Notting Hill Genesis (202413112)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413112

Notting Hill Genesis

1 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about drainage issues at the property.
2. Reports of damp and mould, and sewage related smells coming from her neighbour’s property.
3. Request to transfer to another property.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a 2-bedroom, first floor flat. The building is a terraced house which has been separated into 2 flats. The resident’s property is on the first floor. She lives with her adult daughter.
The resident’s daughter became unwell in July 2020 following a period of working at home during the first UK lockdown. Her symptoms were not given an official diagnosis of an illness by the NHS. Their privately funded doctor has said that the resident’s daughter suffers with chronic inflammatory response syndrome (CIRS). This is described as a multi-symptom illness that results from exposure to toxins that include water damaged buildings. CIRS is not an officially recognised medical condition in the UK at this time.
The resident has referred to her elderly neighbour who lived in the building until August 2024. For the purpose of this report, they will be referred to as ‘neighbour A.’
Between June 2023 and August 2023 the resident made 2 reports of drainage issues at the property. She said that there were foul smells coming from the kitchen sink, as well as from the wash basin in the bathroom. During this period the landlord’s drains contractor visited the resident’s property twice. The contractor reported that they had cleared the blockages on each of these occasions.
Between September 2023 and October 2023 the resident continued to raise reports to the landlord about sewage, and damp and mould related smells coming from neighbour A’s property. During this time the landlord visited neighbour A’s property. The landlord identified that neighbour A’s property had issues with damp and mould, including rising damp. It also said that there were large cracks where the rear bedroom extension was attached to the main wall of the building.
Between December 2023 and January 2024 the resident reported that the wallpaper was coming away from one of the walls within her property. She also said that the wall had signs of damp and mould. The landlord carried out a repair to this internal wall during this period.
In January 2024 the resident said that she experienced smells of sewage, damp, and mould every day within her property. She said that this had been getting worse since May 2023. The resident described that the smells were coming from neighbour A’s property. She said the smells were so strong that both she and her daughter had been unable to sleep in their bedrooms. During this time the resident also provided a letter from her daughter’s private general practitioner (GP). This letter stated that the resident’s daughter had tested highly positive for mould citric and would benefit from being re-housed to a property that did not have issues with damp and mould.
Between February 2024 and March 2024, the resident chased for the landlord to respond to her request to transfer to another property. She explained that she had moved into a hotel because she was concerned about her daughter’s health being impacted by the ongoing smells from neighbour A’s property. The resident also raised concerns for the welfare of neighbour A, stating they had been left to live in what she said were unsafe and hazardous conditions.
During this period, the landlord explained it had done the following:
1. Confirmed there had been a leak affecting neighbour A’s property.
2. Agreed to work with neighbour A to carry out the repairs following the leak.
3. Its surveyor visited the neighbour A’s property and reported that they had not witnessed any overpowering smells. The surveyor offered to attend the resident’s property, but the resident declined.
4. Said it would carry out a CCTV site survey of the drains at the property.
On 2 April 2024 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord about its handling of the ongoing smells within her property, and her request to transfer to another property. She provided a further letter from her private GP which advised that her daughter should remove herself from the property due to the presence of the damp and mould impacting her health.
In April 2024 the landlord’s drains contractor carried out a survey of the drains at the resident’s property. They identified a build-up of fat within a pipe, and they suspected that the pipework may have also been damaged. The contractor recommended that the gullies should be jet washed in order to clear the fat and then they would be able to confirm the condition of the suspected damaged pipework.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 April 2024. The landlord apologised for its delays in handling the resident’s medical evidence as part of her request to transfer to another property. The landlord said it had completed its review of the resident’s medical evidence on 11 March 2024. Its review had concluded that the resident was not a medical priority for rehousing. The landlord accepted that it did not previously share this outcome with the resident.
The landlord apologised that its original survey of neighbour A’s property had not addressed the damp in their rear bedroom. It recognised this was a significant failure. It said it would chase its drains contractor to carry out the jet washing of the gullies at the property. The landlord said that it did not identify any smell as described by the resident when visiting her property, and that the circumstances at that time did not require her to move out of the property. It awarded the resident £375 compensation.
