Cornwall Housing Limited (202443635)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202443635

Cornwall Housing Limited

27 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 response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. Damp and mould in the property.
2. Radon exposure and their request for the landlord’s policy on this.
3. An incident involving the resident and its operative.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local council. She lives in the 2-bedroom, semi-detached property with her partner, who is a joint tenant, and their adult daughter. Both tenants have reported issues to the landlord and engaged on matters relevant to the complaint. For ease and clarity, ‘the resident’ refers to both the tenant and her partner in this report unless otherwise stated.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the family. Since the complaint response the resident has shared medical information with the landlord about the physical and emotional impact their living conditions have had. The resident has asthma, and their daughter has experienced repeat chest infections.
The resident complained to the landlord on 4 March 2024. They said there was damp and mould in the property which they had constantly reported but the landlord had done nothing about it. They also said they were running 2 dehumidifiers and were constantly throwing away mould damaged items. Specifically, they noted there was:
1. Water seeping through the external facing wall in the living room and it was impossible to decorate the walls due to the plaster being damp.
2. Patches of damp on the ceiling in the landing due to a cracked chimney breast which the landlord had been aware of for 2 years.
3. Mould in the bedrooms and paint was bubbling off the walls.
On 14 May 2025 the resident added to the complaint. They said its operative had attended that day to inspect, but had left after several minutes without warning and had not returned.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 17 May 2024. It said:
1. The resident had reported damp and mould in the property since early 2022.
2. It had completed a bathroom refurbishment and replaced an extractor fan to tackle the damp and mould.
3. Mould washes were attempted between July and November 2023 but the resident had rescheduled or cancelled these.
4. It acknowledged it had not progressed repairs to the chimney and roof and said it had inspected multiple times but had not resolved the damp and mould.
5. It apologised for the lack of action and its poor communication. It offered £250 in compensation and said it would progress works to the chimney and roof.
6. It did not uphold the complaint about the conduct of its contractor. It said the contractor left the property as he felt threatened by the resident’s partner. It considered its operative’s actions reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident escalated the complaint on 19 May 2024. They:
1. Refuted the resident’s partner had been threatening and felt the landlord handled the matter poorly by failing to contact him about this directly.
2. Said they had experienced damp and mould due to the landlord’s failure to complete bathroom repairs which had resulted in an extensive leak affecting the kitchen and bedroom.
3. Explained they had to reschedule or cancel appointments because a family member had been unwell and passed away in November 2023.
4. Expressed concern about radon levels in the property and felt the landlord was not monitoring as regularly as required.
5. Did not believe the sole cause of the damp and mould was the cracked chimney and referenced issues with damp to the walls and ceilings throughout the home.
6. Considered the compensation offered insufficient given the condition of the home and the costs they had incurred over the years.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 2 July 2024, it:
1. Explained it had not contacted the resident’s partner about the incident with the operative as he was not listed as a joint tenant. It said it had since consulted its records and updated them to confirm he was a joint tenant.
2. Said it could not investigate issues around the bathroom refurbishment as this was a historic issue.
3. Attached its radon policy and confirmed that, because of a recent radon reading which was above the recommended level, it had raised a job to upgrade the passive sump and install a rotating cowl.
4. Acknowledged the cause of the damp and mould needed further investigation and said it would complete a full house survey.
5. Revised its offer of compensation from £250 to £500 and said it could consider reimbursement for items damaged by the damp and mould and for the cost of running the dehumidifiers.
The landlord completed a full house survey on 20 September 2024 which identified damp and mould in the bedrooms, living room, bathroom, and outhouse. The cause of damp in the living room was unknown but the surveyor noted a new roof and chimney repairs were required. The issues extended beyond damp and mould and due to the scope and cost of repairs the property is to be demolished. It has offered the resident a managed move. The family remain in the property awaiting suitable alternative accommodation.
In May 2025 the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £1,500 for distress and inconvenience and provided £7,202 as a reimbursement for damaged items.
