had been a history of poor contractor attendance, communication, and progress from both contractors.
4. Neither the surveyor nor the contractor had stated that the bedroom was unusable. However, it understood that due to her individual circumstances and pregnancy that sleeping in the bedroom had “caused her concern”.
5. It offered £1,400, comprised as follows:
  1. Time, trouble & inconvenience due to delays, poor communication and poor contractor attendance: £400.
  2. Time, trouble and Inconvenience due to sleeping arrangements: £400.
  3. Impact up to end of April 2023: £200.
  4. Complaint handling, in recognition of time complaint has remained open and failure to provide a response at the first stage: £400.
6. It had asked the resident for further details and photographs of damaged items.
7. It invited the resident to contact it with any further questions or comments within 10 days.
The resident wrote on 3 April 2023 that works were due to begin on the 14 April 2023. This compensation offer was an “absolute disgrace” for “29 months” of not being able to use the bedroom with the leak as well as the stress, impact on health, and time spent. It was “insulting”. She was considering “the legal route”.
On 6 April 2023, the landlord wrote as follows:
1. The surveyor and contractor reported that the condition of the bedroom would have improved upon the roof repairs being completed, and it was at this point they were inspected.
2. It offered for the loss of the use of the bedroom from the time she reported the leak until the leak was rectified being 87 weeks between 19 May 2021 and 6 January 2023.
3. It offered £2,882.64 comprised as follows
  1. £1882.64 in recognition of non‐use of a bedroom for 87 weeks.
  2. £400 for her time, trouble and inconvenience due to poor communication and poor contractor attendance
  3. £200 for the further impact to 30 April 2023.
  4. £400 for its complaint handling.
4. It had closed the complaint.
The works were not completed at the end of April 2023. On 21 June 2023, the resident reported that:
1. The extractor fan in the bathroom still needed to be replaced as there was an issue with an element.
2. The repair to the guttering was still not fixed.
3. She asked whether the surround of the bathroom window was going to be covered. She sent a draft pre-action letter to the landlord setting out her claim including a list of items amounting to £2,088. The letter referred to photographs.
The landlord wrote on 26 June 2023 stating that its “Wellbeing Team” was continuing to monitor the repairs. They were looking to complete the guttering works that week. It was chasing the outstanding works to the extractor fan and window. It would look at a further offer for inconvenience due to the works being outstanding.
On 6 July 2023, internally, it raised whether a damp and mould wash was carried out.
On 23 July 2023, the landlord made an offer in the amount of £3,212.37 comprising as follows:
1. £2,736.37 for the period November 2020 to 6 January 2023, (a period of 26 months) for loss of amenity caused by the roof issues, which represented a rent reduction of 25%.
2. £176 for the period of 7 January 2023 to 30 April 2023 for the loss of amenity caused by the guttering and mould, which represented a 10% reduction in rent.
3. £300 for damaged items, allowing for depreciation.

Assessment and findings

Leak into the property and subsequent damp and mould

It is not disputed that there were failings in the landlord’s handling of this matter and that these failings resulted in detriment to the resident. The landlord acknowledged on several occasions that there had been significant delays in carrying out roof works. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord to put things right resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; b. Put things right; and c. Learn from outcomes.
The landlord reasonably accepted that the resident did not have the use of a bedroom for 26 months from November 2020 to December 2022/January 2023. Following the works in December 2022, she reported that she was still not able to use the room although she also reported that the condition of the mould improved once the works took place in December 2022. The landlord’s assessment relied on a post-works visit. It would also appear that, unreasonably, it had not assessed the habitability of the bedroom, by its own admission after the roof works were carried out. Given it did not appear to have evidence to the contrary, and its assessment on 25 January 2023, it reasonably accepted the resident’s account that she was unable to use the bedroom from May 2021 to December 2022. It assessed the room post-January 2023 as habitable. While the resident’s reluctance to use the room until the further works were carried out is understandable, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to accept the period of 26 months. Given the improvement in the room, the Ombudsman also considers it reasonable that it offered further compensation at a rate of 10% of the rent, till April 2023.
The landlord’s final offer of £2,912.37 represented 25% of the rent over 26 months, an additional 5% to the loss of one room. However, while in treating the bedroom as not habitable, the landlord took some account of the resident’s circumstances, the Ombudsman does not consider that this calculation took fully into account of the impact of unnecessary delays in the resident’s particular circumstances.
The landlord noted there was damp and mould in the property and recommended a mould wash. At the time, it considered this was due to condensation. However, the improvement after the roof works were carried out would indicate it was due to the roof leak.
The resident’s focus throughout was not so much on water ingress but on the effect of the leak on the condition of the property. Despite the landlord’s surveyor’s recommendation, the damp and mould was not addressed. Given the low cost, it was reasonable that the landlord did not treat it pending the repairs and indeed, never offered an explanation why it was not carried out. The landlord did not consider offering a dehumidifier or a temporary decant. Its initial response in April 2022 was dismissive. It did not consider improving the ventilation and insulation in the property by way of extractor fans and drylining until January 2023.
The resident was clear throughout that the damp and mould was getting worse and she was concerned about humidity and mould and their effect on her family. She outlined some symptoms and health conditions connected with damp and mould. She reported concerns expressed by her medical team. While the Ombudsman does not make any findings as to causation, it would be expected these reports to alert the landlord to any risks. This was a pressing issue for her including after the gutter was removed. While the landlord reasonably did not dispute there were delays to the works, though the subject was raised, it did not properly consider what works it could carry out in the meantime. By July 2023, it was not clear whether a mould wash had been carried out. The majority of the remedial works were carried out in April 2023. There were outstanding works at June 2023.
The delay was partly caused by the resident’s being a shared chimney and that an asbestos survey was required. The landlord reasonably took responsibility for the delays including those of the contractors. However, there was, in 2021, evidence of a lack of ownership. Purchase orders went astray. Its contractors attended to inspect a roof when it was dark. Works were excessively delayed while awaiting for approval. The records presented to its Service were incomplete. This may be a symptom of the landlord’s record keeping. While the reviews in relation to this Service’s investigation reports Nos. 202224898 and 202216547 are noted, the Ombudsman will make an order in that regard.
While there were failures in this case, the Ombudsman also notes the landlord’s response to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould, therefore has not made further orders in this regard.
The Ombudsman is concerned to note that some of the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports were prompted by there having been a complaint and the involvement of the resident’s MP. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to carry out works and comply with its obligations regardless of a resident’s ability or willingness to make a complaint. That is neither fair on the complainant and those not, for any reason, able or willing, to undertake what is often a stressful process and additional trouble.
It was also noted that the resident made a number of requests for reports and information about the temporary repair. There was no indication that she was told about the job raised to treat the mould following the visit in April 2022. While the landlord dealt with the request for the reports eventually, she should not have needed to make the same request several times. Her query regarding the temporary repair remained outstanding.
The resident also reported that her possessions and furnishings had to be disposed as they were damaged as a result of the issues experienced. The landlord invited the resident to send photographs of those items and provide evidence. It is noted that a sum of £300 was offered. The Ombudsman is unable to calculate the value of the items but will take the resident’s distress and inconvenience into account.

