London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202202317)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202317

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

19 February 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 the resident’s reports about:

  1. External repairs causing damp and mould inside her property.
  2. The associated complaint.

Background

2.             The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord at the property, a basement flat.

3.             The resident lets her property to a tenant. For the purposes of this report the leaseholder will be referred to as “the resident”.

4.             On 25 November 2019, the resident reported that the pointing was coming away from the wall at the side of her property. She also said that she believed that a down pipe was causing rising damp, inside her property. On 2 December 2019, the resident complained to the landlord that it had not responded to her requests about the repairs. The resident raised a further complaint on 5 January 2020, stating the landlord had not responded to her previous complaint.

5.             On 22 January 2020, the landlord apologised for not responding to the resident’s previous complaint. The landlord said it had closed the complaint because the resident had reported damp inside her property. It said as a leaseholder, this was the resident’s responsibility to resolve.

6.             The landlord said that its surveyor had visited the resident’s property in December 2019. It agreed to carry out a further inspection to identify any outstanding external works at the property. The landlord said it would then update the resident about any further works to be carried out.

7.             On 22 May 2020, the landlord stated it had successfully completed the following external works to the resident’s property:

  1. Applied concrete and water proofing to the communal steps where water had been seeping through.
  2. Fixed a drain overflowing near to the back door of the resident’s property.
  3. Rendered the wall opposite the resident’s front door.
  4. Repaired a roof leak, which had caused staining to the top of the ceiling in the communal area of the building.

8.             The landlord apologised that its communication and organisation of the repairs had not been to its usual high standard. It said it would keep the resident’s complaint open until it had completed all the works requested by the resident.

9.             On 21 August 2020, the resident reported that the concrete works completed to the front communal steps, were already showing signs of deterioration. She asked the landlord to confirm if the works that had been completed were under warranty. She was also concerned that the disrepair would allow water to enter her property.

10.        In October 2020, and November 2020, the Ombudsman and the resident’s member of parliament (MP), requested the landlord respond to the resident’s complaint about outstanding repairs, and damp in her property. The resident requested the landlord address the cracked walls on the outside of her property. She asked the landlord to send a damp specialist to carry out an inspection of the building, including the resident’s property.

11.        On 21 December 2020, the resident stated that due to the landlord’s lack of response, she employed a contractor to carry out the following works. They repaired the external wall, opposite her property and painted the external brickwork around the flat including the area around the crack which the landlord had repaired previously. The resident stated the original repair carried out by the landlord in September 2020, was not to the expected standard.

12.        In December 2020, the resident repeated her request for the landlord to provide a specialist contractor to inspect the moisture levels on the external parts of her property. She said the downpipes to the side and rear of the building were not working and were impacting water penetration into her property. On 27 December 2020, the resident asked the landlord why it had closed her complaint. On 12 February 2021, the landlord sent a contractor to investigate the resident’s reports. They reported that the drain was not blocked and there were no issues with the downpipes. The resident disagreed.

13.        On 16 April 2021, following a COVID-19 lockdown, the landlord’s surveyor attended the resident’s property. Between April 2021 and June 2021, the landlord’s contractor re-rendered the side of the resident’s property. They also carried out and inspection and cleared the blocked drains to the front and rear of the property.

14.        On 2 August 2021, the resident told the landlord that on 4 sperate occasions, she had spent money on contractors repairing the damp to the walls inside her property. She logged a claim with the building’s insurer, asking for a specialist to address the external repairs, which she said, was causing the damp inside her property.

15.        On 24 August 2021, contractors carried out and inspection at the property which highlighted the following repairs:

  1. Damp was entering the front door of the property, due to missing pointing around the doorway.
  2. The communal steps outside the front of property were cracking and showed signs of water ingress.
  3. Green mould to the rear of the external parts of the property, was present where water ingress had been identified on the inside of the resident’s property.

16.        On 17 November 2021, the landlord agreed to appoint a specialist to investigate water penetration of the external wall of the resident’s property.

