Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (202422118)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422118

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council

30 September 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 pests.
2. Reports of damp and mould.
3. Reports of damaged items.
4. Concerns about staff conduct.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident held a secure tenancy with the landlord, which started in May 2021. She was temporarily moved from the property in December 2024. The property is a 2-bedroom ground-floor flat. The resident has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other physical disabilities. The landlord has a record of these vulnerabilities.
The landlord has provided evidence which shows the resident’s earliest report of damp and mould was in July 2021. The resident made further reports relating to the same issues in June, October, and November 2022.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 20 February 2023. She stated her house was full of damp, which she had previously reported, but issues were still ongoing. She said her health, and that of her son, had been affected as a result.
On 8 March 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said a surveyor had visited the resident’s property on 6 March 2023 and identified a leak, as well as areas of damp and mould. It stated it had raised a repair for the leak and a follow-on treatment for the mould.
The resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 20 March 2024. She said there was serious black mould affecting her property. She stated the landlord had sent operatives to carry out a “quick fix”, but this had not resolved the problem. She said there were parasites, worms and mites in the property which had caused bites on her body. She also raised issues regarding the conduct of the housing officer who had been handling her reports.
Due to the length of time that had passed since it had provided its previous stage 1 response, the landlord logged the resident’s concerns as a new complaint. On 23 April 2024, it provided its stage 1 response. It summarised the actions it had taken to date and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. A surveyor had recommended the resident to be considered for a temporary move while the repairs were carried out to her property.
2. The housing officer had acted in a professional and appropriate manner. Disciplinary action would not be taken against them.
3. It was not responsible for the resident’s personal belongings, and she should make a claim through her own home contents insurance.
The resident escalated her complaint on 24 April 2024. She said no one had been in contact with her regarding the temporary move. She asked to be moved out of the property permanently as the living conditions were impacting both her own and her son’s physical and emotional wellbeing.
On 11 June 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said:
1. A temporary move had been requested in May 2024. A property had been identified for the resident, which she had accepted.
2. It would request a management let to allow the resident to remain in the new property on a permanent basis.
3. It asked the resident to provide details of what furniture had been damaged.
4. It apologised for its delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaint process

The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 30 August 2024. As an outcome, she asked us to consider awarding compensation for the landlord’s handling of her reports.
The resident was temporarily moved from the property on 13 December 2024. In July 2025, the resident contacted us to report issues relating to damp and mould, and pests in her new property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the damp, mould, and pests impacted her own and her son’s health. We are not medical specialists, so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident may choose to seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord. This includes any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The resident has reported issues relating to damp and mould, and pests in her new property. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the landlord’s internal complaints process and the commitments arising from this. We will therefore consider events up to 13 December 2024 (when the resident was moved), but the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues that occurred after this time. The resident can address any new issues directly with the landlord. She can progress this as a new formal complaint if required, which she may escalate to us for separate investigation if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

Pests

The landlord does not have a specific pest policy, and it did not provide us with the terms and conditions of the tenancy. The landlord has a service level agreement for pest control, which sets out response times for different types of pests. It says it will respond to fleas and bed bugs within 5 working days.
On 14 March 2023, the resident informed the landlord that she had insects in her property. She explained that she had noticed silverfish and lice, which she believed were caused by damp, and reported fleas, noting that both she and her son had been bitten. The landlord advised that resolving the underlying leak should address the problem with silverfish and lice and confirmed that it would make a referral to pest control regarding the fleas. This was an appropriate initial response.
The landlord completed the pest control referral on 16 March 2023, 2 days later, demonstrating a timely response to the resident’s concerns. On 21 March 2023, pest control attended and found no evidence of pest activity. On 24 March 2023, following further contact with the resident and a visit to the property, the housing officer relayed their findings to pest control. They requested further investigation into the possibility of fleas. This was reasonable of the landlord given the further concerns raised by the resident.
On 29 March 2023, pest control visited again. In correspondence with the landlord after the visit, it confirmed that no evidence of any pests was found. It said the activity described by the resident to them was not associated with domestic insect pests such as fleas or bed bugs. However, it said it had placed insect monitors in each room and would return in 2 days to check them. This was a positive step and demonstrated a thorough approach.
Pest control returned on 31 March 2023 to check the insect monitors. It confirmed that one monitor contained 2 fleas, but the rest were clear, and there was no evidence of other insects or infestation. On 6 April 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident, confirming it was willing to carry out a flea treatment and asking her to contact it if she wished to proceed. However, there is no evidence the resident responded regarding this specific offer. It was appropriate of the landlord to offer further treatment based on pest control’s findings.
The resident made further reports to the landlord on 17 and 20 April 2023, stating that the insects were “eating her clothes and her flesh”. The landlord advised her that she could instruct an independent pest control company to attend, but this would be at her own cost. This was reasonable advice, as the landlord had already arranged investigations on multiple occasions and no infestation had been found.
Between 2 May 2023 and 25 April 2024, the resident continued to report infestations to the landlord, her local MP, and a housing advice charity. This demonstrated the significant impact the matter was having on her. The landlord did not carry out any further investigations. However, it had not received any additional information or evidence to suggest that this was necessary (the resident continued to report the same issues it had already investigated). In its stage 1 response on 23 April 2024, the landlord summarised the actions it had taken. However, we find it could have been clearer in explaining that no further investigations would be carried out and the reasons why. While the landlord’s position was reasonable, clearer communication in its complaint responses may have helped the resident better understand its position and avoided uncertainty.
Overall, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns, taking reasonable steps to investigate her reports in a timely manner. While the situation was understandably distressing for the resident, we have not identified any failures in the landlord’s handling of her reports. Therefore, there was no maladministration.

