Sage Homes RP Limited (202444737)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202444737

Sage Homes RP Limited

30 July 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. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Reports of a defective kitchen cupboard.
3. Request for a management transfer.
4. Reports of damage to her possessions.
We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The property is a 1-bedroom flat located on the ground floor of a new-build block which was handed over to the landlord in March 2023. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy which began in April 2023 and the landlord’s records state that the resident has medical disabilities.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 October 2024 to report that one of her kitchen wall cupboards was loose and leaning to one side. She also said there was mould on the wall behind the cupboard. The landlord’s contractor attended on the same day and resecured the kitchen cupboard. The contractor also removed the mould in the kitchen. Following further reports of mould from the resident, the landlord inspected the property on 21 October 2024 and found there was a slow leak from the flat above the resident’s property. The landlord’s Surveyor recommended that the resident be moved out of the property temporarily until the leak and the reported mould issues were resolved. The resident left the property to stay with friends/family on 21 October 2024.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 6 November 2024 and, as a result, confirmed that it had logged a stage 1 complaint on that day. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 20 November 2024 in which it stated the following:
1. It outlined the timeline of events following the resident’s reports of the defective kitchen cupboard and mould on 7 October 2024.
2. Its Surveyor had identified the cause of the mould as a leak from the flat above.
3. It had experienced problems accessing the flat above to carry out repairs. However, it accepted it had not kept to its timescales in addressing the mould issues and said it should have managed the resident’s expectations better in terms of timescales.
4. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint about its handling of the reported damp and mould.
5. The resident had requested a management transfer and this would be reviewed by the landlord’s Management Panel on 4 December 2024.
6. The landlord said the resident had made a complaint on 21 October 2024 and due to an oversight, it had not logged the complaint until 6 November 2024. It apologised and upheld the resident’s concerns about complaint handling.
7. The landlord offered compensation of £495 for the handling of repairs and the complaints handling.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 November 2024 and requested the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 because she said her concerns had not been addressed in full and she disagreed with several points in the response.
During December 2024 and January 2025, the resident and landlord had several conversations to arrange access for the contractor to carry out repairs and to discuss the resident’s rehousing options. During this period, the contractor carried out various works in the property and the landlord arranged for a pest controller to carry out treatments for woodlice. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 27 January 2025 in which it included the following information:
1. The landlord said it had now completed the works in the property and carried out redecorations.
2. It acknowledged there had been missed appointments, some repairs had not been completed to the required standard and there had been delays due to access issues with the resident in the flat above. It therefore upheld this part of the resident’s complaint.
3. In relation to the resident’s request for a management transfer, the landlord said it had followed its policy/procedure and had not agreed the request. It had, however, contacted the local authority to explore the resident’s housing options and then provided the resident with information regarding her options. Therefore, it did not uphold this part of the resident’s complaint.
4. The resident had reported damage to some of her possessions and concerns that her sofa might be affected by the smell of damp. The landlord partially upheld this part of the resident’s complaint and said it would organise a deep clean of the property and furniture.
5. The resident had reported that one of her kitchen wall cupboards had become loose and had been leaning to one side. The landlord’s contractor had attended on the same day but this had only been after the resident had escalated the matter to a manager.
6. The landlord said the matter should have been dealt with as an emergency health and safety repair and apologised for its initial response. It upheld this part of the resident’s complaint.
7. The landlord accepted there had been delays at both stages of the complaints process and apologised for this.
8. The landlord offered total compensation of £1,545 and said this was separate to the resident’s out-of-pocket expenses it had agreed to reimburse and the full cleaning of the property it would carry out.

Events after the landlord’s stage 2 reply

The resident contacted us on 5 February 2025 to say she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 reply because of issues with damp and mould, her rehousing request, damage to personal items and delays in carrying out the works.
