London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202433950)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat with her 2 children. She has a lung condition and mental ill-health, both of her children have asthma and mental ill-health, and one of her children is neurodivergent. The resident complained about issues including her family’s health being affected and her children having to share a bedroom because of damp and mould at her property and bites from mosquitos breeding in her neighbour’s garden’s stagnant water. She also complained that the neighbour’s garden was overgrown and that their tree branches hit her windows. The resident wanted these issues fixed and to be moved so her children could have separate bedrooms.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Rehousing application’s overcrowding and medical priority.
   2. Reports of damp and mould at her property.
   3. Requests to remove stagnant water and overgrown trees from her neighbour’s garden.
   4. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The resident’s complaint about her rehousing application’s overcrowding and medical priority is outside our jurisdiction to consider.
4. There was reasonable redress made by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports.
5. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests to remove stagnant water and overgrown trees.
6. There was reasonable redress made by the landlord for its complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Rehousing application

7. Complaints about priority for rehousing applications to local councils, such as the landlord, for reasons including overcrowding and medical issues are under the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s (the LGSCO) jurisdiction to consider. The LGSCO also made a decision about the merits of the resident’s rehousing application priority complaint and we cannot consider complaints about matters another ombudsman has already made a decision on.

Damp and mould

8. There was a significant delay in the landlord completing damp and mould works at the resident’s property, and a lack of proactive steps by it to arrange this, update to the resident, and keep full and clear records. However, it was not responsible for all of the delay due to it not always being given access, and it put things right by completing works, apologising, and offering proportionate compensation. The landlord also took appropriate learning from its failures.

Stagnant water and overgrown trees

9. The landlord apologised, offered proportionate compensation, and took some suitable learning from its delay and lack of information about cutting the resident’s neighbour’s overgrown trees. It also had to deal with access issues for this. However, while this also affected the landlord’s handling of the neighbour’s stagnant water tank, it significantly delayed this, did not update the resident, did not fully assess the risk of this, and has left it outstanding. Therefore, its apology and compensation were not proportionate to recognise its poor handling of the stagnant water.

Complaint handling

10. The landlord delayed its complaint responses and stage 1 extension request to the resident, issued 2 responses to her garden complaint at stage 1, missed her stage 2 damp and mould complaint from its initial response, and significantly delayed responding to this. We also had to ask it to respond to the stage 2 damp and mould complaint twice before it did so. However, its proportionate apologies, acknowledgements, compensation, and learning put things right and showed it learnt from this appropriately.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

11. We do not investigate complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. In this case, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application’s overcrowding and medical priority falls properly within the LGSCO’s jurisdiction. This is because the LGSCO considers complaints about priority for rehousing applications to local councils, such as the landlord, for reasons including overcrowding and medical issues. For this reason, we cannot investigate the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application.
12. We also do not investigate complaints which seek to raise again matters we or any other ombudsman has already decided upon. In this case, the LGSCO has previously made a decision about the merits of the resident’s rehousing application priority complaint. We therefore also cannot investigate the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application for this reason.

What we did not investigate

13. The resident told us that the damp and mould at her property affected her and her family’s health and damaged their belongings. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make personal injury and damages claims for any injuries and damage caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical and other advice to decide on the cause of any injury and damage and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for other reasons such as distress and inconvenience.
14. Our Scheme’s rules say we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident said she had damp and mould issues since she moved in to her property in 2009. She raised a formal complaint in 2024. There is no evidence she raised a formal complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of when she became aware of the issue. We have not seen evidence she was prevented from raising a formal complaint sooner. For that reason, we will not investigate the complaint about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the resident’s property before 2023.

