London Borough of Wandsworth (202444517)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202444517

London Borough of Wandsworth

27 August 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:
1. The condition of the property upon letting.
2. The landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs identified at the viewing (unrelated to cracks, damp, mould, and water ingress).
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp, mould, and water ingress after the tenancy began.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 3-bedroom house, with a garden. The tenancy started on 9 September 2024.
The resident lives at the property with her 2 dependent children. The landlord has confirmed the resident has a mental health condition and a learning disability. We note the resident also told the landlord during its complaint investigation that that she and her children had a blood condition, so could not be around damp conditions.
The resident asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint on 6 November 2024. The resident:
1. Referenced various defects with the property and with the garden at the time of the letting. She said all of these issues ought to have been addressed prior to the tenancy starting.
2. Explained that she and her family had a blood condition and were presently all unwell, due to the damp conditions within the property.
3. Raised concern about its communication and referenced having to chase it constantly to raise repairs.
4. Said the landlord should address any outstanding repairs, apologise for leaving her family living in such conditions, and compensate for damage caused to her belongings by mould.
The landlord issued a service level response on 19 November 2024. The landlord:
1. Provided an update on the action it had taken to address repairs required to the front door, to address water ingress through cracks in the exterior walls.
2. Clarified that a mould wash had been arranged for 28 November 2024 to treat areas affected by damp and mould.
3. Committed to inspecting the property on 29 November 2024 to identify any follow-on repairs for the damp and mould, and to look at the fencing.
4. Said it had requested its contractor to assess the drainage in the front garden, after she raised concerns that water was not draining away.
5. Suggested the resident raise a claim on her own contents insurance in relation to damage to her belongings. Or consider making a liability claim through its own insurance if she it had been negligent.
The resident asked the landlord to raise a stage 1 complaint on 1 December 2024. The resident said the landlord had not addressed all of the repairs issues identified with the property and repeated she was continually having to the landlord for updates.
The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint on 13 December 2024. The landlord partially upheld the complaint. The landlord:
1. Identified that some of works had been completed. But accepted, some repairs were taking longer to complete than hoped. It noted that a list of repairs works orders had been emailed to the resident earlier that day.
2. Committed to keeping the resident updated on the progress of the outstanding repairs, which it said would be completed at the earliest opportunity.
3. Explained that it was still investigating who was responsible for maintaining the garden fencing. But would act appropriately once this was known.
4. Noted the resident had emailed the landlord for an update 3 times between 15 November 2024 and 12 December 2024. It said it had responded to the resident’s queries within a reasonable timeframe. But would remind its staff of the importance of maintaining clear and effective communication with residents concerning repairs. And the importance of keeping residents updated.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 3 January 2025. The resident was dissatisfied because the landlord had not responded to a recent email, it had misadvised her about a works orders relating to guttering and cracks, and suggested it was telling lies to smooth over complaints. She emailed the landlord again later the same day, acknowledging that it had raised works orders for the guttering and cracks but under a job called “multiple works”. She argued this did not explain what works had been raised. And impressed the importance of clear communications, given she was neurodiverse.
The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on 30 January 2025. The landlord partially upheld the complaint. The landlord:
1. Accepted that the progress of the works had been slow.
2. Said it had provided the resident with a list of the outstanding internal and external repairs on 13 December 2024. And it had reconfirmed the repairs, along with expected timescales for completion, when it met her with its contractor on 7 January 2025.
3. Explained that it can often take several weeks for windows to be manufactured. But it had installed a new window in the downstairs bedroom on 15 January 2025. It said the remaining works to the property should be completed the week commencing “20 January 2025”.
4. Updated the resident on the outcome of its investigations concerning the fencing. It said its contractor was in the process of assessing the scope of the works required.
5. Recognised there had been some miscommunication about the extent of the works agreed to the front of the property. It accepted that recollections of events could vary. So, it had instructed its contractor to paint the front of the property, in an attempt to bring the matter to resolution.