During February and March 2025, the resident and the landlord exchanged further correspondence to arrange the completion of some outstanding work and the pest treatments to deal with woodlice. The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 March 2025 to confirm that all of the works had been completed and she had moved back to the property on 23 March 2025.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 March 2025 and said it had reviewed its offer of compensation and wanted to increase its offer from £1,545 to £1,845. It said this was separate to the following:
1. The out-of-pocket expenses that had been reimbursed.
2. The £3,850 allowance for being out of the property (154 days at £25 per day).
3. £1,687.01 to cover utility bills, appliances and Council Tax.
4. £3,244.34 credited to her rent account to cover the rent charges for the period she was out of the property.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 April 2025 and said the landlord’s compensation offer did not take account of the serious impact the situation had on her health, wellbeing and quality of life. She said it did not reflect the landlord’s negligence and said her health had significantly worsened due to the damp and mould. On 19 June 2025, the landlord issued an addendum to its stage 2 reply in which it revised its compensation offer to £1,995. The resident accepted the revised offer on 22 July 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Some of the evidence we have received relates to events that took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 27 January 2025. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response. In this case, we consider it is fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.
We have noted that the resident wrote to the landlord on 6 February 2025 and asked for her email to be treated as an addendum to her complaint. The landlord responded to her email on 7 February 2025 but did not issue a revised stage 2 reply. As the resident raised the additional matters after the landlord had issued its stage 2 reply, our view is that it is fair and reasonable to treat the landlord’s stage 2 reply dated 27 January 2025 as its final complaint response.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 December 2024 and said that the issues she had experienced in the property had a significant impact on her physical, mental, and emotional health. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent advice if she wishes to pursue this option.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould

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.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy prioritises repairs according to the following categories:
1. Emergency repairs – the landlord will attend and make safe within 24 hours of residents reporting them.
2. Routine repairs – the landlord will complete these within 20 working days of residents reporting them.
The landlord’s Emergency Accommodation, Permanent and Temporary Moves Policy/Procedure states:
1. If the resident needs to move for the landlord to carry out necessary repairs, they will be entitled to receive compensation if they stay with family or friends while the works are in progress.
2. If the resident cannot stay with family or friends, the landlord will make the resident a direct offer of accommodation or make hotel / bed and breakfast arrangements for them.
Following the resident’s report on 7 October 2024, the landlord’s contractor attended on the same day and carried out a mould wash and stain blocking. It was appropriate that the contractor had attended on the same day to remove the mould as the resident was known to be vulnerable.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 October 2024 to report that the mould had returned and was quickly spreading. She said this was causing her significant worry due to her medical condition, which she said made her particularly vulnerable to the risks posed by mould. She also mentioned that she had noticed a lot of beetles in the property.
The landlord contacted the resident to say it had asked the contractor to return and had passed the resident’s concerns to its repairs team. The resident contacted the landlord again on 18 October 2024 to report the damp and mould and a problem with woodlice. The landlord replied to the resident on the same day (18 October 2024) to advise that a Surveyor would inspect the property.
Given that the resident was known to be vulnerable and had reported the return of mould within a week of the mould wash on 7 October 2024, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not arranged an urgent inspection upon receiving the resident’s email of 14 October 2024. The landlord was responsible under the HHSRS for assessing the extent to which the damp and mould was a hazard to the resident. It was only after the resident phoned the landlord on 21 October 2024 and asked for the matter to be escalated that the Surveyor inspected on the same day.
The resident later explained that she had needed to take time away from her work to escalate the matter on 21 October 2024. It was unreasonable that it had needed the resident to ask for her report of damp and mould to be escalated to a senior manager for the landlord to arrange an urgent inspection.
Part of the resident’s stage 2 complaint was that she was not given any advice regarding precautions she should take in relation to the mould when she contacted the landlord to report it. The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 October 2024 and provided her with a leaflet about damp and mould. However, this was 11 days after she had initially reported the mould on 7 October 2024. Furthermore, the leaflet was aimed at preventing condensation and mould, rather than offering advice to minimise the potential risks posed by mould. Given the resident’s vulnerability, we would agree that as the Surveyor’s inspection was not carried out until 21 October 2024, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not given the resident some interim advice to minimise the potential risks posed by the mould.
