Hackney Council (202234674)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234674

Hackney Council

24 October 2023

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding:
   1. Damp, mould and ongoing leaks.
   2. The resident’s request to be permanently re-housed.

Background

2. The resident has been a tenant of the local authority landlord of a 3-bedroom ground-floor flat in a 3-storey block since March 2017, and has been moved by the landlord to alternative temporary decant accommodation in the same district since July 2023. She has vulnerabilities including serious mental health conditions, and she lives with her 2 adult children and her 5-year-old child. One of the resident’s older children has a physical disability, and her youngest child repeatedly had serious respiratory infections at her original property.
3. Following a leak into the resident’s original property from her upstairs neighbour’s broken boiler, which she raised as an emergency with the landlord as water was pouring into the property, it raised an order on 13 October 2022 for an inspection by its surveyor on 18 October 2022. They were to inspect the bedroom and corridor walls that were damp after the leak that it noted had now been stopped. However, as the landlord was unable to find a report for the inspection, it re-raised the surveyor’s inspection on 23 November 2022 for the resident’s reports of leaks from her ceilings, which subsequently took place on 4 January 2023. This found ongoing leaks and mould at the property that were escalated to the surveyor’s manager, and that an urgent order for its contractor to trace the leaks was raised for.
4. The resident’s representative then reported to the landlord on 5 January 2023 that the condition of the property was causing medical harm to her and her family, asking when they would be relocated. They also attached evidence from the family’s GP that her youngest child had a respiratory condition and a contagious bacterial infection due to conditions at the property, which they were hospitalised and had missed school for, and that the GP recommended that the family be moved for. The representative additionally reported that there was a large amount of damp coming up through the property’s floor, which was also causing pest infestations there, and that the situation had worsened the resident’s serious mental health condition.
5. The landlord’s surveyor and their manager then authorised a temporary decant form for the resident on 10 January 2023, and its housing officer requested temporary accommodation for her on 19 January 2023 while works took place at the property. On 17 January 2023, the landlord’s contractor attended the property and requested that their damp specialist attend due to the property’s condition.
6. The resident subsequently made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 31 January 2023 that she had reported severe damp and mould issues to the landlord many times before its surveyor attended in January 2023 and advised her to transfer. However, it could only offer her temporary accommodation outside of the district that she had refused due to the distance from her local community and her children’s school. The resident stated that, as the damp and mould issues were not her fault, the landlord should permanently re-house her within the district as soon as possible, as she did not want to return to the property that had created a lot of health issues for her and her family. These included her youngest child being hospitalised from breathing damp and mould, which they had lived with for 4 years, and that the landlord had not previously taken any action for.
7. The landlord’s contractor’s damp specialist then attended the property on 6 February 2023, sourced the leaks, and found that extensive works were required to resolve these, recommending that the resident be re-housed during this process. Its subsequent stage 1 complaint response on 20 February 2023 explained that the specialist’s attendance was delayed because they were unable to reach the resident on either number provided, or after writing to her, until an alternative number was provided. The landlord agreed to now arrange an urgent joint inspection by its surveyor and the contractor to discuss the works required and how to take these forward, which it agreed to continue to monitor through to completion, and that the resident could call its surveyor about for updates in the meantime.
8. The landlord added that, while it had requested temporary accommodation for the resident, it unfortunately had no re-housing options due to a lack of availability, and the only available properties were outside of the district, which was not suitable for her. It explained that its housing officer had therefore previously discussed the re-housing process with her, and that she could also call them directly for updates on this, apologising to her for the inconvenience caused by the issues at the property. The resident was nevertheless dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, and her final stage complaint of 28 February 2023 outlined that she had been living in unsuitable accommodation for a long time, urgently needed to be re-housed, and was unable to wait indefinitely in accommodation with damp and mould affecting her children’s health.
9. The landlord’s subsequent final stage complaint response on 24 March 2023 explained that it had considered the resident’s complaint, and that it had discussed the circumstances with the surveyor who had inspected the property. However, they had recommended that she be moved via a temporary decant for major works to start at the property, which were likely to take 4 months. The landlord nevertheless confirmed that the joint inspection agreed in its stage 1 complaint response had not taken place yet, and so it had requested that this happen urgently, and it agreed to keep the resident updated regarding a date for this. It had also requested that she be decanted within the same district for her children’s school, and it had asked its housing disrepair team if any local properties were available for her to urgently move to for 4 months.
10. The landlord’s internal emails in March 2023 also noted that the resident had submitted a transfer request to it since 2019, and they asked if it had considered moving the resident to a hotel and making a daily sustenance payment to her until the work to the property was complete, as it only had temporary accommodation available outside of the district. This was suggested, despite this option being very expensive, because she was living in very poor conditions and her children were breathing in damp and mould. The landlord’s housing officer then visited the resident on 29 March 2023, confirmed the position in its final stage complaint response, and advised her that a temporary decant within the same district had a potentially shorter waiting time than permanent re-housing.
11. The resident subsequently chased the landlord again at a local meeting on 24 April 2023, however, to reiterate that she wanted to be permanently re-housed for her property’s very damp bedrooms, water on the floor due to a boiler leak from upstairs, pest infestations, and her and her family’s medical conditions, which it agreed to pass on to its housing officer. The landlord’s internal emails at the time confirmed that it continued to discuss the repairs at the property in April 2023, and that it was reluctant to carry these out while the resident remained there.
12. The resident’s representative then made another request to the landlord for an urgent move to satisfactory housing for her on 14 June 2023 because her property was “[un]inhabitable” and negatively impacting the health of all of her family, who all had to sleep in the front room because the damp, mould and water penetration there were so severe. They also reported “a genuine risk to their lives”, particularly to her 5-year-old child from respiratory infections, and provided photographs, videos, and medical evidence of the conditions there and the effect on their health. The resident’s representative therefore made a safeguarding referral to the landlord’s children’s social services department for the immediate safeguarding concern of her youngest child’s health.
13. The social services department subsequently expressed concerns to the landlord about the impact of the resident’s family’s housing conditions on their health needs on 23 June 2023, asking if they would be moved to a hotel until it identified a temporary decant. It then provided her with bed and breakfast accommodation after it identified a local temporary decant property for her on 5 July 2023 until she moved to the decant on 17 July 2023, assisting with moving her belongings and supplying her with white goods, including for cooking. The resident and her disabled adult child subsequently both provided the landlord with completed health questionnaires for re-housing on 3 August 2023, in order to transfer to permanent alternative accommodation from their temporary decant, due to the effect of the accommodation on their medical conditions.
14. The resident nevertheless complained to the Ombudsman that she had reported damp and mould at the property to the landlord for many years, and that it had visited many times, but had never resolved this. Her youngest child had been caused lung infections by this that their health visitor had to visit the property for to check if this was safe to inhabit, and water also leaked into the property from her upstairs neighbour’s property. The resident was unable to move out of the district due to her children’s school and hospital, and she sought permanent alternative accommodation within the district, instead of either her original property or her temporary decant, in order to resolve her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