17.        On 12 January 2022, the insurer for the building asked the landlord to escalate the external works that it was responsible for. The landlord said it would carry out an inspection of the outstanding works. The resident asked to be present for the inspection of her property. On 26 January 2022, the landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection with its contractor, at the property. It did not invite the resident to the inspection.

18.        Between February 2022 and April 2022, the resident, and her MP asked the landlord a to provide an update about the outstanding repairs, at the property. She also requested a copy of the report of its previous inspection, which it had promised to send her.

19.        On 5 May 2022, the Ombudsman requested the landlord provide a response to the resident’s complaint within 10 working days. On 20 May 2022, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response. It provided a list of the external works it had carried out to the resident’s property. It said the works were completed in line with its contractor’s recommendations. It apologised for the delays and said it would finalise the resident’s complaint.

20.        On 8 September 2022, the resident told the landlord that she had instructed a damp specialist to carry out an inspection of the property. She said this was because the works the landlord’s contractors had completed were showing signs of disrepair. The resident also said she had made 3 attempts to raise a repair to the soil stack at the property. She said the landlord had not responded.

21.        On 29 September 2022, the landlord’s surveyor visited the resident’s property. They confirmed that cracks had increased to the wall, and pathway leading to the property. The landlord contacted the insurance company. Between November 2022 and December 2022, the insurer sent contractors to carry out a further investigation of the external cracks at the resident’s property. They confirmed there were signs consistent with subsidence at the property. The insurer advised the landlord that the damp in the resident’s hallway was not related to the subsidence. The insurer advised the landlord to carry out its own assessment of what external repairs were required to prevent water ingress and damage to the resident’s property.

22.        On 16 January, the Ombudsman told the landlord to provide the resident with a final response to her complaints about external repairs, and damp inside the resident’s property.

23.        On 30 January 2023, the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord apologised for the following:

  1. Closing the resident’s complaints.
  2. Not providing the resident with the schedule of works it had promised.
  3. That it failed to respond to a number of requests for updates.

24.        The landlord accepted that the repairs to the exterior of the property were not to the standard it would expect. It awarded the resident £650 compensation and said its surveyor would carry out a full site inspection, including of the leaking soil pipe that same day.

25.        In February 2023, the building’s insurance company said it would continue to monitor the resident’s property for subsidence. The landlord told the resident that it would not be addressing the damp inside the resident’s property. It said it would carry out necessary works to the exterior of the property.

26.        The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 9 February 2023. The resident stated she continues to suffer with damp within her property. She is seeking an outcome that includes the landlord instructing a damp specialist, to carry out the external repairs required to fix the damp proof course. She would also like an apology and compensation.

27.        Between April 2023 and May 2023, the landlord said it had carried out a number of outstanding repairs to the exterior of the property. Its surveyor said the resident’s property showed no evidence of water ingress. They said the resident’s walls were cold because it was a basement flat. It directed the resident to the building’s insurance company for any damp she was experiencing inside her property. The resident disagreed with what the surveyor had said. She has said external repairs remained outstanding and she has continued to suffer with damp in her property.

Assessment and findings

28.        When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

29.        The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Scope of Investigation

30.        Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the resident has been persistent about her repair reports since November 2019. This investigation has therefore considered it reasonable to focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair reports from this date onwards.

31.        Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. For this reason, this investigation report will only consider events from November 2019 up until the final complaint response on 30 January 2023. This is because the landlord, has only had the opportunity to provide its response to the resident’s complaints for the issues raised through its complaints process, up to this period. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the on-going repairs, she can make a new complaint to the landlord about this. If the landlord is then unable to resolve matters to her satisfaction through its complaints process, she may be able to refer the complaint to this service for investigation at that stage.

32.        The only exception has been to comment on when the outstanding repairs which were first reported during the complaints process, or where relevant matters of the complaints were resolved as agreed in the landlord’s final response.

33.        The resident has said that as part of her complaint, she made a liability claim against the landlord’s insurer. This is because she said that landlord had not taken action to carry out repairs, which she said was the cause of damp and damage to her property. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to make a determination on matters involving the resident’s insurance claim, as this falls outside the jurisdiction of this service. This is because the insurer is a separate company from the landlord and the Ombudsman can only investigate landlords. We cannot investigate insurance companies. However, the Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s communication in relation to whether it responded to the resident about her claim in line with its legal obligations, its internal policies and industry best practice.

