Midland Heart Limited (202327318)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327318

Midland Heart Limited

27 November 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Subject Access Request (SAR).
2. Reports about repairs.
3. Reports about staff conduct.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 17 September 2014. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord stated it was made aware during the complaints process that the resident at the time had a high-risk pregnancy.
The resident’s representative contacted the landlord on 29 September 2023 and raised a complaint about ongoing works at the property. They said the following:
1. The resident was due to give birth at any time. She was stressed and works were far from completed.
2. There had been poor workmanship to damp and mould repairs.
3. The property was uninhabitable.
4. A SAR request had not been completed within 28 days.
5. Storage heaters were not working properly. There had been 4 repair visits but repairs were not completed.
6. Asbestos was present.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 13 October 2023. It said the following:
1. The resident first reported damp and mould on 28 June 2023. An operative visited on 24 July 2023. They recommended an inspection by a specialist surveyor. This was booked for 27 July 2023 and rescheduled to 1 August 2023 due to no access.
2. Following this inspection, it reported that treatment was required. It had been unable to access the property on a few occasions due to miscommunication regarding the bathroom.
3. During a call on 5 October 2023 the resident had told the landlord she wanted to work with a different surveyor. It had arranged this and a different surveyor visited on 12 October 2023.
4. Treatment would be carried out on 19 and 20 October 2023. It was also completing several other jobs on this date.
5. It apologised for the time taken to fix the storage heaters. All the heaters had been repaired or replaced and it was the lounge heater which it had carried out multiple visits for.
6. On all visits it had been unable to find any faults other than it either being switched off or the input dial charge set too low. It replaced this with a panel heater on 10 October 2023.
7. The resident raised an emergency repair on 4 October 2023 to repair exposed wiring to the storage heater. This was repaired. It had reviewed the images from the previous job and could not find evidence of exposed wires left on previous visits.
8. It would only consider removing a resident from a property to do works if based on a risk assessment it found it unsafe for them to remain. It had agreed to arrange to complete works on dates to suit the resident.
9. There was asbestos in the property. This would only ever be of any concern if it was to carry out intrusive works.
10. The resident had an issue with a light in the lounge, it had arranged to attend with its asbestos team to fit trunking and rewire the light. The resident requested the works to be cancelled.
11. The resident reported on 4 October 2023 that she had been locked in the bathroom for a prolonged period due to the latch being fitted incorrectly. The latch was either faulty or the lock was fitted incorrectly. It apologised for the inconvenience and upset caused.
12. It would oversee all outstanding repairs to ensure that all works were completed. Once repairs were completed and the resident was happy with the work carried out, it would assess the complaint in light of the service failures identified and award compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint on 1 November 2023. She said the following:
1. She had reported damp and mould previously.
2. The appointments where there had been no access were not due to miscommunication. The landlord had not notified her of these appointments.
3. When she had contacted the landlord about works, jobs were not booked in or had been marked as completed.
4. A staff member had made “undignified remarks”.
5. The landlord had refused to move her into temporary accommodation to complete works and asbestos checks.
6. The landlord failed to attend an appointment for the works on 19 and 20 October 2023. This was rebooked for 30 October 2023. The work completed was “appalling” and her property had not been adequately protected.
7. During this work, a supervisor arrived at the property. This was not to check works but to visit the operative who was a relative.
8. These works were completed on 1 November 2023 but there was damage to other walls, plaster on belongings, and damage to a wardrobe. She was unhappy with the quality of the work.
9. A repair had left exposed wires sticking out in the lounge.
10. She could not be around mould removal or treatment due to a high-risk pregnancy.
11. She had arranged for carpets to be fitted on 7 November 2023. She was concerned there was still ongoing work to be completed, including plastering the lounge wall. The earliest date provided for this work was 15 December 2023. She had contacted the landlord about moving this forward.
12. The previous carpets had been removed due to being covered in mould.
The landlord provided its final response on 13 December 2023. It said the following:
1. Repairs that had been done were not to its expected standard. The resident had experienced poor communication and some appointments were not attended. This had been addressed with teams.
