Lambeth Council (202303553)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303553

Lambeth Council

16 December 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. Handling of the resident’s reports that the damp and mould damaged her personal possessions.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The property is a 2-bedroom ground-floor flat in a 5 storey block. The resident’s tenancy started in February 2003. She pays approximately £690 per month rent. The landlord is aware that the resident is a carer for her disabled adult son. Its records acknowledge that her son requires a wheelchair fulltime.
In July 2022 the landlord completed a visit to the resident’s property. It recorded issues with damp and mould affecting areas under the property’s living room and bedroom windows. It recorded that the cause might be an issue with the damp proof course or exterior brickwork.
The landlord recorded receiving a stage 1 formal complaint from the resident on 1 March 2023. She expressed dissatisfaction with its inaction to remedy the damp and mould in the property.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 3 March 2023 and issued its stage 1 formal response on 28 March 2023.
At the resident’s request, the landlord posted her an insurance claim form on 16 March 2023. On 23 March 2023 she informed it that she had completed and returned the form. She supplied the landlord with photographs of her mould damaged possessions.
On 18 April 2023 the resident’s MP chased the landlord for updates regarding its plans to remedy the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord responded to the MP on 3 May 2023. The landlord inspected the property on 27 April 2023 and its contractor completed a damp survey on 16 May 2023.
On 25 May 2023 the resident sought help from the Housing Ombudsman Service. We advised her to ask the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its internal complaints process (ICP). The landlord acknowledged her request on 26 May 2023.
On 28 June 2023 the landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 final response. In which, it said it was “extremely sorry” for the upset and distress caused to her and her family. It apologised and awarded an “interim” compensation payment of £500 for the time taken to resolve matters for her. It said it would assess any further compensation on completion of the remedial works.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She says she does not recall receiving any “interim” compensation. Nor has the landlord communicated with her regarding its intentions to assess its offer. She explained the landlord did not complete all repairs until the end of November 2023 and says the mould problem remains ongoing. Furthermore, she says she has never received a response from the landlord’s risk and insurance team regarding her insurance claim.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We note the resident’s correspondence said that the landlord’s poor handling of her damp and mould reports affected her mental wellbeing and respiratory health. She described both her and her son experiencing frequent coughs and chest infections.
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. Therefore, we are unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. A court or insurer must make an assessment of liability in such matters. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on the health of household members.
The resident said to us that she had reported her concerns for the duration of her 21 year tenancy. Given the time that has elapsed, it is difficult to rely on the landlord having retained sufficient evidence dating back this far. It is essential that residents raise matters with landlords within a reasonable timeframe and then progress these issues to the Ombudsman when they are not satisfied with how a landlord responds. In this case, this did not happen, and it has therefore limited the extent to which we can now investigate.
A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint of 1 March 2023 through its ICP. This is to ensure it took reasonable steps to resolve her complaint within its 2 stage process. Any reference made to historic events will be to provide context.
We also note the resident’s correspondence to us raised concerns that the landlord had treated her differently due to her race and her son’s disabilities. She said she had always had difficulties getting the landlord to take timely repair action. Allegations of discrimination are serious legal complaints which require a decision by a court of law. These matters therefore fall outside of our expertise. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns further using equalities legislation or speak to The Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) for guidance.
It is not our role to determine liability for any damage caused to the resident’s home and or possessions. This requires a decision by an insurance claim or through the courts. It is our role to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures. We will therefore consider how the landlord communicated about this matter.
In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where we identify a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard. Therefore, landlords must consider what action it should take to resolve matters if any damp and mould problems in their properties amount to a hazard. The landlord acknowledges this responsibility in its repairs manual and its damp and mould self-assessment.
Paragraph 3.38 of the landlord’s repairs and damp policy says:
1. it will prioritise the removal of mould with the initial wash and treatment within 7 days
2. it will arrange an inspection to diagnose the issue within 28 days, or sooner in emergency situations
3. it will arrange the necessary work and stay in touch with residents to offer ongoing support until it completes the work
Paragraph 3.40 of the landlord’s repairs and damp policy says that it will complete annual property visits to vulnerable residents. This provides it with an opportunity to inspect properties and address any damp issues found. The landlord’s repair manual says, “vulnerable tenants have their repairs prioritised for quicker action.”
