Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202425750)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425750

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

2 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damp, mould and associated repairs.
2. Soundproofing in the property.
3. A home transfer request.
4. A reported pest infestation.
5. Management of asbestos in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident occupies the property under an assured tenancy agreement, and they have done so since 2016 when they moved into the property via a mutual exchange. The property is a two-bedroom basement flat within a converted townhouse style building. The landlord is a housing association. The resident’s child has allergic rhinitis and asthma.
In 2021 the landlord arranged for an asbestos survey to occur. Flooring tiles in bedrooms and the hallway were identified as asbestos containing materials (ACMs). This was in addition to floor tiles in a built-in storage cupboard which had been identified as ACMs in 2018.
On 20 September 2024 the landlord arranged for a full inspection of the property. The inspector found:
1. There was mould growth in the living room and in a bedroom.
2. High damp readings for exterior walls.
3. Carpet damage which could be caused by rodents.
4. Poor quality brickwork and cracking on exterior walls.
5. Roof guttering and downpipes were directing water onto a concrete patio where there was no drainage installed.
On 6 December 2024 this Service notified the landlord that the resident had asked for a complaint to be raised. This related to:
1. Concerns about how the landlord had handled asbestos in the property, and its lack of communication around the asbestos.
2. Their wish for the landlord to complete outstanding repairs and pest control measures in a timely manner.
3. Their wish to be transferred to a suitable and safe property.
4. Their soundproofing concerns.
5. Their wish for compensation for the distress they had experienced.
In the landlord’s stage one response dated 31 December 2024 it said:
1. It had no budget to install soundproofing measures in the property, and it rarely carries out such works. Although it noted it may have a budget for such works in the future.
2. It had raised works to repair the windows, and it would confirm with the resident when this work had been completed.
3. The resident had submitted medical evidence to support their request to be rehoused, and an independent medical assessor assigned the resident a band C priority.
4. The independent medical assessor had said that the resident required a property which was free from damp and mould.
5. Its Asbestos Manager had met with the resident on 15 May 2024 to discuss the ACMs.
6. Prior to 2018 it was unaware of the presence of asbestos in the property. It said, when the ACMs were identified, it followed relevant laws. Any decisions around removal of the asbestos would be informed by the condition of the ACMs and any associated risks.
7. The property had a history of damp and mould, but the latest readings had not identified any mould in the property.
8. It had approved work orders for internal and external roof works linked to damp and mould.
9. A pest control contractor had attempted to conduct an inspection on 6 November 2024, but they had been unable to access the property. It committed to arranging for the contractor to re-attend the property.
10. It offered the resident £150 in compensation for its delay in arranging external works, and £150 for the distress this caused.
On 6 January 2025 the resident escalated their complaint as they felt the landlord had not fully addressed all the ongoing issues at stage one.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response dated 24 January 2025 it said:
1. A contractor had attended the property on 23 January 2025 and it had arranged for additional surveys to occur.
2. It would keep the damp and mould under close review.
3. Work orders had been raised for windows in the property to be inspected and repaired where necessary.
4. It understood the resident was concerned about the asbestos, but the landlord was satisfied the matter was being handled appropriately. It said if there was a risk to the resident then it would take action.
5. There was nothing further the landlord could do regarding the resident’s request to move properties.
6. It had arranged for its relevant departments to ensure the pest infestation works were followed through to conclusion.
7. It felt the £300 offered at stage one was fair and reasonable.
On 10 April 2025 the resident told us they hadreferred their complaint to the Ombudsman as they wished to be moved to a new property or, if this was not possible, for repairs in the property to be completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In 2023 this Service investigated the landlord’s response to a complaint made by the resident in 2021. On this occasion the Ombudsman made four findings of severe maladministration for:
1. The handling of pest infestations.
2. The handling of various repairs (including external repairs, damp in the property, repairs to windows, bathroom repairs).
3. Its complaints handling.
4. Its record keeping.
To ensure fairness, when assessing matters which relate to the previous complaint, the Ombudsman will only consider events which occurred after our previous determination. This is to ensure we do not consider matters which the Ombudsman has previously made a determination on. Details of our previous findings have been included for context, and so that the impact of ongoing issues and any failings can be assessed.