15. The resident has complained to the Ombudsman that she reported damp and mould at the property to the landlord that its visits did not resolve for many years, and she complained to it that her family had lived with this for 4 years. However, the fact that the evidence provided was of the landlord receiving such reports from October 2022 onwards, and of the resident complaining about its handling of these from January 2023 onwards, means that this investigation has considered the events in her case from October 2022. This is because the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising, and the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her case from January 2023.
16. The resident’s reports that there was unresolved damp and mould at the property for many years are nevertheless very concerning, particularly in light of her and her family’s vulnerabilities and the evidence of the effect of the damp and mould on their ill-health, especially of her 5-year-old child. Therefore, the impact on them is considered as part of this investigation.
17. The Scheme also states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman. Therefore, while it is noted that the landlord stated internally that the resident had submitted a transfer request to it since 2019, but told us that she was not making a permanent re-housing application to it, despite her complaints to it and to us seeking this, her transfer request to it as a local authority is not considered as part of this investigation. This is because such re-housing applications instead fall properly within the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. However, the resident’s request to the landlord for it to permanently re-house her when decanting her from the property in its capacity as her landlord does fall properly within our jurisdiction, and so is considered by this investigation.

Damp, mould and ongoing leaks

18. Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 oblige the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair, and to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation throughout her tenancy, respectively. Its website’s damp and mould action plan requires it to arrange for a surveyor to inspect all reports of damp and mould within 5 working days, and to attend to fix or schedule any work needed to repair leaks by the end of the day after they are reported. The landlord’s repairs guide states that it will respond to emergency repairs to prevent immediate property damage, serious inconvenience or possible health and safety risks within 24 hours, and that it may give greater priority for vulnerable residents’ repairs.
19. The landlord responded to the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould to adopt a zero-tolerance, data driven, risk-based approach to this by introducing its damp and mould action plan. Its response to our report’s recommendations additionally stated that it was reviewing its damp and mould cases to establish their impact, severity, and increased risk factors from its residents’ age and health conditions, in order to risk assess and prioritise their cases.
20. The landlord also responded to the Ombudsman’s request for information about the resident’s case by explaining that it was unable to give an exact timeframe for the length of her decant until her original property was dried out, all works were completed, and the necessary checks carried out. It added, however, that it had made no safeguarding referrals for her due to the existing support in place from various agencies, that she was not making a permanent re-housing application to it, and that it attributed the delay in the decant due to her not considering any decant offers unless these were permanent.
21. The landlord therefore appeared to have initially responded appropriately to the resident’s report of the emergency repair for the leak into the property in October 2022 from her upstairs neighbour’s broken boiler, by noting on 13 October 2022 that this had been stopped, as its damp and mould action plan and repairs guide required it to do so within 24 hours. This is also because it raised an order on the same date for a surveyor’s inspection of her damp bedroom and corridor walls on 18 October 2022, which was within the action plan’s 5-working-day timescale for it to do so.
22. However, the landlord then either failed to arrange for the surveyor’s inspection of the property to take place, or to keep a record of this, as it could not find a report for the inspection, which was an example of poor record keeping on its part, as well as of it failing to follow its damp and mould action plan, which was inappropriate. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management instead recommends that landlords set out clear requirements and keep accurate records of appointments, having devised key recording standards and ensured that appropriate recording systems and staff training is in place to do so.
23. The landlord’s failure to do so with regard to the October 2022 surveyor’s inspection meant that it therefore had to re-raise the surveyor’s inspection on 23 November 2022 for the resident’s reports of leaks from her ceilings, which subsequently took place on 4 January 2023. This led to it arranging the inspection 51 working days later than its damp and mould action plan’s 5-working-day timescale for it to do so, after it had first raised this on 13 October 2022. This was an unreasonably lengthy delay, particularly given the seriousness afforded to such damp, mould and leaks by the action plan and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report, and especially due to the resident’s and her children’s vulnerabilities.