In November 2021 the landlord formed a project group and completed a damp and mould self-assessment. This was in response to the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould. It created a 19 point action plan, which included completing property surveys, using HHSRS, of 100% of its stock.
The landlord’s repairs manual outlines its response times to reported repairs. This is determined on how serious the repair need is. It categorises repairs as follows:
1. urgent repairs (EO1) attend within 2 hours and fixed within 24 hours
2. emergency (EO2) fixed within one working day
3. routine (R1) fixed within 7 working days
4. routine (R2) fixed within 28 working days
5. planned (R3) completed within 90 days
There is evidence in the landlord’s repair records from 2017 and 2021 that the property experienced damp, mould, and leaks. While we are not specifically investigating the landlord’s handling of these matters, it is important to note for context that it described the presence of “excessive” mould returning in the property at these stages.
On 14 July 2022, the landlord’s staff reported the presence of damp and mould in the property following an annual visit. The visit was appropriate and in line with paragraph 3.40 of the landlord’s repairs and damp policy.
It is therefore reasonable that the landlord’s own findings put it on notice that the property conditions were a concern. Furthermore, it was also aware of the historic damp and mould reports and of the vulnerabilities in the resident’s household. It is therefore unclear why there is no evidence of the landlord acting on these concerns at this stage. This was not appropriate and not in line with the landlord’s repairs and damp policy.
The landlord’s repair records of 28 December 2022 state the resident reported damp and mould “all over the sitting room and both bedroom ceilings.” Its notes show it was aware of the household vulnerabilities and recorded the resident’s reports of “ruined” clothing and curtains. Its records indicate it allocated this report as a routine (R2) repair. It should therefore have resolved this within 28 working days and by 7 February 2023.
There is evidence the landlord completed an inspection at the property in January 2023. While this indicates the landlord attended within its 28 working day timeframe, it has not provided us with any reports regarding its findings or any work completed.
Also, the resident had already waited 5 months since 14 July 2022 for the landlord to respond to her concerns. This was not appropriate and demonstrated the landlord’s failure to respond within the timescales set out in its own repairs manual. Furthermore, it demonstrated a record keeping failure as the landlord has not evidenced how it monitored the resident’s concerns. Nor did it evidence that it completed a mould wash at any stage to this point. This was not appropriate and not in line with its 7 day mould wash timescale, as set out in its repairs and damp policy.
Without good knowledge and information management (KIM) a landlord is unable to deliver its services efficiently and effectively. It is imperative that records are accurate and maintained to keep both the property and the resident safe now and in the future.
There is no evidence in this case that the landlord kept the resident informed of any proposed action plan between July 2022 and December 2022. This was not appropriate and a failure to demonstrate that it had met its own expectations under paragraph 3.38 of its repairs and damp policy. It is reasonable therefore, that her comments to us that the landlord’s delays to progress the repairs, poor communication, and the presence of mould on her possessions, had caused her distress and inconvenience.
Additionally, it is unclear why the landlord did not provide evidence that demonstrated how it monitored the property’s mould or whether it considered any potential risk. Given its own visit and assessment of the property’s condition on 22 July 2022, the landlord has failed to demonstrate how it considered its obligations under HHSRS.
The resident says that due to a further lack of communication or any action plan at this stage, she repeated her concerns on 13 February 2023. She reminded it of the damage to her possessions and expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of progress to provide her with a permanent remedy. It is unreasonable that she had to raise a formal complaint on 27 February 2023 to gain a sufficient response from the landlord. This caused her time and trouble repeating her concerns to progress matters.
We note during its stage 1 response, the landlord discussed installing thermal board to the property between March 2023 to April 2023. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its qualified staff. That said, without evidence that it completed any in-depth survey to identify the root cause, it is unclear to us why the landlord considered this action the most suitable remedy.
However, there is evidence the resident considered this an ineffective option as it did not address the property’s recurring rising damp. This was a reasonable concern for her to express. Given that the landlord’s own staff had suggested an issue with the damp proof course and or external brickwork in July 2022, it is unclear why the landlord did not consider the need for a survey sooner.
