Gentoo Group Limited (202417253)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417253

Gentoo Group Limited

23 April 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 in the property.
2. Temporary move.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord and lives in a 2-bedroom flat with her partner and son. The resident has asthma and epilepsy. Her partner also has asthma, and her son has a mental health condition.
The resident’s tenancy began in February 2023.
On 15 March 2023, the resident reported damp and mould on the living room and bedroom walls.
On 4 April 2023, the landlord’s repairs supervisor inspected the flat and noted mould on the flooring in the living room and bedrooms, as well as heavy condensation throughout. The supervisor also identified damage to the damp proof course (DPC) at the rear of the property and noted other external repair issues.
The supervisor requested for the following jobs to be carried out:
1. Inspection and repair of the DPC around the perimeter of the property
2. Repointing of brickwork and repair of broken bricks
3. Clearing of debris from external cavity walls
4. Removal of an unused telecoms box
5. Clearing and repair of drains
6. Inspection behind kitchen units
7. Mould treatment and painting of living room and bedroom windows and walls
8. Removal of ivy from the front and rear of the property
On 19 April 2023, the landlord completed the mould treatment and repainting.
On 27 June 2023, it carried out the inspection behind the kitchen units.
During a tenancy visit on 8 November 2023, the resident reported that damp and mould were still present throughout the flat and that many earlier repair issues remained outstanding. On 14 November 2023, the repairs supervisor requested for the outstanding work to be completed and asked for the roof to be inspected.
On 19 December 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that there was no gas meter in the flat and said it was not her responsibility to liaise with the energy provider to arrange its installation.
Between January 2024 and March 2024, the landlord cleared the drains, installed a new gully, carried out a further mould wash, sealed gaps and applied silicone around the rear external door window and lintel. It also applied thermal paint treatment to the internal walls, cleared debris from the rear external cavity walls, and completed brickwork repairs.
Between 2 May 2024 and 13 May 2024, the landlord installed a passive vent in the living room. The repairs supervisor and manager also met with the resident to explain that property preservation works were needed. They told the resident that she and her family would be temporarily moved out during the works. An asbestos survey was also carried out and the resident additionally raised concerns about the rear external door not being secure.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 28 May 2024. She said mould had been present since she moved in, that multiple repairs remained outstanding, and that mould had spread to her furniture. The resident referred to the health conditions in her household, said repair appointments had been cancelled repeatedly, and that she was waiting for a copy of the asbestos survey report. She objected to being asked to lift carpets and pack furniture herself in preparation of the preservation works, and said she felt uncomfortable being temporarily moved without being able to secure her belongings. She also asked for a schedule of works.
On 19 June 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It summarised the repair history from the start of the tenancy and set out a proposed schedule of works for the property preservation. The landlord confirmed that the temporary move would last 9 nights and said it would arrange and pay for a company to lift the carpets before starting work. It also said it would cover the cost of collecting and storing the resident’s furniture until the works were complete. The response acknowledged delays in completing repairs and offered the resident £350 compensation for those delays. It also offered a further £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused over the past year.
On 23 June 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. She disputed parts of the repair history, including the landlord’s failure to inspect the roof. She asked for the passive vent to be removed, as it had caused a draft during colder months and worsened allergy symptoms during high pollen periods. She said she did not want to be moved to a hotel and asked to be placed in the vacant flat above her instead. She also asked for clarity on how the landlord would address the water damage to the flooring and whether the DPC would be resolved as part of the preservation works. Finally, she said the compensation offer did not reflect the length of time the repairs had been outstanding or the impact on all 3 members of the household.
On 11 July 2024, the resident and her family moved to a hotel. On the same day she told the landlord that the hotel was not honouring the agreed £15 per person meal allowance.
Between 15 July 2024 and 18 July 2024, the landlord completed works including, damp proof treatment to the bedroom walls, wall skimming, closure of the passive vent, and additional clearance of debris from external cavity walls.
On 19 July 2024, the landlord extended the hotel stay by 9 nights to complete further works, including the installation of damp proof material in the living room and bedroom floors.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 26 July 2024. It confirmed replacement of the rear external door had been assigned to the wrong contractor and was now scheduled for completion within 8-12 weeks. It said the resident did not need to be home for the drainage appointments that were cancelled, the telecoms box would remain, and that no asbestos had been found in the floor. It confirmed works to the rear DPC had been completed and said that arranging installation of the gas meter was not within its remit. It declined to increase the compensation and said no underfloor defects had been found in the flat, though a 2nd opinion would be arranged.

