London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202303689)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303689

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

13 January 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 the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould and the follow-on remedial works, including her request for the reimbursement of costs incurred.
2. Reports of repairs, including the rear entrance door and garden gate.
3. Associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured (non-shorthold) tenancy and has occupied the property, a one bedroom ground floor flat, since 2015.
On 10 October 2022, the resident reported damp on the hall wall. This was followed by a report on 21 October 2022 that the back door had gaps at the bottom and sides, and was letting in draughts. The resident then reported on 14 November 2022, that the garden gate had fallen off its wooden post due to it rotting. The gate was repaired on 18 November 2022, but broke again on 6 December 2022, so another repair was logged.
The resident complained to the landlord on 20 January 2023 about the damp not being addressed, along with the gate and back door needing repairs. The landlord spoke with the resident that day and issued its stage 1 response, as follows:
1. A contractor had attended to look at the door repair on 28 November 2022, but it had no record of what happened so it would investigate that.
2. In terms of the gate, the posts needed to be changed as it was rotten wood and it had passed the job to the contractor to arrange a date to complete the repair.
3. The damp issue would be assessed by damp and mould specialists. It would contact the resident directly to make an appointment. It would complete a mould wash and put a preventative block on these areas. It would also produce a report to advise on what might be causing the damp and mould, and it would be sent to its Healthy Homes department to action any follow-on works that were required.
4. It was sorry for the inconvenience the delay may have caused and frustration and it would monitor the repairs and reassess the case for any compensation once the work was completed.
The resident responded the same day and said she had had the same issue with damp on the wall in the past, but further along the wall and a building surveyor attended and the wall was taken back to brick, filled with damp treatment and re plastered. The property had been inspected in October 2022 by the mould specialist contractors and she had been told 3 times since December 2022 that an appointment would be arranged with a building surveyor. A plumber had recently attended and she was advised by the landlord a surveyor would be attending. She wanted a surveyor to look at the wall, which was a party wall with the neighbour.
The landlord arranged for someone to attend the property on 13 February 2023 and the resident was advised the case would be passed to a specialist company. She asked the landlord when this would happen as her breathing was being affected. She also chased the repair of the gate and door.
During February and March 2023 the resident liaised with the landlord about using a dehumidifier. She explained she had owned one since 2015 and was using it to help with the damp and mould. The landlord said it could not reimburse her the cost of that, as it had not provided the dehumidifier and it could not measure when it was needed. The resident explained that surveyors had seen her using the dehumidifier at visits and the landlord had not offered to provide one itself, so she had no choice but to use her own.
The back door was replaced on 14 March 2023. The landlord followed up the gate repair and on 19 March 2023 the resident explained that the property had high moisture levels and inspections were being repeated by the same people. After 2 damp assessments things were not progressing. She said a surveyor in October 2022 had checked the upstairs neighbour’s property and confirmed there was no leak/issue there. She wanted to know how to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The landlord explained on 21 March 2023 that the contractor would make arrangements to reassess the garden gate and in terms of the damp, the surveyor had said there was a leak coming from the party wall to the neighbouring property, which was not owned by the landlord. Therefore, it was going to arrange contact with the resident living in that property to discuss this leak further and put a plan in action to rectify it.
The resident asked the landlord again to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 21 March 2023. It acknowledged that request on 23 March 2023 but explained that it was unable to provide a timeframe for a response, due to having a backlog of work.
The landlord again acknowledged that the resident wanted the complaint considered at stage 2 on 28 April 2023. It provided an update and said extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom had been replaced on 13 April 2023 and work on the roof was to be scheduled. It would also arrange for the garden gate work to be given to another contractor.
On 23 May 2023, the landlord told the resident that the damp and mould repairs were scheduled to be completed on 26 May 2023 and the garden gate repairs on 11 August 2023. It was sorry for the inconvenience the delays had caused and, as an apology, it offered £370 compensation.
The resident responded the same day asking for a breakdown of the compensation and explaining that she remained unhappy as she was still waiting for a stage 2 response and repairs were not complete, so compensation could not be fairly assessed. She said there had been numerous failings including having had 5 surveys and there was still an issue.
The landlord replied the same day and apologised for the delay issuing a stage 2 response, which was due to an increase in stage 2 complaints. It explained the £370 compensation breakdown as:
1. £130 for a 5 month delay in the rear entrance door repairs (5 x £10 for inconvenience, 5 x £10 for delay and £30 for time and effort).
