Vivid Housing Limited (202214928)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214928

Vivid Housing Limited

31 January 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 air tightness concerns, damp and mould and associated remedial works.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a 4 bedroom house. The tenancy commenced on 2 August 2021.
The landlord’s evidence confirmed the resident reported her son suffered from asthma. The are no reported vulnerabilities for the resident.

Landlord responsibilities

The landlord’s repairs policy and The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states the landlord is required to:
1. Keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling.
2. Keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas, and electricity.
3. Keep in repair and proper working order, the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water.
The landlord operates a repairs policy which categorises repairs between emergency, urgent and routine repairs:
1. It aims to attend and complete an emergency repair within 24 hours.
2. It would complete urgent repairs within 7 days.
3. Routine repairs would be completed at a time convenient to it and the resident.
Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints policy. It would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

Scope of investigation

This Service understands the resident feels the landlord has failed to properly address issues which has impacted living in the property and health, and we recognise the concerns she reports have affected and caused distress to her and her family.
In relation to the issues raised, it is not the Ombudsman’s role or expertise to assess whether a property has specific defects. This is because this Service does not make findings on technical aspects in relation to a property or repairs. It is also not the Ombudsman’s role to make a determination on matters such as the impact on health, as this is not in this Service’s expertise and jurisdiction. The Ombudsman’s role when considering complaints is to assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, and reasonably applied its policy and procedure, complied with any relevant legislation and followed good practice when reaching decisions.