Policies and procedures

34.        The resident’s leasehold agreement states that the landlord will keep in good condition and repair the external walls of the building. It also states that the resident will keep in good repair and condition all fixtures and fittings, ‘save that’ in the case of all exterior walls and all walls diving the resident’s property; the resident shall be limited to keeping the interior plasterwork and decoration of such walls in repair and good condition.

35.        The landlord’s repairs policy states that leaseholders are generally responsible for all repairs to the interior of their property. It states that it is responsible for brickwork and concrete to external walls, structural weakness, and rising damp. It is also responsible for paths, paving and driveways, soil stacks, gutters, and downpipes.

36.        The landlord’s complaints policy states that residents can make a complaint by phone, email, online, social media, in writing or in person. They can also complain through a representative or advocate. This policy states it will provide a response at stage one within 10 working days. If a resident requests to escalate their complaint, the landlord states it will acknowledge a request within 2 working days. It states it will then provide its stage 2 response to the resident within 20 working of a request for their complaint to be escalated. The landlord states that at either stage, it may extend its timescale to respond by 10 working days. If it requires to do this, it will explain this to the resident.

37.        The landlord’s complaints policy states that once it has agreed a resolution with a resident, it will monitor all actions of the complaint until they are complete. The landlord states its complaints policy does not cover insurance claims or where a legal claim is made against the landlord.

External repairs causing damp and mould inside the resident’s property.

38.        On 25 November 2019, the resident raised a repair for the following:

  1. Pointing at the side of her property was coming away from the wall.
  2. The downpipe was blocked.
  3. There was rising damp in her property.

39.        The landlord arranged for a contractor to unblock the downpipe on 27 November 2019. The landlord’s surveyor then attended the property in December 2019. The pointing to the side wall was then completed on 10 March 2020. The response to the first 2 repairs was reasonable. However, there is no evidence that the landlord assessed the cause of rising damp at the resident’s property. Its surveyor had told the resident that damp inside her property was her responsibility. The landlord’s repairs policy, however, states the landlord is responsible for repairing rising damp. The landlord should have carried out an investigation into the rising damp at the property and provide a schedule of any works require to repair this, within 28 days.

40.        On 22 May 2020, the landlord provided the resident with a list of repairs it had completed. These were to external parts of the property, as mentioned above in this report. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for its lack of communication in the organisation of these repairs. Within the list of repairs the landlord gave to the resident, it included it had rendered the wall opposite the resident’s front door. Days later, the landlord then conceded to the resident that it had not carried the rendering. This was poor communication and is evidence of poor record keeping by the landlord. This would not have given the resident confidence that the landlord was taking reasonable steps to resolve her concerns.

41.        On 21 August 2020, the resident told the landlord that the pointing works were already showing signs of cracking and deterioration. She said this repair was allowing water to penetrate into her property. The landlord did not respond to the resident about this. This is evidence of poor communication. The landlord should have carried out an inspection of the repair in line with best practice.

42.        Between October 2020 and December 2020, correspondence provided to the Ombudsman show that the resident and her MP asked the landlord to attend to the number of increasing cracks in the external walls to her property. The resident also requested for a damp specialist to carry out an inspection of the property. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord actioned or provided a reasonable response in its communication to the resident during this specified period. This was inappropriate. The resident provided a list of external works she paid contractors to do herself, in order to seek to resolve the issue of damp within her property. She said she did this because the landlord had not responded to her. It was the resident’s decision to carry out the works and the landlord would not be expected to reimburse her for these costs. However, the Ombudsman has noted that this incident is representative of the significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, through the landlord’s lack of response.

43.        On 21 December 2020, the resident said that throughout the previous year she had asked the landlord to provide a specialist contractor to investigate water penetration and damp entering her property. She said the downpipes to the rear and side of the property were also not working properly. The landlord arranged for an inspection of the property to be conducted on 13 January 2021. It was appropriate that the landlord arranged the survey. But the resident should not have had to wait 4 months. This survey should have been completed within 28 days, in line with industry best practice. The delay would have been inconvenient and worrying for the resident.

