The Guinness Partnership Limited (202304397)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304397

The Guinness Partnership Limited

29 May 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Response to the resident’s request for rehousing.
3. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The tenant has been an assured tenant of the landlord since November 2013. The resident and her family live in a 2 bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident has informed the landlord that 2 members of the household had disabilities and vulnerabilities, one of whom is a child with autism and ADHD. The resident suffers from several health conditions including mental health and asthma. The resident and professionals involved with the family provided detailed information on her and her son’s disability.
On 9 October 2022, the resident reported an issue with damp and mould in the property. The landlord applied mould treatment to the affected areas on 1 November 2022. No further reports were made until January 2023. On 6 January 2023, the landlord carried out a home visit and identified issues with damp and mould in every room. It also noted that children lived there. It returned on 26 January 2023 and applied mould wash to the affected areas. There were no further communications with the resident, until 4 May 2023, when she asked the landlord about the outcome of the inspection from earlier in the year.
The landlord instructed a contractor to carry out an internal and external survey of the property to assess the problem. This took place on 15 February 2023, where several issues of damp and mould were identified and made recommendations for remedial work to the external and internal areas of the property. For example, it advised to repair the guttering, reduce the external ground levels and reduce the number of personal items within the property. It also recommended maintenance work to the humidistat extractors and positive ventilation unit (PIV unit). The landlord received the survey on 1 March 2023. On 30 March 2023, it noted that it decided not to complete the repairs recommended, it did not note its reasons for the decision or which repairs it referred to.
Between March 2023 and June 2023, the landlord’s records showed that on the survey’s recommendations, it carried out work on the fabric of the building. It said the repairs would eliminate water ingress and penetration. The landlord completed the repairs in June 2023.
During the same period, the resident was discussing her housing “band” and a management move with the landlord. She said she needed to move because of overcrowding and damp and mould in the property. She described how the issue impacted on her family, especially those with disabilities. The landlord reviewed her “band” for rehousing in August 2022 and October 2022, it increased her to the “medium band”. In January 2023, the resident requested the landlord to place her on the “high band”, she provided supporting letters from professionals describing the impact overcrowding and damp and mould had on the family. The landlord processed her application and informed her on 31 January 2023 that it approved her request to be place in the “high band”. It did not explain its reasons for increasing her banding. On 25 January 2023, it also approved the resident for a management move, because of the damp and mould within the property.
Between March 2023 and June 2023, both parties had regular contact whilst updating and reviewing the resident’s banding. While reviewing the resident’s banding, the landlord acknowledged there were no properties available matching her requirements. In an effort to increase her chances to move, the landlord agreed in June 2023 to consider her for smaller properties. However, following new information provided by professionals supporting the family, in July 2023, it noted that the family required a 4 bedroom property to meet their needs.
During the same period, several professionals contacted the landlord and expressed concerns about the family’s living conditions. For example, In January 2023, a health professional said to the landlord that the impact of damp and mould in the property caused significant distress to the resident’s disabled child. Additionally, in June 2023, social services contacted the landlord with concerns about the impact of overcrowding on the household members with disabilities, especially the child.
This Service contacted the landlord and explained that the resident had made a stage 1 complaint. The landlord confirmed that it had not previously received it and logged the stage 1 complaint on 26 June 2023. The complaint was about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. As a resolution, she requested to be rehoused and compensated for the replacement of her damaged belongings.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 6 July 2023. It defined the scope of its investigation and confirmed it would only consider events from October 2022 onwards. The landlord did not uphold the complaint as it did not identify failings in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It said it complete the repairs within its specified timescales and listed the repairs as follows:
1. It applied a mould wash on the areas affected by damp and mould on 1 November 2022.
2. It applied a mould wash on the areas affected by damp and mould on 26 January 2023.
3. It completed a survey of the building in March 2023. Following recommendations from the survey, it carried out extensive work to eliminate water ingress, which it said appear to be the main cause of the problem. It said it completed the repairs in May 2023.
4. In May 2023, it inspected a number of properties in the resident’s block to assess the impact of the repairs it had completed. However, as the resident had not been home at the time, it had not inspected her property. It said it would carry out an internal inspection of her property on 10 July 2023 and arrange any work required.