Summary of events

On 30 September 2021, the resident reported windows in her property had gaps between the frame and wall and were causing draughts.
On 8 December 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s report of a draught from her windows at the property. Following inspection, it arranged for repair works to replace 5 pairs of hinges and repair gaps to 3 Unplasticized Polyvinyl Chloride (UPVC) windows which had gaps between the frame and wall and was the determined cause of the draught. An appointment was scheduled for 14 February 2022. However, this was cancelled by the landlord and rescheduled for 22 March 2022.
On 24 January 2022, it was recorded in the landlord’s repairs log the resident reported a serious mould issue in the bedroom above the public alleyway, with mould rising up from the skirting board and up the walls. It noted there was no extractor fans in the property.
On 3 February 2022, the landlord’s repairs log noted a call with the resident where it was agreed an inspection of the property would take place on 15 February 2022 to survey the damp and mould.
On 15 February 2022, the landlord attended to conduct a survey inspection. It stated:
1. Low level mould was present in one bedroom.
2. Small areas of mould were present around the bathroom window.
3. The property was fit for human habitation.
4. It recommended:
  1. the windows were serviced and a job was raised
  2. installation of Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) system
  3. test and balance PIV system.
On 16 February 2022, an order was invoiced for PIV to be fitted in the whole property for ongoing ventilation on the 1st floor. The works were completed on 26 July 2022. Further repair works to test and balance the system were completed on 15 August 2022.
Between 28 February 2022 and 1 March 2022:
1. The resident emailed the landlord to report the windows were still letting in a draught. The seals around the outside of the windows were in disrepair and the property was very cold.
2. The landlord logged the report to its repairs team.
3. The repairs team confirmed it would attend on 22 March 2022 to complete repairs to the windows and its contractor would arrange a date for the damp issues to be surveyed and assess the property for the installation of the PIV.
On 22 March 2022, the landlord completed the repairs to the windows which were listed on 8 December 2021.
On 24 May 2022:
1. The resident again reported there was gaps in the property which caused a draught despite the previous repairs.
2. She chased an update on the survey for her windows. She noted she was informed in February 2022 she would be contacted for a survey to be arranged. She explained whilst somebody attended to carry out repairs previously, she still experienced a draught which caused her curtains to move.
3. She chased an update on the heating ventilation unit to be installed.
4. She reported her daughter’s bedroom wall was soaking wet. She confirmed she had been ventilating the property and was using a dehumidifier however, the problem had worsened.
5. She also reported the bathroom was full of mould despite her cleaning the mould away frequently.
6. The landlord confirmed it raised a repair for the living room window which was booked for 25 July 2022. It asked for further information as to whether there was a leak in her daughter’s bedroom. It confirmed its contractor would be in contact to install the PIV and it had chased the contractor to confirm the date with the resident.
7. The resident provided pictures of the bathroom and the affected areas.
On 30 May 2022, the landlord’s instructed a surveyor to attend the property on 6 June 2022 following further reports of mould in the property.
On 6 June 2022, the landlord’s repair log noted the survey confirmed damp and mould, water ingress on the front elevation of the property roof and correlated to where damp patches were seen in the front bedroom. It listed works to repair the roof where there was water ingress.
On 16 June 2022, the landlord’s PIV contractor surveyed the property ahead of any proposed installation of the ventilation unit. The survey stated:
1. The property did not contain any ventilation components such as an extractor fan in the bathroom and kitchen or mechanical ventilation provision.
2. It proposed installation of a wall mounted positive input ventilation system with intelligent low temperature comfort heater. It would deliver improved indoor air quality without the discomfort of draughts.
On 20 June 2022, the landlord agreed to the installation of the PIV and raised the invoice for payment to its contractor. An appointment for installation was arranged for 28 June 2022.
On 21 June 2022, the landlord arranged for a damp and mould wash of all areas affected by damp and mould to be completed in the property on 12 July 2022.
On 25 July 2022, the resident reported the repairs completed in March 2022 did not stop the draught. She noted the landlord had sent a contractor to inspect her windows for the third time. However, it was confirmed to her that nothing further could be done. The landlord’s repair log reported it inspected the issue however, it could not feel a draught. It was also noted in the landlord’s repair log, the windows were due for replacement in 2035 on the planned repairs programme.
On 27 July 2022, the landlord’s roofing contractor inspected water ingress in the roof. It raised a repair job for drip edges to be installed on the face of the roof and the second layer of cladding to be removed so the works to remedy the water ingress from the roof could commence.
On 28 July 2022:
1. The resident emailed the landlord following the attendance of its contractors regarding roof repairs. She explained the contractor commented on the condition of her windows and that another inspection of the windows was planned. However, she had not received any further update about the window inspection. She asked for details of how to make a formal complaint.
2. On the same date, the landlord responded. It apologised the resident was unhappy with the contractor. It confirmed the contractor could not feel a draught. It asked the resident to contact it again when the weather changed and it would get somebody out to inspect the issue. It also stated it did not want the resident to endure another cold winter with heat not retained in the property.
On 2 August 2022, the resident telephoned the landlord to complain about its handling of her reports of a draught coming from her windows. On the same date the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
On 13 September 2022, the resident reported her son was unable to sleep in his room due to the damp and mould. He had instead been sleeping in her room. She explained the previous works had not resolved the damp and mould and water ingress.
On 22 September 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and explained:
1. She reported there was water ingress from the bathroom window. She explained this resulted in the spread of damp and mould affecting both the bathroom and her son’s bedroom. Her son slept in the resident’s bed with her, as he could not be in his bedroom.
2. Her daughter’s room then began to suffer from water ingress however, inspections failed to identify the cause. Her living room also experienced water ingress and the skirting boards were rotten. She stated the effects of damp and mould resulted in her:
  1. redecorating on 3 occasions with replacement of 2 bed frames and mattresses
  2. replacing the carpet in her son’s bedroom
  3. purchasing 6 dehumidifiers to reduce the damp
On 10 October 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It stated:
1. Its investigation found service failure because there was outstanding repairs and the resident was not updated on the position.
2. It offered £150 compensation comprising of:
  1. £100 for its communication and inconvenience caused
  2. £50 for its complaint handling.
3. It explained to make things right, it would meet with its contractors on 11 October 2022. It hoped to provide appointment dates to complete outstanding works relating to:
  1. Reinstallation of wall sockets when internal wall were repaired and dry
  2. Installation of new bathroom fan
  3. Treat cut and remove textured decorative coating
  4. Its contractor removed the scaffolding once works were completed.
On the same date, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as the landlord had not provided any formal dates for completion of repairs and the issued had been ongoing for over 1 year.
On 10 November 2022, the landlord contacted the resident by telephone and apologised it had missed her stage 2 escalation request. During the discussion the resident explained:
1. There was water ingress in 3 of the 4 bedrooms and the family were sharing the remaining bedroom.
2. A contractor wanted to remove the plaster in the living room and expose internal wiring. However, the resident refused this due to the exposure of the wires to her young children.
3. Whilst she was aware the windows were due to be replaced in 2035, the condition of the window frames and back door were rotten and causing water ingress.
4. The water ingress and damp and mould had caused damage to her furniture and carpets. She also purchased several dehumidifiers which were expensive to run. The landlord agreed to provide her with insurance details to make a claim as she did not have her own insurance in place.
5. The landlord noted it discussed the possibility of a decant and would discuss internally and contact the resident again with a further update.
On the same date, the landlord confirmed internally the resident should be decanted. It stated it would make arrangements for the decant.
On 15 November 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to advise she would be returning to her home from the temporary accommodation due to the smell of drugs coming into their room at the hotel. The landlord responded and explained it would find a serviced apartment as alternative accommodation but it would take a few days to arrange. If she wished to return to her home, it was safe for her to do so. It advised she would however need to move into temporary accommodation whilst the repairs were carried out.
On 16 November 2022, the landlord identified alternative accommodation for the resident and she moved to the new accommodation on 20 November 2022 whilst works were carried out to repair the property. She remained in the alternative accommodation for 4 weeks.
On 24 November 2022, the landlord internally requested permission to push forward the annual programme of works to the windows and rear door replacement. It was agreed on 28 November 2022. It estimated it would be completed by 27 May 2023.
On 9 December 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It stated:
1. It upheld the resident’s stage 2 complaint as she continued to suffer from the outstanding repair issues.
2. Since the complaint was escalated to stage 2, it had coordinated the repair works and undertaken further investigations to understand the cause of the damp and mould. It identified 2 issues:
  1. A small area on the roof was required to be resealed. This had now been completed. It did not believe this was the main cause of the damp as the cavity was dry however, this cause had since been eliminated following the investigation.
  2. On 28 September 2022, the neighbouring property’s toilet was investigated and a leak was detected. It was reinspected recently and a further leak from the toilet pipework was detected and since repaired by the new owner of the property.
3. It had inspected the cavities of the property which were now confirmed as dry.
4. It believed the source of the damp and mould was addressed. The wall in the living room would have plaster removed to allow the wall to dry before it was replastered. The skirting board would also be replaced.
5. It asked its contractors to upgrade the windows and rear door of the property. It would provide a repair date as soon as possible.
6. It would replace the cladding at the property to ensure the building is weather tight. It would provide a repair date as soon as possible.
7. It added £50 to the electricity meter for electricity usage whilst undertaking works at the property. It would however review the electricity usage again once the works were completed.
8. It asked the resident to complete an insurance claim form to claim the cost of damaged possessions with its insurance provider.
9. It explained it had learned from the resident’s complaint and would ensure when multiple works were undertaken to a property it better identifies this and coordinates the works accordingly. It also asked its repairs team to review its decant procedure to minimise the time required to decant a resident.
10. It apologised for the delay in providing its stage 2 response.
11. It offered an additional £300 compensation, further to the £150 compensation offered at stage 1. This comprised of:
  1. £250 for delays to resolve the issues
  2. £50 for the delay in providing its stage 2 response.