The Surveyor inspected the property on 21 October 2024 and found that the mould was caused by a slow leak from the flat above the resident’s property. The Surveyor advised the resident that she should be rehoused temporarily until the leak, damp and mould were resolved. Given the resident’s vulnerability, it was reasonable that once he had inspected the property, the Surveyor had made an immediate decision that the resident should temporarily move out of the property.
The landlord completed a temporary rehousing form on 22 October 2024 but noted on the form that the resident had chosen to stay with friends following a conversation with the landlord on that day. The form stated that the offer of the hotel had been made as emergency alternative accommodation.
The resident later wrote to the landlord on 2 April 2025 and said that the temporary accommodation offered by the landlord had not been suitable because it had no cooker, microwave, washing machine or drying facilities. Whilst we understand that moving to a hotel would have been very disruptive for the resident, our view is that the landlord’s offer of hotel accommodation was reasonable. The offer of the hotel was in line with the landlord’s Emergency Accommodation, Permanent and Temporary Moves Policy/Procedure Policy, which says that hotel accommodation may be offered in emergencies. Furthermore, hotel accommodation is often the only option available to landlords as temporary accommodation in emergencies as it can be booked at short notice.
The landlord advised the resident during the conversation on 22 October 2024 that if she was placed in a hotel by the landlord, she would need to continue paying rent on the property. However, the landlord said it would review this and would let the resident know its position at a later date. The advice given by the landlord was appropriate as it was in line with its Emergency and Temporary Accommodation Procedure, which states that where a resident is temporarily rehoused, the resident “will retain security of tenure for their original property and will continue to pay rent accordingly”. However, as the resident had questioned whether she should have to pay rent while she was not occupying the property, it was reasonable for the landlord to agree to review its position.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 and 25 October 2024 and advised her that its Homes and Communities team would work with the Repairs team to consider her welfare while she was unable to occupy the property. The landlord also advised her that it had instructed its contractors to complete the work to her property with professionalism and to be empathetic to her circumstances. Finally, the landlord confirmed that she would be entitled to an allowance of £25 per day while she was unable to return to the property.
As the resident was known to be vulnerable, it was reasonable the landlord had written to the resident to reassure her that its teams would consider her welfare and that it had spoken to its contractors about showing empathy. It was also appropriate that the landlord had advised the resident at an early stage that she would be entitled to an allowance of £25 per day. The allowance of £25 was appropriate as it was in line with the landlord’s Emergency Accommodation, Permanent and Temporary Moves Policy/Procedure. The policy/procedure states that a disturbance allowance will be paid at a rate of £25 for each night away from the property where the resident is staying with friends and family.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 6 November 2024 and confirmed that she would not be charged rent until the issues had been resolved and that it would review its position regarding payment of utility bills and Council Tax. As the resident was not occupying the property, it was reasonable that it had agreed to waive the rent charges and agreed to consider whether it could pay the utility bills and Council Tax charges.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 November 2024 and provided her with named contact officers for repairs and non-repair matters. The landlord asked the resident whether she was happy to remain with family/friends or whether she wanted the landlord to source temporary accommodation. The resident replied on the same day and confirmed she was happy to stay with a friend until the work was completed. The landlord also checked with the resident on 18 November 2024 by phone that she was happy to continue staying with family/friends. The resident confirmed that she was happy to continue staying with family/friends.
It was helpful that the landlord had identified named contact points for the resident as this would assist her with communications. It was also helpful that the landlord had checked with the resident whether she was still happy to remain with friends until the repairs had been resolved.
The landlord’s records show that it had booked and then cancelled various appointments for its contractor to commence works in the resident’s property. The landlord explained in its stage 1 reply on 20 November 2024 that it had cancelled the orders because it had experienced problems accessing the flat above to carry out the repairs to stop the leak. It also said that although it had advised the resident in advance of the cancellations, it understood the impact and inconvenience these cancellations had caused her. Consequently, it apologised and offered the resident a goodwill compensation payment to put things right.