Events after the conclusion of the complaints process

On 27 July 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that she had visited the flat and found a radiator leaking in one of the bedrooms. She also saw water on the living room floor. On 28 July 2024, the landlord extended her hotel stay by 4 nights due to unforeseen repairs and to finish off works to the floors. On 31 July 2024, she visited the property again and reported further water ingress, large cracks between the floor and skirting, and said she believed the damp was coming from the neighbouring property.
On 2 August 2024, the landlord extended the hotel stay by another 7 nights to repair cracks in the floor, clean the flat, and install the carpets. On 9 August 2025, the resident and her family returned home.
On 18 August 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to our service. She said she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the flat, the temporary move, and the fact several repairs in the flat remained outstanding or had been carried out to a poor standard.
In November 2024, the resident told the landlord that water was still coming through the walls and mould had returned. The landlord arranged for an independent surveyor to inspect the flat. The surveyor found:
1. No evidence of a liquid damp-proof layer on the walls in the bedrooms
2. DPC at the front of the property poorly installed
3. External cavity walls containing debris
4. Bricks removed from the front wall
5. Insulation around the front door not fitted properly
In February 2025, the local authority’s environmental health officer inspected the flat and identified a hazard related to damp and mould growth.
On 6 March 2025, the resident and her family were temporarily moved to a hotel, to allow further works recommended by the independent surveyor to be completed. She returned home on 2 April 2025, and on 3 April 2025, the environmental health officer confirmed that no further hazards were present and closed their involvement.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

We have determined it is reasonable to expand the scope of this investigation beyond the final complaint response to include events up to 2 April 2025. This reflects the most recent actions taken by the landlord to address the damp and mould in the property. While there was a gap in reporting between August 2024 and November 2024, this does not suggest the damp and mould in the property had been fully resolved, particularly as the independent surveyor’s report, identified several repairs that required the resident and her family to temporarily move to a hotel again. Expanding the scope ensures a fair and thorough assessment of the landlord’s response to an ongoing issue.
We are aware that the resident raised concerns with us about the conduct of landlord staff during an inspection of her flat in January 2025. However, this matter was not included in her original complaint and is not directly related to the repairs or property condition. We have therefore not assessed the landlord’s actions in relation to this as part of our investigation. The landlord must first be given the chance to investigate and respond to this issue before we get involved. The resident may wish to raise a formal complaint with the landlord if she wishes to pursue her concerns about staff conduct. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, she may then refer the new complaint to us for consideration.
The resident’s complaint to the landlord raised concerns about having to arrange the installation of a gas meter at the property, and the length of time this took. While the landlord is responsible for installing and maintaining items that supply gas and electricity (e.g. the pipework and boiler etc), the meter itself – used to charge for supply – falls under the responsibility of the energy company which supplies the gas. This aspect of the complaint therefore falls outside our jurisdiction. Under paragraph 42 (j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which can be found on our website, states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. The Energy Ombudsman and the resident’s energy provider are the appropriate bodies to consider this issue. We have not investigated this part of the complaint, and the resident may wish to pursue the matter further with the energy supplier.

