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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202400281)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400281

Sanctuary Housing Association

19 December 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:
    1. Handling of damp, mould and the decant.
    2. Staff behaviour.
    3. Handling of repairs.
    4. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is 2-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association and was made aware, in November 2023, of the resident’s young son’s vulnerabilities.

Summary of events

  1. In November 2023 the resident told the landlord that her air purifier had turned red, its contractor had not been able to complete work relating to mould and how she felt she could not stay at the property because her young son had a compromised immune system. At that time, the landlord’s contractor told it there was “mould in every room” and the resident was sleeping on a mattress on the floor in a room she felt had the least amount of mould. The landlord moved the resident and her family to a hotel (a decant).
  2. The resident’s decant ended on 1 December 2023 and she raised her complaint on the same day. She said:
    1. The landlord had ended her decant without giving her enough notice, she was left in -1 degrees with nowhere to go while her young son was unwell. Her young son was under the care of a children’s hospital due to a weakened immune system and an ongoing upper respiratory infection. The landlord said her decant would not be extended when she had around 30 minutes left to check-out. It told her its procedure required an inspection of the property prior to agreeing a decant and said this had not been followed.
    2. It came to her attention on 20 November 2023 that the property had damp and mould problems and she reported it to the landlord. She had moved her mattress to the front room and had been sleeping on the floor with her 2 children. Her carpet and sofa had been damaged by mould.
    3. Its contractor attended for works but was only allocated a 45 minute appointment which was not long enough to complete mould work. The landlord decanted her and when it attended to inspect the property its staff kept referring to her by her address and was not aware of her situation or the vulnerabilities of the household. She was told the mould was not serious. She was unhappy the landlord’s staff did not wear shoe coverings or a mask.
    4. There were also issues with windows letting in cold air and not closing properly. She could hear mice in the walls scratching, the entrance door to the building had been broken for months and the gutters needed cleaning.
    5. She felt the landlord had no compassion or care towards her situation and felt it had failed her and her vulnerable child.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 January 2024. It thanked the resident for her patience while it investigated her complaint and said:
    1. It attended on 24 November 2023 as an emergency appointment but could not complete works as the contractor was only allocated 45 minutes. It understood the resident’s concerns, tried to do “all possible to help” and made the decision to decant her immediately due to health concerns. It explained how it would normally inspect the condition of the property to assess the risk before deciding a decant.
    2. It attended on 27 November 2023 and noted the resident’s concerns about staff not wearing a face mask or shoe coverings. It explained there was no obligation for staff to wear masks. It had reminded staff to address resident’s by name and not by their address and in relation to comments about black mould not bothering staff, it explained how it works with similar situations daily. It was satisfied its staff handled the matter as best they could.
    3. It acknowledged the resident’s contact on 30 November and 1 December 2023 about an update and a request to extend the hotel stay. It apologised for the difficulties faced in contacting it and said its staff could have expressed more compassion. In attempts to learn, it would send copies of calls to managers for feedback.
    4. It would have extended the decant if it was able to inspect the damp and mould at the property. It found the initial decision to decant was the right thing to do and said that had it been granted access to the property sooner, it could have completed the relevant inspection and granted an extension at the hotel. It attended on 1 December 2023 but had no access.
    5. It completed an inspection on 7 December 2023 and found the mould issues were “minor”. It added that the use of the word minor did not take away its understanding of the seriousness of the matter in relation to the resident’s son’s health concerns.
    6. It had requested works be prioritised. It listed work as:
      1. Guttering target for 3 January 2024 and it would ensure the resident was kept updated on progress.
      2. Door issue was reported on 23 October 2023 with a repair target of 1 November 2023. It would ensure the resident was kept updated on this.
      3. Window issue had not been logged and it had booked an inspection.
    7. On 3 January 2024 it had considered the health circumstances of the household and offered a further decant which was declined.
    8. It apologised for the significant delays in the repairs and said they were more complicated than expected. It would monitor the work to completion and had assigned the resident’s case to a dedicated team of complaint works co-ordinators.
    9. It upheld the resident’s complaint and alongside an apology it offered £875 compensation as a gesture of good will. This was made up of £250 for time, trouble and inconvenience, £250 to for damage caused by damp and mould, £300 to assist while the resident remained with her family until works were completed, £50 towards the costs of phone calls and £25 for its complaint handling failings.
  4. On 9 January 2024 the resident declined the landlord’s offer and asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. She told it how it failed to mention a referral to its insurer although it said it would when she spoke to it on 3 January 2024. She said there were inaccuracies in the landlord’s response and it had still not set dates for repair work. She told it how its handling of her matter was poor.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 January 2024. It said:
    1. It apologised for the problems with damp and mould experienced by the resident. It attended on 24 November 2023 to wash mould, confirmed mould was present in every room, reported a leak from a few months before that could be causing the issues and raised concerns about the resident’s baby’s health. It agreed to decant as a precaution due to the health concerns of the household. It repeated how the correct procedure for a decant was not followed and after its visit on 7 December 2023 it felt the mould issues did not warrant a decant. It had confirmed an appointment for 2 February 2024 to complete work relating to damp and mould.
    2. It asked its contractor to investigate the concerns about gutter cleaning. Its contractor was arranging to carry out the work as soon as it had the required equipment. It would monitor this work until completion.
    3. Its contractor attended on 11 January 2023 and again on 15 January 2024 for the door entry system. The issue was resolved.
    4. It repeated its previous offer of compensation and offered an additional £75 for the time taken to install air vents. This increased its total compensation offer to £950.
  6. After the end of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, on 8 May 2024 the landlord said it would not refund rent and bills for the timeframe the resident was not living at the property (from November 2023). However, it increased its compensation offer by £400 and said this was made up of £150 for not saving calls it referred to within its complaint response, £100 for not considering the issue about mice in walls within its complaint responses and £150 for delays in responding to the resident’s further contact from 1 February 2024. It said the overall compensation amount was now £1,350.
  7. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response, the outstanding issues and the impact on of her living conditions. She referred her complaint to this Service for further consideration in May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout her complaint, the resident raised concerns about the impact of her living conditions on both hers and her family’s physical and mental health. While the Ombudsman sympathises with the resident, it is important to explain that it is outside this Service’s remit to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions, or inaction, and health conditions. However, within this report consideration has been given to the landlord’s actions following it being told about the resident’s young son’s health condition and the general distress and inconvenience caused.
  2. Within the resident’s communication with this Service’s she has mentioned further issues with the property including leaks. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint and addressed in the landlord’s stage 2 response from 18 January 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions, or inaction, prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint, if required.
  3. The resident has also reported damage to her personal belongings. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the upset that may be caused by damaged items, it is important to explain that the Ombudsman can not make decisions on liability for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. However, consideration has been given to what the landlord did following the resident’s reports of damage to her belongings.