The landlord’s handling of damp, mould and associated repairs

The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that when a resident reports damp and mould concerns it will complete a comprehensive inspection of the property. This is with the aim of identifying any contributing factors, and if any repairs are required. When repairs are conducted the landlord will re-contact the resident after 6 months. If the damp and mould issues remain, the landlord will raise works to be conducted as a priority.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. For normal repairs the landlord aims to complete works within 28 days, and it will provide the resident with a timescale of how long it thinks the repair might take.
The tenancy agreement says it is the landlord’s responsibility to repair and maintain the structure and exterior of the property. The document outlines this includes external drainage, external doors, internal and external walls, and windows.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a legal duty on a landlord to make full, effective and lasting repairs once it becomes aware a repair is required.
The Housing Act 2004 places a requirement for landlords to assess hazards and risks within their rented homes. Hazards are to be assessed under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), which includes damp and mould growth as being potential hazards which may require remedy.
On 20 September 2024 the landlord conducted a full inspection of the property. The surveyor’s findings included:
1. There was mould growth in the living room and the rear bedroom.
2. There were high damp readings in external walls, and the surveyor felt this was a result of rainwater penetration.
3. Internal and external walls in the rear bedroom were affected by excessive moisture ingress.
4. The external brickwork was in a poor condition.
5. An external downpipe was directing rainwater out onto a concrete patio outside of the property’s rear bedroom. This caused water to pool outside of the property as there were no drains or soakaways installed.
After this inspection the landlord sent a summary of the findings to the resident. It also contacted a contractor to arrange further inspections, and for quotes to install an external drain. This was appropriate.
In its stage one response dated 31 December 2024 the landlord said it had raised works to complete repairs to the windows and roof. In its stage 2 response dated 24 January 2025 the landlord said it would be keeping the damp and mould under review, and it had arranged for the windows to be inspected and repaired where necessary.
On 24 January 2025 the landlord told the resident via email it would arrange an additional survey of the property to occur as soon as possible. The resident chased the landlord on 26 March 2025 and 28 April 2025 to ask when the survey would occur, and what works it had raised. The landlord’s lack of timely action and its failure to communicate its progress and plans with the resident was inappropriate, and it was indicative of poor customer service from the landlord.
The landlord raised works to add draught excluders to the windows and doors on 3 February 2025. The landlord has not provided any evidence to indicate such works were completed, this was unreasonable.
The landlord conducted an inspection of the roof on 29 April 2025. Following this it raised works to refit the guttering, replace broken roof tiles, complete re-flaunching and re-pointing and install drip edges. Arranging for such works to occur was a positive step in the landlord’s efforts to secure the structure of the property from water ingress.
However this inspection occurred 222 days afterthe landlord was recommended to inspect the roof by a surveyor. This delay was unreasonable, and it would have contributed to the resident’s overall distress.
On 7 May 2025 an inspection of the exterior of the property occurred. The surveyor noted there was a lack of water flashing on the external walls. The surveyor said the property had originally been built as a mid-terrace home, and when the adjoining property was demolished gaps had been left in the original shared wall. The gaps had not been infilled, and this was likely contributing to cold conditions, and allowing water ingress into the property. The surveyor recommended that the gaps should be filled. The findings of this inspection were significant, and the landlord should have taken decisive action to secure the structure of the property. This work may have significantly assisted in improving the resident’s living conditions.
A further inspection occurred on 14 May 2025. During this inspection the surveyor noted:
1. A small section of the downpipe was damaged, and the downpipe was draining water onto concrete paving around the property.
2. The external walls were cracked and damaged.
3. There was mould in the property.
4. The walls in the rear bedroom had moisture readings of between 50% and 70%.
The issues identified during this inspection had already been raised previously, and it was unreasonable that matters had not already been addressed. The landlord’s lack of action would have caused the resident distress as the condition of the home was not improving.
In its complaint responses the landlord offered the resident compensation of £300 for its failure to conduct repairs to the external areas of the property, and for the resident’s associated distress. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s offer of compensation to be a positive step. However without a substantial plan to address the issues contributing to the damp and mould the offer alone was insufficient in the circumstances.
The landlord has provided information to the Ombudsman to indicate it is currently in the process of arranging roofing repairs. It plans to complete the works in September 2025. The evidence supplied does not outline what the planned works are, so the Ombudsman is unable to assess if the planned works are reasonable in the circumstances. Additionally, the landlord has not provided evidence to indicate if it is undertaking any of the recommended works to address the damp, mould and condensation that are not linked to the roof. This is unreasonable.
It is a significant failing that the landlord hasnotadequatelyaddressed thestructural issues, especially when considering theissues had been highlighted in multiple inspections. The landlord did not act in line with its responsibilities as set out in the tenancy agreement, and its obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The damp and mould issues in the property appear to be complex and linked to several structural factors that have caused excess moisture in and around the home. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to consider previous inspection and survey findings, and to use this to generate a planned schedule of works to rectify the damp and mould issues. This plan is to be shared with the resident.
In its stage one response the landlord offered the resident compensation of £300 for its delays in conducting works and for the resident’s associated distress. The Ombudsman considers this offer to be insufficient when considering it did not provide the resident with a detailed action plan around how it aimed to address the damp, mould and condensation alongside the compensation offered. In addition, the Ombudsman has previously made findings of severe maladministration for the landlord’s handling of repairs, which would compound the distress the resident experienced.
Overall, the Ombudsman has determined severe maladministration occurred in the landlord’s handing of the damp and mould reports after considering:
1. The resident has lived with damp and mould in the property for a significant period and the landlord has failed to take decisive action to improve the condition of the home.
2. Surveyors had identified structural issues which were contributing to damp and mould, and the landlord failed to adequately address these or act on recommendations, despite its responsibilities under the tenancy agreement and the recommendations being made on multiple occasions.
3. The landlord did not adequately update the resident on actions it was taking to address the damp and mould.
4. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord put in place any temporary measures to mitigate the water ingress or damp and mould in the property.
Considering the finding of severe maladministration the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay £1000 in compensation to the resident. This figure has been calculated after considering the cumulative failings the Ombudsman has identified. We have also taken into account that this is our second investigation around its handling of repairs to the property.
The Ombudsman has previously made findings of severe maladministration for the landlord’s handling of repairs services to this household. It should have used this first finding as an opportunity to improve its services and its relationship with the resident. It is very concerning to the Ombudsman that this has not occurred. The landlord’s lack of improvement and the ongoing failings would have compounded the distress experienced by the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for soundproofing installation

