One Housing Group Limited (202412125)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202412125

One Housing Group Limited

20 March 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 response to the resident’s:
1. reports of water ingress, damp, and outstanding repairs.
2. complaint.
This report has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom maisonette, which she has occupied since December 2020. She is an assured tenant of the landlord.
On 12 April 2023 the landlord raised works to repair an underground leak from the water supply pipe, which was causing water ingress to the property. The exact date is unclear but the landlord attended in August 2023 to fix the leak. Following this, it raised further remedial works to repair the water damaged flooring, which it completed on 20 December 2023.
On 19 February 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report that, when it rained, water entered through the extractor fan in the bathroom and onto the wall. She told it that she considered this was a potential fire hazard. The landlord raised an emergency repair and attended on the same day. It found that water was leaking onto the external wall from the downpipe guttering. The landlord raised a routine repair on 20 February 2024 for its contractor to clear the guttering.
On 22 February 2024, the resident raised a complaint because:
1. she was unhappy about the amount of time it took the landlord to complete remedial works after it had fixed a leak.
2. a surveyor was booked for 5 December 2023 to check for possible rising damp in her front bedroom but did not attend.
3. it had built a “partition wall” as a temporary measure but this had not resolved the damp problem.
4. she had told the landlord that her bath needed replacing, however it had ignored her request.
5. nobody had visited to check the completed works. The operatives had not used stain block and there were loose plug sockets.
6. rainwater had entered the bathroom through the extractor fan. It was “coming through the electrics”, which was “extremely hazardous to health”. Operatives had told her the fan needed replacing.
7. on 14 December 2023 she had reported that her kitchen shutter was “hanging off”. She was yet to hear when the landlord would attend to repair it.
Operatives visited the property on 11 March 2024 to clear the blocked gutters and install a new downpipe connector.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 28 February 2024. On 28 May 2024, it sent the resident its stage 1 response. It extended its sincere apologies for the “poor service and inconvenience” caused and provided a summary of the repairs it had carried out. It also stated that:
1. It had raised a job on 26 March 2024 to repair faulty plug sockets in the resident’s kitchen and bedroom. It had booked the works for 8 April 2024 but had not been able to contact her via her mobile phone. It had therefore sent her an email asking her to get in touch.
2. It offered her £350 compensation broken down as:
  1. £50 for the delay in responding to her stage 1 complaint.
  2. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by delays in completing repairs.
The records show that, on 28 May 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The landlord has not provided us with a copy of her request. However, it summarised her ongoing concerns in its stage 2 response. These were that:
1. since her stage 1 complaint, the landlord had not been in contact with her to arrange an appointment for carrying out the remaining works.
2. There was continued water ingress, which was worsening the damp and mould in her bedroom.
3. She wanted it to complete the repairs and provide an apology.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 1 July 2024 and upheld the resident’s complaint. It stated that:
1. In December 2023, its contractors attended to carry out work to resolve the damp issues. However, the wall was so damp that it had stopped the until it carried out a damp survey.
2. The inspection never took place. However, in January 2024, it had installed a vapour barrier and thermal board to the external bedroom wall. This was so it could “improve the thermal performance” of the bedroom.
3. It was sorry the thermal board did not resolve the issue that it needed to carry out further work to resolve the damp.
4. It would carry out a damp survey on 2 July 2024 and raise any necessary repairs.
5. It would contact her on 9 July 2024 to discuss the progress of the repairs. On 16 July 2024 it would then provide her with a further update from its damp and mould team.

It also:

apologised that its initial work had failed to resolve the damp in her home.
made an increased offer of compensation, broken down as:
1. £350 it had offered at stage 1.
2. £100 for the distress caused by returning damp following installation of the thermal boarding.
3. £50 in recognition of its poor communication.

The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 17 July 2024. She stated that the landlord had carried out a damp survey. However since then, it had failed to meet the commitment it made in its stage 2 response to contact her. It had also failed to address other outstanding repairs such as the plug sockets and her broken kitchen shutter. On 2 August 2024, the resident wrote to the landlord to confirm that operatives had attended to repair the plug sockets and carry out a mould wash. The resident informed us on 11 March 2025 that a number of repairs remain outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Legal and policy framework

