Southwark Council (202300853)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300853

Southwark Council

19 November 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Report of a faulty front door threshold.
3. Compensation request.
The associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local council. The property is a bedsit, and the resident moved there in August 2011. She lives with her husband and 2 children.
The landlord has not informed the Ombudsman if it has vulnerabilities recorded on its system for the resident and her household. The resident has told the landlord and the Ombudsman that her household has health conditions.
In November 2021 the resident was awarded £3000 damages from the local council from a damp and mould legal disrepair case.
By April 2022, the resident reported that damp and mould had returned to the property. The landlord sent the resident a ‘damp pack’ which was a booklet explaining what the landlord will do, what the resident should do, and a hygrometer to measure the moisture in the home. It asked her to follow the advice in the pack for 3 months. If the issues remained, she was told to send in photos so an inspection could be arranged. The resident made a further report of damp and mould in February 2023. She complained to the landlord and asked to be moved to a new property due to the reoccurring mould.
In March 2023 the landlord inspected the property and washed and treated the mould. The resident made 2 complaints, one about rehousing and one about the damp and mould, front door repairs, and a request for compensation. This complaint originally went to the landlord’s disrepair team and was forwarded to the repair team and then the complaints team. In April 2023 the resident sent a further complaint to the landlord’s disrepair team, and this was forwarded to the landlord’s complaint team.
On 24 April 2023 the landlord returned to complete the damp and mould remedial works, but the mould had started to return. The resident thought it might be due to a roof leak, and the landlord raised an inspection. The front door frame was repaired. The landlord did find a leak on the roof and repaired it, but it was not linked to the resident’s property.
On 2 May 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed:
1. The appointment dates for repairs to extractor fans and the boiler.
2. The front door had been fixed.
3. That a property liability claim form had been sent and where it should be returned to.
The boiler was fixed, and the extractor fans were replaced shortly after the landlord’s stage 1 response. On 31 May 2023 the resident told the landlord the mould issue had not been fixed and the front door was still letting the cold in. There were 2 appointments to treat the mould in June and July 2023.
In September 2023, after the Ombudsman contacted the landlord, it sent its stage 2 complaint response, which outlined:
1. The history of the complaint.
2. Its complaint handling failings and an offer of £150 compensation for them.
3. The door repairs and delays and an offer of £5 compensation per week (£115) from 28 April 2023 to 6 October 2023.
4. Although not part of the complaint, an update on the resident’s rehousing request.
5. An update on the resident’s insurance claim.
On 6 October 2023, the landlord fixed the front door threshold.

Post internal complaint process

On 22 December 2023, a new repair was logged for damp and mould and an unpleasant smell in the flat. In January 2024 the resident received a letter from the Department of Levelling up, Housing and Communities that offered advice on how to progress her complaint. In February 2024 the resident cancelled the damp and mould appointment and told the landlord there was no mould.
On 25 October 2024, the resident told the Ombudsman she was awarded £1000 for her personal belongings from the landlord and was not successful with her claim regarding her daughter’s health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns about the impact the damp and mould had on her family’s health. 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 the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
The resident submitted 2 personal injury claims in 2023 and received £1000 in damages. The Ombudsman cannot review this amount, nor order it to be recalculated.
The resident has complained to the landlord and the Ombudsman about her housing register application. Paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
The Housing Ombudsman can investigate complaints relating to a landlord’s housing management – for example property condition and repairs, charges, and complaint handling. The Memorandum of Understanding between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) sets out that the LGSCO investigates complaints regarding applications to the local authority housing register (such as increasing the applicant’s banding, or priority) and for emergency housing under Part 6 and Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, respectively.
In this case, the resident has made a complaint about her priority banding on the housing allocation system as she feels she should be awarded a higher banding. Any application for rehousing in this manner would be made under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 and so this complaint falls within the remit of the LGSCO. The Ombudsman advised the resident of this before accepting her complaint and therefore it is not listed as a complaint above.