24. The impact of the landlord’s delay in inspecting the property on the resident and her children was then demonstrated by, firstly, its surveyor’s inspection’s findings of ongoing leaks and mould serious enough to escalate to their manager and raise an urgent order for its contractor to trace the leaks, and secondly her representative’s subsequent report to it of 5 January 2023. As the latter provided evidence that this had caused medical harm to the resident’s 5-year-old child through a respiratory condition and a contagious bacterial infection, and had worsened her own serious mental health condition, it was appropriate that it subsequently followed its temporary decant, major repairs procedure to try and resolve the situation.
25. The landlord did so via its surveyor and their manager authorising a temporary decant form for the resident on 10 January 2023, its housing officer requesting temporary accommodation for her on 19 January 2023, and it offering her such accommodation outside of the district in January 2023 to enable it to repair the property. Its temporary decant, major repairs procedure permitted it to do so when its surveyor considered that the extent or duration of the works meant that this was essential, and/or when it had assessed the household as especially vulnerable so that it would not be reasonable for them to remain while works were carried out. This meant that it was reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident a temporary decant, as its surveyor considered that this was essential and her household was especially vulnerable, in line with the procedure.
26. The resident nevertheless declined the landlord’s offer of a temporary decant outside of the district because of the distance from her local community and her children’s school. It had made this offer as there were no available properties within the district, but her refusal was understandable in light of her family’s vulnerabilities. This was also permitted by the landlord’s temporary decant, major repairs procedure.
27. The procedure states that such offers must be based on the most suitable alternative for the resident’s needs, including medical requirements, and that support should be offered by it to residents where vulnerabilities are identified. This meant that the landlord’s offer was not in line with the procedure, as its distance meant the offer was not the most suitable alternative for the resident’s family’s educational, medical and support needs. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord confirmed on 24 March 2023 that it had requested that the resident be decanted within the same district, which her and her family also required for their medical professionals.
28. In the meantime, the landlord explained that its contractor’s damp specialist had been unable to attend the property from 17 January until 6 February 2023. It said that this was because they could not reach the resident to arrange this, and that its surveyor had advised that she had to be decanted for the major works required to repair the property. This meant that it was understandable that the landlord did not carry out the works at the property at that time. However, it was unreasonable and unexplained by it that it then failed to carry out the subsequent urgent joint inspection of the property by its surveyor and contractor to progress the works that it agreed to arrange on 20 February 2023. The landlord therefore had to re-commit to carrying out the urgent joint inspection on 24 March 2023.
29. The resident’s representative then provided evidence of the severity of the impact of the conditions at the property on her family to the landlord on 14 June 2023. Her youngest child’s health visitor attributed their recurring hospital admissions to the impact of mould on their breathing, their school confirmed that they had missed school to be hospitalised for this, and their GP also confirmed this. Her disabled adult child’s GP additionally confirmed that they had breathing difficulties from the mould, and her and her youngest child’s specialists also confirmed that their respiratory problems and worsened mental ill-health had been caused by this. The resident’s representative added that the family’s specialist health needs were located in the district, and that they had reported the issue to the landlord’s children’s social services department due to the immediate safeguarding concern of her youngest child’s health.
30. The landlord’s social services department then confirmed to it in an internal email on 23 June 2023 that the resident’s family’s case had been flagged with its disabled children’s service’s manager as very concerning due to their health needs, and the impact of their housing conditions on these. They described managing resident’s expectations regarding permanent alternative accommodation, but they queried what the current plan was and if the family would be moved to emergency, e.g. hotel, accommodation while alternative temporary accommodation was identified. This was because it was a shared view that the family could not remain in their current accommodation, although the landlord noted that it had regularly been discussing decanting the resident, including at weekly disrepair meetings, to establish a suitable alternative decant.
31. On 5 July 2023, the landlord identified a local 3-bedroom temporary decant property that would be available for the resident after 12 July 2023, but that could not be used as a permanent decant, due to the “hundreds” of other families that it had in disrepair and overcrowding, which the resident agreed to view but still wanted a permanent decant for.