The number of appointments that were cancelled is unclear from the evidence seen. However, the evidence indicates that at least 3 appointments were cancelled during November 2024 and others were cancelled in December 2024 and January 2025. We understand the landlord’s reasons for booking repairs to the resident’s property ahead of repairing the leak in the upstairs flat. The intention was to speed up the overall process of carrying out the remedial work in the resident’s property. However, given the difficulties faced by the resident since reporting the damp and mould and her known vulnerabilities, our view is that the number of cancelled appointments was unreasonable. The resident later explained in an email to the landlord on 2 April 2025 that she and her family had to take significant time off work to provide access for repairs and inspections, many of which were missed or delayed.
The landlord’s records show that it completed the repairs to stop the leak in the upstairs flat on 9 December 2024, which was 5 weeks after the landlord’s Surveyor had diagnosed the cause of the dampness as the leak. As previously stated, the landlord had experienced difficulties accessing the upstairs flat on various dates, for example on 21 October 2024 and 8, 15 and 16 November 2024. The landlord’s records also show that it had to provide support to the tenant in the upstairs flat in order to arrange the repairs as the situation was complex.
The 5 weeks taken by the landlord to stop the leak in the upstairs flat delayed the remedial work to the resident’s flat. However, the landlord advised the resident of the delay during a phone call on 13 November 2024. Therefore, based on the complexities and difficulties involved in accessing the flat, we have concluded that the landlord carried out repairs to stop the leak in the upstairs flat within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 28 November 2024 and confirmed that its contractor had proposed to carry out the work in the resident’s property on 9 and 10 December 2024. However, she was unable to provide access as she could not book more time off from her work. The landlord had therefore agreed that the contractor would carry out the work on a Saturday and Sunday (14 and 15 December 2024). As the resident had previously booked leave for repairs that had not gone ahead, it was reasonable that the landlord had arranged for the contractor to carry out the repairs during the weekend. This would allow the resident to provide access without booking more leave from work.
Following various conversations between the resident and the landlord during January 2025, the resident agreed the arrangements for the contractor to install new kitchen units and carry out other works. Arrangements were made for the landlord to collect the keys for the property from the home of the resident’s parents so that work could be carried out at the weekend. This showed that the landlord was taking reasonable steps to minimise inconvenience and further disruption faced by the resident. On 24 January 2025, the contractor installed new kitchen units and completed other works to the property. It was reasonable that the landlord had liaised closely with the resident during January 2025 to make the arrangements for the works to the kitchen and other areas to be completed.
In its stage 2 reply dated 27 January 2025, the landlord agreed that it would carry out a deep clean of the property in February 2025. Given the extent of the works carried out in the property since the resident had reported damp and mould in October 2024, it was reasonable that the landlord had offered to carry out a deep clean of the property prior to the resident moving back in.
Part of the resident’s complaint was that as a result of the reported dampness, the property had an infestation of woodlice. She reported the presence of the woodlice to the landlord on 14 and 18 October 2024. In response, the landlord advised the resident on 31 October and 7 November 2024 that it had appointed a pest control contractor to carry out treatment and the contractor would contact the resident for access. The landlord had therefore taken about 2 weeks to appoint a pest control contractor, which we consider was reasonable given that its priority at the time was to address the damp and mould issues.
On 28 November 2024, the landlord spoke to the resident and advised her that it would cancel the order given to the pest control contractor and appoint a replacement contractor. The landlord said it would try to arrange for the pest controller to attend at the same time as the main repair contractor to minimise inconvenience to the resident. It was unreasonable that the treatment for the woodlice had not yet commenced almost a month after the landlord had confirmed on 31 October 2024 that it had placed an order.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 5 December 2024 and confirmed that the pest controller had advised that woodlice are attracted by damp, mould and high moisture levels and could not be eradicated. Based on the advice received, the landlord arranged for the repairs contractor to run industrial dehumidifiers in the property and to seal up possible access points. This was reasonable, to reduce damp and moisture levels in the property and to remove some of the potential access points.
