London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202230057)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230057

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 May 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould and the subsequent repairs.
2. Reports of damage to his personal belongings.
3. Associated complaint.

Background

At the time of the events complained about the resident was an assured tenant of a 3-bedroom house which was owned by the landlord. The resident resided at the property with his wife (who was also a joint tenant) and their 3 children. He states he is disabled and immunocompromised, and one of his children has severe asthma.
The resident complained to the landlord on 25 October 2022 that there were issues with damp and condensation at the property. He said the landlord had not carried out repairs previously and he wanted it to carry out an inspection. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on the same day. It apologised and said it would arrange an inspection.
On 4 January 2023 the resident complained to the landlord again that it had not arranged an inspection yet. He said the ongoing damp and mould at the property was affecting his child’s asthma and had damaged their personal belongings.
The landlord opened a separate complaint following the resident’s email on 4 January 2023, it issued another stage 1 response on 11 January 2023. It apologised that an inspection had not taken place, and it would arrange this. It told the resident damage to personal belongings were outside the remit of its complaints process, and he would need to contact its insurance team.
The resident escalated his complaint on 1 March 2023. He complained about delays in the landlord completing the repairs recommended from the damp and mould inspection. He also said that the landlord had not done anything to mitigate the impact of the damp and mould.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 4 April 2023. It acknowledged there were delays in resolving the damp and mould and said it had carried out a further inspection on 14 March 2023. It outlined the repairs it would carry out following the inspection and said it would monitor the completion of these. It offered the resident £380 as compensation. It increased this to £600 on 19 April 2023, in recognition of further delays in completing the repairs.
On 5 December 2023 the landlord acknowledged a stage 2 escalation for the resident’s original complaint from 25 October 2022, regarding repairs it had not completed. It issued a second stage 2 response on 9 January 2024. It acknowledged he had reported ongoing problems with damp and mould since its previous responses and it had not carried out all the recommended repairs. It said it had requested a further damp and mould inspection to take place and was waiting for the report. It offered the resident a further £410 for the delay in responding to the complaint and in completing the repairs. It reiterated its complaints process would not respond to a claim for damaged personal belongings, and he would need to contact its insurers. Taking both second stage 2 responses together the landlord offered the resident a total of £1,010 in compensation.
The resident escalated his complaint to this Service to investigate. He told us that he had moved out of the property around 4 June 2024 but remained dissatisfied with the amount of compensation the landlord had offered. He said the landlord’s insurer had made an offer for the damage to his family’s personal belongings, but he remained unhappy with how the landlord had handled this before it referred the case.

Assessment and findings

Scope

As part of the resident’s complaint to us he described how he considered the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property had worsened his child’s asthma and had caused his health to deteriorate. He said that he and his child had required hospital admissions which he considered were connected to the condition of the property.
Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of independent medical reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This will be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation as the courts can make legally binding decisions. If the resident wishes to pursue the impact on his health further, he should seek independent legal advice. Where there is evidence of a failing by the landlord, the Ombudsman will still consider distress and inconvenience caused from the landlord’s actions.

