Croydon Churches Housing Association Limited (202414028)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414028

Croydon Churches Housing Association Limited

1 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 the resident’s:
1. reports of damp and mould and outstanding repairs.
2. move to temporary accommodation.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated June 2014. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a purpose-built block. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives in the property with her 2 children, 1 of whom has learning difficulties. The resident said she has anxiety and learning difficulties. The landlord is aware the household is vulnerable.
The landlord raised a number of repairs on 21 December 2023 including inspecting for mould throughout the property. Its records show that the resident reported mould to other areas of the property on 19 January 2024. She moved to temporary accommodation on 27 January 2024. The landlord’s surveyor completed an inspection on 29 January 2024.
The landlord received a Letter of Claim from the resident’s legal representative on 31 January 2024 regarding repairs, including extensive damp and mould throughout the property. In March 2024 an expert witness inspected the property and produced a report. The resident reported silverfish in her property on 24 June 2024. She moved to temporary accommodation on 25 June 2024 so the landlord could complete repairs. The landlord changed the locks to the property on 30 June 2024. It completed a post inspection of the property on 31 July 2024.
The resident said she wanted to raise a complaint on 2 August 2024. The resident was due to return to her property on 6 August 2024. However, she was unable to as she did not have the keys. The resident’s legal representative informed the landlord that it no longer represented the resident the same day. The landlord raised a job to treat silverfish on 15 August 2024.
On 10 September 2024 the landlord’s legal representatives made an offer in full and final settlement of the disrepair claim. The landlord’s surveyor completed a further inspection of the resident’s property on 24 October 2024. It identified additional repairs.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 25 November and 5 December 2024. We asked it to provide a stage 1 response to the resident by 2 and 12 December 2024 respectively. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 9 December 2024. It provided its stage 1 response on 12 December 2024. The landlord said:
1. both it and the resident missed and cancelled appointments in August 2023. However, she contacted it when she was unavailable.
2. the resident expressed concerns in December 2023 that the mould was getting worse. Its contractor attended on 21 December 2023 and cleaned the mould in the bathroom. It booked another appointment for 26 January 2024.
3. it apologised for any distress caused during the temporary move on 27 January 2024. It was unable to get accommodation in the local area at short notice. But it explained it would be a few days while it found local accommodation and arranged school transport. It discussed this with members of her family.
4. the post inspection report dated 31 July 2024 identified that it should have rectified some of the resident’s concerns. It apologised for not treating the report regarding an incorrect fire door to the kitchen and the lack of action it had taken as a new complaint. It had addressed the issue with the fire door in the inspection completed on 24 October 2024.
5. it was sorry that it failed to attend some appointments when the resident reported damp and mould. It felt it could have done more in the initial stages to support the resident regarding her concerns about damp and mould. Once it was aware of the condition of the property it asked her to move out so it could complete repairs. However, the instructions from the resident’s legal representative delayed progress. Therefore, it could only partially uphold this part of her complaint.
6. there was work outstanding from the inspection completed on 24 October 2024 for pests, remedial repairs and central heating pipework checks. Its contractors had been trying to contact the resident to arrange access to complete this work. It had also attempted to contact her. It would need access in 6 months to ensure it had eliminated the mould.
7. as the serviced apartment was not ready the landlord gave cash to the resident to wait in a local café. Its staff confirmed the accommodation was in an acceptable condition. When the accommodation needed to replace the bed, it did so promptly. It apologised for cooking implements not being immediately available.
8. the resident agreed it could destroy the items she no longer needed, and it would put the items she required in storage. It helped her pack and move items. It advised that once it started work it would change the locks to ensure the property was safe and there would be no further access. It was sorry if there was a misunderstanding or if things were not clear.
9. its complaints team contacted the resident on 5 August 2024 to ascertain if she was raising new issues or the same issues put forward in her disrepair claim. The resident did not contact it back and it did not raise any of the issues as complaints. It apologised for not obtaining further information so it could make the correct judgement on whether to raise a complaint.