32. It is therefore particularly concerning that, given the evidence of medical harm from the condition of the property to the resident and her family from 5 January 2023 onwards, the landlord did not offer her an alternative to a decant outside of the district that it subsequently agreed was unsuitable until July 2023, when it gave her bed and breakfast and then decant accommodation within the district. This is because, while it confirmed that it did not have any available decants in the district until it identified one as available after 12 July 2023, its temporary decant, major repairs procedure included hostel or bed and breakfast accommodation as a temporary option, and its internal emails in March and June 2023 asked if it had considered providing her with this. The landlord also subsequently did so after identifying the decant on 5 July 2023 until she moved there with its assistance on 17 July 2023.
33. It is additionally of serious concern that the landlord only provided the resident with alternative bed and breakfast and then decant accommodation within the same district after her representative’s further request for an urgent move for her family on 14 June 2023, with evidence of “a genuine risk to their lives”, and their referral to its children’s social services department. This was because the property’s damp, mould and water penetration were so severe that all of her family’s health was affected, they were all sleeping in the front room, her 5-year-old child repeatedly had serious respiratory infections, her disabled adult child had breathing difficulties, and her mental ill-health was worsened.
34. While the landlord told the Ombudsman that the delay in the resident’s decant until July 2023 was due to her not considering any decant offers unless these were permanent, there is no evidence that it made any offers to her after its decant offer outside of the district in January 2023 until July 2023, when she accepted its bed and breakfast and then temporary decant offers. It was therefore inappropriate for it to attribute a delay in her temporary decant to her not considering this during a period when she had not been offered such a decant, or alternative hostel or bed and breakfast accommodation, within the same district, and she accepted the first offer that was made to her there.
35. The landlord’s failings in twice delaying its inspections of the resident’s property, and in delaying offering her suitable alternative temporary accommodation within the district for up to 6 months meant that it was suitable that its final stage complaint response apologised to her for the inconvenience caused by the issues at the property. However, this alone was not proportionate to recognise the severity of either its failures or their impact on her family, under both its complaints compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord’s policy recommends payments of up to £1,000 for severe or prolonged distress, and of up to £1,500 when its faults expose residents to a significant risk of harm or where harm actually occurs, which is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendations for serious failings that had a seriously detrimental, severe long-term impact on the resident.
36. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to recognise the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and her family from its failures in her damp, mould and ongoing leaks case by paying her £1,000 compensation, and the significant risk of and actual harm that occurred to them from its failings with a further £1,500 compensation. It has also been ordered below to learn from the outcome of her case, in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, by carrying out a case review to identify why the failures found by this investigation occurred, and to propose how it will prevent them from occurring again in the future, apologising to her for these and providing her and us with the outcome of its review.
37. The landlord has additionally been ordered below to review its record keeping processes and practices in relation to its damp, mould and leak inspections to ensure that these have clear requirements and accurate records, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management. It has also been ordered below to review its staff’s training needs regarding their implementation of its damp and mould action plan and our spotlight report on damp and mould, in order to ensure that these are followed, so that all of its damp and mould cases receive an appropriately prompt response, risk assessment and priority for residents’ increased risk factors.
38. The landlord originally gave the resident a 4-month timescale for it to complete the major damp, mould and ongoing leaks works required at the property following her temporary decant for the property. As it decanted her in July 2023, it is still within the 4-month timescale for it to complete the works, but it is nevertheless concerning that it told the Ombudsman that it could not give us an exact timeframe for the works to be completed. It is understandable that it would be difficult for the landlord to do so while waiting for the property to dry out, the completion of all works, and necessary checks. However, it would be likely to add to the resident’s distress and inconvenience if she was not provided with an up-to-date schedule of the landlord’s actions there, as well as with regular updates until their completion, which it has therefore been ordered to provide her with below.