The landlord’s household noise policy says where it is appropriate it will visit properties to establish the cause of noise transference.
When a resident lives in close proximity to others they should expect that there may be noise transference from everyday domestic living. When noise affects the resident’s enjoyment of their home then landlords should investigate. Landlords should consider if noise transference can be reduced, or if the situation requires escalation.
The Ombudsman has asked the landlord to provide details of the resident’s concerns about noise transference and the steps it took to investigate the resident’s reports. The landlord said it does not have any records of this. The only informationit provided was its stage one response which said it had discussions with the resident about soundproofing in 2023.
The resident has told this Service that noise transference in the property is an issue and they can clearly hear day to day conversations and household noise from neighbouring properties. The resident has provided emails from 25 November 2024 from the landlord which say the soundproofing in the property does not meet current building regulations. The landlord said building standards in this area had changed since the property was converted into flats.
This email said that once confirmation was received that the works could begin that financial year an inspection would occur, the works would progress, and the resident would likely be temporarily rehoused. The tone of this email seemed to indicate the works would likely go ahead, and the resident told us they thought the matter was waiting on managerial sign off. The resident said this matter was not followed up on, and this has caused them frustration and confusion. The resident has also said they have not been provided with outcomes of surveys and inspections around soundproofing and noise transference.
In its stage one response dated 31 December 2024 the landlord said it had determined at that time there was no budget for soundproofing measures to be installed in the property. It said it may have the budget to do so in the future. In its complaint responses the landlord should have made it clear to the resident if this meant the works it had outlined on 25 November 2024 would not be going ahead.
We note that the landlord is not obliged to install any soundproofing, if the property met building standards at the time it was converted. The Ombudsman considers a service failure occurred as the landlord has not provided the resident with the results of surveys, additionally its communications around soundproofing were confusing. Orders have been made for the landlord to share the outcomes of surveys, and to provide the resident with its position on completing soundproofing works in this and the following financial year.

