From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Peabody Trust (202345786)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345786

Peabody Trust

29 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. The resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows.
    3. The associated complaints.

Background

  1. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a converted house and the resident has had an assured tenancy of the property since July 2006. The landlord has advised us that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s household.
  2. The resident wrote to the landlord in August 2023 to say that he had experienced damp and mould in his property since 2020 and that his windows had not been repaired. He also said that he wanted to be moved due to the property conditions and a lack of space. The resident raised a complaint on 11 October 2023 as he said he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould, the issues with the windows and other repairs.
  3. The landlord sent a stage 1 reply on 22 November 2023 and apologised for the delay in completing repairs to the property, including repairs to the letterbox, windows and main entry phone system. It offered the resident compensation of £350.
  4. During February and March 2024, the resident and his Member of Parliament (MP) wrote to the landlord to say that the landlord’s Surveyor and Neighbourhood Housing Manager had inspected the property in October 2023 but he had not received any updates. He said that the windows needed repairs and there was damp and mould in the kitchen and toilet. The landlord’s Surveyor inspected the property on 5 April 2024. Following this visit, the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP to say the Surveyor had not found any structural issues. However, the landlord said that its Asset Management team would be looking at the condition of the windows for the whole building, not just the resident’s property.
  5. During September to November 2024, the resident continued to report damp, mould and issues with the condition of the windows. He then made a stage 1 complaint about these matters on 8 December 2024. On 16 December 2024, the landlord’s contractor renewed 2 of the 4 windows in the property. The resident contacted the landlord in January 2025 to say he was unhappy about the same contractor entering his property to complete the remaining windows.
  6. The landlord sent a stage 1 reply on 27 January 2025 in which it advised the resident of the following:
    1. A Surveyor had inspected the property in April 2024 and concluded that all of the windows in the property needed to be renewed.
    2. The windows had been added to the landlord’s investment programme for renewal sometime in 2025. However, the windows had been delivered and fitted in December 2024.
    3. The landlord said the resident had refused access to its contractors to identify the outstanding works because he was unhappy with the work carried out by the window renewal contractor.
    4. The landlord said that the outstanding works to the windows and damp and mould would be overseen by its Repairs Coordinator and one of its Surveyors.
    5. It said that once all of the windows had been installed, it would arrange any making good and it would address the reported damp and mould.
    6. The landlord partially upheld the complaint and offered compensation of £450.
  7. The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 January 2025 and said he was unhappy with the stage 1 response as it contained incorrect information. He requested the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 and said he should receive compensation for the trauma and stress his family had experienced. He also wrote to the landlord on 3 February 2025 to add that he had experienced disrepair for the past three and a half years, including issues with the windows, water ingress and smells from birds’ droppings entering the property.
  8. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 24 March 2025 in which it stated the following:
    1. It had reviewed the stage 1 response and found the information it gave in the response had been correct at the time.
    2. The resident had refused access for the landlord to renew the remaining windows.
    3. The landlord said it had written to the resident on 29 January 2025 requesting access to complete the window renewals but had not yet received a response.
    4. The landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in responding to the stage 1 and 2 complaints. It was therefore offering an additional £50 compensation to recognise the complaint handling failures, so the total compensation offer was now £500.
  9. During April 2025, the resident and his MP continued to write to the landlord regarding the condition of the property and requested urgent rehousing. The resident contacted us on 8 May 2025 to say there was damp and mould throughout the property and there were still issues with the windows.
  10. The resident advised us on 7 August 2025 that he had agreed an appointment for the windows to be renewed by a different contractor on 27 and 28 August 2025.However, he said he had asked the landlord for temporary housing as the works were due to take place over a 2-day period. The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 August 2025 to say that it wanted to schedule the installation of the remaining windows but its policy was not to offer temporary rehousing for window installations.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 February 2025 and said that his wife had suffered a miscarriage because of the stress and trauma caused by the property conditions. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent advice if he wishes to pursue this option.
  2. The resident advised the landlord on various occasions that he wanted to be rehoused due to his concerns about the property condition. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response. In this case, the resident’s request for rehousing did not form part of his stage 2 complaint and was not covered in the landlord’s stage 2 reply. Therefore, we consider it is fair and reasonable not to investigate the matters relating to the resident’s request for rehousing.
  3. In terms of rehousing requests more generally, we would not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing.
  4. We have received information showing events that took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 24 March 2025. As previously stated, it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by us as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.