6. Said there was no evidence that it had lied to the resident. Although it did accept:
  1. The resident had asked a question on 13 December 2024 about the painting of the render, which it did not answer until 3 January 2025, which was 1 working day after its expected corporate response timescale. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience this had caused.
  2. There was an administrative error in the information it provided the resident on 3 January 2025 concerning repairs works orders. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience this had caused. But said it was satisfied its member of staff had not attempted to deliberately mislead or withhold information.
7. Said it would:
  1. Monitor repairs until completion and would liaise with the resident where appropriate.
  2. Remind its staff of the importance of reviewing works orders in full before advising residents of actions being taken so the correct information is provided.
The resident brought her complaint to us on 4 February 2025. The resident explained the landlord had not fully addressed her complaint. And it had not completed all of the repairs it said it would, within the timeframe it had committed.
The landlord told us on 7 July 2025 that it reflected upon its handling of the resident’s initial complaint made on 6 November 2025 and recognised that it should have logged this as a stage 1 complaint, rather than as a service request. It accepted this was a failure in its complaint handling. The landlord said there were no works orders outstanding for the property, relevant to the complaint.
The resident told us on 11 August 2025 the landlord had completed some remedial works but there was still unresolved damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the investigation

This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between 19 June 2024 and 30 January 2025. This being the date the landlord carried out its first void inspection and the date the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted. This investigation may consider events that happened after this date, as far as any commitments the landlord may have made to the resident in the stage 2 complaint response. But any new issues or repairs requests raised after this date will be outside the scope of this investigation.
The resident has referenced during the landlord’s internal complaint process, the impact the damp and mould was having on her health and the health of her family due to their medical conditions. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. However, this investigation may consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation was likely to have caused the resident and her family.

The condition of the property upon letting

The Scheme states that we may not consider complaints, which in our opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure. The resident expressed dissatisfaction on 6 November 2024 with the condition of the property upon letting and maintained that the landlord ought to have identified and addressed all of the issues with the property prior to the tenancy starting. It is reasonable for this investigation to consider the resident’s dissatisfaction about this, even although the landlord did not, given the complaint handling failure.
The landlord has a void procedure, which explains the measures it takes to prepare an empty property for reletting to a new tenant. The landlord will:
1. Inspect the property to assess the level of works that may be required by its contractor. It will look for signs of damp and mould and will assess the heating system and the condition of the electrics, during this inspection.
2. Carry out a viewing with the prospective incoming tenant prior to the tenancy starting.
3. Will meet its contractor on site to post inspect the void works. During this inspection it will check again for any signs of damp and mould. If any signs are found, it will take action to remedy this prior to the property being re-let.
The landlord does not have a lettable standard, setting out the minimum standard its properties should meet. However, any property would need to be fit for human habitation and in a reasonable state of repair at the start of a tenancy, in accordance with Section 9A and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord carried out a void inspection with its contractor on 19 June 2024 when various works were identified, in line with its policy. It raised several works orders between 19 June 2024 and 4 July 2024, which included (not an exhaustive list): to replaster some of the rooms and redecorate, to remove a gas fire, to replace some internal doors, to replace the bathroom furniture, a complete rewire, to fit new extractors fans in the bathroom and kitchen, and to clear the garden.
The landlord post inspected the void works on 26 July 2024, in line with its policy. Photographs taken at the time of the inspection, appear to show the property in a reasonable state of repair and condition. It was evident that the landlord’s contractor had carried out some clearance work within the garden. But there was still a small amount of rubbish left behind. And some of the fencing was in a poor state of repair and / or was broken.
The resident told us she viewed the property on 30 August 2024 with the landlord. During the viewing, the resident pointed out the front door was rotten and unsecure, a wet patch on the wall in the downstairs bedroom, a wet patch on the ceiling in the rear upstairs bedroom, and cracks on the external walls. She also suggested there was more work for the landlord to do in the garden. The resident states the landlord told her “not to worry”, as it would replace the front door, would send its contractors out to sort the garden, and would come back to look at the wet patches and the cracks. The resident signed the tenancy on the same day, on this basis. It is unclear if any commitment was made at the time, concerning the fencing.