44.        Due to a COVID-19 lockdown, the survey at the resident’s property was delayed until April 2021. The landlord explained this as the further reason for delay. The Ombudsman accepts that during periods of lockdown, landlords were only allowed to carry-out emergency repairs and that therefore there would have been a backlog of surveys and routine repairs once restrictions were lifted.

45.        On 16 April 2021, the landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection of the repair to the side wall and it was re-rendered in May 2021. It was appropriate that the landlord carried out this repair. The landlord is responsible for the quality of the workmanship of its contractors. It should not have taken 21 months for the landlord to carry out an inspection and complete these works to the required standard. The landlord should have carried out a survey within 28 days of the resident’s contact in August 2020. It should then have set a schedule of works, and completed this repair within 8 weeks, in line with best practice. These delays would have caused worry and inconvenience to the resident as she was waiting longer than she should have been for the repairs to be done.

46.        On 26 May 2021, the landlord’s contractors carried out an assessment of the downpipe, and drains using CCTV. They made a recommendation that the return to complete a high-pressure jet to clear the build-up of grease, scale, and debris in the drains to prevents it overflowing. The landlord completed this work on 8 June 2021. This was an appropriate response by the landlord as the repair was completed in a timely manner.

47.        In November 2021, the landlord agreed to appoint a specialist to investigate water penetration through the external wall of the resident’s property. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this. However, this should have not taken 24 months from when the resident first raised her concerns about rising damp for it to consider this. This service has no evidence that the landlord instructed a damp specialist. This was, therefore, inappropriate, and will have caused the resident further significant distress and inconvenience.

48.        In January 2022, the resident requested to be present when the landlord carried out its joint inspection of her property with its contractor. It said it had a last-minute cancellation, so carried out the inspection without her. The records provided to this service show that no calls, emails or attempts to include the resident were made. The landlord’s response was unreasonable. The resident had been complaining about damp in her property for over 2 years. It therefore would have been reasonable to have set a time and date that included the resident, so she could have the opportunity to discuss the outstanding works and point out her outstanding repairs.

49.        The landlord stated it would share the schedule of works with the resident within a week of its surveyor’s inspection of the property, that it had carried out in January 2022. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows that this schedule of works was never sent to the resident. This was unreasonable, and evidence of poor communication. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord apologised for this in its stage 2 complaint response.

50.        The landlord advised the resident that she could make a claim on her property insurance, for any outstanding works relating to the damp in her property. It explained that if she did not have insurance, then she could make a liability claim direct to the landlord. It advised the resident how she could do this. This communication was appropriate, as it set out for the resident what she could do to make a claim against the landlord. As above, the Ombudsman cannot comment on the outcome of such a claim. Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance as a means of managing negligence claims and the landlord would not be expected to pay a claim outside the insurance process.

51.        On 8 September 2022, the resident said she had instructed a damp specialist. She said she shared the report with the landlord. As a result, the contractor identified that the repairs the landlord had said it had completed were showing signs of disrepair, due to poor workmanship. She had also made 3 attempts for the landlord to respond to a repair, relating to the leaking soil stack. This was inappropriate, and further demonstrates poor communication by the landlord. The landlord should have repaired the soil stack within 28 days as a routine repair.

52.        On 29 September 2022, the landlord’s surveyor visited the resident’s property to inspect the cracks to the walls. They confirmed that the internal and external walls, the pathway and around the front door had increased. The surveyor suspected the property was suffering with subsidence. It was therefore reasonable that it asked the building’s insurance company to carry out a further investigation into the subsidence.

53.        Between October 2022 and November 2022, the insurer carried out further inspections at the resident’s property. It confirmed that the property was suffering with subsidence. The contractor told the landlord that the subsidence was not related to the damp inside the resident’s property. During this time, the resident said she was forced to put up tarpaulin to prevent water penetrating her property during heavy rainfall, to limit the damage to her own property. The landlord provided no assistance or communication in response to this. It should have engaged with the resident and sought to assist in preventing water penetrating through the external parts of the property.