2. In regard to the resident’s previous reports of damp and mould, it was unable to go that far back in its complaints process. The records it received as part of the transfer with the previous landlord covered the last 12 months of repairs at the property and did not reference damp and mould.
3. It had passed the resident’s concerns about staff conduct to its management team who had investigated and taken appropriate action.
4. It agreed that it was a conflict of interest when a staff member arrived to inspect works completed by another staff member and during this visit disclosed that they were related. It should have arranged for an alternative member of staff to review the work. It had appropriately addressed this and had assigned a surveyor to work with the resident until the completion of the repairs on 19 December 2023.
5. It had arranged for the resident to stay in a hotel during the completion of the final repairs. Its repairs team during inspections confirmed that damp and mould repairs were required and asbestos was to be removed. It constantly assessed the risk of asbestos causing damage to health when moved, or work was carried out involving materials that contained asbestos. At no point would the works have created this kind of risk because specially trained colleagues and contractors knew exactly how to handle this material to prevent any danger.
6. The resident had outlined her circumstances and had said that she felt unsafe to remain in the property during this time. It had wanted to work with the resident and ensure a smoother transition with the repairs.
7. It should have done more to carry out checks on the heaters when the resident had reported faults on more than one occasion.
8. It had found evidence that work to a socket was left unfinished. While the wires that were left exposed were not live, this was unacceptable. It apologised for this.
9. It was sorry for the resident’s poor experiences. It would continue to work to improve its standards of service.
10. It offered the resident compensation of £950. This included £500 for the handling of the repairs, £250 for the staff conduct, poor communication about appointments, and extending its response, and £200 as a contribution to damaged items.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation. She said belongings and a wardrobe had been damaged, and work was not completed. The resident said she had incurred high costs eating out while at the hotel.
The landlord provided a further review of its final response on 17 January 2024. It said the following:
1. The work had been carried out to its service standards and no further works were required.
2. It recognised the bathroom works were not completed within its service standard timeframes.
3. As the resident was unable to provide receipts for the damaged items it was willing to increase its contribution towards this.
4. In relation to the carpet, it asked the resident to send images and 2 quotes for replacement for its consideration.
5. In regard to the concerns relating to asbestos, the asbestos team did not remove the bathroom ceiling and carried out shadow vacuuming. The asbestos team carried out air assurance testing on completion of the asbestos works.
6. It recognised that the hotel standards were not up to standards it would expect. Whilst the hotel was a third-party company, it was not the standard of service it would expect its residents to receive and understood that this had an impact on the resident.
7. The resident had expressed her mental health had been exacerbated by the issues. Any sort of personal injury was considered by insurers. If the resident wished to submit a claim, she needed to write to it by letter or email. It provided the contact details and the information the resident needed to provide, and an explanation of the next steps.
8. It offered further compensation of £1067.50 Broken down as follows:
  1. £72.50 for the further delays to the bathroom renewal works.
  2. £200 as an increase in its contribution towards damaged items
  3. £170.00 in recognition of the impact of the hotel standards.
  4. £625.00 food allowance during the hotel stay.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and the level of compensation offered. She contacted this Service in February 2024.

Events following the end of the complaints process

Following the end of the complaints process, the resident’s solicitor issued a letter of claim to the landlord. A housing conditions report was completed on 7 May 2024. This stated the defects in the letter of claim were the front door, damp and mould in the lounge, defective kitchen cupboards, damp and mould in the bathroom, and window issues in the bedroom. The report noted walls and window reveals recently plastered had not been undertaken adequately and remedial works were required. It noted no evidence of damp and mould to the lounge, minor mould spores due to condensation in bedroom 1 and window reveal in the bathroom.
In September 2024 the resident confirmed to this Service that damp and mould was present due to gaps around the windows. The resident said she had made a disrepair claim but this had not progressed to legal proceedings.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s SAR.
Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. Complaints concerning SARs fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). For this reason, this complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is not considered further in this report. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the SAR, she may wish to contact the ICO.

