London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202220572)

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220572

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

27 March 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of a leak into his property and subsequent damp and mould.
2. The resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman has also commented on the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident occupies the property, a second floor, 2-bedroom flat, under an assured tenancy which began on 17 February 2014. The resident occupies the property with his wife and 3 young children.
On 23 May 2017, the resident reported damage to the ceiling in the hall as a result of a leak from a neighbouring flat.
On 18 June 2021, the resident made a formal complaint via the landlord’s portal. In the complaint the resident said:
1. That he had been complaining about a leak and had raised this issue many times.
2. That nobody was doing anything or responding to his complaints.
3. That there had been a leak in the hallway and now next to his child’s bedroom window.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 18 June 2021. The landlord apologised for the delayed response to the issue and confirmed that a repair had now been raised for a roofing contractor to attend and inspect the property. The landlord confirmed that the complaint would be kept open until the repair was completed.
On 10 August 2021 the gutters were cleared at the property and on 12 August 2021, a window contractor attended to inspect the windows at the property. The gutters were again cleared on 26 October 2021.
On 12 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to escalate his complaint. He said:
1. That he could not see any progress on the issue
2. That most of the neighbours were complaining about the damp and water going through to the bricks.
On 28 July 2022, the resident submitted a further complaint. He said:
1. That he continued to experience water ingress and had escalated the complaint but had not received an outcome from the escalation team.
2. That the wall outside still looked awful, so he did not know whether the leak had been fixed or not.
3. That the hallway and bedroom carpet had been damaged, and he wanted to know who would be responsible for replacing this.
The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s escalation request on 1 August 2022 and confirmed it was still in the queue to be investigated. It also gave the resident the details of its insurance team and informed him how to submit a claim for the damage to his carpets.
A number of jobs were raised over the months that followed, with very few being completed. It appears that the circumstances remained the same for the resident. The landlord subsequently provided its stage two response on 8 August 2023. It said:
1. That the landlord had asked its contractor to carry out an inspection of the property.
2. That it had asked its damp and mould contractor to contact the resident to make an appointment.
3. That it was apologising for the delay in remedying the issue
4. That it was offering compensation of £150 for the stage two review delay, £50 for service failure (lack of communication) £20 for missed appointment, £1,040 (£40 x 26 months) for distress, £1,040 (£40 x 26 months) for inconvenience, and £1,040 (£40 x 26 months) for time and effort. A total of £3,340 in compensation.
5. That it would assign the complaint to a stage 1 officer to monitor the outstanding works.
After the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the resident continued to report to the landlord that he was experiencing water ingress and damp walls and that his family were at risk. While several jobs were raised by the landlord, as of 21 February 2025, the resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that the issues remained unresolved.
The resident told the Ombudsman that he was dissatisfied with the response from the landlord. He said he wanted the landlord to investigate and resolve the water ingress and damp and mould at the property, and provide adequate compensation for the distress and impact on his family.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman recognises the resident’s comments that the problems with water ingress date back to 2017, and that he said there were longstanding issues with a leak at the property. While this may be the case, the information provided to the Ombudsman indicates that the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 18 June 2021. In accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which was not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. Accordingly, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports from June 2020 onwards – 12 months prior to the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into his property and subsequent damp and mould

Landlords are obliged, under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including drains, gutters, and external pipes.
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will make sure the structure and exterior of the resident’s home are kept in repair. The landlord’s repair policy states that the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the home, including walls, roofs, windows, external doors, drains, gutters, and external pipes. The repair policy also states that routine repairs will be undertaken in an average of 25 calendar days.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provided recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, and share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on the next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations promptly.
When a resident reports a repair, including damp and mould, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to take prompt action and inspect the property at the earliest convenient opportunity. It is then expected that the landlord has a process in place to follow up on any repairs that have been identified and carry out further investigative work if it is needed.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy was in effect from 22 May 2023. The policy states that following a report of damp and mould, an assessment of the property will be arranged within 20 working days, with any remedial works raised with the repairs team within 10 working days of the assessment.
In his complaint on 18 June 2021, the resident stated that he had been complaining about a leak and had raised the issue many times, but nobody was responding to his complaints. The resident said he had a leak in his walkway in the flat, and now in his child’s bedroom, next to the window.
The Ombudsman has not been provided with records of reports of a leak, damp or mould prior to June 2021. In its stage 1 response, however, the landlord had apologised for the delayed response in dealing with the matter. The fact that the landlord apologised for this was an indication that it accepted that reports had been made about the issue prior to 18 June 2021. However, the Ombudsman is unable to establish the extent of the delay due to a lack of available records.
