London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202336541)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336541

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

4 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of the property being overcrowded.
3. Response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
4. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident lived at the property, which is a 2 bedroom flat, from September 2020 until mid-2024. At the time of the complaint she had an assured tenancy with the landlord. She lived at the property with her partner and 4 children. 3 of her children have ADHD and autism, with one being non-verbal. She also advised the landlord during her complaint that 2 of her children have asthma.
On 3 November 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that there was mould in every room and the wooden windows appeared rotten. The landlord responded by providing an information booklet on reducing condensation and treating mould. It raised repairs on 27 November 2020, however, it is not clear what, if any, works were carried out. The resident reported mould again to the landlord on 2 January 2021. She stated that the landlord had attended twice to view the mould but had taken no action. She also reported that she had had no heating over the winter.
There was a gap in correspondence until the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 19 January 2024 and stated as follows:
1. There had been mould in the property since she had moved in. She had to open the windows to prevent them steaming up. This was costing her money in heating.
2. Items including sentimental possessions of a child who had passed away had been damaged by mould. She requested compensation for these.
3. The mould had caused her children to become ill.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure on 22 January 2024 and upheld the complaint. It advised that it had raised a job for a mould wash and the contractor would be in contact to arrange this. It offered a £60 voucher as a goodwill gesture. It advised that damaged items would be dealt with as an insurance claim and provided information on how to make a claim. That same day it advised that its contractor had attended the property but there had been no access. It had therefore cancelled the job.
The resident contacted this Service for assistance on 5 February 2024 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She also raised new aspects of complaint in respect of the heating not working, ASB and that the property was not suitable. The following day (6 February 2024) the landlord noted internally that the Ombudsman was involved and raised a job to investigate the heating not working. It requested this be done within 5 working days.
The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 6 February 2024 in respect of the new aspects of complaint. It advised that the complaint was not upheld and stated as follows:
1. Heating – The resident had reported a fault with the storage heaters on 27 November 2020. It had installed a new storage heater on 10 May 2021. Since then, there had been no reports of faults with the heating. Its contractor would be in contact to arrange an appointment.
2. Damp and mould – It had previously addressed this at stage 1. The resident could escalate this to stage 2 if she was unsatisfied.
3. ASB – It had not previously received any reports of ASB from the resident. It had requested an ASB case be opened and its Neighbourhood Lead Officer would contact her.
4. Assistance with moving – Its internal transfer list had closed in May 2020. It could only offer assistance to high priority cases. The resident did not have a transfer case registered. It advised that she could make an application and attached a medical form for her to complete. This would then be evaluated by its medical assessor.
On 6 February 2024 a damp and mould contractor advised the landlord that it had been unable to contact the resident to make an appointment.
An electrician attended on 8 February 2024 and noted that the lounge heater display was smashed and the kitchen heater was the “very old original to building never worked”. In addition the hall heater was missing. It advised the landlord that new heaters were needed.
The resident contacted her MP on 22 February 2024. That same day the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2. It responded at stage 2 on 29 February 2024 and stated as follows:
1. Damp and mould – It acknowledged the impact and distress this had had given the household vulnerabilities. However, it had not been able to gain access. Its contractors would arrange a convenient appointment for a mould wash and would advise if any works were needed.
2. Heating –Its contractor had identified works but had been unable to contact the resident to arrange these. It asked the resident if she required any support with appointments. It advised that if she could provide evidence of missed appointments, it would compensate for these.
3. ASB – It apologised for the delay in raising an ASB case. It had chased an assessment of her concerns as a matter of urgency and it would be in contact with her. It had taken learning from this in respect of the importance of acting efficiently for residents.
4. Rehousing – It reiterated the advice given at stage 1. It asked if she needed support in completing the medical form.
5. Health and mental health impact – It apologised that the resident felt she had not been treated with care and respect and it apologised for any impact on her mental health. It had noted the disclosed vulnerabilities and advised the resident to register these on her online account. It could then put a flag on the account so that all departments were aware and couldoffer support. It provided links to mental health organisations.
6. Pests – Its contractor had attended on 31 January 2024, filled in a hole and laid bait. It had tried to reattend on 28 February 2024 but there had been no access. It had rebooked this for 6 March 2024 and could rearrange this if it was not suitable.
7. Damages – Liability claims for personal injury or damages needed to be referred to its insurance team. These were outside the scope of the complaints process.
8. Customer service – It apologised that it had addressed the resident by an incorrect name. It stated that the service the resident had received was not reflective of the standards it aimed to provide. It acknowledged the inconvenience and distress caused in light of the vulnerabilities. It stated that it would monitor the outstanding repairs to completion.
9. It offered £380 compensation made up as follows:
  1. £100 distress for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities.
  2. £100 inconvenience for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities.
  3. £100 ASB communication failure.
  4. £60 time and effort getting the complaint resolved.
  5. £20 poor complaint handling.
The landlord confirmed on 1 March 2024 that the compensation would be credited to the resident’s arrears account, which was £1,657.73. It asked if she needed support with her bills.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 14 March 2024. She stated that the compensation had gone on arrears so she was in the same situation as before.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