On 22 April 2024 the resident instructed a private damp and mould surveyor to inspect her property. The surveyor was also given access to neighbour A’s property. They reported the following:
1. There was a strong smell of damp and sewage in the communal hallway of the building, which was coming from neighbour’s A property. This smell lessened up the stairs but was still present in the resident’s property.
2. There were no concerns in respect of damp and mould in the resident’s property.
3. The extractor fans within the resident’s property were not powerful enough and should be replaced.
4. Neighbour A’s property was in a state of disrepair and was the cause of the smells which they said were unbearable when inside neighbour A’s property. The walls and floor were wet, the carpet squelched when trodden and there was mould growth on the walls, floors, and contents of neighbour A’s property.
On 29 April 2024 the landlord said it visited the resident’s property with the local environmental health team. The landlord has said that no damp and mould was identified within the resident’s property during this visit. It also did not witness any overpowering smells as described by the resident.
On 6 May 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaints. The resident said the landlord had taken no action to address the damp and mould in neighbour A’s property. She said the landlord had also refused to admit that there were strong smells within the resident’s property that were related to the damp and mould coming from neighbour A’s property. The resident said the landlord had ignored the medical evidence she had submitted. The resident asked the landlord to take the following action to resolve her complaint:
1. Provide a written apology admitting it had been dishonest about the smells within her property.
2. Transfer the resident to another property that did not have damp and mould.
3. Reimburse the costs for the resident’s hotel accommodation, and her daughter’s private medical care.
4. Provide £100,000 compensation.
On 14 June 2024 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaints. It said it found no evidence that it had been dishonest, and that there was no direct link to confirm that the disrepair in neighbour A’s property was impacting her daughter’s health. The landlord said it had not been provided with any recommendations that the resident should be rehoused, and it had not identified damp and mould within the resident’s property. The landlord said it was not responsible for the resident’s decision to stay in hotels, or for her daughter to seek private healthcare. It increased its offer of compensation to £425.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaints. She brought her complaints to the Ombudsman stating her desired outcome was for the following:
1. The repairs to be completed as she still suffers with sewage, as well as damp and mould related smells within her property.

To be transferred to another property without damp and mould related issues.
For the landlord to reimburse the resident £14,545 which she has spent on staying in alternative accommodation, as well as for the private medical expenses and treatment for her daughter.
Compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to her as a result of the landlord’s handling of the issues she has raised above.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.’
As part of her complaint, the resident has said that her health, as well as the health of her daughter was affected by the disrepair, and the presence of damp and mould within her property. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can be damaging to health, particularly for those who are vulnerable. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the specific health conditions of the resident or her family. Matters of liability for damage to health are better suited to a court or liability insurance process to determine. This is in line with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not consider matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. The Ombudsman has considered the general risk from damp and mould and any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.
As part of her complaint, the resident has raised concerns about matters that involved and affected neighbour A. The Ombudsman acknowledges what the resident has said about the matters relating to neighbour A, and how it may have affected them. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on this as the resident does not have the authority to raise a complaint on behalf of neighbour A.
This is in line with paragraph 42.i. of the Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters raised by a complainant on behalf of another without their authority. The Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced, in terms of her use and enjoyment of her own property, as a result of any errors by the landlord’s actions or inactions involving neighbour A.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it puts repairs into the following 2 categories:
1. Emergency repairs – This is a type of repair which presents an immediate danger or imminent risk which would jeopardise the health, safety, or security to the resident. The landlord will respond within 4 hours and make safe this type of repair within 24 hours. The landlord may need to complete follow up repairs after it has made the repair safe, which will then be treated as a standard repair.