Damp and mould

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy confirms it is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property. It states it has 3 repair priorities (instant response, emergency and responsive). It says it aims to complete responsive repairs within 25 days.
The landlord’s published service standards state it will treat mould growth and respond to any repair defects causing damp and mould within standard response times.
Landlords are required to keep a property secure and safe using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould are hazards that falls within the scope of HHSRS. HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards.
The resident first reported damp and mould affecting her property on 20 July 2021. The landlord responded by completing a mould treatment. On 1 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to advise the damp and mould had returned. At the time of making this report, she informed the landlord that she had COPD. It would have been reasonable at this stage for the landlord to carry out investigations into the underlying cause of the issue, given its recurrence and the potential health impact on the resident. Instead, it completed a further mould treatment.
On 27 October 2022, the resident reported damp and mould again and stated that she was suffering from pneumonia at the time. The landlord responded on the same day by raising a job for its contractor. On 4 November 2022, 7 days later, the contractor completed a damp survey. This was an appropriate step given that 2 mould treatments had been carried out, but the issue had returned. The survey identified mould in the kitchen, bathroom, and hall cupboard. It concluded that the problem was the result of poor ventilation and condensation.
It is unclear whether the damp survey report was shared with the resident or explained to her after the contractor’s visit, leading her to escalate concerns to her housing officer. Between 11 November and 25 November 2022, the housing officer appropriately sought updates on the resident’s behalf and flagged a leak, requesting it be treated as a priority. Records show the landlord attended on 18 November 2022 to investigate, but no prior notice was given, so the resident could not accommodate the appointment. On 25 November 2022, the housing officer wrote to the resident with the survey findings, provided condensation management advice, and confirmed a repair was being re-booked to trace the leak. While the housing officer’s involvement helped progress matters, the landlord should have been more proactive considering the resident’s circumstances and concerns.
There is no evidence that a repair was re-booked to trace the leak, or that any further work to address the damp and mould was carried out, which led the resident to make a complaint on 20 February 2023. In its stage 1 response on 8 March 2023, the landlord explained that an inspection of the property on 6 March 2023 had found mould in the bathroom, likely caused by the ongoing leak. The landlord confirmed a repair had been raised for the leak and that mould treatment would follow. Although raising the repair was a positive step, the landlord’s failure to act sooner prolonged the presence of damp and mould, causing the resident distress and inconvenience.
On 17 March 2023, the landlord attended to trace the cause of the leak, which was within its 25-day responsive repair timescale. However, it was unable to safely complete the repair due to reports from the resident of a flea infestation in the property. The landlord agreed to re-attend once pest control had been out. On 24 March 2023, the housing officer requested for the appointment to be rebooked. Despite this, there is no evidence that the repair was re-scheduled, which was unreasonable.
On 5 June 2023, the resident again reported damp and mould, stating that mushrooms were now growing in the cupboard and that white mould had spread across the floor. It was not reasonable that the resident had to chase the landlord to progress the repair. This added to her time and effort in trying to get the issues resolved. On 8 June 2023, the landlord informed the resident that its contractors would attend on 14 June 2023. However, it is unclear whether this appointment went ahead, or what the outcome was, pointing to a record keeping issue.
It is noted that there is a gap in the landlord’s records between 8 June and 9 November 2023. It is reasonable to conclude that there was no relevant communication with the resident during this time, which is likely to have caused distress and inconvenience to her.
A further inspection of the resident’s property took place on 9 November 2023. The survey report identified mould growth in the bathroom and hallway cupboard and confirmed that remedial works were required. However, these works were not raised until 29 November 2023, 20 days after the inspection. The reason for the delay is unclear, but the length of time taken to raise and attempt to complete the works was unreasonable. During this period, there is no evidence of any communication from the landlord to the resident, resulting in her having to chase for further updates, adding to her time and trouble.
The landlord’s records show that the remedial works were cancelled on 5 December 2023 due to no access. However, no documentary evidence has been provided to verify the reported no-access attempt. It was unreasonable for the landlord to cancel the repairs. It should have been more proactive by attempting to contact the resident or re-booking the works, rather than taking no further action and relying on the resident to make contact. Such steps could have prevented unnecessary inconvenience to the resident and allowed the repairs to progress sooner.
Following further contact from the resident, the landlord re-raised the remedial works on 12 December 2023. On 12 January 2024, the resident advised she would not allow access until she had seen a copy of the survey report. She highlighted the impact she believed the property’s condition was having on her health and requested assistance, including the option of moving out. In response, the housing officer attempted to visit the resident on 12 January and sent a letter on 15 January 2024. They advised that repairs were due to be carried out on 19 January and 22 January 2024, urging the resident to allow access. The landlord’s actions in trying to progress the repairs and maintain communication were appropriate.