The landlord appropriately raised a request for a roofing contractor on 18 June 2021. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that the visit by the contractor was delayed and that it informed the resident of this. The landlord said it explained that this was due to rain as it was unable to conduct roofing works in wet weather. It was appropriate for the landlord to update the resident on the reason for the delay in attendance by its roofing operative.
The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it had contacted the resident on 9 July 2021 to notify him that an appointment to clear gutters at the property had been arranged for 1 December 2021, but that it was going to request that this would be brought forward. It was appropriate for the landlord to update the resident, and to confirm that it would not be acceptable for the resident to wait for a further 5 months for the appointment.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord noted that the resident emailed the landlord on 14 July 2021, 17 July 2021, 28 July 2021, and 30 July 2021 to chase the repairs, send photographs of the damp patches in the bedroom, and inform the landlord that the damp was spreading. On 7 August 2021, the resident raised another complaint via the landlord’s portal about the leak and delayed repairs.
The lack of progress with the repairs during this period between 18 June 2021 and 7 August 2021 was inappropriate, and the landlord failed to adequately update the resident about when the repair would take place during this period.
On 10 August 2021, the landlord’s timeline of events shows that the gutters were cleared at the property, but the higher flat roof still needed attention. It was unacceptable that the first action by the landlord at the property occurred 53 days after the resident’s complaint on 18 June 2021. This was in excess of the 25 calendar day timescale for routine repairs specified in the landlord’s repair policy.
On 12 August 2021, a window contractor attended the property and provided a report which confirmed that there was water ingress, but that the window was sealed with no gaps around it. The contractor suggested that it was possible that the water was coming through the brickwork above and seeping into the property, and recommended inspection by a builder in order that remedial repairs could be carried out.
It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange inspection of the windows to confirm that they were not the cause of the water ingress in the property.
In the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said the resident made contact again on 14 September 2021, and 2 October 2021 to request an update and share that the damp and water ingress was getting worse. The landlord said it told the resident that scaffolding was required to inspect the property and that this was being arranged.
Based on the landlord’s own account, this was a further period where there was little progress in investigating the problem. It was inappropriate that the resident was uninformed about the status of the repair, giving him cause to contact the landlord frequently for updates.
On 12 October 2021, an operative attended the property and reported that scaffolding was needed to check the roof. This echoed the recommendation made on 10 August 2021. It was inappropriate that the landlord had not made arrangements to erect the scaffolding or check the roof between 10 August 2021 and 12 October 2021. This inaction led to unnecessary delay in investigating the issue.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it said that the resident contacted the landlord again on 29 October 2021. He told the landlord that the water ingress and damp at the property had not improved after the gutters were cleared on 26 October 2021.
After hearing that the issue had not been resolved after the gutters had been cleared, it was appropriate that the landlord attended at the property again on 1 December 2021, to carry out a further inspection. The operative noted that water was coming from the cavity tray weep holes inside the cavity wall. The operative stated that this was not a guttering issue, and that a surveyor needed to attend.
According to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the landlord attended at the property again to conduct a further inspection on 9 December 2021, and determined that works were required to the hallway at the resident’s property. The operative also noted that his opinion was that water was entering the property via a cavity under the parapet wall to the roof, but that he would require access to another property to be able to confirm this.
After a further request for an update from the resident, on 19 December 2021, the landlord sent copies of the reports it had received from the window contractor and the landlord’s maintenance officer, and noted it was waiting for an update from its surveyor.
It was inappropriate that the resident had, by that stage, been waiting 6 months, and the landlord had not yet confirmed the source of the water ingress, or put in place an adequate repair.
On 8 January 2022, the resident emailed the landlord saying that the walls were wet as the water had been coming through the bricks. He said that Citizens Advice had advised him that the landlord could provide him with something to dry out the walls. On 10 January 2022, the landlord confirmed that it would supply the resident with a dehumidifier and reimburse the running costs.
It was appropriate for the landlord to supply the resident with a dehumidifier to alleviate the effects of the water ingress and attempt to reduce damp in the property. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer to reimburse the resident for any costs incurred with running the dehumidifier.
