Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202326350)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326350

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

31 July 2024

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
  2. a. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, including her request to be decanted.
  3. b. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
  4. c. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy which commenced on 23 March 2016. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The housing records state the resident has learning difficulties and is disabled. The resident also told the landlord she has stress induced epilepsy, severe anxiety, depression and chronic back pain.
  2. The resident told the landlord on 17 August 2022 that there was an infestation of insects which had been attracted by the damp conditions in her home. She said the family was ‘‘medically fragile’’ and the damp under the floorboards was taking a ‘‘toll on their health.’’
  3. The resident’s request for rehousing was accepted on 16 March 2023 and she was placed in priority band 1 for a 1-bedroom property. She told the landlord on 27 June 2023 she was concerned her possessions would be affected by mould and she was waiting to be rehoused.
  4. The landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 6 July 2023 and identified a range of work needed to be carried out. This included fitting a 6-metre drain channel across the rear elevation, repointing the brickwork, fitting a chimney vent and 10 metres of vinyl flooring. The landlord also agreed to decorate the lounge and bedrooms. A decant request form was completed on the same day and it was identified the works would take 6 weeks to complete.
  5. The resident submitted a complaint on 21 August 2023. She said the property had been deemed unsafe to live in due to the damp and mould and she needed to be rehoused before works commenced given her medical conditions. She asked the landlord to move her via its ‘‘beneficial downsizing transfer’’ initiative.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 14 September 2023 and said:
    1. The resident’s rehousing application had been placed in band 1 priority as a beneficial transfer, with a priority date of 16 March 2023.
    2. It could take up to 13 months for a 1-bedroom property to become available. Waiting times could be reduced depending on how flexible she was regarding her choice of areas and property type.
    3. The resident’s property had been deemed safe and a decant was not required given the works could be completed on a phased basis. It had, however, agreed to a decant given the resident’s concerns. A decant form had been completed on her behalf.
  7. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on the same day. She said her housing officer did nothing to help her and her children were forced to leave the family home due to the condition of the property. This included her clinically vulnerable daughter. She also said she had lost personal property due to the damp and mould and she did not want a specific member of staff dealing with her beneficial downsizing transfer request. The resident noted she was worried about moving into temporary accommodation and sought reassurance that she would not have to return to her home or pay rent whilst residing elsewhere.
  8. The resident made a further complaint on 18 October 2023. She said she noticed a strong smell when she viewed the property offered by the landlord and there was evidence of mould growth in the basement. She also noted there was no spy hole in the front door, the gas supply was capped, a pipe in the bathroom was broken and there were holes in the wall which could be an entry point for pests. The resident said the property was not suitable given her medical needs and she did not want to share communal areas with a male neighbour.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response (for the complaint raised on 18 October 2023) on 23 November 2023 and said:
    1. It was unable to provide compensation for the damage to the resident’s personal possessions, but she could make a claim against its insurance policy.
    2. A fungicidal treatment was used on some of the walls when the property was empty.
    3. It would offer a £2000 downsizing payment for every bedroom that was given up by the resident when she moved. This would be offset by any rent arrears that she owed.
    4. It had agreed to pay the resident a weekly allowance from 20 November 2023.
    5. It would offer the resident £25 compensation for the delay in responding to her complaint
  10. The landlord contacted the resident on 28 December 2023 and apologised for the delays in progressing her complaints and for the issues she experienced when following the council’s complaints process. It noted its stage 1 response dated 14 September 2023 was not comprehensive and offered the resident £250 compensation. It also offered her a further £150 compensation for failing to acknowledge her stage 2 request. The landlord agreed to undertake a full review of the resident’s complaints and provide a comprehensive response.
  11. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 3 January 2024 and said:
    1. It agreed to decant the resident in September 2023 due to the damp and mould in her home.
    2. It was working with the resident to find alternative accommodation given she wanted to move permanently. It had made 3 offers of accommodation, but none of the properties met her needs.
    3. The chemical used to treat damp and mould was certified as safe to use. It was sorry the resident had a reaction to the odour.
    4. It was sorry if the resident felt pressured to accept the offer of accommodation. Its staff should always provide information about waiting times but should never make a resident feel pressured.
    5. Whilst the resident’s rehousing priority remained in band 1, the beneficial downsizing payment would reduce to £2000 given she wished to be rehoused into a 2-bedroom property. The payment would not be offset against any rent arrears.
    6. It had agreed to pay the resident £150 per week given she had chosen to stay with her daughter rather than accept council temporary accommodation. The payments started on 20 November 2023 and would continue until a suitable property was found.
    7. If required, it would offer the resident assistance with her claim to the council’s insurers for the damages to her possessions.
    8. It would write off £1645 of the resident’s rent arrears in recognition of the impact the situation had on her.
    9. The resident could make a claim through the landlord’s insurer for any negative impact the situation had on her health.