2. £170 for a 7 month delay in the garden gate repairs (7 x £10 for inconvenience, 7 x £10 for repair delay and £30 time and effort).
3. £70 for a 2 month delay in damp and mould repairs (2 x £10 for inconvenience, 2 x £10 for repair delay and £30 time and effort).
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 June 2023. It said the back door repair was complete and, in terms of damp, it was thought there was a leak from a neighbouring property. It had provided advice about keeping temperatures above 16 degrees centigrade and humidity low and ventilating the property. It said the outstanding repairs were plastering and the garden gate repair (scheduled for 11 August 2023). It increased its compensation offer to £630 (£100 for time and effort, £370 offered at stage 1, £20 for delay at stage 2, £100 for distress and inconvenience, and £40 for 2 missed appointments).
Following a Healthy Homes surveyor visit, a recommendation was made to assess the roof, which was to take place on 6 June 2023 as it was a suspected cause of the damp. It was looked at, but scaffolding was needed at the back of the property to carry out repairs. The hall wall had also been patched up in May 2023, but the resident reported that damp was coming back through as the plaster had not been removed and the wall stripped back as it should have been. She also said although the gate post was replaced on one side with new wood the other side still had rotted wood that had not been replaced.
The resident continued to explain to the landlord that damp was still an issue and she escalated it to her MP. Her MP wrote to the landlord on 11 April 2024 asking it to investigate the resident’s concerns.
The resident has said a contractor attended on 19 September 2024 to hack back the wall to brick. However, when it arrived it said it could not do the work as the radiator had to be removed. The work remains outstanding and she has said she cannot accept any compensation as the landlord has “bulked together” the issues and it cannot be fairly assessed until the damp issue is resolved.

Assessment and findings

Damp and mould, remedial works, and reimbursement of costs

This Service’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould report, it’s not lifestyle (October 2021) says landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions and should ensure that responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord has produced a report setting out changes it has put in place as a result, which includes a plan to ensure its properties are free of disrepair, damp and mould. There is therefore evidence of the landlord making these changes, which is positive, as it says it is rolling out proactive inspections and acting on Healthy Homes assessments.
In this case the resident first reported damp on the hall wall in October 2022 and has said that despite numerous surveys and visits, the issue has not been resolved and has been affecting her health. The evidence shows that the landlord initially arranged for a Healthy Homes report to be done 6 working days after an issue was reported and a mould wash was also done. This is in line with the timescales set out in its Damp and Mould policy, which says an assessment should take place within 20 working days. It goes on to say “any remedial works identified will be recorded and raised to our internal or external maintenance teams within 10 working days of the assessment. Multiple fixes may be required and therefore, we will be clear with residents on timescales and keep them informed throughout”.
The Healthy Homes report identified that there was excessive moisture in the property, with a reading of 41.8%. However, the wall was a concrete party wall and no leak could be identified, so further investigation was required. The resident was advised to ventilate the property and control the heating by keeping a constant temperature between 16 and 21 degrees as it would reduce condensation and be more energy efficient.
Although the Damp and Repair policy said the resident should be kept informed it seems that did not happen, as she had to chase for an update on 14 November 2022 having heard nothing more. The information provided indicates the landlord had a backlog of work but a surveyor had recently been requested, so would be in touch to make an appointment. Having heard nothing more, the resident chased the landlord again on 22 November 2022 and its records show she had made it aware she was using a dehumidifier and the damp was affecting her health.
An internal email sent by landlord staff the following day referred to damp being caused by a possible leak, so a plumber would be arranged. However, it seems this was not communicated to the resident as she had to chase again for an update on 6 December 2022 to find out what was happening. The landlord’s note of that day states it had “now raised an order for a plumber to attend but appointment is not until January”. It is therefore evident that despite knowing since 18 October 2022 that a follow-up investigation was required, and having decided a plumber was needed, the landlord failed to take any action until the resident chased this up, which is unacceptable.
While the Ombudsman appreciates the landlord may have had a lot of work, knowing it should be communicating regularly with the resident, it made no attempt to manage her expectations in terms of timescales. This meant she was proactively trying to get the repair dealt with, but getting increasingly frustrated, as the landlord only seemed to take action when prompted.