In line with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the tenancy agreement places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord is responsible for repairs to drains, gutters, external pipes, the roof, as well as floors, ceilings, and external and internal walls. Landlords are required to repair a housing defect “within a reasonable amount of time”. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency. However, we expect landlords to communicate any delays it experiences and consider how it can lessen the impact of any delays.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Act 2004 to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties, informed by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard. Therefore the landlord needs to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure the property is “fit for human habitation” In line with section 10 of the same act, this also includes ventilation.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy lists its minimum service standards, which include:
1. completing inspections where required, to determine the nature of the repair.
2. completing repairs on the first visit, wherever possible.
3. meeting repairs obligations set out in the tenancy agreement.
4. using “a range of communication tools” during and after booking a repair.
The same policy sets out 3 categories of responsive repair. The landlord will respond to emergency repairs within 4 hours and will “attend to and make safe” within 12 hours. This includes damaged or failing electrical wiring or lighting, and anything that may present an immediate health and safety risk. It completes urgent repairs within 5 calendar days, and routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy sets out a number of principles and responsibilities. These include:
1. carrying out investigations to determine the cause of damp and condensation and carry out remedial repairs in accordance with its repairs policy.
2. ensuring residents have access to and are provided with comprehensive advice and guidance on managing and controlling damp and condensation.
3. making reasonable attempts to access the property to inspect and carry out works. All logged repairs must have evidence of at least 3 attempts to contact the resident. Written communication must then be provided asking them to contact it to arrange a new repair.
4. undertaking effective investigations and implementing all reasonable repair solutions and improvements to eliminate damp.
5. ensuring the fabric of its properties is protected from deterioration and damage resulting from damp, mould, and condensation.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a 2 stage process. It will:
1. Acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 3 working days.
2. Send a stage 1 response within 10 working days.
3. Contact residents within 3 working days of an escalation requests to clarify the details of their complaint.
4. Send a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (Code) states that any extensions to timescales must not exceed 10 working days at stage 1, or 20 at stage 2, without good reason. Landlords must clearly explain to residents the reasons for requiring an extension.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for discretionary payments depending on the impact of failings on the resident. It will pay £50-£200 for minor distress and inconvenience caused, and £200-£500 for medium impact including failure to follow the complaints policy. In recognition of serious failures in service and high impact on the resident, it will pay between up to £1000.