10. it offered £520 compensation, in addition to the £3,500 offered as part of the disrepair claim, as follows:
  1. late response to letter £10 (fixed amount).
  2. late response to formal complaint £10 (fixed amount).
  3. failed service and inconvenience £250.
  4. time and trouble £150.
  5. extensive failure to follow complaints procedure £100.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 December 2024 as she remained unhappy. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation on 6 January 2025. It sent its stage 2 response on 3 February 2025. The landlord reiterated that it had partially upheld the resident’s complaint and its offer of £520 compensation, in addition to the £3,500 offered as part of the disrepair claim. The landlord apologised and said:
1. it had made several attempts to provide the resident with temporary accommodation to it could complete the necessary repairs.
2. its post works inspection of 31 July 2024 showed that the property was clear of damp and mould.
3. the resident returned to the property on 6 August 2024. She then contacted it about repairs issues and said she did not want to stay in the property.
4. it had completed a pre inspection on 24 October 2024 but had not been able to access the resident’s home since then to complete repairs with several contractors reporting that she had refused access.
5. it had made several attempts to contact the resident and had been liaising with her social worker to communicate with her and resolve the repair issue. It was sorry to hear that the resident did not want to engage with it.
6. it would like the resident to engage, and it would need make appointments to complete any repairs and provide support. It would continue to work with the resident’s social worker and other external agencies to find a resolution.
The landlord said it has had difficulty gaining access to the resident’s property to complete repairs. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 6 March 2025. She said the repairs were still outstanding and the mould was so bad that her social worker told her she could not remain in the property. She said she had moved in with a family member and was having to share a bed due to overcrowding. She said she did not want to return to her property because it was so bad, and she wished to be moved to alternative accommodation. The resident said she no longer has legal representation, and the disrepair claim was not issued at court.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

As part of her complaint, the resident said that the issues had impacted the health of the household. We are unable to determine the cause of any health conditions or the liability for this. These matters are better suited to consideration as a personal injury claim and if the resident wishes to pursue this concern, she may wish to seek independent legal advice. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
The resident has said there has been issues with damp and mould in her property since 2014. It is not possible for this Service to conduct a thorough and effective investigation of events dating back to 2014. The Ombudsman will only consider complaints which have been raised within a reasonable time of the events occurring. As such this investigation will focus on issues from August 2023 which is 12 months before the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. Any reference to issues from 2014 will be to provide context only.
In correspondence with the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident said that she wished to be moved permanently into a different property. The way the landlord allocates its social housing is governed by its statutory obligations and its allocation policy which determines the priority of applicants on its waiting lists. The Ombudsman is unable to make orders that could cause an adverse impact on other individuals who may have a higher priority than the resident for the landlord’s properties.

Relevant policies and procedures

The Housing Act 2004 ensures landlords are responsible for assessing hazards and risks within their rented homes. When assessing any such hazards and risks, the assessment should be considered in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould is a potential hazard that may require remedy.
The tenancy agreement states that:
1. the landlord would keep in good repair internal walls, floors, ceilings, doors and any installations provided for heating, sanitation and the supply of water, gas and electricity including baths, sinks, basins and central heating installations.
2. the resident must keep the interior of the property in a good and clean condition.
3. the resident must allow access to her property to landlord employees, agents or contractors at all reasonable hours of the day whether to inspect the property or carry out repairs.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance standards state that:
1. target times for repairs are:
  1. to attend an emergency repair within 24 hours.
  2. to complete an urgent repair within 5 days.
  3. to complete a routine repair within 28 days.
2. if a resident was vulnerable it would endeavour to take account of this when carrying out its maintenance responsibilities.
The landlord’s self-assessment following the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould published in October 2021 states that:
1. it would complete initial mould removal tasks within 7 days of notification regardless of cause.
2. a surveyor would assess the property within 7 days for potential root causes, the level of complexity and risk.
3. where it could not remove mould within 7 days it would move the resident to temporary accommodation.
4. it would follow up on cases 6 months after it had inspected repairs to ensure it had fully resolved the issue.