Scope of investigation

The resident raised during the complaints process that she had reported damp and mould prior to June 2023. While the historical issues provided contextual background to the current complaint, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s more recent reports that were considered during the landlord’s complaint responses. This is because in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The landlord provided evidence to this Service of a housing conditions report completed on 7 May 2024 following a disrepair claim made by the resident There was no evidence provided by either the landlord or the resident that either claim had progressed through to court action. Therefore, part of the issues raised within this claim that related to the complaint raised in September 2023 have been referred to and assessed within this report where appropriate.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint made in September 2023 and addressed in the landlord’s final response in January 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service.
In raising her complaint, the resident referred to the situation impacting her health. While this Service is able to assess the service the landlord provided, and any overall distress or inconvenience this may have caused, the investigation cannot directly assess any reported impact on health or the liability for impacts on health and wellbeing, as this is better suited for the courts.
Part of the resident’s complaint was about damages to furniture and personal items. Determining liability and awarding damages are legal aspects that this Service has no jurisdiction over. Such matters require a binding decision from a court or consideration via an insurance claim. This Service can, however, consider the landlord’s response to the resident and if it had acted fairly, reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs

The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord was required to consider whether any damp and mould in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s repair handbook says the landlord is responsible for repairs which include to the sink, bath, toilets and waste pipes, doors and locks, electrics and wiring, heating, walls and ceilings, plasterwork, windows, frames and sills. It says the resident is responsible for internal decorations. The handbook says the landlord will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. For non-emergency repairs it will provide an appointment convenient to the resident. It says contractors will be respectful and always behave professionally, and protect things from damage, dust and paint.
The landlord’s asbestos management plan says it will undertake asbestos surveys when referrals/concerns (day to day works) are raised and where no existing adequate records exist. For responsive repairs, as part of the pre-works the operative must assess the asbestos risk and identify where any suspect Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) may be disturbed both before and during works. Where there is a risk of potential disturbance of ACM’s the asbestos register must be interrogated fully prior to the commencement of works.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it operates a 2-stage approach to dealing with reports of damp and mould. Upon the first report of a damp and mould situation (stage 1) it will visit and treat the mould with an anti-fungicidal wash down treatment. It aims to do the wash down in 14 days and repairs in 28 days. If upon reviewing photos, or during the stage 1 visit, it is identified that the mould growth is serious in nature, or it appears to be a category 1 or 2 hazard under HHSRS standards it will be escalated immediately to stage 2. Any case at stage 2 will have a full damp and mould survey undertaken. The policy says it will aim to complete all work at stage 2 within 90 days. If it is unsafe for a resident to remain in the property while the works are carried out, alternative accommodation arrangements will be made.
The landlord’s decant policy says where possible, it will try and carry out repair works with the customer in situ to avoid unnecessary upheaval through decanting. Situations when a decant may be necessary include where the nature of the work in or around the home is likely to pose a health and safety risk to the resident.
The policy says the landlord will usually pay a disturbance allowance to cover any reasonable costs and reasonably foreseen costs for items or services that have resulted from moving home. The amount payable will vary according to the circumstances of each case and must be evidenced by receipts. Residents will continue to make the payments (e.g. rent, service charge and/or license payment) equivalent to the payments at their permanent home whilst they have been decanted.
The landlord’s internal guidance note on decants says in situations where it has to temporarily decant a resident to a hotel, where there is no cooking facilities, it will pay a food allowance per day of £10.00 per adult and £5.00 per child.
The landlord’s complaints, comments, compliments and reasonable adjustments policy says financial compensation will only be paid in cases where the loss or suffering is considered to warrant such a payment or where the resident has suffered significant inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s or their contractor’s actions.
The landlord’s repair records showed a repair was raised on 28 June 2023 to mould around the windows and walls in the bathroom, bedrooms, and living room. The landlord raised repairs on 8 August 2023 to carry out a mould treatment to the walls in the bathroom, fit a privacy latch to the bathroom door, regrout the bathroom tiles and reseal the bath and basin, hack off and reinstate window reveals, reseal the windows following plastering works and renew panel heaters in both bedrooms and the wall heater in the bathroom. The landlord’s stage 1 response stated it had been unable to access the resident’s property to complete the works due to a miscommunication about the bathroom.