54.        The contractor also highlighted that the landlord’s previous repair to the soil stack had not been successful. It was showing signs of effluent running down the outside of the stack. The insurer reminded the landlord that it was its responsibility to assess any external works required to prevent water penetrating the resident’s property. This was further signs of poor workmanship by the landlord’s contractors, in the repair of the soil stack which would have caused further distress to the resident.

55.        For the reasons described above, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s handling of external repairs causing damp and mould inside the resident’s property. This includes the poor levels communication, significant delays, and poor workmanship. The landlord also failed to recognise the significant adverse impact caused to the resident in its handling of these repairs, most of which remain unresolved. The resident has stated she has suffered significant distress and inconvenience. She also felt forced to carry out numerous external works herself, due to the landlord’s poor communication.

56.        The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £500 in compensation. This is in addition to the £120 it awarded in its stage 2 response for its service failure in the standard of its repair. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. Examples of this level of compensation include where the failures adversely affected the resident but resulted in no permanent impact. Also, where the landlord has attempted to put things right, but its offer has failed to provide a proportionate offer of compensation.

57.        The resident has said that she continues to suffer with water penetrating her property from the outside. Therefore, the Ombudsman will make an order for the landlord to conduct an independent survey to be carried out by a damp and mould specialist to review the property in respect of the damp, within 28 days of this report. It is then to set out a schedule of works for which it is responsible, which it is to share with the resident. These follow-on works are to then to be carried out within a further 12 weeks.

The associated complaint.

58.        On 2 December 2019, the resident raised a stage one complaint. She then submitted a further complaint on 5 January 2020, stating the landlord had closed her previous complaint without providing a response. This was an inappropriate decision by the landlord. It should have provided a written response, to the resident’s first stage one complaint within 10 working days. This is evidence of poor communication, as well as poor complaint handling.

59.        On 21 January 2020, the resident asked the landlord for an update to her complaint. On 22 January 2020, the landlord apologised for closing the resident’s previous stage one complaint. It said that it did this because the damp inside her property, was an issue for the resident to resolve as a leaseholder. The landlord’s explanation, despite including an apology, demonstrated a lack of understanding of the resident’s complaint. The resident said that her complaint included external repairs. On 5 February 2020, the landlord again told the resident that it would not keep her complaint open. This was an unreasonable response. The landlord should have provided a stage one complaint response, setting out its reasons to the resident, as well as inviting her the opportunity to escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.

60.        On 26 May 2020, the landlord told the resident that it accepted it had miscommunicated in its handling of a repair. It confirmed to the resident that it had recorded the resident’s dissatisfaction as a complaint. It said it would not resolve the resident’s complaint until all works had been completed. The landlord should have provided a stage one complaint response within 10 workings days of this email. The Ombudsman had not been provided with any evidence that it had done so. This was unreasonable and is evidence of poor complaint handling.

61.        On 26 October 2020, the Ombudsman advised the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint within 10 working days, by either escalating or sending the resident and the Ombudsman its final response. On 10 November 2020, the landlord correspondence show it closed the resident’s complaint without a response. This was inappropriate. It was therefore reasonable that it apologised to the resident for the delay in its communication, to her complaint.

62.        Between November 2020 and December 2020, the resident’s MP and the Ombudsman further requested that the landlord provide a response and escalate the resident’s complaint. The resident also asked the landlord why it had closed her complaint previously. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that it responded to the resident with a stage one, or stage 2 written response. We have also not seen any correspondence that it provided an explanation as to why it had closed the resident’s complaints again without explanation. The is evidence of very poor communication. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of its own complaints policy. The Ombudsman can understand that the resident has said this lack of response by the landlord has caused her significant distress and inconvenience. This has been taken into account when looking at compensation.

