Origin Housing Limited (202419390)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419390

Origin Housing Limited

30 September 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:
1. The resident’s reports of responsive repairs, damp and mould.
2. A pest infestation.
3. A temporary move.
4. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, and her tenancy began in November 2021. The property is a 3-bedroom flat on the top floor of a 4-storey building. The resident has confirmed that she moved out of the property on 2 December 2024, although she remains a tenant of the same landlord.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord during the early part of November 2023. It is not clear from the evidence provided exactly how and when this was made. She said:
1. The property was extremely cold even with the heating on. She felt this had impacted the health of her children and their school attendance.
2. Her daughter had seen a mouse in her room, and this had caused her anxiety.
3. There was a smell coming from the kitchen, which she discovered was due to a rotten floor that had been covered up by the landlord. The underlying problem had not been addressed. There were 4 layers of flooring, all of which were wet.
4. The rotten flooring extended throughout the rest of the property, including the bathroom, which she felt the landlord had covered up with lino to try to hide the problem.
5. When she moved into the property in November 2021, she did not believe that she was accepting one which had an ongoing issue with damp and mould. The previous tenant before her had raised the issue and it had not been resolved by the landlord. This meant she was provided with a property not fit to live in.
6. Due to the number of appointments and visits required, she had had to take a number of days off work and had lost wages as a result.
7. Although the landlord had informed her that she would be moved to a hotel while the works were undertaken, she understood she would be left with no cooking or laundry facilities, which meant she would be spending more money than normal to cover these.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 December 2023. It offered compensation of £150 to the resident. It said:
1. It had made previous attempts to deal with the pest control issue as recently as September 2023. It had contacted its pest control contractor again on 9 November 2023 to inform it that the issue had returned. The contractor would be contacting the resident to arrange a suitable time to attend.
2. A job had been raised to its contractor about the heating on 24 October 2023, following an inspection by its surveyor on that date. It understood the heating contractor had attended on 26 October 2023 and found an issue with a valve, which it fixed. It had no note of any repair being reported prior to October 2023.
3. One of the issues which may have led to the property being cold was the condition of the windows and window locks. A repair had been made in August 2022. It would ask its contractor to raise a new job to inspect the windows.
4. The survey on 24 October 2023 had identified significant water ingress which affected the kitchen flooring. High moisture levels were detected in the kitchen and bathroom. An urgent repair had been raised for it and its contractor to conduct a comprehensive water test, examine the kitchen and bathroom pipes, and replace the flooring. The contractor had closed the job down as it was unable to contact the resident, which was not in keeping with its standard process. The landlord apologised for this. A new appointment had been made at the beginning of January 2024. It was attempting to bring this appointment forward but had been unable to do so at the time of its response.
5. A temporary move could be needed, depending on what was found when the floors were lifted following the leak investigations. It would liaise with the resident over this if it was needed.
The resident escalated her complaint on 9 January 2024. In her email to the landlord, she said:
1. While she noted the contents of the stage 1 response, she did not feel that all the issues within the property would be resolved. The problems were long-standing, and she had been informed by surveyors and workmen that the issue reoccurred every 18 months.
2. Her children’s health issues had spiked since moving to the property and they were falling behind in school as a result of sickness.
3. While she had accepted the property from the landlord in good faith, it was not “fit for purpose”. She wanted to be relocated to a new property which was fit to live in.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 June 2024. It offered compensation of £1,850, which included £250 for complaint handling and £100 for communication. It said:
1. The resident had been temporarily moved in January 2024 to allow works to be carried out. The landlord’s damp and mould manager had attended on 16 May 2024 to carry out a post inspection of the repairs which the contractor said were completed. They found a number of repairs were yet to be completed, and these were raised with the contractor to complete.
2. It apologised that the works were not completed in a timely manner and that its process for monitoring works had not been sufficient, resulting in “unacceptable delays”. It had introduced a new process and now regularly checked the progress of works. This extended to accommodation bookings, to allow it to either extend bookings or source alternative accommodation.