Events post completion of internal complaints process

On 3 March 2023, the landlord instructed a surveyor to undertake a damp and mould survey of the property. It stated:
1. Dampness was an issue to the party wall in the living room. It was identified as there was a leaking toilet at the neighbouring property. This was resolved and plaster was removed. Reinstatement works were undertaken and at the date of the survey, works to replaster the areas affected were being prepared.
2. Mould outbreaks were present in the kitchen, bathroom and 2 bedrooms at the property. There was also an outbreak of mould occurring at the base of the dining room wall and rainwater could enter beneath the back door.
3. It concluded:
  1. a non-invasive moisture profile was undertaken throughout the property which in the main confirmed a dry structure. An elevated moisture reading was noted at survey location point T on the ground floor in the lounge and, was likely associated with the historical issue of the leaking WC in the neighbouring property which was understood to have now been fixed
  2. in regard to ventilation measures, there was a working mechanical extraction unit fitted in the bathroom which required attention with no installed unit in the kitchen. A PIV unit was located at the top of the stairs which was in working order and, a passive vent was noted in bedroom 4
  3. the issues raised by the tenant were attributed to periods of elevated humidity levels and inadequate ventilation supported by a dry structure, condensation to windows and mould on contents items which could only be sustained by periods of elevated atmospheric moisture.
4. The landlord should:
  1. consider installation of a mechanical extraction unit in the kitchen which should ideally run continuously with a boost mode function
  2. consider introducing trickle vents to the windows to provide important background ventilation
  3. discuss with the tenant the importance of not having contents in front of external wall surfaces
  4. an inspection of the back door as the tenant reported water ingress in that area.
5. It recommended the resident ensures the use of the recommended installations in the report to manage the temperature, moisture and condensation within the property.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its Dispute Resolution Principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. put things right, and
3. learn from outcomes.