Damp and mould

In accordance with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985), the landlord is responsible for the repair of the structure and exterior of the property. Section 9(a) of the LTA 1985 implies a statutory obligation on the landlord to ensure that the resident’s property is fit for human habitation at the start of the tenancy, and throughout the term. Fitness for human habitation is measured by reference to the matters specified in section 10 of the LTA 1985. Freedom from damp and ventilation are listed within the Act. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards and risks within its properties. Damp and mould growth are outlined as a potential hazard.
The landlord’s repairs policy categorised the repairs in 3 ways. Emergency repairs had a 24-hour turnaround, urgent repairs had a 3-working day turnaround, and non-urgent repairs had a 20-working day turnaround. Damp was classed as a non-urgent repair.
The landlord’s repairs guide at the time of this complaint stated that where damp was reported, it would arrange to inspect the property within 20 working days to assess the most appropriate course of action. The guide provides tips on reducing condensation.
The Ombudsman requested further evidence from the landlord, in respect of some codes used for the repairs in this investigation. DM1 is an urgent damp and mould order with a 5 working day priority timescale. DMP is a standard damp and mould order with a 20-working day priority timescale.
Around 11 April 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that there was damp and mould in the property. A routine 20 working day priority order was raised, and a damp pack was sent to the resident. The landlord’s initial response was correct. It accepted responsibility for the repair and classified it in line with its repairs policy as a non-urgent repair. The landlord acted appropriately.
On 21 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident. It advised her to follow the advice in the damp pack for 3 months. If the damp and mould did not go away after 3 months, the landlord advised the resident to send in photos and it would arrange an inspection. The damp pack implies that the landlord will arrange an inspection quickly and tells the resident it is important for it to see the issues first hand and have a chat with them. The landlord’s repairs guide also says that when damp is reported it will arrange an inspection within 20 working days. There has been no evidence provided that showed the landlord inspected the property following the resident’s report. The order on the system does not have a completion date. The landlord acted inappropriately. It deviated from its guidelines without any explanation to the resident or on its systems. It was not focused on resolving the resident’s damp and mould and its inaction may have contributed to the resident’s feelings of distress and worry. This is especially so, as the landlord should have been aware that the damp and mould was an issue and that the resident had made a disrepair claim in 2021.
On 12 December 2022, an inspection was raised for the damp and mould. An appointment was made for 17 January 2023, which was 23 working days later. This was outside of the landlord’s repair timescales, but the Ombudsman determines that the timescale was still reasonable, considering the Christmas holidays. However there has been no evidence provided that the inspection happened, and the repair does not have a completion date on the system. The landlord acted unreasonably. It was not customer focused. The resident had to repeatedly report the damp and mould.
In February 2023, the resident reported damp and mould again. The landlord ordered a mould wash and treatment. The landlord spoke to the resident in a timely manner to try and book the appointment. The landlord’s notes tell us that the resident did not want to speak to the landlord and wanted to be moved out of the property. The landlord transferred the call to its contact centre so the resident could speak to a housing advisor. The landlord acted reasonably in helping the resident speak to the right person.
The landlord had categorised the job as an urgent damp and mould case with a 5 working day turnaround. When the resident did not want to speak to the landlord about it, the landlord closed the job and opened a new one under a standard damp and mould order for completion within 20 working days. The landlord acted reasonably because it was on notice of a repair and had a responsibility to assess potential hazards.
Several actions happened under the new job:
1. A damp and mould inspection was completed 6 working days after the repair was logged.
2. The mould was washed and treated, 18 working days after the repair was logged.
3. A visit to complete the treatment which found the mould had returned, and a roof needed to be inspected. This was raised and completed on 10 May 2023.
4. On 7 June 2023, a further damp and mould clean was completed.
5. On 5 July 2023, the final treatment was completed, and the job was closed.
The landlord did not meet its target of 20 working days. It completed the repair in 87 working days. There are mitigating factors that can account for the delay. The landlord logged 2 no access appointments. It correctly inspected and fixed a roof area that may have contributed to the damp and mould issue. This took time. The landlord decided to keep the order open and kept dated, detailed notes on it. The Ombudsman determines that for this repair order, the delays were acceptable and there was no gap in appointments longer than 20 working days. The landlord acted reasonably, and the order saw the work through to completion.
The resident asked the landlord to resolve the cause of the damp. The only evidence that points to the cause of the damp was the inspection on 7 March 2023. It found that overcrowding was a factor contributing to condensation in the property. It noted a large amount of household items and that the extractor fans were not in use at the time of the inspection. The landlord replaced the fans in May 2023. The resident was aware she was overcrowded with 4 people in a bedsit and had a current rehousing application with the local council. She was doing all that she could to move to suitably sized accommodation. One of the main contributors of the damp could not be resolved without a move.
There is no record of the landlord speaking to the resident to explain the cause of the damp and mould, and to discuss how together they could manage it until she secured a move. The resident gave the landlord a copy of her GP’s letter which explained the daughter’s illnesses and asked for help with the mould. The landlord was made aware of the health conditions in the household. While it was the case that the landlord was carrying out repair work at this time, it would have been reasonable of the landlord to acknowledge this information and formally risk assess the situation. Furthermore, the evidence provided lacks evidence of any offers of support or signposting to services that may have helped the resident. The landlord acted unreasonably. It was not empathetic to the resident’s situation. Awaab’s Law proposes that social landlords will be given 7 days to begin work to a property if a medical professional believes there is a risk to a resident’s health.
The landlord’s damp pack literature talks a lot about chatting with the resident and involving them in the process of dealing with the damp and mould. The Ombudsman finds that either these discussions did not happen, or they were not documented. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould states that landlords should consider their current approach to record keeping and satisfy themselves it is sufficiently accurate and robust. Talking to the resident at each stage of the process may have helped the resident feel that the landlord felt empathy for her situation and supported her through it. The landlord acted unreasonably.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response outlined the damp, and mould works that had happened and the ones that were scheduled. It did not acknowledge any failings with its handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not either. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the resident’s reports from April and December 2022 led to her making a complaint. They happened less than 1 year prior to the resident’s complaint. For this reason, the landlord should have investigated why the jobs were not completed. The landlord acted unreasonably. In keeping with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, the landlord should have acknowledged any failings, made an offer to put things right, and learn from the mistakes.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies (published online) sets out this Service’s approach to putting things right for residents where they have gone wrong. It suggests that awards of £600 may adequately remedy a failure that significantly affected the resident, including where it has been necessary for the resident to have an unreasonable level of involvement in seeking for issues to be resolved. The landlord will be ordered to pay this sum directly to the resident and apologise for failing to adequately respond to her reports from April and December 2022.
In summary there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. While it handled the resident’s report from February 2023 reasonably, it did not manage her earlier reports in line with its policy and own damp and mould guidance. This contributed to the resident having to live in a home with damp and mould for an extended period. The resident did not feel supported by the landlord. Orders in recognition of these findings are made below.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In October 2021 we published our Spotlight on damp and mould. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Faulty front door threshold

