A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202438166)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202438166

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

8 August 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s subject access request (SAR).
2. Damp and mould in the resident’s property.
3. Asbestos in the ceiling and electrical issues.
4. Rodent infestation.
5. The complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 2 bedroom terraced house. She lives in the property with her children.
The resident explained in her complaint that she has being raising ongoing concerns with damp and mould in the property. She said the landlord did not inform her when she signed the tenancy about any asbestos in the ceilings, and this affected the electrical works needed to her property. She also raised concerns about rodents entering the property and about her windows and internal doors. All of this occurred between 2013 and 2024.
The resident’s concerns remained unresolved, and she raised her complaint on 9 March 2024. She explained the situation caused her embarrassment and affected her family’s lives, and enjoyment of the property. She told the landlord it had affected their health, and she wanted compensation. She had calculated this to include loss of personal belongings, damages for pain and suffering, distress inconvenience, loss of enjoyment and health risks. This amounted to a total of £15,846.36.
The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 9 April 2024. She explained she had clarified her complaint with the landlord in March 2024, and following its acknowledgement the issues remained outstanding. She said there had been various inspections carried out which determined the property needed major work which would involve temporarily moving the resident. She said due to her lack of trust in the landlord, she was not comfortable with a temporary move until it discussed the compensation element of her complaint.
The resident then asked for a temporary move from her property on 11 April 2024. The landlord found a void property on 24 May 2024 which was going through the void process. Once completed it could look to move her there.
The resident asked again to escalate her complaint on 10 June 2024. She said she tried to escalate on 9 April 2024 but did not receive a response. The landlord sent an internal chaser for a response to her complaint to allow necessary works to begin but communication remained outstanding.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 12 June 2024. It said it had proposed major works throughout the property which it would oversee. These included both internal and external works and these involved ceiling removals throughout the house, bathroom renewal, boiler renewal and electrical testing. It apologised for the delay in investigating and said it expected works would begin on 27 May 2024 and would take 4 months to complete, but this depended on the availability of the decant property. It told her that there was a property available and it should be available by the end of June 2024. It advised it had appointed someone to oversee the works, provided their details, and explained what it learned from the complaint. It awarded the resident compensation of £350 which it broke down as:
1. £150 for the delay in completing the works.
2. £100 foe the breakdown in communication as it did not keep her updated.
3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident. It apologised the stage 1 response did not deal with her SAR and focused on the repair aspects of the complaint only. It acknowledged failings in its approach around dealing with her complaint. It provided its insurance details around the damage to the resident’s belongings, and awarded her an extra £325 compensation, taking the total to £675. It broke this down as:
1. £300 for the delay in completing works.
2. £100 for the breakdown in communication as the relevant service areas did not update her.
3. £75 for its poor internal communication about the historic works.
4. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
5. £50 for the delay in its stage 1 response.
The resident explained her concerns to us on 30 December 2024. She said to put things right the landlord should pay fair and proper compensation for the conditions she had to endure due to its poor service and failure to maintain the property. It should also offer her and her family a suitable temporary property so it could complete the repairs or move her and her family permanently to a property that was defect free, safe, and suitable for them.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot investigate is known as the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme governs the complaints which we can consider. When a resident brings a complaint to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of our Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the SAR request is outside of our jurisdiction.
Paragraph 42.j. says that we may not consider issues which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator, or complaint handling body. In this instance, we cannot consider the landlord’s handling the resident’s SAR request. This is because this matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). As such you may wish to refer your complaint around the handling of your SAR request to them.