Legal policy and Framework

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof, walls, windows, and external doors.
The repairs policy also states that the landlord will aim to prioritise repairs for vulnerable residents where their vulnerability means the repair has serious implications for health and safety.
The landlord classifies repairs as:
1. Emergency – where there is an immediate threat to safety or the property; to be completed within 24 hours
2. Urgent repairs – where there is a risk of further damage or a health and safety issue; to be completed within 7 days
3. Routine repairs – standard repairs that do not need urgent attention; to be completed within 28 days.
Landlords must assess property conditions using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). While HHSRS does not set minimum standards, it focuses on identifying and minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould fall within its scope as potential health risks. Landlords should be aware of their responsibilities under HHSRS and take appropriate action when hazards are identified. Improvement works are typically the first step, followed by ongoing monitoring to ensure conditions do not deteriorate.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it takes a proactive approach to identifying damp in properties, including checks to ensure empty homes are free from damp or mould before re-letting.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

The resident reported damp and mould affecting the living room and bedroom walls within a month of her tenancy starting. The timing indicates that these issues were likely already developing at the start of the tenancy, suggesting the property may not have been in a suitable condition when it was let. Given the landlord’s commitment to proactive action on damp and mould, the early presence of visible disrepair is concerning. This raises questions about how effectively the landlord applied its approach at the outset of the tenancy to ensure the home was safe and habitable. As a result, the resident likely experienced disruption and uncertainty at a time when she should have been settling into her new home.
Following the resident’s report on 15 March 2023, the landlord inspected the property on 4 April 2023 – 20 days later. Although this response met its 28-day target for routine repairs, it did not reflect the seriousness of the issue. Visible mould and water ingress should have prompted greater urgency due to the health risks involved and the landlord’s stated commitment to consider vulnerability when responding to reports. While it is unclear whether the landlord was aware of the household’s health needs at this stage, there is no indication it made any enquiries to establish them. As a result, it missed an opportunity to apply its policy effectively and provide a timely response to a potentially serious issue.
The landlord’s inspection in April 2023, confirmed widespread damp and mould, damage to the DPC, and multiple external and internal defects. This should have triggered a coordinated response, including a clear schedule of works with timescales and a process for monitoring progress. The landlord identified several repairs but did not set out when they would be completed or who would oversee them. In the absence of a structured plan, progress was limited. Only 1 repair – mould treatment – was completed within 16 days, with further actions not followed up until the resident raised concerns during a routine tenancy visit 7 months later. This lack of oversight undermined the purpose of the inspection and allowed disrepair to persist. During this time, the resident continued to live with the effects of damp and mould, likely causing avoidable disruption and uncertainty.
The evidence shows that the landlord cleared the drains and installed a new gully in January 2024 – 40 weeks after first identifying these works in April 2023. This significantly exceeded its published timescales for repairs, with no evidence of any mitigating factors to justify the delay. After the works were completed, the landlord scheduled further unnecessary drainage appointments in March 2024, causing the resident to wait in for 4 separate visits. When she raised this in her stage 2 complaint, the landlord responded that these appointments did not require her attendance. However, this was not communicated to the resident at the time, likely causing avoidable inconvenience and frustration.
The landlord’s poor handling of these repairs, characterised by delays and inadequate communication, also meant a potential cause of water ingress remained unresolved for longer than necessary, possibly prolonging the damp and mould issues at the property.
Like the drainage works, the evidence shows that the brickwork repairs and clearance of wall cavities were first identified in April 2023 but not completed until March 2024 – almost a year later. While records show 3 attempted visits in January 2024 were cancelled due to poor weather, the overall delay still fell significantly outside the landlord’s published repair timescales. The April 2023 inspection confirmed broken bricks and defective pointing, both of which fall within the landlord’s repair obligations and were likely to allow moisture to penetrate the building. The need to clear debris from the wall cavities was also significant, as blockages can prevent proper drainage and ventilation – worsening internal damp. The delay in carrying out these works suggests the landlord did not act with sufficient urgency to address known structural defects contributing to the damp and mould in the property.
The landlord’s records show that in January and February 2024, it carried out further works to address the condition of the property. It completed a mould wash in the living room and bedroom, replaced the silicone seal around the rear external door window, and filled visible gaps around the lintel. These were reasonable steps to reduce the presence of mould and improve the internal condition of the home. In March 2024, the landlord also installed a passive vent in the living room. While we cannot determine whether the vent was the most appropriate technical solution, improved ventilation can form part of a broader approach to managing damp and mould. Together, these actions indicate the landlord was beginning to take more active steps to manage the internal environment and respond to the resident’s ongoing concerns.