Handling of damp, mould and the decant

  1. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy (May 2024) says it has a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould with a 4 steps process to: identify, remedy, resolve and prevent damp and mould. It lists its 5 commitments, which in summary include diagnosing the problem at an early stage, tailor its approach, ensure it has the knowledge and skills to tackle the issues effectively and that it works with residents to remedy a situation quickly.
  2. While the above policy was not in place at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response, under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) landlords have obligations to consider the condition of properties. A landlord should be aware of its obligations under HHSRS and carry out monitoring of a property where a potential hazard is identified (including damp and mould). The landlord has wider obligations to deal with mould if it is caused by a problem with the property and/or making the property not fit to live in.
  3. The landlord’s decant guidance says the financial aspects of a decant would normally be approved by the appropriate Area Housing Manager who will work collaboratively with relevant colleagues, usually the Surveyor, to determine the need to decant. However, it recognises that emergency decants may be subject to retrospect approval. It explains that a need for a decant can arise for a number of reasons including, amongst other things, unplanned urgent and emergency repairs.
  4. The resident reported damp and mould at the property on 20 November 2023 and the landlord acted quickly in attending on 24 November 2023 to treat the mould. While this was a quick response, the landlord did not assess the scale of the issue and its 45 minute appointment was not long enough to address the “mould in every room”. However, the landlord did act appropriately in decanting the resident in light of the concerns she raised about her young child’s health condition and the impact of the mould.
  5. During the decant period, 24 November 2023 to 1 December 2023, the landlord made one attempt to inspect the property on 27 November 2023. It is understood that this inspection did not go ahead at that time, covered later within this report. However, following this the landlord made no further attempts to inspect the property while the resident was decanted and it did not complete mould wash works during this time either (it took until 2 February 2024 to complete the mould wash). This was not appropriate.
  6. Instead, the landlord focused on its process for a decant not being followed and failed to adopt an approach that worked with the resident to address the issue while she was decanted. This was a missed opportunity to demonstrate a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould. The landlord also failed to consider applying retrospective approval of the decant if it could not inspect at that time, as per its policy. It then ended the decant before it completed an inspection, before it completed work to the mould or considered the risks in light of the vulnerable household. The landlord’s approach to ending the decant was heavy handed and not appropriate.
  7. It is noted that the landlord attempted to arrange an inspection for 1 December 2023, after it had told the resident it would not extend her decant. While this did not go ahead, it is unclear why the landlord did not attempt to arrange this sooner. It is understood that following the end of the decant the resident moved in with her family. On 7 December 2023 the landlord conducted an inspection, it said the mould issues were “minor” and that it did not feel the mould warranted a decant. There is no evidence to show the landlord took account of the vulnerabilities of the household (as per its vulnerable customer procedure) in reaching its decision or that it conducted a risk assessment at that time. This was not appropriate.
  8. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord told the resident that if it had completed the inspection sooner it could have agreed to an extension of the decant. This was not inline with its position from 7 December 2023. On 3 January 2024, after considering the health circumstances the landlord offered a further decant, which was declined. The landlord’s approach to a decant would have caused the resident confusion. This is because it initially overly focused on its procedure not being followed, it then conducted an inspection finding the mould did not warrant a decant but later offered a decant and took until 3 January 2024 to consider the vulnerabilities of the household before offering a further decant. The landlord’s handling of the decant was not appropriate.
  9. It is noted that on 24 November 2023, the landlord’s contractor told it that a previous leak could be contributing to the issues with damp and mould at the property. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord investigated this further despite what it was aware of. It took the landlord until 2 February 2024 to realise it had not inspected the roof and until May 2024 to do this. This was not appropriate.