On 10 July 2023, the landlord carried out an inspection at the resident’s property. It identified several repairs needed such as mould wash, replace the ventilation system, renew an electric socket and some flooring. It also noted that the ventilation system was leaking. It discussed air circulation and ventilation with the resident and agreed to instal window restrictors to help the resident with this. It also agreed to provide the resident with a voucher worth £200 to redecorate the affected areas. The landlord noted that the property was overcrowded, some members of the household were vulnerable and children lived at the property. Its communications showed that the repairs were completed by September 2023.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 10 July 2023. She said her complaint was about the previous 10 years and she disagreed with the landlord decisions. The resident also mentioned that the damp and mould had a financial impact. She raised concerns that her family had not been rehoused after 24 weeks on the waiting list. She reiterated the impact the issues had on her family and vulnerable members of the household.
The landlord contacted the resident on 8 August 2023, it explained that it needed additional time to respond to the complaint and would respond 10 working days later. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 August 2023. While it agreed with the stage 1 response scoping of the investigation, it upheld the resident’s complaint. It identified delays in completing a damp and mould survey and delays in replacing the flooring.
As a form of resolution, in its stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident compensation to reflect the impact of its failings. Its response also stated:
1. It reiterated an offer it made in July 2023 to give the resident a £200 decorating voucher.
2. In addition, it offered £325 compensation to reflect:
  1. its poor communications with the resident.
  2. Failing to offer an appointment to survey of the resident’s property.
  3. the inconvenience caused to the resident.
  4. the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint.
3. It acknowledged that, despite approving the resident for a management move, no suitable property became available.
4. The landlord also said that it had shared the failings identified, with the relevant teams, to facilitate learning and improvements.
The resident’s complaint to this Service was duly made on 21 August 2023. The resident reiterated her dissatisfaction at the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould, its handling of her complaint and request for rehousing. She said she wanted to be rehoused and compensated for the cost of replacing her damaged belongings.
On 22 March 2024, after reviewing its response to the resident’s complaint, it said it identified further failings in its handling of the complaint. It apologised and said its stage 2 compensation offer was too low and it increased the offer to £800 compensation. It also shared the learning and improvement it made following the complaint. It said it reviewed some of its policies, designed training programmes for staff and implemented new software to improve its management and use of data. It also explained that it was also reviewing its approach to residents’ vulnerabilities and reasonable adjustments.
The resident informed this Service in May 2024, that the issue of damp and mould has not been resolved. She said that the damp course on the bin store’s wall is breached. She acknowledges that the landlord has completed some repairs to the fabric of the building but does not feel it has resolved the issue. She described the impact that damp and mould and overcrowding are having on the family.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles require landlords to:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman recognises that the presence of damp and mould at the property has caused the resident some distress. The resident expressed concerns about the potential impact on her and her family’s health. Unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot establish what caused a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim.
Additionally, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident said the damp and mould had damaged some of her belongings. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on negligence nor the causation of, or liability for, damage to property. This would be usually dealt with either as an insurance claim or through the courts.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns and queries by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident. We will determine whether the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where the Ombudsman has identified failures on the landlord’s part, we can also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has reported issues with damp and mould in her home since 2014. Paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which sets out the rules which governs our service, states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the matters arising. In this case, no evidence was seen that, prior to June 2023, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about damp and mould. Additionally, the evidence did not show that the resident made any reports of damp and mould between May 2018 and October 2022. Therefore, in keeping with the Scheme, whilst the historical reports of the problem offer context to the current complaint, this investigation will focus on events from October 2022 onwards.

Reports of damp and mould in the property

Over the past few years, risks to health from damp and mould has been well publicised. It is understandable that residents would be concerned if damp and mould were present in their home, especially when children or people with certain health conditions live at the property. The issue can cause considerable distress to residents. In this case, the resident said it was especially concerning because of her own vulnerabilities and having young children living at the property, one of whom is disabled.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that any repairs required following a report will be dealt with in accordance with its repair policy to complete the repairs within 28 days.
In this case, the resident reported an issue with damp and mould in October 2022. The landlord applied mould treatment to the affected areas 23 days later. This was reasonable from the landlord. It acted in keeping with its repairs policy and the Ombudsman’s recommendations, it showed that the landlord took the issue seriously and took prompt actions once it received the resident’s report.
Furthermore, the landlord visited the resident’s home in January 2023, and identified that there was damp and mould in every rooms. It is unclear what triggered the inspection, however the landlord applied mould wash on the affected areas 20 days later. The records also noted that it had planned to carry out the remedial work 3 days after receiving the report, but the resident appeared to cancel and rebook the appointment for later in the month. The landlord also said that the following day, it raised a work order for a survey to be carried out. Those actions were reasonable and in accordance with the landlord’s repair policy and the Ombudsman’s recommendations.
