Aster Group Limited (202112675)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112675

Aster Group Limited

28 March 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of disrepair to her property and her concerns regarding the quality of works carried out to her property.
2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould inside her property.
3. The resident’s complaint about the conduct of a contractor’s operative.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion…were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure”.
In this case, the resident wrote to the landlord on 22 and 27 January 2020 to complain about an operative who had carried out work in her property. The landlord referred the matter to a senior manager to investigate, however, the manager was unable to contact the resident to obtain further details despite ringing and writing to her. The landlord therefore closed the case on 28 February 2020. On 31 August 2021, the resident requested the Ombudsman to investigate various matters including the conduct of the operative.
Therefore, after carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42b, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the conduct of a contractor’s operative.

Background

The property is a 3-bedroom house built in 2013. The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 14 October 2013.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, the resident advised the landlord that she has long-term mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The resident’s tenancy agreement states: “You must allow our employees or contractors acting on our behalf access at reasonable times and subject to reasonable notice to inspect the condition of the property or to carry out repairs…”

Summary of events

On 10 July 2020, the landlord visited the resident in response to a complaint she had made about outstanding repairs. As a result of the visit, the landlord agreed with the resident that it would carry out various repairs to address the issues reported by the resident, including:
1. Mould in the bathroom on the ceiling.
2. Carpet beetles in carpets following leaks.
3. Carpet trims needed replacing.
4. 2 kitchen unit doors needed refixing or replacing.
5. Mould in the kitchen unit under the sink.
6. Kitchen unit door binding.
7. Both toilets continue to block.
8. New bath panel needed replacing.
The landlord raised an order for a contractor to provide a quotation to carry out the repairs. The landlord’s records show that it approved the quotation and instructed the contractor to proceed with the repairs.
The landlord’s records dated 15 August 2020 stated that the pest control company had unsuccessfully attempted to contact the resident on various occasions to inspect the property for ‘carpet beetles’.
The landlord’s records show that it attempted to contact the resident during August and September 2020 in order to carry out repairs to the property. However, it was unable to make contact. The records show that the repairs were carried out to the property on 15 December 2020, including:
1. Treatment of the mould in the bathroom and repainted the ceiling.
2. Replaced the bath panel.
3. Replaced carpet trims.
4. Replaced 2 unit kitchen doors and adjusted the kitchen unit door that was binding.
5. Re-mastic kitchen sink.
6. Stain blocked and re-decorated lounge ceiling.
7. Repair an outside light.
8. Repaired radiator valve.
9. Cleared blockage to WC pan and refixed pan/panels.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 December 2020 to complain about the standard of work that had been carried out during the previous week by the landlord’s contractor. She identified various issues, including that the replacement kitchen cupboard doors and handles did not match the existing ones. She also mentioned that the pest control contractor had not yet made contact with her.
The landlord’s records stated that between January and May 2021 its surveyor unsuccessfully attempted to contact the resident in order to inspect the issues that she had reported.
On 21 May 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to confirm that she had submitted a complaint form online. She stated that she had first complained to the landlord about damp, mould and blocked toilets 2 years ago. The main issues in the online complaint form, which was also dated 21 May 2021, were:
1. The resident stated that damage had been caused by an operative who visited in December 2020.
2. The resident stated that she had first complained about damp, mould and blocked toilets 2 years before.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 25 May 2021 stating that none of the repairs had been carried out. She added that she had complained about the damp, mould and blocked toilets 2 years ago.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 25 May 2021 and sent a further email on 10 June 2021 apologising for the delay in replying.
The landlord replied to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 21 June 2021 and stated the following:
1. The repairs being queried by the resident were raised on 18 August 2020 and the contractor had difficulties contacting the resident. These difficulties continued until 30 September 2020.
2. The job was completed in December 2020.
3. In January 2021, the resident had asked the landlord for a surveyor to attend as she was unhappy with the quality of the work.