The records show the landlord attended on 22 January 2024, but the resident asked for the works to be re-booked as she was unwell. However, there is no evidence to suggest the works were re-scheduled. This likely added to the resident’s frustration and resulted in her making a further complaint on 20 March 2024, which caused her additional time and trouble.
On 25 March 2024, another inspection of the property was carried out, during which the surveyor identified the same issues relating to mould and damp that had first been noted 4 months earlier. At this visit, the surveyor discussed the possibility of a temporary move for the resident while the repairs were completed, which was an appropriate step given the resident’s vulnerabilities. However, the landlord failed to progress this in a timely manner. This added to the resident’s distress and uncertainty and contributed to her decision to escalate her complaint on 24 April 2024.
The landlord submitted its request to temporarily move the resident on 9 May 2024, around 6 weeks after this option had first been discussed with her. In its stage 2 response on 11 June 2024, the landlord confirmed that a property had been identified for the resident. It also advised it would request a management let so the resident could remain in the new property on a permanent basis, which was a positive step.
The resident was temporarily moved from the property on 13 December 2024, 6 months after the landlord’s final response. When asked about the delay, the landlord explained that the new property required asbestos removal as part of the void works, and it had decorated for the resident before the move took place. While these were valid reasons, this extended the period the resident remained in unsuitable living conditions and meant she continued to experience distress.
Given the remedial works required at the property, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer a temporary move to the resident. However, we find this should have been offered sooner. The landlord was aware on completion of the damp survey on 9 November 2023 that the level of remedial works required in the property would be disruptive, and it was also aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. By not offering an immediate temporary move, the landlord failed to adequately assess the resident’s circumstances, vulnerabilities and the impact of the situation on her household.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (published in October 2021) states, “It is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for an extended period” and “Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.” The Ombudsman expects a landlord to resolve reports of damp and mould within a reasonable time, which it did not. While it is recognised that there were mitigating factors, the landlord’s actions contributed to the overall delay. Had the landlord followed these recommendations, it might have prevented a service failure.
The landlord’s records show it did not respond appropriately to potential hazards caused by the damp issues. Under HHSRS, it is required to consider whether any damp and mould in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. Although it carried out inspections and mould washes, which were positive steps to identify and mitigate the potential hazards, it did not treat the leak which it had identified as the underlying cause of the damp and mould with any urgency. Furthermore, while waiting for the remedial works to commence and the resident’s temporary move, the landlord did not take interim measures, such as an additional mould wash, to reduce the ongoing impact of the damp and mould.
The resident said that she had COPD, which was exacerbated by the damp and mould in the property. The landlord was initially made aware of this on 1 June 2022. During the timeline of our investigation, the resident frequently expressed concerns regarding how the damp and mould was affecting her own and her son’s health. We find the landlord should have acted with more urgency. It should have identified the household as vulnerable and prioritised the resident’s case on this basis. The length of time the resident was left waiting for the landlord to progress her case was unreasonable, given the landlord was aware of her health conditions and the reported impact of the living conditions on her.
When we asked the landlord for details of any vulnerabilities or special circumstances, it responded by providing call records and emails where these vulnerabilities are referenced. However, it is unclear what information is held in its housing management system against the resident’s tenancy (and therefore readily available to its staff). A relevant order has been made in respect of this.
Overall, there were failings by the landlord which had a significant impact on the resident. It is reasonable to conclude that the resident did not have full enjoyment of the property over a prolonged period due to the damp and mould. In its response to the resident’s reports, the landlord showed a lack of urgency and was slow to respond to potential hazards under HHSRS. It held information regarding the resident’s vulnerabilities but failed to use it, leading to avoidable distress and inconvenience. Poor communication also added to the unreasonable delays that the resident experienced. Considering the above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to damp and mould.
The landlord’s redress policy sets out compensation categories which calculate awards by the impact to residents. It categorises these into low, medium, and high impact, and offers varying payments from £10 to £1,000 dependent on these categories.
It is noted that since the end of the landlord’s complaints process, a request to make the temporary move permanent was approved on 28 March 2025. This shows an attempt by the landlord to address the detriment to the resident and to put things right, which was reasonable. However, this alone is not considered proportionate redress. We consider a payment of £700 to be appropriate compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this report. This is in line with the landlord’s redress guidance and our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided which had a significant impact on the resident.
Since the events of the resident’s complaint, the landlord has published 2 new policies: its damp, mould and condensation policy in July 2024 and its vulnerable tenant policy in March 2025. The landlord has explained that these were introduced in response to learning from complaints, which is a positive step and should help to prevent similar issues from arising in the future. Therefore, no orders or recommendations have been made in relation to this aspect of the case.