  5. The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 December 2024 and on other occasions to say that the landlord had discriminated against him. While we can consider whether the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable, we are unable to make a legal finding of discrimination. This would be a matter for the courts to determine, where appropriate evidence could be interrogated and the relevant legislation applied to the circumstances. If the resident believes he has been unlawfully discriminated against, he may wish to seek independent legal advice or contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission for further information on his options.
  6. The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 August 2023 and said he had experienced disrepair issues in the property since 2020. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on events from August 2023 onwards when the resident wrote to the landlord to report damp, mould and issues with the windows. Reference to the events that occurred prior to this is made in this report to provide context.

 

 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are potential hazards and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 August 2023 and said that the landlord had carried out mould treatment in 2022, but the mould had now returned. The resident’s MP also wrote to the landlord on 13 September 2023 to report that there was mould in the property. The landlord’s records state that a Surveyor attended the property on 20 October 2023. Its records state that the resident was unavailable to provide access prior to October 2023 due to work commitments. It was reasonable for the landlord to have attended the property on 20 October 2023 to accommodate the resident’s availability.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 November 2023 in response to a complaint he had submitted on 12 October 2023 regarding various matters, including damp and mould. However, the landlord’s response did not mention the reported damp and mould, even though the resident had clearly raised this as part of his complaint. As the landlord’s Surveyor had inspected the property on 20 October 2023, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not use the complaint response to outline the findings from the inspection and set out any proposed action it intended to take in relation to the reported damp and mould.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 February 2024 and stated that he had not received any updates following the inspection in October 2023. He said there was damp and mould in the toilet and kitchen. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not contacted the resident in relation to the reported damp and mould since the inspection in October 2023. The resident said that the damp and mould and other repair issues were affecting his family’s health.
  5. The landlord’s records state that it had arranged to carry out mould treatment on 7 March 2024, but it had not been able to contact the resident to confirm the appointment. The landlord then raised an order on 13 March 2024 to carry out the mould treatment and spoke to the resident to book the appointment. However, the landlord’s repairs log states that the resident refused to agree an appointment for the mould treatment because he wanted the landlord to carry out a structural survey. As the resident had contacted the landlord in February 2024 to request an update regarding the damp and mould, it was reasonable that the landlord had attempted to carry out mould treatment. This would have helped to reduce any immediate risks posed by the reported mould.
  6. The landlord spoke to the resident on 13 March 2024 and agreed with him that a Surveyor would inspect the property on 5 April 2024. As the resident had continued to report damp, mould and other issues including issues with the windows, it was reasonable that the landlord had arranged a further inspection by a Surveyor. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not acted on the findings from the October 2023 inspection to identify the causes of any damp/mould, nor had it discussed the findings with the resident.
  7. The Surveyor inspected the property on 5 April 2024 and found that the condition of the windows was causing mould to develop around all of the windows. The Surveyor referred the matter to the landlord’s Asset Management team to consider replacement of the windows (the landlord’s handling of the window issues is considered in more detail below). The Surveyor confirmed there were no structural issues found and his report stated there were no HHSRS risks present.
  8. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings from its Surveyor that there were no HHSRS risks, which would include potential hazards caused by damp and mould. It was also reasonable to rely on his findings that there were no structural issues causing damp and mould and that the main issue to be addressed was the condition of the windows.
  9. The resident spoke to the landlord on 9 September 2024 and advised that there was damp and mould in the property. The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day and confirmed that it had booked an appointment for a Surveyor to inspect the property on 23 September 2024. However, on 25 September 2024, the resident phoned the landlord to advise that the Surveyor had not attended the appointment. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not attended the agreed appointment on 23 September 2024 to inspect the damp and mould, particularly as the landlord had noted on 9 September 2024 that the resident had a vulnerable daughter.
  10. The landlord wrote to the resident’s MP on 11 November 2024 and said mould treatment had been carried out on 24 October 2024. However, the resident’s MP replied on 18 November 2024 and disputed this. He said the resident had advised that the mould treatment had not been done. The landlord’s Surveyor inspected the property again on 22 November 2024 and confirmed that mould treatment was needed in the living room and kitchen. He said that a section of wallpaper would need to be removed as it was mouldy. Therefore, in the absence of any substantive evidence showing the landlord had carried out the mould treatment on 24 October 2024, we have concluded that the treatment was not done. It was unreasonable that the landlord had advised the MP that mould treatment had been carried out when it had not been done.