The landlord’s temporary decants (move to temporary accommodation) procedure states that:
1. a temporary move could be due to the requirement to complete extensive repairs or maintenance at the property.
2. it would ensure that there was a dedicated member of staff to support residents through the process.
3. in all situations that required a vulnerable resident to vacate their property the landlord would support them as appropriate. It would work collaboratively with appropriate external support agencies and extended family to ensure it gave tailored support to residents.
4. if residents could not stay with family or friends, it would consider a hotel or serviced apartment.
5. residents could only refuse an area if moving them there would put them at risk. The operations manager would consider other reasons for refusing an area.
6. if the resident stayed in temporary accommodation without cooking facilities it would make a daily contribution toward food costs of £15 per person over 12, and £7.50 per child under the age of 12 years and 6 months.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and outstanding repairs

The landlord’s repairs records show that it raised a repair to inspect mould in the property on 21 December 2023. The repair was prioritised as routine with a target completion date of 18 January 2024. This was outside the timescales outlined in the landlord’s self-assessment on damp and mould. It was inappropriate for the landlord to prioritise this as a routine repair.
Additionally, the landlord’s repairs records show that it cancelled this job alongside another job raised on 21 December 2023 to remove mould growth to the wall tiles and ceiling, among other repairs. The records do not say why. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs from March 2019 highlights the importance of landlords keeping clear accurate and easily accessible records. This includes ensuring there are records of when the resident raised the issue, when it completed any work and any action taken. Had the landlord considered this it may have prevented this failing.
On 19 January 2024 the resident reported mould to other parts of her property. The landlord raised a repair to treat areas of mould and complete additional work as detailed on the previous job. It prioritised this repair as urgent with a target completion date of 24 January 2024. The landlord arranged this repair for 26 January 2024 which was slightly over the target completion date. This was an oversight. However, the landlord cancelled this repair as the resident could not confirm if she could attend. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to follow this up and try to book another appointment.
The landlord’s surveyor completed an inspection of the property on 29 January 2024. They recorded mould growth and low to medium moisture readings throughout the property. They noted that the readings indicated that the walls had dried out following a previous leak from the flat above. They also recorded high moisture readings on the wall adjacent to the bathroom due to water ingress from the shower tray. The surveyor recommended several repairs including removing the mould, applying a stain block and redecorating throughout the property.
The resident raised the issue of damp and mould in December 2023, and the landlord had raised repairs for this on 21 December 2023. The landlord did not complete a surveyor’s inspection until 29 January 2024. This was outside the timescales outlined in the landlord’s self-assessment on damp and mould. This was inappropriate.
Additionally, the surveyor attributed some of the moisture readings to condensation. There is no evidence that the landlord offered any advice regarding this to the resident. The Ombudsman’s website sets out recommendations for landlords when responding to reports of damp and mould including giving resident’s advice on preventing it. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to do this in the circumstances.
The landlord visited the resident’s property on 20 March 2024 to discuss moving to temporary accommodation while it completed repairs. The landlord has not provided any evidence of contact with the resident since the surveyor’s inspection of 29 January 2024. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident had made a disrepair claim. However, the legal representative’s letter did not say the landlord could not contact the resident. In the circumstances this lack of contact was unreasonable.
During this visit the landlord noted that it could smell the damp from the communal area and the smell of damp was “overwhelming” in the children’s bedroom. The resident said she would not move out of the property unless her legal representative instructed otherwise. The landlord explained the seriousness of the situation and tried to liaise with the legal representative directly. The HHSRS classifies damp and mould as a potential hazard. Given the circumstances it was reasonable for the landlord to try and liaise with the resident’s legal representative to discuss a potential move out of the property so it could complete repairs. The landlord said it would make a safeguarding referral for the household.
The landlord received an expert witness report from an independent surveyor instructed by the resident’s legal representative on 25 March 2024. It outlined several required repairs and identified several hazards. It said that damp readings throughout the property confirmed it was saturated and beyond permitted tolerances. It said that on the balance of probabilities the leak from the flat above had caused this.