Mid-February 2023, the landlord carried out a survey of the block of flats, including the resident’s home, to assess the issue and consider whether it was due to the fabric of the building. This was in accordance with its damp and mould policy not to prejudge the reason for the damp and mould. The landlord’s actions show that it did not assume the resident’s lifestyle was causing the problem or that it was the only cause, it carried out further investigation to identify the root cause of the matter. This was appropriate and in keeping with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report’s recommendations to avoid taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould recommends that landlords should share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. The landlord did not show that, in March 2023, it communicated the outcome of the survey with the resident or shared what the next step would be. It is important that in such cases, the landlord is transparent and engages with residents, this fosters relationships of trust and build confidence that the landlord is actively taking actions to resolve the matter. In this case, the landlord’s failings to keep the resident informed was a missed opportunity to resolve the issue and show that it had listened to the resident’s concerns.
The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord carried out the repairs recommended by the survey to the fabric of the building. While this was appropriate from the landlord, the evidence does not show that it acted on the survey’s recommendations relating to the resident’s home. It is, however, recognised that the remedial work it completed to the building improved the situation in the resident’s property. In February 2023, the landlord said the damp and mould in the resident’s property was severe. However, in August 2023, following the completion of the remedial work to the building, it assessed the issue as mild within the resident’s property.
Nevertheless, the landlord’s logs show that on 30 March 2023, it had decided not to carry out the repairs recommended by the survey. It is acknowledged that it did not specify which repairs it was referring to. However, it is reasonable to conclude that it referred to the repairs recommended to the resident’s property. This is because this was noted on the resident’s records and the landlord completed the repairs recommended to the building. However, it did not explain its position to the resident, or how it came to the decision. This was not in keeping with the landlord’s damp and mould policy to inform residents when work was not required and explain the reasons. The landlord’s failings caused some distress and inconvenience to the resident. She was left waiting for the outcome of the survey for a significant period and did not know what the next step would be to resolve the problem.
Additionally, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to act on the recommendations of the survey, especially as the surveyor noted that damp and mould were present in every rooms. While it is recognised that the survey identified some of the issues were due to condensation, the evidence did not show that the landlord discussed this with the resident once it received the survey on 1 March 2023. This was not in accordance with its damp and mould policy, which states that where damp is as a result of condensation, it will advise residents on controlling moisture levels by increasing ventilation or heating. The landlord’s failings to work in accordance with its policy caused significant distress to the resident. This was because the potential solution to the problem was not shared with her for another 4 months. During that time, she remained concerned about the impact on her children. Especially as each room within the property was affected by damp and mould and the family could not shield from the problem.
The landlord’s policy states that where there is a serious health risk to the members of their household, it will consider moving them to alternative accommodation. In January 2023, several professionals involved with the family wrote to the landlord to raise concerns about the family’s living conditions and the impact this had on them. A health professional also explained the impact the situation had on the resident’s disabled child, which it said was significant because of the nature of his disability. Additionally, in February 2023, the landlord said the damp and mould within the property was “severe” and present in every rooms.
The landlord acknowledged that in January 2023, as a result of the damp and mould, it agreed to consider a management move for the resident. While this was appropriate from the landlord, a management move can take time as it depends on finding a property which match residents’ needs. The landlord did not show that it considered other options. It did not indicate that, in keeping with its policy, it considered whether it was safe, proportionate and reasonable for the family to remain at the property while the issue was resolved. It did not show that it carried a risk assessment to determine whether the family required an urgent move and be decanted to a temporary accommodation. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider this, especially once it was informed of the family’s circumstances, the impact on the children and the severe impact on the disabled child. The landlord’s failings caused significant distress to the family, especially the children.
Furthermore, the landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will make reasonable adjustments for people who have a disability. The evidence shows that the landlord knew that children lived there and some members of the household were disabled and vulnerable. While its internal communications showed that it was sensitive to that fact, it did not demonstrate that it appropriately considered this or acted urgently to resolve the issue and carry out the repairs recommended by the survey. The landlord’s failings caused the family to continue living with damp and mould for a significant period, which was unreasonable.