The landlord advised the resident on 5 December 2024 that the pest controller was unable to attend at weekends. Following further concerns expressed by the resident, the landlord appointed another pest control contractor and arranged for them to attend on 20 January 2025 to fumigate the property and lay glue traps for the woodlice. As the resident had continued to express concerns, it was reasonable that the landlord had arranged for a different contractor to fumigate and check the level of woodlice activity by laying insect traps. This would provide reassurance to the resident that the landlord was taking her concerns seriously.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 January 2025 and provided her with a copy of the pest controller’s report confirming that it had carried out the treatment on 20 January 2025 and left traps. The pest controller confirmed that it had not seen any woodlice activity during the visit. The landlord also advised her that the pest control contractor would attend for the second of 3 treatments on 3 February 2025. The landlord confirmed that a member of its staff would also be present.
It was reasonable that the landlord had given the resident a copy of the pest control report on 24 January 2025 as this would confirm the treatment had been carried out and inform her of the pest controller’s findings. It was also reasonable that the pest controller had booked the next appointment so the resident could see that the treatment was continuing.
In terms of its communication, the evidence shows that particularly during December 2024 and January 2025 the landlord took reasonable steps to maintain contact with the resident to arrange the remedial work. For example, it spoke to and/or wrote to her regarding the works on 5, 13, 23 and 27 December 2024 and 9, 14, 15, 16, 21, 23 and 24 January 2025. The evidence does show, however, that some of the landlord’s contact was in response to phone calls and emails from the resident requesting updates.
Overall, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould:
1. The landlord did not arrange a timely inspection of the damp and mould by a Surveyor, despite the resident’s known vulnerabilities. The inspection took place 2 weeks after she first reported damp and mould.
2. It was only after the resident had spent additional time and effort escalating the matter to a senior manager that the landlord arranged an urgent inspection.
3. Prior to the inspection, it did not offer any interim advice to the resident to minimise the potential risks posed by the mould given her medical vulnerabilities.
4. The landlord cancelled various appoints to carry out remedial work in the resident’s property and this added to the distress and inconvenience she had experienced since reporting the damp and mould.
5. There was a delay in carrying out the woodlice treatment.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings in handling the reported damp and mould. For example, in its stage 2 reply it upheld the complaint about damp and mould. It said there had been missed appointments, repairs had not been completed to an acceptable standard and there had been delays in starting the work due to access problems with the flat above. It also acknowledged that its staff had not understood the urgency of the situation when the resident first reported the damp and mould in October 2024 and it had only arranged the inspection after she had escalated the matter.
The landlord had sought to put things right by:
1. Apologising for the service the resident had received and the distress and inconvenience she had experienced.
2. Identifying officers who would be points of contact for the resident in relation to repairs and non-repair issues.
3. Promptly confirming to the resident that she was entitled to a daily allowance of £25 while she was staying with family/friends.
4. Arranging for its contractor to carry out the remedial works during weekends in order to minimise disruption to the resident.
5. Arranging to collect the keys to the property from the resident’s parents’ home to reduce the amount of travelling needed by the resident.
6. Offering to carry out a deep clean of the property and furniture when the work was completed (including her sofa, which she was concerned might have been affected by the smell of damp).
7. Offering to waive the rent charges for the whole period she was unable to occupy the property.
8. Offering to reimburse the resident for other charges such as the Council Tax, utility bills, broadband bills, travel expenses.
9. Offering compensation for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
The landlord also demonstrated learning, as stated in its stage 2 reply, by stating it would:
1. Increase its monitoring of complex repairs and introduce additional system checks.
2. Raise all damp and mould cases as emergency defects.
3. Prioritise damp and mould cases by introducing a dedicated team to oversee the cases.
4. Monitor and evaluate contractor performance to ensure they are meeting expectations and commitments.
5. Offer better initial guidance to customers facing serious issues, such as damp and mould, to help them manage the situation safely while waiting for repairs.