There is evidence on 26 April 2023 that the landlord’s own leadership office chased internally for an update on the resident’s repair. The notes highlighted:
1. the resident reports that her and her son experienced coughs
2. that she had found it necessary to throw possessions away due to mould damage
3. that its own contractor had attended that day to assess the installation of thermal board. In which, it had informed the resident that the board would not stop the damp and mould
4. that the contractor considered there to be insufficient drainage for the block and cracks to external walls
5. that the resident had said she had reported the recurring issue since the start of her tenancy
6. that the landlord had sent contractors to the property on 4 occasions within the last year but no work had taken place
After the leadership office’s email, there is evidence the landlord reattended the resident’s property the next day, 27 April 2023. It considered excess surface water “ponding around the property” to be the cause of rising damp. It said it would arrange another appointment alongside its contractor and complete internal decorations when it had completed external works.
While this demonstrated the landlord taking steps to offer a remedy, it is unreasonable that she had waited since July 2022 for this to happen. Furthermore, the need for the landlord’s leadership office to chase this repair, further indicates poor record keeping and monitoring of outstanding issues.
During May 2023 the resident approached her MP and us for assistance. She expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of communication or action from the landlord and how mould growth continued to affect her enjoyment of the property. On 11 May 2023 the landlord’s contractor completed a damp and mould survey. Its findings included that:
1. it considered external and internal defects contributed to the internal dampness
2. the walls were suffering from rising dampness due to lack of an effective damp proof course
3. there were high humidity readings and the extractor fans needed upgrading
The completion of the independent survey demonstrated the landlord taking steps to identify the cause of the property’s issues. By doing so, it had a detailed assessment with which it could plan appropriate remedial works. That said, it is unclear why this action had taken so long. It was unreasonable that the resident had needed to approach us and her MP for help before the landlord took decisive action. At this stage, the resident had waited 208 working days since the landlord’s visit on 22 July 2022. This was not appropriate and not in line with the landlord’s repairs and damp policy timescales.
On 13 June 2023 the landlord raised an order for planned (R3) damp proofing work for the resident’s property. Its records indicate that it completed this work on 18 October 2023. This was not appropriate and 37 days beyond the landlord’s 90 day (R3) timescale. Furthermore, this does not take into consideration the delay between 22 July 2022 to 13 June 2023 which the resident had already waited for the landlord to take action.
We also note that the landlord says that it completed the decoration work on 21 November 2023. It is therefore unclear why its repair records indicate a completion date of 18 March 2024. This indicates a record keeping failure.
Also, we note that there is evidence the landlord had removed radiators at the resident’s property during damp proofing works. On 8 and 14 September 2023 the landlord recorded that it was getting cold and its need to urgently refit them. Given the household vulnerabilities, it is unreasonable that the evidence indicates that it did not fully resolve this work until at least 21 November 2023.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this
2. ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution
3. ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould
4. identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used. This includes sharing the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner
While we acknowledge water penetration issues are often difficult to detect, the time taken to instruct an independent survey or remedy the resident’s repair was unreasonable. While there is evidence the landlord completed a damp and mould self-assessment, it did not evidence adhering to its processes. Had the landlord adopted the approach set out in these recommendations, it may have avoided the service failings identified in this report.
Although the resident does not dispute the landlord made attempts to fix the property’s damp proof course and decoration, this was not sufficient mitigation for the identified delays for it to take effective action. It identified concerns in July 2022 yet failed to demonstrate starting until July 2023. It is reasonable that she describes experiencing distress and inconvenience until it completed all work in or around 21 November 2023.
Furthermore, she described to us in November 2024 how the time taken to achieve a repair, while managing her complaint, and the needs of her son, had “mentally exhausted her.” She says the damp and mould issues remain but she says she does not feel that the landlord would listen to her concerns. As such, she says she does not allow family or friends to the property due to her embarrassment about the presence of mould. Therefore, she feels her experience with the landlord has caused her to become distanced from her support network. This does not demonstrate that the landlord has effectively resolved the resident’s complaint or rebuilt her confidence in its services.
The identified failures amount to severe maladministration. The landlord initially failed to demonstrate an effective action plan strategy. Its communication remained inadequate throughout its handling of her repair with evidence of poor record keeping delaying progress. This caused the resident time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience pursuing the matter with the landlord and external support.
Our awards should also recognise the fact that the distress by an individual resident is unique to them. Not all residents will experience the same distress in response to the same instance of maladministration. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability (‘aggravating factors’). Consideration of any aggravating factors could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
Given our findings and the known vulnerabilities within the household, it is appropriate that we recognise these circumstances in the remedies we set out. We accept that the resident continued to use the 3 affected rooms. However, there was a significant loss of enjoyment due to ongoing concerns of mould in the property. As such, we have applied a 10% amenity loss calculation. It is reasonable for us to consider 22 July 2022 as the first report of damp and mould, to the date it completed all work, 21 November 2023. A total of approximately 16 months.