In addressing the resident’s complaint, the landlord did apologise on 20 January 2023 for the delay and frustration caused and said it would monitor repairs going forward, and later assess whether compensation should be paid, which was a sensible approach. It explained its damp and mould specialist contractors would attend and complete a mould wash, but it incorrectly referred to the issue being in the bathroom. It said it would apply a preventative block and generate a report of advisories of what could be causing the damp and mould. This would be sent to its Healthy Homes department to action any follow-on works that were required to assist with this. It also said a task would be added to the case so the Healthy homes team had a record.
The resident responded the same day and explained that the issue was with the hallway wall, not the bathroom. She also explained she had had a similar issue with damp a few years earlier and it resulted in a building surveyor attending and the wall being taken back to brick, filled with damp treatment and re plastered. She said she had been told 3 times that a surveyor would be arranged and when the plumber attended that week, they also said a surveyor was needed. She said she had recently been contacted again to be told a surveyor would be arranged.
A surveyor did attend on 13 February 2023 but the resident was left to follow up with the landlord on what the next steps would be. She informed it that she had been told by the surveyor that a referral to a specialist company was needed. The landlord responded on 16 February 2023 and said it would follow up with the surveyor to find out what action was needed, and it would ensure any necessary works would be actioned as quickly as possible.
In the meantime, the landlord told the resident it could not reimburse her for the cost of her using her own dehumidifier as it could not measure when it was needed and it did not have details of the type. It said it was going to ask a surveyor if one was needed and it if was, it would request one and it would be able to reimburse for the usage moving forwards. While the Ombudsman understands the landlord’s position, it is not satisfied it went back to the resident on this point, as it said it would, which is unacceptable.
Having been prompted by the resident the month before, it was then not until 21 March 2023 that the landlord provided an update from the surveyor’s visit. This amounts to over a month’s delay. It said the surveyor had advised there was a leak coming from the party wall to the neighbouring property. It did not own that property, so it had to arrange contact with the resident living there to discuss this leak further and put a plan in action to rectify this leak. It said it would keep the resident updated.
No evidence has been provided to show what attempts, if any, the landlord took to liaise with the owner/resident of the neighbouring property. It did though arrange for another surveyor to attend on 31 March 2023. Extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom were replaced and its records show there was damp on the plaster in the hallway at a predominantly high level. Follow-on works were noted as being needed to inspect the main and rear extension roofs in case they were the source of the damp.
The landlord created a job on 25 April 2023 to “hack off plaster – allow to dry – dryline and skim” the hallway wall and updated the resident of the planned works on 28 April 2023. The landlord updated the resident again on 23 May 2023 and explained the damp repairs were to take place on 26 May 2023 and it wanted to offer her £370 compensation. The resident asked for, and was provided with a breakdown of the compensation offered. However, she did not want to accept compensation at that time as the works were only scheduled, and not completed. In addition, other repairs also remained outstanding and she felt her complaint had not been adequately dealt with.
The landlord went on to provide findings from a humidity monitor and again relayed suggestions from the Healthy Homes team in relation to ways the resident could reduce the risk of mould, such as keeping temperatures about 16 degrees and ventilating. As well as the damp proofing work to be carried out on 26 May 2023, the landlord said roofing works would also be done on 6 June 2023 due to the Healthy Homes surveyor identifying that as the suspected cause of the mould.
At this point 7 months had passed and the landlord was no nearer establishing the cause of the damp, or having carried out any effective treatment. The repair was not being dealt with in a timely way and the landlord had to be chased by the resident which showed a lack of urgency on its part. This was not in line with the zero-tolerance approach it should have been taking.
From this point, things did not improve. The damp proofing needed in the hallway did not take place as scheduled as the contractor that came said the wall had not been adequately prepared. Therefore, the landlord had to rearrange the job. Despite the fact the landlord should have then been aware not all work had been carried out, it wrote to the resident on 15 August 2023 to say it understood that all repairs had been completed, which shows the information it held was inaccurate.
The resident had to then go to the trouble of telling the landlord that, although someone had looked at the roof on 6 June 2023, scaffolding was needed to carry out repairs. She also said the hall plaster had not been hacked off as it should have been; it had just been patched up. As a result, the damp was coming through again, so the issue was not resolved.
The landlord said it would follow up on the roof repair and this would be monitored to completion. The resident made a valid point that it had been nearly 3 months since the roof assessment and she had received no update, and she understandably wondered if she would have been told anything unless she had mentioned it.