2. Standard repairs – The landlord will complete these repairs within 20 working days of the repair being reported. In complex cases where it may need longer than this to complete the repair, the landlord will consult with the resident and communicate the expected time frame with them.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will visit a resident’s property within 10 days of a report of damp and mould. If it identifies severe damp and mould within the property, it will carry out a follow up inspection within a further 10 working days. The landlord will then carry out any works in line with its repairs policy, as set out above. /
The landlord’s allocations policy states it will consider transfer requests from residents whose property is no longer suitable for their needs. A resident can appeal the landlord’s decision if they are dissatisfied with the way their application, selection, offer, or allocation was handled.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will provide its written response at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days.

The resident’s concerns about drainage issues at the property.

On 20 June 2023 the resident told the landlord that there were drainage issues, as well as a bad smell coming from the kitchen sink and her washing machine. The landlord’s drains contractor attended the resident’s property on 30 June 2023. This was 9 working days later. The contractor said they unblocked the wastepipe and said that all works had been completed.
This would have been considered a standard repair. Therefore, this was a reasonable response by the landlord and in line with its repairs policy which states it will complete this type of repair within 20 working days.
On 4 August 2023 the resident said she continued to have bad drainage smells in her kitchen and bathroom. On 14 August 2023 the landlord’s drains contractor attended the resident’s property. This was 7 working days later. The contractor said they cleared the blockage in the pipework and recommended for the resident to put her washing machine on a hot wash to flush the pipework. This was an appropriate response and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, as set out above.
On 21 February 2024 the landlord said it would arrange for a CCTV site survey of the drains within the resident’s property. This was after the resident had continued to raise concerns about smells within the property. The landlord completed this survey on 26 March 2024. This was 25 working days later. Although it was reasonable the landlord agreed to investigate the drains at the property, this survey should have been completed within 20 working days in line with its timescale for routine repairs. However, the delay was not significant.
The Ombudsman has also reviewed communication where the resident chased the landlord in the week following the outcome of the drains survey. It can take more than a few days for the landlord to provide an update. We would consider that 10 working days would generally be considered reasonable. Within this timeframe the Ombudsman would expect landlords to provide regular updates to residents in respect of its on-going repairs.
The landlord’s survey of the drains showed there was a build-up of fat within the pipework, and that part of the pipe may also have been broken. The survey recommended a jet wash of the pipework, followed by a further inspection using its CCTV camera. On 19 April 2024 in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it said it would chase its surveyor to carry out these works. Then, as part of the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaints on 14 June 2024, it said it had addressed these works within its stage 1 complaint response. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence that these recommended works have been completed. This is not appropriate. These works should have been completed in line with the landlord’s repairs policy as set out above, within 20 working days. This is evidence of poor handling of its repairs processes. It is also recommended that the landlord widens the scope of the survey to the neighbouring flats in the building.
For the reasons described above, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about drainage issues at the property. This includes that the recommended works have been outstanding for 10 months. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord’s failings have adversely impacted the resident and her daughter as they have been living in a property affected by damp and mould for a significant period of time.
The Ombudsman has considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) in respect of compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors. On 14 June 2024, in the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint, it awarded her £425 compensation. The Ombudsman understands that £350 of this was for its delays in responding to this repair. It is positive that the landlord attempted to put things right, but the Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord went far enough. The Ombudsman has also taken into consideration the works have not been completed. Therefore, as referred to above, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the Ombudsman increases this amount of compensation to £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by this delay.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould, and sewage related smells coming from her neighbour’s property.

On 26 September 2023 the resident reported foul smells. She stated that she suspected these were emanating from neighbour A’s property. The landlord’s repair records show that foul smells had been a recurring problem since April 2021. The resident’s previous reports had always referred to the smells emanating from the drains and pipework via the kitchen and/or bathroom sink. The landlord attended to these reports and took action to clear blockages within the kitchen and/or bathroom pipework in April 2021, March 2022, August 2022, June 2023, August 2023, August 2024 and November 2024.
The landlord visited the neighbour in property A on 23 October 2023. The landlord identified signs of disrepair in the property and damp. Of particular concern was damp in the back bedroom. It was noted that ‘damp seems to be rising from the ground up’. The landlord’s operative did not report a foul smell. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend. However, the job request indicates that this only related to an assessment of the kitchen and bathroom.
