Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202323621)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323621

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

12 November 2024

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s concerns about the condition of property when she moved in and her subsequent reports of:
      1. damp and mould
      2. heating repairs
      3. immersion heater repairs
      4. pest infestations.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord of a flat. The resident’s tenancy began on 14 August 2023.
  2. The resident reported repairs issues and pests in the property in August 2023, shortly after her tenancy began. The resident then raised a complaint about the condition of the property when she moved in, and discussed the following repairs issues:
    1. Broken intercom
    2. Rubbish in the basement area enabling a rodent infestation
    3. Electrics not working
    4. Damp in the living room and bathroom, causing paint to crumble
    5. Loose taps in the bathroom
    6. Loud immersion heater and dirty water from the hot tap
    7. Living room heater broken
    8. Front door had no heat or sound insulation
    9. Faulty door lock
    10. Damage to carpet caused by rats
  3. The resident stated that the repairs issues indicated that the landlord had not undertaken proper due diligence and that the property was uninhabitable. She said that she should be rehoused while the issues were addressed or offered an alternative property, and that she should be compensated for the 4 weeks she had lived in the property.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 September 2023. The landlord said that works orders had been raised for pest control to attend and for an inspection of the damp. It stated that the intercom had been fixed on 25 August 2023 and that contractors had attended on 1 September 2023 in response to the electrical issues. However, it did not comment on whether the electrical repairs had been resolved. The landlord stated that the immersion heater had been inspected and further works were due to be carried out, and that an appointment had been arranged for the loose taps. The landlord concluded that its service fell short of the required standards prior to residents moving into a property. It apologised and said it would continue to investigate the issues, and update the resident on 26 September 2023. It said that compensation would be considered once a resolution had been reached.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 20 December 2023. She said that the heating repair was still outstanding and that the damp had spread causing damage to the paint and carpet.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 28 February 2024 and addressed each of the repair issues. It stated that the damp was due to the external drainage, which needed to be unblocked and investigated and that a CCTV report on the drains had taken place. It said that all repairs had been completed apart from the damp and mould issues, and that this would be monitored. The landlord apologised that the complaint was not resolved at stage 1. It found that it could have communicated better with the resident and that the complaint could have been managed more effectively. It offered £680 compensation, made up as follows:
    1. £40 for the delay at stage 2
    2. £100 for the time and effort getting the complaint resolved
    3. £40 for a missed appointment
    4. £250 for inconvenience
    5. £250 for distress
  7. The resident raised her complaint with the Ombudsman on 7 May 2024. The resident stated that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously, had communicated poorly and had shown a lack of regard for her health and wellbeing. She said that the damp and mould had spread and that the immersion heater was faulty. The resident also stated that she had just had major surgery and was concerned that the conditions in the property would impact her recovery. The resident stated that she wanted to be moved from the property.
  8. The resident further contacted the Ombudsman on 24 August 2024 and reported that there had been recent issues with the immersion heater and electrics in the property. She also stated there was a leak in the property, and water was pouring through a light fixture. The resident said that the landlord had not attended to look at the light or the water damage. In a further email to the Ombudsman on 4 September 2024, the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of front door repairs.
  9. On 24 October 2024 the resident informed the Ombudsman that the damp and mould in the property was ongoing, and the damp appeared to be coming up from the floor. She said the lights in the property continued to cut out, and that the immersion heater had recently broken again and was expensive to run. She stated that an operative had recently attended to check the doors in the property, and identified that the door was buckled and she was informed that a repair would be raised. The resident said that the loose taps and rodent issues had been resolved.
  10. As a resolution to her complaint, the resident said that she wanted to be rehoused with the local authority and to be compensated. The resident said that the landlord should be held to account for how it had handled the repairs. She also said that the landlord had shown no duty of care towards her, and that processes should be put in place to support vulnerable residents.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The Ombudsman understands that the resident brought a number of issues to the landlord’s attention in the time period considered by this investigation. The Ombudsman has considered each of these, alongside the actions taken by the landlord, to build a picture of the landlord’s overall handling of the repairs. However, only events which have been deemed to be the most pertinent to the outcome of this investigation are highlighted in this report.
  2. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door. She also raised concerns about the front door when she escalated her complaint to stage 2. However, the landlord did not consider the front door repairs as part of its complaint responses. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure. The landlord’s handling of this matter has therefore been considered in relation to how it handled the complaint.
  3. The resident also informed the Ombudsman about a leak, which occurred after the stage 2 complaint response. In accordance with paragraph 42(a), outlined above, this complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process and so will not be dealt with as part of this investigation. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, she can complain to the landlord about its handling of the leak. She may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