Despite the landlord having told the resident the repairs would be monitored, it is clear it was unaware of what work was outstanding. This suggests a deficiency in its record keeping. In addition, the resident then had to chase it for an update on 4 September and 4 and 13 November 2023, stressing how much the damp issue was now affecting her. She wanted to know when the damp proofing was going to be done properly. This is another example of the inadequacy of the landlord’s communication and the fact it had not learned from its earlier mistake of not updating the resident regularly. Instead it waited to be chased for information. It did reply on 20 November 2023 and apologised that matters were not resolved. It accepted it was to monitor the repairs, so once again said it would follow them up.
Having rightly acknowledged a failing in its service, the landlord told the resident that it thought the plastering work had been completed on 12 June 2023. It went on to tell her that the roofing contractor repairs were not part of the complaint so she would need to speak to the contact centre on that, but it would follow up on the damp and get back to her.
Knowing the resident had been waiting months for the damp issue to be addressed, and as it was a surveyor that evidently suggested work ought to be carried out on the roof to investigate the problem, it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the necessary works were carried out promptly. To tell the resident that roof repairs sat separately to the complaint, so she would have to follow up on that point herself, was unhelpful and poor service. It was all linked to the overall damp issue that she had been raising since October 2022. Therefore, the landlord should have ensured there was a joined-up approach between the relevant departments, and made sure all aspects of the repairs were being actively monitored, as it said it would.
The landlord did arrange for another surveyor to attend on 17 January 2024, who found no mould but noted the wall had been treated for damp, but not effectively, based on continued signs of damp. It recommended retreating the hallway wall for damp.
The resident chased the landlord on 21 February and 28 March 2024. She also referred her concerns to her MP as a result of the landlord failing to communicate with her. The MP wrote to the landlord on 11 April 2024 asking it to address the repairs. It was now 10 months since the damp proofing and roof investigation works should have been completed in May and June 2023, and the damp repair was no further forward and the landlord’s communication was still poor. This is indicative of a reactive approach to dealing with the damp issue, rather than a proactive one.
The landlord’s records show it did then create a job to remove plaster and render and paint the wall on 24 May 2024, but the work was evidently not carried out, as it was logged again on 14 August 2024. While a contractor did attend on 19 September 2024, the work was again not completed as the hallway radiator needed to be removed first, and apparently remains outstanding now.
It is now over 2 years since the resident reported damp and the issue remains unresolved. The Ombudsman has been provided with photographs which show the hallway wall as being damp and the resident has stressed on a number of occasions that the condition of the property has been detrimental to her health. It is important to say that this Service is an alternative to the courts, but is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can the Ombudsman calculate or award damages in the same way as a court. If this is something the resident wishes to pursue, she would need to seek independent legal advice.
In terms of the service provided by the landlord, the resident is understandably unhappy with the length of time it has taken to address the damp. She has had to go to the trouble of chasing the landlord to take action and obtain updates and this should not have been necessary. The landlord has taken ownership of some mistakes and said repairs would be monitored, but there has been very little progress in identifying the source of the damp or treating it. In addition, even though it was aware the resident had to chase for updates, the landlord did not then learn from that and improve its communication with her, in order to alleviate some of her frustration which was building as a result of how long things were taking.
It is still not clear what is causing the damp, or whether hacking off the plaster and taking the wall back to brick, filling with damp treatment and replastering would resolve the problem, as it did when the resident had damp many years ago. Several surveys have been carried out, recommending a plumber, a roof investigation, a mould specialist, removing plaster and liaising with the neighbour; all of which do not appear to have been fully explored.
The landlord should therefore meet with the resident and inspect the property and agree a schedule of works to address the damp. It should set out what action is required, taking in to account the order in which the work needs to be done, to prevent any further visits when contractors attend and are unable to carry out the work they were asked to do. The schedule should be clear when the work will be carried out, and by whom, with a copy provided to the resident. The landlord should then ensure not only that the work is actively monitored, but that the resident is updated regularly until all repairs are complete.
The landlord’s service is terms of addressing the damp has been poor and amounts to maladministration. It initially offered the resident compensation to remedy this, but increased its overall offer at stage 2 to £630. However, it did not make it clear how much, if any, of the additional compensation was attributable to this issue. Therefore, the Ombudsman has considered the overall picture.
While it is recognised that the landlord acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, the offer made is not proportionate to the failings identified. There have been significant delays throughout, the landlord’s communication was poor, the resident chased information and escalated matters with her MP, all while living in a damp property. This means compensation should be substantial.