It was evident the landlord delayed in completing a survey of the damp and mould. This was completed on 1 August 2023. This was 24 working days after the resident raised this. The landlord’s final response stated it attempted to complete this on 27 July 2023 but no access was provided. The resident stated in her complaint escalation that she had not been aware of appointments. It was not clear from the landlord’s records when it attempted to access the property to complete repairs, or if the resident had been informed of appointments. The landlord did not demonstrate here that it had retained an adequate oversight of the repairs raised. As a result, the resident had to take the time and trouble to raise the matter as a complaint.
Following the resident’s complaint a further inspection of the property took place on 12 October 2023 and works were agreed which included to renew the bathroom and compete the work to the damp and mould on the window reveals. This work was completed on 22 December 2023. This was a timeframe of over 5 months from the resident first reporting the damp and mould. In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed works would be completed on 19 and 20 October 2023. In her complaint escalation the resident said the landlord failed to attend due to the operative being on leave. The landlord’s records did not show it had informed the resident of the cancelled appointment. This caused her distress and inconvenience, as well as time and trouble to follow up on this. This again showed poor oversight of the repair by the landlord.
The landlord rebooked the repairs for 30 October and 1 November 2023. From the landlord’s internal emails following an inspection of this work on 8 November 2023 it was evident that the work completed to the window reveals was not to an acceptable standard and further works were required. The emails noted the finish of the plasterwork around the window reveals as “poor”. It was noted that the resident had cancelled an appointment for the completion of the further works on 16 November and 17 November 2023, which accounted for part of the delay here.
The bathroom renewal works were completed under a planned repair. This was reasonable given the additional work identified during he further inspection on 12 October 2023. This was approved internally by the landlord on 30 October 2023. The timeframe for the completion of these works was 71 days from the inspection date. The landlord acknowledged in its final offer of compensation that the repairs to the bathroom were delayed.
It was evident the resident remained dissatisfied with the standard of the work completed on 22 December 2023. The landlord’s email on 17 January 2024 following its final response stated the work had been completed to its service level standards and no further work was required. However, it is noted the resident raised a disrepair claim following which the landlord completed a housing conditions inspection report on 7 May 2024.
This inspection identified that the plastering works to the window reveals was inadequate and remedial works were to be undertaken. It was therefore evident that the works undertaken to resolve the damp and mould to the window revels had not been completed to a sufficient standard. The landlord advised this Service that repairs relating to this disrepair claim, which included this work, had not been completed due to the resident refusing access. As such an order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident about the outstanding repairs to the damp and mould to arrange the completion of this.
It was evident the landlord had attended the property on a number of occasions following its inspection in August 2023 to repair heaters. It attended on 12, 23 28, and 29 September 2023. It replaced the heater in the living room on 10 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged in its final response that it could have done more to carry out checks on the heaters when faults were reported on multiple occasions. The resident experienced the distress and inconvenience of facilitating a number of repair appointments for the heater.
The resident also reported that a repair to the heater had left exposed wires from a switch. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged that it had left work on a socket unfinished which had left unlive wires exposed. The landlord’s internal correspondence from the time of the resident’s complaint demonstrated that it investigated the unfinished repair once aware on 4 October 2023. It appropriately attended to rectify this the following day as an emergency.
It was not clear from the landlord’s records when the repair to the privacy latch lock to the bathroom door was initially completed. The resident reported to the landlord on 4 October 2023 that the lock had been fitted incorrectly and she had become locked in the bathroom for a period of time. The landlord attended the following day and repaired this. This Service appreciates that it was distressing for the resident to have been locked in the bathroom when the lock failed. The landlord demonstrated that it attended to the repair in a reasonable timeframe once aware. It also investigated the matter and provided information about the possible causes for the lock failure. This demonstrated it had taken the resident’s concerns about the matter and the impact on her seriously.
To provide a fair response, landlords are expected to resolve complaints by addressing both the main issue raised and any inconvenience that happened. When a landlord agrees that it failed to provide a service, the expectation is for the landlord to offer redress. The landlord acknowledged its delays here in completing repairs. It attempted to resolve this through an offer of compensation of £572.50 relating to repairs. It also offered an amount to recognise its failure in communicating about appointments, within its total amount of compensation of £250 for conflict of interest, poor communication, and extending its response.