The landlord’s handling of a home transfer request

The landlord’s rehousing policy says it has an internal waiting list for re-housing, and this list is only open to residents who meet its band A criteria. Circumstances when a resident might meet the band A criteria include for safeguarding reasons, when a member of the household requires an adapted home, when a home is under occupied, or for situations where a member of the household is at risk of harm.
On 20 September 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to request a transfer to another property. On 20 October 2024 the resident provided the landlord with a letter from their GP and a specialist allergy nurse. Both letters asked the landlord to consider re-housing the resident due to their child’s ongoing medical conditions. The letters outlined that the resident’s child had uncontrolled and persistent allergic rhinitis and asthma, and said these conditions can be exacerbated by damp and mould.
On 31 October 2024 the landlord conducted an internal meeting to discuss the resident’s banding priority. The landlord said following this meeting a medical assessor assigned the resident as band C priority. This meant the resident was not placed on the internal transfer list. However, the medical assessor noted the resident required a property which was free from damp and mould.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said there was nothing further it could do regarding the resident’s wish to move. However, the landlord’s medical assessor and the child’s medical team noted the household required a home which was free from damp and mould. It appears the landlord did not fully consider this requirement, as it did not make any commitments to improve the condition of the property due to the child’s medical needs. Therefore, the landlord’s stance at stage 2 was unfair as at this time it was not taking significant action to address the damp and mould. Because of this the Ombudsman considers maladministration occurred. This is because there is no evidence that the landlord fully considered all the facts and information available to it when assessing the transfer request.
The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to review its assessment of the resident’s banding priority. This should take into full consideration that it has been unable to ensure the property is free from damp and mould within a reasonable period. Additionally, an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £400 in respect of the distress caused by the landlord’s failure to consider their child’s requirement to live in a home which is free from damp and mould.

The landlord’s handling of a reported pest infestation

The landlord’s pest control policy says it is responsible for treating pests that are deemed to be a statutory nuisance. Residents are responsible for using their property in a manner which does not encourage pest infestations.
The Ombudsman has produced guidance on pest control for landlords and residents. The guidance outlines that residents should report pest control concerns to their landlord, and landlords are responsible for arranging timely inspections and for arranging relevant works. If the infestation is coming from a privately rented tenant, the Ombudsman advises residents to contact their local authority’s environmental health department.
The resident lives in a basement flat, and they have reported hearing rodent movement from beneath the property. In a survey conducted on 20 September 2024 a surveyor noted there was damage to a carpet in the property which was consistent with rodent activity.
In its stage one response dated 31 December 2024 the landlord said pest control contractors had attempted to attend the property on 6 November 2024, but they were unable to access the property. The landlord committed to re-arranging this appointment. This was fair and reasonable.
The landlord raised works for a pest control company to inspect the basement area on 15 May 2025.This was 136 days after its stage 2 response, the Ombudsman considers this response time to be unreasonably long. On 24 June 2025 the pest control company said it had conducted preventative works, but the resident could still hear rodent activity. The pest control company felt the issues were linked to a rodent infestation in the neighbouring property.
The landlord could not address any infestation at a property it does not manage. However, it would have been good customer service for the landlord to update the resident of this development, and to suggest the resident contact the local authority’s environmental health department or make contact itself.
The Ombudsman has determined a service failure occurred due to the time it took for the landlord to arrange a pest control company to inspect the property. As such the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £100 to reflect the resident’s associated distress.