6. Refer the resident’s complaint to its Senior Management Team so they could ensure that other residents did not experience similar distress in the future
In terms of the level of compensation, as part of its stage 2 reply the landlord offered £1,145 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, including for the appointments that did not proceed. The landlord’s Remedies Policy states that it will offer discretionary compensation of up to £500 for ‘high impact’ failures where “a serious failure in service has taken place. This could either be due to the severity of the event, or a persistent failure has occurred over a prolonged period of time”. In this case, we agree that there was a high level of impact on the resident due to the period she was unable to occupy the property, taking into account her disabilities.
The level of compensation offered by the landlord is also within the range of sums recommended in our own Remedies Guidance for situations where there was significant physical and/or emotional impact on the resident. Therefore, considering the other steps taken by the landlord to put things right and all the circumstances of the case, we have found that the landlord made a fair and proportionate offer of redress to put things right. Consequently, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.
We are aware that the landlord offered an additional £300 compensation on 27 March 2025 and £150 on 19 June 2025. We have not assessed these additional offers as they were made after the stage 2 reply dated 27 January 2025. However, as the landlord offered these sums, we would expect them to be paid. We have therefore included the payment of these sums in our recommendations.

The resident’s reports of a defective kitchen cupboard

The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that an emergency repair is one that represents an immediate danger to the resident or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident if the repair is delayed.
On 7 October 2024, the resident phoned the landlord and reported that one of her kitchen cupboards had become partly detached from the wall and was no longer secure. The landlord advised her that the matter was not an emergency and would be raised as a standard repair. As the resident had reported that the wall cupboard was not secure, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not raise an emergency order to resecure the cupboard. Our view is that the landlord did not follow its policy because the loose cupboard was a potential health and safety risk to the resident and should therefore have been raised as an emergency order.
The resident wrote to one of the landlord’s managers on the same day and said the cupboard was an urgent safety hazard. She explained that she was concerned the cupboard may fall and cause injury. She also explained that the cupboard was blocking access to her fridge. In response, the landlord raised an emergency order and the contractor resecured the cupboard to the wall on the same day. It was appropriate that the landlord had reviewed its position and raised the job as an emergency. It was also appropriate that the contractor attended on the same day as the timescale stipulated in the landlord’s Repairs Policy for attending to emergencies is 24 hours.
The landlord accepted in its stage 2 reply dated 27 January 2025 that it should have understood the urgency of the situation when the resident first reported the issue with the cupboard on 7 October 2024. It upheld the complaint and apologised. The complaint investigating officer confirmed he had listened to the call recording and agreed it had not been correctly handled by its staff. The investigating officer said he had spoken to the relevant manager so that training could be provided to the team to ensure the error would not be repeated. It was appropriate that the investigating officer had acknowledged the failing, apologised and put in place steps to prevent similar errors in the future.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £150 for the distress and inconvenience she had experienced. The offer was in the range of sums identified in the landlord’s Remedies Policy for failings where “inconvenience and/or distress has clearly been caused as a result of a failure in service”. In this case, the resident experienced distress when she was initially told that the loose cupboard was not an emergency. She then experienced inconvenience, time and trouble in having to escalate the matter with the landlord. Consequently, our view is that the amount offered was proportionate and reasonable to put things right and we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

The resident’s request for a management transfer

The landlord’s Management Transfer Policy states:
1. “In exceptional circumstances, a management transfer will be considered where an urgent managed move is required as a customer is unsafe in their current home…”
2. “If a management transfer has been granted by [the landlord], but there is limited stock in the borough, the customer will need to approach the local authority for assistance in rehousing. [The landlord] will work with the local authority to demonstrate the need for a management transfer for the customer.
The landlord’s Allocations and Lettings Policy states:
1. “[The landlord] may not always be able to help tenants move to another property. Much will depend on what the local authority has available at the time. Tenants may need to join the waiting list at the relevant local authority for a transfer”.
The landlord’s records show that the resident requested a management transfer on or about 5 November 2024 because of the issues she had experienced in the property since signing the tenancy agreement in April 2023. The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 November 2024 and confirmed that her application for a management transfer would be considered at the next meeting of its Management Panel on 4 December 2024. As the resident had requested a management transfer, it was appropriate that her application would be considered by the Management Panel. This was in line with the landlord’s Management Transfer Policy.