That said, these works came several months after the issues were first identified and we have seen no evidence that they were accompanied by a clear explanation of how they related to the wider repair programme. Works appeared to take place in isolated stages, often month by month, with no end in sight. This uncertainty likely prevented the resident from feeling settled in her home and undermined her confidence in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the property.
In May 2024, the landlord informed the resident that it would be carrying out property preservation works to address the ongoing damp and mould. This marked a positive development, indicating that the landlord was beginning to take more comprehensive steps to improve the condition of the property and meet its repair obligations.
As part of the planning process, the landlord arranged for an asbestos survey. Records show the resident asked for a copy of the report, but this was not provided. The landlord explained during our investigation that it does not routinely share surveyor reports with residents due to their technical nature and the risk of misinterpretation. While this may be a reasonable position, it is good practice to provide a written summary of findings to reduce uncertainty and maintain transparency. In this case, the resident recalled being told during the survey that traces of asbestos had been found in the floor. Without official confirmation or explanation, she remained worried about the potential risk. This concern was compounded when the landlord asked her to lift the carpets in preparation for the works. Given the potential presence of asbestos and her limited understanding of the findings, this request was likely distressing. The landlord’s failure to communicate clearly at this stage contributed to the resident’s anxiety and undermined her confidence in the safety and planning of the works.
In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord later arranged for a company to lift the carpets and store the resident’s furniture during the property preservation works. This showed greater sensitivity to the resident’s circumstances and removed some of the practical and emotional burden previously placed on her. While this should have been considered earlier, the landlord’s revised approach represented an improvement in how it supported the resident through the planned works.
The resident was temporarily moved to a hotel between 11 July 2024 and 9 August 2024 to allow for the property preservation works. Although originally scheduled for 9 nights, the works took 4 weeks to complete. This is not unusual where further issues are uncovered during repairs. The evidence shows that the landlord carried out substantial works throughout this period. The extent and nature of the repairs indicate that the landlord was taking meaningful steps to meet its repair responsibilities and address the longstanding problems with damp and mould.
However, it would have been good practice for the landlord to carry out a post-inspection walk-through with the resident on her return or provide a written summary confirming what had been completed, what remained outstanding, and why. 2 works originally identified in April 2023 – the removal of the telecoms box and the inspection and repair of the DPC around the perimeter – remained incomplete at this stage. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response said it would no longer remove the telecoms box, despite previously agreeing to do so, but gave no explanation for the change in position. It also stated that DPC works had been completed at the rear of the property but gave no clear explanation of whether the full perimeter had been investigated.
The lack of communication and documentation meant the resident returned to her home unsure whether all issues had been resolved. This likely undermined her trust in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
Additionally, the landlord’s failure to explain why the previously agreed works were deprioritised also made it harder to demonstrate that appropriate decisions were made. For example, when an independent surveyor later identified damage to the front DPC, there was no evidence to confirm this had been considered earlier. Similarly, the landlord had not recorded any valid rationale for its decision not to remove the telecoms box. A clearer record could have helped demonstrate that these matters had been reviewed, rather than overlooked.
There was a gap of 3 months between the resident’s return to the property in August 2024 and the resident’s further reports of damp and mould in November 2024. It is not unusual for damp-related issues to require more than 1 intervention before full resolution, as multiple underlying defects can contribute to the problem. In this context, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange an independent survey following the renewed reports. This demonstrated that the landlord was willing to seek specialist input to better understand the causes of the issue and to inform the next steps in its repair strategy.
The independent survey identified additional measures needed to address the damp and mould, including the injection of a liquid damp proof course to the bedroom walls. The surveyor also found that the external cavity walls, which the landlord had cleared earlier in the year, had not been fully of effectively cleared. In addition, the surveyor raised concerns about the condition of the DPC at the front of the property. While we recognise that this was a more invasive inspection, and so would be expected to uncover further issues, it is significant that some of the matters highlighted – such as the external wall cavities and DPC – had already been identified. These should have been addressed. This suggests that earlier works may not have been completed to a satisfactory standard or properly verified.
Still, it was positive that the landlord responded to the independent survey by taking steps to address the newly identified defects. Although there was a 4-month delay between the resident reporting the recurrence of issues and the start of further works in March 2025, the landlord’s records indicate this period involved the landlord seeking a second inspection, liaising with environmental health, and managing reported tensions between the landlord and the household. In this context, the delay was reasonable, as the landlord needed to coordinate multiple strands of information and ensure it had a complete understanding of the situation before proceeding with further repairs.