3. It had discussed the historical issues experienced with the resident in detail during a face-to-face meeting on 4 June 2024. It accepted its stage 1 response did not address the issues experienced by the previous tenant. Having checked its records, it confirmed the previous report of damp in the property was in 2016 and the works carried out before the resident moved in did not relate to damp and mould.
4. The resident had been placed on the transfer list and given the highest priority. The process could take some time, and she would need to return to her property until a suitable property was identified for a permanent move.
5. While the resident had raised a concern about a smell at the property, it could not detect anything. It had carried out air testing on 11 June 2024 to ensure there was no evidence of damp or mould residue in the property and was awaiting the results of this. The resident would not be expected to return to the property until the result was known. A follow–up test would take place in 6 months’ time if the resident had not moved by then.
6. The resident had raised concerns over the condition of the carpets. Although it did not believe they were water damaged, it offered to replace them as a gesture of goodwill.
7. It had initially proposed the resident returned to the property on 14 June 2024. This had been extended to 1 July 2024 to allow for the results of the air test and for the carpets to be fitted. If the air test results were not received by then, the date would be further extended.
8. It accepted the resident had had to continually chase for the work to be completed, and that she was misinformed that it had been completed. It apologised for the unclear communication and the stress that it caused her.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The resident subsequently referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. In her referral form on 15 August 2024, she said:
1. She had been temporarily moved in January 2024, and this was meant to be for 3 weeks. However, 8 months later she was still in temporary accommodation. During this time, she had been moved to 6 different properties and told on 3 occasions that her property was repaired, which following inspections turned out not to be the case.
2. She had been prescribed medication for the anxiety and depression. Her employment had also ended due to the number of absences she had in trying to resolve the matter.
3. Although the landlord had carried out repairs, she felt these were merely covering up the previous issues. No explanation had been provided for the leaks.
The resident moved back into the property on 1 September 2024. She said there was still a smell in the property, especially in the bathroom. She contacted the landlord which arranged for a contractor to attend the next day. The resident said the contractor agreed there was a smell and that further investigation was needed. The resident emailed the landlord to make it aware of the matter. She asked who was in charge of her case.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 4 September 2024 to say her neighbour had informed her that her bath had leaked into their property.
The landlord confirmed to the resident on 16 September 2024 that she had been nominated for a new 3-bedroom property. The resident moved to this property on 2 December 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her complaint to us and to the landlord, the resident said that the issues she was facing related back to when she initially moved into the property in November 2021. She noted the previous tenant had also made reports to the landlord about damp and mould, which she did not think it resolved. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments, we are unable to investigate matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time (normally 12 months). From the information provided to this Service, the resident did not make a complaint to the landlord until November 2023. For this reason, our investigation has considered events from November 2022 onwards.
The resident feels that her health, and that of her children, has been impacted by the damp and mould in the property and by the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The Ombudsman does not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns regarding her family’s health. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

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

The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy.
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. It is expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy – which was initially introduced in late 2023 – sets out that the landlord takes all reports of damp and mould seriously and encourages residents to report any concerns to it. It adds that it takes a proactive approach to promptly diagnose, remedy and manage issues arising from damp and mould. Its approach “recognises the impact that damp and mould can have on our residents’ physical and/or mental health and well-being, and we tailor our approach to household circumstances”.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that each report is risk assessed based on the initial report by the resident and its surveyor’s inspection. It says it categorises damp using a red/amber/green (RAG) rating system. It also assesses whether the property meets the standard required by the Homes (Fit for Human Habitation) Act 2018, and whether there is a category 1 or 2 hazard present under the HHSRS.