The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s response to their complaint and its ongoing handling of the issues. They would like it to progress their move to alternative accommodation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In its complaint response the landlord said the resident had first reported concerns about damp and mould in the property in early 2022. The repair records provided also demonstrate reports dating back to this time. The landlord provided an account of the actions it took in relation to the damp and mould from this point.
The resident says they experienced and reported damp and mould dating back 16 years. We do not dispute the resident’s account and note their concerns about the landlord’s record keeping and inaction prior to this period. We encourage residents to raise complaints with landlords in a timely manner as this impacts on the availability and reliability of evidence and allows us to make informed decisions based on robust evidence.
As such, we consider it proportionate to investigate the landlord’s actions in response to the damp and mould dating back to July 2021. This will include its response to the resident’s reports about a bathroom leak. The resident claimed this resulted in damp and mould in 2022 and is therefore relevant when assessing the landlord’s handling of the issue during this period. We have also considered the period after the landlord’s final response. It identified actions it would take as part of its complaint response, and we consider it fair and reasonable to assess how it progressed these outcomes.
The family have experienced several health issues and believe their living conditions may have impacted their physical and emotional health. We do not doubt their experience, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there is a direct link between the landlord’s actions and their ill health. They may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if they feel their health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. We will consider any general distress and inconvenience the family experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Damp and mould

It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the building. This includes the drains, gutters, external pipes, roof, and installations for the supply of water and sanitation. This is outlined in the terms of tenancy, the landlord’s repairs policy, and section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act.
Under current legislation the landlord also has a responsibility to ensure its homes meet the ‘Decent Homes Standard’ and that they are fit for human habitation, considering factors including freedom from damp. The landlord must also take reasonable steps to identify hazards and assess risks in line with the ‘Housing Health and Safety Rating System’ (HHSRS). Damp and mould growth is one of the 29 hazards listed in the HHSRS and can impact on the physical health and mental wellbeing of occupants.
The landlord provided limited evidence about the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and its actions in relation to this. This indicates poor record keeping and has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. This investigation has therefore relied on the evidence available to determine this case.
According to the landlord’s repair log, the resident reported damp and mould throughout the property on 4 January 2022. They said the living room walls were bare and paint was coming off due to damp. The landlord’s notes state a damp and mould inspection was required. The resident chased this up on 24 January 2022 and it told them its inspector would schedule this with them directly. The landlord has provided no evidence this happened.
On the same day, the resident also chased outstanding bathroom repairs. In July 2021 they reported that 3 tiles had come off the wall and the seal around the bath was loose. The resident said the landlord added sealant to the area where the tiles were missing as a temporary measure on an unknown date. However, the resident said this was insufficient and did not prevent water ingress. In January 2022, the resident said this had caused the wall to rot, resulting in damp and mould in their daughter’s bedroom, and damp patches on the kitchen ceiling. The resident told this Service the kitchen ceiling ultimately collapsed due to water penetration.
The landlord assessed the bathroom on 31 January 2022 and noted ‘large non-responsive’ works were required. The resident informed us this meant a full bathroom replacement, which took place in August 2022.
We appreciate the bathroom works constituted ‘major works’ which required an external contractor. The repair policy covering this period does not outline timeframes for completion of major works or non-routine repairs. However, the landlord did not progress the works with due urgency from January 2022, and 8 months is excessive in any circumstance. Furthermore, the resident reports that, because the landlord did not resolve the problem effectively when they initially reported it, the issue worsened and resulted in damp, mould, and extensive works.
The repair log suggests operatives also attended to fix the kitchen extractor and assess the windows following reports from the resident in September 2022. It would have been reasonable for operatives who attended to have highlighted concerns about damp and mould in the property. The resident said operatives agreed there was a ‘big problem’ with the living room walls. There are no records to evidence this, but we do not dispute the resident’s account and accept the issues with damp and mould were long standing.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that, when its operatives identify additional issues during repair appointments, they will complete these or raise follow on works. The visits throughout 2022 constituted a missed opportunity to assess and address the damp and mould.