The landlord submitted a management transfer report to the panel on 19 November 2024 and the Management Panel considered the report on 4 December 2024. It was appropriate that the panel had considered the resident’s management transfer request on this date as it had previously advised the resident it would do so.
The panel did not agree the resident’s request for a management transfer and the landlord spoke to the resident on 10 December 2024 and wrote to her on 12 December 2024 to advise her of the decision. The landlord explained that it had no properties available in her area of choice which she could be offered on a like-for-like basis. The landlord had therefore notified the resident of the panel’s decision and the reasons for its decision within a reasonable timescale.
The resident said she was disappointed that neither of the officers she had been dealing with had attended the Management Panel meeting on 4 December 2024 to advocate on her behalf. However, as the landlord’s Management Transfer does not require officers to attend to advocate on behalf of residents, it was not unreasonable that neither of the officers had attended the panel meeting.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 December 2024 to set out the reasons she was requesting the management transfer as she was requesting the panel to review its decision. The landlord’s records show that it contacted the council in December 2024 to request information about the resident’s housing options. The landlord then phoned the resident on 27 December 2024 to provide her with information about her rehousing options. It was reasonable that the landlord had liaised with the local authority about the rehousing options and had explained these options to the resident. The information would help her understand the options available.
It is unclear from the evidence seen whether the landlord had made arrangements for its Management Panel to review its decision. However, the landlord held a virtual meeting with the resident on 23 January 2025 to discuss her rehousing options and to advise her about progress with the repairs. The meeting was attended by various members of the landlord’s staff and at the meeting it was noted that the resident had decided to remain in her current property after having considered options with input from the landlord’s managers. It was reasonable that the landlord had met with the resident to have further discussions about her housing options to help her make an informed decision.
Our role is not to assess whether the landlord made the correct decision in not approving the resident’s request for a management transfer. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its handling of the request was fair. In this case, the landlord followed its policy by submitting a report to its Management Panel setting out the reasons for the resident’s request. The panel then met within a reasonable timescale and considered the resident’s application. The landlord advised the resident of the panel’s decision both verbally and in writing within a reasonable timescale.
Overall, we have found that the landlord followed its policy and dealt reasonably with the resident’s request for a management transfer. We have therefore found there was no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.

The resident’s reports of damage to her possessions

The landlord’s Remedies Policy states:
1. “Our Remedies Policy is not intended to cover…payments that could be settled by insurance claims.”
2. “Where damage has been caused directly because of our actions or oversight, or those of contractors acting on our behalf, consideration will be given to reimbursement without the need for customers to make a claim at further inconvenience and cost to themselves”.
As part of her stage 1 complaint, the resident advised the landlord she was concerned that some of her belongings, particularly her sofa, would be affected by the smell of mould. The landlord initially stated in its stage 1 reply that the sofa was not situated near the areas affected by mould and therefore would not, in its view, be affected. However, following further information from the resident as part of her stage 2 complaint, the landlord agreed in its stage 2 reply dated 27 January 2025 that it would carry out a full clean of the property, including soft furnishings and her fabric sofa.
As the resident had expressed concerns that some of her furniture would be affected by the smell of mould, it was reasonable that the landlord had agreed to carry out a full clean of the property, including the sofa and soft furnishings. The landlord’s view was that this would address any mould smells left on the furnishings and sofa after completion of the remedial work. By agreeing to carry out a full clean, the landlord showed that it was seeking to take practical measures to resolve the resident’s complaint about the mould potentially affecting her belongings.
The evidence shows that the resident had requested compensation for damaged appliances. In response, the landlord agreed in its email dated 28 November 2024 that it would compensate the resident £459.69 for appliances, including the fridge freezer, microwave, kettle and toaster.