Our Remedies guidance indicates that compensation of between £600 and £1,000 is reasonable in these circumstances. Due to the length of time this has been going on, and crucially, that the issue remains unresolved, compensation at the upper end is appropriate. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident £800 compensation to remedy this issue.
This amount of compensation takes into account the resident’s claim for running a dehumidifier. Irrespective of whether the landlord established through a surveyor whether it was beneficial for the resident to use one, the fact she found using one to improve her living conditions was not unreasonable. She was not offered one by the landlord, nor was she given the option to decant from the property. Had the landlord resolved the damp issue promptly as it should have, she would have only needed to have used one for a short period of time.
In order to improve its service going forward, the landlord should carry out a review in order to establish why there were failures in this case and provide a report setting out how this will be addressed. In addition, as well as the compensation directed, it should also consider whether further compensation should be paid to the resident once all repairs relating to this issue are complete, to recognise the ongoing inconvenience caused.

Reports of repairs, including the rear entrance door and garden gate

Having reported an issue with the garden gate on 14 November 2022, a repair was carried out promptly on 18 November 2022. However, the resident reported that it had fallen off again on 6 December 2022, as it had been reattached to a rotten post. Having complained, the resident was told on 20 January 2023 that a new job had been created in order for a contractor to visit once again and complete the repair.
In terms of the back door, the landlord said having reported an issue on 21 October 2022, a contractor did attend on 28 November 2022; however, it had no record of what happened. Therefore, it needed to follow that up. This is of concern, as it should not have taken the resident to have to complain and follow up with the landlord, for action to have been taken. The landlord should have been monitoring all open and unresolved jobs, in order to ensure it promptly addressed the repair.
Having been chased by the resident on 15 February 2023 about the outstanding repairs, the landlord responded the next day and explained that it had been trying to contact the contractor about repairing the gate. It had escalated the matter to see if it could appoint another contractor in order to complete the repair. It also explained that the quote for a new back door had been approved on 8 February 2023, and it would take 6 to 8 weeks to produce, so the resident would be told when it was ready to be fitted.
The landlord did update the resident on 7 March 2023 which shows it was monitoring the repairs. It explained it was still going through the escalation process to get the gate repaired as it had not had a response from the contractor with a date of when it would be returning to complete the repair. In relation to the back door, it was still in manufacture, so it would follow it up in 2 weeks’ to see if there was an expected delivery date. It said it would keep the resident updated.
The resident confirmed that the new back door was fitted on 14 March 2023. She has said the manufacturer did say it would be fitted on 8 March and she was then told the door had not passed a quality check, so the fitting was delayed slightly. While that may have been the case, the door was fitted within 6 weeks of the quote being accepted. Therefore, the resident’s expectations in terms of timescales were correctly managed. It is noted that the resident has mentioned there was some sealant on the door following fitting, but this is something she has said she was dealing with separately, and it did not affect the fitting of the door.
Having said that, although the landlord says someone attended to look at the door in November 2022, there is no evidence of any action being taken. It took the resident chasing in January 2023 and overall it took the landlord approximately 3.5 months to approve funding for a new door, from the time the repair was reported. This does amount to unreasonable delay.
In terms of the garden gate, the landlord told the resident on 21 March 2023 that the contractor had agreed to return to repair it. It had asked for photos and more information, and once a quote was provided and approved by an area surveyor, a date would be arranged for the work to be done. The resident was also provided with the direct telephone number of the contractor.
The landlord did update the resident on 28 April 2023, and explained that it had not heard back from the contractor, so it would raise the job with another contractor, that would then contact the resident to inspect the gate. On 23 May 2023, the resident was told the gate would be repaired on 11 August 2023 and the resident has confirmed that it was.
The landlord’s Repairs policy makes it clear it is responsible for repairs to boundary fences and gates, and that it aims to complete routine day to day repairs, in an average of 25 calendar days. While the Ombudsman notes the landlord had an issue getting the original contractor to re-attend to look at the gate, it was on notice from 6 December 2022 that the first repair had failed, and it took just over 8 months in total for the landlord to arrange for a contractor to go back and carry out a further repair which is unreasonable.
It is accepted that, in that time, the landlord did need to get approval for another contractor to do the work, but it could have been more proactive in terms of chasing the original contractor and then escalating the matter sooner. By not doing so, it took until the end of April 2023 before action was taken to start the process of getting a new quote to do the repair. It was then another 2.5 months from approving the new quote, before the repair was carried out. This adds up to several months of delay.