Complaint handling

The landlord reasonably acknowledged that there was a delay in logging and dealing with the complaint. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code would expect the landlord to respond to a complaint and also monitor the promised works. Not responding to a complaint delays resolution, any escalation and any referral to this Service. The better approach is to offer a resolution and monitor the complaint to ensure the resolution is carried out. It can always review an offer of compensation to take into account any additional delays.
While some updates were vague, the overall handling of the complaint was beneficial. There was clear evidence of internal chasing. The involvement of the complaint officer meant that the resident had a single and consistent point of contact, she felt supported in that regard and the works were monitored.
However, the complaint process was confusing and did not follow a clear procedure. The landlord wrote on several occasions stating it would provide a response at a later stage then escalated it to Stage 2 without having provided a Stage 1 response.
The Ombudsman is concerned about the landlord’s initial response, not only in not logging the report but in seeking to “de-escalate” a complaint which risks discouraging a complaint. The resident had to be “adamant” in order to pursue it. That is not good practice and if endemic, should be eliminated. The Ombudsman will make an order in this regard.
The Ombudsman is also concerned about the landlord’s various offers of compensation. It is right for the landlord to have reviewed its decisions in the light of further delays. However, otherwise, the landlord should seek to get it right first time. The resident was put to additional trouble, including negotiating with the landlord’s legal department and formulating a letter of claim.
Finally, the position on compensation was confused. The offer in April 2023 was £800 in relation to the substantive complaint to December/January 2022 and £200 to cover further delay to 30 April 2022. It also offered £400 for complaint handling increased the compensation for the substantive complaint from £800 to £2,282. The offer for the complaint handling (£400) and the additional period remained the same (£200) It said it would make a further offer for the further delays since 30 April 2022. On 23 July 2023, it increased the offer again from £2,282 to £2,736.37. It reduced the additional amount from £200 to £176 (albeit this may have been calculated differently) and omitted the £400 for complaint handling. It did not make an offer for the additional delays to June 2023, as promised. The Ombudsman will make an order accordingly.
There were benefits to the overall handling of the complaint was beneficial, the landlord acknowledged its complaint handling delays and made an offer of compensation in that regard, however, the offers of compensation were inconsistent and the process confusing. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property and the subsequent damp and mould.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not dispute there were delays to the works. However, the landlord did not focus sufficiently or soon enough on the impact on the condition of the property on the household. The resident, who was pregnant at the time, was left to sleep on a sofa and endure mould in her home with the attendance anxieties and concerns. While the landlord recognised its delays, the Ombudsman does not find the compensation offered took sufficient account of the particular circumstances of the resident and her family.
While the landlord communicated with the resident through its complaint handling, the process was confusing and the final offer did not appear to reflect its assurances along the way.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should pay the resident £4,687.37 to include the £3,212.37 already offered as follows:
1. £925 in relation to the resident’s complaint about damp and mould comprising as follows:
  1. £750 for the period November 2020 to December 2022.
  2. £175 for the additional period 30 April 2023 to 30 June 2023.
2. £550 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling comprising of:
  1. £400 already offered if not already paid.
  2. £150 in addition to the £400 already offered.
The landlord should develop a process if it has not done to ensure purchase orders are delivered to its contractors or operatives and provide a copy of any guidance note to this Service within 6 weeks of this report.
The landlord should produce a guidance note to clarify how frontline staff should address a resident’s request to make a complaint, in the light of the findings in this report, and provide a copy of any guidance note to this Service within 6 weeks of this report.