What we did investigate

15. Following works to move kitchen wall units to improve ventilation and to apply anti-mould paint to the resident’s lounge for damp and mould in January 2023, the landlord responded to her about this again from 21 September 2023. It raised a damp and mould survey appointment for 2 October 2023 that she cancelled and then rearranged this to 12 October 2023, which it attended but could not access her property for.
16. This was in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy’s requirement for it investigate and find out the causes of damp and mould because it made appointments for a damp and mould surveyor to do so. It was also not responsible for these not taking place at the time because the resident cancelled the first appointment and it could not get access for the second. The first appointment was also made within the landlord’s repairs policy’s 7-working-day for inspections to decide routine repairs, and the second was rearranged to a date agreed with her shortly after this timeframe.
17. The landlord then responded to the resident again about a high level of damp and mould stopping one of her bedrooms from being used from 22 November 2023. It again responded in line with the damp and mould policy by inspecting and treating the mould it said was from condensation on 30 November 2023, which was within the above timescale. However, the resident complained to the landlord on 22 March 2024 that her family’s health was being affected by the mould returning at her property, which meant her children were still sharing a bedroom as her other bedroom could still not be used. She explained that this was particularly because of her lung condition and her younger child being neurodivergent and she gave it photos of her property’s damp and mould. Her kitchen cupboards and tiles also needed repairs as they had fallen and hit her.
18. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 29 April 2024 by agreeing to repair her kitchen cupboards and tiles on 1 and 7 May 2024 and to arrange another damp and mould survey at her property on 9 May 2024. It also offered her £100 compensation for not fixing the cause of the damp and mould when she reported this in 2023. It is positive that the landlord acknowledged that it did not previously follow its policy’s obligation to deal with the cause of the damp and mould and that it followed the requirements to arrange kitchen works and another inspection for this.
19. However, it is concerning that the landlord waited for the resident to report that damp and mould had come back again instead of proactively monitoring this or contacting her for updates itself to see if its November 2023 damp and mould works were successful. This was contrary to the policy’s obligation for it to monitor returning damp and mould over a period and keep cases open for as long as necessary until they were fixed. The landlord’s May 2024 kitchen repairs also happened 7 and 10 working days after its repairs policy’s 20-working-day routine repair timescale, and its survey was 25 working days later than the policy’s inspection timescale, which was inappropriate.
20. The May 2024 damp and mould survey found low level mould in the resident’s lounge, kitchen, bathroom, and bedrooms that needed treatment and extractor fan works. However, she escalated her complaint to the landlord on 15 May 2024 because the returning mould and its effect on her family’s health were still happening and had not been fixed by its previous works, which she said she had reported many times before. It then re-inspected the property and confirmed it had completed mould washes and painting in the resident’s bedrooms, lounge, and bathroom on 24 May 2024.
21. It is positive that the landlord again took steps to treat the mould in parts of the resident’s property that its survey had identified and inspected this afterwards to confirm it had done so. However, it is concerning that this was only confirmed as having been done 23 working days after its policy’s above routine repair timescale for it to have done so. It is also concerning that the landlord did not complete the kitchen and bathroom extractor fan works that the survey additionally recommended at that time, and that it did not take any other steps to stop the mould returning again. It was then very inappropriate that it did not respond to the damp and mould aspect of the resident’s complaint escalation at the time either.
22. However, the landlord did later record on 1 August 2024 that the resident still needed bathroom extractor fan, bathtub, panel, and tile works, but that she refused the like for like replacement fan it offered her instead of an enviro fan. It went on to replace her kitchen wall unit doors within the policy’s routine repair timescale after these were reported on 19 September 2024 by completing this on 25 September 2024. The landlord did so again for these and a worktop after this was reported on 28 October 2024 and completed on 15 November 2024.
23. Nevertheless, it took the landlord until 6 and 13 November 2024 to try and attend the resident’s property for the extractor fan works it identified in May 2024, which was unreasonable. It was not responsible for the fact that it could not access the property on these dates, which it noted it gave the resident a voicemail, email, and no access letters for. However, the landlord might have been more likely to get access if it had attended within 20 working days of identifying the works under its policy instead of trying to do so 108 and 113 working days after this timescale in November 2024. It also acknowledged that the job was incorrectly closed before completion after the second time it could not get access, when it recorded mould had returned throughout the property.
24. It is therefore unclear why the landlord’s inspection report for the resident’s property on 14 November 2024 said no mould could be found anywhere and that she told it this was not a problem at that time. This is especially because it said it tried to arrange works with her for this on 15 November 2024 and she continued to tell it and us at the time that there were still serious damp and mould problems affecting her family’s health. The landlord then recorded the resident reported her kitchen base unit doors needed to be repaired on 27 December 2024 but that it cancelled the job for this without recording why. It went on to record another report about this and the fact that the units were unsafe for her neurodivergent child on 6 February 2025, which it repaired on 20 February 2025.
25. It is positive that the landlord responded to the resident’s report that her kitchen units were not safe for her younger child’s vulnerability by repairing these promptly within the policy’s routine repair timescale. However, it was inappropriate that it previously cancelled the job for this without noting the reason and that it took 18 working days longer than its policy’s timescale to complete this from the date of her first report.
