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

Torus62 Limited (202339057)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339057

Torus62 Limited

16 October 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 response to the resident’s complaint regarding damp, mould, and associated repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a mid terraced Grade II listed building within a conservation area. The resident described herself as being a pensioner and having health issues, adding that she has arthritis and partial hearing. At the time of the complaint, her daughter, who had sickle cell disease, and her granddaughter, who had asthma and was pregnant, lived in the property.
  2. The resident first reported damp and mould in the property in October 2020. The landlord visited the property on at least 9 occasions between October 2020 and July 2022 in relation to leaks, damp, and mould. During this time, the landlord completed several repairs to plastering, a bay window and a leaking roof.
  3. Between August 2022 and the resident’s complaint in September 2023, the landlord’s records indicate that it visited the property at least 18 times. It completed inspections and repairs following reports of damp impacting various areas of the property, including the bathroom, a bay window, walls in the lounge, second floor bedrooms, the attic room, chimney breast, basement, around the back door, and the main front bedroom. The landlord raised various works to clear and repair the guttering, seal the front steps that were leaking into the basement, inspect the roof, complete mould washes, and remove defective plaster and install plasterboard.
  4. The landlord’s records from 1 August 2023 indicate that the neighbouring guttering was backflowing and coming down the front brickwork which was impacting internal walls. There were gaps to the front steps as water was getting into the basement. The front bay window was also holding water, the ceiling was bowing, and plastering work (which it had recently completed) was still wet. The resident asked for a schedule of works on 14 August 2023 and said she had not heard anything further in relation to a roof inspection, incomplete works to plasterboard areas of the property, the front steps, or the guttering, which the landlord found to be blocked as a result of previous works to waterproof the bay window roof. She also explained the impact the condition of the property was having on her, and her family’s, health.
  5. The resident made a complaint on 2 September 2023 regarding the landlord’s failure to address repairs. Her concerns included mould in most rooms caused by blocked gutters and roof faults, her front and back doors needed replacing due to water damage, and the property was cold due to the repair issues. She noted that the problems had been ongoing for 2 years and worsened over time. She said that 8 surveyors had attended but the landlord had not resolved the damp. She added that her energy bills were very high due to the amount of energy needed to keep the property warm. She said the condition of the property impacted both her, and her family’s, health. She asked the landlord to resolve the repair issues and said she had called to chase works for 2 years.
  6. The landlord’s records show that it completed a survey on 20 September 2023 to assess what works it had completed previously. It found blockages to the front gutter, and it needed to inspect the rear main and outhouse roof, flashing and verge bricks. There were also cracks to the cement pointing and every room above and below the rear door had water ingress and had been this way for a while. It noted that water ingress was ongoing and recent plasterwork to the rear door was cracked and wet again. It said it had raised various jobs for the roof, but it had not completed repairs. It indicated that it could not complete plastering works until it resolved the water ingress.
  7. In its stage 1 complaint response on 25 September 2023, the landlord acknowledged that between 2020 and 2022 there had been several repairs required due to leaks, including 3 gutter repairs, repointing around a window, plaster repairs and a roof repair. It summarised the work orders that it had raised and addressed in 2023 and added that its surveyor would reattend with contractors on 3 October 2023 to make a resolution plan. It upheld the complaint and apologised for the delays, stress, and inconvenience. It offered £250 compensation.
  8. The visit on 3 October 2023 found that the loft space, stairwell and ceiling were wet and indicated that works were needed to replaster and decorate various rooms to the rear of the property across several floors.
  9. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 10 October 2023 as it had not provided a date for works, and it could not complete the damp works internally until it fixed the roof. She reiterated the impact the damp conditions were having on her, and her family’s, health and noted that her granddaughter was due to give birth in November 2023. She reiterated her concerns about her energy usage. She remained dissatisfied with the time taken to resolve the problems she had reported. She added that she needed to redecorate herself despite the landlord’s lack of action causing the damage. She asked that the landlord attended to the mould in the property as a matter of urgency.
  10. An operative attended on 13 November 2023 to complete a mould treatment to various areas from the loft to the basement. They reported that they had removed mould but had not been able to apply paint, as the walls were too damp. They added that a bedroom wall had perished, and the plaster was rotten through to the bricks. The basement wall was also soaking wet. On 27 November 2023, the landlord established that it could not complete plastering work until it completed major roofing works. It expected this to take place in mid-December 2023.
  11. In its stage 2 complaint response on 27 November 2023, the landlord:
    1. Outlined the history of repairs related to damp and mould from the resident’s first report in October 2020. It confirmed that scaffolding was now in place, and it aimed to complete the roof works by 10 December 2023. It would then complete the internal remedial works as soon as possible. It had agreed to complete works to the living room, bedrooms and attic space on a room-by-room basis to minimise the disruption.
    2. Confirmed that it had visited on 7 November 2023 to offer support to the resident which she had declined. It said it would be willing to provide support should she change her mind.
    3. Upheld the complaint due to the length of time she had waited for it to resolve the issues and disruption caused. It apologised and offered £1,000 compensation, comprised of £500 as it had not resolved the repair issues, and £500 for the stress and inconvenience caused. It confirmed that it would continue to monitor the outstanding actions.