  11. The landlord’s records and internal emails sent during September to November 2024 show that the landlord’s Surveyor had concluded that the cause of the damp and mould in the property was the condition of the windows, which needed to be renewed. The landlord’s handling of the replacement of the windows is assessed below. However, given the reported vulnerability of the resident’s daughter, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not carry out mould treatment during this period while it was waiting to schedule the renewal of the windows.
  12. The Surveyor noted during his inspection on 22 November 2024 that there was no risk posed to the resident under the HHSRS. It was reasonable that the Surveyor had inspected the property to assess whether the resident and his family were at risk from damp and mould or other potential hazards. Having carried out the inspection, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the Surveyor’s risk assessment.
  13. The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 December 2024 following the Surveyor’s inspection and said it needed to carry out mould treatment. It said it proposed to do this on 17 December 2024 after it had installed new windows. As the landlord now had a definite date for the installation of the new windows, it was reasonable that it had scheduled the mould treatment to take place immediately after the installation. This would ensure it had dealt with the cause of the damp and mould prior to the mould treatment.
  14. The resident replied on 8 December 2024 and said the damp and mould in the property was more widespread than the landlord had indicated. He said he would therefore be taking legal action against the landlord. In response, the landlord said it would arrange for an inspection by an independent damp and mould Surveyor. As the resident had continued to dispute the landlord’s findings regarding the extent of the damp and mould, it was reasonable for the landlord to obtain an independent second opinion.
  15. The independent Surveyor inspected the property on 13 December 2024 and said there was visible mould in the bathroom caused by condensation, signs of damp and cracking in the bedroom, mould in the kitchen on the walls/ceiling and visible damp and mould on the living room walls/windows. The Surveyor also said the extractor fan in the kitchen was not working and the fan in the bathroom was not working correctly.
  16. The landlord replaced 2 of the 4 windows in the property on 16 December 2024. During January and February 2025, the resident advised the landlord that he was unwilling to allow the contractor access to complete the remaining windows due to concerns about the standard of work and his request to be rehoused. As previously stated, the landlord’s handling of the window renewals is assessed below. However, as a result of the access issues, the landlord did not proceed with the damp and mould works it had scheduled. In our view, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to delay the damp and mould works at this stage. It had identified the condition of the windows as the primary cause of the damp/mould and was seeking access to complete the window installations.
  17. The landlord’s Surveyor inspected the property again on 24 January 2025 and noted there were no HHSRS risks. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 29 January and 3 February 2025 and left a voicemail message to say it needed access to install the remaining 2 windows so it could then carry out the damp and mould works. It was reasonable that the landlord had attended the property on 24 January 2025 to assess the risks to the family and had written to the resident to explain that access was needed so the window installations could be completed and the damp and mould works could then be carried out.
  18. The landlord’s repairs log shows that it raised an order on 31 January 2025 regarding condensation and mould. The entry states that on 14 February 2025, the landlord offered mould treatment and the resident refused this. As the completion of the window installations had been delayed, it was reasonable that the landlord had offered to carry out mould treatment. This would address any immediate risks caused by the presence of mould.
  19. In summary, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould:
    1. The landlord did not use its complaint response on 22 November 2023 to outline its findings from the Surveyor’s inspection carried out on 20 October 2023.
    2. Apart from arranging mould treatment in March 2024, the landlord did not act on the findings from the October 2023 inspection in relation to damp and mould nor communicate the findings to the resident.
    3. The landlord failed to attend the pre-arranged appointment to inspect the property on 23 September 2024.
    4. The landlord incorrectly advised the resident’s MP that mould treatment had been carried out on 24 October 2024 when this had not been done.
    5. Despite the reported vulnerability of the resident’s daughter, the landlord did not attempt to carry out any mould treatment during September to November 2024 while it was arranging the renewal of the windows.
  20. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  21. In this case, the landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint in its stage 1 reply and accepted there had been missed appointments and failure to carry out timely inspections from September 2024 to January 2025. It awarded compensation of £450 for this period, which it said was for missed appointments and its failure to carry out timely inspections. £250 of this was for distress and inconvenience and £200 for time and trouble. However, it did not break the figure down in terms of its handling of damp and mould and its handling of the resident’s concerns about the windows.
  22. The lack of a breakdown of the compensation offer has made it more difficult to assess the offer against each element of the resident’s complaint. However, based on the failings we have identified in relation to the reported damp and mould, we do not consider the landlord has provided appropriate and proportionate financial redress to put things right. The resident spent considerable time and effort reporting damp and mould and he was particularly concerned about the impact of the damp and mould on his vulnerable daughter.