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns about the impact of the situation on hers and her family’s health. We are however unable to consider this. This is because such concerns require a decision around causation and liability which would require a legal determination. The courts can make such decisions, and as such the resident may wish to seek independent advice on this matter.
The resident also raised concerns about damage to her personal belongings. We are unable to make decisions around such matters as an insurance process can deal with claims for damages. We can see that the landlord provided the resident with its insurance details. The resident may wish to follow the insurance process or take independent advice around the issue.
While the resident has referred to her concerns going back to 2013, we are limiting our investigation to considering events from 2022 onwards. This is because we have evidence that indicates the resident was reporting her concerns about damp and mould in late 2022. She then raised a formal complaint about these repairs on 9 March 2024. Typically, the Ombudsman expects a resident to make a complaint within 12 months of the matter occurring to their landlord, and this can limit the period under investigation. However, it is reasonable to extend this period to over 12 months given the available evidence of an ongoing damp and mould problem from 2022.
We have also seen evidence that the resident raised a complaint about the presence of asbestos and electrical works in 2017. However, there is no evidence that the complaint completed the landlord’s complaints process and therefore we will not be investigating events that occurred in 2017. We are satisfied that she had the opportunity to exhaust the landlord’s complaints process and bring her complaint to the Ombudsman at the time, any reference to what happened in 2017 included in this report will be for contextual purposes only.
The resident told us that the first time she raised her concerns around the windows and internal doors was within her complaint and the evidence provided supports this. The landlord did not respond to these issues within either of its complaint responses despite referencing them. This means that these matters have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. Our scheme says we cannot consider matters which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process unless there is a complaint handling failure. In this instance, the landlord did not address how it would deal with these concerns with the resident. Therefore, we will consider the landlord’s handling of these complaints later in the report.
The resident told us about a bathroom leak that occurred in February 2025. As this is a new issue that was not included in the resident’s original complaint, we will not include it in this report.

Provision of evidence

The landlord and resident provided evidence to support their positions on the issues. Part of the resident’s evidence included some of the landlord’s repair records which it did not provide to us. In many instances, the evidence appears to be incomplete or provides no context. We have relied on both parties’ evidence to reach our conclusions in this instance. Where there is an absence of information or a lack of clarity we have relied on what the resident has told us.