Relevant policies

  1. The landlord’s voids policy outlines its approach to managing its empty homes. It states that it will meet all legal and regulatory standards including the decent homes standard, which requires homes to have reasonable degree of thermal comfort and be in a reasonable state of repair.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for maintaining fixtures and fittings for electricity and heating. The policy states that it will attend emergency repairs, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant, within 24 hours and routine repairs within an average of 25 calendar days.
  3. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will take responsibility for identifying, investigating, and resolving damp and mould as quickly and effectively as it can. It states that it will keep residents informed of actions and next steps and communicate on a regular basis.
  4. The policy states that when a damp and mould report is made, the landlord will establish if an immediate repair is required (such as fixing a leak) and following this, it will complete an assessment of the property within 20 working days to understand the scale of the problem. The assessment will identify the underlying cause of the damp and mould within the property and provide the tenant with guidance on managing mould within the property. Any remedial works identified will be recorded and raised within 10 working days of the assessment. The policy states that it will be clear with residents on timescales and keep them informed throughout, and that it will consider a range of interventions to tackle and, where possible, eliminate damp and mould.

Damp and mould repairs

  1. The repairs records indicate that a works order was raised to inspect the damp on 13 September 2023, and the landlord’s contractors undertook an inspection on 28 September 2023, which was an appropriate step. The damp inspection report documented that the walls in the property were damp, and this was most evident in the living room and bathroom. The report states that the damp proof course needed to be investigated for possible damage and that the electrical storage heating system needed to be repaired.
  2. An internal landlord email dated 27 September 2023 indicated that a prior inspection had also been carried out which identified no leaks in the property, but found that there may have been rising damp. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with notes of this visit. The email states that previously identified damp works had not been carried out and that a recall had been scheduled for 12 October 2023. It is unclear what works had been previously identified or when this inspection took place. However, it is noted that within an email from the resident dated 26 October 2023, she said that a plumber had advised her that the issue was due to rising damp which needed to be treated as soon as possible. The resident said that the landlord ignored this finding. No notes have been provided to reflect a 12 October 2023 visit and it is unclear whether this took place. Given that rising damp had been identified as the possible cause, the landlord ought to have arranged for an inspection by an appropriately trained contractor.
  3. The landlord raised a further works order on 9 October 2023 to trace and repair the source of the damp patch on the living room wall. The landlord noted that there was possibly a pipe leaking inside the wall. The evidence indicates that an operative attended on 23 October 2023 and noted that there were no pipes within the walls. The operative requested that an inspection be carried out by a supervisor or a damp specialist.
  4. Within an email to the resident dated 10 November 2023, the landlord stated that following an inspection by the area surveyor, works had been raised for the external drain to be cleared and unblocked. In a further email to the resident on 21 November 2023, the landlord said that the damp was due to external drainage which needed to be unblocked. A surveyor’s report has not been provided to the Ombudsman and it is unclear whether the damp proof course was inspected or if rising damp was investigated, prior to the drainage works.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 November 2023 and said that the damp had worsened and spread across a whole wall. The landlord responded on 1 December 2023 and stated that contractors had attended to the external drains and the landlord was awaiting the report on the CCTV drain survey to establish whether any works were required. The evidence suggests that this took place on 16 November 2023 however, the landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with the outcome of the CCTV drainage survey.