  23. We have therefore found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould because:
    1. The landlord’s failings caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who wrote on various occasions to say he was particularly concerned about the safety of his young, vulnerable daughter.
    2. The landlord did not adequately use the complaints process to acknowledge its failings in terms of the handling of damp and mould, particularly in relation to the events that occurred before September 2024.
    3. The landlord’s offer of financial redress did not, in our view, put things right.
    4. In terms of learning, the stage 1 response was not specific enough. It simply said that the landlord would improve communication and how it dealt with the resident’s concerns. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to use the complaints process to improve its services.
  24. Based on the impact of the damp and mould, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £300 to put things right in relation to its handling of the reported damp and mould. The sum takes into account the landlord’s attempts to carry out mould treatment on different occasions, which were declined by the resident.
  25. The amount ordered is in line with our Remedies Guidance for cases where we have found there was maladministration due to failures that adversely affected the resident. The sum is also in the range of financial redress suggested in the landlord’s Compensation Policy for situations where the resident has experienced disruption due to service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows

  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 structure includes windows, frames, sashes, cords & essential window furniture.
  2. The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 August 2023 and said that the windows needed repairing. The landlord’s records state that it had been attempting to access the property during September 2023 to assess the windows but the resident was unavailable until October 2023 due to work commitments. The landlord’s Surveyor inspected the property on 20 October 2023, which was a reasonable timescale give the resident’s lack of availability.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 November 2023 and said it understood the windows had now been repaired. However, we have not seen any evidence in the landlord’s repairs log or elsewhere that it had repaired the windows. It was unreasonable that the landlord had said to the resident the windows had been repaired when this had not been the case. It showed poor record keeping on the part of the landlord and a lack of adequate investigation before responding to the resident.
  4. The resident wrote to the landlord on19 February 2024 and said the windows had not been repaired and he had not received any feedback since the Surveyor’s inspection in October 2023. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not contacted the resident in relation to the windows since the October 2023 inspection. The resident said the windows were unsafe and were affecting his family’s health. His email showed that he was frustrated by the landlord’s suggestion that the windows had been repaired.
  5. Following contact from the resident’s MP and further contact from the resident during February and March 2024, the landlord arranged to inspect the property on 5 April 2024. As the resident had continued to report issues with the windows, it was reasonable that the landlord had arranged a further inspection by a Surveyor. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not acted on the findings from the October 2023 inspection to identify whether the windows needed to be replaced and/or needed repairs.
  6. The landlord agreed with the resident on 13 March 2024 that a Surveyor would inspect the property on 5 April 2024. However, on 19 March 2024, the bottom rail of the small kitchen window came loose and fell down. The landlord’s emergency out of hours service attended and boarded up the window, which was appropriate to ensure the window was secure.
  7. The landlord’s Surveyor attended as arranged on 5 April 2024 and found that the condition of the windows was causing mould to develop around all of the windows and, according to the Surveyor, the windows were rotten. The Surveyor referred the matter to the landlord’s Asset Management team to consider replacement of the windows. He also confirmed there were no structural issues found and his report stated there were no HHSRS risks present. It was appropriate for the Surveyor to have considered whether there were any immediate risks under the statutory hazards included in the HHSRS. Having carried out the risk assessment, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its Surveyor.
  8. The resident’s MP wrote to him on 20 May 2024 to pass on information received from the landlord regarding the windows. The MP confirmed that the landlord’s Asset Management team was considering what action to take regarding the windows. It planned to carry out a stock condition survey to look at the windows for the whole block, including the resident’s property. At this stage, having carried out an inspection on 5 April 2024, it was reasonable that the landlord wanted to consider the condition of all windows in the block. The windows for the other properties were likely to be in similar condition and it was reasonable for the landlord’s Asset Management team to consider the renewal of the windows as part of a planned programme of works, which would be more cost efficient.
  9. The resident wrote to us on 10 July 2024 and contacted the landlord on 5 September 2024 to report his concerns about the condition of the windows. He said that one of the windows had been boarded up and no one had returned to repair the window. Although the landlord had been considering replacing the windows in the resident’s property as part of a planned programme, it was unreasonable that the resident’s kitchen window had been boarded up since March 2024. In failing to repair the window within a reasonable timescale, the landlord had failed in its obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act to keep the window in repair.