Damp and mould in the resident’s property

Section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 place an obligation on a landlord to ensure that a dwelling is free from hazards. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) sees damp and mould, and slip hazards as examples of such hazards, and regards them as a category 1 or 2 hazard depending on the severity. Section 11 of the LTA 1985 also places a repair responsibility on the landlord. As such the landlord also had a legal responsibility to resolve this concerns promptly and consider the habitability of the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete emergency make safe, and complete jobs within 4 hours of the first report, and 24 hours of the first report. It will complete standard repairs within 20 working days and planned and packaged repairs within 90 days.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that:
1. It aims to ensure that it treats residents in a fair and consistent way. It aims to comply with statutory requirements and good practice, focus on working in partnership with residents ensuring that it provides a safe and healthy internal environment.
2. It aims to undertake effective investigations and implement all reasonable remedial repair solutions and improvements to eradicate damp, including, managing, and controlling condensation. The policy goes on to list its responsibilities, which include maintaining a resident’s home and completing remedial action where damp occurs.
3. It is responsible for, diagnosing the cause of damp correctly and delivering effective solutions based on dealing with the cause of damp, and not just the symptom.
4. It will provide support to residents whilst living in a property that has damp and mould. It will respond to a report of damp and condensation and complete any remedial works/ measures within a reasonable timescale, depending on the severity and urgency of the problem, and complexity of the solution and remedial works needed.
From the evidence provided the landlord has not followed its aims and responsibilities listed above and this is unreasonable. It also has not shown how it tried to identify the root cause of the damp and mould, it has delayed in its handling of the situation, and the damp and mould issues remain unresolved within the property.
The evidence demonstrates that there was a history of damp and mould in the property prior to the resident’s complaint. She had raised concerns over 33 times with the landlord prior to her complaint. She explained that the damp and mould was in the bathroom, bedrooms, and separate toilet. She told the landlord, it was worse in the bathroom as mould constantly grew on the ceiling, walls, tiles, pipes woodwork and her personal items.
The evidence details an entry in November 2022 which show that the resident told the landlord that the damp and mould had occurred several times. The records then do not show that the landlord took any action around her concerns as there is no completion date provided. They also show that it raised works on numerous occasions around the extractor fan in the bathroom and there were delays in addressing this repair concern and this was unreasonable.
The resident gave a specific example about a visit in December 2022. An operative attended and said another operative needed to complete some other works first. While it did raise follow on appointments, no one attended. The resident also raised concerns with operatives or contractors attending and saying they needed parts, and other contractors attending for the same job who said they needed different parts. She advised that since her first report, mould continued to grow and form in large areas.
We would expect the landlord’s operatives and contractors to appropriately record any works that needed to be completed, and to order any required parts to allow works to progress promptly given the severity of the situation. The failure to do so was inappropriate and directly affected the landlord’s service provision to the resident. The landlord however acknowledged in its complaint response that its handling of the extractor fan repairs was inappropriate.
The resident also raised concerns about condensation forming on cold surfaces and forming puddles on the floor presenting a slip hazard. She explained the mould ingrained into the grouting and other areas no matter how much wiping, treating, and cleaning she could not remove it, or it reoccurred. The evidence provided supports her concerns, as the landlord’s damp and mould survey on 7 March 2023 identified concerns around condensation. We have seen no evidence that the landlord took appropriate action around this issue at the time, and this was inappropriate.
We acknowledge that the landlord did attend in some instances to try to resolve the damp and mould in the property as exampled by its visit to fix the extractor fan in December 2022. However, it did not act promptly in trying to resolve the issue. The damp and mould survey on 7 March 2023 found that there was damp present in the bathroom, 1 of the bedrooms and she had cleaned mould from the other room recently. It found there was condensation mould in both rooms, that both bedrooms were at “risk,” and the bathroom was “wet.”
The survey found the bathroom, and both bedrooms to be a medium to high risk of condensation. The survey noted that she dried clothes in a ventilated room with the door shut, opened all trickle vents, and left them open all year. It explained that she only had the heating on for a specific amount of time and suggested she used the heating more often. It advised that the landlord complete a mould wash, increase the over-run on the bathroom extractor fans, and replace the double glazed unit to the rear bedroom. It advised that the landlord clear the gutters, and downpipes to prevent any future water ingress issues.
The records explains that the landlord raised works on 27 March 2023 for a mould wash, and to clear the gutters and down pipes to prevent water ingress. It is however unclear whether it completed the works. This is because the records provide no completion date. It explained that it also tried to complete mould washes on 3 other instances in the resident’s property in 2023. It tried to do so in May and June 2023 but could not reach the resident. On one occasion the landlord raised a job on 10 May 2023, around placing an extractor fan in the bathroom.
The resident called following an appointment on 30 May 2023 and explained its operative attended, looked at the issue and left. She said this was the third visit and she queried why the works remained outstanding. It then did not complete the works until 3 August 2023, 24 days outside of its policy, which is inappropriate. It then raised another mould wash on 25 July 2023, but there is no completion date for this. This suggests that it did not complete the necessary action and this was inappropriate.
The landlord said that that it tried to complete remedial works in 2024, following an inspection in 2023, but the resident declined access to her home. This was because she wanted a copy of an asbestos report it completed in 2023 first as she was concerned about asbestos disturbance. It is however unclear whether the mould inspection it referred to was in relation to the survey completed on 7 March 2023. The landlord asked internally to communicate the outcome of the asbestos survey to the resident on 19 March 2024. She explained that it attended on 25 March 2024 and completed a mould wash, but the mould returned.
As the resident had expressed her concern about the asbestos, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to look to reassure her that it remained safe much sooner than it did. This is because the mould wash likely needed a clean of at least 1 ceiling and she believed there was asbestos in her ceiling. The survey also recommend that the landlord installed insulation over the sloping soffit. It has not evidenced that it ever considered this advice. It however raised works to the soffits within the schedule of works provided in May 2024, over a year after the survey. This was inappropriate and contributed to unnecessary delays in resolving the issue.
The resident raised concerns about the impact on her family’s health, and it was not until her complaint that it decided it needed to temporarily move her due to the issues with the removal of ceilings that contained asbestos (related to electrical works). There were however concerns with the temporary move and the resident remained in the property. The damp and mould issues then remained outstanding. The landlord explained to us in August 2025 that it had completed works externally to the resident’s property, however internal works remain outstanding. This means that between November 2022 and August 2025 the issue remained unresolved for 2.9 years and this is unreasonable.
The landlord was aware of the ongoing nature of the damp and mould in November 2022. The evidence then shows it did not complete a survey for over 3 months. The landlord should have been proactive in ensuring it tried to effect a resolution. The failure to do so was inappropriate and not in line with its policy.
In summary, there were significant delays in the landlord acting around the resident’s concerns. Its actions were often reactive rather than proactive, including with its communication with the resident, and it has not shown it took appropriate steps to identify and resolve the root cause of the issue within the resident’s property despite the reoccurrence of the issue. It has not abided by the aims and responsibilities contained in its damp and mould policy. Based on this we find that there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the resident’s property.