Between 22 April and June 2024, the landlord continued to contact the resident to try and arrange a move to temporary accommodation so it could complete repairs. It also chased the safeguarding referral with the local authority. This was reasonable.
The resident reported silverfish at the property on 24 June 2024. She asked if the landlord could pull the carpet up to remove these and put something else down in its place. The landlord said this may not be possible, but it would ask its maintenance team to advise. There is no evidence that the landlord referred this to its maintenance team. The landlord could have treated the silverfish infestation while the resident was in temporary accommodation. This was a missed opportunity to resolve the resident’s concerns about silverfish and was unreasonable.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 31 July 2024. It noted that it had completed all repairs. However, a charity called the landlord on 12 August 2024. They said the resident had asked them to deal with the repair issues and she wanted a move. The landlord called the charity back. It told them to contact its contractor regarding the repairs issue. Given the circumstances it would have been reasonable for the landlord to speak with the charity about the resident’s concerns.
The landlord raised a repair to treat the silverfish in the resident’s property on 15 August 2024. It prioritised this as urgent with a target completion date of 20 August 2024. It attempted to contact the resident about this the same day, but she was unavailable. However, the resident had first reported silverfish on 24 June 2024. Therefore, the landlord had gone beyond the timescales stated in its repairs and maintenance standards. This was inappropriate. The landlord’s records from 22 August 2024 show that the resident was refusing access to its pest control contractor to treat the silverfish.
The landlord received emails from the local authority on 22 and 28 August 2024 and a charity on 9 September. They both raised concerns about the living conditions in the resident’s property due to severe damp and mould and the presence of silverfish. The local authority said it had received a referral for this and requested a response. The charity said it had made a referral to a Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) and Environmental Health. There is no evidence that the landlord took any action or responded to either agency following this. This was unreasonable.
The landlord called the resident on 11 September 2024. She reported a faulty radiator. She said that the landlord had not completed the recent repairs to a good standard, and she still had concerns about damp and mould. She said the kitchen was not sufficiently ventilated and did not have a fire door. The landlord explained that the gas safety engineer could look at the radiator when it completed her gas safety inspection. There is no evidence the landlord asked its contractor to do this. This was unreasonable.
The landlord also offered to arrange a post inspection of the repairs to take place at the same time as the gas inspection to review her concerns. The landlord’s surveyor called the resident on 11 September 2024 to arrange a suitable time to inspect the damp and mould repairs. They left a voicemail message and wrote to the resident arrange the appointment. This was reasonable.
Environmental Health called the landlord on 19 September 2024. It requested a call back to discuss the resident’s complaint about her property. The landlord raised a call back. However, there is no evidence that it completed this. This was unreasonable.
Environmental Health emailed the landlord on 20 and 24 September 2024. It said it had received a complaint from the resident about damp and mould throughout the property and damage to kitchen cupboards. It said that it had inspected the property and there were concerning damp readings and other required repairs including to the kitchen fire door. It suggested that the landlord appointed a damp surveyor to inspect the property and locate the cause. The landlord’s surveyor called the resident on 27 September 2024 to arrange an inspection. They left a voicemail message and wrote to the resident about this. This was reasonable.
The landlord wrote to Environment Health on 10 October 2024. It said it had liaised with its contractor, and it appeared that the resident had not raised any concerns or submitted a repair for damp and mould. It is clear from the records that the resident had raised concerns directly and through representatives. It was unreasonable for the landlord to say she had not raised any concerns.
The landlord called the resident on 16 October 2024. It said she needed to speak with it so it could progress her concerns. This was reasonable. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the resident’s property on 24 October 2024. They noted a damp patch to the wall in the living room and a localised damp patch in the bathroom due to the shower. They agreed several repairs with the resident. It is unclear why the landlord did not identify these repairs during the previous surveyor’s inspection. It could have assessed whether it was able to complete these repairs while the resident was in temporary accommodation. This was unreasonable.