In December 2022 the resident reported damp patches on their landing ceiling. The landlord’s contractor attended in February 2023 and identified water ingress because of repairs needed to the roof and chimney. In its complaint response the landlord explained it needed to establish a party wall agreement. But it has provided no evidence it contacted the neighbour prior to the resident’s complaint, or that it otherwise attempted repairs. The landlord accepted it had not appropriately progressed the repair in its response.
The landlord raised several jobs on 20 June 2023 which included repairs to the bathroom and kitchen extractors, replastering a damp effected wall, and a mould wash. These were reasonable measures, but it would have been appropriate for the landlord to conduct a holistic assessment of the damp and mould at this time as the causes were varied and unknown. The landlord implemented its damp and mould policy in March 2023. The policy suggests this as an appropriate intervention when a resident reports damp and mould and further investigations are required.
The landlord repaired the extractor fans on 25 August 2023 but was unable to complete plaster works and the mould wash. The job notes state it attempted to book the works multiple times between June and November 2023, but the resident repeatedly cancelled appointments. The resident explained they were unable to facilitate visits during this period due to commitments in caring for a family member who passed away in November 2023. It was understandable the landlord could not progress works to address the damp and mould during this period.
On 15 December 2023 the landlord raised a job for a mould wash, but it closed the job on 6 April 2024. There is no evidence this took place. The resident chased the landlord on 2 February 2024 saying they had decorated the living room walls and the paint was bubbling off. They said their daughter’s room was completely covered in black mould and the damp problems were severe. They also chased works to the chimney breast and reported a faulty extractor fan. The landlord attended to resolve the issue with the fan but there is no evidence it progressed works to resolve or alleviate the damp and mould issues. The resident ultimately complained on 4 March 2024.
Due to inadequate record keeping it is difficult to establish what the landlord did or did not do with any certainty, and why. The resident complained they were “fed up” of the landlord surveying the property but not acting. But we have no evidence of any surveys, and the job notes are limited. In any case, the landlord acknowledged it had not progressed repairs or communicated effectively with the resident in its complaint response.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord arranged for its surveyor to inspect the property on 14 May 2024. Given the resident had complained, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to prioritise the inspection and attend more promptly. Unfortunately, the surveyor attended on 14 May 2024 but did not complete the inspection due to a perceived incident which delayed the matter further. This is assessed separately below.
In its initial complaint response, the landlord outlined steps to progress repairs to the roof and chimney along with timeframes. It said it would contact the neighbour within a week and would keep them updated. This was a reasonable step, but as the resident noted, this was not the sole cause of the damp and mould problems. In its final response the landlord acknowledged the extent of the reported issues warranted a full house survey.
The landlord scheduled this on 20 September 2024, which was over 11 weeks later. The records show the resident had to chase the landlord during this period with no response which caused them mounting frustration. The complaint handler overseeing this was on leave for 6 weeks and there was a lack of ownership in their absence.
The complaint handler attended the survey with the inspector. According to the resident, they told them that, based on the condition of the property, they would recommend a managed move. They would also come back to them with an increased offer of compensation to reflect the reimbursement. There is no record of this conversation, but we do not dispute the resident’s account, given this was ultimately its position. This a failing of the landlord’s record keeping.
It is understood the complaint handler had a further period of absence. Again, the complaint was not re-allocated and there was no clear point of contact overseeing the complaint outcomes. The records show the resident chased the landlord for an update on 5 occasions up to mid-November 2024 to no effect.
In its internal correspondence on 19 November 2024 the landlord acknowledged it had not registered the management move and the relevant department knew nothing about this. It subsequently ‘got the ball rolling on this’ but did not apologise to the resident for the 2-month delay.