To achieve the amenity loss calculation, we have considered the monthly rent for the property at £690. While we recognise that this is not the precise monthly average across the account years, it is a reasonable sum for us to use in the circumstances. Therefore, we have calculated the loss of amenity as follows:
1. 10% of the £690 monthly rent multiplied by 16 months = £1,104.
We also consider that the landlord should make a payment for distress and inconvenience. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, and in recognition of the aggravating factors, length of time, and the distress this matter may have caused the resident, we order it to pay a further £1,000.
In this investigation, we have identified failures similar to those identified in determinations made in May 2024, cases 202317574 and 202311129. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with previous wider orders. Therefore, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this case that require further action.

Handling of the resident’s reports that damp and mould damaged her personal possessions in the property

There is evidence that the resident reported mould damage to her property and possessions on 13 February 2023. It was therefore reasonable in the circumstances that, following discussions with her, the landlord arranged to send her a copy of the local authority’s incident reporting claim form on 16 March 2023.
There is evidence that the resident informed the landlord that she had completed and returned her claim form on 23 March 2023. In which she asked it to forward photographs of her damaged personal possessions to the local authority’s risk and insurance team. The landlord responded on 24 March 2023. In which, it acknowledged her request and said it had done what she had asked.
We have identified that the landlord’s email on 3 May 2023 to the resident’s MP said it could not compensate her for the damage caused by the mould. However, this was a complaint handling response by the landlord and not a formal response by the local authority’s risk and insurance team.
The landlord’s stage 2 final response on 28 June 2023 informed the resident of its disrepair arbitration scheme. An independent alternative dispute resolution scheme used to manage disrepair claims. This action demonstrated that it had acknowledged her continued dissatisfaction during its complaint handling and provided her with a means to seek redress. It is unclear from the evidence why the resident did not pursue this scheme.
There is evidence on 5 April 2024 that the landlord discussed the resident’s complaint and our request for evidence. In which, it said that it had no record of an insurance claim made by the resident. We have been unable to identify any direct correspondence about this matter from either party after 24 March 2023. During our conversation with the resident in November 2024, she said she believed the delay was “just another example of the late communication she had experienced from the landlord.”
In this situation, our findings are that the landlord has, in its function as a housing provider, responded to the resident’s request for assistance. It was not its role to monitor her insurance claim as this function sits outside of its role as a housing provider. The resident’s complaint lies directly with the local authority. We are unable to speculate what happened to her claim, yet it is unclear why she did not follow up the matter. Any complaint regarding the local authority’s handling of her claim would fall outside of our jurisdiction and would be a matter for consideration by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
Therefore, based on our findings, we find no maladministration with this complaint point.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days. Also, for landlord’s to respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason and must first agree any extension with the resident.
While we note that the landlord treated the resident’s formal complaint as received on 1 March 2023, there is evidence she raised dissatisfaction on 13 and 27 February 2023. This indicates a record keeping failure as the landlord did not effectively respond to her concerns.
On 13 February 2023 the resident’s email to the landlord said she had experienced damp and mould for almost 20 years. She said that it had still not rectified the problem for her. Her message explained that the issue had “destroyed” the property’s interior, her furniture, clothing, and curtains.
Paragraph 1.2 of the Code (1 April 2022) states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction however made. It is clear from the resident’s correspondence on 13 February 2023 that she was unhappy with the service provided by the landlord. Therefore, it should have treated this as a complaint and responded accordingly.
Paragraph 4.2 of the Code (1 April 2022) states that within the stage 1 complaint acknowledgement, landlords must set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking. If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the landlord must ask the resident for clarification and the full definition agreed between both parties.
The landlord provided the resident with complaint acknowledgements on 27 February 2023 and 3 March 2023. It is unclear from the evidence why it issued more than one response. However, we believe these may have been for separate matters. Also, neither acknowledgement defined the landlord’s understanding of the resident’s complaint nor appeared to be no more than automated responses.