Post complaint events.

  1. The landlord contacted the resident on 29 January 2024 and said it had previously agreed to write off a substantial amount of the resident’s rent arrears and was unable to increase its offer further. It offered £250 compensation for the damage to the resident’s possessions and £450 compensation for the delay in completing the damp and mould works. It said she would need to make a claim on her home contents insurance or the landlord’s building insurance. It also noted it was normal practice to change the locks when a resident moved out, but this was not explained to the resident at the time.
  2. The landlord agreed on 30 January 2024 to write off £4,433 of the resident’s rent arrears. It asked the resident to provide the keys to her home so it could carry out the required work.
  3. The landlord increased its offer to write off the rent arrears by £160 to £4593 on 7 March 2024 and offered the resident £250 compensation for the time and troubled caused in chasing up the matter. It said the works were paused whilst it worked with her to resolve issues regarding access. It also said it could complete the work with the resident in situ or provide her with temporary accommodation until she was permanently rehoused.
  4. The resident’s complaint was accepted by this Service on 11 March 2024. She said she had been placed in temporary accommodation by her landlord and the works to the property had still not been completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In considering the landlord’s response to the issue of damp and mould, it is noted that the resident has referred to a possible impact upon her own and her children’s health. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a person’s health, as this would be more appropriate for a court to consider. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to take her health concerns further.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, including her request to be decanted.