4. The landlord tried unsuccessfully to contact the resident during January to May 2021 to book an appointment for the surveyor to attend.
5. The landlord’s surveyor visited the property on 10 June 2021 and agreed the following:
  1. The contractor had not been able to match the existing kitchen cupboard doors and handles and had therefore chosen “a close match”. The landlord was satisfied that the contractor had fitted close matching doors and handles.
  2. The unit doors had been installed to a poor standard and this was also the case for the shelf under the sink base unit and the kick boards around the kitchen.
  3. The threshold strip between the kitchen and the hallway was not the correct one for the situation and should be replaced.
  4. With regards to the strip between the bedroom and hallway, although this was the correct type, this was installed to a poor standard.
  5. The bath panel that was installed was not adequate for the type of bath at the property and was installed to a poor standard.
  6. The landlord viewed the mould issues in the bathroom and concluded that this was something that could be managed by the resident. The landlord gave advice on what could be done to help prevent this in the future, including the best products to clear the walls and ceiling and the best paint type to use to help prevent mould build up.
  7. the resident agreed that she was happy with the advice given and would treat the mould herself.
  8. The landlord explained that its pest contractor had tried to make contact with the resident to arrange a visit but had not been able to do so.
6. The landlord and the resident agreed that the contractor would attend and carry out the following work:
  1. The unit doors that were installed would be removed and rehung to make them level and open and close properly.
  2. The unit under the sink would be removed, the wall behind would be stain blocked and treated and the unit would be reinstated.
  3. The shelf in the same unit would be removed and reinstated with appropriate fixtures.
  4. The threshold strip between the kitchen and hallway would be replaced, with a large strip installed.
  5. With regards to the strip in the bedroom/landing, this would be removed and reinstalled correctly.
  6. The bath panel would be replaced with a new one.
  7. The landlord said it would make contact with its pest control company and request a contact number, which it would then send over to the resident.
7. The landlord apologised that some of the work did not meet the correct standards.
The resident replied to the landlord on 30 June 2021 and said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one reply because:
1. There was no mention of the hole in the living room, which was caused by a previous flood.
2. The cupboard door in the kitchen that the landlord had attempted to straighten had now fallen off completely.
3. The resident stated that she believed the mould was caused by a fundamental flaw in the building and was caused by poor circulation. The resident said she had previously removed all of the mould with the correct products, but it kept returning. The resident had to keep the heating on unnecessarily to try to minimise the problem.
4. The resident stated that she did not have any record of contractors attempting to contact her to arrange visits.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 27 July 2021 and stated the following:
1. The resident stated that the landlord’s stage one reply had not included any information about a hole in the living room wall. The landlord apologised that this had not been included in its stage one response even though the resident had made the landlord aware of the issue. The landlord had now raised a job with its contractor to fill the hole.
2. The resident advised the landlord that one of the cupboard doors had now fallen off. The landlord confirmed that it would contact its contractor to rehang the door.
3. The resident stated that the she was experiencing condensation and mould in her property due to a fundamental flaw in the building design. She stated that the mould kept returning. The landlord stated that it’s surveyor had provided advice to the resident during the visit on 10 June 2021. However, it would now arrange a detailed survey of the resident’s home to determine the cause of the condensation and mould she was experiencing.
4. The landlord stated that it had looked into the resident’s report that she did not have any record of contractors attempting to contact her. The landlord stated that it had seen correspondence from its pest controller from August 2020 showing they had problems contacting the resident. The landlord added that it had also experienced problems contacting the resident as her phone did not have a voicemail option.
5. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and offered her £50 compensation.
The landlord’s records stated that its contractor attended the property during the week of 30 August 2021 and completed the outstanding repairs, including:
1. Bathroom light refitted.
2. Carpet trims refitted.
3. Kitchen unit doors refitted.
4. Bath panel refitted.
5. Shelf in the unit under sink fitted correctly.
On 28 January 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to clarify the position regarding various complaints she had submitted. The landlord acknowledged that she had sent emails on 30 April 2020 and 12 June 2020 to report damp and mould.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 3 February 2022 to obtain further details of any outstanding repairs. The landlord then wrote to her on 10 February 2022 and stated:
1. The landlord had requested its drainage team to carry out a CCTV survey of the drainage to investigate the blocked drains reported by the resident.
2. The landlord had requested its contractor to complete the outstanding internal repairs, including the work to the kitchen cabinet door and the hole in the lounge wall.
3. The landlord had requested its specialist sub-contractor to conduct a full survey of the property in relation to the reported condensation and mould problems.
4. The landlord said it had reviewed the resident’s case and wanted to increase its offer from £50 to £550.
The landlord’s maintenance records show that a job was raised on 8 February 2022 to refit the kitchen cupboard door and to fill the hole in the living room wall. However, the job was cancelled because the contractor had been unable to contact the resident.
The landlord raised a job on 9 February 2022 to carry out a CCTV survey of the drains. The job notes stated that the contractor attended on 11 February 2022 and carried out the CCTV survey. The contractor jetted the drains and descaled the soil stack. The drainage was found to be all clear with no visible damage.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 February 2022 and advised the landlord of the following:
1. The resident confirmed that the pest control issues were “under control” and therefore the landlord did not need to send a pest controller. However, she pointed out that she had spent a considerable sum on various pest treatment products.
2. The resident said she stated that the “severe damp” had been a risk to her health and her carpet had been damaged by the flood due to the blocked toilet.
3. The resident stated that she suffered from various conditions and these had been affected by the stress and worry. She also stated that she had suffered from breathing difficulties, which had worsened due to the damp and mould, and her children had suffered from constant chest infections.
4. The resident requested a reduction in rent for the period she had complained about the issues in her property.
The landlord’s records show that its damp and condensation contractor carried out a full survey of the property at the end of March 2022 and identified an issue with the loft insulation and 2 defective extractor fans. The repairs to rectify these faults were completed in May 2022 and included:
1. Upgraded loft insulation.
2. Cleaning down mould in bathroom on the ceiling and walls.
3. Replacing 3 extractor fans.
4. Applying silicone around windows where missing.
5. Extending the ventilation ducting.
The resident wrote to this Service on 27 July 2022 and stated that the shelf problem had been repaired following the sink leak but the contractor had failed to dry out the area and this had caused wood lice. She also reported that the floor dividers needed fitting correctly and the larder door had fallen off. The resident added that she had repaired the hole in the lounge wall herself and the landlord’s pest controller had not attended.
The landlord visited the property on 3 August 2022 to discuss the outstanding repairs with the resident. The landlord agreed the list of outstanding works with the resident and its contractor carried out the repairs in August 2022, including:
1. Realigning the plinths and fitting a new plinth corner.
2. Refixing plinths to the front and side of the larder unit.
3. Renewing the hinges to the bathroom window.
4. Refixing a loose tile above the basin.
5. Refixing the carpet to the upstairs landing.
6. Stain blocking and treating mould to the bathroom walls and ceiling.
The landlord advised the resident that it would arrange for a contractor to provide a quotation for the works. The landlord’s records show that the works were completed on 2 December 2022.
On 7 December 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident with an increased offer of compensation of £1,500. The resident accepted the offer on 9 December 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 February 2022 and described how the repair issues she had reported had affected her health. She described the impact of these on her sleep and breathing and mentioned that they had affected her children’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health and that of her children, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
The resident also mentioned in her email that her carpet had been damaged by a flood caused by a blocked toilet and that she had spent a considerable sum on buying products to treat bites from pests. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine negligence, liability or compensation claims in the same way as the courts, or to order damages in relation to these, and only a court can offer a definitive and legally binding decision. Similarly, this Service does not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance.
In her email dated 31 August 2021 to the Ombudsman, the resident referred to issues she had reported to the landlord over 2 years ago. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the events from July 2020 when the landlord logged a complaint regarding various issues that had been reported by the resident. Reference to the events that occurred prior to this date is made in this report to provide context.