On 18 April 2023, the landlord raised a repair for the resident’s timber front door. It was raised correctly as a CC9, which is a repair resulting from a complaint. It had a 20-working day target timescale. On 28 April 2023, the landlord carried out work to the door frame and completed the repair. The landlord acted appropriately. It competed the repair in 9 working days.
On the day of the repair the landlord noted the metal threshold on the door was worn and may require a new job to renew. This did not get raised. The landlord should have used less ambiguous wording to ensure the team reading this note knew whether to raise a new job or not. If not, the landlord should have communicated with the resident its intentions and what she needed to do if the threshold failed. The landlord acted unreasonably. In not being clear, the door remained faulty, and the resident was dissatisfied.
On 31 May 2023, the resident complained to the landlord that the front door let in cold air and the bottom needed to be replaced. It was raised as a CC9 repair with a 20-working day target timescale. The metal threshold was ordered the next day. The landlord considered the 2-week delivery timescale and booked an appointment with the resident for 21 June 2023. The landlord acted appropriately. Once on notice the landlord quickly ordered the parts and booked the appointment. It was focused on the resolution of the complaint.
On 21 June 2023 the landlord rescheduled the appointment as the materials has not arrived. It left a message on the resident’s phone with a new appointment and explanation. The resident did not get this message and contacted the landlord to ask why no one had turned up. It was reasonable that the landlord called the resident to cancel when the materials did not arrive.
The landlord made a new appointment for 30 June 2023. The landlord recorded that, and the next two appointments as no access. On 14 July 2023, the landlord left a card and asked the resident to call and rebook. It closed the repair. The landlord acted reasonably. Although not set out in a policy or procedure, it was understandable that the landlord could not continue to make new appointments indefinitely. It asked the resident to contact them to make a convenient appointment.
In September 2023, the landlord spoke to the resident about her stage 2 complaint and the outstanding repair to the metal threshold of the front door was rebooked as a CC9 repair. It was completed on 6 October 2023, 13 working days after it was raised. The landlord acted appropriately, in line with its repair targets, from the date the repair was re-raised. However, the repair had to be raised 3 times in total and overall, this resulted in a delay for the resident.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether any redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, compensation, and a commitment to improve communications in future for example), was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The door repair became known as part of the resident’s complaint and the landlord raised a job to fix it. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response confirmed the work has been completed. This was a reasonable resolution, as the door repair was a service request.
When the complaint was escalated to stage 2 of the internal complaints process, it was over 3 months since the resident had requested the replacement of the front door threshold. The landlord acknowledged the delays, apologised, and offered the resident £115 compensation for the delays. This was calculated at £5 per week from 28 April 2023 to 6 October 2023, in keeping with the landlord’s compensation policy of a delay with a low impact. Considering it was the summer months and that the landlord had logged 3 no access appointments, the Ombudsman considers this a reasonable remedy.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the faulty front door threshold. Its offer of compensation was in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration, with no permanent impact. The landlord identified and acknowledged its maladministration prior to this investigation and has taken steps to put things right.