  1. Whilst the resident said she had experience damp and mould for 7.5 years, this investigation has focused on the period leading up to her making a complaint and the landlord issuing its final complaint response.
  2. It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repairing obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation to be undertaken. In this case, the repair records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. In the absence of the landlord’s damp and mould policy, this Service has used the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (“It’s not lifestyle,” published in October 2021) to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. This says landlords should take ‘’proactive interventions’’ in its approach to diagnosing damp and mould.
  4. The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 17 August 2022 that there was an infestation of insects which had been attracted by the damp conditions in her home. She said the family was ‘‘medically fragile’’ and ‘’the damp under the floorboards was taking a toll on their health.’’ The landlord was placed on notice about the damp and mould at this point.
  5. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s e-mail or took any action to address her reports of damp and mould. This was not in accordance with its damp and mould process flow chart which says it will arrange for a surveyor to visit and carry out an assessment within 10 working days.
  6. The landlord’s failure to assess the situation led to delays and also meant it did not meet its obligations under the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS and landlords are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Whilst reasonable timescales are not defined in law, the potential health risks from damp and mould are significant. Landlords should take urgent action following reports of damp and mould.
  7. The landlord’s failure to take action also meant it did not meet its obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement. This says it is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure of the building and fixtures and fittings in the resident’s home. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms it is responsible for the roof, gutters and walls. It also says it is responsible for managing hazards that may present a risk to health.
  8. The landlord did not carry out an inspection of the property until 6 July 2023; some 11 months after the resident first raised concerns. The delay was not appropriate given the potential health implications and the vulnerability of the resident and her family. Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to minimise the disadvantages related to a person’s protected characteristics. There is no evidence the landlord considered if the resident’s medical conditions were classified as a disability, as defined by the Equality Act or discussed any adjustments to its Services This was a failure.
  9. The housing records confirm the landlord visited the resident and completed a decant form on 6 July 2023. This was in accordance with its decant procedure. The resident told the landlord she needed to be decanted for health reasons and could not remain in the property whilst the works were carried out. She also noted she was staying with family members and her daughter had moved to alternative accommodation. It was noted on the decant form that the resident would need decanting for the duration of the works, which would take six weeks to complete.
  10. There is no evidence the landlord completed a housing needs assessment at this point or told the resident it would only make 2 offers of alternative accommodation. This was not in accordance with its decant policy. This was a failure and meant the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations. It also failed to inform the resident of the consequences of refusing decant offers, which could include taking legal action.
  11. Whilst the landlord did not provide this Service with a copy of the damp survey following the visit on 6 July 2023, a schedule of works was identified. This included fitting a 6-metre drain channel across the rear elevation, repointing the brickwork, fitting a chimney vent and 10 metres of vinyl flooring. The landlord also agreed to decorate the lounge and bedrooms. There is no evidence the property was uninhabitable, but it is unclear from the housing records when the work was ordered. It is also unclear what information was provided to the resident about the nature and scale of the work. This was not appropriate or in accordance with its decant policy. This says it will advise residents of timescales at the point of referral for a decant.
  12. The housing records confirm the landlord’s contractor contacted the resident on 16 August 2023 to discuss the work that was due to be carried out, although no record of the conversation has been provided to this Service. The resident said the contractor provided her with a schedule of the work that was due to be completed. This was appropriate and ensured it managed her expectations. There is, however, no evidence the landlord responded to her concerns about the scale of the work, which she said could not be completed if she remained in the property given she was clinically vulnerable. This was a missed opportunity to provide clarity and offer reassurance to the resident, who was clearly concerned about the implications on her health.
  13. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s e-mail of 17 August 2023 in which she asked a member of staff to contact her to discuss the work and to confirm what was going to happen to her personal possessions. Neither is there any evidence the landlord addressed the resident’s claims made on 21 August 2023 that the property had been deemed unsafe because of the damp and mould. The lack of engagement was contrary to the approach required under the HHSRS and the Ombudsman’s spotlight review. It also supports the resident’s view that the landlord was not taking her reports seriously.
  14. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident on 6 September 2023 and arrange for a member of staff to visit her given she said the property was unfit for habitation, there is no evidence a visit took place. This is a failure and evidence that the landlord failed to meet its obligations under HHSRS, which includes carrying out additional monitoring where potential hazards are identified.
  15. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 complaint response on 14 September 2023 that the property was safe to live in and that it did not believe a decant was required. It is unclear on what basis this decision was made given the landlord had previously determined a decant was needed for the resident. It was, however, reasonable for the landlord to agree to a decant given the resident believed it was not practical or safe to carry out the work on a phased basis. This demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident, was sensitive to her needs and was flexible in its approach. It also said its contractor had been in contact to arrange an appointment to carry out the work, but she had decided she no longer wished to live at the property. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about her possessions.
  16. The housing records confirm the resident contacted the landlord on 3 November 2023 and queried why it required access to her home to carry out a further inspection. She said the landlord had previously carried out an inspection and authorised its contractor to carry out the work. She noted the situation had caused additional inconvenience and stress.
  17.  It was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident financial assistance on 7 November 2023 given she said she was staying with her daughter. This was in accordance with its decant policy and demonstrated it was sensitive to the resident’s circumstances and it wanted to put things right for her. It noted it would confirm the downsizing incentive amount once a property had been identified.
  18. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm on 23 November 2023 that it could not provide compensation for damaged to her possessions but she could submit a claim against its insurance policy. This was in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy. It asked the resident for a set of keys on 13 December 2023 so that it could start the work.
  19. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 January 2024 and said the locks had been changed without her permission. The landlord responded on 29 January 2024 and said it was normal practice to change the locks once a resident had moved out so works could take place. Whilst it apologised for not previously explaining this to the resident, there is no evidence it sought permission to change the locks and its actions were unlawful given that the resident was still the tenant of the property.
  20. In summary, the landlord’s poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and in accordance with its policies and procedures. It is, however, evident it was not proactive in addressing the resident’s reports of damp and mould, did not monitor the situation as required under the HHSRS or keep the resident updated. Neither did it consider its obligations under the Equality Act, 2010 or identify any learning from this element of the resident’s complaint. It did, however, agree to write off £1645 of the resident’s rent arrears in recognition of the impact the situation had on her.
  21. It is evident the situation caused the resident distress and inconvenience. She was clearly concerned about the impact of the damp and mould on her health. She shared these concerns with the landlord on a number of occasions and did not feel listened to. She also said the landlord’s failure to act added to her anxiety and depression.
  22. The landlord’s more recent actions cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because it did not take action until after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The revised financial offer was, however, reasonable and this Service will not be making a further order of compensation. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, including her request to be decanted.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