The resident advised this Service on 17 April 2024 that the condition of the property had caused “suicidal thoughts and depression”. She had been prescribed antidepressants. She stated she still had no heating. She reported further ASB including theft, parcels going missing and dog faeces. Her child’s nursey had approached her about clothes being mouldy, which she found embarrassing. She described the living conditions and lack of action as “inhumane”. She also stated that her windows were unsafe as they were rotten and the ledge moved. She submitted a complaint to the landlord on 10 May 2024 in respect of human excrement being left on her doormat.
The date is not clear, however, the resident commenced legal action in respect of disrepair around May 2024.
On 21 May 2024 the resident advised a community outreach worker (not connected with the landlord) that a threat had been written on her door, a man had been acting strangely outside her property and non-residents had been loitering in the communal area engaging in drug use and sexual behaviour.
On 23 May 2024 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord and reiterated her concerns. She also raised new issues including a blocked sink, leaking pipes, loose letter box, broken kitchen light, faulty socket, unclean communal areas and drug users sleeping in an electric cupboard.
The landlord completed an emergency rehousing application for the resident on 29 May 2024 on the basis of her feeling unsafe and feeling threatened in her property. The resident’s situation had been considered at a multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC). (The date of this is not clear).
On 2 July 2024 the resident contacted this Service as she was unhappy that she had been placed in a new property outside of her local area.
On 26 September 2024 the landlord confirmed to this Service that the legal case had been closed. It stated that the resident had not engaged with her solicitors.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left the organization. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focused on the period from 17 January 2024 onwards. Reference to events that occurred prior to this are made in this report to provide context.
It is noted that the resident raised the impact of the issues on her mental health and the physical health of her children. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it 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 it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, this Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the issues and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused. This Service would expect the landlord’s response to consider the resident’s reports on how the issues were impacting on the health of the household, as such issues reflect the detriment experienced as a result of potential failures by the landlord.
Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure (29 February 2024), the resident raised further matters of complaint to the landlord. As these issues did not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, they are not something that this Service can investigate at this stage. This is because the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these concerns via its internal complaints procedure. Once these matters have completed the internal complaints procedure, the resident may then approach the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied. The matters which have not completed the internal complaints procedure are as follows:
1. Window repairs.
2. Blocked bathroom sink.
3. Water inside the living room window panes.
4. Lights flickering and blubs blowing.
5. Broken kitchen light.
6. Ants in the bathroom.
7. Dogs barking.
8. Safety of local parks.
9. Broken washing machine, dryer and cooker.
10. Leaking pipes.
11. Loose letter box.
The resident raised her concerns in respect of the location of the new property she had been moved to. This was considered by this Service under case reference 202413357 on 30 July 2024. It was determined that the matter was outside the jurisdiction of this Service under paragraph 41.d of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This Service is not able to consider matters which have already been considered by the Housing Ombudsman. As such, this will not be considered in this report.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould and a lack of heating are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of the HHSRS.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published in October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should “adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this”.
Correspondence provided from the landlord shows that following this Spotlight report, it developed an action plan in September 2022 to address damp and mould. As part of this, it stated that it had amended its ‘No Access procedure’. This would ensure vulnerable residents were proactively contacted for an appointment for emergency repairs if a no access occurred on the first appointment. Despite a request from this Service, a copy of this procedure was not provided by the landlord.
This Service has seen a number of photographs provided by the resident which show significant amounts of mould on the walls, furniture, clothing, children’s toys and inside a stick of glue. It is evidenced from the landlord’s repair logs that the resident first reported mould on 3 November 2020. This was around a month after she moved in. The landlord has provided no information in respect of having caried out any damp and mould works at the time following this report.
The resident raised the issue of mould again on 2 January 2021. She also advised that she had had no heating over the winter. The landlord provided no records of the actions it had taken (if any) following this report. However, it advised within its second stage 1 response (of 6 February 2024) that it had installed a new storage heater on 10 May 2021.