The damp and mould policy says that “at the time of a void inspection, each room will be checked for damp, mould and condensation. If identified, it will be managed and rectified as part of the void works”.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out that the landlord will maintain the structure of the property, including the roof, outside walls, doors, windows and windowsills. The policy states that a repair will be treated as an emergency repair if there is an immediate danger to a person’s safety or risk of major damage to the property. It adds that a repair can be considered an emergency even if major damage has not yet occurred, but it has the potential to do so. For emergency repairs, the landlord will attend within 2 hours to make safe and repair if possible. If further work is needed, it will contact the resident the following day and arrange a suitable appointment. In the case of routine (non-emergency) repairs, work will ordinarily be completed within 10 working days. Exceptions to these timescales require the approval of the landlord and the resident and should not amount to more than 20 working days.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out that it will provides “a seamless, high quality and customer focused repairs service where repairs are completed first time”.
The landlord’s records show that within the period being investigated, the first repair was to do with the boiler cutting out and pressure going to zero on 2 May 2023. The records show that the landlord attended on the following day, which was appropriate and in keeping with the timescales in its repairs policy.
The resident raised a number of repairs on 26 September 2023. These included the thermostat cover being loose, as well as plastering being needed to a bathroom and the flooring in the kitchen having lifted. The landlord attended to the thermostat issue on the next day, and made arrangements to attend to the other jobs on 10 October 2023. Again, this was appropriate and in keeping with its repair policy.
Following an email sent on behalf of the resident by the chair of the residents’ association, the landlord replied to the resident on 19 October 2023. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the original email from the residents’ association. Clear record keeping is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This has not been the case here. The landlord agreed for a surveyor to undertake an inspection of the property, and this was scheduled for 24 October 2023. This was 5 days after it had emailed the resident. This was reasonable and demonstrated that the landlord was looking to engage with and find a solution–based outcome for the resident.
The surveyor completed a RAG report following the inspection on 24 October 2023. This was in keeping with the landlord’s damp and mould policy. The inspection report noted that there was evidence of water ingress in the kitchen flooring, and that there were separate pieces of flooring rather than a single piece. Moisture readings were also taken in the bathroom, and a recommendation was made for an inspection of the bathroom pipes to identify any potential leak. The landlord raised a works order for its contractor to attend on 2 November 2023. This was appropriate.
The landlord said that its contractor had closed down the job as it was unable to contact the resident. It accepted that the contractor acted outside of its standard approach, which required it to make 3 attempts to contact the resident. The landlord apologised for this and said it would ask the contractor to make further attempts going forward. It also asked the contractor to make it aware of other instances where it had acted in a similar manner. This demonstrated that the landlord wanted to learn from the error and ensure that it was not repeated. As the contractor was acting under instruction from the landlord, the landlord’s approach in apologising and following up with the contractor was reasonable.
The landlord noted in its stage 1 response that its contractor had not rescheduled the works until the beginning of January 2024. This was 2 months after the initial appointment was scheduled. While it said it would attempt to bring the appointment forward as the timescales were unacceptable, there is no evidence that it continued to communicate with either the contractor or the resident. This meant that the resident eventually had to wait until the beginning of January 2024 for the contractor to attend. This lack of communication with the resident was a failing.
Following the contractor attending at the beginning of January 2024, the resident raised concerns about the work which was carried out while she was in situ. This related to the toilet and the bathroom. The decision was made that the ideal way to proceed would be for the resident to be moved temporarily while the work was carried out. This was reasonable, as the property was damp and needed to be dried out before the repairs could proceed. In addition, the investigation into the pipes would have meant the resident was left without a bath had she not been moved.
The landlord has provided us with evidence that it carried out some inspections to the property following work being undertaken by the contractor. While its internal notes say that the work was completed on 4 April 2024 by the contractor, an inspection was required. This was reasonable, as the landlord had noted from earlier conversations with the contractor that some of the scheduled works – including the flooring – had yet to be completed. The contractor’s assessment of the flooring being completely dry was also at odds with that of the resident and the chair of the residents’ association, who said it was wet. Given this, it was reasonable for the landlord to undertake an inspection before the resident moved back to the property.