The resident’s request to be permanently re–housed

39. The landlord’s temporary decant, major repairs procedure states that, when a temporary decant has been agreed and the household already has a transfer application assessed as being in its “priority” or “urgent” band, permanent housing can be offered to them instead of temporary accommodation. This also says that when a resident is not registered for a transfer, but the landlord is concerned that they are not appropriately housed, e.g. if the resident has a serious medical condition that is affected by their present home, it must speak to its lettings team and complete a transfer application and health questionnaire for the resident.
40. It is of concern that the landlord provided the Ombudsman with contradictory information regarding the resident’s request to be permanently re-housed, as it both internally referred to her as having requested this since 2019 and told us that she was not making a permanent re-housing application to it. This is particularly because she began to request this from it as part of her decant from the property from at least her stage 1 complaint to it of 31 January 2023 onwards. It is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine whether the landlord should have offered the resident a permanent decant under its temporary decant, major repairs procedure, after it had agreed to a temporary decant for her on 10 January 2023, as it has failed to confirm whether she already had a transfer application assessed at that time, or what her band was.
41. Therefore, the landlord was responsible for another record keeping failure in not devising key recording standards, or ensuring that appropriate recording systems and staff training was in place, to allow it to have confirmed the status of the resident’s request to be permanently re-housed. This was contrary to the Ombudsman’s above spotlight report on knowledge and information management. The landlord has therefore also been ordered below to review its record keeping processes and practices in relation to the status of its residents’ requests to be permanently re-housed to ensure that these have clear requirements and accurate records, in line with our spotlight report.
42. The landlord’s complaint responses nevertheless did subsequently address the resident’s request for permanent re-housing by explaining on 20 February 2023 that it unfortunately had no re-housing options due to a lack of availability, its housing officer had therefore previously discussed the re-housing process with her, and that she could also call them directly for updates. It then informed her on 24 March 2023 that its surveyor had only recommended that she be moved via a temporary decant for major works to start at the property. However, the landlord only accepted completed health questionnaires for permanent re-housing from the resident and her disabled adult child from their subsequent decant accommodation on 3 August 2023, due to the effect of the accommodation on their medical conditions.
43. The landlord was not obliged by its temporary decant, major repairs procedure to guarantee the resident with permanent re-housing, and there was also a lack of availability beyond its control that prevented it from doing so when she requested this in January 2023 as part of her decant from the property. The procedure nevertheless required it to speak to its lettings team and complete a transfer application and health questionnaire for her at that time from the property, instead of in August 2023 from her subsequent decant accommodation, which was a further failing on its part.
44. This is because there were explicit concerns expressed by the landlord’s staff, the resident, her representative, and her family’s medical professionals from at least 5 January 2023 onwards that they were not appropriately housed at the property because the resident, her 5-year-old child, and subsequently her disabled adult child had serious medical conditions that were affected by their present home. However, there is no evidence that it completed a health questionnaire for them until almost 7 months later on 3 August 2023 from a different temporary decant property, which was contrary to its temporary decant, major repairs procedure’s obligation for it to do so when these concerns were first raised at her original property. This was an inappropriate additional delay in the resident’s case, which would have caused her further distress and inconvenience in adding to her wait for a response to her request to be permanently re-housed.
45. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to contact the resident to provide her with an update on the current status of her request for a permanent alternative decant from her present temporary accommodation, and to give her advice and assistance in order to progress this as promptly as possible. It has also been ordered below to carry out a case review of its handling of her request to be permanently re-housed to identify why the failures found by this investigation occurred, propose how it will prevent them from occurring again in the future, apologise to her, and provide her and the Ombudsman with the outcome of its review. The landlord has additionally been ordered below to review its staff’s training needs regarding their implementation of its temporary decant, major repairs procedure, in order to ensure that this is followed fully and promptly in every case.
46. The landlord’s complaints compensation policy recommends payments to remedy distress as often being of up to £300, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends up to £600 compensation for failures that adversely affected the resident that the landlord did not acknowledge or attempt to put right. It has therefore been ordered below to pay her £300 further compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience that she would have experienced from each of its failures to keep appropriate records of her request to be permanently re-housed, and its delay in completing health questionnaires for her and her disabled adult child. This award has taken into account that the resident may not have been delayed from accessing permanent re-housing due to the landlord’s lack of availability or obligation to guarantee this.