Reports of water ingress, damp and outstanding repairs

The resident’s comments in relation to the conditions within the property are noted. It is not our role to reach a decision about the extent of the damp itself, or any associated mould. Instead, we will consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This report will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action, and followed good practice.
In line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on ‘Damp and Mould’ (published in October 2021), we expect landlords to take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and ensure their responses are timely and reflect the urgency of the situation. The landlord should communicate effectively, share the outcome of surveys, and act on recommendations by surveyors in a timely manner.
The same report recommends that landlords should implement a risk-based approach with respect to damp and mould. There is no evidence the landlord carried out any kind of risk assessment to establish the extensiveness and seriousness of the issue in a timely manner. It should be able demonstrate that it has reasonably considered the risks of damp and mould to residents and properties at an early stage. This would help it promptly determine the urgency of any necessary repairs.
In response to our request for evidence, the landlord provided limited records. We have not been provided with any contemporaneous repair logs or inspection reports. In addition, communication records are limited. It is unknown whether this evidence does exist, and if the landlord has failed to provide it, or if the landlord failed to keep appropriate records. Nevertheless, it has been difficult for us to establish what steps the landlord took to address the outstanding repairs.
The evidence suggests there were a number of factors that contributed to the damp issues the resident had reported. The resident had made the landlord aware of water ingress to her property that was causing her flooring to lift. It is unclear when she first reported the issue or when the landlord carried out an initial investigation. However, it is evident it had raised works on 12 April 2023 to repair a leak to an underground water pipe situated outside the resident’s front door.
The records do not show what date the landlord fixed the leak, but they indicate that its contractor had carried out the repair sometime in August 2023. This means it took the landlord around 5 months to respond to the leak, which was excessively outside its 28 day timescale for routine repairs. The landlord has not provided any explanation for why it could not have repaired the leak any sooner. We have therefore not seen any evidence that the delay was unavoidable. The delay represents a significant departure from the landlord’s repairs policy and left the resident to experience the impacts of ongoing water ingress, and resulting damp in the property for longer than necessary.
After fixing the leak, the landlord raised a follow on repair to the flooring that had been damaged by water ingress. This was appropriate. However, those works did not take place until 20 December 2023, around 4 months later. This was a further significant delay outside of the landlord’s timescale for completing routine repairs.
That the landlord took over 8 months to address the leak and then repair the damaged floor was a failing. Its failure to meet its repair obligations caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience. This is because she had to wait for an excessive amount of time for outstanding repairs to be addressed. Furthermore, the landlord has been unable to provide a reasonable explanation as to why the repairs were not completed in line with its policy.
It is accepted that contractors might not be able to complete works as quickly as they would like. This can be due to several factors, including capacity issues or periods where they are busy, and their services are therefore stretched. The landlord has not provided us with any correspondence it had with its contractors about the repairs, or evidence it made efforts to ensure delays were kept to a minimum.
Landlords should ensure they are appropriately resourced and that service agreements with contractors enable it to complete repairs in line with their policies. Furthermore, given that a significant part of the property appears to have been affected by damp and mould, the landlord should have made greater efforts to prioritise the works. If it was unable to do so, it should have explained why it could not have provided earlier dates. That the landlord could not demonstrate it made reasonable efforts to ensure the works were completed within its timescale, or that it had communicated effectively with the resident was a failing. This meant the landlord’s enjoyment of her property was negatively affected by damp and mould for longer than necessary.
The landlord has provided limited records of any further repairs or attendances to the property between December 2023 and February 2024. However, the evidence suggests the works it had carried out had not resolved the damp issue. It also suggests that the main room that continued to be affected was the bedroom. Furthermore, there is evidence that contractors had advised the landlord to check for potential rising damp. However, it is unclear when it was made aware of this.
As the landlord has not provided copies of any inspection reports, it is difficult to establish what findings or recommendations contractors had made following visits to the site. When assessing reports of damp and mould, we expect to see evidence that the landlord completed a damp assessment using professional tools such as a moisture meter. This is in order to establish the underlying cause of the problems experienced within a property and the exact location of any defects, which may contribute to the spread of damp.
We acknowledge that it can take more than one attempt to resolve damp and mould as it may be difficult to identify the cause of the problem at the outset. However, a landlord should assess all possible causes of damp as quickly as possible, including leaks, rising damp, penetrating damp, and condensation, to gain a clear understanding of the problem and offer an effective remedy.
The landlord had intended to carry out a damp inspection following works it completed in December 2023, however; this did not take place. It has not provided any explanation for why it had failed to inspect the property as planned. Its damp and mould policy states that one of its responsibilities is carrying out investigations to determine the cause of damp and condensation. That it failed to do so was a departure from its policy. It left the resident with ongoing damp and mould, without any indication of the cause or any reassurance the landlord was taking reasonable steps to resolve the problem.
However, in its stage 2 response, it explained that, around January 2024, it had installed vapour barrier and thermal boarding to the external wall adjacent to the bedroom. It was intended that this would prevent damp penetrating into the bedroom. In the absence of any inspection reports or repair logs, it is unclear what date this work took place or why the landlord decided on this option. Its efforts to try and insulate the bedroom wall and reduce damp are noted. However, the records show the thermal boarding had ultimately failed to resolve the problem.
The landlord failed to take reasonable steps to carry out a proper damp inspection and diagnose the source of the damp at an earlier stage. This caused the resident the ongoing disruption of further visits and works, and the distress and inconvenience caused by ongoing damp and mould in her property.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that it had arranged a damp survey for 2 July 2024. It is understood this did take place. However, it should not have taken the resident complaining before it arranged a survey that should have taken place 6 months earlier. Furthermore, although it had committed in its response to update the resident on 9 and 16 July 2024, it failed to do this. The significant delay in carry out a damp survey, and its consistently poor communication added to the resident’s ongoing frustration about the landlord’s lack of progress in addressing the problem. The landlord’s repeated failings caused the resident distress and inconvenience over a long period of time while she had to continually prompt it to take appropriate action.