Between 29 October and 9 December 2024, the landlord and its contractors attempted to contact the resident several times to arrange repairs. It also liaised with Environmental Health during this time and provided updates. It was reasonable for the landlord and its contractors to do this. However, it did not email the resident and provide evidence of communication as requested by Environmental Health on 8 November 2024. This was unreasonable.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 9 December 2024. It told the resident it would need to access her property in 6 months’ time to check if it had eradicated the mould. Its self-assessment on damp and mould states it would do this. This was appropriate. However, the landlord mentioned missed appointments and contact with the resident in August 2023. Additionally, it said that it attended the resident’s property on 21 December 2023 and cleaned the mould in the bathroom. It also said that it had addressed the issue of the fire door during its inspection on 24 October 2024. The landlord has not provided any record of this. Had it considered the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs it may have prevented this failing.
The resident’s social worker contacted the landlord on 18 December 2024 regarding damp and mould in the resident’s property. Following this, between 19 December 2024 and 6 January 2025 the landlord liaised with the social worker to try and get the resident to engage with it. The landlord outlined the resident’s obligation to allow access for repairs. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance standards state that it would account for a resident’s vulnerabilities. It was reasonable for the landlord to liaise with the resident’s social worker to try and arrange access to complete the repairs.
The landlord and its surveyor attended the resident’s property on 8 January 2025, but she wasn’t in. Its gas safety contractor emailed it the following day and said it had still not received a response from the resident, and it had attempted to call her that day. It was reasonable for the landlord and its contractor to take this action. The landlord met again with the resident’s social worker on 23 January 2025 to discuss the resident engaging with it. The landlord acted reasonably in doing this
The landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation on 6 January 2025. It outlined the outstanding repairs. This was reasonable. It sent its stage 2 response on 3 February 2025. It reiterated that her complaint was partially upheld. It said it had been unable to complete any repairs as it had not been able to access the resident’s property. It apologised and said it would like to resolve the resident’s complaint. Additionally, it said it would like to engage with the resident, and it needed to make appointments to complete repairs and provide necessary support. It was reasonable for the landlord to say this.

Summary

In summary, the landlord frequently contacted the resident about moving out of her property temporarily in June 2024, including speaking with her legal representative. It attempted to contact the resident to arrange an appointment to complete repairs in her property. The landlord also liaised with the resident’s social worker to try and get the resident to engage with it. Additionally, in its escalation acknowledgement the landlord outlined the outstanding repairs, and said it wanted to engage with the resident in its complaint responses.
However, the landlord:
1. has not provided any record of some of the action it has taken as stated in its stage 1 response.
2. raised a routine repair to inspect for damp on 21 December 2023. Therefore, it did not adhere to the timescales stipulated in its self-assessment on damp and mould.
3. did not follow up with the resident to book another appointment when she cancelled the appointment to treat mould on 26 January 2024.
4. delayed in completing a surveyor’s inspection for damp and mould from 21 December 2023 to 29 January 2024.
5. did not offer any advice on how to reduce condensation to the resident.
6. did not contact the resident about the damp and mould issues in her property from 29 January to 20 March 2024.
7. did not raise repair to treat silverfish when the resident reported them on 24 June 2024.
8. did not consistently engage with external agencies.
9. did not ask its gas contractor to look at her radiator when it completed her gas safety inspection as stated during its call to her on 11 September 2024.
10. provided incorrect information to Environmental Health regarding the resident not raising any concerns about damp and mould or other repairs when it wrote to them on 10 October 2024.
11. had to complete a further surveyor’s inspection on 24 October 2024 as it did not identify all repairs during the first inspection.
12. did not email the resident and provide evidence of communication as environmental health requested on 8 November 2024.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord has been unable to arrange some appointments to complete repairs as the resident has refused to engage at times with it. However, the communication issues highlighted in this investigation may have attributed to delays in progressing the repairs. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint and acknowledged some of its failures in its complaint responses, but it did not recognise all the above failures.
The landlord offered a total of £3,900 compensation in its complaint responses. This offer of compensation was fair and reasonable in the circumstances and of the level set out in our Remedies Guidance. We have therefore not ordered any further compensation.