  1. The housing records confirm the resident’s rehousing application was awarded priority 1 banding on the 16 March 2023 and she was registered for a 1-bedroom flat. Whilst the landlord did not provide this Service with a copy of the rehousing application form, it said the resident did not include any details about her areas of choice. It did, however, note that she said she required a property that was safe and secure, with no community facilities or lifts given her limited mobility and mental health issues.
  2. The housing records confirm the resident was made an offer of permanent accommodation in April 2023, although details of the offer were not provided to this Service. This was a failure and demonstrates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord. The resident told the landlord on 27 April 2023 that the offer was inappropriate on ‘‘mental health and personal safety grounds.’’ The resident said she could not accept a property with communal access or in areas she was not familiar with given her medical conditions.
  3. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm again on 14 September 2023 that the resident had been placed in priority band 1 as a ‘‘beneficial transfer’’ on 16 March 2023 for a 1-bedroom property. It said it could take up to 13 months for a property to become available and that waiting times could be affected by how flexible the resident was on where she lived. This ensured it managed the resident’s expectations. It did not, however, inform her that she would only receive 2 suitable offers under the beneficial incentive transfer scheme and that her priority banding would be reduced for 1 year if she did not accept the offers. This was a failure.
  4. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s email of 23 October 2023 in which she queried when the downsizing incentive payment would be made. This was a failing on the part of the landlord. It did, however, note that it would make a direct offer of accommodation to match with her housing preferences and needs.
  5. The housing records confirm the resident was made a further offer of permanent accommodation and she signed the tenancy agreement on 17 October 2023. She told the landlord on 30 October 2023, however, that she was pressurised into accepting the property and she was not told it had been subject to a damp and mould treatment. The resident also said the landlord failed to tell her there was a communal front door, communal garden and a stairwell directly outside the window. She also said the kitchen lacked basic essential fittings for a washing machine and she was still waiting for an update about the beneficial downsizing incentive payment.
  6. Whilst the landlord responded on the same day and said the resident was not pressurised in to accepting the property, there is no evidence it carried out a thorough and meaningful investigation into the resident’s claims. When concerns were raised about staff conduct, the landlord should have conducted a fair and objective investigation. This should have included interviewing the resident and the staff concerned to get an understanding of their positions. This was a failure by the landlord and compounded the deteriorating relationship between it and the resident.
  7. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm there was no smell of chemicals when it carried out a visit on 26 October 2023. It also said it agreed to partition off the garden, fit a spy hole in the front door and carry out a further mould wash on the basement wall. This demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident. It was also reasonable for the landlord to refuse to paint the basement floor with anti-slip paint as requested by the resident, given the area was classified as a non-habitable room.
  8. The resident’s representative told the landlord on 30 October 2023 that she had unknowingly inhaled a chemical fungicidal spray whilst viewing the property and this had worsened her recovery from damp and mould symptoms. They said she had no choice but to refuse the property for ‘‘life threatening mental health and safety reasons.’’ The resident’s representative asked the landlord to provide a more suitable property.
  9. The landlord told the resident on 1 November 2023 that the property was ready for her to move into and if she did not hand the keys back, her rehousing application would be reviewed, she would not be eligible for any financial assistance and she would need to clear any rent arrears. This was in accordance with its beneficial transfer incentive scheme.
  10. The resident told the landlord on 3 November 2023 that she was staying with her daughter as she had nowhere else to stay. She asked the landlord for an update about her request for rehousing and said she had keys for 2 different properties and was incurring rent arrears. She told the landlord on 6 of November 2022 that she was ‘’technically homeless’’ and she was still waiting for a response to her queries about the beneficial downsizing incentive amount, the status of her rent account and having keys for 2 properties.
  11. It was reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident on 7 November 2022 and to confirm the offer of accommodation would be withdrawn and it would work with her to find a suitable property. It said if it was unable to find a two-bedroom property that met her needs, it would provide a temporary decant until permanent accommodation was found. The landlord noted the resident said she would continue to stay with her daughter until a suitable property was found.
  12. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s requests for her case to be handled by a different member of staff on 8 November 2023 and 13 November 2023. This was a missed opportunity to rebuild the resident’s trust and put things right for her.
  13. Although the landlord had previously agreed to withdraw the offer of accommodation, it asked the resident on 15 November 2023 to confirm which set of keys she would be returning. The resident responded on the following day and said the request was ‘‘highly unethical and threatening.’’ She asked the landlord to confirm in writing that the offer had been withdrawn and said it could collect the keys from her daughter’s property. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request or subsequent e-mails sent on 17 November 2023 and 20 November 2023 regarding collecting the keys. This was a failure by the landlord.
  14. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm in writingon 22 November 2023 that it had terminated the new tenancy and it would notcharge the resident rent for the new property even though she had signed the tenancy agreement. It also confirmed there was a limited supply of ground floor flats with their own garden and entrance in the resident’s area of choice. The landlord offered the resident temporary accommodation, but noted this may be outside the borough. The resident told the landlord she would continue to live with her daughter.
  15.  The landlord confirmed on 23 November 2023 that it had used a fungicidal treatment in the property offered to the resident and apologised for any impact this had on her. It also confirmed it would pay the resident £2000 for every bedroom that she gave up when she downsized and this would be offset by any rent arrears that were owed. This was in accordance with the landlord’s beneficial downsizing transfer guide.