Events following the landlord’s complaints procedure

  1. The landlord said it completed work to the roof, as well as to the front and back gutters, between 14 and 16 December 2023.
  2. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 1 February 2024 as the repairs were outstanding. She noted the impact the issues had on her mental and physical health and the health of her family. She disputed that the landlord completed works to the roof but said that contractors removed the scaffolding in January 2024. She wanted the landlord to provide a permanent solution to the mould in the property and fix the cause of the problem. She added that following this, she wanted the landlord to complete the repairs internally including replastering, painting all affected rooms, replacing her front door and repairing the front steps. She also sought compensation for her increased electricity usage and said that she had contacted the local authority’s Environmental Health department (EH). EH subsequently served an improvement notice to the landlord in the period following the complaint.
  3. The landlord completed a survey of the roof on 23 February 2024 following the resident’s reports of ongoing water ingress. The inspection found that work to renew gutters to the front and rear and install lead coverings to coping stones on the roof had been successful as there was no sign of additional water ingress in the attic despite recent rain. At the rear of the property, it identified that it needed to complete further works to renew the downspout (as water was spilling over and running down the face of the building), cover sandstone copings with lead, and unblock a gully. It also needed to replace the fans in the bathroom and kitchen, and complete work to “the door and the steps”.
  4. An additional survey in July 2024 established that works had been completed to the downspout and coping stones, the extractor fans in the property were not working and required overhauling, and that further investigation was required to the side elevation where the neighbouring property’s roof allowed water to flow toward the resident’s property. Alongside works needed internally to plastering, the survey established that the front door was in a poor condition and there were areas of the front steps that required flaunching as there were gaps.
  5. The resident confirmed in September 2024 that the issues reported within her complaint remained unresolved. In its communication with the Ombudsman in September 2024, the landlord said that following a joint visit on 14 August 2024, it had established that the property was now dry and free from water ingress. It was due to complete the outstanding plastering works between 28 and 30 October 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her communication with the Ombudsman, the resident raised concerns about her heating and hot water in December 2023. As this issue did not form part of the September 2023 complaint, this is not something that we can adjudicate on at this stage. This is because the landlord needs the opportunity to respond to this via its internal complaints process before the Ombudsman can investigate. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
  2. The resident has also made reference to the length of time the issues within the property have been ongoing. Taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to August 2022, approximately 12 months before the resident’s complaint. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment focuses on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in September 2023.
  3. The Ombudsman understands that the water ingress and damp affecting the property were ongoing following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in November 2023. This investigation focuses on the period from August 2022 to December 2023, when the landlord had committed to conducting repairs as part of the complaint under investigation. While we may mention events outside of this period within the report, the landlord needs the opportunity to respond to its handling of ongoing reports through its complaints process before the Ombudsman is able to investigate. 
  4. Throughout the complaint, the resident referred to how the circumstances have impacted her and her family’s health and health conditions. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman considers any general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident, and whether the landlord adequately took into consideration any household vulnerabilities when handling the repairs.