Reports of air tightness concerns, damp and mould and associated remedial works

The landlord’s responsiveness to the reported windows repair issues from the resident was below the expected level of service.
The resident put the landlord on notice she could feel a draught coming from between the wall and window frames in several areas of the property on 30 September 2021. The landlord did not arrange for inspection of the property until 8 December 2021 and did not complete the repair works until 22 March 2022. This was a delay of approximately 6 months and was not within its policy timescales.
On 28 February 2022, the resident reported the condition of the windows would still cause a draft to enter her home. The landlord scheduled an inspection on 22 March 2022, this was a delay of approximately 3 weeks to inspect a repair issue. Whilst the landlord’s repairs policy does not provide timescales for inspection and leaves it to a matter of its availability, this is unreasonable and not the level of service this Service would expect. The landlord was already on notice of the matter and had undertaken recent remedial works. It should have been apparent these works had not been an effective remedy and should have therefore sought to review this and re–survey at the earliest opportunity.
On 24 May 2022, the resident reported concerns the repairs completed previously were ineffective and she could still feel a draught from the windows. The landlord raised a repair for the living room window for 25 July 2022, this was a 2 month appointment timeframe and was an unreasonable timeframe to provide for an inspection.
The landlord’s responsiveness to the reported damp and mould issues also fell below the expected level of service.
The resident reported damp and mould on 24 January and 3 February 2022. The landlord did not arrange for an inspection until 15 February 2022 to survey the damp and mould. This was a delay of 12 days for an inspection. The landlord’s repairs policy does not class damp and mould as an emergency or urgent repair which provides timescales for an inspection. Whilst the landlord’s repairs policy is silent on the time expected for inspection of a routine repair, the delay of 12 days to inspect damp and mould was unreasonable and failed to manage the residents expectations that the matter would be inspected quickly. This Service would expect a zero tolerance approach that is risk based, which leaving a period of 12 days does not demonstrate
Following its survey on 15 February 2022, it was recommended the landlord fitted PIV and fit further ventilation items to the property to improve ventilation and humidity, the landlord agreed to the installations. The landlord contacted the contractor responsible for installation of the PIV however, an appointment did not take place until 20 June 2022 and the unit was not installed until 28 June 2022. This was a delay of approximately 4 months from the initial recommendation.
The resident chased the landlord for updates regularly. Whilst the landlord responded to the resident promptly, the landlord has not provided evidence it communicated effectively with the resident regarding the expected installation date or delays which caused the lengthy timescale. It has also provided no explanation for the lengthy periods of time it took to inspect reported repairs and arrange follow up appointments. This was unreasonable and caused the resident distress, leaving her to wait long periods of time for a resolution to improve the air tightness of the property and damp and mould issues.
Whilst this Service appreciates specialist contractors for installations of PIV may have longer waiting lists, the contractual relationship is between the landlord and the resident, therefore the landlord is responsible for the overall communication of repairs, not its contractor. If issues were identified by the landlord which may have caused a delay to complete the installation, it should have communicated this to the resident and provided an action plan.
Furthermore, the landlord has not provided evidence it used an action plan generally in response to any of the repair concerns reported by the resident. This caused the resident to be left unaware of the timescales expected for works to be completed. This was unreasonable. Had an action plan been put in place, this may have assisted to manage the resident’s expectations. This is evidence of poor repair management and poor communication with the resident.
Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Where the source of damp and mould was not immediately obvious, it would be reasonable that the landlord took steps to eliminate potential root causes.
The landlord correctly identified a survey was required for further inspection of the damp and mould reports. It acted on survey recommendations following 3 separate surveys of the property, engaged with contractors to install PIV and other ventilation items, carried out a mould wash and redecorated once it had completed further repair works to remedy water ingress. This was good practice and showed it took steps to eliminate potential root causes of the damp and mould initially.
On 21 June 2022, the landlord arranged for a damp and mould wash at the property however, this was booked for 12 July 2022, approximately a 3 week timescale. Whilst the landlord’s repairs policy timescales for repairs was 28 days, a 3 week timescale was unreasonable where the resident had suffered from damp and mould for a significant period of time up to this date. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould states, landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord failed to appreciate the resident lived with young children and the impact living with damp and mould could have on them. This is evidence it did not take the matter seriously.
The resident lived at the property with 4 children and also reported her son suffered from asthma and his condition was affected by the damp and mould. Whilst this Service cannot determine health matters, the landlord was on notice several times of potential health concerns the resident associated to damp and mould in the property. Furthermore, on 13 September 2022, the resident reported her son was unable to sleep in his bedroom due to the severity of the damp and mould and its effect on his asthma. This Service would expect the landlord to have promptly conducted a risk assessment, especially where young children were in the property as there could be significant detriment to them, more significant than somebody without these characteristics as through exposure to damp and mould. This failure to actively listen to the resident’s concerns suggests the landlord was not taking the matter seriously or assessing the impact upon the family. Whilst an assessment of the risk may not have changed the actions taken by the landlord, this Service would expect to see a clear and considered assessment of the risk posed in the short and medium term, to assess if any interim measures could be put in place, for example signposting to support services, advice around heating, ventilation and the use of dehumidifiers.
Whilst the landlord arranged for a decant for the family whilst remedial works were carried out, a risk assessment would have also been a useful tool to identify conditions and vulnerabilities affecting the family at the time. In addition to assessing the risk such repairs would have and whether the circumstances suggested a sooner decant would have been reasonable given the impact the damp and mould was having on the resident and her family. Whilst this Service cannot determine if a decant was necessary, the landlord has not evidenced it adequately considered its decant policy at the earliest opportunity, which allows the landlord discretion to agree a decant if the circumstances of the case allow it. It therefore acted unreasonably towards the resident in light of the reported property conditions.
The resident has since reported the repairs completed by the landlord have not been sufficient to resolve her issues and prevent the damp and mould or improve heat retention at the property. Had the landlord acted promptly to inspect and complete repairs, it would have allowed it to identify where further improvements could be made in a shorter period of time. If the landlord acted promptly, it could have prevented the resident from suffering from the issues for several years and brought about a solution.
The landlord’s actions to inspect the reports of air tightness and damp and mould were reasonable. However, it was disappointing the landlord’s overall responsiveness to resident’s concerns was unreasonable. The evidence shows the landlord significantly delayed inspection of several reported repairs and failed to arrange for repairs to be completed promptly, resulting in significant delays. Whilst the landlord decanted the resident and her family when remedial works were completed, the landlord has failed to show it regularly monitored the risk to the resident and her family and whether a decant was considered sooner given the potential health implications to her family. It is acknowledged the landlord did take reasonable actions in response to the resident’s concerns. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s overall response and handling to the resident’s reports of air tightness, damp and mould and associated remedial works was severe maladministration. This determination would have been a maladministration finding had the landlord recognised sooner that remedial works it put in place were ineffective and responded to the concerns with the urgency required. The cumulative impact of the failures, along with the level of detriment caused to the resident and her family has therefore found the landlord’s handling of reports of air tightness concerns, damp and mould and associated remedial works to be severe maladministration.