The resident made a further report of water ingress on 19 February 2024. Records indicate that rainwater was overflowing the guttering, entering through the resident’s bathroom extractor fan, and affecting her wall. The landlord raised an emergency repair and attended on the same day. It then completed works to clear the guttering within 22 days, which was appropriate and in line with its repairs policy. However, due to its poor record keeping, it is unclear what action, if any, it took to reassure the resident it had addressed her safety concerns, or carried out any electrical safety checks. Furthermore, it was unable to demonstrate it had taken any action to ensure the extractor fan was safe to use.
It is also noted that, when the resident reported she had faulty plug sockets on 26 March 2024, the landlord raised a routine repair. However, it cancelled this as it was unable to contact the resident to confirm the appointment. There is no evidence it had made 3 attempts to contact her, in line with its policy. It is unclear why it did not raise an emergency repair in order to carry out safety checks. Given the nature of the concerns raised, the landlord ought to have prioritised the mater as urgent, and ensured there were no potential risks before raising routine follow on works. This was concerning to note because the resident had also made it aware that her grandchild regularly visited her. Despite this, the landlord failed to alter its approach.
That the landlord was unable to evidence it had given reasonable regard to the potential risks, or the safety of the resident and her property was a failing. The resident was already distressed by the leaks and this was heightened as a result of her concerns about the electrics. By not demonstrating it had adequately considered the resident’s safety concerns, the landlord failed to reassure her it was taking the matter seriously.
Furthermore, although it told her in its stage 1 response it had made an appointment for 8 April 2024 to fix the plug sockets. The evidence shows it did not complete this repair until 2 August 2024. The landlord has not offered any explanation of why it took 4 months to complete the electrical work. This is further demonstration of poor repairs management leading to significant delays in carrying out repairs. The landlord’s repeated failure to respond to repairs in line with its repair policy gave the resident little confidence in its ability to complete repairs within a reasonable amount of time.
There is evidence the landlord made some efforts to help prevent the damp by installing the vapour barrier and thermal boarding, as mentioned above. This was appropriate. However, there is no evidence the landlord had taken any other steps to lessen the impact of the property conditions. It could have considered providing the resident with dehumidifiers while waiting for the repairs to start. It could also have explored whether there were any other interim works it could complete to make the property more comfortable. The landlord failed to demonstrate it made adequate attempts to lessen the impact of the property conditions on the resident.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it is responsible for ensuring residents have access to and are provided with comprehensive advice and guidance on managing and controlling damp and condensation. The importance of this is also highlighted in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Damp and Mould. There is no evidence it made attempts to meet this responsibility. The lack of guidance it provided was a failing in the circumstances and a departure from its policy. The landlord should ensure it has measures in place to give residents timely information about dealing with damp, mould and condensation when it receives such reports, and that it records that it has done this.
Landlords should reasonably give details and timescales for any actions they plan to take. They should also keep residents regularly updated and informed. Such action is recommended in our guidance to landlords for complaints about repairs, and the Code.
Where repairs are complex and likely to take time, the landlord would be expected to keep the resident adequately updated. In this case, we have been provided with limited records of communication between the landlord and resident. The landlord has therefore not demonstrated it communicated effectively about its approach to the repairs.
There is no evidence the landlord made reasonable efforts to keep the resident updated. Neither did it explain the reasons for delays in completing the repairs. The resident was left to repeatedly prompt it for information, which should not have been necessary given its obligations. Its lack of communication was a failing. It would have added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience, and her uncertainty as to whether any effective action would be taken to address the damp and mould in her home.
The resident has reported that she continues to live with the impact of damp and mould and that repairs remain outstanding. We will therefore order that the landlord carries out a further inspection to identify any remaining work that is required to resolve the issue, and to complete those works in line with its repair obligations. It must also provide the resident the resident with details about how she can claim on its insurance for any damages caused by its delay in resolving the damp and mould in her property.
In summary, the landlord failed to approach the various damp problems in a coordinated matter or to treat the problem with any urgency. As a result, remedial works were required over a period of over 12 months, with further works outstanding at the time the landlord issued its stage 2 response. This, and the associated distress and inconvenience, could reasonably have been avoided if the landlord had adopted a more proactive approach to investigating and resolving the damp and mould at the property.
Furthermore, the landlord has not demonstrated that it provided any updates or explanations for the delays in carrying out repairs, or that it made attempts to chase its contractors to ensure the works were completed within its timescales. Its failings left the resident to live in a property that suffered from the effects of damp and mould for longer than was necessary. Due to the cumulative impact its failings had on her, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: “Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. We apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its delays in carrying out repairs and inspections. It offered £300 compensation in recognition of its poor repair handling at stage 1. It offered an additional £150 for the failure of the thermal boarding work to address the damp earlier, and for its poor communication. We acknowledge its attempts to put things right. However, the landlord’s offer of redress did not adequately recognise the impact on the resident of its delays in responding to the reports of water ingress and damp in the property. The landlord did not provide any explanation for its delays or for its failure to carry out a damp inspection. Furthermore, although it upheld the complaint, it did not provide details of any learning it had identified. We will therefore order that it pays increased redress of £850 in line with its compensation policy, and the Ombudsman’s own Remedies Guidance, to put things right.