Compensation request

On 17 March 2023, the resident requested compensation from the landlord for her damaged belongings. The resident sent her request directly to the legal disrepair team who had dealt with her case in 2021. After communicating with the resident, to understand her request, it was sent to the landlord’s complaints team. The landlord acted reasonably and gave the resident the options she had around repairs, complaints, disrepair claims and personal injury claims.
On 11 April 2023, after a further email from the resident, the landlord sent her a property and injury liability claim form. On 2 May 2023, in its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord relayed the information and advised the resident who she could contact for any queries on her claims. It was appropriate for the landlord to respond to the resident with that information. It provided the resident with the form she needed and contact details; it was customer focused.
In summary there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s compensation request. It communicated with the resident to understand what she was requesting and sent the correct forms in a timely manner. Any dispute with the outcome of her claims would need to be dealt with by the resident, landlord and the insurance company.

Associated Complaint Handling

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process, at times, lacked customer focus and effective communication.
The landlord’s complaint policy from the time tells us it will acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days. The landlord will provide a full response in 15 working days for a complaint phase (stage 1) and 25 working days for a review phase (stage 2). One of the landlord’s acknowledgements to the resident did say housing related complaints could expect a response in 10 working days, but this was not reflected in the complaint policy at the time.
The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord’s complaint handling timescales at the time of this complaint were not consistent with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out 10 working days to respond at the first stage and 20 working days at the second stage. It is noted that the landlord has updated its policy, and the timescales are now in keeping with the Code.
Throughout the resident’s complaint journey, she mentioned that she felt the damp and mould was contributing to the poor health of her children and herself. She provided doctor’s letters that agreed with her, and they asked the landlord to resolve the damp and mould situation. The evidence provided as part of this investigation is not conclusive as to whether the complaints department passed any of this information to the repairs team or the housing team. It would have been proactive to do so, to enable the repairs team to effectively manage which jobs got priority and for operatives to be knowledgeable on each case and display empathy on visits. A qualified professional was telling the landlord that the situation was affecting children’s health, the landlord should have risk assessed the situation and considered actions to mitigate the effects of the damp and mould.
On 27 February 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about the damp and mould. The resident received an acknowledgement email on the same day. The landlord acted appropriately and acknowledged the complaint within the timescales of its complaint policy and the Code.
The acknowledgement emails the Ombudsman has seen, as part of the evidence provided for this investigation, did not contain the full details of the person carrying out the investigation or the detail of the complaint. This was not in keeping with the landlord’s policy or paragraph 4.2 of the Code at the time. The landlord acted inappropriately. It may have contributed to the subsequent confusion when too many complaints were open about the same issues.
On 6 March 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. This was within 15 working days and the landlord acted appropriately. It provided the response once it had the answers and apologised for the damp and mould issues. The response outlined the actions the landlord would take and what the resident could expect.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process. This did not happen. The resident was advised to contact the disrepair team. On 30 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord about the same issues and a new stage 1 complaint was logged. Paragraph 5.9 of the Code tells us that the landlord should have accepted the resident’s escalation or provided her with the reasons why it would not escalate the complaint. In not doing so, the landlord’s complaint handling was protracted, confusing and the resident had to wait longer for her eventual stage 2 response.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response for the new complaint, the landlord acknowledged its earlier complaint handling failures, detailed above, and apologised. It explained the confusion may have happened because of the resident’s change of surname. While this was not an excuse, as even with a name change the landlord’s complaint records should be clear and chronological, it was reasonable of the landlord to explain the reasons for its errors and admit them. It offered £150 compensation for its previous complaint handling inconsistencies. This was in line with its compensation policy of up to £250 for a degree of inadequacy of the landlord’s responses. The Ombudsman considers this a fair remedy, in keeping with its remedies guidance, for a failure that had no permanent impact but did adversely affect the resident.
The resident’s new complaint was acknowledged within the timescales of the landlord’s complaints policy and the code. However, as before, it did not contain any detail of what the complaint was, the outcome the resident was seeking or the name of the person who would be investigating. It did tell the resident that if it was housing related it would be dealt with within 10 working days. Although this was positive as it was in keeping with the Code, it differed from the landlord’s complaint policy and may have confused the resident.