The associated complaint

The resident complained to the landlord on 22 September 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 10 October 2022 which was a delay of 13 days. This was not in line with its complaints policy timescales.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints procedure on 10 October 2022. The landlord did not provide its stage 2 response until 9 December 2022. This was a delay of approximately 2 months. This was not in line with its complaints policy timescales.
The landlord has not provided this Service with any evidence it was in communication with the resident regarding delays to provide a stage 1 complaint response. On 10 November 2022, the landlord explained to the resident it missed her stage 2 escalation request and apologised. It therefore acknowledged her stage 2 request on this date and sought to provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
Whilst the landlord provided its stage 2 response within 20 working days of its stage 2 acknowledgement, its initial failure to acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 request caused the resident to endure an additional 1 month delay to receive a response. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint was service failure.
In this case the Ombudsman recognises that in its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged failures with the service it provided and the delays caused. It also apologised to the resident. It offered the resident £100 compensation in total for its complaint handling failures. Whilst the landlord showed good practice to offer compensation, the compensation was not satisfactory to remedy the impact caused to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint was service failure.

Determination (decision)

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 air tightness concerns, damp and mould and associated remedial works
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to adequately manage the reported repair concerns. It provided long wait times for inspections and did not actively seek to complete repairs in a reasonable timeframe. The landlord’s communication with the resident was unsatisfactory and it did not manage the resident’s expectations in respect of the repairs. It also failed to appropriately risk and decant assess the resident and her family.
The landlord failed to provide its complaint responses within policy timescales.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of its staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,300 in compensation comprising of:

i. £700 for any distress and inconvenience and time and trouble the resident was caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs.

ii. £500 for the landlord’s delay in its handling of the repairs.

iii. £100 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident by its poor complaint handling.

iv. If the landlord has not already paid the resident, it should pay the resident the total of £450 which the landlord offered in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses.

Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Complete a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s damp and mould spotlight report and review its current policy and processes.
2. Review of its risk assessment and decant procedures in relation to resident vulnerabilities. In doing so, demonstrate how it will actively use its vulnerability information to provide any additional support that may be required.
3. Review of its repair procedures to ensure a timescale to respond to routine repairs is provided and there is an effective mechanism in place to manage repairs and achieve a resolution within a reasonable timescale and provides action plans to manage resident expectations.
4. Review of its procedures for damp and mould. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.