Damaged items

Where complaints about damaged possessions are raised, it is not our role to determine whether the landlord was responsible for the damage reported. Such decisions may be made via the landlord’s liability insurance, the resident’s own contents insurer, or via the courts. Accordingly, we are unable to consider whether the resident should be compensated for damage to her belongings. Our role is to assess how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and whether it acted in a fair and reasonable manner.
In the landlord’s acknowledgement letter on 4 April 2024, it stated the resident had told it that her clothes, carpets, and furniture had been “ruined completely” and she felt she had “lost everything”. The resident stated that, as an outcome, she wanted the landlord to replace her belongings. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained that it was not responsible for replacing personal belongings and directed the resident to make a claim through her own home contents insurance. It would have been reasonable at this stage for the landlord to have investigated the matter further and consider whether the case needed to be referred to its own liability insurer. It did not do this, which added to the resident’s time and effort in trying to resolve the issues.
In its acknowledgement letter on 25 April 2024, the landlord noted that the resident did not accept its position that it was not responsible for her damaged belongings and that she had requested compensation. In its final response, the landlord appropriately asked the resident to provide details of the damaged furniture so it could arrange to visit her to take photos if required. However, the landlord did not explain why these photos were needed, nor did it provide the resident with information about its liability insurers. By not doing so, the landlord missed the opportunity to give the resident clear and comprehensive advice.
There is no evidence to suggest that the resident provided the landlord with any details of her damaged items following its final response, or that the landlord arranged a visit to take photos. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to follow this up with her and to offer support or assistance. As insurance claims can be time sensitive, it is good practice for a landlord to ensure that a resident is referred to the correct process at the earliest opportunity. It did not do this, which was unsatisfactory.
During contact with us in April 2025, the landlord said it had not received an insurance claim for the resident.
Overall, the landlord failed to assess the claim for damages itself or refer the matter to its insurer, leaving that part of the complaint unresolved. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged items.
We consider a payment of £100 to be appropriate compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused by the service failing. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation guidance set out in paragraph 46 and our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, that it did not appropriately acknowledge or fully put right.