Asbestos in the ceiling and electrical issues

The evidence provided shows that there were historic issues with the landlord’s handling of the asbestos and electrics in the resident’s property particularly in 2017. The resident had electrical issues in the downstairs area of her property and the landlord’s operative attended to rectify this, but there remained ongoing issues as the lights have worked intermittently at least since 2022.
The records show that the resident raised concerns on 21 November 2022 around the lights in the property. She told the landlord the lights were off in the bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen, and told it there was asbestos in the ceiling. She also told it this was a recurring issue. The landlord’s records show that it raised works for lights on 21 November 2022 which it completed on 1 December 2022. This was in relation to changing a fluorescent tube and starter switch.
It is unclear when, but the resident contacted the landlord and explained that the contractor who attended did nothing due to the asbestos in the ceiling. She continued to have no lighting. Its records show that she told it previously about the asbestos in the ceiling and it had noted this on its system. She expressed her dissatisfaction at the situation and said there were 4 lights in the property which did not work at all. The landlord’s records of the conversation detail the issue was ongoing since 2017, and also that it had marked the job as completed on 2 December 2022. We have seen no evidence that the landlord raised any further works to address the issue.

There is then a substantial gap in the evidence from December 2022, as such it is unclear what actions the landlord took around the issue. It completed an asbestos survey on 13 October 2023. The survey found that the asbestos in the property related to textured decorative coating on the ceilings. It found the accessibility to the Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) was low. It recommended that the landlord manage the item as asbestos and inspect them. These areas included the hall and stairs, 2 cupboards in the hall, the toilet, kitchen, lounge, landing, another cupboard on the landing, the bathroom, and both bedrooms.
We acknowledge that there was asbestos in the resident’s ceiling, however, the evidence provided suggests that it had remained undisturbed. This would indicate that there was less risk of harm to the resident and her family’s health as a result of the presence of asbestos. Had the evidence suggested that the asbestos was disturbed and the landlord took no action, we would likely find a significant failing in such an instance.
The landlord explained the survey findings internally on 11 March 2024 and said that the ACMs were in a stable condition. We have however seen no evidence that it provided this explanation to the resident promptly. It did not contact her until 19 March 2024 to explain the requirements for the removal of the asbestos before it could complete the remedial works. This is a delay of over 5 months between 13 October 2023 and 19 March 2024 in the landlord’s communication and this was inappropriate.
Prompt communication of the findings may have reassured the resident that it was safe for it to complete necessary works. The delay in communicating the findings to her would have contributed to its view that she had lost faith in the resolution process. The evidence also shows that the landlord, felt it should have completed the survey on 13 October 2023 much sooner. It said to the resident following a conversation, that it completed a survey in 2017/2018 and again in March 2024. It is however unclear whether this was in relation to the asbestos or damp and mould, and we have not seen a copy of any such survey.
The resident explained that the landlord’s contractor attended her property and tested the kitchen light after she raised her complaint in March 2024. They found a negative reading and said that the property needed electrical rewiring. The landlord confirmed internally on 12 May 2024 that it found electrical faults, and it was uncertain what the remedial works to the electrics may mean. From the evidence however, there appears to be a delay of 15 months in taking any definitive action to identify the cause of the electrical issues in the resident’s property. This was not in line with its repairs policy and is inappropriate. The landlord also explained that it needed to remove 5 ceilings in the property to complete the works.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that the asbestos in the ceiling may have caused complications to completing historic works. Due to the electrical faults identified within the property, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider at a much earlier point whether it needed to move the resident from the property temporarily. It should also have considered this due to the concerns around the asbestos. HHSRS lists both electrical issues and asbestos as hazards a landlord should be aware of.
The landlord has not shown that it considered this promptly and this was inappropriate. While we acknowledge the asbestos may have contributed to delays in completing the electrical works, the matters have remained outstanding between November 2022 and August 2025, a period of 2.9 years, and this is inappropriate.
In summary, the landlord delayed in taking the necessary action around ascertaining that the asbestos remained undisturbed. Electrical issues in the property remain ongoing despite reporting them in 2022. We understand the difficulties caused by the delay in temporarily moving the resident. We also appreciate that it has considered alternative approaches such as the resident remaining in the property, which it deemed this unrealistic.
The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it acted appropriately around its legal obligations, policies, procedures, or good practice. Its handling of the situation was so poor, it warrants a finding of maladministration.