The resident repeatedly informed the resident that some of her belongings were damaged by the damp and mould and she requested to be reimbursed for them. It is acknowledged that the landlord informed the resident in June 2023, that she would need to claim from her content insurance or seek legal advice. This was not in keeping with its compensation policy to consider paying compensation when, as a result of its failures, a resident’s belongings had been damaged. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether it should compensate the resident for her damaged belongings, as per its compensation policy.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that following the resident’s stage 1 complaint, the landlord carried out an inspection of the property 10 days later. The landlord’s inspection identified several repairs were required to resolve the matter. It demonstrated that it shared its findings with the resident, agreed the remedial work with her and provided advice on managing ventilation. The landlord also showed that, in keeping with its policy, it considered that children lived at the property. For example, it agreed to install window restrictors to enable the resident to ventilate the property safely. This was reasonable from the landlord and would have reassured the resident that it was addressing the problem.
On 10 July 2023, the landlord noted that the 4 months delay to address the damp and mould in the resident’s property was inappropriate. It would have therefore been reasonable to expect the landlord to act with a sense of urgency and complete the repairs quickly.
However, the landlord installed the windows restrictors 50 days outside its specified timeframe of completing repairs within 28 days, this did not convey a sense of urgency to address the issue. It was unreasonable from the landlord, especially whilst considering the family’s circumstances. The delays in completing the repair prevented the resident from being able to adequately ventilate her home. The landlord’s failing to act promptly also exposed the family to damp and mould for longer.
Furthermore, it is accepted that purchasing parts and organising contractors can delay repairs. However, in such cases, the landlord must communicate with the resident, explain the reason for the delays, and agree when the repairs will be completed. In this case, the landlord did not show that it updated the resident on the delays. This was unreasonable from the landlord and further impacted on the resident and landlord relationship.
Overall, there were significant failings from the landlord with its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It is recognised that the landlord carried out a survey of the property and some external work to the building to address the matter. It is also acknowledged that those repairs seemed to have improved the damp and mould in the resident’s property. However, it failed to act on some of the survey’s recommendations or explained its position to the resident once it decided not to carry out the recommended repairs to the resident’s property. It failed to handle the matter in accordance with its repairs and damp and mould policies.
Additionally, the evidence shows that the resident and several professionals shared that 2 members of the families were disabled, one of whom was a child. The resident and the professionals described the significant impact the damp and mould had on them, as well as the impact on the rest of the family. It is recognised that the landlord appeared to understand and was sympathetic to the family’s circumstances when it agreed to install window restrictors. However, its failings to complete the repairs within a reasonable timeframe does not suggest that it fully appreciated the aggravating factors of the case.
Since January 2023, the resident and several professionals raised concerns with the landlord about the impact the issue had on the household. They described the impact on the disabled child’s behaviour, which includes aggressive outbursts and self-harm. They explained how he became distress with the presence of damp and mould in the property and especially in his bedroom. They said he expressed “his hatred towards the home and explained that the home conditions made him feel miserable”. They said that the situation caused significant distress to the resident’s mental and physical health. They also added that some of the children had developed coughs and sickness associated with damp and mould, with one child being admitted to hospital. The resident also pointed out that as damp and mould were present in every room, the family could not shelter from it.
The resident made a stage 1 and a stage 2 complaint to the landlord about its handling of the damp and mould in her home. In both of the landlord’s complaint responses, the landlord said it carried out repairs to the fabric of the building once it received the survey report in March 2023. However, it failed to identify that it had not carried out the repairs recommended by the surveyor to the resident’s home. It also failed to identify that it had not shared the findings of the survey with the resident. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to review its records, establish what happened and assess its actions against its policies. Those were missed opportunities to learn from its mistakes, put things right and rebuild trust with the resident.
The Ombudsman recognises that the evidence does not show that the landlord’s complaint handling failings impacted on the overall outcome for the resident. This is because the evidence shows that once the landlord received the stage 1 complaint, it carried out an inspection of the damp and mould at the resident’s home and agreed the remedial work required.
After considering the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman determined that the landlord’s failings amounted to severe maladministration. The landlord repeatedly failed to handle the matter in keeping with its policies. Its failings had a serious detrimental impact on the resident and her family. The failures also accumulated over approximately 8 months, which in this case, was a significant period of time.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that, in its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised its failings to handle the matter in accordance with its policies. It agreed to pay £325 compensation to the resident and provide her with a decorating voucher worth £200. We also acknowledge that approximately 7 months later it reviewed the complaint, identified further failings and increased its offer of compensation to £775.
Whilst the landlord recognised its failings, the Ombudsman’s opinion is that the level of compensation does not reflect the scale of the failings, the timeframe it went on for, the aggravated factors and the impact on the household. Therefore, the Ombudsman determines that a more appropriate level of compensation is £ 2,403.02. This is made up of:
1. 50% of the rent between January 2023 and June 2023. This reflects the landlord failings mentioned above. It also reflects that, during that period, it assessed the damp and mould as severe and present in every rooms. Therefore 50% of £450.84 for 6 months amounts to £1352.52.