Staff conduct

Where complaints about staff conduct are raised, it is not our role to determine whether misconduct occurred. The terms and conditions of employment are set out in a contractual agreement between the landlord and its staff, and it is for the landlord to decide whether any personnel action is appropriate. Accordingly, we are unable to direct that specific action be taken against a member of staff. Our role is to assess whether the landlord conducted a proportionate investigation into the resident’s concerns and acted in a fair and reasonable manner overall.
In her stage 1 complaint on 20 March 2024, the resident said her housing officer – who had been managing her reports about pests in the property – had contacted her GP. In the landlord’s acknowledgement letter on 4 April 2024, it stated the resident believed her housing officer was responsible for an intervention by the crisis team, during which she was diagnosed as “psychotic” and informed that she would need to “take medication or face being sectioned”. The resident stated that, as an outcome, she wanted disciplinary action to be taken against the housing officer.
The evidence indicates that, as part of its investigation into the reported conduct, the landlord reviewed the notes and records held on its housing management system. It also confirmed that it had consulted with the relevant housing officer. This shows that the resident’s concerns were given appropriate consideration.
In its stage 1 response on 23 April 2024, the landlord advised that the housing officer had acted in a professional and appropriate manner when addressing the resident’s concerns. It therefore confirmed that disciplinary action would not be taken against them. This was a reasonable approach, as there is no evidence to suggest that the housing officer behaved inappropriately or outside of the landlord’s policies and relevant obligations.
In its stage 2 acknowledgement letter on 25 April 2024, the landlord noted that the resident remained dissatisfied, as she felt the stage 1 response had not fully addressed the questions she had raised regarding the housing officer’s conduct. In its final response on 11 June 2024, the landlord explained that the housing officer had concerns for the resident’s wellbeing following the issues she had raised. As a result, the officer made a referral to the resident’s GP for help and guidance, as they were not qualified to make decisions about wellbeing concerns. While the events were understandably distressing for the resident, the landlord’s explanation demonstrates that the officer’s actions were motivated by safeguarding concerns. We have seen no evidence in this investigation to suggest the landlord reached unreasonable conclusions.
Overall, the landlord gave the resident’s concerns appropriate consideration, and its response was reasonable. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days.
Based on the above timescales, there were delays in the landlord acknowledging the complaint at stage 1 and providing its responses at both stages. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint 4 working days late and issued its response 3 working days late. Its stage 2 response was also issued 11 working days late. In total, this resulted in a combined delay of 18 working days, which was unsatisfactory.
The landlord’s complaint responses also showed a lack of thorough investigation. In its first stage 1 response on 8 March 2023, it stated that it was unable to explain why the issues in the resident’s property had not been addressed previously. This was despite records being available which would have enabled the landlord to investigate the matter further and provide an appropriate response. In its second stage 1 response on 23 April 2024, the landlord noted that the surveyor had recommended the resident be considered for a temporary move. However, it failed to identify that the associated request had not been submitted, causing her avoidable distress and uncertainty.
A stage 2 complaint is the landlord’s final opportunity to review its handling of the substantive issue, as well as the complaint handling process, and to put things right for the resident. However, it did not adequately review its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It did not identify failures in its service which had occurred, which was inconsistent with the evidence. As a result, the landlord missed the opportunity to remedy the substantive issue and rebuild the landlord-tenant relationship. It consequently failed to use its complaints process as an effective tool to put things right.
As a result of not acknowledging the full extent of its failings, the landlord also did not offer adequate redress in its final response. It made no offer of compensation at stage 2, which was inappropriate. The landlord should have considered awarding compensation to the resident for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble its actions had caused. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. However, it did not offer any redress for its complaint handling failures, despite acknowledging delays, which was neither fair nor reasonable.
Considering the circumstances of the case, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We consider a payment of £150 to be appropriate compensation for the complaint handling failures. This is in accordance with landlord’s redress guidance and our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided which adversely affected the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of pests.
2. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damaged items.
4. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
5. Maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. This should be written by a senior member of staff.
2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £950, which comprises:
  1. £700 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of the damp and mould.
  2. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of damaged items.
  3. £150 for the complaint handling failures identified.
  4. This should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.
Contact the resident to ensure that its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect her current household circumstances.
Provide the resident with details of its insurer for her to submit a claim for her damaged possessions. If its insurer is unable to consider a claim due to the length of time that has passed, the landlord should consider alternative options for addressing this matter.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord conducts complaint handling refresher training with its relevant staff, if it has not done so recently.