Rodent infestation

The landlord’s pest control policy says that it will keep a record of all pests reported by residents, staff, contractors or other third parties. It will keep such records updated on the actions it had taken to resolve the issue. It will consider its obligations under the Housing Act 2004(HHSRS). It says residents are responsible for cooperating with pest control measures, including allowing access to its contractors to carry out inspections and treatments.
The tenancy agreement says that the resident is responsible for arranging clearance of any vermin or pest infestations within the premises.
We asked the landlord for evidence around its handling of the resident’s pest control concerns. It provided us with several images of its system showing that it searched specific terms such as “Pests,” “Environmental,” and “Estate.” The searches showed no results.
The evidence provided shows that there were historic issues with mice in the property dating back to 2013. It also shows that the landlord’s operative attended on 21 November 2022 about the issue. They removed the bath panel and uncovered where the rodents entered the property and provided her with appropriate advice on managing the situation. They told her they could not block the gap under the bath due to the pipes and there was nothing more both they or the resident could do other than ensure she kept using wire wool in all possible entry points.
We then have no evidence around the landlord’s actions around the issue following this visit. We understand that the tenancy agreement places responsibility on a resident for resolving pest issues in their property. We would, however, expect a landlord to take responsibility and rectify any disrepair that contributes to the presence of mice. In this instance, we have seen no evidence that the landlord took any action to resolve the hole identified as potentially allowing the pests access in a prompt manner. This was inappropriate and not in line with its policy.
Within her complaint on 9 March 2024, the resident explained to the landlord that the gap under the bath remained and there was a hole in the boiler cupboard. She explained that she was concerned that the wire wool was not a permanent solution to the issue. There is then no evidence that the landlord took any action around this. The landlord said in its stage 2response on 1 July 2024, that it had asked its contractors to pick up any required works around pests with the damp and mould works, suggesting the matter remained outstanding as at 1 July 2024.
This is a period of over 3 months after she raised the issue again that it remained outstanding. The landlord has also not provided any records to support that it took any action around the issue. It also acknowledged she had raised the issue several times within her occupancy of the property. This is unreasonable and not in line with its repairs policy.
The HHSRS lists pests such as mice as 1 of the 29 hazards a landlord should consider and ensure a property remains free of. The landlord has not shown that it ever considered whether its inaction around the issue left the resident exposed to a potential category 1 or 2 hazard. Especially as she explained that the mice ran throughout the property. The failure to do so was inappropriate and not in line with its pest control policy.
We understand that the resident explained the concern was intermittent, however, the landlord’s lack of evidence around its actions, significant delays in attempting to rectify the issue, and failure to appropriately follow its policy warrant a finding a maladministration. As the landlord did not follow its policy, and it did not acknowledge this within its responses.

Conclusion

We understand that the landlord offered the resident a temporary move in May 2024 to allow it complete repair works. However, the resident did not accept the offer, and she raised concerns with both the property and area. It then offered a second property in Augst 2024, but there have been issues which led to delays with the availability of the property. The resident viewed the property in July 2025 and has asked the landlord to complete some repairs before she moves into it.