Furthermore, the landlord provided its acknowledgements outside of the expected 5 day timescale. These identified failings were not appropriate and demonstrates the landlord’s failure to meet the expectations of the Code. The lack of direct contact and communication with the resident deprived her of the opportunity to discuss her concerns and feel heard. This caused her distress and inconvenience and a loss of confidence in the landlord’s processes.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 response on 28 March 2023. While the evidence indicates her original complaint to be on 13 February 2023, the landlord said it received her complaint on 1 March 2023. Therefore, she should have received its response no later than 15 March 2023. The landlord’s response was therefore not appropriate and, given the disputed complaint date, at least 9 working days beyond the expected response timescale.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on 26 May 2023. This was appropriate and within the expected 5 day response timescale, having received her request on 22 May 2023.
That said, paragraph 5.10 of the Code (1 April 2022) states on receipt of the stage 2 escalation request, landlords must set out their understanding of issues outstanding and the outcomes the resident is seeking. The landlord did not demonstrate that it did this. This was not appropriate and indicates a recurring complaint handling training need at the time of this complaint.
With an escalation request date of 22 May 2022, the landlord should have provided its stage 2 final response no later than 20 June 2023. It failed to meet this expectation by 6 working days.
There is no evidence that demonstrates the landlord contacted the resident to inform her that its complaint responses would be late. This shows a poor level of communication and that it failed to appropriately meet the expectations of the Code at both stage 1 and 2 of its ICP.
The landlord’s stage 2 final response, while late, demonstrated an improved level of complaint handling. It summarised its understanding of:
1. the resident’s complaint
2. the negative effects that damp and mould may have had on the health of the resident and her son
3. how it had not resolved either the complaint or repair and the property continued to smell “very bad” due to the damp and mould
4. the damage caused to the resident’s property and possessions
5. the health and safety considerations it would need to discuss with the resident to minimise the effects of the remedial work’s on the resident and her son
While its response apologised for the identified failings, demonstrated an improved level of empathy, offered an “interim” £500, and summarised actions it would take to remedy the repairs, it failed to demonstrate any learning. Given the landlord’s acknowledgement that the length of time to resolve the repairs was “not acceptable,” it failed to explain what steps it would take to prevent similar failings happening again. This was not appropriate. It failed to demonstrate recognising the effects its failures had on the resident and would therefore be unable to learn from it.
In view of the accumulation of complaint handling failures, we find maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. While it made an offer of compensation, this was for its handling of the resident’s damp and mould repair. It failed to acknowledge or make any offer of redress for any complaint handling failures.
Also, there is no evidence the landlord reassessed its offer of compensation or communicated with the resident again. This was not reasonable and it failed to demonstrate keeping to promises made within its stage 2 complaint response. This indicates a further failure to learn from outcomes and a failure to monitor the outcome of active complaints and associated repairs.
The landlord has failed to apologise for its complaint handling failures and failed to address the detriment caused to her. Therefore, we order it to pay her £150. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which provides for awards of compensation between £100 and £600 where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident.
In February 2022, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns with its complaint handling. The report recommended the landlord review its complaint handling procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future. We continued to identify problems with the landlord’s performance, reaching findings of maladministration and severe maladministration following investigations into 20 separate complaints from residents.
In June 2023, we told the landlord of our intention to carry out an inspection to find out the reasons for its ongoing failures in complaint handling. In January 2024, we issued a report setting out our findings with further recommendations for service improvement.
In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those that led to our special report in 2022 and subsequent inspection in 2023. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of December 2023.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that damp and mould damaged her personal possessions in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. The landlord’s chief executive to apologise to the resident in writing for the significant failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £2,304 compensation. The compensation is made up of:
  1. £1,104 in recognition of the loss of amenity caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
  2. £1,000 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. The landlord can deduct the sum of £500 offered at stage 2, upon evidence that it has already paid it.
  3. £150 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
We order the landlord to complete a follow up damp and mould inspection to assess the resident’s reports of ongoing issues. It should produce a report of its findings. This should include a schedule of works to rectify any underlying causes for the damp and mould where required or actions it will take to monitor. The landlord should ensure it communicates this clearly to the resident, setting out timescales. We order the landlord to share a copy of its findings with the resident and us within 8 weeks of this report.
We order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s inspection report on its complaint handling of December 2023. It should confirm to us the date it shares a copy of its investigation with its repairs and maintenance teams and provide us with a copy of its considerations within 8 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord provide the resident with the necessary information of its liability insurance details for her to initiate a new claim should she choose to do so.