26. The landlord then called and left the resident another voicemail about completing extractor fan works at her property on 8 January 2025. This was 37 working days after it last contacted her about this in November 2024 and it did not record why it took this long to contact her again, but it appears this was due to the job being incorrectly closed before completion following its last contact. This therefore appears to have been another occasion when the landlord was not responsible for being unable to reach the resident but might have been more likely to have done so if it had contacted her more promptly. Further examples of this appear to have happened when it raised another damp and mould survey on 21 February 2025 that it could not get access and had to leave cards for on 4 and 12 March 2025.
27. However, the landlord did then get access to complete another damp and mould survey at the resident’s property on 18 March 2025. This found outstanding works to her bathroom extractor fan, bathtub, and pointing, which it completed and re-inspected to confirm it had done the works on 21 March 2025. It was positive that the landlord did the bathroom works promptly and within the policy’s routine repair timescale after finding these were still outstanding and then inspected again to make sure they were complete. It was also not responsible for being unable to reach the resident when it contacted her about this twice in November 2024, once in January 2025, and twice in March 2025.
28. Nevertheless, the landlord’s lack of earlier and more frequent proactive attempts to arrange damp and mould works, and its lack of updates to the resident, were contrary to its damp and mould policy and helped delay works from March 2024 to March 2025. It was therefore appropriate that the response we asked it to issue to the damp and mould aspect of her escalated complaint on 21 March 2025 apologised for how long this had taken and acknowledged she had previously reported these issues. The landlord also accepted that the resident had repeatedly reported damp and mould to it and that this would have affected her enjoyment of her property. It explained it had therefore since increased its damp and mould team, used dedicated surveyors for this, held weekly meetings to progress repairs, and apologised it had not done so proactively for her case.
29. The landlord offered the resident £500 further compensation for its lack and support and understanding from when she first reported significant damp and mould and another £250 for her inconvenience from it not taking all the actions it could have done for this. It therefore offered her a total of £850 for its handling of her damp and mould reports when these were added to its previous offer of £100 for this in April 2024. It is concerning, however, that the landlord then recorded completing the works to the resident’s bathroom and pointing it noted were done in March 2025 again on 3 April 2025. Its aftercare call with her on 22 May 2025 recorded that she said there was no mould present and its 6 August 2025 survey confirmed this. Nevertheless, the landlord raised more pointing, extractor fan, and thermal board works on 8 August 2024 without completion dates.
30. We cannot currently make a decision about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports after March 2025 because these have not completed its complaints procedure yet. However, it is very concerning that since then she declined its request to temporarily move her for the thermal board works in September 2025, and that she reported returning mould throughout her property affecting her breathing in November 2025 that it could not get access for. The landlord’s survey in December 2025 then found a significant hazard from damp and mould in the resident’s kitchen that it treated at the time and found was successful in its inspection in January 2026. However, it found it still needed to move her for thermal board works, which she told us she would prefer a permanent move for but would agree to move to a suitable temporary property.
31. The resident explained that the landlord previously only offered her temporary hotel accommodation, which was unsuitable for her younger child’s neurodivergence. She instead needed a temporary property in her area for her child’s condition and for her role as a carer for an elderly relative. The resident also disagreed with the landlord’s short timescale for the thermal board works, including because the plaster would take longer to dry. However, she has since successfully bid on and been offered permanent move by it.
32. In relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports from 2023 to March 2025, its late and limited communication and attempts to arrange inspections and works helped to delay these from November 2023 to March 2025. It is also unclear if there was a further delay until works were completed in April 2025 or if these were still outstanding in August 2025. However, the landlord was not responsible for all of the delay, as it could not get access or a response about the works at least 5 times by March 2025. It therefore put things right appropriately by apologising and offering the resident £850 in total for its handling of her damp and mould reports. This was in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for failures that significantly affected the resident, including repeated failures over a significant period of time.
33. We have therefore found the landlord made reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of her reports of damp and mould and recommended it pay her the £850 it previously offered her for this if it has not done so already. The reasonable redress decision is based on this being paid to her. It also showed it learnt from the outcome of this appropriately by taking suitable steps to stop its failures happening again, including by improving its damp and mould team’s resources, monitoring, and communication.
34. The landlord further explained to us a contractor’s mistake incorrectly closed the resident’s damp and mould job in November 2024 and prevented tracking and follow-up for the incomplete works. It said its stronger monitoring and resident call backs would now prevent this. However, it is concerning that the landlord also cancelled kitchen works in December 2024 without recording why or contacting the resident about these until she chased it, and that it kept conflicting records about completing damp and mould works in March, April, and August 2025. We have therefore recommended that the landlord reviews its relevant staff’s and contractors’ training needs on keeping full, accurate, and up to date damp and mould repair records, with the reasons for its actions and inaction.