  10. The landlord wrote to the resident’s MP on 9 October 2024 and said it had been trying to contact the resident to explain that it had scheduled the property in the next available window replacement programme in 2025. During October and November 2024, the landlord obtained quotes to replace all of the windows in the property. As the landlord had decided to replace the windows as part of a planned programme, it was reasonable for it to obtain quotes in order to secure value for money. The landlord advised the resident on 18 November 2024 that delivery of the windows was expected during the first week of December 2024. This was a reasonable timescale given that the landlord was obtaining quotes during October and November 2024, selecting the successful contractor and then the contractor had to arrange for the windows to be manufactured.
  11. The Surveyor visited the property on 22 November 2024 to assess whether the windows could be replaced while the resident remained in the property. The Surveyor concluded that it was unnecessary to rehouse the resident temporarily while the works were carried out. He also recorded that there were no HHSRS risks. The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 December 2024 confirming that the work would be carried out without needing to rehouse the family.
  12. As the replacement of the windows was likely to be disruptive for the family, it was reasonable that the landlord’s Surveyor had visited the property to assess whether they could remain in the property during the works. It was also reasonable that the Surveyor had assessed whether there were any risks under the HHSRS. Having carried out the assessment, the landlord was entitled to rely on the Surveyor’s findings and advice.
  13. The contractor attended on 16 December 2024 and replaced 2 of the 4 windows in the property. The contractor’s notes (written on 17 December 2024) stated that the resident had advised the contractor that it could not stay late to complete the work because his child had to sleep. The contractor added that it had intended to send 4 or 5 operatives to carry out the work. However, the resident had refused the contractor’s suggestion to send this many operatives as he was concerned about the cramped conditions within the property. The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 January 2025 and said he would not allow the contractor access to finish the work. He said the contractor had created a great deal of mess within the property while installing the windows, had failed to clear up and in his view had installed the windows incorrectly.
  14. The landlord’s Surveyor inspected the property on 24 January 2025 and explained to the resident’s wife that any making good around the windows would be done after all of the windows had been installed. The landlord’s records state that the Surveyor had deemed the windows to have been installed to the required quality.
  15. We are not in a position to make findings about the quality of the works, the methods used by the contractor or whether the contractor cleared up afterwards. Such matters require on-site inspections and knowledge of the contract specifications and method statements. However, we have considered whether the landlord adequately investigated the resident’s concerns about the quality of the work and the contractor’s actions. We have concluded that it was reasonable for the Surveyor to have attended the property in January 2025 to inspect the quality of the works carried out and to determine whether there were any ongoing risks to the family. Having done so, in our view the landlord was entitled to rely on his findings and advice.
  16. As previously stated, the landlord wrote to the resident on 29 January and 3 February 2025 and left a voicemail message to say it needed access to install the remaining 2 windows. This was reasonable as the landlord had investigated the resident’s concerns about the quality of the work and needed access to finish installing the remaining windows. The landlord had also confirmed to the resident that the work could be carried out without temporarily rehousing the family.
  17. In summary, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows:
    1. The landlord incorrectly stated to the resident in November 2023 that the windows had been repaired. This caused the resident further frustration and indicated poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
    2. The landlord did not act on the findings from its October 2023 inspection of the windows nor provide any feedback of the findings to the resident.
    3. The landlord did not carry out repairs to the boarded-up kitchen window while it was considering whether to replace the windows. This meant that the window had remained boarded-up for about 9 months when the landlord began installing the new windows on 16 December 2024.
  18. We have again used our Dispute Resolution Principles to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint in its stage 1 reply and accepted there had been missed appointments and failure to carry out timely inspections from September 2024 to January 2025. It awarded compensation of £450 for this period. However, as previously stated, it did not break the figure down in relation to its handling of damp and mould and its handling of the resident’s concerns about the windows.
  19. Given the failings we have identified in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about windows, we do not consider the landlord has provided appropriate and proportionate financial redress to put things right. The resident spent considerable time and effort chasing the landlord for it to carry out repairs or renewal of the windows. The resident advised the landlord about his concerns regarding the safety of the windows, particularly as he had a young, vulnerable daughter. The resident’s correspondence shows that his concerns about the safety of the windows in relation to his daughter’s vulnerability added to his distress.
  20. We have therefore found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows because:
    1. The landlord’s failings caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who wrote on various occasions to express his concerns about the windows, including that part of a window had fallen down, one window had been boarded up for months and he had concerns about the safety of his daughter due to the condition of the windows.