  10. Following the landlord’s inspection from 7 December 2023, it listed works required to address damp and mould concerns, this included the installation of open and closed vents in both bedrooms, mould wash and paint where needed. It took the landlord 2 months (2 February 2024) to complete some of this work. This timeframe was not appropriate and exceeded its appointed repairs timeframe.
  11. It is noted that the resident disputed mould wash had been completed in all areas on 2 February 2024 and the landlord revised its completion date to 22 March 2024. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord completed this work at that time. On 4 April 2024 and 4 July 2024 the resident told it again about outstanding painting work. It took the landlord until 22 July 2024 to identify the work had been cancelled. This timeframe was not appropriate and it remains unclear whether it has resolved the issues.
  12. Overall, the landlord’s handling of reports of damp, mould and the decant was not appropriate. It was repeatedly told of the vulnerabilities of the household with a young child (around the age of 1 at that time) having serious health conditions but it failed to take account of this within its decision making following the initial decant. It then failed to investigate the cause of damp and mould, progress work during the decant or demonstrate a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. It took a heavy handed approach in not extending the decant timeframe, despite it saying the decision to decant was the right thing to do, it failed to ease the resident’s concerns about her living conditions and failed to complete work to address the damp and mould within a timely manner. The landlord’s failings would have had a significant impact on the resident and amount to severe maladministration.
  13. It is understood that prior to the decant the resident was sleeping on a mattress, on a floor with 2 children, in a room that she felt had “less” mould. The landlord was aware that after the decant (1 December 2023) the resident stayed with her family due to worry about the impact of the mould on her young child who was under the care of the hospital. On 2 January 2024 the hospital said it was important for the resident’s young child to live in accommodation that was free of mould and how his health condition placed him at an increased risk of fungal and bacterial infections. The landlord’s notes show it was aware that the resident was still away from the property in July 2024. The resident, understandably, would have been worried about the impact of her living conditions on her young child, demonstrated by her decision to not return to the property.
  14. Within the landlord’s internal complaints process it offered the resident £250 compensation for damage caused by damp and mould, a further £300 to assist while she remained with her family until works were completed and £75 for ventilation installation delays. While this is acknowledged, its compensation offer of £625 did not go far enough to recognise the scale of its failings. It is noted that it failed to refer the resident to its insurer or provide her with information about this despite her concern about damaged belongings. This was also not appropriate.
  15. When considering the combination of failings relating to this aspect of the resident’s complaint, a greater compensation amount has been decided as appropriate in these circumstances. When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered along with the “mould in every room” and the impact this would have had on the resident for a prolonged period of time. When considering the landlord’s repeated failings and the impact this would have had, a rental based compensation of 75% has been decided as appropriate in these circumstances. The landlord has confirmed the weekly rent was £147.11 during the time of the resident’s complaint. 75% of this is £110.33.
  16. When deciding an appropriate timeframe for compensation, it took the landlord until 2 February 2024 to take some meaningful action in relation to the mould at the property. As such, 2 months (9 weeks) between 28 November 2023 and 2 February 2024 has been decided as a reasonable timeframe in these circumstances. £110.33 multiplied by 9 weeks equals £993 (rounded up) in rental compensation to acknowledge the loss of enjoyment of the resident’s home.
  17. It is important to explain that the above calculation is not exact and as such, the Ombudsman has made a further order for compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. When considering the significant failings mentioned and the serious impact they had on the resident an additional compensation amount of £1,000 has been decided as appropriate to acknowledge the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident.