Damp and mould and the subsequent repairs

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is our opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, throughout its handling of the repairs to address the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.
As part of the resident’s email to the landlord on 25 October 2022 he outlined the following issues:
1. There were high amounts of humidity and condensation at the property. He needed to keep the windows open frequently and run the central heating constantly to manage the condensation which was causing him to spend a lot of money.
2. There was a lack of insulation in the loft which he considered was contributing to the difficulties heating the property.
3. The pointing around the property was in poor condition.
4. The landlord had unsuccessfully attempted to repair the front door several times previously, it was letting in water and needed to be replaced.
From the available records the resident had not specifically raised concerns about damp and mould in the property before his complaint of 25 October 2022. The landlord said in its response that its area supervisor was out of the office until 7 November 2022 but agreed to speak to them to arrange an inspection and update the resident. There is no evidence that it did this or contacted the resident until after he complained again on 4 January 2023. This delay was unreasonable, in line with its complaint policy it should have carried out the actions it had agreed to resolve his complaint.
The landlord confirmed that it did not have a specific damp and mould policy until May 2023. However, as part of its self-assessment in September 2022 against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould it said it would aim to give residents an appointment for a damp and mould inspection within 5 days of them reporting concerns. In this case the inspection did not take place until 18 January 2023, 82 days after the resident reported concerns. This was inappropriate, as it greatly exceeded its timescales gave no explanation for the delay.
The landlord’s damp and mould inspection on 18 January 2023 noted damp and mould was present across 6 rooms of the property. It made the following findings with recommendations for repairs:
1. The front and rear guttering of the property was cracked at the joints and leaking onto the external walls.
2. There was evidence of cracks in the pointing on the external front wall which was allowing water ingress.
3. The extractor fan in the bathroom was inadequate and needed replacement.
4. The window frames in the living room and second bedroom of the property were damaged and required repairs.
5. The front and rear external doors were in poor condition and allowed water ingress.
6. The loft insulation was inadequate and required an extra layer.
The landlord’s damp and mould inspection report recorded it cleaned and shielded the mould on 18 January 2023. It stated the issue with the insulation was ‘on hold’ but that it would raise repairs to resolve the other findings.
The landlord’s repair logs recorded that it created repair orders for findings a. to d. above on 2 February 2023. This was 5 days longer than its self-assessment on damp and mould which said it would raise any repairs required following an inspection within 10 days.
From the available documentary evidence and what the resident told us, this Service considers the 6 key issues in assessing the landlord’s overall handling of the repairs at the property are how it responded to recommendations a. to f. from the inspection on 18 January 2023. This report will address these in turn.

Repairs to the guttering

The landlord recorded that repairs to the guttering were carried out on 22 February 2023. The repair request stated it was for “front and rear guttering cracked at joints, leaking on walls”. However, it only replaced the clips on the guttering rather than repairing the identified cracked sections.
The resident said in his complaint escalation on 1 March 2023 that replacing the clips on the guttering had not resolved the water ingress and asked the landlord to carry out further repairs. The landlord provided no response to this in its stage 2 response of 4 April 2024.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 28 April 2023. He told it the guttering was still leaking and overflowing. He also said that the contractor that had attended regarding the repointing said that it would need to complete the guttering repairs before the repointing took place. The landlord neither responded to his concerns nor assessed whether it needed to complete further repairs.
There is no evidence that the landlord took any further action until 5 December 2023, when it acknowledged the stage 2 escalation for the resident’s original complaint. Following this it arranged for a second damp and mould inspection to take place on 21 December 2023. This confirmed that the guttering issue was still present and only the clips had been replaced and recommended further repairs. In line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy (which it created in May 2023) it should have monitored whether the damp and mould had resolved following the repairs recommended from its previous inspection. It did not do this, which was inappropriate.
The landlord created a repair order to repair the guttering on 10 January 2024 but cancelled this. Due to a lack of adequate records it is not clear why the repair was cancelled and there is no evidence it communicated with the resident about this.
The landlord created a further repair request on 9 March 2024. From the available records it did not complete this repair until after the resident left the property on 4 June 2024. Thus, the repairs to the guttering of the property were outstanding for the approximately 17 months between its first damp and mould inspection and the end of his tenancy. This was inappropriate, it greatly exceeded its target timescale of 25 days from its repairs policy and did not communicate effectively with the resident about the reason for any delays.

Repointing and cracks to the external walls

The landlord recorded that repairs to repoint the front of the property were completed on 24 February 2023, 37 days after the inspection.
The resident told the landlord on 21 and 27 February 2023 that he was unhappy its contractor had only been instructed to repoint a small area of the property. He said he considered the whole of the external walls needed repointing. As the damp and mould inspection had only recommended the front external wall required repointing it was reasonable for the landlord to act based on this recommendation.
Following the resident escalating his complaint on 1 March 2023 the landlord agreed to conduct a further inspection, which it said was carried out on 14 March 2023. Due to a lack of adequate records there is no copy of the inspection report available. Notwithstanding this both parties agree an inspection took place on this date and the landlord agreed to repointing all the external walls at ground level. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s ongoing concerns about the pointing of the property.
The repointing of the ground floor external walls took place on 25 May 2023, 69 days after the need for repairs was identified. This significantly exceeded the landlord’s 25-day average target for routine repairs.
In addition, as referred to previously, the resident reported at some point before 28 April 2023 the landlord’s contractor had attended to carry out repointing but refused the work as it considered the guttering needed repairing first. There is no evidence of how the landlord responded to this and whether it assessed if the repointing repair would be effective at resolving the damp and mould without the other repair being completed. Following the completion of the repair on 25 May 2023 there is no evidence that it monitored whether damp and mould in the property had been resolved. This was inappropriate, as it was not consistent with its damp and mould policy.
On 27 October 2023 the landlord created a further repair request that the resident had reported that cracks were appearing in the external walls. It closed this repair request as completed on 29 November 2023. Due to a lack of adequate records there is no evidence about what action it took to resolve this repair or what it communicated to him. Though both parties say that the landlord’s insurer inspected the property around 5 December 2023 and found that the cracks were not due to subsidence we have not seen a copy of any records for this.
However, further inspection reports indicate that the issue remained up to February 2024 when the landlord stated it would address it but gave no timescale. Its damp and mould inspection on 21 December 2023 had suggested the cracks could be allowing water ingress. From the available records there is no evidence that the landlord took further action to investigate or repair the cracks in the external walls before the end of his tenancy. This was inappropriate, as it did not act on the recommendations of the damp and mould inspection for a period of around 6 months.