On 11 April 2023, the resident emailed the landlord’s disrepair team, and they forwarded it to the complaint team. On 18 April 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the complaint. This was customer focused as there were several parts to the complaint, some not housing related, and it helped to gain clarity on the complaint. Additional points were added from the resident’s new emails in line with paragraph 5.7 of the Code. The landlord acted appropriately.
On 2 May 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response, 20 working days after its acknowledgement. It apologised for the delay, but no evidence has been provided to show that the resident was advised there would be a delay. Paragraph 5.1 of the Code tells us that landlords should provide an explanation and clear time if the response is going to be delayed. The landlord’s complaints policy says that residents will be updated at each step of the way and advised of any delays. The landlord acted inappropriately. Its lack of communication may have contributed to the resident’s documented feelings of distress and inconvenience.
On 31 May 2023, the resident complained to the landlord that the mould was still not repaired, and the bottom of her front door needed to be replaced. This was not treated as an escalation and the landlord should have spoken to the resident to clarify if she wanted to escalate. The landlord acted unreasonably. When the resident contacted the Ombudsman for advice, it was deemed there was insufficient evidence to show the resident had escalated the complaint. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
The landlord complied and acknowledged the escalation in 2 working days. It included all the relevant information, and the landlord acted appropriately. On 21 September 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response, 26 working days after its acknowledgement. This was outside of both the landlord and the Code’s timescales, but the evidence showed that the landlord kept the resident updated every step of the way and was positively engaged with the complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 investigation is an example of good complaint handling by a competent, empathetic, professionally curious member of staff. The landlord acted appropriately and reasonably at this stage of the complaint. The evidence showed that it:
1. Investigated thoroughly and impartially, found, and disclosed early failings that had not previously been identified.
2. Communicated with the resident on a regular basis and kept her updated.
3. Informed the resident of any delays.
4. Took the time to find and provide a rehousing update to the resident (that did not form part of the complaint.)
5. Produced a detailed, empathic stage 2 complaint response.
As outlined previously, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response offered the resident £150 compensation for the landlord’s complaint handling failures prior to this complaint. It did not apologise or compensate for the minor failings the Ombudsman has identified with the later complaint handling from 2 May 2023 to 21 September 2023. The Ombudsman does not find the lack of recognition of the failings fair, and the landlord should have been aware of them and made proportionate remedies. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests a proportionate remedy in this situation to be a compensation payment of £50 to £100 for a minimal failure that might have caused delays, distress, and inconvenience, time, and trouble.
The stage 2 complaint response said that the landlord attended the property on 21 June 2023 and could not gain access. This contrasts with the repair notes that state the parts had not been delivered so the landlord cancelled and rebooked for 30 June 2023. The landlord should ensure responses are checked for inaccuracies.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s associated complaint handling. At times, the lack of communication and failure to seek clarity from the resident contributed to a prolonged complaint process. The landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. An order in recognition of this finding is made below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a faulty door threshold.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s compensation request.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified during this investigation.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £850, made up of:
1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred because of the landlord’s failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. £150 for the complaint handling failures, offered at stage 2 of the complaint, if not already done so.
3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred because of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
4. This payment must be made directly to the resident and not used to offset any rent arrears or other amount owed.
In line with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to complete a case review into the failures in this case focusing on:
1. Its communication with the resident throughout the complaint process.
2. Record keeping following the communication.
3. The landlord’s actions or inaction when the resident told them about her household’s illnesses and provided a professional’s letter.
4. Any necessary training or process changes to ensure the failings are not replicated.
5. Send details of the review to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date the review is completed.

Recommendations

That the landlord reviews the Ombudsman’s latest ‘learning from severe maladministration’ report. This is focused on 100 cases of damp and mould and looks specifically into timeliness of communication and action.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to pay the resident £115 for the faulty front door threshold, offered at stage 2 of the complaint, if not already done so.