    2. The landlord did not use the complaints process to adequately acknowledge its failings in terms of its handling of the resident’s concerns about the windows.
    3. The landlord’s offer of financial redress did not, in our view, put things right.
    4. As stated previously, the stage 1 response was not specific enough about learning from outcomes to enable it to use the complaints process to improve its services.
  21. Based on the impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £400 in relation to its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows. The sum is in line with our Remedies Guidance for cases where we have found there was maladministration due to failures that adversely affected the resident. The sum is also in the range of financial redress suggested in the landlord’s Compensation Policy for situations where the resident has experienced disruption due to service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

  1. The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages: stage 1 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt and responded to within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. Stage 2 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days of the escalation request and responses are sent within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. At both stages of the process, the timescale for responding may be extended as long as the landlord provides an explanation to the resident and a timeframe for when the response will be sent. The extension should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
  2. The policy states that all requests for escalation to stage 2 must be received within 10 working days of receiving the stage 1 response.
  3. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 11 October 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 12 October 2023, which was appropriate as it was within the 5-working day timescale in its policy. The landlord then sent its stage 1 reply on 22 November 2023, which was 29 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The time taken by the landlord to respond to the complaint was inappropriate as it was not in line with its policy. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
  4. The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 December 2024 and expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his reports of damp and mould and his concerns about the condition of the windows. Although the landlord acknowledged the email on 11 December 2024, we have not seen any evidence that it logged the email as a formal complaint. For example, the acknowledgement did not make it clear it was dealing with the matter as a stage 1 complaint. It was inappropriate that the landlord had not logged the resident’s email as a complaint as it had clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of ongoing matters.
  5. The resident sent a further email on 23 December 2024 expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his reports of damp and mould and the condition of the windows. Again, although the landlord acknowledged the email on 30 December 2024, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord logged the email as a formal complaint. This was inappropriate as the resident had once again made it clear he was dissatisfied with the service received from the landlord.
  6. Following contact from the resident, we wrote to the landlord on 20 January 2025 and requested the landlord to either issue a complaint response or explain to the resident why it had not accepted the complaint. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 27 January 2025. It had therefore sent the response within an appropriate timescale after receiving our letter.
  7. Although the landlord had previously sent a stage 1 reply in November 2023, this had been over a year earlier. Therefore, in our view it was reasonable for the landlord to issue a further stage 1 reply, rather than escalating the matter to stage 2.
  8. The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 February 2025 and requested it to escalate his complaint. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 25 February 2025, which was 16 working days after receiving the resident’s escalation request. The time taken to acknowledge the complaint was inappropriate as it did not comply with the landlord’s Complaints Policy. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 24 March 2025, which was 19 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. The landlord therefore sent its stage 2 reply within an appropriate timescale, which was in line with its policy.
  9. Overall, we have found that the landlord failed to comply fully with its Complaints Policy because:
    1. It did not respond to the resident’s complaint dated 11 October 2023 within an appropriate timescale.
    2. The landlord did not log the resident’s emails dated 8 and 23 December 2024 as formal complaints, even though he had expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s services.
    3. It did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint dated 3 February 2025 within an appropriate timescale.
  10. The landlord apologised in the stage 2 reply for failing to comply with its Complaints Policy and offered the resident compensation of £50. Given the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, it was right for the landlord to apologise and offer financial redress. However, we do not consider the landlord’s offer of compensation to have been proportionate to reflect the inconvenience to the resident caused by the landlord’s failure to comply fully with its policy. The resident had to write to the landlord and to us on various occasions to progress his complaints and he experienced delays during the process. Furthermore, we have not seen any evidence of learning to show that the landlord identified what went wrong and how it would prevent a reoccurrence. We would expect the landlord to have considered this as part of the complaints process.
  11. We have made a finding of service failure, because in our view the landlord made an offer of compensation which was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. We have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £150 to the resident, making a total of £200 compensation for its complaints handling. In our view, this reflects the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to comply fully with its Complaints Policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Written to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid the resident a total of £900 compensation, which includes the £450 already offered. The total compensation is comprised of:
      1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of the reported damp and mould.
      2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in relation to its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows.
      3. £200 for the inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident due to delays and other failures in its handling of the associated complaints.
    3. Written to the resident setting out a schedule for completing the remaining installation of the windows, making good any damage and carrying out any necessary work to address the damp and mould in the property.
    4. Shared this report with relevant staff and emphasised the need to carry out any essential repairs to windows while waiting for major works.