However, it is not clear why the landlord did not carry out any inspection prior to the beginning of April 2024. At this time the resident had been away from the property for just under 3 months. The work required for the property had only been scheduled for around 2 weeks, so it is not clear why there was such a delay at the time. Although the landlord continued to extend the temporary move for the resident, it is not clear if it clearly set out the reasons for the delay or provided her with any update on the revised timescales. This was a failing by it.
The landlord carried out 2 inspections of the property in May 2024 which highlighted further work was needed. The first of these was at the beginning of the month and the second was around 16 May 2024. Following both inspections, the landlord emailed the contractor to set out the nature of the outstanding work, and it also emailed the resident on 9 May 2024 to update her on this. The landlord’s email of 19 May 2024 to the contractor highlighted the delay and “substandard work” which it identified, and it asked the contractor to confirm with details when the work would be completed. It added that a further inspection would take place, with both the contractor and landlord being present to ensure the work was completed to the required standard. This was reasonable, as it highlighted to the contactor the need for the work to be completed correctly.
As the work was still not completed by the beginning of June 2024, the landlord arranged a meeting with the resident. It also agreed to add her to its internal transfer list to be moved to an alternative property. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord also increased the resident’s priority to the highest banding. This was appropriate, and the landlord’s actions were also in keeping with its decant policy, which sets out that if repairs are not completed within 6 months it will offer the option of a permanent move.
While the landlord’s stage 2 response set out that it would expect the resident to return to her property on 1 July 2024, unless the results of its air test concluded that this was not possible, the resident discovered that her washing machine was leaking when she made a visit to the property on 1 July 2024. . She raised the matter with the landlord, which appropriately arranged for a repair to be raised.
Given the further report by the resident, the landlord carried out a further inspection on 3 August 2024. This identified that there was still a smell coming from the resident’s sink and bathroom, which its surveyor felt might be from water ingress into the flooring and plywood. The landlord also identified some further works which were not completed at that time. It has not provided evidence of any further inspections which it completed after this time before the resident moved back to the property on 1 September 2024. Clear record keeping is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This has not been the case here. These recording failures amount to a failing on the part of the landlord. This would have caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience
Even after the resident returned on 1 September 2024, she discovered the leak to the bath had not been fixed, as upon using it for the first time it leaked into the flat below hers. While the landlord raised a further job for this, given the timing and link to the earlier repairs, it ought to have checked this as part of any inspection which it carried out. There is no evidence it did this or checked with the bath full of water. This was a failing.
In summary, there were failings by the landlord in addressing the repairs in the resident’s property. There were delays in it carrying out inspections and repeated concerns over the standard of the work completed by its contractor. The landlord also failed to communicate regularly with the resident over the matter, meaning she was not fully aware of what was happening. Given the landlord’s failings, a finding of maladministration has been made. Since the landlord provided evidence, it has been trying to resolve the issues by carrying out a number of repairs, and because it made a substantial offer of compensation in its stage 2 response, a finding of severe maladministration has been avoided.
While the landlord made a compensation offer of £1,600, including £100 for communication relating to the repairs, we consider that this does not reflect the number and extent of its failings. These include the works following on from its stage 2 response, which were directly linked to the original repairs to the property. Instead, the Ombudsman has made an award of £2,200 in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in the kitchen. In the absence of any specific guidance in the landlord’s compensation policy, our additional award is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where the landlord acknowledged its failings and made some attempt to put things right, but its offer was not proportionate to its failings.

The landlord’s handling of the pest infestation

The landlord’s pest control policy sets out that it will assess all reported instances of need for pest control, and that if the issue affects the health of the resident it will arrange for necessary pest control. The policy adds that all pest control works in affected communal areas will be completed by the landlord.