Replacement of the bathroom extractor fan

From the available records the landlord’s contractor was first scheduled to replace the bathroom extractor fan on 29 March 2023. The resident said they did not attend as agreed. The appointment was changed to 17 April 2023, but he said the contractor attended outside the agreed appointment time without notice, so he was not available to provide access. In line with its repair policy the landlord should have agreed a mutually convenient appointment with him and given him sufficient notice if this needed to be changed.
The resident confirmed to the landlord in an email of 28 April 2023 that the extractor fan had been replaced, its repair logs recorded its completion date as 3 May 2023. As such it took around 99 days for it to complete the repair following the inspection. This significantly exceeded its 25-day average target for routine repairs.
Following the second damp and mould inspection on 21 December 2023 the landlord’s contractor reported the extractor fan was no longer working and required repair. The resident told the landlord he was unhappy with the quality of the original work to replace the extractor fan following its second stage 2 response on 9 January 2024. However, we have not seen evidence he told it the extractor fan was not working before the inspection on 21 December 2023.
The landlord recorded it completed the further repair to the extractor fan on 23 February 2024, 61 days after the repair was identified (excluding public holidays). This was inappropriate as it again significantly exceeded its 25-day average target for routine repairs.

Repairs to the window frames

The landlord created a repair request to repair the window frames in the living room and second bedroom on 2 February 2023. The resident said in his complaint escalation on 1 March 2023 its contractors had attended but only carried out repairs to the living room window frame. He complained the contractor told him the landlord had not instructed them to carry out repairs to the second bedroom window frame.
The landlord provided no response to this in its stage 2 response of 4 April 2024 and did not address whether it intended to carry out further repairs to the window frames. This delayed the progress of the repairs.
The landlord closed the window frame repairs as completed on 13 April 2023 but there is no evidence of any further repair being carried out. The resident told it on 14 April 2023 it had not carried out the repairs to the window frame in the second bedroom recommended from the inspection. He requested an explanation for the outstanding repair. There is no evidence the landlord responded to him or assessed if further repairs were required.
As part of the second damp and mould inspection on 21 December 2023 the landlord’s contractor recorded the window in the second bedroom could not be opened. It said the window frame was in poor condition and required repairs. The landlord created a repair order for this on 10 January 2024 but later cancelled it. There is no evidence it communicated with the resident about the reason for this.
On 27 February 2024 the landlord told the resident it had raised a referral to its planned works team to replace window frames across the property. It said the replacement was not on its program of planned work for the financial year 2024-25 and it would add this to the planned works for the following year.
The landlord’s guidance on planned maintenance works says its budget for planned maintenance is set in January of each year. It is consistent with this that it may not have been able to add the replacement of the window frames across the property to its work for financial year 2024-25. However, there is no evidence it considered if it could conduct a separate repair to the window frame in the second bedroom to address the damp and mould in the property. This was unreasonable as the damp and mould inspection had identified a need for the window frame to be repaired.
From the available records the landlord did not conduct any further repairs to the window frames before the resident left the property. As such it did not complete the necessary repairs for approximately 17 months between its first damp and mould inspection and the end of his tenancy.