  6. It was appropriate for the landlord to follow possible lines of enquiry to identify the cause of the damp, and as a result, it was able to rule out a leak as the cause. However, there is no indication that it undertook further investigations of the damp proof course or explored the possibility of rising damp, despite operatives identifying these as possible causes. This indicates a failing by the landlord to take actions recommended following damp inspections. Further, while it was reasonable to investigate the drainage, there is no indication that the landlord obtained the outcome of the drainage survey, and so it is unclear whether further works were required.
  7. The resident requested an update on the damp and mould works on 19 December 2023, more than a month after the drainage works took place. The landlord responded on 22 December 2023 and stated that its contractors had offered to carry out a mould wash on 28 September 2023 which the resident had refused. The landlord did not refer to the drain inspections or whether any further works would be carried out to identify the cause of the damp. The resident denied that she had refused the treatment and stated that there was no mould at the time of the September survey however, mould had now developed due to prolonged damp and external moisture entering the property. The resident again questioned the outcome of the drainage survey.
  8. Landlords should take a proactive approach to updating residents about outstanding works and act with urgency to resolve damp and mould issues, and the landlord should have followed its own policy in this regard, which states that it would be clear with residents on timescales and keep them informed throughout. However, the evidence indicates that the resident was required to chase the landlord for an update and in its response, the landlord failed to provide a meaningful update about the outcome of the drainage survey or next steps. This indicates a failing by the landlord to communicate effectively with the resident and to swiftly address the underlying cause of the damp and mould in the property, as per its policy.
  9. The evidence suggests that in January 2024 the landlord informed the resident that a different contractor would be attending to conduct a damp and mould survey. This correspondence has not been provided to the Ombudsman. However, within emails from the resident to the landlord dated 14 February 2024, she stated that she had tried to contact the contractor without success. The resident raised that she wanted to arrange for the survey to take place before her operation so that she was not disturbed afterwards. The resident also raised concerns that the property was not safe for her to be in following the operation due to the damp and mould and heating issues. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord acknowledged these concerns, made efforts to alleviate them or considered whether a temporary property move would be appropriate. This indicates a failing by the landlord to properly consider the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  10. A works order was raised on 19 February 2024 for a mould wash and a contractor attended on 21 February 2024 to complete this. While mould washes are a reasonable step for landlords to take, the evidence indicates that the root cause of the issue had not yet been identified and the resident’s expectation was that a further survey of the damp would be conducted. In an email to the resident on 22 February 2024, the landlord apologised and said that, from looking at the photographs of the damp, a mould wash would not be effective, and a surveyor should have inspected the property. In its 28 February 2024 stage 2 response, the landlord said that the damp and mould repair remained outstanding and had been passed to a surveyor who would contact the resident to arrange a new appointment to treat the mould.
  11. The evidence therefore indicates that there were unreasonable delays in a further inspection of the damp being undertaken during January and February 2023. Further, the landlord has provided no evidence to reflect that any work to identify or address the cause of the damp and mould has taken place since the stage 2 response. This indicates a failing by the landlord to deal with the damp and mould in a reasonable timeframe and in accordance with its damp and mould policy. The failings identified in this investigation amount to maladministration.