On 5 December 2023 the resident reported that the wallpaper within her property was coming away from the wall and black mould spots were present. The landlord attended in January 2024, applied a damp membrane, replastered and redecorated. On this occasion, the landlord attended reasonably promptly to this report and took appropriate action to remedy the damp and mould issues.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 25 January 2024 to highlight that the smell was worse and was now unbearable. She confirmed that pest controllers attended both property A and property B on 31 January 2024. She stated that the contractor informed her property A ‘smelt terrible and the carpet was drenched’. The resident noted that her daughter telephoned the landlord on 31 January 2024 to inform it. The landlord’s internal email correspondence confirms that the landlord spoke with the resident and it was apparent that the ‘problem is persistent and ongoing’. The records show that the resident also emailed the landlord on 6 February 2024.
The landlord raised an emergency repair and attended on 7 February 2024. The landlord’s contractor confirmed that there was ‘water in back bedroom… seems to be from property next door (24, private residence)… [which] is undergoing refurbishment’.
Environmental Health emailed the landlord on 20 February 2024. It noted that it understood that ‘there were some works that were discovered during an inspection of the property late last year but despite some work being undertaken, the tenant of the first floor flat is still experiencing issues with smells emanating from the ground floor area’. Environmental Health suggested a joint visit. The landlord’s internal email correspondence shows that on 20 February 2024, the landlord’s housing operations manager noted that ‘Environmental Health are now involved and want to visit’. The housing operations manager noted that they would ‘like us [the landlord] to visit before because based on the pictures and the reports from neighbours if Environmental Health attend then its likely they will serve us with a notice’.
The landlord’s housing operations manager visited property A on 21 February 2024. They emailed the resident the same day. The housing operations manager confirmed that there was a leak in property A and the carpet was wet. The housing operations manager stated that both her and the surveyor that attended did not notice an overpowering smell in property A. They offered to visit the resident at home so she could witness the smells herself. The housing operations manager explained that they were planning to complete repairs in property A and a drain survey.
The landlord failed to follow up on the need to investigate moisture issues in property A in October 2023. By 7 February 2024, the landlord had identified a leak affecting property A. Given the damage this was causing to the building and the risk to the health and safety of a vulnerable resident living in damp conditions with a wet carpet, the landlord should have arranged emergency repairs to the property and conducted further investigations to identify and plug the source the leak. The available evidence indicates that the landlord failed to take actions urgently as it should have done following the visit on 7 February 2024. It was only once Environmental Heath intervened that the landlord decided to take further action. It is concerning that the threat of an Environmental Health notice motivated the landlord to take action rather than a vulnerable resident living in damp conditions.
By this point property A had been impacted by a leak for at least 3 months. Water ingress will inevitably lead to moisture damage, damp and mould in property A. The resident reported to the landlord in her email dated 21 February 2024 that the neighbour’s son had told her there was mould on the walls in property A. The landlord’s housing operations manager denied this in an email to the resident dated 25 March 2024. They reported that there was ‘no mould visible’ at the time of her visit. Continued water ingress would eventually lead to moisture issues in property B too. However, at this time, the resident’s email to the landlord on 21 February 2024 confirmed that she had not identified mould in her flat.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 and 25 March 2024 as she had not received any update on remedial works in property A. She confirmed that the foul smells continued. The resident also highlighted that the fire brigade had attended property A twice recently as the resident was leaving pots on the fire for long periods unattended. The landlord replied the same day to confirm it was still arranging remedial works.