The landlord’s internal records show that it instructed a pest control contractor to attend to the resident’s property in September 2023 following concerns being raised about rats. This was appropriate and in keeping with its pest control policy. The contractor attended on 27 September 2023, and the resulting report set out that it had not seen any evidence of rats at the property, but it did find mouse droppings, which supported the resident’s account of a mouse being seen. The contractor carried out internal sealing in the property for rats. This involved covering up gaps in the flooring, near pipes and below vents. The contractor provided evidence of the work, which was carried out, and the report was signed off by the resident once it was completed. This was reasonable, although the contractor could have left traps in place in case the rodents returned.
Following other flats in the building raising further concerns about rats, the contractor returned on 29 September 2023. This was to investigate how the rats were entering the building, and involved the contractor looking for any access points, including from the communal areas. This was reasonable action for the landlord to take having been alerted to the prospect of further sightings within the property block. The contractor’s report noted that it was not sure how the rats were entering the building, but it had observed damaged vents and gulleys. It provided a quote for recommended work, which included a jet wash and the gulleys and pipes being fully inspected as external proofing of the building. However, it is not clear from the evidence provided whether the landlord proceeded with the works at the time.
After the resident raised the pest control issue as part of her complaint, the landlord acted reasonably by informing her that it would contact the pest control contractor again. In its stage 1 response on 1 December 2023, it asked the resident to let it know if she had not heard back from the contractor. Although the landlord’s actions demonstrated that it had listened to the resident’s ongoing concerns about the issue, it did not act appropriately. This was because the contractor was carrying out work on behalf of it and not on behalf of the resident. Therefore, it should have liaised directly with the contractor rather than placing the onus on the resident. This was a missed opportunity by it. There is no evidence that the pest control contractor contacted the resident at that time.
From the evidence provided to us, it does not appear that the pest control contractor returned to carry out work on the block until April 2024. This involved drainage and external proofing work which it had recommended at the end of September 2023. It is not clear why the work was not carried out sooner, especially given the pest control concerns raised by both the resident and other occupants of the block. This was a failing by the landlord. However, as the resident had been temporarily moved by the landlord from January 2024 onwards, this limited the impact of this failing on her.
The Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure. This is because, while the landlord has provided evidence that it initially instructed its pest control contractor following the resident initially raising concerns in September 2023, it failed to ensure whether the contractor returned after the resident raised her complaint in November 2023. There was also a delay of more than 6 months (between October 2023 and April 2024) where there was no evidence that it followed up on the works recommended by the contractor.
The Ombudsman has awarded £100 compensation. This is in keeping with our remedies guidance where there was a failing by the landlord which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the temporary move

The landlord has a decant policy which sets out its approach when residents are required to move from their properties for the purpose of repairs. The policy sets out that a temporary decant is when a resident is “required to move from their home for a short period of time to enable repairs or other major works to be carried out. After the work is completed, they will be expected to move back to their home”.
The decant policy says that the landlord understands decants can be “disruptive and difficult for residents”. It set out a number of steps it will take to support residents through the process. These include providing as much information as possible to the resident on the works required and the length of time that they will be away from the property. The policy clarifies that the temporary move “only lasts as long as it takes to complete the necessary work”.
The resident informed this Service that she was moved a number of times during the period she was away from the property, and on occasions she was provide with little notice of the need to move her. She said this included her being told by a hotel reception that the landlord had failed to make a payment to continue the temporary move and that she would be checking out on that day. In her communication with us, she said she moved between 6 and 10 times. She felt that the landlord ought to have done more extend the temporary move at the original property she was moved to rather than continually moving her, which also caused her disruption.
The landlord provided us with details of the temporary moves for the resident. This shows that there were 6 moves in total, the last of which was to another property in the same complex as the previous one. With the exception of a hotel between 30 June 2024 and 2 July 2024, all of the other moves were for period of at least 3 weeks.