Electrics and heater repairs

  1. The landlord raised a works order on 31 August 2023 after the resident’s reports that there was no power in the property. When the resident raised her complaint, she said that sockets were not working, and fuses were blowing out. It is unclear what checks of the electrics were carried out during the void process, as no void documentation has been provided.
  2. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that an emergency repair was raised and contractors attended on 1 September 2023 and resolved the electrics issue. However, the resident emailed the landlord on 14 September 2023 and stated that the electrician had been called out 3 times to address the issue. She said that she had been informed that a further visit to repair the electrics had been scheduled for 25 September 2023, and she questioned why the damp was not being dealt with first as this was impacting the wiring in the walls. No records have been provided to the Ombudsman to reflect any of these repairs appointments.
  3. The landlord ought to maintain clear and accurate repairs records and provide these to the Ombudsman. The absence of adequate records has impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation. This amounts to a failing by the landlord to provide sufficient evidence. It is unclear whether records have been maintained and not provided, or whether the lack of evidence is indicative of a failure to keep clear records.
  4. The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 September 2023 and reiterated that the electrics issue had been resolved on 1 September 2023. It said that once the damp works had been resolved, it would “follow up on the report”. This therefore indicates that, although some repairs had taken place to the electrics, these had not fully resolved the issue. In response, the resident stated that the electrics had been half fixed and that the contractor found that the system was on 2 circuits rather than 1, and that 1 circuit was damaged by damp. She requested a further update on 6 October 2023 and raised concerns about the temperature in the property. However, there is no indication that the landlord responded to the resident, which it ought to have done.
  5. The resident raised further concerns with the landlord on 26 October 2023, and again highlighted that because the electrics could not be fixed until the damp was repaired, the living room heater could also not be repaired. The resident raised concerns about the cost of running the electric fan heater. Given that the resident was without heating during the winter months, the landlord should have advised whether it could provide financial assistance to run the electric heater.
  6. On 10 November 2023, the landlord advised the resident that works to the electrics had been authorised and contractors would be in touch within 5 days.   Records of this visit have not been provided to the Ombudsman.
  7. On 21 November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to state that she had received communication from the contractor about booking the installation of a new heater but she informed the contractor that there was no electric in the living room. The landlord advised the resident that the contractor would fit the new heater and carry out rewiring for it to be functional. It advised that the contractor would be in contact within a further 5 working days to conduct the works.
  8. The evidence indicates that a new heater was installed in November 2023, which was an appropriate action. However, the heater was faulty and the contractor was required to raise the issue with the manufacturer. On 1 December 2023 the landlord informed the resident that the contractor would be in touch once it had received the manufacturer’s response. On 19 December 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and said that the heater repairs were still outstanding.
  9. No correspondence has been provided between the contractor and the manufacturer, nor have any repairs notes been provided. It is therefore difficult to assess whether reasonable efforts were made to resolve the heating fault. The landlord ought to have attempted to fix the issue promptly, while keeping the resident updated. However, the resident was required to chase this more than 2 weeks later before a further repair appointment took place.
  10. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that an emergency call out was raised for its contractors to attend on 22 December 2023. Again, no records of this visit have been provided and it is unclear what works were carried out. In its stage 2 response, the landlord indicated that heater was fixed during this visit. However, on 13 February 2024, the resident informed the Ombudsman that a heating engineer had attended on 8 February 2024 as the heater was still not working and the electrics were faulty. On 20 February 2024 the landlord informed the resident that its contractor would attend the following day to look at the heating. No notes have been provided of this visit and the landlord’s stage 2 response did not refer to it.
  11. This indicates a failing by the landlord as the resident was left without heating in the living room for an unreasonable period of time during winter. From the repairs records provided, it is not possible to establish exactly when the matter was resolved.
  12. The resident informed the Ombudsman that there continues to be issues with the electrics in the property and lights often cut out. The repairs records reflect works orders were raised on 12 June 2024 and 19 July 2024 following reports that the fuse box had blown and there were no lights in the property. However, it appears that the living room heater has been repaired.