Complaint

The landlord took 31 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that “any extension to the 10 working day timescale must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident”. There is no evidence the landlord made any attempt to contact the resident to let her know its response would be late, or to explain the reasons for the delay. Furthermore, it exceeded the permitted timescale of 20 working days for issuing stage 1 responses. This was a departure both from the Code and the landlord’s own complaints policy.
The Code requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. Although the landlord’s response covered most of the issues the resident had raised, it failed to address her concerns about an outstanding repair to her kitchen shutter or her request to replace her bath. That the landlord failed to provide a full and thorough response to the resident’s complaint was therefore a further departure from the Code.
The landlord offered the resident £50 in recognition of its delay in responding to her stage 1 complaint. This was part of its overall offer of £500 at stage 2. Its efforts to put things right are noted. However, its failure to respond fully to the resident’s complaint meant she had to spend avoidable time and trouble further pursuing those outstanding issues. We have therefore made a finding of service failure and will order the landlord pays an additional £50 in recognition of this.

Record keeping

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
As referenced frequently throughout this report, the landlord’s record keeping was poor. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission…If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information”. It further states that a landlord’s failings to create and record information accurately results in it not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The evidence the landlord provided to us in response to our requests for information was significantly lacking in detail. The landlord has not provided copies of any inspection reports or repair logs. Contemporaneous records of telephone calls and written correspondence between the landlord and resident were also very limited. The landlord provided no records of correspondence with its contractor during the period when the resident was waiting for repairs to be completed
Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the progress of ongoing repairs at any given time to be able to provide updates to residents. Records also enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019 stresses the importance of landlord’s and its contractors keeping comprehensive records of residents’ reports of disrepair and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates. In this case, the landlord has failed to keep appropriate records. Overall, the quality of the evidence supplied by the landlord significantly hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation.
The landlord’s poor record keeping would have contributed to the landlord’s poor repairs management. It would also explain its failure in responding to the residents reports in a timely manner and complete the required outstanding repairs within a reasonable amount of time. It would have also contributed to the landlord’s poor communication and lack of updates. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress, damp and outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

If it has not done so already, the landlord must carry out an electrical safety check on the property within 7 days of the date of this determination. It must provide this Service with evidence it has done this.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in line with our guidance on making apologies. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
2. Pay the resident £950 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, which is calculated as follows:
  1. £200 for the 4 month delay in fixing the underfloor leak.
  2. £150 for the 3 month delay in completing follow on work to repair the resident’s floor.
  3. £250 for the 5 month delay in carrying out a damp survey.
  4. £100 for the failure to show it properly considered the resident’s safety concerns about the electrics.
  5. £150 for the 3 month delay in repairing the plug sockets.
  6. £100 for its poor complaint handling.
3. This replaces the offer of £500 compensation it made in its stage 2 response. If it has already paid this to the resident, it should offset this against the total compensation awarded by this Service.
4. Provide the resident with details on how she can claim on its insurance for any damage to personal property caused by its delay in addressing the damp and mould.
5. Provide the resident with a response to the concerns she raised in her complaint about her broken kitchen shutter and request to replace her bath. The landlord must send a copy of its response to this Service.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should carry out a full inspection of the property. It should ensure this is carried out by persons suitably qualified to assess:
1. Any outstanding works required to prevent damp and mould. This includes the recommendation made by its contractor to investigate for potential rising damp.
2. Any outstanding works required to improve ventilation within the property, including installation of vents and replacement of the bathroom extractor fan.
3. Any other outstanding works the resident had raised during the period covered by the complaint.
Once it has completed the repairs survey, and within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should write to the resident. This must include:
1. summarising the findings of the inspection.
2. explaining what remedial action it has taken.
3. providing timescales within which it will complete any remaining repairs.
The landlord must use its best endeavours to complete the repairs within 56 days of the date of the survey. Following this, the landlord must offer reasonable compensation to the resident for any further delays in completing any repairs raised following its damp inspection of 2 July 2024.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. consider further training for complaint handling staff. The training should ensure that staff are fully aware of the provisions contained within the Code, especially the importance of properly addressing all aspects of a complaint. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has given reasonable consideration to appropriate training as set out above.
2. review its record keeping for the issues investigated in this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with the findings of its review, details of any learning it has identified and any actions it proposes to take as a result. To assist it in doing this it may wish to consult the recommendations in our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its investigation of the resident’s complaint and identify any learning it could take from its findings. It should look at any changes it could make in order to help avoid delays and ensure all elements of complaints are identified.