Replacement of front and rear external doors

Following the original damp and mould inspection on 18 January 2023 the landlord did not raise a repair order for the doors along with the other recommendations. It told the resident on 7 February 2023 it would send a contractor to assess whether the doors were repairable or if it needed to replace these. As the inspection only recommended repairs to the external doors it was reasonable for it to assess if a full replacement would be more effective at resolving damp and mould in the property.
Notwithstanding this there is no evidence that the landlord assessed whether the external doors were repairable until 23 March 2023, when it raised a repair order to replace the doors. This was 64 days after the recommendation to repair the doors was first made. This exceeded its 10-day timescale in place for damp and mould matters at the time. Though it is understandable the further assessment could have delayed its response there is no evidence it considered how it could mitigate the impact on the resident during this time.
The landlord told the resident in its response of 4 April 2023 that it would replace both doors. On 14 April 2023 the landlord’s contractor provided a quote for the work, the landlord closed the repair request as ‘complete no action’ the following day. There is no evidence it took further action on this repair until 2 June 2023 when it said it had brought the repair back in house and would measure up the property. This was unreasonable, if the landlord had decided it was more suitable for it to handle the repair it should have promptly informed the resident of this and taken action to progress the work.
From the available records the landlord completed the replacement of both doors on 21 August 2023, 147 days after it created the repair order. This was inappropriate as it greatly exceeded its target timescale of 25 days from its repairs policy and did not communicate effectively with the resident about the reason for any delays.

Increasing insulation in the loft

Following the original damp and mould inspection on 18 January 2023 the landlord contacted the resident about the recommendation for additional roof insulation on 7 February 2023. It said it did not currently have a loft insulation planned programme, but it would add him onto its waiting list and mark his case as urgent. It also advised that it would need to carry out an asbestos survey for the loft before any work to add insulation took place.
The landlord’s repair policy does not specify improving roof insulation as a repair it would address under this policy. Its guidance on planned maintenance works says it will consider ‘improving thermal efficiency of the roof structure’ as part of planned roofing works. In line with this guidance as its budget for planned maintenance was set in January, it may have not been able to arrange this work for that financial year.
Notwithstanding this, the inspection identified a need for repairs and the resident had described difficulty heating the property. In line with its repair policy the landlord could have assessed if it could mitigate the impact of the inadequate roof insulation whilst it waited for funds to become available. There is no evidence it did this, which was unreasonable.
The landlord’s contractor noted from the second damp and mould inspection on 21 December 2023 the loft insulation was insufficient, and it would raise this as a query with the landlord. From the available records the landlord carried out repairs to encase potential asbestos in the loft in January 2024. Following this it created a repair order on 7 February 2024to increase the insulation in the loft.
From the available records it is unclear whether the landlord created this repair order under its repair policy following the second inspection or as planned maintenance work for the coming financial year. Regardless of this it did not complete the work to add insulation to the loft before the resident left the property on 4 June 2024. This was inappropriate, the landlord had told the resident that it would treat his case as urgent but there is no evidence that it communicated the likely timescales of the repair with him.