However, as the landlord did not acknowledge all its failings and there are still outstanding repairs the Ombudsman has found there was maladministration. The resident may seek independent legal advice regarding the offer if she wishes, including any previous part 36 offers made.
As repairs are outstanding, the landlord should arrange for a suitably qualified surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. The surveyor must provide a written report to the Ombudsman, the resident and the landlord within 10 working days of the inspection which must:
1. address the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and comment on the cause if it is present.
2. identify any outstanding repairs, including commenting on whether the kitchen fire door requires repair.
3. set out a schedule of works, together with indicative timescales, including dates to complete any repairs that are found to be outstanding.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s move to temporary accommodation

The landlord arranged for the resident to move to a hotel on 27 January 2024. The landlord’s temporary accommodation policy states that if a resident could not stay with family or friends, it would consider a hotel. Therefore, this was appropriate. When arranging this the landlord stipulated that the resident remained in the local area for her work and the children’s school. This was in line with the landlord’s temporary accommodation policy regarding vulnerable residents. It was reasonable for the landlord to request this.
However, the landlord has not provided any record of it allocating a dedicated member of staff to support the resident through the process when she moved to temporary accommodation in January 2024. The landlord’s temporary accommodation policy states that it would do this. Therefore, this was inappropriate. Especially considering the resident’s circumstances.
The landlord discussed a temporary move with the resident on 20 March 2024. It said the resident had only stayed in the hotel for 1 day and then returned home. The resident said she could not stay in the hotel as the children needed a family member to support them, they needed to be close to school, and they could not afford to buy food. The landlord explained that it would give her money towards food. The landlord’s temporary accommodation policy does say this. However, there is no evidence that the landlord explained this to the resident when she moved to the hotel in January 2024. This was unreasonable.
Between 22 April until 24 June 2024 the landlord had frequent communication with the resident. During this time the resident did not always engage with the landlord or said she was unavailable which delayed the move. However, the landlord:
1. allocated a designated member of staff to support the resident in moving.
2. agreed to delay the initial planned move date from 4 June until 11 June 2024 as the resident felt pressured and was not ready to move.
3. emailed the resident’s support worker regarding issues with contacting the resident.
4. arranged to deliver boxes to the property so the resident could pack.
5. arranged for a removal company to remove her belongings and to dispose of unwanted items.
6. liaised with the resident and local authority who said the temporary accommodation had to be in the local area for the children’s schooling and the resident’s work.
7. liaised with the local authority to arrange school transport for the children.
These actions were in line with the landlord’s temporary accommodation policy. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to do this.
The resident was due to move to temporary accommodation on 25 June 2024. However, she had not completed packing up her property. The landlord assisted the resident in packing her belongings. It was reasonable of the landlord to do this. The resident initially moved to a hotel in the local area for 2 nights. This was in line with the landlord’s temporary accommodation policy and was appropriate. However, there is no evidence that the landlord explained to the resident that it would make payments to contribute towards food costs while she was at the hotel. This was unreasonable.
The resident was due to move to a serviced apartment in the local area on 27 June 2024. This was in line with the landlord’s temporary accommodation policy and was appropriate. The landlord met the resident at her property on 27 June 2024. Initially she refused to go to the serviced apartment as she felt that the landlord had not kept her updated. She raised concerns about where the landlord had stored her belongings. The landlord helped the resident to take food and other items to the serviced apartment. It also arranged for the resident to collect some items from storage. This was reasonable.
When the resident arrived at the serviced apartment it was not ready. So, the landlord gave the resident some money to take her family to a local café while the accommodation provider cleaned the apartment. The landlord agreed that she could move in on return even if the cleaners were still there. This was reasonable.
The landlord called the resident on 28 June 2024 to check she was settling in and to ask whether she wanted to view another apartment. It said it would rearrange the transport for school if so. The resident said that she would stay in the apartment she was in. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer a move to the other apartment and to change her child’s school travel arrangements. During the resident’s stay in the serviced apartment the landlord addressed several of her queries. This included how to use the oven and access the bins.