The landlord’s internal email dated 5 April 2024 confirms that a CCTV drain survey had been completed. It appears that this took place on 26 March 2024. The surveyor noted the following: ‘Upon arrival we set up at the rear to find there was no manhole covers… I used my mini cam but could only see the bottom of the gully. There was plenty of fat build up within this and the pipe looks like its slightly broken, but not 100% sure as there was a lot of fat build up. We then searched for a manhole. After walking around I found a wooden hatch in the hallway lifted this up to find a basement underneath the hallway which had a manhole chamber… I used my camera and checked the lines fully they are all in good condition… I then checked the lateral connection this also has no faults. From what I can see all is good no broken or cracked pipes. I would recommend that we attend as a 2-man team jet through the gully to the rear and then once this is clear use the camera to double check that it’s OK.’
This suggests that the drains were not the cause of the leak. The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that the landlord had authorised the additional work. It noted that once completed, it would carry out further investigations on the subfloor in property A to ascertain where the damp was coming from. It noted that this would require the resident of property A to be decanted, which he was reluctant to do. The landlord updated the resident with its intended course of action on 7 April 2024.
The landlord emailed Environmental Health on 9 April 2024 to arrange a joint visit. The landlord acknowledged ‘there was water ingress in the back bedroom which had caused the floor to become wet’. However, it stated that ‘despite the wetness there were no smells noted at the time of the visit’. The landlord confirmed it was working with the resident of property A and their son to arrange a decant for the works to be completed; however, they had refused the decant. It explained that it had therefore been unable to progress with the internal repairs. The landlord’s head of housing has explained that, given the resident in property A’s vulnerability, the landlord decided it was disproportionate to take legal action to enforce the move.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 19 April 2024 noted that a jet wash of the drains was completed the previous week. The resident arranged for an independent surveyor to attend to complete a damp survey within their flat on 22 April 2024. They reported: ‘Upon entering the communal hallway, there is a strong smell, which is a mix of dampness, sewage, decay, and fish. As we continued up the stairs, the smells lessened but were still present. A survey within the client’s property showed… no major damp issues, no significant cold spots, and the air quality showed good levels with a low spore count’.
This indicates that the resident’s property was not affected by damp and mould at this time. The surveyor also did not find evidence of poor air quality. The surveyor noted that there was a smell present in the master bedroom: ‘smells present within this room on this visit are a mix of sewage, damp, fish, and death. We can assume that during times when the downstairs kitchen, which is directly below this room, is in use, this smell will worsen and spread throughout the flat.’ The surveyor stated that the bad smell was also present in the hallway.
The surveyor was afforded access to property A. They reported: ‘Upon entering the downstairs neighbour’s property, it became clear that the smells were emanating from this property due to its extreme state of disrepair… We noted wet walls and floors, with the carpet squelching when trodden on. Mould growth was apparent on the walls, floor, and even on contents within the room… The smells from this room and the kitchen will be affecting the upstairs client… Issues ongoing downstairs are major and need immediate attention to prevent further damage and maintain a healthy living environment… based on what could be seen within the back bedroom alone, all contents within this room will need to be disposed of due to contamination by mould growth and damage from moisture absorption. Afterward, the carpet and any wallpaper will need to be removed as they are wet. The source of moisture needs to be determined and fixed, followed by drying the materials and redecoration… The smell within this room is unbearable and may require air treatment after all works are completed’. The surveyor’s findings are supported by photographs and damp meter readings. These indicate damp and mould growth in property A and the carpet with significant disrepair.
The joint visit with the landlord and Environmental Health took place on 29 April 2024. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 14 June 2024 stated that its head of services, housing officer, housing operations manager and the Environmental Health standards officer all attended. It confirmed that no one reported an overpowering smell in the resident’s flat (property B) or the communal area of the building. It also explained that ‘any works that our surveyor has identified in property A, have no direct impact on your property’.
The landlord’s email correspondence shows that Environmental Health’s standards officer confirmed that there were currently no signs of disrepair or structural deficiencies that passed the evidential threshold for enforcement action in the resident’s flat (property B). There is no reference to foul smells. If the smells were significant in the resident’s flat or the communal area on the day, it is likely that this would have formed part of their feedback and highlighted it as a potential nuisance. However, Environmental Health closed its case following the visit. The landlord has not provided evidence to confirm what the standards officer’s conclusions were in property A.