The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will consider the severity of the time, trouble, and inconvenience suffered and whether it could have reasonably foreseen this. It will consider if it has failed to follow policies and procedures, and the time taken to resolve the matter. Its policy says it makes offers of £350 to £750 and above, where there is extensive disruption and/ or customer effort.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £625 across its responses. This related to the delays, poor communication around current and historic works, and distress and inconvenience. Its offer is in line with its compensation policy for extensive disruption and customer effort. While this goes a long way in addressing the landlord’s failings, we do not believe it goes far enough. This is because the landlord’s offer does not appropriately reflect the level of failings in this instance.
It fails to account for its lack of consideration of habitability and the impact of the situation on the resident and her family, nor does it consider the impact on the family’s enjoyment and use of the property. All issues complained of are risks under HHSRS, and as such it should have been able to demonstrate it have considered its responsibilities in relation to the resident’s ongoing occupation of the property.
The offer does not specify how much is allocated for each of the issues raised by the resident. In line with our remedies guidance, we have found that the landlord failed to provide a service (resolution of the damp and mould concerns, resolution of the disrepair leading to pests, and also the intermittent electrical concerns), and it has not put things rights. The failure has accumulated over a significant period. Based on this we order the landlord to pay the resident added compensation.

The complaint

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
The landlord acknowledged there were failings in its complaint handling. It recognised there was a delay at stage 1 and offered the resident compensation of £50. While this goes some way to put things right, there were additional failings in the landlord’s approach that it did not recognise.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 9 April 2024 as the landlord had not responded to the complaint after a month. It said internally that it had missed this escalation request email. She then asked to escalate again on 10 June 2024, 2 days before it provided its stage 1 response. We understand that the landlord missed the original communication and acknowledge that mistakes can happen. However, landlords should have effective systems in place for receiving, logging, and acting on all complaints and correspondence promptly.
As such missing the escalation request on 9 April 2024 was inappropriate. The landlord could have used this as an opportunity to explain the delay to the resident and request an extension to the stage 1 response as necessary. The response however remained outstanding, which lead to the resident having to ask again on 10 June 2024.
The landlord then provided its stage 2 response on 1 July 2024. This was 15 days after the resident’s second request for escalation, and in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord also failed to address the entirety of the resident’s complaint. She told it about concerns with her windows, internal doors, and lack of fire doors. We would expect the landlord to explain how it planned to deal with the issues to the resident. For example, if it was dealing with them as a service request, or if it would address them as a formal complaint. We have seen evidence that it is addressing the issue and has spoken with the resident about her concerns. The failure to provide a definite explanation of its approach however around the issue was unreasonable and further demonstrates its communication issues.
In summary, there were communication failings with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It also failed to address the entirety of the complaint by not explaining how it would deal with her concerns around the windows, doors, and lack of fire doors. Based on this we find that there was service failure.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will offer compensation if it did not follow its complaints policy or procedure, or if it did not manage the complaint effectively through regular communication and proactive management or investigation. It will consider the length of time it had taken to put things right. It would award £50 to £100 for failing to follow the complaints policy or procedure, with low level impact.
The landlord’s current compensation offer of £50 falls within the above category. However, as there were additional failings identified with the landlord’s complaint handing, we do not believe the failing had a low level impact. This is because, its failure to communicate around the delays led to the resident trying to escalate the complaint. We order that the landlord pay the resident added compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s Subject Access Request (SAR) is outside of our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the resident’s property.
2. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of asbestos in the ceiling and electrical issues.
3. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of rodent infestation.
4. Service failure for the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology from a senior officer based on the failings identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £2,350, this is inclusive of its offer of £650. If it has paid the £650 previously to the resident it should subtract this from the total. This means that £1,700 remains outstanding for payment. We break the total offer down as:
  1. £1,000 for its handling of damp and mould.
  2. £1,000 for its handling of asbestos and electrical issues.
  3. £250 for its handling of pest infestation in the resident’s property.
  4. £100 for its complaint handling failings.
3. The landlord must provide the resident with a progress update around the decant process, with dates it aims to complete any outstanding works, and to move her into the property.
4. If it has not already done so, provide the resident with a schedule of works specifying what works it will complete in relation to each of her concerns considered within this complaint and proposed times for completion of any outstanding works.
5. The landlord should review the resident’s case, identifying what went wrong, and how it can avoid similar failings in the future. It should provide the Ombudsman with an outcome of its findings.
6. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.