However, by the time the landlord provided the resident with a dehumidifier, the resident had been complaining of water ingress, damp, and mould in the property for 7 months. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out a damp and mould assessment, or offered to supply a dehumidifier before January 2022, which was inappropriate.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 12 January 2022, stating he had not seen any progress with resolving the issue. In the stage 2 response the landlord noted that the resident sent further emails to the landlord on 2 March 2022, and 11 April 2022. The resident confirmed that scaffolding had been erected on 24 February 2022, but that there had been no further action and the landlord had not updated him. The lack of progress from the landlord during this period was a breach of the landlord’s repair obligations, and the evidence shows that the landlord’s poor communication was a point of frustration for the resident.
The landlord updated the resident on 20 April 2022 to say it was waiting to hear from its surveyor following an appointment to inspect the resident’s windows, but no further updates are referred to in the records until 2 July 2022. This was a further unacceptable delay in communication with the resident.
The landlord’s records show that on 28 July 2022, the resident submitted a further complaint. He said that he wanted his carpet to be replaced and for the property not to leak when it rained. At this point, it was over a year since the resident raised his complaint, and the water ingress had still not been resolved.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 August 2022 and said that all gutters were cleared at the property and that the surveyor was also exploring whether the water ingress was entering the cavity at a high level under the capping of the parapet wall to roof. The landlord also provided the resident with details of how to claim via the landlord’s insurance team for damage to carpets.
It was appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with information about claiming via its insurance department for damage to his carpets. It was also appropriate that the landlord updated the resident on the work it had undertaken so far and its thoughts regarding the potential causes of the water ingress.
However, there is no evidence, within the records available, of any further works to identify the cause of the water ingress during the period from February 2022, when the scaffolding was erected, to the date of the landlord’s email on 1 August 2022. This further delay was in breach of the landlord’s repair obligations under the tenancy agreement, and contrary to its repairs policy.
The landlord said in the stage 2 response, that the resident contacted it again on 1 November 2022. The resident reported that he was again experiencing damp on the walls at the property, due to wet weather. The landlord responded on 16 November to say that it would ask the surveyor to update the resident. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that an update was provided.
On 20 January 2023, the resident submitted a further complaint and on 17 March 2023, the resident emailed the landlord again to chase the response to his complaint and an update on progress with roof works.
Based on the landlord’s account and records, there was an unreasonable delay in progress with investigating and resolving the problem between August 2022 and March 2023. It was also inappropriate that the landlord failed to update the resident or respond to his requests for information, leading to the resident having to contact the landlord repeatedly for updates, and raise a further complaint.
There is a record on 20 June 2023, requesting a check for water in the cavity of the building causing damp and mould in the flats. The required completion date was 18 July 2023, and the record shows the request was completed with no action. No further records of this attendance are available, so the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether any progress with the repair was made during this period.
On 8 August 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord apologised for the delay in resolving the water ingress. It confirmed that it had raised works orders for its contractor to inspect the ongoing leak at the property and for a damp contractor to attend. In addition, the landlord offered compensation for the lack of communication, missed appointment and distress, inconvenience and time and effort as a result of the delay.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer compensation in the stage 2 complaint response. By the time the stage 2 response was issued, the repair had been outstanding for 2 years, and remained unresolved. It was also appropriate that the landlord arranged for further inspection by a surveyor and a damp contractor in light of the continuing problems.
On 10 August 2023, after the stage 2 complaint response, the records show that the landlord’s damp and mould contractor attended the property. The contractor reported that there were issues with the mortar being damaged and cracked in the external wall which was allowing water ingress. The contractor noted that this needed repair. The report noted that the brick work appeared damp and discoloured around the air vent between the bedrooms, but that the moisture reading on the inside wall was very low at 5.5%. The contractor noted that scaffolding was erected, and work was being carried out but that this may need further investigation if the damp became worse in the future. The contractor confirmed that there was lower damp in the two bedrooms and damp around the window inset in the main bedroom. The contractor found water marks on the walls and visible mould.
The contractor recommended a clean and shield treatment, and attended on 31 August 2023 to carry this out.
The first record of any mould treatment carried out at the property by the landlord was after the conclusion of the complaint process in August 2023, This was over 2 years after the issue was first reported. This delay was unacceptable and caused the resident considerable distress and concern regarding the potential detrimental impact of the damp and mould on his family’s health.
The damp and mould contractor visited the property again on 5 February 2024 and noted that there was no visible mould in the property on that date, although the resident reported that there was always bad condensation every morning. A preventative clean and shield was carried out.
The landlord noted in a repair request dated 3 April 2024, that the cavity tray had been repaired but that moisture was still penetrating the front elevation and causing damp and mould inside the apartments. The landlord suggested that the cause of the issue may stem from the roof itself, or the downpipe.