The landlord was aware of the resident’s living conditions and the impact this was having on the family. It acknowledged it had let the resident down in its complaint response and identified steps to address this. However, it undermined this with its ongoing delays and poor communication. This was avoidable and unreasonable, and added to the resident’s distress.
Overall, there were multiple and persistent failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould. It failed to carry out a holistic assessment of the damp and mould, and devise a plan of action to address it, despite multiple opportunities to do so. Its failure to progress repairs to the bathroom, and chimney and roof, meant conditions worsened. It was slow to act on assurances made in its complaint response causing the resident ongoing frustration, distress, and a total lack of confidence in it. For this reason, we have found severe maladministration.
The conditions in the home, as well as the landlord’s handling of them, have caused the resident significant distress. They said they have been unable to have visitors to the property due to feelings of shame about the way they are living. They have been unable to use 1 bedroom due to the extent of moisture and mould for the past 18 months. They have also experienced time and trouble chasing the landlord to progress the issues.
We recognise the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £1,500 for the distress and inconvenience caused. We consider a total offer of £3,000 to be reasonable given the extent of the failings over a long period of time and the impact on the resident. This reflects the landlord’s failure to investigate and resolve repairs to the bathroom, chimney/roof, and to assess general damp and mould issues throughout the property. It also includes a loss of amenity payment, as the family were unable to use 1 bedroom, and reflects the time and trouble they spent chasing up issues. Our remedies guidance notes figures in this region are appropriate where there have been serious failings by the landlord which have caused severe, long-term impact.
The landlord’s poor record keeping impeded its ability to understand the scale and ongoing nature of the disrepair in this case. It also impacted its ability to track inspections and repairs through to completion and progress complaint outcomes. The landlord should review this Service’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). Going forward it should ensure it keeps complete and auditable records of the action it takes in relation to repairs as well as its communications with residents.
In its damp and mould policy the landlord says it will report on properties affected by damp and mould to its executive team and boards. It will outline the measures it is taking and update on its progress in tackling the issues. This provides an opportunity for the landlord to monitor and learn from its approach and put things right for residents. It is not clear whether it reported on the resident’s case. It should review this investigation report with its executive team or board, to identify learning, and ensure it is effectively and routinely quality assuring its approach to damp and mould.
The resident has expressed frustration that the landlord asked for evidence of damaged items and energy costs to calculate a reimbursement. We understand the resident’s objections but accept it was difficult for the landlord to progress this without any sense of their losses. The landlord ultimately agreed to a figure of £7,202 which the resident has accepted, and we are unable to assess the reasonableness of this amount. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s offer, they should pursue a claim via its public liability insurer.
The resident is frustrated the landlord has been unable to offer suitable alternative properties and feels it has not communicated with them regularly about the move. This was not part of the resident’s complaint, and we cannot comment on the reasons why the landlord has not offered alternative accommodation. However, we acknowledge the resident’s concerns and recommend the landlord establishes a lead point of contact to provide weekly updates going forward.
The notes suggest the landlord has offered temporary measures to alleviate conditions for the resident while they await a permanent move. It has cleared and disposed of mould covered items from the outhouse. It has also offered temporary accommodation which the resident refused. It has offered to conduct a mould wash every other month, install a positive input ventilation (PIV) unit, and do temporary roof/chimney repairs. The resident was initially reluctant to progress these because of the upheaval involved and they believe it is a waste of resources. They would prefer that the landlord expedite the move.
However, in May 2025 they agreed to a mould wash of certain areas of the home and temporary roof repairs which they state the landlord has not yet progressed. We do not have access to records from May 2025 and the circumstances around the lack of progress are unknown. The resident explained they have cleaned and repainted themselves but the landlord is ordered to schedule and conduct repairs to the roof within the next 4 weeks. If it cannot do this, it should explain why not in writing to the resident and this Service.

Radon

Landlords have responsibilities to reduce radon levels in their properties if they are above a certain threshold. Radon exposure is one of the 29 hazards listed in the HHSRS and can impact on the physical health of occupants at high levels. The UK ‘Action Level’ is 200 becquerels per cubic metre (Bq/m3).