The resident’s reports of disrepair to her property and her concerns regarding the quality of works carried out to her property

The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy identifies 3 categories of repairs with their timescales as follows:
1. An emergency repair is any reported repair that puts the health, safety or security of the customer or third party at immediate risk or adversely affects the structure of the property. It should be completed within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs are a non-emergency but likely to cause further issues if left e.g. containable leak or faulty mains door entry system. These should be completed within 5 working days.
3. Routine repairs are any reported repair that can be deferred without serious discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance to the Customer or a third party, and should be completed within 20 working days.
The Repairs and Maintenance Policy states: “We will always endeavour to carry out repairs in the time agreed, to the required standard of workmanship using good quality materials and in a safe manner”.
Following a visit to the property by the landlord on 10 July 2020, it logged a complaint in July 2020 regarding various outstanding repairs and the presence of ‘carpet beetles’. The landlord raised orders for its contractor to carry out the repairs and for its pest controller to attend.
The landlord’s records show that it approved a quotation from its contractor to carry out repairs to the property. As the landlord had identified a package of works to be carried out, it was reasonable that it had requested a contractor to provide a quotation for the work. Although this added time to the process, it enabled the landlord to receive a fixed price for the work and to check that the price was fair.
The repairs were carried out on 15 December 2020, which was 5 months after the landlord had visited the resident to identify the repairs on 10 July 2020. Although this was longer than the advertised timescale of 20 working days for routine repairs, the contractor’s records show that it experienced problems contacting the resident during August and September 2020. Therefore, taking the access difficulties into account, the Ombudsman’s view is that the contractor carried out the repairs within a reasonable timescale.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 December 2020 to complain about the standard of the work carried out. She identified issues such as non-matching kitchen cupboard doors and handles. The landlord’s records show that between January and May 2021, the landlord’s surveyor unsuccessfully attempted to contact the resident in order to inspect the issues she had raised. Given that the resident had questioned the standard of the repairs carried out, it was reasonable for the landlord’s surveyor to post-inspect the repairs carried out. This would enable the landlord to assess whether to recall the contractor to rectify any problems.
The landlord’s surveyor was able to attend the property on 10 June 2021 to carry out an inspection. It had therefore taken the landlord’s surveyor 6 months to attend the property following the resident’s email dated 21 December 2020. However, the evidence shows that the landlord did make various attempts to contact the resident during this period. Therefore, given the access problems experienced by the landlord, the time taken by the landlord to inspect the property was not unreasonable.
The landlord outlined the surveyor’s findings in its stage one reply to the resident on 21 June 2021. The landlord accepted that additional work was required in the property to rectify problems with the work carried out in December 2020. For example, the kitchen unit doors needed to be rehung to make them level, one of the shelves would be removed and reinstated with appropriate fixtures and the bath panel would be renewed.
Given that one of the aims within the landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy is to carry out repairs to the required standard of workmanship using good quality materials, it was inappropriate that there were various faults with the work that had been carried out. The issues regarding the quality of the work meant that the resident had to spend time and trouble contacting the landlord and providing access for rectification works. It was therefore right that the landlord included an apology in its stage one reply that the work had not met the correct standards.
The landlord’s contractor attended the property during the week of 30 August 2021 and carried out the remedial work to address the quality issues. Therefore, it had taken approximately 11 weeks from the surveyor’s inspection to the completion of the works. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of access problems during this period and therefore the time taken to carry out the repairs was unreasonable. The delay meant that the resident had the poor quality fittings for longer than should have been the case.
One of the problems that had been reported by the resident in her email dated 21 May 2021 was previous blockages to her toilets. However, the contractor had cleared the blockage on 15 December 2020 and the resident had not reported a blocked toilet to the surveyor when he visited on 10 June 2021. Nevertheless, the resident mentioned the previous blockages to the landlord during the conversation on 3 February 2022. As a result, the landlord raised an order on 9 February 2022 to carry out a CCTV survey of the drains.
As the resident had mentioned recurring issues with blockages to the toilets, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a CCTV survey of the drainage system. This would enable the drainage contractor to identify any blockages or damage to the soil stack or sewage system. The drainage contractor attended within an appropriate timescale on 11 February 2022 and carried out the CCTV survey. The contractor jetted the drains and descaled the soil stack. The drainage was noted as being all clear with no visible damage. The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord had therefore dealt with the resident’s concerns about blockages reasonably by clearing the blockage to the WC in December 2020 and by jetting the system, descaling the soil stack and carrying out a CCTV survey on 11 February 2022.
In relation to the carpet beetles and other pest issues, the landlord’s records and emails from the pest control contractor show that the contractor attempted to contact the resident on various occasions in August 2020. As a result, the order was closed by the contractor. The evidence seen shows that the contractor had made reasonable attempts, both by phone and by email, to contact the resident regarding the carpet beetles. Therefore, as the contractor had not been able to make contact, it was reasonable for it to close the job. The landlord met with the resident on 10 June 2021 and explained the difficulties that the pest controller had faced in contacting her. The landlord also explained this in its stage one reply on 21 June 2021.
The Ombudsman’s view is therefore that the landlord took appropriate action in relation to the pest control issues. This Service has noted that the resident wrote to the landlord on 15 February 2022 and stated that the pest control issues were “under control”.
Overall, there were quality issues with the repairs carried out in December 2020 and there was a delay in the contractor carrying out the remedial work identified by the surveyor on 10 June 2021. The landlord initially offered the resident compensation of £50 in its stage 2 reply dated 27 July 2021. However, the landlord reviewed its offer on 10 February 2022 and offered a total of £550 to recognise its failings in carrying out repairs to the property.
The amount offered by the landlord was not apportioned to show how much of the sum related to the landlord’s failings in relation to the quality of the repairs carried out in December 2020. However, the Ombudsman’s view is that it was a reasonable offer of redress to put things right in terms of the quality of the repairs and the delay in rectifying the issues. The compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould inside her property