The landlord’s records confirm that it completed the recommended works over a 4-week period, and environmental health later confirmed that the property no longer posed a hazard. While the additional temporary move was likely disruptive for the resident, it is positive that the landlord acted on professional advice and completed the necessary repairs. This helped ensure the property was brought to a satisfactory standard and that the most recent defects had been resolved.
The resident reported that mould had affected some of her personal belongings during the course of the disrepair. In June 2024, the landlord’s records show that it advised her to submit a claim through its public liability insurance process. This was appropriate advice, as landlords are not automatically liable for damage to personal possessions unless it can be shown that they acted negligently. The public liability route allows an assessment of whether the landlord’s actions or omissions directly caused the damage, and whether compensation should be awarded as a result. This was therefore a reasonable and proportionate way to address the resident’s concerns about damage to her belongings.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, issued in June 2024, acknowledged the significant delays in carrying out repairs to address the damp and mould in the property. It also offered compensation to recognise the impact on the resident. In addition, the records also show that the landlord agreed to replace the carpets and blinds throughout the flat, covered the cost of a new mattress for her son, and issued the resident a full decoration pack. Where a landlord accepts failings, our role is to assess whether the redress it offered was fair and resolved the complaint appropriately. This includes considering whether the offer aligned with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s total offer of £500 compensation to cover the delays, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident up to the date of the offer, in addition to the practical redress, was a reasonable attempt to recognise the impact of the disruption caused. The practical redress was particularly relevant in this case because it helped restore the condition of the home and supported the resident’s ability to settle back into the property. These steps showed the landlord was attempting to put things right in tangible ways, beyond just financial compensation.
It is positive that the landlord updated its damp and mould procedures in September 2023, to improve how it categorises reports and sets out clear response times through to completion. This indicates some learning from outcomes, and we would expect these changes to be applied consistently and monitored in future cases.
That said, the landlord’s redress does not proportionally account for the additional failings identified in this report. As such, it did not go far enough to put things right in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. The most significant failing was the 40-week delay between the repairs identified during the April 2023 inspection and the point at which works began to resume in January 2024. This fell short of the landlord’s repair responsibilities. Further failings included poor communication, and the absence of a post-inspection check to verify or explain works that were missed. Damp and mould were reported just 1 month after the tenancy begun and the landlord’s handling showed a lack of structure in the early management of the case. These failings caused prolonged disruption, uncertainty, and distress for the resident.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which is published on our website, sets out our approach to resolving disputes. Where we have determined that there was maladministration which has significantly impacted the resident, the landlord should offer the resident a financial remedy of £600 to £1000, to put things right.
We consider it appropriate that the landlord provide financial redress to reflect the resident and her family’s loss of full enjoyment of the home. Over the 40-week period between 4 April 2023 (when repairs were identified) and 9 January 2024 (when works resumed), the landlord took little action to address the damp and mould. There was mould in multiple rooms and although this would not have entirely prevented any one room from being used, it would have had a significant impact on the family’s use of the property as a whole. A 20% amenity loss calculation has therefore been applied in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
During this 40-week period, the resident was charged £78.92 in rent per week. Based on 20% of the rent, the total amenity loss compensation is calculated at £631.36. While this figure is not a precise measure of all losses the resident experienced, it represents a fair and proportionate amount given the circumstances. We recognise that disruption continued beyond this period, but the landlord had resumed active steps to address the issues and offered other practical redress including temporarily moving the resident so that repairs could be completed.
The landlord must also pay the resident £200 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the additional failings identified in its handling of damp and mould in the property. This brings the total compensation the landlord is ordered to pay the resident for distress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity to £831.36. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £500 compensation, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.
The resident’s original complaint to the landlord raised concerns that the damp in her living room may have been caused by an issue in the neighbouring property. She has also told us she remains unclear about several outstanding matters, including whether the telecoms box will be removed, whether the roof is contributing to damp, a possible leak from the bathroom water pipe, mould around the kitchen window, and the condition of the landscaping to the rear of the property. As these issues were not identified as recommended works in the independent surveyor’s report, we have not included them as findings in this investigation.
However, we order the landlord to write to the resident setting out how each of these concerns will be addressed, or explaining clearly why it is satisfied no further action is required. Where any further works are planned, the landlord’s response should include estimated timescales for completion.