Further repair requests dated 26 April 2024, 10 July 2024 and 12 November 2024 were raised by the landlord in relation to water ingress at the block and the resident’s property. No records relating to the findings of these investigations was provided to the Ombudsman, and on21 February 2025, the resident reported that the problems were unresolved. The resident reported damp, mould and condensation, and that the wet walls were causing excessive condensation which was exacerbating the damp and mould problem. The resident said that although he had tried to clean and paint the affected areas, it kept reappearing.
There is evidence that the landlord has attended and inspected the property on several occasions after 18 June 2021 to investigate the source of the water ingress. There is evidence that the landlord cleared the guttering at the property. The landlord’s records also state that the cavity tray has been repaired, although details of when the repair took place, and the works undertaken, have not been provided to the Ombudsman.
However, in spite of these actions by the landlord, as at the date of this report, it appears that the problem with water ingress remains unresolved. There is also evidence within the records that the issue is affecting multiple properties within the block.
The Ombudsman acknowledges it can take several visits for a landlord to ascertain what the most appropriate solution might be for a repair issue, and that a landlord may need to conduct a range of possible repairs before a solution to a complex issue is achieved.
However, the landlord had been aware of water ingress at the property since, or before, 18 June 2021. Based on the evidence available, at the date of this report, the landlord has not yet completed a suitable and lasting repair in line with its repair obligations, now almost 4 years after the issue was reported. There is evidence of prolonged periods of inaction by the landlord, and poor communication with the resident regarding the status of the repair.
In addition, the landlord did not assess and treat damp and mould at the property until over 2 years after the issue was first reported by the resident. During this period, the resident repeatedly contacted the landlord and expressed his concerns about the impact of the damp and mould on his young children, whose bedroom was affected by the water ingress, damp, and mould.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the compensation previously awarded by the landlord in respect of the delay in completing the repairs was proportionate, at the time of the award. This is because the sum of £3,190 awarded by the landlord for distress and inconvenience and time and effort, missed appointments and failure in communication related to the repair, was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for awards where there have been serious failings by the landlord.
If the inspection and repairs had been monitored and completed in line with the landlord’s assurances in the stage 2 response, this may have led the Ombudsman to find that the landlord had reasonably resolved the complaint. However, from the records provided, it cannot be shown that full investigation of the issue has yet occurred or that water ingress and damp and mould at the property has yet been resolved.
Section 7.3 of the Code states that the remedy offered by the landlord must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.
Whilst it appears that the landlord offered appropriate compensation and an appropriate remedy at stage 2 of the complaint process, the remedy has not been followed through to completion because an effective repair has not yet been carried out.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion, having considered all the circumstances, that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak entering the property and subsequent damp and mould.
An order is set out below requiring the landlord to pay further compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience and time and effort in the period following the stage 2 complaint response up to the date of this report. This is calculated using the landlord’s figures of £40 per month for distress, £40 per month for inconvenience, and £40 per month for time and effort, for a period of 19 months. This results in a further compensation award of £2,280.
Further orders have also been made for the landlord to take immediate action to investigate the source of the continued water ingress at the resident’s property, and to carry out any steps needed to rectify the issue. The landlord is also required to carry out a further damp and mould assessment following completion of the repairs, in order to permanently address any remaining damp and mould once the water ingress has been resolved.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

A landlord’s complaint handling should aim to resolve issues quickly, effectively, and fairly. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out what good complaint handling looks like, and all landlords are expected to comply with this.
Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2020, which was applicable at the time of resident’s complaint, landlords were required to:
1. acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
2. respond to the complaint within 10 working days of receipt. In exceptional circumstances, the landlord could extend this timeline up to a further 10 working days, providing the resident with a clear explanation for the reasons.
3. provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of the escalation request. In exceptional circumstances, the landlord could extend this timeline up to a further 10 working days, providing the resident with a clear explanation for the reasons, along with a clear timeframe for when the response would be received.
The resident raised his formal complaint on 18 June 2021. The landlord contacted the resident by telephone the same day and provided its stage 1 response by email. The response apologised for the delay in resolving the issue and set out the steps the landlord would take to investigate and rectify the problem. This was a prompt and appropriate stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint.
The resident confirmed in an email on 12 January 2022, that he wanted to escalate his complaint. This was acknowledged by the landlord in good time and the landlord confirmed that it would arrange to escalate the complaint. This service has seen no evidence that this was done, however.