What we did not investigate

35. The resident told us that bites from mosquitos breeding in her neighbour’s garden’s stagnant water affected her and her family’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for other reasons such as distress and inconvenience.
36. Our Scheme’s rules say we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident said she had issues with stagnant water and overgrown trees in her neighbour’s garden since she moved in to her property in 2009. She raised a formal complaint in 2024. There is no evidence she raised a formal complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of when she became aware of the issue. We have not seen evidence she was prevented from raising a formal complaint sooner. For that reason, we will not investigate the complaint about the landlord’s handling of stagnant water and overgrown trees in the resident’s neighbour’s garden before 2023.

What we did investigate

37. Following the resident’s previous reports to the landlord, she contacted it again from 29 February 2024 to 1 March 2024 about her family still being affected by mosquitos from her neighbour’s garden’s stagnant water tank, which included evidence from her medical professionals. She asked it for an update about this and also told it that overgrown trees in the neighbour’s garden were hitting her windows. The landlord responded to the resident at that time by making internal enquiries about the stagnant water issue and raising the overgrown garden with its team that dealt with trees on her estate. It then told her on 5 March 2024 that its housing team would have to deal with her neighbour’s water tank, which she said she would chase it for.
38. The resident included the effect of the neighbour’s stagnant water on her family in her complaint to the landlord on 22 March 2024, including that mosquito bites from this had caused them infections that she gave it photos for. It then gave her a partial response to the complaint about her neighbour’s garden on 19 April 2024, saying that it had visited her and explained that such back gardens were its residents’ responsibility to maintain. The landlord said its housing officer would therefore tell the neighbour to maintain their garden and it gave the resident the officer’s contact details for updates. It also told her how to make a claim to its insurer for her family’s ill-health and gave her its estate services team’s details to report further garden issues.
39. The landlord’s full response to the resident’s complaint on 29 April 2024 then said that it had inspected and submitted a quote to remove her neighbour’s overgrown trees, which it would do at the correct time of year if this was approved. It also repeated that its housing officer was contacting the neighbour about removing their stagnant water tank. However, the resident’s complaint escalation on 15 May 2024 explained that her neighbour’s stagnant water tank was still breeding mosquitos that had hospitalised and scarred her and repeatedly infected her younger child, while trees still hit her windows. The landlord again told her to claim to its insurer for the health effects on 7 June 2024.
40. The landlord then responded to the resident’s escalated complaint on 4 July 2024 by apologising for not fully addressing all of the issues with the neighbour’s garden and for its delays in handling this. It agreed to improve its service by considering her comments about its lack of information about this and training its relevant staff on case management, and it referred her to its local housing offices and website for more information. The landlord also said it would remove the trees and contact the resident’s neighbour about them removing their stagnant water tank by the end of July 2024. It offered her £75 compensation for its delays in handling the garden issues and £30 for its poor customer service in doing so. The landlord followed this up with the resident on 21 August 2024, who confirmed the trees were cut down on 30 July 2024 but that the water tank remained, so it agreed to contact its housing team about this again.
41. The landlord’s tree management guidelines say it will cut trees on its estates for reasons including if they are a safety risk, get too close to buildings, or if they could damage the structure of buildings. However, its website also confirms that its residents with their own gardens are responsible for looking after their trees and plants. The landlord told us that the resident’s neighbour’s garden belonged to her neighbour under their tenancy agreement, which meant it did not have the right to force entry to cut their trees unless there was an emergency. It said it found that the danger to her property from the trees was an emergency that allowed it to force entry to her neighbour’s garden and cut these down. This was therefore in line with its guidelines’ and website’s above requirements.
42. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will carry out more complex planned works within 60 working days. It took from 29 February 2024 to 30 July 2024 to cut down the resident’s neighbour’s trees, which was 45 working days longer than this timescale. It is understandable if the above access issues to the neighbour’s garden meant it took longer to do so. However, it was unreasonable that the resident had to keep chasing the landlord and complain to it twice before it cut the trees, which it did not update her about in the meantime.