The resident in property A sadly passed away in August 2024. The resident continued to report foul smells. She emailed the landlord on 8 September 2024 to highlight that possessions were being moved out of property A and a burst sewage pipe had been found. The landlord appears to have begun remedial work in September 2024.
There is a clear difference of opinion in whether there were foul smells present in property A and the communal areas in April 2024. The two visits are separated by only 7 days, but the surveyor’s visit stated that the smell was present in both properties and the communal areas and the smell in Property A was ‘unbearable’, while the landlord reported no issue. It is difficult to determine exactly what has occurred to explain such a difference. However, given the history of drain issues at the property, the type of smells reported and the landlord’s investigations and remedial work on the drains completed in April 2024, it appears most likely that the main cause of the foul smells was the drains. It is also possible that the reason these were not present later in the month is due to the landlord’s remedial work taking effect (albeit temporarily). Drain smells can come and go and the severity can be affected by heavy rainfall or a period of hot weather.
This is not to say that the damp conditions in property A would not have caused a smell; however, it is unlikely that it was the main cause of the smells the resident experienced in property B. In addition, the available evidence indicates that the resident in property A was struggling with living alone and required support. The smells the resident reported could also be partly explained by a difficulty in managing washing and self-care.
The available evidence does not show a clear causal link between the leak and the foul smells the resident experienced. It is concerning that the landlord failed to complete urgent investigative and remedial work in property A within an appropriate timescale from October 2023. Even accounting for the resident in property A’s reluctance to be decanted and his vulnerability, the failure to move the resident out and complete urgent repairs was unreasonable.
In addition, there is no evidence to show what action the landlord took to investigate whether the leak was, as suspected, coming from the neighbouring property. This investigative work would not have required the resident in property A to move out. The delay in investigating the leak meant water ingress in the building and associated damage was left unaddressed between October 2023 and September 2024. Given the seriousness of its handling of investigations, repairs and decanting in property A, I have recommended that the landlord arranges for a senior officer to conduct a case review.
Given the resident continues to report moisture issues, the landlord should arrange a further damp and mould survey. Again, it is recommended that the landlord widens the scope of the survey to the neighbouring flats in the building.
As part of the resident’s stage 1 complaint, she said that her daughter’s private GP had advised that they should move out of the property. The private GP said this was due to the resident’s daughter showing signs of mould toxins in her body. Within the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it was appropriate the landlord accepted that it initially failed to respond to the damp and mould in neighbour A’s property. The landlord said that during its investigation it had found no evidence of damp and mould in the resident’s property, or any reason she should have been moved into temporary accommodation at that time. The Ombudsman understands that the resident might disagree with the landlord’s decision. However, the Ombudsman considers the landlord to have provided a reasonable response because it had referred the resident’s medical evidence to its independent assessor. The independent medical assessor had advised the landlord that there was no medical requirement for the resident to be moved. The landlord had also offered to inspect the resident’s property, and it was accepted that it had no evidence of there being any visible signs of damp and mould within her property at that time.
The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s repair records which show that it completed the installation of the extractor fan as recommended in the surveyor’s report on 11 July 2024. This was 57 working days after the issue was raised to the landlord. This should have been completed within 20 working days as per its repairs policy as set out above. This is evidence of poor handling of its repairs.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident’s complaints on 14 June 2024. This was 28 working days later. This response should have been provided within 20 working days as per the landlord’s complaints policy, as set out above. Although this was not a significant delay, the Ombudsman understands that this still exacerbated the distress and inconvenience felt by the resident at that time. Therefore, it was appropriate that the landlord awarded the resident £50 compensation in respect of this delay.
For the reasons described above, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and sewage related smells coming from her neighbour’s property.. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the landlord’s failings in responding to the moisture issues in property A primarily affected the resident living in property A . The Ombudsman has also taken into consideration the overall delays, and poor communication as referred to above in reaching our determination.