A landlord must inform a resident if it finds high radon levels and explain what it will do. A landlord can take measures such as installing ‘passive or active sumps’, or other ventilation systems. It must retest after doing so and take further action if levels remain above 200 Bq/m3. This responsibility is outlined in versions of the landlord’s radon management policies from November 2023.
The landlord installed a passive sump in the resident’s property in February 2019. It is unclear what the radon reading was prior to this but we might infer it was above the action level. It retested radon levels in June 2019 and the reading was within an acceptable range at 159 Bq/m3. The landlord acted in accordance with its legislative duties by mitigating radon levels and confirming its measures were effective.
The landlord’s contractor serviced the sump in January 2024. The inspection record comprised of a checklist which asked whether there was good clearance of the pipe over the gutter, the answer to which was ‘no’. The inspector did not answer whether the cowl was operational and identified that the pipe needed cleaning, but it is not clear whether this was completed as part of the inspection, or subsequently. Otherwise, the record indicated the apparatus was in a suitable condition.
The landlord concluded the equipment was fine based on this inspection. However, on 22 February 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and expressed concern about the positioning of the sump. They said it was in a reachable position close to the window and felt it should extract at a higher level. This corresponds with the inspection record which stated the pipe did not clear the gutter. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate the positioning of the pipe based on the inspection and the resident’s concerns. It did not do so at this juncture. Nor did it provide previous radon readings as the resident had requested. However, it raised a job for radon testing at the property.
Passive testing is based on average readings over a 3-month period. The reading for the period 27 February to 4 June 2024 was 257 Bq/m3 which was above the action level. It subsequently upgraded the sump by adding a rotating cowl and repositioned the unit. It also monitored the effectiveness of this by conducting further passive testing over the period 28 June to 8 October 2024. It took appropriate action by implementing further measures to lower radon levels and by retesting, in line with legislation.
However, the resident expressed concern that the landlord had not tested and monitored the radon levels appropriately over the years. They noted it had not tested at any time between 2019 and 2024. They requested the landlord’s policy on this, as well as the date the policy came into force.
The landlord provided a ‘radon monitoring, mitigation and maintenance policy’ with its complaint response and outlined the actions it was taking to reduce the levels. However, it did not address the resident’s concerns they had been exposed to high levels due to insufficient monitoring in the 5-year period up to 2024. This caused the resident frustration and ongoing concern.
The policy it shared with the resident stated it should service sumps and other ventilation systems on an annual basis and retest radon levels at this time. There is no evidence the landlord had conducted annual testing in line with these criteria, but the policy had an implementation date of November 2023. The landlord did not have a radon management policy prior to this date so there are no clear standards by which we can hold it accountable.
The landlord updated the policy in June 2024 and has since maintained the previous version of the policy was not approved. However, the version from 2023 states it is an ‘approved’ and ‘final’ document. It was accessible internally within the landlord and it shared this with the resident. This has understandably undermined the resident’s faith that the landlord had robust and clear radon management standards.
The new policy was also confusing on the question of timeframes for radon monitoring and servicing of sumps and other mitigation measures. It stated sump fans should be visually inspected every 3 and 5 years, which is contradictory. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that 5 years is the appropriate timeframe, and it has updated this aspect of the policy for clarity.
Following the complaint response, the resident continued to ask the landlord when the policy sent to them was implemented, and for previous versions. According to the landlord’s notes, an officer told them it was likely there were previous versions of the policy but questioned the benefit in sourcing these as they were inactive. They noted this did not satisfy the resident.
This missed the point of the resident’s enquiry which was to hold the landlord accountable to the actions it was required to take during the period 2019 to 2024. There is no evidence the landlord was transparent with the resident that it had no policy, at least prior to November 2023. Its lack of transparency caused the resident frustration and a lack of confidence in it.