Policies and procedures

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the roof, rainwater goods, external walls, windows, and external doors. It also has an obligation to address reports of damp and mould. 
  2. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Act 2004 to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties, informed by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord needs to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy (2020) stated that it aimed to make safe emergency repairs within 4 hours and complete the repair within 24 hours. It aimed to complete routine repairs within 20 calendar days and programmed repairs, including more complex structural repairs, within 60 days of reporting. Alternatively, it could add the work to a planned or cyclical programme it conducted over any given financial year. It would keep residents informed of potential delays.
  4. The landlord updated the repairs policy in October 2023. It added that it would tailor its repairs service to accommodate individuals and their needs. It would identify an individual’s circumstances at the first point of contact to ensure it could make adjustments. It would also make good and repair walls and surfaces surrounding any repair it had undertaken. This includes redecorating or providing redecoration vouchers or packs, depending on the amount of work needed and the needs of individual tenants.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a 2 stage formal complaints process. At stage 1, the landlord aims to respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, the landlord aims to respond within 20 working days. If, at either stage, the response is likely to be delayed, the landlord would explain the reason and provide a new complaint response date, which should not exceed a further 10 working days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint regarding damp, mould, and associated repairs

  1. It is evident that the resident experienced damp and mould in the property for a significant period. Within its responses, the landlord has not disputed that there were delays. It upheld the complaint due to the length of time the resident had needed to wait for repairs and the disruption caused. It offered a total of £1,250 compensation, comprised of £250 to reflect the delays and disruption identified at stage 1, £500 in recognition that it had not yet resolved the repairs as of 27 November 2023, and £500 for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family.
  2. As part of our investigation, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide information related to the resident’s complaint, including communications and the repairs history. While the landlord provided a number of records, the repair logs provided did not show each visit as set out within its complaint responses to the resident and did not always show a completion date or notes of what work it completed on each visit.
  3. In addition, at times, the landlord provided a summary of events rather than documentary evidence confirming its statements. While the landlord has said that it kept the resident updated regarding the repairs and her complaint, it has not provided documentary evidence to demonstrate that it did so effectively.
  4. It is of concern that the landlord’s record keeping processes may contribute to its lack of oversight of repairs as identified within the report. The Ombudsman was able to reach a determination with the information to hand, however, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould, and repairs