The landlord acted promptly by raising a works order to replace the front door and to clear the garden. It raised another works order on 13 September 2024 to fill some gaps in the brickwork around the bedroom window. It arranged to inspect the garden fencing on 29 October 2024. The resident reported new issues with mould in the kitchen, hallway, bathroom, and 2 bedrooms on 1 November 2024.
The voids procedure suggests that repairs identified during the void process should be addressed prior to letting. The landlord has evidenced that it satisfied itself on 26 July 2024 that its contractor had completed all the void works it had instructed. The landlord agreed to send its contractor back to carry out further clearance work in the garden, by exception. As this was a minor job, it was reasonable for this to work to be completed after the tenancy began.
The issues with the front door, wet patches in the bedrooms, and cracks in the external walls were not identified by the landlord until the day of the viewing. It is unclear why the landlord did not identify that the front door needed to be replaced, or that there were cracks in the external wall, when it carried out its original void inspection. It may have been prudent for the landlord to have delayed the tenancy start date, given the new issues noted with damp patches. This would have been in line with its policy commitment, to address any issues with damp prior to the property being relet.
But we accept the resident had already waited sometime for the property to become ready for occupation. And there was some urgency associated with her move, due to her own personal circumstances. The resident appears to have been sufficiently reassured by the landlord at the time of the viewing, that any issues with the property could be resolved after she moved in, as she signed the tenancy agreement. Given the circumstances of the move, it was reasonable for the landlord to let the property and resolve any subsequent property issues once occupied.
Overall, the landlord generally managed the property during the void period, in line with its voids policy. The landlord’s decision to let the property despite the defects identified at the viewing was reasonable, given the circumstances of the case. It reassured the resident that it would attend to any repairs identified during the viewing, after she had moved in, which she accepted.
Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the condition of the property upon letting.

The landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs identified at the viewing (unrelated to cracks, damp, mould, and water ingress)

The landlord had a statutory and contractual obligation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the tenancy agreement, to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. Any identified repairs must be completed within a reasonable timeframe. What the landlord considers to be a reasonable timeframe is set out in its repairs policy. This states, the landlord will carry out “important repairs”, to windows, doors, and will address minor leaks within 20 working days. It will complete “routine repairs”, such as brickwork re-pointing and fencing repairs within 60 working days.
The landlord told the resident on 30 August 2024 (the day of the viewing), that it would arrange to replace the front door and door frame. This was positive given the resident’s concern that the door did not offer her adequate security in the condition it was in. It has not been possible for us to determine exactly what the landlord agreed with the resident, in terms of timescales for replacing the door. The resident maintains the landlord said it would replace the door immediately. The landlord maintains it told the resident the door had to be manufactured and was likely to be installed with 8 to 12 weeks.
The landlord raised a routine works order on the same day as the viewing, to replace the door. This priority was appropriate, as the door did lock and was still functional. The door was eventually installed on 22 November 2024 (60 working days), which was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
It is unclear if the landlord made any commitment on 30 August 2024 (at the viewing) in relation to the broken fencing. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained its intentions concerning this, given the fencing was in a significant state of disrepair, according to photographs we have seen from July 2024.
The landlord raised an instruction on 29 October 2024 to inspect the fencing “at the resident’s request”, which suggests the resident had to chase the landlord about its intentions. The landlord did not inspect the fencing until 9 December 2024. While this was a failing, this is unlikely to have caused significant detriment to the resident.
The landlord arranged a works order on 9 December 2024 to replace the rear fence by 8 January 2025 (20 working days), which was in line with its repairs policy. It was understandable that it could not raise any works orders for the remaining fences, as it was unclear whether it or the adjoining properties was responsible for maintaining these. The landlord committed to an appropriate course of action to establish responsibility for the rest of the fencing. This involved requesting the deeds for 5 neighbouring properties, which was likely to have taken some time.