  16. The housing records confirm the landlord made a further offer of accommodation on 7 December 2023, but this was not accepted by the resident given it had a shared front door.
  17. In summary, the resident was given priority banding and offered 3 properties under the landlord’s beneficial transfer incentive scheme. It also provided her with rehousing advice, offered temporary accommodation and apologised for the odour caused by the fungicidal treatment. There were, however, delays in notifying the resident what she would be entitled to under the landlord’s beneficial transfer incentive scheme and it failed to investigate her claim that she was pressurised into accepting an offer of accommodation. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused, for which it is ordered to pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The housing records confirm the resident made a complaint on 21 August 2023. She said her property had been deemed unsafe due to damp and mould and she needed to be rehoused. She also noted the damp and mould affected her health.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 22 August 2023. It set out its understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident was seeking. This was in accordance with its complaints policy. It said it would provide a response by 12 September 2023.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 14 September 2023. This was not in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy which says it will respond to complaints within 15 working days.
  4. Whilst the housing records confirm the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on the same day, there is no evidence this was acknowledged. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy. The complaint was closed on 27 September 2023 on the grounds that it had been successfully resolved as she had been offered alternative accommodation. This was not appropriate or in accordance with this Service’s complaints handling code (the Code).
  5. The housing records confirm the resident made a further complaint on 18 October 2023. She said she noted a strong smell when she viewed the property offered by the landlord and there was evidence of mould growth in the basement. She also queried why certain works had not been done.
  6. There is no evidence the complaint was acknowledged by the landlord and it did not issue its stage 1 complaint response until 23 November 2023. This was not in accordance with its complaints policy. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident £25 compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint. This was in accordance with its compensation policy.
  7. The housing records confirm the landlord contacted the resident in response to communication from this Service on 28 December 2023. It apologised for the delays in progressing her complaints and for the issues she experienced when following the council’s complaints process. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident £250 compensation for failing to provide a comprehensive reply in its stage 1 response on 14 September 2023 and £150 compensation for failing to acknowledge her stage 2 complaint request.
  8. This demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to undertake a full review of the resident’s complaints and provide a comprehensive response. It did not, however, confirm when it would send a response. This was a failure.
  9. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 3 January 2024. This was in accordance with the deadline set out in its complaints policy. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to write off £1645 of the resident’s rent arrears in recognition of the impact the situation had on her. This demonstrated it wanted to put things right for her. It also offered to provide the resident with assistance with her claim for damages to her possessions and noted she could make a claim through the landlord’s insurer for any negative impact the situation had on her health.
  10. In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaint procedure at times and there were delays in issuing its responses. It did, however, carry out a review of its complaints handling and offered the resident compensation. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. Iaccordance 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, including her request to be decanted.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer a written apology to the resident for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology must be shared with this Service.
  2. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of her request to be rehoused. This must be paid directly to the resident.
  3. Within four weeks of the date of this report, write off £1645 of the resident’s rent arrears as previously agreed for the delay in completing the damp and mould works, if not already done so.
  4. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and confirm the position regarding the repairs to her home. An update must be provided to this Service.
  5. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and confirm the position regarding rehousing and her stay in temporary accommodation. An update must be provided to this Service.
  6. Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should conduct a review of this case. A summary of the review findings must be shared with the resident and this Service and must include (but not limited to):
    1. An exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred, including its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident.
    2. A review of its working practices and staff training arrangements in relation to the failings set out in this report to ensure it better responds to its vulnerable residents and meets its obligations under the Equality Act, 2010.
    3. A review of its record keeping processes, in light of the findings in this report and this Service’s spotlight review on knowledge and information management.
    4. In each case the landlord should set out in the resulting report the actions and improvements it has identified to put in place in order to ensure the failures are not repeated.

Recommendations

  1. Write off £2948 of the resident’s rent arrears as previously agreed (outside the internal complaints procedure), if not already done so.
  2. Pay the £250 compensation previously offered to the resident for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaints, if not already paid
  3. Pay the £150 compensation previously offered to the resident for the failure to acknowledge her stage 2 complaint request, if not already paid
  4. Pay the £450 compensation previously offered by the landlord (outside the internal complaints procedure) for the delay in completing the damp and mould works, if not already paid.
  5. Pay the £250 compensation previously offered by the landlord (outside the internal complaints procedure) for the resident’s possessions, if not already paid.