The landlord completed a lock change on 30 June 2024 to complete repairs. it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain to the resident that it would do this. However, the evidence suggests this was not the case.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 1 July 2024 to dispose of some items as agreed with the resident and move other items so that it could complete repairs. This was reasonable. The landlord’s records from 9 July 2024 show that it was still to start the repairs. The delay in the landlord starting repairs led to it extending the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation from 19 July to 6 August 2024. Considering the household’s vulnerabilities this was unreasonable.
The resident’s support officer contacted the landlord on 15 and 16 July 2024. They raised concerns about the temporary accommodation and where the landlord has stored the resident’s belongings. They said the resident felt as if the landlord had “lied to her”. They said that due to the resident’s learning difficulty they had requested that a representative was present when the landlord spoke with her. However, the landlord informed them that the resident would need to contact it directly as it would not action any messages she did not send and did not respond to their email. Considering the resident’s vulnerabilities this was unreasonable.
The landlord arranged for the resident’s brother to take sofas to the storage facility on 18 July 2024. It messaged the resident on 23 July 2024. It said she had to leave the temporary accommodation by 11am on 6 August 2024. The landlord acted reasonably in these communications.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 July 2024. She was unhappy with the living situation in particular the cooking facilities and being unable to access her property. Although the landlord emailed the resident on 25 July 2024 it did not address these concerns. This was unreasonable.
The evidence indicates that the resident moved into a larger serviced apartment around 25 July 2024. The landlord messaged the resident on 29 July 2024 to ask if she had settled into the larger apartment. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this. The landlord reminded the resident on 31 July and 5 August 2024 that she had to leave the serviced accommodation on 6 August 2025 by 11am. It also said her furniture that had been in storage would arrive at her property that day. It was reasonable for the landlord to keep the resident updated.
The resident did not arrive at her property at the time agreed on 6 August 2024. The landlord called her and said it would drop the keys off at the serviced apartment, but the resident had left when it got there. The landlord returned to the resident’s property, but she was not there and did not answer when called. The landlord left a voicemail and a note on the resident’s door telling her to collect her keys from its offices by 5pm that day. It was reasonable of the landlord to take this action to try and return the resident’s keys to her.
A charity called the landlord on 7 August 2024. It said the resident was in their offices and had said she had no keys to return to her property. The landlord explained the actions it had taken the previous day and that a family member had a key. The landlord delivered the resident’s key to her at the charities offices. This was reasonable.
The resident called the landlord on 9 August 2024. She said that some of her belongings were missing including her dumb bells. She requested a call back. There is no evidence that the landlord called her back to address these concerns. This was unreasonable.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 12 December 2024. It apologised for any distress caused during the temporary move in January 2024. It also apologised for cooking implements not being available when she moved into the serviced apartment in June 2024. This was reasonable. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about missing items. This was unreasonable.
Additionally, the landlord said it had arranged for the resident’s school transport and discussed issues with the resident’s family in January 2024. It said it was unable to get a hotel in the local area at short notice on 27 January 2024, and it had explained to the resident that it would be few days before it secured accommodation in the local area. It also said that it had explained to the resident that it would change the locks to the property while it completed repairs.
The landlord has not provided a record of any of this. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) states that good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission. Had the landlord considered this it may have prevented this failing.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 December 2024. She said somebody had tampered with her gym equipment and several items were missing. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 3 February 2025. It failed to address the resident’s concerns about missing items. This was unreasonable.

Summary

In summary, the landlord considered the resident’s circumstances and adhered to a lot of the actions outlined in its temporary accommodation policy when it moved the resident to temporary accommodation in June 2024. It also acted reasonably in allowing the resident access to the storage facility. Additionally, it tried to return the resident’s keys to her when the move was over.
However, the landlord:
1. did not provide a designated staff member to the resident when it organised a temporary move in January 2024.
2. did not explain to the resident that it would give her money as a contribution towards food costs when it placed her in a hotel in January and June 2024.
3. did not explain to the resident that it would change the locks to her property while she was in temporary accommodation.
4. delayed in starting the repairs which meant that it had to extend the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation.