The Ombudsman has considered our own remedies guidance as referred to above. The landlord is to pay the resident £600 compensation for distress and inconvenience. The landlord should also reimburse the cost of the damp survey, which the resident arranged due to the landlord’s lack of investigative and remedial action. This amount includes the £350 compensation awarded by the landlord in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaints processes.

The resident’s request to transfer to another property.

Between 26 January 2024 and 28 January 2024, the resident submitted her medical evidence to the landlord. This was in support of the resident’s request for it to review her banding, as the resident had asked to be transferred to another property. Between 6 February 2024 and 8 February 2024, the resident chased for the landlord to respond to her request. It was right that the landlord apologised to the resident in its stage 1 complaint response for its initial lack of follow up and delay in processing this request.
On 20 February 2024 the landlord acknowledged that it had received the resident’s medical evidence. It then sent the resident a medical self-assessment form for her to complete as part of its review. The landlord said the resident did not return this application. The Ombudsman is not commenting on the reasons for the resident not completing this form. However it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge receipt of the resident’s evidence and for it to ask for her to complete the self-assessment as part of its applications procedure.
The landlord said that its independent assessors carried out a banding review of the resident’s property needs on 11 March 2024. This review concluded that the resident was not considered a medical priority. The landlord accepted in its stage 1 complaint response, provided on 19 April 2024 that this outcome had not been communicated with the resident. This is evidence of poor communication by the landlord. It should have shared this decision in writing with the resident within 10 working days of it receiving the outcome of its decision of the resident’s request to transfer to another property.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it directed the resident on how she could appeal the decision, and that it would reconsider a further review if further material were provided. This was reasonable and line with its allocations policy as referred to above.
In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaints, it stated that the resident’s private damp and mould survey completed on 22 April 2024, made no recommendations for the resident to be rehoused. It also said that during its own follow up visit to the resident’s property on 29 April 2024, it found no reasons for the resident to be transferred to another property. It was reasonable that the landlord considered all available evidence when considering the resident’s request to transfer to another property. It was also appropriate that the landlord referred to this in its communication with the resident, within its final response to her complaint on 14 June 2024. This is because it showed it had continued to consider the resident’s request as part of its review of her complaint.
For the reasons described above, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to transfer to another property.
It is positive that the landlord attempted to put things right by apologising to the resident for not providing the initial outcome of the resident’s request to transfer to another property. However the Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord went far enough in seeking to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
Therefore, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as referred to above, the landlord is to pay the resident £100 compensation. The remedies guidance gives examples of an award in this range where there has been a minor failure in the service provided by the landlord and its action to put things right did not quite reflect the detriment to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about drainage issues at the property.
2. Reports of damp and mould, and sewage related smells coming from her neighbour’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to transfer to another property.

Orders

Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £1,300. The breakdown of this compensation is as follows:
  1. £600 for its handling of the resident’s concerns about drainage issues at the property.
  2. £600 for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and sewage related smells coming from her neighbour’s property. This includes the £350 it awarded during its complaints process, which it may deduct if this has already been paid.
  3. £100 for its handling of the resident’s request to transfer to another property.
2. Reimburse the resident with the cost of the damp survey from April 2024 (the resident is required to provide the landlord with documentary evidence of the cost of the survey).
3. Arrange for an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor to complete a jet wash of the drains, followed by a CCTV drain survey inside and outside the resident’s property (B), unless it can show it has already completed these works since 31 January 2025. If follow up works are required it is to set out a schedule of works it is responsible for, including estimated timescales (in line with its repairs policy), which it is to share with the resident and the Ombudsman in writing.
4. Arrange for an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor and damp and mould specialist to carry out an inspection of the resident’s property (B), unless it can show it has already completed these works since 31 January 2025. If follow up works are required it is to set out a schedule of works it is responsible for, including estimated timescales (in line with its repairs policy), which it is to share with the resident and the Ombudsman in writing.

Recommendations

The landlord is to:
1. Arrange for the drain survey and damp and mould survey to include all flats in the building.
2. Arrange for a senior officer to complete a case review of its handling of investigations, repairs and a decant in property A between October 2023 and September 2024