 Staff behaviour

  1. The resident has said that when the landlord attended for an inspection, it kept referring to her by her address. The landlord’s stage 1 response said it had reminded staff to address resident’s by name. While it was reasonable for the landlord to have explained what it did after being told of the resident’s experience, it should have known that referring to a resident by an address could damage the landlord/tenant relationship and come across both disrespectful and insensitive. It is understood that this impacted the inspection from 27 November 2023 going ahead.
  2. The resident raised concerns about the same member of staff attending her property on 27 November 2023 and 7 December 2023, not being aware of the vulnerabilities of the household, not wearing shoe coverings or a face mask and referring to the mould issue as “minor”. It is noted that the landlord said there was no obligation for staff to wear a face mask, that it worked with mould in similar situations daily and that it was satisfied its staff handled the matter as best they could. While the landlord may often work with mould, it did not adopt an approach to show it understood the resident’s concerns or the reasons behind why she was concerned about shoe coverings and a face mask especially in light of the vulnerabilities of the household. The landlord should have processes in place to tailor its service based on the specific needs and concerns of a resident, as per its vulnerable customer procedure. The landlord’s failure to do this does not show it handled the matter as “best” it could. Furthermore, it was not appropriate of the landlord to have told the resident that the mould issue was “minor” especially when it failed to demonstrate an understanding of the vulnerabilities of the household and did not assess the associated risk. This was not appropriate.
  3. Overall, the landlord’s staff behaviour, at times, was insensitive towards the resident and her situation. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, respects and rights: relationship of equals highlights how a landlord decides to communicate with a resident can have an impact on them. Here, the landlord referred to the resident by her address, did not show empathy towards the resident’s situation, failed to tailor its approach in light of the vulnerabilities of the household and was dismissive of concerns about mould. The landlord’s behaviour would have impacted the resident’s trust of its handling her concerns, this was demonstrated further in her asking for another member of staff to oversee the matter and her feeling it had treated her less favourably. The landlord missed opportunities to put things right within its complaint handling, it told the resident it handled the matter as best it could but has not demonstrated how it did this or how its approach was the right thing to do in the circumstances. The landlord’s failings here amount to maladministration.
  4. When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered alongside the impact the landlord’s behaviour may have had on the resident during an already difficult time. In doing so, the Ombudsman has decided a compensation amount of £500 as appropriate in these circumstances. This amount falls with the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance.

Handling of repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs handbook details the work it is responsible for which include, amongst other things, the communal entry, blocked gutters and window fittings. It sets out 3 repairs categories:
    1. Emergency repairs. Those that are made safe within 24 hours and involve a risk of someone getting into a resident’s property because of an external door that does not shut, amongst other things.
    2. Appointed repairs, non-emergency, are carried out within 28 calendar days.
    3. Planned repairs are carried out as part of a programme of works but might take longer than 28 days. It says these works are usually where there is no health and safety risk and the required work does not disrupt the quality of life.

Within the resident’s complaint she told the landlord about issues with windows, the entrance door, guttering issues as well as reports of hearing mice in the walls.

Door entry system

  1. In October 2023 the landlord was made aware of issues with the door entry system. A further report was made on 20 November 2023 and again on 1 December 2023. It took the landlord until 11 January 2024 to fix the issue. The timeframe of almost 3 months to fix the door entry system was not appropriate especially as it noted anyone could enter the building. This timeframe exceeded its emergency repair timeframe.

Windows

  1. The resident reported issues with windows letting in cold air on 1 December 2023. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response it said it had booked an inspection for the windows. It is unclear why it took the landlord almost 1 month to book an inspection. The landlord has not provided evidence to show it conducted an inspection of the windows at that time and its stage 2 response did not address the issue. This was not appropriate.
  2. It took the landlord until 22 March 2024 to raise work for the windows, here it noted there were “large gaps” around both the living room and bedroom windows and set a target completion date of 84 days. The timeframe of around 4 months to raise works for the windows was not appropriate. Following this the landlord incorrectly told the resident the window work would be completed on 15 April 2024, it then changed its appointment from May 2024 to July 2024. It is unclear why it did this and it is noted that it marked the appointment for 15 July 2024 as a no access despite the resident telling it she had not been contacted. However, it did complete the work on 17 July 2024.
  3. The landlord took almost double the time it set of 84 days (157 working days), to complete work to windows that had “large gaps”. It did not always communicate effectively with the resident during this time and she had to repeatedly contact it about the outstanding work. This was not appropriate.