The passive test results for June to October 2024 showed the radon level was 251Bq/m3 which was still above the action level. As required, the landlord proposed further mitigation efforts, including installation of a PIV unit. The resident has been reluctant to agree to this as they are awaiting a management move from the property.
The landlord acted reasonably by offering to install the PIV unit. The records suggest it has repeated this offer, which remains open to the resident. The landlord is therefore not at fault for the continued elevation in radon levels above the action threshold.
However, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about radon management which amount to maladministration. It did not have clear guidance on how to manage radon across its properties prior to 2024 and it was not transparent in its response to the resident’s requests about its actions and policy during this time. It has since acknowledged it sent them ‘unapproved’ information about its policy and practice which created confusion. It was also slow to act on concerns about the position of the sump pipe following its inspection and the resident’s reports in February 2024.
The resident was clearly concerned about the level of radon his family had been exposed to and the lack of clarity in the landlord’s response caused further distress.
The landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused and the time and trouble they have spent chasing it on this matter. According to the landlord’s compensation policy, figures in this range are appropriate where its failures have had an adverse impact on the resident and it has not acknowledged them. It should also apologise in writing.

Incident involving the resident and landlord’s operative

The landlord’s surveyor attended on 14 May 2024 to inspect the property. The resident’s partner said they were thankful for the visit as they were eager for the landlord to assess and address the damp and mould. He said he aired frustrations about the landlord’s handing of the property issues but felt there was nothing hostile about his conversation with the operative. He was surprised and disappointed to learn the surveyor left the property without notification and without completing the inspection, as was his partner, who was present in the property and unaware of any contention.
As the landlord explained in its complaint response, the surveyor exited the property as he said he felt intimidated by the resident’s partner. The resident’s partner refuted this, and, in its final response, the landlord accepted he had not been threatening. However, it said it also had to acknowledge how its surveyor had felt. We acknowledge the landlord’s position that the contractor had the right to leave if he felt threatened.
The landlord was balanced and accounted for both perspectives when discussing the perceived incident in its final response. In the absence of further evidence and recognising the subjectivity of the discussion and the feelings involved, we are unable to comment further. However, we understand the resident’s surprise and frustration that the visit did not go ahead as planned.
The resident felt the landlord’s communication had been poor with regards the incident. It called the resident the following day to “get her side of the story” but did not explain what had happened from the surveyor’s perspective. Nor did it speak directly with her partner, despite his direct involvement and requests for it to call him back.
We understand it was frustrating for the resident that they had to wait until the following day for the landlord to call. However, we appreciate it needed to speak to the surveyor to establish what had happened before doing so and in the circumstances 1 day is reasonable. It is not clear why it did not explain what had happened from its surveyor’s perspective, which would have been reasonable given the resident was seeking understanding.
In its final response the landlord explained it had been unable to discuss the issue directly with the resident’s partner due to confusion about whether he was a joint tenant. The landlord had no record of the deed of assignment from when the tenancy began and he was recorded as an occupant on its system.
This was confusing for the residents as they had both liaised with the landlord on issues relating to the tenancy up to this point. There is no evidence it explained why it could not discuss the matter with the resident prior to its final response which caused the resident frustration. This was a shortcoming in its communication. Because it ultimately addressed this in its final response and updated its records to reflect his tenancy status, we have found no maladministration.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It states it will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. It will respond within 20 working days at stage 2. These timeframes are in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out standards for landlords’ complaint handling practices.
The resident complained on 4 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and spoke to the resident’s partner the following day. The call notes state he said they did not wish to log a formal complaint.
On 15 March 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and reiterated that she wanted it to log a complaint. The landlord emailed the resident and asked that she confirm this and provide details of the complaint. There is no evidence the resident responded.
On 17 April 2024 the resident contacted the landlord again, to check it had logged the complaint. She explained there was some confusion and confirmed her partner also wanted it to investigate. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day and said it would respond within 10 working days.