Immersion heater repairs

  1. The resident also complained that the immersion heater was faulty and dirty water was coming from the hot tap. The resident said that this indicated that the landlord had not completed proper checks while the property was void. The landlord has not provided evidence of the checks it completed during the voids process and it is unclear what, if any, inspections of the immersion heater and hot water were carried out.
  2. The repairs records indicate that a works order was raised on 31 August 2023 following reports that there was no power in the property and that the boiler was not turning on due to this. A further works order was raised on 1 September 2023 in relation to reports that the resident had no hot water. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said an emergency appointment was attended on 1 September 2023 and its electrical contractor resolved the issue. The landlord further stated that contractors attended on 8 September 2023 to inspect the hot water immersion and the heating. It said that the contractor was due to return to carry out works. Records of these visits have not been provided to the Ombudsman and it is unclear what further works were due to take place. In a later email to the resident, the landlord said that the contractors had attended on 25 September 2023 and left the immersion heater in working order. Again, a record of this visit was not provided. The landlord did not comment on whether the contractors identified dirty water from the taps.
  3. While the evidence suggests that the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s initial reports that she had no power, the records provided do not reflect what further works were required to the immersion heater or whether the resident had access to clean hot water during this time.
  4. On 21 November 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and stated that the immersion heater was not fit for purpose. The repairs records reflect that a works order was raised on 27 November 223 after the resident reported concerns around high energy bills. No records have been provided to indicate whether a further repairs appointment took place. However, in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that the contractors had rectified the fault with the immersion heater and no further works were required.
  5. The resident contacted the Ombudsman in May 2024 and said that the immersion heater was faulty and expensive to run, and had not been upgraded since the flat was built. The repairs records show that a works order was raised on 28 May 2024 after the resident again reported that there was no hot water. A further works order was raised on 18 September 2024 following reports that no power was going into the immersion heater. In October 2024 the resident told the Ombudsman that she had had multiple issues with the immersion heater which she said was extortionate to run.
  6. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that she should contact her energy provider regarding expensive bills. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained its obligations for how often it is required to service immersion heaters to the resident. It also would have been reasonable for it to have considered undertaking an inspection of the efficiency of the immersion heater, taking into account its age and the frequent repairs issues. The evidence reflects that the repairs issues have remained ongoing following the stage 2 response, which indicates a failure by the landlord to properly investigate any faults.

Pest infestation

  1. The repairs records show that a works order was raised on 23 August 2023 following reports of rodents entering the property and that damage had been caused to the carpet as a result. The resident raised this as part of her complaint and stated that she immediately identified evidence of rodents upon moving in. She said that this indicated that the landlord had cleaned the property for viewing knowing that a tenant would move into an unsafe and rodent-infested property. It is unclear whether any evidence of rodents were identified during the voids process, as no voids records have been provided.
  2. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that an order had been raised with a pest control company. In an email dated 27 September 2023, the resident said that pest control had attended and were due to return in October for a follow-up appointment. The evidence shows that pest control returned on 10 October 2023 however, the notes reflect that this was to inspect for cockroaches, which was an issue reported by another resident of the building. It is therefore unclear whether a follow-up inspection for the rodents took place.
  3. The resident informed the Ombudsman in October 2024 that the measures taken to block rats from entering the property had been successful. As such, while it is difficult to determine whether the landlord failed to carry out appropriate checks during the void period, the evidence supports that the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve the pest issue after the resident reported it.