Impact of the landlord’s handling of the repairs and redress

The resident told us as a result of the landlord’s handling of the repairs the problems with damp and mould were not resolved for approximately 20 months between his complaint and his household’s decision to leave the property. He said he and his household experienced distress, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of the property. In our view the failings we have seen would have reasonably caused the impact he described.
In line with our guidance on remedies we also consider there were aggravating factors in this case. The resident had informed the landlord at several points throughout the complaint that he was disabled and the property condition aggravated the pain and mobility issues he experienced. He also told the landlord on several occasions that one of his children had severe asthma and he was concerned the damp and mould disproportionately affected their health. We have seen no evidence that the landlord took this into account when handling the repairs, assessed whether the resident or any of his household might be vulnerable residents (in line with its repair policy) or considered if it could mitigate the impact on them. Whilst we cannot comment on whether the landlord’s handling of the repair made the resident’s or his child’s health conditions worse our view is that the impact on the resident in terms of distress and inconvenience was likely to be significant.
Across both of the landlord’s stage 2 responses it accepted that there were delays in carrying out the initial damp and mould inspection and in carrying out repairs to resolve it. It offered the resident a total of £710 across its 2 complaint responses for this aspect of the complaint and the distress and inconvenience caused.
We consider the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the extent of the failings in this case. There were a series of significant failures in the landlord’s handling of the repairs over a long period of time. In our view this had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident and his household and meet the criteria for severe maladministration in line with our guidance on remedies. As such we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional financial remedy.
The landlord provided no explanation of what it would do to reduce the likelihood of similar issues in its handling of the repairs happening to another resident. However, the Ombudsman’s special investigation report in July 2023 into the landlord found it responsible for a series of significant systemic failings affecting residents, including in its handling of damp and mould cases, repairs and vulnerable residents. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including reviewing its vulnerable residents policy, its repair policy and addressing situations where it had failed to follow its repairs policy. The landlord responded to us in September 2024, describing how it had responded to the recommendations from the special investigation report and had made changes to its service. As the events of the current complaint took place before and during the time of our special investigation, no orders or recommendations have been made in this case for the landlord to review its handling of the repairs in addition to those made in the special investigation report.
In summary there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reports of damp and mould and the subsequent repairs in that it:
1. Did not keep adequate records for how it responded to the reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
2. Did not complete a damp and mould inspection for 82 days after the resident first reported concerns.
3. Did not create repair orders in response to the findings of the first damp and mould inspection for 15 days.
4. Did not complete the repairs to the guttering, as recommended by both damp and mould inspections, in the 17-month period between the initial inspection and the end of the resident’s tenancy.
5. Did not complete the further repairs to repoint the property it agreed on 14 March 2023 for 69 days.
6. Did not investigate and repair the cracks in the external walls of the property in the 6-month period between the second damp and mould inspection and the end of the resident’s tenancy.
7. Did not replace the bathroom extractor fan, as recommended from the first damp and mould inspection, for 99 days.
8. Did not repair the bathroom extractor fan, as recommended from the second damp and mould inspection, for 61 days.
9. Did not complete the repairs to the window frame of the second bedroom, as recommended by both damp and mould inspections, in the 17-month period between the initial inspection and the end of the resident’s tenancy.
10. Unreasonably delayed assessing whether the external doors were repairable following the initial damp and mould inspection. Once it decided it should replace them it did not complete this repair for 147 days.
11. Did not assess whether it could mitigate the impact of the inadequate loft insulation in the property whilst it was waiting for funds to carry this out as planned maintenance work.
12. Did not complete the repairs to add insulation to the loft in the 4 months period between it creating a repair order on 7 February 2024 and the end of the resident’s tenancy.
13. Did not take the resident’s reported disability and the vulnerabilities of his household into account throughout its handling of the repairs.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damage to the resident’s personal belongings