From the information available, it is clear the landlord was confused about whether the couple wanted to log a complaint. It could have taken a proactive approach and followed up with the resident to confirm how it should proceed following its email on 15 March 2024. However, this was a shortcoming rather than a failure. Overall, it took reasonable efforts to establish whether the resident wanted to log a complaint.
The complaint response was due on 1 May 2024, but on 15 May 2024 the landlord requested an extension. In line with its policy and the Code, the landlord can request an extension of up to 10 days. However, it did so retrospectively, several days after its response was due. In doing so it failed to manage the resident’s expectations about the delay which was unreasonable. It ultimately responded after a total of 21 working days, on 17 May 2024, which was 1 day after the extension date.
The resident escalated the complaint on 19 May 2024. The landlord logged the complaint the following day. It requested a further extension of 10 working days on 14 June 2024 and responded on 2 July 2024. This was a total of 31 working days, which accounting for the extension, constituted a small delay of 1 working day. While a 1-day delay is not significant the landlord should have acknowledged and apologised for any inconvenience to the resident in its responses.
In their escalation request, the resident complained about the electrics in the property dating back years. The landlord did not address this point in its complaint response and said it could not investigate historic issues. Its complaints policy states it may not consider “issues brought to our attention after 12 months of arising, unless there is a recurring issue or where the complaints are related to safeguarding concerns, health and safety matters, or where we agree there are exceptional circumstances”.
Given the resident had reported ongoing concerns with the landlord’s handling of the electrics, it would have been reasonable for it to exercise discretion or log a new complaint. However, it took appropriate action by including an assessment of the electrics as part of its full house survey.
As stated in the Code, landlords must track and promptly action outstanding tasks following a complaint response. They should also provide appropriate updates to the resident about the steps they are taking.
The landlord failed to do this which resulted in the resident making a complaint about the complaints team on 23 October 2024. The landlord refused to log this as it said it had already investigated the matter and instead referred her to the complaint handler who had dealt with her stage 2 complaint. The complaint handler was the subject of her complaint, so this was not appropriate in the circumstances. It would have been reasonable for it to log a new complaint or escalate the issue to a senior member of staff. The landlord’s response caused the resident frustration and a lack of faith in its complaints function.
They made a further complaint on 11 November 2024 for the same reason and an internal request was made for the complaints team to contact the resident, but it is not clear that this happened and again there is no evidence it logged the complaint.
It is for this reason we have found service failure. The landlord should apologise to the resident for its failure to log a new complaint or appropriately escalate the resident’s concerns. It should also remind complaint handling staff that any requests to extend a complaint deadline should be made promptly and in advance of the deadline to better manage the residents’ expectations. It should pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the distress caused in line with its compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about radon exposure in the property and their request for its policy on this.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about an incident involving the resident and its operative.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Write a letter of apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report. This should be from the Managing Director or another member of the executive team.
2. Pay the resident a total of £3,300 compensation comprised of:
  1. £3,000 for distress and inconvenience caused by failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould. If it has already paid the £1,500 it offered as a complaint outcome it can deduct this from the total.
  2. £200 for distress and inconvenience caused by failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns about radon exposure.
  3. £100 for distress caused by its complaint handling failings.
3. Schedule and complete temporary roof/chimney repairs, subject to the resident’s approval. It should also reiterate its offer to provide a PIV unit and install this subject to the resident’s agreement.
4. Provide this Service with evidence it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Share this report with its board or executive team for review. In conjunction with its damp and mould policy, it should ensure it is reporting on progress and performance in its approach to tackling damp and mould in affected properties.
2. Confirm a dedicated point of contact to provide weekly updates to the resident on progress with their managed move.
3. Review this Service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. Going forward it should ensure it keeps complete and auditable records of the action it takes in relation to repairs as well as its communications with residents.
4. Remind complaint handling staff that any requests to extend a complaint deadline should be made promptly and in advance of the deadline to better manage residents’ expectations.