The landlord’s Mould and Condensation Procedure identifies 3 levels of condensation and mould (C&M) inspections:
1. Level 1 inspections are undertaken by a series of triage questions on the telephone. This should highlight any obvious causes of moisture, both internally and externally that could be causing the mould.
2. Level 2 referrals are made by the staff member who conducted the level 1 assessment if it is deemed necessary. It is carried out by the Area Surveyor or person of similar experience and knowledge.
3. Level 3 surveys should be carried out by a Principal Surveyor or an independent external mould and condensation consultant and should include a full written report.
The policy states: “All initial reports of mould and condensation should, as a minimum, receive a C&M Level 1 inspection…If the issue persists, further investigation should be conducted and escalated to a Level 2 inspection on a case by case basis”.
In July 2020, the resident advised the landlord of damp and mould problems in her property, including mould on the bathroom ceiling and mould in the kitchen unit under the sink. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 10 July 2020, which was appropriate to enable the surveyor to determine the extent of the damp and mould present in the property.
On 15 December 2020, the landlord’s contractor treated the mould in the bathroom and painted the ceiling, stain blocked and redecorated the living room ceiling. It had therefore taken 5 months between the surveyor’s visit on 10 July 2020 and the contractor carrying out the work. As stated earlier, the landlord’s records show that its contractor experienced problems accessing the property in order to carry out the remedial work. Therefore, taking these access problems into account, the Ombudsman’s view is that the time taken by the contractor was not unreasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord in January 2021 and asked for a surveyor to inspect the property. The inspection took place on 10 June 2021 and the surveyor advised the resident that she could manage the mould issues in the bathroom. The landlord gave advice on the products she could use to clean the mould and preventative steps that she could take. Given that the resident had reported ongoing issues with mould, it was appropriate for the landlord to carry out a Level 2 inspection as per its Mould and Condensation Policy.
The landlord’s policy states that where mould is due to “routine domestic activity”, the resident should be given the advice to remedy the issue. The Ombudsman does not have the expertise to say whether the advice given by the surveyor was appropriate in this case. However, the landlord’s policy does allow for such advice to be given to residents following an inspection. The surveyor did, however, agree that the landlord would raise an order for the kitchen sink unit to be removed so that the wall behind it could be stain blocked and treated before reinstating the unit.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 June 2021 and stated that, in her view, the mould was a symptom caused by a fundamental flaw in the building design and poor air circulation within the property. The resident stated that as a result of these factors, the mould kept reoccurring. The landlord responded in its stage 2 reply on 27 July 2021 and confirmed that although its surveyor had given advice to the resident about preventing and treating the mould, it would now arrange for a specialist company to carry out a detailed survey of the property to identify the cause of the condensation and mould.
The landlord’s agreement to commission a specialist company was in line with its Mould and Condensation Policy, which states that a Level 3survey should be carried out by a Principal Surveyor or an independent external mould and condensation consultant. It was appropriate for the landlord to agree to commission an external specialist contractor given the resident’s continued concerns about mould. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that it commissioned the specialist company until it wrote to the resident on 10 February 2022 to advise that it had requested a specialist company to carry out a full survey. The survey was carried out at the end of March 2022.Therefore, there had been a delay of 8 months between the landlord agreeing to commission a specialist contractor and the actual survey taking place.
The delay was unreasonable given that the resident had clearly expressed her anxiety about the recurring mould problems. In October 2021, the Ombudsman produced a Spotlight report on damp and mould, which stated: “It is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for an extended period…This not only increases the frustration and discomfort of the resident but can lead to problems worsening and becoming more complex and intrusive to resolve”.
The specialist contractor identified various works that were required in the property to reduce condensation and mould and these works were completed in May 2022. The work was therefore carried out within a reasonable timescale following the survey by the specialist company in March 2022.
Overall, there was an unreasonable delay in carrying out the mould and condensation survey. The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 February 2022 and offered her compensation of £550. As was stated earlier in this report, the Ombudsman considers this amount to be reasonable redress to put right the quality issues with the repairs. The Ombudsman also considers that it goes some way to putting right the delay in carrying out the mould and condensation survey. However, the view of this Service is that the offer was not proportionate to the failings in relation to addressing the mould problems. The Ombudsman has therefore found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould inside her property.
This Service is aware that on 7 December 2023 the landlord offered the resident a revised amount of compensation totalling £1,500. While it is positive that the landlord reconsidered its position and made an increased offer of redress, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the landlord’s offer as reasonable redress because the offer was made after the Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 27 July 2022. Paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that [the landlord]…has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This will result in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’.”
The Ombudsman has not ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation because it considers the landlord’s offer of £1,500 sufficient to put things right in relation to the failings identified in this investigation. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord has already apologised to the resident for its failings.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to her property and her concerns regarding the quality of works carried out to her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould inside her property.
In accordance with paragraph 42b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the conduct of a contractor’s operative is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

Reasons

The landlord’s offer of £550 compensation was reasonable redress to put things right in relation to the inconvenience and distress experienced by the resident because of the quality of the repairs carried out in December 2020.
There was an unreasonable delay in carrying out the survey for mould and condensation.