The resident first reported that the damp and mould had caused damage to his personal belongings in his complaint of 4 January 2023. The landlord told him in its response of 11 January 2023 that reimbursement for damages to personal belongings is not within the remit of its complaint procedure. It said if he wanted to make an insurance claim, he would need to send this to its insurance team.
The landlord’s response was appropriate as it was consistent with its complaints policy. This said that legal liability, such as insurance claims, are not covered by its complaints policy. It took reasonable action in its response to signpost him to its insurance team and provide details of the type of information that it may need to handle his claim.
From the available evidence the resident did not contact the landlord’s insurance team until 22 February 2024. He continued to contact its complaint team about damage to his personal belongings. It reiterated in its responses of 4 April 2023 and 9 January 2024 that he would need to contact its insurance team.
When the resident contacted the landlord’s insurance team on 22 February 2024, he asked it how he could initiate a claim and what he needed to submit. The landlord responded to him on 26 March 2024 to confirm it had referred the case to its liability insurer for investigation and provide details of how the claim would be handled. The landlord’s insurance claims procedure said that it should respond to all claims in 2 working days. From the available evidence there are no records to explain why it took the landlord 23 working days to respond.
Notwithstanding this there is no evidence to show that this delay affected the outcome of the claim or how the landlord’s insurer handled it. As such the impact of this delay on the resident would be limited to a degree of frustration about not receiving a prompt response. Due to the limited impact we do not consider that this delay is significant enough to constitute a service failing for the purpose of our guidance on remedies.
Overall, we find that the landlord took reasonable action to respond to the resident’s reports of damage to his personal belongings.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service they provide, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and improvement. The version of the Code that was in place during the time of the events complained about was published on 9 March 2022.
As set out previously, following the resident’s initial complaint on 25 October 2022 the landlord responded with its stage 1 complaint on the same day. Though it said it discussed the complaint with him before it issued its response there is no record of this call or how it understood his complaint and the outcome he was seeking. In line with the principles of the Code if the landlord considered it could agree action immediately to resolve the complaint it should have kept suitable records to demonstrate this.
In his complaint on 4 January 2023 the resident explained the landlord had not resolved the issue and asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the complaint process. Rather than opening a stage 2 complaint the landlord opened a different complaint case and issued another stage 1 response on 11 January 2023. It said in this response it would escalate the complaint to stage 2 but it could not provide the resident with a timeframe for when it would be allocated to a stage 2 complaint handler. It claimed that he had agreed to put the escalation on hold until after the inspection, however there is no record of this.
In line with the Code if a complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 then it must be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure unless an exclusion ground applies. A lack of availability of complaint handling staff would not be a valid exclusion ground for not escalating a complaint in line with the Code. If the resident had decided to withdraw his escalation request it would have been reasonable for the landlord to do this, but it should have kept suitable records to show what had been agreed.
The resident made another escalation request to the landlord on 1 March 2023 which it acknowledged on the same day. The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 March 2023 to let him know it would need an extension for issuing its response until 4 April 2023. It said it needed extra time to investigate the reason for the missed contractor appointment the resident reported the previous day.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 April 2023 as it agreed, 24 working days after the resident escalated the complaint. This was reasonable in line with the expectations of the Code. The landlord gave a clear explanation why it would be responding outside of the 20-working day timescale set out in the Code, responded when it said it would and the extension did not exceed 10 days.
The landlord explained that when it completed the remedial work agreed in its stage 2 response from 4 April 2023 it closed the case. However, it said the original complaint reference created on 25 October 2022 remained open due to an administrative error. It said when it called the resident on 17 October 2023, he was not happy for the complaint to be closed so it decided to issue another stage 2 response for the original complaint reference. We have not seen records of the call the landlord referred to. Nonetheless, it proceeded to issue a second stage 2 response on 7 January 2024, 56 working days after it escalated the original complaint reference following its call with the resident.
Regarding the content of the stage 2 response from 7 January 2024 the landlord treated his email from 1 March 2023 as his escalation request for this complaint. In addition, its description of its understanding of the outstanding issues was taken from his email of 4 January 2023 when he first requested for his complaint to be escalated.
In our view the landlord’s decision to reopen the resident’s original complaint from 25 October 2022 demonstrated that its handling of the complaint was confused. It had previously issued a stage 2 response to the resident for the same complaint issues on 4 April 2024. Though it took additional action to respond to the repairs he said were outstanding and offered additional financial remedy its decision to issue another stage 2 response unduly lengthened the handling of the complaint.
Across both of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint responses it accepted there were delays in its handling of the complaint. It offered the resident a total of £300 as compensation for this, provided an explanation for why it had opened 2 separate complaint cases and apologised to the resident for the time taken to respond to his complaint. In the Ombudsman’s view, compared to our guidance on remedies, the actions the landlord took were appropriate to put right the failings we have seen. As such we have made a finding of reasonable redress.
The landlord did not provide an explanation of what it would do to reduce the likelihood of similar complaint handling issues happening to another resident. However, the Ombudsman’s special investigation report in July 2023 into the landlord found it responsible for a series of significant systemic failings affecting residents, including in its complaint handling. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including reviewing its complaint handling performance to bring this in line with the expectations of the Code. The landlord responded to us in September 2024, describing how it had responded to the recommendations from the special investigation report and had made changes to its service. As the events of the current complaint took place before and during the time of our special investigation, no orders or recommendations have been made for the landlord to review its complaint handling in addition to those made in the special investigation report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme:
1. There was severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould and the subsequent repairs.
2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damage to the resident’s personal belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of this determination:
1. Provide a copy of this decision to its executive team and ask it to issue the resident with a written apology. This must recognise the landlord’s failings in addressing the reports of damp, mould and associated repairs and the impact this had on the resident.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,300 (inclusive of the £710 it previously offered) in compensation for the resident’s distress, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of his home caused by its handling of the damp and mould and subsequent repairs to the property.
3. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any monies he may owe the landlord.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pay the resident the £300 it previously offered for the delays in its handling of his complaint if it has not already done so.