It told the resident in the stage 1 complaint response on 13 December 2024 that it had determined the left-hand fence was neighbour’s responsibility. It committed to asking the adjoining neighbour to carry out any necessary repairs, which was fair. It said the right-hand fence was its responsibility to maintain, so it had asked its contractor to repair this, along with the rear fence. But said it was still waiting for the deeds to 1 of the neighbouring properties. The landlord later established the boundary with that property was its responsibility to maintain. So, asked its contractor on 7 January 2025 to add this fence to the original works order. This was positive.
All of the fencing repairs were eventually completed on 6 February 2025. While this was a month after the landlord originally committed, its contractor did have to return to the property several times to remeasure, as a result of the landlord varying the works order. The landlord might have considered raising 3 separate works orders to avoid delaying the earlier fencing repairs it instructed. But it is reasonable to conclude there would be less disruption for the resident, by completing all of the fencing repairs at once.
The landlord committed on 30 August 2024 (the day of the viewing) to carrying out a further clearance of the back garden, by exception. The landlord raised a works order for this in a timely manner on 5 September 2024. The landlord set a target completion date for this work of 7 working days. This shows the landlord was trying to secure a resolution for the resident in a timely manner. There is no completion date on the works order. But it is not in dispute, that the garden was cleared.
In summary, the landlord committed to a course of action to replace the front door, to clear the rear garden, and to replace any fencing it was responsible for. It installed the front door within expected timescales under its policy. It cleared the rest of the garden in a timely manner. Our investigation did identify some delay in relation to fencing but there was reasonable mitigation for this.
Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs identified at the viewing (unrelated to cracks, damp, mould, and water ingress).

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about cracks, damp, mould, and water ingress

According to the landlord’s damp and mould self-assessment, the landlord has a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. The landlord’s mould removal team will attend to remove mould within 72 hours. But this is dependent on resident availability, the extent of the mould growth, and the service demand. It will complete a full property inspection within 14 days of the mould removal, to investigate the cause of the damp and mould and identify any repairs. The landlord recognises there may be situations when it may be necessary to offer the resident a temporary or permanent move.
The landlord became aware on 30 August 2024 that there were cracks on the front external wall. And wet patches on the downstairs bedroom wall and the ceiling of the upstairs bedroom. The landlord told the resident it would arrange an appointment to inspect these issues, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
The resident provided the landlord with some photographs of the cracks on the front external wall on 9 September 2024, which was the day the tenancy started. She reminded the landlord about the wet patch in the front downstairs bedroom. And suggested there may be an issue with the guttering.
The landlord responded by issuing a works order on 13 September 2024 to fill a gap under the front downstairs bedroom windowsilland to mastic around the window, to prevent water ingress. Its contractor was instructed to complete this job by 28 February 2025 (117 working days). This far exceeded the target response timescale set out in its repairs policy. It is unclear why the landlord did not assign this job greater priority, given this was a potential cause of water ingress.
The landlord did not consider if there was a course of action it should take to address the cause of the wet patch in the upstairs rear bedroom that the resident pointed out on 30 August 2024. Or if there was an issue with the guttering, as the resident had later suggested. This was inappropriate.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 November 2024 to report black mould in the kitchen cupboards, bedrooms, and hallway. The landlord arranged a mould wash for 28 November 2024. This significantly exceeded the 72-hour target timescale set out in its self-assessment. But it is understood this appointment was made by agreement with the resident, so it is unclear if a timelier appointment could have been made. An appointment was arranged later, to complete a full property inspection on 3 December 2024. This was within 14 days of the mould wash, so was in line with its self-assessment.
The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 4 November 2024 to mastic the gaps around the windows, notwithstanding the extended target date referenced earlier. The resident maintains, no works were completed on this day because the job was more extensive than the landlord had realised. This situation could have been avoided, had the landlord inspected the property prior to raising any orders, as it had suggested on 30 August 2024.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 November 2024 describing a deterioration in her living conditions. She explained the impact of the damp and mould on her health and on the health of her children, as result of their blood condition. And said the landlord should compensate her for any belongings that had been damaged by mould.