In the absence of a response, this service can see that the resident raised a further complaint with the landlord on 28 July 2022. The complaint noted that he had not yet received a response to his escalation request.
The landlord responded on 1 August 2022 to apologise for the fact that the stage 2 review had not yet taken place. The landlord confirmed it was in a queue and that a reviewer would contact the resident when the case had been allocated.
By 1 August 2022, the resident had been waiting for 139 working days without a response to his escalation request. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delay. However, the landlord still failed to provide the resident with a timescale for providing its stage 2 response. This was inappropriate, particularly considering the significant amount of time which had already elapsed since the resident’s escalation request.
The landlord noted in its stage 2 response that the resident raised a further complaint on its complaint portal on 20 January 2023 and on 17 March 2023. On 12 July 2023 it finally confirmed that the case had been allocated for review and would be responded to by 8 August 2023. It subsequently honoured this – 18 months after the resident had initially raised the complaint on 12 January 2022. This was a significantly excessive delay. The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord acknowledged this for itself and made an offer of £150 in its stage 2 review.
Where the landlord has accepted it has made errors, it is the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies. Consideration of any aggravating factors may justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
The 18-month delay in responding to the resident’s escalation request in this case was excessive. The resident repeatedly contacted the resident throughout the period to enquire about the progress of the complaint, and raised new complaints to attempt to resolve the matter. The landlord had appropriately apologised at several points for the delay, but had failed to provide the resident with a timescale for its response, instead informing him that his review was in a queue, waiting to be allocated. This was inappropriate and frustrating for the resident.
In consideration of the excessive delay, a finding of severe maladministration has been made in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that the award of £150 does not adequately reflect the distress and inconvenience, and considerable time and effort spent by the resident in trying to progress his complaint. An order is therefore set out below for the landlord to pay further compensation of £250 to the resident in respect of the failures identified in its complaint handling. This brings the total compensation in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling to £400, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for compensation where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Record keeping

To enable our investigation, the landlord was asked by this service to provide all of its records relevant to the resident’s complaint issue. A further request for records was made by the Ombudsman during investigation, when it was identified that the records previously provided were incomplete.
Still, the records do not include a large number of the maintenance appointments, emails, and telephone calls which the landlord has itself referred to in its timeline of events, and stage 2 complaint response.
The lack of records provided to the Ombudsman has meant that this service is unable to be confident that the full series of events has been considered. This poor record keeping is also likely to have contributed to delays in dealing with the repairs reported by the resident in this case.
Section 5.12 of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) explains that a full record must be kept of the complaint, and the outcomes at each stage. This must include the original complaint and the date received, all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties, and any relevant supporting documentation such as reports or surveys. This would also include jobs raised and completed, maintenance records, appointments and contact with the resident. The gaps identified in the records demonstrate, however, that the landlord has not done this.
While this service has still been able to investigate the resident’s complaint and arrive at a reasonable conclusion, we have determined that the landlord’s inability to provide the Ombudsman with more consistent and full records is a failure in service. An order has therefore been made below for the landlord to improve the way it retains records where a complaint has been made. This will allow it to evidence any and all action taken in response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of a leak into his property and subsequent damp and mould.
2. the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in relation to the landlord’s record keeping, there was a service failure.

Orders

The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
1. Provide the resident with an apology from the chief executive for the failings outlined in this report. The apology should be drafted in line with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay the resident additional compensation of £2,530. This is made up of:
  1. £2,280 for the distress, inconvenience and time and effort in the period from August 2023 to the date of this report. This is in addition to the £3,190 previously included in the compensation payment made to the resident in August 2023.
  2. £250 for the handling of the resident’s complaint. This is in addition to the £150 previously included in the compensation payment made to the resident in August 2023.
3. Instruct an independent surveyor to investigate the source of the water ingress at the resident’s property and set out the steps needed to rectify the issue. The surveyor’s report should also outline any internal repairs and redecoration required at the resident’s property as a result of the water ingress. A copy of the report must be provided to the Ombudsman.
4. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.
The landlord must, within 12 weeks of the date of this determination:
1. Start any remedial works recommended by the independent surveyor. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the action it has taken.
2. Carry out a further damp and mould survey and start any recommended works to address damp and mould at the property. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the report and evidence of the action it has taken.
3. Review the record keeping issues highlighted in this report, and provide the Ombudsman with an outline of the steps the landlord will take to ensure it retains a full record of its actions where a complaint has been made.