The resident stated that she had reported mould on a number of occasions since this. The landlordadvised that it did not have records ofsuch reports. The landlord did not provide any repair logs to this Service for the period between January 2021 and October 2023. The Ombudsman’s investigations are evidenced based, therefore it cannot be determined if mouldhad been reported during these2 years. The landlord, however,could not provide any evidence that it had taken any action in respect of damp and mould during this period. It also could not show that it had been proactive in asking the resident if her concerns from 2021 had been resolved.
The resident submitted her complaint to the landlord about ongoing mould and a lack of working heaters on 19 January 2024. She explained the damage the mould had caused to her possessions and that she could not afford to replace them. She also advised of the health impact she believed the mould was having on her children. The landlord advised within it stage 1 response (of 22 January 2024) that it’s contractor would arrange a mould wash. Although this was an appropriate offer, given the previous reports of mould, there is no evidence that the landlord sought to investigate the cause of the mould or ways to prevent it reoccurring. It therefore failed to demonstrate that it had sought to fully understand the issues experienced by the household and how it could rectify this permanently.
Following the involvement of this Service, the landlord advised within its second stage 1 response (of 6 February 2024) that the resident had not reported an issue with the heating since 2021. However, it responded to her report and raised a job that same day to investigate the heaters. The right to repair scheme sets out the timeframe within which landlord’s are expected to rectify certain repairs, which, if not carried out within a reasonable period of time, are likely to jeopardise the health or safety of the tenant. Under the right to repair scheme, heating not working (between 31 October and 1 May) should be repaired within 1 working day. An operative attended on 8 February 2024, which was 2 working days after the report.
The contractor identified that 3 new heaters were required. Instead of actioning this, the landlord questioned the findings of its contractor as to why replacement heaters were needed. Despite being aware that the heaters were not functioning correctly, there is no evidence that the landlord offered temporary heaters to the resident. This was not appropriate given the winter period and the vulnerable children in the property.
Within its stage 2 response of 29 February 2024 the landlord advised that the heaters had not been replaced due to not being able to contact the resident. Although this Service has seen evidence of this, the response lacked transparency. It failed to address that the landlord had not authorised the replacement heaters and that it had questioned the necessity of them.
There is no evidence that the landlord considered whether the lack of heating could be contributing to the mould. This was not appropriate given that the resident had advised that the household were experiencing health issues. She had also explained that she had to have windows open in the cold to ventilate the property and try to reduce the mould. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had responded to the lack of heating as a priority or that it had considered the risk posed to the household by this. This was contrary to its obligations under the HHSRS.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that for repairs under the right to repair scheme, it willpay £10 compensation, plus an additional £2 per day (for every extra day the repair is not fixed). This payment is uncapped. There is evidence that the resident did not have working heaters over the winter, from19 January 2024 until at least the completion of the internal complaints process on 29 February 2024. This was a period of at least 29 working days. The landlord offered no compensation in respect of this. This was not appropriate and was not in line with its compensation policy. This Service has considered this below in awarding compensation.
Throughout the correspondence seen in this case, the landlord relied on its contractors not having been able to arrange appointments as an explanation as to why works had not been carried out. It is not clear from the landlord’s records how many times its contractors had attempted to call the resident to arrange appointments. On one occasion (27 February 2024) a contractor asked the landlord if it had alternative contact details for the resident. When the landlord advised that it did not, it failed to follow this up to ensure the appointment had been arranged. Instead the job was cancelled.
Given the known vulnerability of the household, the landlord would be expected under the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard (in place in 2023), to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the needs of the resident and to demonstrate that it had respond to those needs in the way it provided its services and communicated with her. There is no evidence that the landlord sought to determine why the resident could not answer phone calls or if there was a time of day she would be available to answer. Given the health and safety risk posed by the significant damp and mould and lack of heating, the landlord could have done more to assist the resident in arranging appointments.
This Service has seen correspondence from 23 February 2024 where the landlord asked the resident if she would prefer email communication in respect of appointment bookings. Whilst this was appropriate, the landlord’s lack of consistency in offering support was unreasonable,