The landlord said it was sympathetic to the resident’s situation but it was unable to pay compensation for her damaged belongings. It explained she could make a claim on her home contents insurance, or submit a liability claim to its insurer, if she felt it had been negligent. This was reasonable advice.
We have seen no evidence to suggest the property was deemed unfit for human habitation. But it was incumbent on the landlord to address the issues with the cracks, damp, mould, and water ingress in a timely manner, given the household vulnerabilities.
The landlord raised multiple inspection requests and repairs orders between 6 November 2024 and 30 January 2025, which shows it was endeavouring to address these issues. This included (not an exhaustive list):
1. To seal around the windows in the upstairs rear bedroom, hallway, and bathroom.
2. To fill holes under window ledges and fill cracks in the render at the front, rear, and side of the property, re-render, and redecorate.
3. To replace the downstairs front bedroom window.
4. To seal a hole under a window ledge
5. To take down and fit new rainwater goods and clearance of guttering.
6. To install a new extractor fan in the kitchen and bathroom.
7. To replace drainage pipework affected by roots from vegetation.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, that some repairs were taking longer than reasonably expected to progress. Butit was unclear from the evidence seen, why there were delays. The landlord did not explain this in any of its complaints responses.
It would have been reasonable for the resident to have expected the landlord to have explored whether there was any additional support it could have offered her, when it recognised it was making slow progress. But there is no evidence that it did. It might for instance, have considered offering the resident a dehumidifier to help manage the levels of moisture in the property. It might have considered if there was a medical need to move the resident and her family into temporary accommodation, pending completion of works, in line with its damp and mould self-assessment.
The landlord committed in the final complaint response on 30 January 2025 to monitoring any outstanding repairs through to completion and said it would liaise with the resident when appropriate. This was positive. However, it suggested the remaining works would be completed during the week commencing “20 January 2025”. Given this date had past, it is reasonable to conclude this information was incorrect.
The landlord did not proactively liaise with the resident after the stage 2 complaint response. And we have seen no evidence that it was actively monitoring completion of the outstanding repairs. We note the resident was still chasing the landlord on 9 June 2025 in relation to outstanding works. Of particular note, the resident said there was unresolved damp in the bedrooms, it had not installed the bathroom extractor fan, it had not cleared the gutters, it had not addressed the drainage, and it had not addressed the cracks in the render at the front of the property. We have seen no mitigation for the landlord’s delay to complete these works. It was positive that the landlord sought to put matters right on 9 June 2025 by re-raising works orders.
The landlord told us on 7 July 2025 that there were no outstanding repairs for the property. However, the resident did not share this view when we spoke to her on 11 August 2025.
A particular and ongoing issue for the resident in relation to the landlord’s handling of this matter, was its communication. It is evident that the resident felt the landlord was not keeping her adequately informed of the progress it was making with the repairs. The landlord did generally respond to the resident’s queries within 10-working days, in line with its service level agreement. But we have seen little evidence that it was providing practice updates.
The landlord did provide the resident with a list of works on 13 December 2024. It also met the resident in person on 7 January 2025 to go through that list in more detail, which was positive. But it may have been helpful, given the resident’s evident concern about communication, to have issued her with a written action plan. The landlord could then have contacted the resident a regular frequency to review the action plan, to provide reassurance.
The landlord does not dispute that some of its communications could have been clearer. The resident told the landlord on 3 January 2025 that clear communication was important to her, as she was neurodiverse. We note the landlord did commit in the stage 1 complaint response on 13 December 2024 to remind its staff of the importance of clear and effective communication, which was encouraging. The landlord might have asked the resident if there were any specific reasonable adjustments that it ought to make for future communication, after she shared her diagnosis. This would have been in line with the Equalities Act 2010.
In summary, there were inadequacies in the landlord’s communications. The landlord did not proactively inspect the cracks and damp patches as it committed on 30 August 2024. It raised an initial works order without understanding the full extent of the issue or priority of the job. Progress made towards remedying the cracks, damp, mould, and water ingress was unreasonably slow and there continues to be unresolved issues with damp and mould in the property.