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

During the resident’s temporary move to a hotel in July and August 2024, she reported to the landlord that the hotel did not honour the agreed meal allowance, which understandably caused the resident financial inconvenience. The evidence shows the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s concerns and took steps to resolve the matter directly with the hotel. While the evidence shows that there was a slight delay in the resident receiving full reimbursement after her return home, the landlord ultimately paid her a total of £1500 to cover her expenses during the decant. This amount was agreed with the resident, and importantly, it covered the costs incurred and helped to reduce the impact.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said that the repairs supervisor or manager would visit the property each day during the temporary move, to monitor progress of the works. While we have not seen records confirming the frequency of those visits, the evidence shows the resident remained in regular contact with the landlord and visited the property herself to check on the works. However, the landlord did not appear to have a clear plan in place to coordinate these visits or manage access.
In the context of a temporary move, it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to arrange joint visits with the resident at key stages and to restrict access to those agreed times. This would have allowed both parties to review the progress together, clarify any concerns, and reduce the risk of miscommunication. The evidence shows that without such structure, the resident received inconsistent information and was left uncertain about what works had been completed, which likely caused additional stress during an already unsettling time.
Overall, there were some shortcomings in the landlord’s handling of the temporary move. However, the evidence shows the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve them. It reimbursed the resident for her expenses and remained in regular contact throughout her hotel stay. While there were missed opportunities to provide greater clarity and reassurance, we are satisfied that the landlord’s ongoing engagement and willingness to respond to concerns helped reduce the overall impact. Therefore, we have determined that the complaint has been reasonably redressed.

Determination

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 in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer prior to our involvement, which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s temporary move.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident the following compensation:
  1. £631.36, representing 20% of the rent for the property over a 40-week period, to recognise amenity loss
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the additional failures in handling the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

This brings the total compensation to £831.36. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £500 compensation, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid. The landlord must also ensure that all compensation payments are made directly to the resident and not offset against any outstanding debt that may be owed.

Write to the resident setting out how each of the following concerns will be addressed:
1. Damp potentially coming from the neighbouring property
2. Whether the telecoms box will be removed
3. Whether the roof is contributing to damp
4. A possible leak from the bathroom water pipe
5. Mould around the kitchen window
6. The condition of the landscaping at the rear of the property

The response should explain clearly why the landlord is satisfied that no further action is required or set out any further steps it intends to take. Where any further works are planned, the landlord’s response should include estimated timescales for completion.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.