43. This meant it was appropriate that the landlord apologised to and offered the resident £105 total compensation for its delays and poor customer service in handling the overgrown trees in her neighbour’s garden. This put things right in relation to the trees in line with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards in this range for when such failures negatively affect the resident. While it is concerning that the resident told us that overgrown trees and bushes are now growing back in the neighbour’s garden towards her windows and need to be completely removed, she said this has not affected her yet. It is therefore open to her to contact the landlord about this again if it does affect her in a way that its guidelines and website allow it to take further action for this.
44. In relation to the resident’s neighbour’s stagnant water tank, it was initially appropriate that the landlord made enquiries about this from when she reported the issue on 29 February 2024. It also promptly told her 3 working days later on 5 March 2024 that its housing officer would deal with the matter and gave her their contact details for updates. The landlord additionally acted correctly by giving the resident its insurer’s details on 19 April 2024 and 7 June 2024 to claim for the injuries to her family’s health from the stagnant water’s mosquitos that she reported. This is because its corporate complaints policy says such issues that are covered by insurance claims need to be submitted to its insurance team and are not covered by its complaints procedure.
45. However, it was very inappropriate that the landlord did not then arrange for the resident’s neighbour to remove their stagnant water tank, remove this itself, or update her about it, and that this issue is still outstanding. She instead repeatedly chased and twice complained to it about this without getting any updates on its progress, including after it told her it would contact the neighbour about them removing the water tank by the end of July 2024. The landlord has since told us that it unsuccessfully tried to arrange this with the resident’s neighbour and is carrying out an independent investigation to confirm if it can take further action against her neighbour for this. It also said it previously found there was not enough evidence to allow it to treat this as an emergency and remove or empty the water tank itself in the way it cut down the overgrown trees, which it was otherwise prevented from doing due to the garden belonging to the neighbour.
46. The landlord explained to us that it could not update the resident on the details of its investigation and possible further action for her neighbour’s stagnant water tank because of confidentiality. However, it acknowledged that it failed to update her on the steps that it could and could not take for this due to her area being without a housing officer from July 2024 to August 2025 because of recruitment issues, which reduced its normal service level. The landlord said it was now restructuring and working to fill vacancies to stop this happening again. Nevertheless, it did not offer the resident any further remedies for this after its July 2024 escalated complaint response’s above apology and compensation, which were also for its handling of the overgrown trees. This is despite the water tank issue still being outstanding over 2 years after her report about this in February 2024.
47. It is understandable that the resident’s neighbour’s stagnant water tank was a complex matter that would have taken the landlord longer to address due to its above access issues and investigation. However, as well as its unacceptable lack of updates to her about this, it is also unclear why it did not treat this as an emergency in the way it did the overgrown trees and remove or empty the water tank itself. This is because, unlike for the overgrown trees, the resident gave the landlord evidence, including from photos and medical professionals, that this led to mosquito bites repeatedly infecting her family and hospitalising and scarring her. These reports of an ongoing risk to their health appear to have met its guidelines for it to take emergency action for a safety risk more so than the trees hitting her windows, so it is unclear why it did not do so.
48. The landlord’s previous apology and compensation offer for its handling of the resident’s neighbour’s overgrown trees and stagnant water tank were therefore not proportionate to recognise its failings for the latter. Our remedies guidance instead recommends awards of up to £1,000 for when such failures significantly affect the resident, including repeatedly over a significant period of time. We have therefore ordered the landlord to further apologise to and pay her another £1,000 compensation to recognise any distress and inconvenience she experienced from the additional failures in its handling of her neighbour’s stagnant water tank identified by this investigation. We have also ordered it to pay the resident the £105 it previously offered for this and handling the overgrown trees if it has not done so already, and to contact her with regular updates about its progress in dealing with the water tank until this is removed or emptied.
49. We have further ordered the landlord to contact the resident to arrange for it to reassess if it can take emergency action to remove or empty her neighbour’s stagnant water tank as a safety risk based on her family’s vulnerabilities and the effect of this on their health. It should give her and us the outcome of its reassessment in writing with the reasons for its decision. The landlord took some appropriate learning from the outcome of its handling of the overgrown trees and stagnant water by considering the resident’s comments about its lack of information about this, training its relevant staff on case management, and restructuring and filling vacancies for its staff. However, it is still concerning that it found the risk to her family’s health to be less than that to her windows. We have therefore recommended it reviews its relevant staff’s training needs in relation to carrying out risk assessments to allow it take emergency estate management actions.

50. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It can extend its stage 1 responses by 10 working days and stage 2 responses by 20 working days for complex cases if it agrees this in writing with the resident in advance. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
51. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s 22 March 2024 stage 1 complaint on the same day but its 15 April 2024 extension request was 5 working days after the timescale for it to respond to this. This was contrary to its policy and the Code. While the landlord then initially responded to the garden aspect of the complaint within the allowed extension timescale on 19 April 2024, its partial complaint response was confusing. This is because it said it was responding to a later “enquiry” about the garden issue from the resident but it addressed this as a complaint.
52. The landlord then responded to the garden complaint in more detail, as well as to the resident’s damp and mould complaint, on 29 April 2024. This was even more confusing because it gave the resident 2 garden complaint responses, and this also meant the damp and mould complaint was responded to 5 working days later than the allowed extension timescale. However, the landlord did offer her £25 compensation for its late response.
53. The landlord went on to acknowledge the resident’s 15 May 2024 stage 2 complaint within the allowed timescale on 21 May 2024. It also extended its response timescale for this within the allowed timescale on 7 June 2024. The landlord’s 4 July 2024 stage 2 response was then correctly sent within this new timescale, and it offered the resident another £25 compensation for the delayed stage 2 response. However, contrary to the Code, it did not address the damp and mould aspect of her stage 2 complaint at all in its response, which was very inappropriate.
54. The landlord instead only responded to the resident’s damp and mould complaint at stage 2 after we asked it to on 5 and 14 March 2025 after the resident contacted us about this. It then sent her a full stage 2 response addressing this on 21 March 2025, which was an extremely unreasonable 178 working days later than the allowed extension timescale. The resident should also not have had to contact us to get a response and we should not have had to ask the landlord to send this twice.
55. However, the landlord’s full stage 2 response apologised for not addressing the resident’s damp and mould complaint in its previous response. It also apologised that she had to wait so long for it to investigate this and that she had to contact us for a response. It therefore offered her another £150 compensation for the time and trouble this caused her and agreed to take its above failures forward in its complaints staff’s training.
56. The £200 total compensation the landlord offered for its above complaint handling failures was proportionate to recognise these in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of awards of this range for failures that negatively affected the resident. This and its apologies, acknowledgment of its poor complaint handling, and suitable learning to address this in its complaints staff’s training to stop this happening again meant it appropriately put things right and learnt from the outcome of this. We have therefore found that the landlord made reasonable redress to the resident for its complaint handling and have recommended it pay her the £200 it offered her for this if it has not done so already. The reasonable redress decision is based on this being paid to her.

Learning

57. The landlord took suitable learning to try and stop its damp and mould failures happening again with better resources and monitoring. It also appropriately did so by taking feedback, training staff, and addressing vacancies to stop its stagnant water and overgrown tree failures happening again. The landlord additionally correctly acknowledged and took its complaint handling failures forward in its relevant staff’s training.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

58. While much of the landlord’s record keeping was appropriate, it did not record why it cancelled kitchen works, kept conflicting records about completing damp and mould works, and had to be repeatedly chased to give us a record of its completed overgrown tree works. It should make sure it keeps full, accurate, up to date, and accessible records, with the reasons for its actions and inaction, going forward.

Communication

59. The landlord repeatedly failed to update the resident about her damp and mould, stagnant water, and overgrown tree complaints and she repeatedly had to chase it about these. It also confusingly issued 2 stage 1 garden complaint responses and significantly delayed responding to her stage 2 damp and mould complaint, which we had to chase it about twice before it responded. The landlord should contact residents with regular updates about its progress in dealing with their service requests and formal complaints until these are fully resolved in future.