Therefore, when considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about cracks, damp, mould, and water ingress.
To remedy the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay £500 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings we identified in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about cracks, damp, mould, and water ingress between the date of the viewing and the date the landlord’s internal complaint process was exhausted. The landlord is also ordered to pay £200 compensation in recognition of inadequacies in its communications.
The landlord should review its handling of this matter after its internal complaint process was exhausted and consider if a further award of compensation may be appropriate.
Our remedies guidance (published on our website) suggests awards in this range, where there have been failings in the landlord’s services, which have adversely impacted the resident over a prolonged period of time.
The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord had a 2-stage complaint policy. The landlord will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and will issue the full stage 1 complaint response within 10 working day of the complaint being received. The landlord will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 2 working days and will issue the full response stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the complaint being received.
The Code states that when a complaint is logged, landlords must set out their understanding of the complaint, the outcomes the resident is seeking, and what aspects of the complaint it will be investigating. If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, it must ask the resident for clarification.
The landlord accepts there was failing in its handling of the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction made on 6 November 2024 and it should have raised a stage 1 stage complaint. The landlord told us it would apologise to the resident for this failing and would pay £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience this had caused. This compensation is proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident.
The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 1 December 2024. The landlord sent the stage 1 acknowledgement on 2 December 2024 and issued the full stage 1 complaint response on 13 December 2024. This was in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy.
The resident raised the stage 2 complaint on 3 January 2024. The landlord sent an initial acknowledgement on 6 January 2025. It sent the formal stage 2 complaint acknowledgement on 20 January 2025, which was 11 working days after the expected timescale set out in its policy. However, this was unlikely to have significantly disadvantaged the resident because the landlord issued the full stage 2 complaint response on 30 January 2025, which was within the expected response timescale set out in its policy.
The resident has expressed repeated dissatisfaction that the landlord did not answer all of the complaint points she raised during its internal complaint investigation. We noticed that the landlord set out its understanding of the complaint within its complaint responses. But only briefly defined the reasons for the resident’s complaints within its complaint acknowledgements. The landlord should have provided the resident with a fuller understanding of her complaints within its complaint acknowledgements, so she could have informed the landlord if any aspects of her complaint had been missed. This would have been in line with the Code.
It was positive that the landlord set out in its complaint responses the learnings it had taken from the resident’s complaint and how this would shape future service improvement. It was also positive that the landlord reflected on its handling of the complaint since escalation to us, identified failing, and committed to a course of action to put things right. This was encouraging and shows the landlord’s commitment to learning from complaints.
In summary, while this investigation has found evidence of good complaint handling practices. There were areas where the landlord’s complaint handling fell short, which when considered cumulatively, amount to maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
To resolve the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay £100 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, by failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where there have been errors by the landlord that have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, which the landlord did not acknowledge during its own complaint investigation or fully put right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in relation to the condition of the property upon letting.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs identified at the viewing (unrelated to cracks, damp, mould, and water ingress).
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about cracks, damp, mould, and water ingress.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified by this investigation. Its apology must be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, published on our website.
The landlord is ordered to pay £800 compensation directly to the resident. This compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £500 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about cracks, damp, mould, and water ingress up to the date the landlord’s internal complaint process was exhausted.
2. £200 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by inadequacies in the landlord’s communications.
3. £100 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, by failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord must write to the resident offering a date within the next 4 weeks, to complete a full property inspection. And to facilitate a discussion concerning the resident’s support needs and requirements for reasonable adjustments. The landlord should then:
1. Commit to a course of action to address any outstanding or recurring defects identified with the property, within a reasonable timeframe.
2. Provide the resident with a written action plan (with timescales) for addressing identified defects and detailing any support that it will offer, within 5 working days of the inspection. The landlord must commit to reviewing this action plan with the resident at regular intervals, until all of the works are completed.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its handling of the resident’s reports about cracks, damp, mould, and water ingress after its internal complaint process was exhausted and consider if a further award of compensation may be appropriate.