The landlord initially informed the resident the decant would be for 3 weeks beginning on 8 January 2024. This followed its contractor having attended the property at the beginning of January 2024 to carry out some of the work that the survey inspection of 24 October 2023 recommended. The landlord’s correspondence to its contractor confirmed that the work to dry out the property before carrying out the repairs would take 2 weeks. Given this, the landlord’s approach to provide the resident with a temporary move for 3 weeks was reasonable. This would allow a few days after the planned works were scheduled to be finished for it to complete any snagging issues and for the landlord to conduct an inspection before the resident was due to return.
Due to the ongoing delays in the work being completed, the landlord extended the temporary move repeatedly up to 10 June 2024. Until this time, the resident continued to be housed in the same property. The landlord explained to the Ombudsman that, after this date, the property was no longer available as it was booked by someone else. It therefore had to move the resident elsewhere. She was moved to a 3-bedroom apartment, which was larger than the 2-bedroom apartment she had previously been in.
The landlord’s stage 2 response informed the resident that she would be returning to her property on 1 July 2024. This was why the temporary move was only scheduled by the landlord up to this time. Due to the resident not being able to return to her property on this date, the landlord had to make arrangements for a further move, and as a stopgap this include a family room in a hotel for 3 days. Rather than continue to extend the hotel past 2 July 2024, the landlord instead located an alternative 2-bedroom apartment for the resident to move to. Again, due to the ongoing unavailability of the property, the landlord moved her 2 more times, to similarly sized apartments.
The Ombudsman accepts that the number of moves by the landlord would have caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience. However, it acted in accordance with its decant policy, and on each occasion booked a reasonable period in line with how long the scheduled works to her property were due to take. When it became apparent that the works were either not completed satisfactorily or had not even been carried out, it made arrangements to extend her booking where possible, and sourced an alternative property if an extension was not possible. As the alternative properties were not void properties or housing from its own stock, the landlord had no control over external parties competing and making bookings on the same properties it had booked for the resident.
In summary, the Ombudsman has not found any maladministration. The landlord acted in accordance with its decant policy and made bookings in line with the anticipated schedule of works needed to the resident’s property. Due to the works not being completed to the landlord’s satisfaction, the temporary move was extended by the landlord. On occasions, due to the temporary accommodation being unavailable, the landlord had to source alternative accommodation which was appropriate for the resident’s requirements.

The landlord’s handing of the complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy confirms it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of escalation. At both stages the landlord’s policy sets out that if it is not possible to provide a response within the timescale, it may extend this time after speaking to the resident and setting out the reasons for this, by a further 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord did not issue its stage 1 response until 1 December 2023. In its response it noted the resident’s complaint was made on 13 November 2023. Even from this date, its response was outside of the timescales contained in its policy, having been made after 14 working days. There is no evidence that it wrote to the resident explaining it needed an extension to provide the stage 1 response. This was at odds with its policy.
Following the resident’s email to the landlord on 9 January 2024 asking for the matter to be considered further, the landlord did not issue its stage 2 response until 13 June 2024, after 108 working days. This was significantly outside of the timescales contained in its policy.
The landlord offered compensation of £250 in its stage 2 response for its complaint handling. It said this was for the delays at stage 2. Although the landlord did not apologise for the delay at stage 1, there would not have been significant impact on the resident caused by the small delay of a few days. The amount offered by the landlord was proportionate compensation for the complaint handling failures identified, and it is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact.
Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the acknowledgement, apology, and compensation offered by the landlord represents reasonable redress for its failures in respect of this element of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of responsive repairs, damp and mould
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a pest infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a temporary move.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £2,300. If the landlord has already paid any compensation to the resident in line with its formal responses it can deduct the amount from the total awarded. The figure of £2,300 is made up of:
  1. £2,200 for its failings in handling of responsive repairs, damp and mould.
  2. £100 for its failings in its handling of the pest issue.

Recommendation

The landlord should pay the resident the compensation of £250 it offered at stage 2 for its complaint handling failures, as this is the basis on which a finding of reasonable redress has been made. If the landlord has already paid this amount to the resident, it does not need to make any further payment for complaint handling.