  1. In line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould (October 2021), the Ombudsman expects landlords to take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and ensure their responses are timely and reflect the urgency of the situation. The landlord should communicate effectively, share the outcome of surveys and act on recommendations by surveyors in a timely manner.
  2. When assessing reports of damp and mould, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence that the landlord completed a damp assessment, using professional tools such as a moisture meter. This is in order to establish the underlying cause of the problems experienced within a property and the exact location of any defects which may contribute to the spread of damp. A landlord should assess all possible causes of damp, including leaks, rising damp, penetrating damp, and condensation, to gain a clear understanding of the problem and offer a relevant resolution. 
  3. It can take more than one attempt to resolve leaks and damp as it may be difficult to identify the cause of the problem at the outset and the landlord may need to attempt different repairs before resolving the repair. Repairs in this case were also likely to be more complex due to the age of the property, its listed building status and it being in a conservation area. However, it is evident that there were multiple visits to the property and the landlord failed to gain a firm diagnosis or complete lasting repairs for a significant period prior to the complaint.
  4. In view of the length of time the matter had been ongoing following the resident’s reports in August 2022, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have completed a full damp survey of the property from the outset to ensure that any contributors to the damp were identified. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to show that the landlord completed a damp inspection of the entire property, which is likely to have contributed to a lack of oversight.
  5. Prior to the resident’s complaint, it is evident that works were raised and partially completed to the internal plasterwork in areas around the bay window and rear door without a clear diagnosis of the cause or confirmation that the underlying problem had been resolved. Works were carried out to remove damp plaster, tank the walls and replaster around the rear door of the property from 3 July 2023. However, there is a lack of evidence to show that the cause of the problem had been diagnosed and these works were ineffective as there was continued water ingress. For instance, the landlord has provided evidence that plastering was completed around the bay window on 3 October 2022 despite reports that the bay roof was still leaking on 20 September 2022 and that a recall was needed.
  6. It was reasonable for the landlord to complete works to treat mould in the property in December 2022, and August 2023, as a reactive measure to remove mould spores in view of the potential hazard. However, the landlord would be expected to resolve the underlying causes of water ingress prior to, or alongside, remedying any internal damage. The multiple visits and ineffective repairs were likely to cause additional inconvenience and frustration to the resident.
  7. Following inspections on 1 August 2023, 20 September 2023 and 3 October 2023, the landlord found that:
    1. The neighbouring gutter was backflowing and coming down the front brickwork and the front gutter was blocked. The Ombudsman notes that this was despite approximately 6 visits to attend to the gutters previously.
    2. There were gaps to the front steps allowing water into the basement. The Ombudsman notes that this was despite previous works to fill gaps being reported as completed in July 2023, indicating that this work had not been adequately completed.
    3. The front bay window roof was holding water, and the ceiling was bowing. The landlord previously identified in July 2023 that the downpipe from the roof was blocked by previous works to make the roof waterproof. It identified that this was causing “issues” to previous repairs. However there is no clear evidence that the work had been progressed.
    4. The rear main and outhouse roof, flashing and verge bricks needed to be inspected and there were cracks to the pointing. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord previously instructed contractors to inspect all roof slates, chimney caps, guttering and coping stones in June 2023 and its records indicate that no roofing works were completed despite “various” repairs being raised.
    5. Every room above and below the rear door had water ingress and had been this way “for a while”, and the plastering completed to the rear door was wet again.
    6. Plastering works and mould treatments were required in multiple areas and rooms from the loft to the basement of the property.
  8. While damp and mould pose a risk to anyone’s health and should always be acted on quickly, it is particularly important that damp and mould is addressed with urgency for those likely to be more vulnerable to the health impacts, including children, pregnant women, those with underlying health conditions, and the elderly as in this case. The resident informed the landlord of household vulnerabilities at least as early as August 2023. While the landlord took steps to inspect and attempt to identify the cause of the water ingress following this, it failed to demonstrate that it adequately considered her health concerns with sufficient urgency.
  9. In view of the potential hazards caused by damp and mould, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord considered the potential risk, and whether it was necessary to decant (temporarily move) the resident once it was aware of household vulnerabilities. The landlord did not comment on the resident’s reports within its stage 1 complaint response. Within its stage 2 complaint response, it said that it had visited on 7 November 2023 to offer support which the resident had declined.
  10. In its communication to this Service, the landlord added that it was not considered necessary to decant the resident, as the leaks and damp mainly affected the rear of the property, and it was confirmed that she could move into a front bedroom whilst the works were carried out. It added that it had also visited on 14 and 22 November 2023 to offer support. While the visit on 7 November 2023 does not appear to be disputed by the resident, the Ombudsman has not been provided with documentary records to evidence that the visits took place or what was discussed. Nonetheless, the landlord was made aware of the household vulnerabilities in August 2023 and did not take steps to offer support until 3 months later despite the potential risk and hazards.
  11. As part of her communication to the landlord, the resident also raised specific concerns about increased energy usage due to the disrepair. These aspects of the complaint were not addressed by the landlord in its responses which is a failing. While the landlord stated that it offered support in person to the resident, there is a lack of evidence to show that it took adequate steps to address these concerns. it also provided no reassurance or clear communication as to how it intended to resolve the issues long term which was likely to add to the resident’s concerns about the potential impact on her and her family’s health.
  12. Where repairs are complex and likely to take time, the landlord would be expected to keep the resident adequately updated. In this case, the Ombudsman has been provided with limited communication records and the landlord has not demonstrated it communicated effectively. The Ombudsman has seen examples of at least 4 letters sent to the resident regarding works to the property. These letters appear to be automated and state they are intended to provide an overview of the results following surveys and the next steps regarding repairs.
  13. As an example, on 20 September 2023, the resident was sent a letter to provide the outcome of the survey completed that day. The “survey findings” element of the letter stated that there was a “Problem/Issue with External Doors” and that repairs had been raised with its contractors who would contact her with a scheduled appointment. This was likely to cause frustration to the resident who was waiting for confirmation as to how the damp and mould issues affecting her property would be put right at the time.
  14. A further example is a letter sent to the resident on 14 November 2023 which stated that it had completed a survey on the same day. The letter set out that there was a “Problem/Issue with walls” with the comment to “report back via email to management”. This letter was vague and failed to provide any meaningful information to the resident as to what it had found or how it intended to put matters right. Other than the above, the Ombudsman has seen limited evidence to show that the landlord proactively kept the resident updated on the status of repairs.
  15. In addition, the landlord failed to comment on how it communicated with the resident within its complaint responses despite her concern about the time she had spent calling. It has not demonstrated that it considered one of its core responsibilities when handling repairs or adequately considered the time and trouble the resident spent in pursuing repairs. The examples above indicate concerns with how the landlord communicates with residents regarding repairs and surveys. The information supplied within the letters was likely to cause confusion and did not contain any useful timescales. This is likely to lead to residents spending additional time and trouble seeking confirmation of what the letters mean.
  16. In its subsequent stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 27 November 2023, the landlord said that the scaffolding was now in place and its contractors would be completing roofing works on 10 December 2023. However, it failed to clarify what works were due to be completed. While it was reasonable for the landlord to confirm that it would complete the internal works once the water ingress was resolved, it is of concern that the landlord has not provided clear documentary records to show what work was found to be required or how it satisfied itself that the repairs would address each concern it had identified during inspections in August to October 2023.
  17. In her communication with the landlord, the resident disputed that works had taken place in December 2023. The Ombudsman has not seen clear evidence of the landlord’s diagnosis prior to the work in December 2023. The landlord’s records from 23 February 2024 indicate that some works – to renew the guttering to the front and rear and to install a lead covering to coping stones – had been successful in resolving some of the water ingress impacting areas of the property, indicating that the correct action was followed.
  18. Nevertheless, this work did not fully resolve the damp and the landlord needed to complete further works following the complaint, primarily to the rear and side of the property. Due to the lack of evidence regarding its diagnosis, it remains unclear as to whether the landlord missed opportunities to identify the additional works required at the time of the complaint. As set out above, the landlord’s handling of the later works falls outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to consider as the landlord needs to have the opportunity to address these concerns via its complaints process in the first instance.
  19. The landlord has failed to provide evidence to confirm that it has addressed other issues identified within its inspections, including the gap to the front steps, or water pooling on the bay window roof which it identified as outstanding in July 2024. It was logical for the landlord to respond to the resident’s reports of water ingress and damp from the top of the property downwards to eliminate the possible causes. However, there is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord explained its intended course of action to the resident, and it is a failing that it did not provide an adequate resolution to these repairs at the time of the complaint.
  20. As part of her complaint, the resident also raised specific concerns that her front and back doors needed to be replaced due to water damage. The landlord’s records indicate that she called it to discuss replacing her front door on 10 July 2023 (prior to her complaint) and that it passed this to its assets team for renewal in the “current” financial year (2023/24). It remains unclear as to whether the resident was informed of the landlord’s intentions and it failed to comment on this aspect of the resident’s complaint within its responses. Its failure to provide a resolution or explain its intended course of action meant that the matter remained unresolved following the complaint – this amounts to a failing. It is evident that the front door was not replaced as part of the 2023/24 financial year but was found to be in a “poor condition” during a survey in July 2024. As such, an order has been made below for the landlord to address this concern.