Repairs conclusion

  1. There were failings by the landlord regarding its handling of the damp and mould, electrics, heater and immersion heater repairs. Given the lack of evidence of any void checks having taken place before the resident moved in, we have also found that there was a failure by the landlord to ensure that the property was in a reasonable condition prior to the tenancy commencing. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the various repairs issues which have occurred since she moved into the property, and have impacted the resident’s enjoyment of her home. She has incurred time and trouble in pursuing the landlord about the repairs, some of which have not been fully resolved more than a year after her tenancy began. The resident also experienced further distress due to her concerns about recovering from surgery in the property, and the possible health impact of the damp and mould, which the landlord has not sufficiently acknowledged. It is a particular concern that the damp and mould appears to be ongoing.
  3. The landlord made some efforts to “put things right” by offering £500 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord has not explained what proportion of the £500 was in recognition of failures associated with repairs or complaint handling. However, the amount offered is not sufficient redress for the landlord’s handling of the repairs, and further compensation should be offered, taking into account that several of the issues have not been fully resolved. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £500 in recognition of the impact of the failures identified, which is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for financial redress for when a failing has adversely affected a resident.
  4. The landlord has provided insufficient evidence to show that it has learned from the outcome of the complaint. The landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with evidence of checks it carried out during the void period, and it did not specifically comment on these within its complaint responses. The various repairs issues which were identified after the resident moved into the property raise concerns about the checks completed as part of the landlord’s voids process.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that its level of service regarding the repairs was not reflective of the high standards it aims to provide prior to a resident moving into a property. It said that it had notified its lettings department and voids teams regarding the issues that had occurred. While the landlord appropriately identified that its service fell below the expected standard, it ought to have taken steps to establish why the repairs were not identified and how it would learn from this. An order has been made below for the landlord to review its void process.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that it will log and acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. The policy says that stage 2 complaint responses will be issued within 20 working days of the request to escalate the complaint. It states that if the landlord needs longer, it will write to the resident to explain extend the deadline to a further 10 working days.
  2. It is unclear exactly what date the resident raised her complaint. However, the resident signed the tenancy on 14 August 2023 and the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 September 2023. The dates indicate that if there was a delay in providing the stage 1 complaint outcome, this was would have been minor.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 December 2023 and the landlord acknowledged this on 22 December 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 28 February 2024, which indicates a delay of 26 days outside of the required timescales stipulated in the complaints policy, and was therefore a complaint handling failing.
  4. A further complaint handling failing has been identified as the landlord did not address the front door repairs within its complaint responses, despite the resident raising this issue as part of her complaint and within her escalation request. The resident informed the Ombudsman in October 2024 that the door had recently been inspected and she was told the door had ‘buckled’ and required repairing. Landlords should make efforts to properly resolve all issues complained about.
  5. The landlord did try to ‘put things right’ by acknowledging the delay in providing the stage 2 response and offering the resident £40 compensation, plus £100 for time and effort in getting the complaint resolved. The landlord also offered £500 for distress and inconvenience. However, as stated above, it did not explain what proportion of this related to its complaint handling. The landlord found that communication with the resident at stage 2 could have been better and the complaint could have been managed more effectively.
  6. The compensation offered was sufficient redress for the complaint handling failings identified. However, in order to fully ‘put things right’, the landlord should inspect the front door and carry out any required repairs. An order has been made in this regard below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of property when she moved in and her subsequent reports of:
    1. damp and mould
    2. heating repairs
    3. immersion heater repairs
    4. pest infestations.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord regarding its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must pay the resident a total of £1,180 compensation, made up as follows:
    1. £680 already offered by the landlord if this has not already been paid,
    2. £500 for its handling of the repairs.
  2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must undertake a damp survey to establish the cause of the damp and carry out recommended repairs to resolve this, within a reasonable timeframe (not more than two months from the date of the survey). It should ensure that a clear record of this survey is made which details the findings and recommendations and provide a copy to the Ombudsman. Following any repairs, the landlord should conduct a post-works survey to establish whether the repairs have been effective in resolving the issue.
  3. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should undertake an inspection of the immersion heater and the electrics to establish whether they are in working order. The inspection should consider the efficiency of the immersion heater. It should ensure that a clear record of this inspection is made which details the findings and recommendations and provide a copy to the Ombudsman. Any repairs identified should then be completed within a reasonable timeframe (not more than one month from the date of the inspection).
  4. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should complete any outstanding repairs to the front door of the property.
  5. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide advice and guidance to the resident on her options for moving properties, including how she can be moved into a local authority owned property.
  6. Within 8 weeks, the landlord must review what checks it completed when the property was void and establish whether the repairs issues could have been identified prior to the resident’s tenancy starting. It should review its voids process and consider whether additional checks should be included so that properties are in a good state of repair at the start of a tenancy. The landlord should provide the outcome of this review to the Ombudsman.
  7. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the orders to the Ombudsman within the timeframes stipulated.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should conduct staff training on the importance of keeping clear and accessible repairs records.