5. did not engage with the resident’s support officer when they messaged or respond to their email.
6. did not address the resident’s concerns about her living situation and being unable to access her property in its email of 25 July 2025 after she messaged them raising these on 24 July 2025.
7. did not address the resident’s concerns about missing items, including gym equipment, in either of its complaint responses.
8. failed to provide evidence of its assertion in its stage 1 response that it had taken specific action in January 2024 and explained to the resident that it would change the locks on her property.
In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for any distress caused during the temporary move in January 2024. However, it did not acknowledge all the above failures in its complaint responses. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s move to temporary accommodation.
The resident told the landlord in her correspondence with it that its handling of her move to temporary accommodation caused her distress and upset. The landlord did not offer any compensation for this in its complaint responses. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident compensation. Having carefully considered our guidance on remedies, a fair level of compensation would be £300. This appropriately recognises the distress, inconvenience and upset caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s move to temporary accommodation.
As the landlord has not addressed the resident’s concerns about missing items. It should contact her to discuss this. The landlord should then write to the resident and outline the issues discussed and any action it would take to resolve these if necessary.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It states that:
1. a complaint was an expression of dissatisfaction however made.
2. it would not accept a complaint if the issue was over 12 months old or were legal proceedings had started, and a resident had filed their claim in court.
3. it would log, define and acknowledge in writing a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days. It would send a written response within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
4. it would log, define and acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 5 working days of the request to escalate. It would provide a written response within 20 working days of it acknowledging the escalation.
The resident said she wanted to make a complaint on 2 August 2024. However, the landlord did not raise this. This was unreasonable. The resident then showed her dissatisfaction in her contact with the landlord in person and through various representatives. The landlord did not raise a complaint, although it attempted to call the resident on 3 October 2024 to see if she still needed to raise a complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a complaint was an expression of dissatisfaction however made. Therefore, this was inappropriate.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 27 November 2024. We asked it to provide its stage 1 response within 5 working days by 2 December 2024. The landlord responded on 27 November 2024. It said it had not raised a complaint as the resident had made a disrepair claim. The resident had not filed her disrepair claim in court. Therefore, this was inappropriate when assessed against its complaints policy.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord again on 5 December 2024. We asked it to provide a stage 1 response within 5 working days, no later than 12 December 2024. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 9 December 2024. It sent its stage 1 response on 12 December 2024 and acknowledged its delay in raising a complaint. This was appropriate. However, the stage 1 response said that the landlord’s complaints team had contacted the resident on 5 August 2024. The landlord has not provided any record of this. This was a shortcoming.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 December 2024 as she remained unhappy. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 6 January 2025. This was 8 working days after it received the resident’s email and was an oversight. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 3 February 2025. This was 20 working days after the escalation acknowledgement and was appropriate.
In summary, the landlord acknowledged its delay in raising the resident’s complaint in its stage 1 response. The landlord offered compensation to the resident for the delays. After careful consideration of the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance we consider that the landlord has offered reasonable redress of £120. This appropriately recognises the distress, inconvenience and upset caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. This finding is made on the understanding that the £120 compensation is reoffered to the resident if this has not already been paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s move to temporary accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified in this investigation.
2. pay the resident the £3,900 compensation outlined in its complaints responses for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and outstanding repairs if it has not already done so.
3. pay the resident £300, which it must not offset against any arrears, to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s move to temporary accommodation.
4. arrange for a suitably qualified surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. The surveyor must provide a written report to the Ombudsman, the resident and the landlord within 10 working days of the inspection which must:
  1. address the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and comment on the cause if it is present.
  2. identify any outstanding repairs, including commenting on whether the kitchen fire door requires repair.
  3. set out a schedule of works, together with indicative timescales, including dates to complete any repairs that are found to be outstanding.
5. contact the resident to discuss her concerns about missing items. The landlord should then write to the resident and outline the issues discussed and any action it would take to resolve these if necessary.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 28 days of the date of the report.

Recommendation

The landlord should pay the resident the £120 offered in its complaint responses for its complaint handling.