 The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The resident raised the complaint on 2 September 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 25 September 2023. This was within 15 working days and considered a reasonable overall timeframe. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 10 October 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 27 November 2023. This was outside of the landlord’s published timescales by 14 working days.
  2. The landlord has said that on 8 November 2023, it secured the resident’s agreement to extend the stage 2 deadline. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm that this was the case or that the landlord suitably managed the resident’s expectations as to when it would provide a response. The landlord failed to acknowledge its delayed response or apologise to the resident which would have been appropriate.
  3. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords are expected to address each aspect of a complaint, identify where things have gone wrong and demonstrate learning. In this case, the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaint at both stages upheld the complaint and included a summary of the repair history but failed to offer any analysis of what caused the delays and disruption it acknowledged had occurred. The landlord’s responses failed to demonstrate that it took any learning from the resident’s complaint, established where, or why, failings occurred, or set out steps it would take to improve its service moving forward.
  4. The landlord also failed to comment on aspects of the resident’s complaint, including her concerns related to her doors as set out above, energy usage, that the property was cold, needing to decorate herself despite her age and vulnerabilities, or her position that the damage to her decorations was the result of its delay. This was likely to make the resident feel unheard and cause additional distress and inconvenience. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that plastering and tanking work to the internal parts of the property is due to take place between 28 and 30 October 2024. It remains unclear as to whether it intends to complete, or contribute, to any redecoration works needed as per its repairs policy and an order has been made below for the landlord to confirm its position in view of the pending repairs. 