There has, therefore, been delay in repairing the gate, and installing a new back door. To recognise this, the landlord offered compensation of £130 for the door and £170 for the gate. At stage 2, it offered additional compensation of £240 (excluding £20 for a delay in its complaint handling). However, it was not clear how much of this additional compensation related to the gate and door repairs as opposed to the damp issue. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to conclude that the landlord’s overall offer of compensation was reasonable redress for this particular part of the complaint. Having separated out the earlier compensation offer, it would have been better for the landlord to have followed the same process at stage 2, so it was clear on how it was attributing the additional compensation awarded.
In this case, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the door and gate repairs. There were mitigating factors, which meant the landlord could not comply with the timescales set out in its Repairs policy, but it could have done more to expedite matters. The Ombudsman can see though, that the landlord did communicate with the resident regularly, which is good to note, and it meant her expectations were reasonably managed. It also made offers to try to remedy matters.
Taking all this in to account, the repairs did take too long overall but factoring the points above, compensation of £400 is in line with this Service’s Remedies guidance, and is reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s Complaints policy says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and at stage 1, issue a response within 10 working days. At stage 2, a response should be issued within 20 working days, unless it needs longer; if that is the case, it would explain why and write again within a further 10 working days.
The resident’s complaint of 20 January 2023 was responded to at stage 1 the same day. The response did address the issues and explained the action the landlord was taking. It said it would monitor the repairs and reassess the case for any compensation once the work was completed, which was a reasonable suggestion, to ensure the repairs were actioned and the resident received a fair outcome.
The resident asked the landlord how to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 19 March 2023, as she was unhappy at there being a lack of progress. This was not initially responded to, so she asked again 2 days later and this was acknowledged by the landlord on 23 March 2023, so there was no delay in that respect.
The stage 2 response was issued 55 working days after the resident first escalated the complaint. While it is clear the landlord failed to respond within the timeframes in its Complaints policy, it had explained to the resident that it had a backlog of complaints to address, so it was unable to say when a response would be issued. While it was sensible for the landlord to explain its position, as it was unable to provide any kind of timeframe for addressing the complaint at stage 2, it meant the resident’s expectations were not well managed as the timeframe for receiving a response was left open-ended.
Having said that, in this case, the landlord did communicate with the resident in-between issuing its formal complaint responses, which mitigated this shortfall. It provided an update on the outstanding works on 28 April 2023 and again on 23 May 2023. It also offered the resident compensation of £370, which it went on to breakdown, and apologised for the delay in issuing a stage 2 response. At stage 2, the landlord then increased its offer of compensation to a total of £630. This included a payment of £20 to recognise delay in addressing the complaint at stage 2.
Overall, there was a delay in the landlord sending its stage 2 response; but it was up front with the resident about the difficulties it was experiencing. The Ombudsman understands the resident felt it was inappropriate for the landlord to offer compensation until the repairs were complete, but the fact it chose to do that, is not poor service, as it could have offered more later if appropriate.
The landlord could have perhaps provided the resident with broad timescales for providing a stage 2 response but the resident was not left in the dark in this case, as the updates and compensation offer made, were helpful. The landlord’s complaint handling amounts to a minor service failure, which it appropriately acknowledged within its complaint response. The question is whether £20 is a reasonable remedy, in the circumstances.
In this case, there was some minor frustration caused to the resident, as she was not told when she would received a response to her complaint, but she was updated and offered recompense while waiting. Therefore, any compensation for poor complaint handling would be modest, and while £20 goes some way towards remedying matters and falls within the right category in our Remedies guidance, it is rather low. Therefore, it would be appropriate to increase the compensation to £50.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
  1. Damp and mould and the follow-on remedial works, including her request for the reimbursement of costs incurred.
  2. Repairs, including the rear entrance door and garden gate.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,250 compensation, made up of:
  1. £800 for the delays in addressing the damp.
  2. £400 for delays carrying out repairs to a gate and back door.
  3. £50 for the delay responding to the complaint at stage 2.
3. Meet with the resident, inspect the property, agree a schedule of works to address the damp and provide the resident with a copy.
4. Carry out a review in order to establish why there were failures in this case and provide this Service with a report setting out how this will be addressed.
Any amount already paid to the resident in respect of this complaint may be deducted from the above total.

Recommendation

Once the cause of the damp has been identified and the problem fully resolved, the landlord is recommended to review this Service’s Remedies guidance in order to identify whether any further compensation to the resident is payable.