The landlord’s management of asbestos in the property

The landlord’s asbestos policy says if ACMs within its properties are in a good condition, and are unlikely to be disturbed, it will leave the material in situ. Before making this decision the landlord will consider survey findings and associated risk assessments. If ACMs are present in communal areas then ongoing monitoring of the material will occur.
The landlord’s website says building owners, such as itself, are legally responsible for managing risks from asbestos. It notes any asbestos which is assessed as being in good condition presents a negligible risk to health.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) says building owners and landlords are required to:
1. Assess if a property has ACMs present.
2. Make and keep up to date a register of the location and condition of asbestos.
3. Assess the risk of exposure to asbestos fibres and act accordingly.
Under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, landlords have a legal duty to manage asbestos in properties built before the year 2000. This responsibility includes risk assessing the material, creating an asbestos register and producing an asbestos management plan.
In 2018 the landlord identified that asbestos was present in tiles fitted in a storage cupboard in the property. The ACMs were assessed as low risk. In 2021 the resident raised concerns about suspected additional asbestos in the property. The landlord arranged for an asbestos survey to occur on 18 November 2021, and the following ACMs were identified:
1. Floor tiles and bitumen in the lower ground corridor contained asbestos. The ACM was noted as being slightly damaged and low risk.
2. Floor tiles in bedroom one contained asbestos. Modern floor tiles had been installed on top of the ACM. The ACMs were noted as being slightly damaged, and the material was assessed as medium risk.
3. Floor tiles in bedroom 2 contained asbestos. A carpet had been fitted above the floor tiles. The ACM was noted as being slightly damaged and it was assessed as low risk.
The surveyor recommended that the landlord should monitor the condition of the ACMs in the property. Considering the possible serious health implications of asbestos exposure, the Ombudsman expects landlords to follow recommendations made by professionals about the handling of ACMs.
The landlord has told this Service that as the ACMs were low risk and in a fair condition, it made the decision to leave the ACMs in situ and said it would not regularly monitor the material. The landlord has noted it does not have a statutory responsibility to monitor the material as it was not in a communal area.
This stance is concerning, and it appears the landlord came to this decision without properly considering the 2021 surveyor’s report. The report assessed the ACMs in bedroom one as medium risk, not as low risk. Additionally, the report highlighted that there was slight damage to all of the ACMs identified during this survey. As such the landlord’s assessment that the material was low risk and in fair condition does not appear to be accurate. Furthermore the 2021 surveyor recommended the landlord should regularly monitor the condition of all the identified ACMs in the property. As such the Ombudsman considers the rationale cited by the landlord to be unclear.
On 30 May 2024 the landlord conducted an in-person meeting with the resident to discuss their concerns about asbestos, this was appropriate.
After the meeting occurred the resident expressed dissatisfaction with how long it had taken for the landlord to discuss the asbestos with them as the material had been identified in 2021. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to conduct this meeting at an earlier date. If it had done so the resident would have had a greater understanding of the asbestos, its associated risks and what they could do to preserve its condition. The resident being unaware of the full details until 2024 would have caused them distress and concern.
The resident has also cited concerns around why the ACMs had not been identified before they moved into the property. The use of asbestos as a building material was prevalent during the 20th century, as such it would be difficult for a landlord to know the full details of all ACMs within its properties. In this instance the resident moved into the property via a mutual exchange, so there was not a full void period where the property was unoccupied. This would have limited the landlord’s opportunity to conduct significant inspections or works which might have identified the asbestos. Therefore, it is understandable that the landlord was unaware of the presence of asbestos.
In its complaint responses the landlord said it had handled the asbestos in line with legislation, and if there was a risk to the resident it would act to remove the asbestos.
Asbestos risk management is an important duty, as it considers issues which could potentially have a significant impact on a resident. Following the identification of asbestos the landlord did not demonstrate that it took any robust action to manage or monitor the asbestos. This is despite there being slight damage to the material, and the material in bedroom one being assessed as medium risk.
The landlord’s stance that it did not have a statutory duty to monitor the ACMs as the material was not in a communal area is correct. However, the Ombudsman finds maladministration occurred regarding the landlord’s management of the ACMs. Evidence suggests the landlord did not accurately consider the risk associated with the ACMs or the condition of the material, and it did not follow the surveyor’s recommendations. As such, the Ombudsman considers any decisions made around asbestos management to be insufficient as the full circumstances had not been considered.
The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to conduct a survey to inspect the current condition of the ACMs, and to use this to inform a risk assessment and to consider any follow up actions. An additional order has also been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £600 in respect of their associated distress.