It is noted that the landlord asked the resident to update her record with household vulnerabilities within its stage 2 response of 29 February 2024. It is not appropriate for the landlord to have put the onus of doing so on the resident when it was aware of the disclosed vulnerabilities. This is something the landlord should been proactive at keeping up to date following contact with the resident. An order had been made below for the landlord to ensure it has an accurate record of the household vulnerabilities.
Whist it is acknowledged that the landlord had difficulty in arranging appointments with the resident, its subsequent cancellation of the appointment bookings were not appropriate. The landlord was aware that works were outstanding in respect of health and safety concerns. Therefore this lack of any further proactive follow-up action to try to arrange appointments was not appropriate.
The resident had made the impact of the damp and mould and lack of heating in the property clear. She advised over the course of her correspondence with the landlord that she felt it was impacting the health of the household. She also stated that the situation had made her feel depressed and suicidal. The landlord signposted the resident to support services in respect of her mental health and offered to assist her with arranging appointments within its stage 2 response. This was appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord had recognised that it needed to support the resident in trying to gain access to the property. This support, however, should have been offered at an earlier stage. This also did not go far enough. Despite the resident repeatedly making the landlord aware of the impact on her and the landlord’s inability to contact her, there is no evidence that it considered whether a safeguarding referral or wellbeing check was required.
As part of the resident’s representations as to the impact of the mould she advised that a number of her possessions, including sentimental items had been damaged. This has been evidenced by photographs seen by this Service. The Ombudsman issues regular guidance to landlords on best practice. In January 2020 we published guidance on complaints involving insurance issues. This highlighted to landlords that they should ensure that they treat residents’ fairly by assisting residents with insurance claims and considering whether it was at fault.
Although it was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to its insurer in respect of the damage, there is no evidence that it had supported the resident in making such a claim. Given the known vulnerabilities and the difficulty the landlord had experienced in contacting her, this is something it would be reasonable to expect that it should have been proactive at offering as part of its service delivery.
In respect of the damp, mould and heating issues, the landlord offered a £60 voucher at stage 1 and £200 compensation at stage 2. This was to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to recognise the impact on the resident due to vulnerabilities.
When a failure is identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is 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.
In addition to the failures identified by the landlord in not sufficiently considering the household vulnerabilities, this Service has found additional failures as follows:
1. There is no evidence that the landlord sought to take proactive action following reports from contractors that they had been unable to arrange appointments with the resident. It failed to show that it had considered the resident’s personal circumstances or enquired if there was a best time to call her.
2. The landlord relied on contractors not having been able to gain access as a reason to cancel the inspection of issues relating to damp, mould and lack of heating. As such the damp and mould was left untreated since it was identified in January 2024. The landlord failed to take action to identify the cause of the mould.
3. The landlord failed to demonstrate an appreciation of the potential health and safety risks associated with the significant mould shown in the photographs, despite the resident having raised health concerns.
4. The landlord did not follow the advice of its contractor in replacing the heaters. Instead it queried why it needed to do so.
5. The landlord did not go far enough to offer support to the resident following her disclosure that she felt suicidal and in light of it not being able to contact her.
6. It did not demonstrate that it had offered any support to the resident with making an insurance claim in light of known vulnerabilities.
These failures had a detrimental impact on the resident. However, this Service does acknowledge that the landlord was limited in its ability to carry out repairs due to the lack of access to the property. Although the issues with the property were unresolved at the completion of the internal complaints procedure (29 February 2024), the resident subsequently moved from the property in mid-2024. In conclusion, the failures identified amount to maladministration.
To acknowledge the impact the landlord’s failures had on the resident, compensation of £500 has been ordered. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidelines for maladministration where a resident has been negatively impacted by a number of failures of a landlord. This also takes into consideration the landlord’s obligation under the right to repair scheme in respect of the lack of heating.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance notes that some landlords will wish to offset any payment of compensation against a resident’s arrears, as stated in the landlord’s compensation policy. However, it is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears. This applies regardless of whether the landlord’s compensation policy allows it to do this and it is particularly the case where it is considered that it would be unfair to do so. The compensation ordered in this case is to be paid directly to the resident.