Although we have not seen details of how or when the appliances were damaged, it was reasonable that the landlord had sought to alleviate some of the distress the resident was experiencing by offering to compensate her for the items. The evidence indicates that there was no delay in the landlord making its decision to compensate her for the appliances. This was helpful as it meant the resident would not have to go through the time and trouble of submitting an insurance claim for these items.
Overall, we have found that the landlord acted fairly and reasonably in its handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her possessions. The landlord offered to clean the resident’s sofa and soft furnishings and compensated her for reported damage to various appliances. We have therefore made a finding of no maladministration in its handling of the reported damage to the resident’s possessions.

The associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
The landlord may extend these timescales for responding if the complaint is complex or additional areas of investigation are required. If an extension is required, the landlord will contact the resident to confirm the estimated resolution time. The extensions will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2 without legitimate reasons.
The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that when it is escalating a complaint to stage 2, it will ask the resident to confirm which aspects of the stage 1 reply they are dissatisfied with. It will also ask the resident for any additional evidence to support their escalation request and the outcome they are seeking.
The resident phoned the landlord on 21 October 2024 and said she was unhappy about the delay in the landlord identifying the root cause of the damp and mould. The landlord did not log this contact as a stage 1 complaint, which was inappropriate because the resident had clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould. The landlord’s Complaints Policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction” and therefore it should have logged the call as a formal complaint.
The resident spoke to the landlord again on 6 November 2024 and said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of matters. The landlord confirmed to the resident that it had logged a stage 1 complaint. It then wrote to the resident on the same day (6 November 2024) to acknowledge the complaint. After logging the complaint, the landlord had therefore acknowledged it within an appropriate timescale in line with its policy.
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 20 November 2024, which was 10 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The time taken for the landlord to respond to the complaint was appropriate and in line with its policy.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 November 2024 and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 as she said the landlord had not fully addressed her complaint. The landlord sent its acknowledgement within an appropriate timescale on 29 November 2024, which was 4 working days after receiving the stage 2 complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 27 January 2025, which was 38 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint. This was longer than the 20-working day timescale in its policy. However, during this period, the landlord had contacted the resident on the following dates:
1. On 17 December 2024, the landlord had written to the resident to advise her that it would respond to her complaint by 23 December 2024.
2. On 23 December 2024, it had spoken to the resident and confirmed it would defer sending its stage 2 reply until it had received further clarity regarding the property condition and the resident’s housing options.
3. On 10 January 2025, it had written to the resident to request an extension to the deadline for replying to the stage 2 complaint.
4. On 16 January 2025, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm it had spoken to her on 14 January 2024 and was working on the stage 2 response.
5. On 24 January 2025, the landlord wrote to the resident to say it was waiting for its different departments to sign-off the stage 2 response and would send the response on 27 January 2025.
The evidence shows that the landlord provided regular updates to the resident regarding her stage 2 complaint and did not exceed the maximum 20-working day extension period stipulated in its Complaints Policy. Furthermore, the resident had asked the landlord to keep her stage 2 complaint open during a phone call on 16 December 2024. We have therefore concluded that the landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint within a reasonable timescale given that it had provided regular updates to the resident and she had asked the landlord to keep the complaint open until the repairs were resolved.
The landlord used its stage 2 reply to apologise for not logging the contact on 21 October 2024 as a stage 1 complaint. It also apologised for the time taken to respond to the stage 2 complaint, even though it had not exceeded the maximum permitted extension period of 20 working days.
The landlord offered compensation of £250 for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. The amount was in line with the landlord’s Remedies Policy for failures in service that had caused inconvenience and/or distress to the resident. Given our findings regarding the landlord’s complaints handling, our view is that the landlord acted fairly by apologising and offering reasonable compensation. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress in terms of the landlord’s complaints handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of a defective kitchen cupboard.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her possessions.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaints.

Recommendations

The landlord should reoffer the resident the £1,545 offered in its stage 2 reply if this has not already been paid. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould, the defective kitchen cupboard and the associated complaints is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
The landlord should also reoffer the £300 offered to the resident on 27 March 2025 and the £150 offered on 19 June 2025 if these sums have not already been paid.