2. 20% of the rent between July 2023 and September 2023. This reflects the landlord’s failings mentioned above. It also reflects that, once it completed the external repairs, the damp and mould within the resident’s property had improved. Therefore 20% of £450.84 for 3 months amounts to £270.50.
3. £800 to reflect the inconvenience and distress cause to the resident of her family. This also reflects the aggravated factors of the case.
4. A separate order will be made for the landlord, in line with its compensation policy, to compensate the resident for her belongings which were damaged by the damp and mould.
The landlord has demonstrated that since the resident’s complaint, it has appropriate taken steps to identify the learning from the complaint and put measures in place measures to improve its services. Therefore, the Ombudsman has not made an order for the landlord to review the failings of the case.

Response to the resident’s request for rehousing.

The landlord’s allocation policy states that it may agree to move an existing resident because of exceptional circumstances. It states this is referred as a management move. It states that it will consider such a move when there is evidence of a significant and insurmountable problem associated with the resident’s occupation of their home. Its housing applications procedure states that a management move is dealt with outside its transfer scheme to ensure the resident is actively supported to move.
Additionally, the landlord’s housing applications procedure states that it will place housing applicants in a “band” based on their housing need and the evidence they have provided. Once the landlord has assessed an application, it will place the applicant in either a low, medium or high band. It also states that once an applicant reports a change in circumstances, it will reassess their application. It explains that the process of “banding” also applies to residents requesting a transfer, and they can then bid for properties once accepted on its transfer scheme.
The evidence shows that since August 2022, the landlord has reviewed the resident’s “band” while she was applying for a move through its transfer scheme. It also considered the resident for a management move because of the issue of damp and mould in the property.
The resident made an application for the landlord’s transfer scheme in August 2022. The resident explained to the landlord that her property was overcrowded and 2 of her children shared her bedroom. She said that her third child was on the waiting list for an assessment for autism and ADHD and he required his own bedroom. She also said that she had a disability alongside other health conditions and wanted to move to a house and install a chair lift to help with her mobility.
In October 2022, after assessing her transfer application, it agreed to place the family on the “medium band” for rehousing. It concluded that the household was overcrowded by one bedroom based on the English Housing survey, which advise that 2 children under 10 and of the same sex would be expected to share a bedroom. In this case the resident has 3 children of the same sex under 10 years old. Therefore, it was reasonable from the landlord, and in keeping with its policy, to place the household on a “medium band” when overcrowded by one bedroom.
The landlord’s housing policy states that when the housing conditions have an adverse effect on the medical condition of a member of the household, it will complete a medical assessment questionnaire. Its medical assessment team will then determine whether the household meets the criteria for the “high band”. The Ombudsman recognises that, at that time, the child’s diagnosis was outstanding. It was therefore understandable that the landlord did not request the resident to complete a medical questionnaire whilst still waiting for the diagnosis to be confirmed.
However, there is no evidence that in August 2022, it considered the resident’s disability. The landlord did not show that it asked the resident to provide supporting evidence of her health conditions and disability. The evidence does not show that it asked her to complete a medical assessment questionnaire or that it referred the case to the medical assessment panel for a decision. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to take those steps when the resident shared details of her disabilities and how overcrowding affected her. It is unclear whether this would have changed the resident’s outcome. Whilst it is acknowledged that the resident said a suitable property had become available during that time, this Service cannot determine whether the resident would have been successful if she had been considered for it. This is because this Service does not know the other applicants’ needs and circumstances. Nevertheless, it would have been fair to the resident for the landlord to assess her housing needs in keeping with its policy.
In January 2023, the resident provided additional evidence of the household’s health, disabilities and reiterated the impact of overcrowding, damp and mould on them. She also provided supporting evidence from a range of professionals to support her transfer application. The evidence shows that the landlord appropriately assessed the evidence, reviewed the resident’s application and, within 2 weeks, it informed her that her request to be placed on the “high band” was approved. This was appropriate and timely actions from the landlord. It demonstrated that, once it received new information from the resident, it acted promptly and fairly.