Determination

47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding damp, mould and ongoing leaks.
48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding her request to be permanently re-housed.

Orders

49. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £3,100 within 4 weeks, which is broken down into:
       1. £1,000 to recognise the distress and inconvenience experienced by her and her family from its failures in her damp, mould and ongoing leaks case.
       2. £1,500 to recognise the significant risk of and actual harm that occurred to her and her family from its failings in her damp, mould and ongoing leaks case.
       3. £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience that she would have experienced from its failure to keep appropriate records of her request to be permanently re-housed.
       4. £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience that she would have experienced from its delay in completing health questionnaires for her and her disabled adult child.
    2. Carry out a case review within 8 weeks of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and ongoing leaks to identify why the failures found by this investigation occurred, and to propose how it will prevent them from occurring again in the future, apologising to her for these and providing her and the Ombudsman with the outcome of its review.
    3. Carry out a case review within 8 weeks of its handling of the resident’s request to be permanently re-housed to identify why the failures found by this investigation occurred, and to propose how it will prevent them from occurring again in the future, apologising to her for these and providing her and the Ombudsman with the outcome of its review.
    4. Review its record keeping processes and practices in relation to its damp, mould and leak inspections to ensure that these have clear requirements and accurate records, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
    5. Review its record keeping processes and practices in relation to the status of its residents’ requests to be permanently re-housed to ensure that these have clear requirements and accurate records, line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
    6. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their implementation of its damp and mould action plan and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, in order to ensure that these are followed so that all of its damp and mould cases receive an appropriately prompt response, risk assessment and priority for residents’ increased risk factors.
    7. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their implementation of its temporary decant, major repairs procedure, in order to ensure that this is followed fully and promptly in every case.
    8. Contact the resident within 4 weeks to provide her with an up-to-date schedule of its actions for its major works at the property, and then provide her with regular progress updates on these until their completion.
    9. Contact the resident within 4 weeks to provide her with an update on the current status of her request for a permanent alternative decant from her present temporary accommodation, and to give her advice and assistance in order to progress this as promptly as possible.
50. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 and 8 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.