Response to the resident’s reports of the property being overcrowded

The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the 2 bedroom property was suitable for 3 occupants. When the resident moved in and the tenancy started, she was living in the property with 2 children. The resident raised the issue of there being 6 members of the household on 17 January 2024 to this Service. She explained that this meant that her and her partner had to sleep in the front room and that due to her child’s autism, she needed a bigger property.
The landlord appropriately responded to this within its stage 1 response of 6 February 2024. It explained that it could only assist in moving in certain high priority cases and noted that the resident had not registered for a transfer. It appropriately provided her with a medical form for her to compete and return a request to move on medical grounds. It is not clear when the resident completed this form. The landlord noted internally on 22 February 2024 that it had received the form from the resident and it was awaiting medical assessment.
Within the stage 2 response (29 February 2024) the landlord stated that it had not received the medical form from the resident. This was contradictory to its internal notes from 22 February 2024. This raises concerns as to the landlord’s record keeping as the progress of such an application should have been properly logged and updated on its system.
The landlord’s failure to accurately address the progress of her application at stage 2 amounts to service failure. To acknowledge the confusion caused to the resident by this, compensation of £100 has been ordered.

Response to the resident’s reports of ASB

The resident raised her concerns about drug misuse in the block within her representations to this Service on 17 January 2024. This Service asked the landlord to respond to this aspect of compliant and it did so within its stage 1 response of 6 February 2024. It advised that it had not received a report of ASB from the resident prior to her complaint to this Service. It would, however, open a case and it would contact her for more details.
Despite the landlord’s assurance, it did not request for an ASB case to be opened until 28 February 2024 (16 working days later). This was contrary to its ASB policy which states that it will log standard priority cases of ASB and assess them within 3 working days.
Within its stage 2 response (29 February 2024) the landlord apologised for the time it had taken to raise the ASB case. It also acknowledged the impact the ASB had had on the resident. It stated it would learn from its error and follow its procedure going forward. Although an acknowledgement of this failure was appropriate, the landlord did not state why this had happened or how it would prevent this going forward. As such its response lacked transparency.
To acknowledge the impact of its failure to raise the ASB case, it offered the resident £100 compensation. This compensation was not proportionate to the impact this delay had on the resident. She had made it clear how the ASB she had reported was impacting her and her children and that she felt scared to be in the property. The landlord’s failure to raise an ASB case, despite advising her that it would as part of its stage 1 resolution, impacted the resident’s confidence and trust in the landlord that it had taken her reports seriously. This amounts to service failure. To acknowledge the impact of this on the resident, this Service has ordered £200 compensation.

Complaint handling

The resident submitted her complaint on 19 January 2024 in respect of damp and mould. The landlord responded at stage 1 to this on 22 January 2024. This was within the timeframe stated within its complaints policy.
The resident subsequently contacted this Service on 5 February 2024 and raised issues of the damp and mould, lack of heating, ASB and the suitability of the property. As new issues had been raised the landlord provided another stage 1 response on 6 February 2024. This covered the new issues of complaint. It also referred back to its previous stage 1 response where it had addressed the damp and mould concerns. Although a second stage 1 response would normally be discouraged by this Service, it was appropriate in the circumstances to address the new issues raised by the resident.
The resident escalated her complaints on 7 February 2024 and the landlord responded to all of the issues at stage 2 on 29 February 2024. This was within the timeframe outlined in its complaints policy. However, as noted above, this response contained inaccurate information in respect of the resident’s request to move property.
The landlord also acknowledged within this response that it had addressed the resident by the incorrect name within one of its emails. It was appropriate for it to apologise for this. The landlord offered a total of £80 in respect of its poor complaint handing. This included an acknowledgement of the resident’s time and effort. This compensation was reasonable and appropriate to acknowledge the impact of its failures on the resident. As such, this amounts to reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the property being overcrowded.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
2. Pay a total of £800 compensation directly to the resident. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £360 (£60 voucher at stage 1 and £300 at stage 2, not including the amount for complaint handing). The compensation ordered by this Service is made up as follows:
  1. £500 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failures in respect of the damp and mould and lack of heating.
  2. £100 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failures in response to the resident’s reports of the property being overcrowded.
  3. £200 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failures in respect of its response to the reported ASB.
3. Ensure it has an up-to-date record of the household vulnerabilities.
4. Offer the resident support with making an insurance claim if she wishes to pursue this.
5. Within 8 weeks, in accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should consider how it manages access issues when operatives request alternative contact details for a resident. This review should consider what reasonable steps the landlord could take instead of automatically cancelling appointments, as happened in this case, especially where the issues concern health and safety.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord reoffer £80 compensation in respect of its complaint handling if this has not already been paid.