Guttering

  1. The landlord was made aware of gutters needing cleaning on 1 December 2023. Within its stage 1 response it said its target was 3 January 2024 to complete this work. However, it failed to monitor this work effectively and took until 12 January 2024 to follow up on the repair despite receiving a quote for works on 14 December 2024. This was not appropriate.
  2. On 5 February 2024 the landlord revised its target date for guttering works to 22 March 2024. It has not provided evidence to show it met this revised date and instead the work was completed by July 2024. This was not appropriate and exceeded its appointed repairs timeframe.

Mice issue

  1. Also on 1 December 2023 the resident told the landlord that she could hear mice scratching in walls. The resident mentioned this again in January 2024 and it took the landlord until February 2024 to realise it had not addressed this issue. While it apologised to the resident for its delay, it took the landlord 6 months (May 2024) to respond to the resident’s concerns about mice. This timeframe was not appropriate. It is understood that it later found that there was no evidence of mice at the property.
  2. Overall, the landlord’s handling of repairs was not appropriate. It repeatedly exceeded its repairs timeframes and failed to monitor work. This meant the resident had to contact it about multiple outstanding repair work. While it did update the resident at times, it did not do so in a meaningful way and has not demonstrated that it prioritised work. The landlord’s overall handling of repairs at the property was not appropriate and when considering the multiple failings combined, as well as the impact this may have had on the resident’s enjoyment of her home, the landlord’s failings here amount to maladministration.
  3. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response it appropriately apologised for the “significant delays” in repairs and said the issues were more complicated than expected. It has not explained how the issues were more complicated. However, it offered the resident £250 compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience. While this compensation offer has been taken into account, given the multiple failings in its handling of repairs over an extended time, a greater compensation amount would be more appropriate in these circumstances. When deciding an appropriate remedy amount, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered and an amount of £600 has been decided as appropriate in these circumstances. This amounts falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and 20 working days for a stage 2 response. It also says how it can extend a response timeframe by a further 10 working days.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 1 December 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 January 2024. While the landlord did tell the resident it needed more time to respond, it took 23 working days in total to issue its stage 1 response. This timeframe exceeded that set within its complaints policy.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says a landlord must address all points raised in the complaint and provide a clear response. However, despite the resident’s expressing dissatisfaction about her living conditions which included hearing mice scratching within the walls, the landlord failed to address this within its internal complaints process. This was not appropriate.
  4. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response it appropriately acknowledged its complaint handling delay and offered the resident £25 in compensation to recognise this. The landlord’s compensation offer has been considered alongside its compensation guidance and falls within its banding for payments where there is a minor delay. The amount also falls within the service failure banding of this Service’s remedies guidance. However, when considering this combined with the landlord’s failure to address all aspects of the resident’s complaint as per the Code, the landlord’s complaint handling failings amount to maladministration.
  5. It is noted that following the end of its internal complaints process the landlord offered the resident a further compensation amount of £100 for not responding to the mice issue sooner. When considering the total offer of £125 for its complaint handling failings, the Ombudsman has decided not to make a further offer of compensation. The landlord’s offer of £125 has not been considered as reasonable redress in these circumstances as its offer was made significantly after the end of its internal complaints process.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp, mould and the decant.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Staff behaviour.
    2. Handling of repairs.
    3. Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Arrange for its Chief Executive to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report. This should be in writing and a copy of the apology should be provided to this Service.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £3,218 compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears:
      1. £993 rental based compensation for the loss of enjoyment of the home due to the landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the property.
      2. £1,000 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the failings relating to the handling of damp, mould and decant.
      3. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s staff’s behaviour.
      4. £600 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the handling of repairs.
      5. £125 for its complaint handling failings.
      6. The above amount includes the £950 it offered as part of its stage 2 process. If this has already been paid it can be deducted from the overall sum.
    3. Arrange an inspection of the property to assess its internal and external condition in relation to damp and mould. An appropriately qualified specialist should conduct the inspection(s). It should confirm in writing:
      1. the work required to the property to address the internal and external issues.
      2. It should explain what work is required, its planned approach to work and provide a schedule of work including timeframes for completion.
      3. The measures it will put in place to monitor if the work it completes resolves the damp and mould issues.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contact the resident to provide her with support, if required, in submitting a claim to its insurer for damaged belongings.