63.        On 3 May 2022, the resident asked the landlord for it to provide an update to her complaint. The landlord reviewed its internal correspondence and confirmed it had again closed the resident’s complaint without explanation. On 5 May 2022, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a response to the resident’s complaints within 10 working days. The next day, the landlord told the resident that she could escalate her complaint to stage 2. 10 working days after this, the landlord provided what it has told this service was its stage one complaint response. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it must provide a stage one complaint response before it will escalate a complaint. The landlord’s response will thereby have caused the resident confusion. The landlord will also have most likely exacerbated the distress and inconvenience caused by its continuing errors and lack of communication in the handling of the resident’s complaint.

64.        The landlord’s stage one complaint response provided a list of repairs. It provided no explanation of its assessment of her complaint, and provided no evidence that it considered the impact its error caused the resident in respect of its handling of the repairs. It also offered no explanation to the resident, in relation to how she could escalate her complaint. The email made no mention that it was a stage one complaint response. This is further evidence of poor levels in communication and complaint handling.

65.        The resident raised her first stage one complaint on 2 December 2019. The landlord stated its stage one complaint was dated 20 May 2022. This therefore took 627 working days, when it should have taken 10 working days. The Ombudsman has considered that the resident did not ask about her complaint specifically in the year 2021. She did, however, continue to raise her dissatisfaction in her correspondence. It was the landlord’s responsibility to respond to her complaint in line with its complaints policy. The resident has explained to the Ombudsman, that the landlord’s response to her attempts to raise her complaint has caused her significant distress and inconvenience.

66.        On 30 November 2022, the Ombudsman advised the landlord to respond to the resident within 5 working days, with its final response to her complaint. On 5 January 2023, the Ombudsman repeated its request to the landlord, after it failed to contact the resident. After further correspondence between the Ombudsman, the resident and the landlord; the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, on 30 January 2022. This was 175 working days after it responded to the resident’s complaint at stage one. The resident’s correspondence following this confirmed her continued dissatisfaction at the landlord’s response. It also took 40 working days, following intervention from this service for it to provide a response. This is further evidence of poor complaint handling.

67.        The landlord apologised to the resident for its delays in handling her complaint. It awarded the resident £650 compensation in its stage 2 complaint response, set out as follows:

  1. £150 – For the delay in providing its stage 2 response.
  2. £200 – For the time and effort caused to the resident in making her complaint.
  3. £120 – For the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  4. £120 – For service failure in its response to the standard of its repairs.
  5. £60 – For its lack of communication.

68.        The landlord, therefore awarded the resident £530 for its handling of her complaint. This offer has been assessed against the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above. The amount the landlord awarded for complaint handling in its final response is reflective of cases where the Ombudsman would, as in this case, make a finding of maladministration. The landlord, therefore, demonstrated a recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It is for this reason, the Ombudsman makes a finding that there has been reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Review of policy and practice

69.        The Ombudsman has several complaints awaiting investigation, where similar issues have been identified. It would have been appropriate to issue a wider order under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme, in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. However, we will not do so because this service has already issued such an order under the relevant case, and findings as set out below:

  1. 202202309: We found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of resident’s associated complaint.

70.        In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme, the landlord was advised its senior management must carry out a review of its practice in relation to its complaints handling. It was given 8 weeks to update the Ombudsman that it had done so.

Determination (decision)

71.        In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about external repairs causing damp and mould inside her property.

72.        In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

73.        The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing within 28 days from the date of this report. The apology is to be in line with this service’s guidance that it acknowledges the maladministration by expressing a sincere regret for errors in its handling of the following:

  1. External repairs causing damp and mould inside her property.
  2. The associated complaint.

74.        The landlord is to pay the resident compensation of £500 within 28 days of this report. This is in addition to the £650 it offered in its stage one and 2 complaints process. This is for the landlord’s handling of external repairs causing damp and mould inside her property.

75.        The landlord is to pay the resident the £650 compensation it awarded the resident in its stage one 2 complaints process if it has not already done so.

76.        The landlord is to arrange for an independent survey to be carried out by a damp and mould specialist to review the property in respect of the damp within 28 days of this report. It is then to set out a schedule of works for which it is responsible, which it is to share with the resident. These follow-on works are to then to be carried out within a further 12 weeks. The landlord is to share evidence with the Ombudsman confirming that it has complied with this order.