Summary

  1. In summary, the Ombudsman has found that there were significant failings by the landlord over an extended period. While it can take time to resolve water ingress and damp, the landlord missed opportunities to adequately diagnose the damp at an earlier stage. The landlord acknowledged that there had been delays and disruption within its complaint responses but did not engage with any specific failures on its part or comment on its communications, any limitations it faced, or any missed opportunities it had to put things right sooner. It failed to offer reassurance to the resident as to how it would resolve the damp issues or clarity on the works it needed to carry out.
  2. The landlord has taken some steps to put things right for the resident by acknowledging the delay and disruption caused to her and offering a total of £1,250 within its complaint responses. This offer is significant and is within a range the Ombudsman considers proportionate in instances of severe maladministration where there has been a serious impact on a resident. However, in view of the landlord’s failure to provide an adequate resolution at the time of the resident’s complaint, it is the Ombudsman’s view that additional redress is warranted.
  3. As part of another case involving the landlord (under case reference 202330484), the Ombudsman made a wider order for the landlord to review how it assesses damp and mould where this may be prejudicial to health, or where it may need to decant a resident. This also includes a review of its current policies alongside the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (2021). The landlord provided a terms of reference document in August 2024 setting out how it intended to review its policies and procedures and confirmed that it intended to complete the review within 6 months. In view of this, we have not made further orders which relate specifically to the landlord’s wider handling of reports of damp and mould. The Ombudsman has recommended that the landlord uses learning from this case when conducting the review.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s complaint regarding damp, mould, and associated repairs.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this case. The apology should come from a senior member of staff given the length of time the issues have been ongoing.
  2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £1,750 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £1,250 as previously offered, if it has not yet paid this;
    2. an additional £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in respect of its response to the resident’s complaint regarding damp, mould, and associated repairs.
  3. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to appoint a member of staff to act as a point of contact for the resident and monitor any outstanding works through to completion. It should also commit to post inspecting works to ensure the water ingress has been resolved.
  4. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to consider its handling of the resident’s reports of the ongoing water ingress since the repairs in December 2023 and any failings which contributed to continued delay. It should set out its findings in writing to the resident and make an offer of compensation in recognition of the impact of the ongoing delay from December 2023. It should also respond to the resident’s concerns about her increased energy usage because of the repair delays. If dissatisfied with its response, the resident may wish to raise a new complaint to the landlord.
  5. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to confirm whether it will complete decoration works or contribute towards the cost of a decorator in view of the resident’s concern that she is unable to complete this herself due to her age and vulnerabilities. It should also confirm when the external doors will be replaced.
  6. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord considers the findings of this case as part of the review it is undertaking of its policies and procedures relating to its handling of reports of damp and mould, and record keeping (as ordered within case 202330484). If it has not already done so, as part of the review, it should consider how it communicates with residents and any adjustments that it needs to make to its automated correspondence to avoid any unnecessary confusion for its residents.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that it addresses each aspect of a complaint, identifies failings and establishes points of learning through complaint investigations. The landlord should consider using resources available via the Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning (available on our website).
  3. The landlord is to confirm its intentions in relation to the above recommendations within 4 weeks.