The landlord’s record keeping

To enable our investigation, the landlord was asked to provide all records relevant to the resident’s complaint. A further request for records was made during our investigation as the records previously provided were incomplete.
The landlord has not provided records about the resident’s soundproofing concerns, and its associated actions. At the request of the Ombudsman, the landlordprovided records to show it has recently discussed roofing works with contractors, but it has not provided details of what the planned works are. This has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to fully assess the landlord’s actions.
Section 5.12 of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) explains that full records must be kept of the complaint. This includes relevant supporting documentation used to produce its complaint responses.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management, published in May 2023, outlines the benefits of good knowledge management. Clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail which can enhance a landlords ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. Failure to do so can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, and in missing opportunities to identify if its actions were wrong or inadequate.
The Ombudsman considers service failure occurred regarding the landlord’s record keeping.The resident would not have experienced significant detriment from the landlord’s lack of records, as this was an administrative matter. However, given the Ombudsman previously found severe maladministration occurred in the landlord’s record keeping, it is concerning that issues in this regard persist. As such an order has been made for the landlord to apologise to the resident and to explain how it intends to make improvements to its record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for soundproofing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the reported pest infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s re-housing request.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s management of asbestos in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £2,100 to the resident. The £300 previously offered can be deducted from this amount if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £1,000 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of the reported damp and mould.
2. £100 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of the reported pest infestation.
3. £400 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be re-housed.
4. £600 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s management of asbestos in the property.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is to carry out a full asbestos survey within the property. Once this has been completed it must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with the outcome of the survey, a risk assessment and an action plan. The action plan should include considerations it has made about managing the ACMs and the assessment of risk to the resident.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is to apologise to the resident for its record keeping failures, and to explain how it intends to make improvements to its record keeping.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is to provide the resident with copies of its soundproofing/ noise transference surveys.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is to write to the resident to outline its position on conducting soundproofing works to the property in this, and the following, financial year.
Within 6 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to consider the findings of previous surveys to the property and produce a schedule of repairs to outline how it intends to address the damp and mould in the property. This should be shared with the resident and us. The landlord should also ensure that all works are post-inspected.
Within 6 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to review its assessment of the resident’s banding priority. This should take into account that it has been unable to ensure the property is free from damp and mould within a reasonable period.
The Ombudsman has now investigated two complaints from this resident and has made severe maladministration findings in both cases. Whilst our previous determination was made in 2023, we note that there are some common themes and issues across both cases. Therefore, within 10 weeks of this determination the landlord is to meet with the resident to understand all outstanding actions and issues with the property. It is then to use this information, alongside the Ombudsman’s findings, to complete a review of this case, and to decide if any additional works are required to be conducted to the property.
Within 12 weeks of this determination the landlord is to produce a report based on the findings of its case review which outlines the steps it is making to improve the condition of the property. The landlord is to provide a copy of this report to the resident and the Ombudsman. It should also be shared with the landlord’s Board.
The landlord must provide evident of compliance with the Ombudsman’s orders within the time periods specified.

Recommendations

The landlord should arrange to conduct asbestos surveys for any properties it owns in the building, or properties it owns which are a similar type to the resident’s property. This is to assess if such properties also contain ACMs.
The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management and consider implementing its recommendations.