The evidence shows that the landlord then contacted the resident on a regular basis, discussing her moving. It reviewed her transfer application several times and updated her on the management move. It was reasonable and in line with its policies for the landlord to review the resident’s need for rehousing on a regular basis. Additionally, the landlord’s allocations policy states that a resident would normally remain on the “management move waiting list” for 12 weeks. It also states that it will extend this when no suitable properties become available. In keeping with its policy, the landlord has kept the resident on its management move waiting list since January 2023. The landlord demonstrated that, although no property had become available, it was aware of the resident’s situation and is committed to support the resident to move to a suitable home.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was a service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to be rehoused. The landlord failed to show that it appropriately considered the resident’s disability when it reviewed her application in August 2022. The Ombudsman acknowledges that this may have cause some delays in updating the resident’s “band” and inconvenience to the resident. However, there is no evidence that the delay in increasing her “band” changed the outcome for the resident and her family.
The Ombudsman has considered our remedies guidelines, which are published on its website. We have made an order for the landlord to pay £50 compensation to the resident to reflect the inconvenience caused to her by its failings.

The associated complaint.

In January 2024, the resident advised this Service that the landlord had deleted some of the previous complaints she made about the damp and mould. However, no evidence was seen to show that, prior to June 2023, any communications had taken place between the parties on the subject. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether, in this case, there was a service failure from the landlord to log and acknowledge previous complaints from the resident.
This Service informed the landlord on 25 June 2023, that the resident had made a stage 1 complaint and not received a response from them. The landlord explained that it had not previously received the complaint. It logged the stage 1 complaint on 26 June 2023.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It also states that if it needs longer to respond to a complaint, it will inform the resident. In keeping with its complaint policy, the landlord issued its stage 1 and stage 2 responses within its published timeframe and agreed an extension to its stage 2 response. It was reasonable from the landlord to provide the resident with an answer to her concerns in line with its policy.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to only investigate events which occurred within 6 months of the complaint. It is accepted that investigating complaints after considerable time has passed since the events occurred, is unlikely to be fair to either parties. This is because landlords are not expected to keep their records permanently and may no longer have access to those records. In this case, the landlord’s decision to scope its investigation to events which occurred after October 2022, was fair in keeping with its complaint policy and therefore reasonable.
The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets the requirements for landlords to respond effectively and fairly to complaints about their service. The Code describes the dispute resolution principle as: to be fair, puts things right and learn from outcomes. Where service failure is identified, it is essential for landlords to demonstrate that they are taking steps to put things right. The Ombudsman recognises that, in its stage 2 response and in the review of the complaint it carried out in March 2024, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the failings it identified. It also made some offers of redress.
Additionally, it is essential for landlords to demonstrate that they have learnt from the failings they identified during the complaint process. By learning from their mistakes, landlords can improve their services and prevent the issues from reoccurring. In this case, in its stage 2 response and its final review in March 2024, the landlord demonstrated that it reflected on the failings it identified, learned and made changes to improve its services. This was appropriate from the landlord and in keeping with the Code and the dispute resolution principles.
It is acknowledged that overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident complaints was in line with its policy and the Code. However, the Ombudsman also identified some failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. As mentioned earlier in this report, it failed to identify some of its failings at both stages of the complaint. This raises concerns about the landlord’s ability to carry out a fair and thorough investigation into the issue raised. Additionally, from its own admission in its stage 2 response, the landlord did not provide this response within its published time frame. The evidence does not show that the landlord’s failings impacted on the resident’s overall outcome.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord offers £25 to the resident for its delay responding to her stage 2 complaint. This was reasonable from the landlord and in keeping with its compensation policy. The Ombudsman would have found service failure but for the remedy offered by the landlord. The landlord’s offer reflected the failings identified, therefore the Ombudsman determined that, in all circumstances of the case, the level of compensation paid was reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for rehousing.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered and paid a sum in redress to the resident, prior to investigation which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman resolves the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of her complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write and apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology is to come from the chief executive.
2. Pay compensation of £2,453.02 directly to the resident. This is made up of:
  1. £2,403.02 to reflect the inconvenience and distress caused by the landlord’s failings in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. £50 to reflect to reflect the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings in its response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
3. To assess the resident’s request for compensation to replace her belongings damaged by damp and mould. The landlord is to share its position with the resident and this Service and explain its reasons.
4. Carry out a new inspection to update its understanding of the damp and mould in the resident’s property and agree an action plan to resolve any outstanding issues. If the landlord establish that damp and mould is still present, it is to carry out a risk assessment and consider temporary measures it can take to mitigate the risks to the family. The landlord is to share the action plan with this Service.

Recommendations

The landlord is to pay £25 to the resident, as offered in its stage 2 response, to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of her complaint (unless it has already paid this to the resident).