It is essential for landlords to break down any offers of compensation so that a resident can understand to what extent it had acknowledged the impact of each individual failure. In absence of a full breakdown of this calculation by the landlord, this service was unable to determine what proportion had been attributed to each issue. While the offer of redress made by the landlord showed good practice in trying to resolve complaints and learn from outcomes, the compensation did not go far enough to account for the delays here and the landlord’s failure to confirm the quality of the works to the window reveals were inadequate until May 2024. The delays had a detrimental impact on the resident’s use of her home during this time.
During the complaints process, the resident told the landlord that her belongings had been damaged during the works including a wardrobe, and previous carpets by damp and mould. This Service was not able to comment on whether the landlord was liable for the damage to the resident’s possessions, because we do not have the authority or expertise to determine or award damages for liability in the way that a court or insurer might.
On 14 December 2023, the resident sent the landlord a list of the damaged items. The landlord requested receipts of the damaged items on 19 December 2023. It its email on 17 January 2024, the landlord offered the resident £400 of compensation for the damaged items, in consideration that the resident had not been able to provide receipts. This demonstrated an attempt by the landlord to put things right for the resident. In regard to the carpet, the landlord asked the resident to provide images and quotes for the replacement for its consideration. This was a reasonable request by the landlord in order for it to be able to consider offering further compensation. It was not clear if the resident provided this further information. As such, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident about this matter and consider if it needs to raise a claim with its insurers.
Following the landlord’s final response, the resident stated the impact of the outstanding repairs on her health. It was appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to its insurers in regard to a personal injury claim in its email on 17 January 2024. It also appropriately provided information on the process.
The resident raised concerns about asbestos in the property during the complaints process. The landlord demonstrated that it had followed its asbestos policy and completed an asbestos management survey on 24 November 2023 prior to starting the bathroom works. The landlord’s final response confirmed that the repair works planned had not created a risk of asbestos causing damage to health. It also assured the resident that it continued to assess this risk, during the works. It also stated that its staff and contractors were trained to handle this type of material to prevent any danger. This again was in line with the information in its policy.
The resident had a high-risk pregnancy at the time and was concerned about the impacts of the works involving asbestos. The landlord demonstrated that it had taken this into consideration and reconsidered its decision about a decant. This was appropriate given the resident had expressed she felt unsafe to remain in the property during the works, and had expressed the impact the situation was having on her health.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord demonstrated that it had considered the resident’s request about a decant earlier and explained the risk assessment had not deemed a risk present to the resident when completing the works. It said it would only consider a decant if based on the risk assessment it found it was unsafe for them to remain. This was in line with its decant policy. The landlord reconsidered this following the resident’s complaint escalation, and continued concerns about the impact on her health conditions at the time. This demonstrated the landlord taking a customer focused approach. The landlord had also attempted here to repair the landlord-tenant relationship by stepping outside of its usual process to take into consideration the resident’s specific circumstances and needs at the time.
Although the resident’s concerns about the decant were not part of the original complaint, the landlord had responded to these in its final offer of compensation on 17 January 2024. The landlord had acknowledged the resident’s experience within the hotel accommodation was not up to the standard it would expect. It offered the resident a further £175 in recognition of the impact of the hotel standards. It also offered the resident £625 as a food allowance. This was reasonable and inline with its decant policy. The compensation offered in relation to the decant demonstrated an attempt to put things right for the resident by recognising the distress and inconvenience caused during this time.
Overall, the landlord took too long to complete the repairs to the damp and mould, bathroom, and heaters. The landlord also did not meet the timescales in its damp and mould policy. The landlord did not demonstrate it retained an adequate oversight of the repairs raised in June 2023. It was evident the resident had to take the time and trouble to follow up on the repairs in the form of a complaint. The landlord did however demonstrate that it had taken a customer focused approach following its complaint investigation by decanting the resident during the completion of the works in December 2023, taking into consideration the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health.
It was clear the resident was unhappy with the standard of works completed in December 2023 in relation to the damp and mould works. An inspection in May 2024, stated the work to the window reveals was inadequate. The landlord’s overall offer of compensation went a significant part way to putting things right for the resident. However, it did not account for the distress and inconvenience of the continuation of the repairs to the window reveals remaining unaddressed until May 2024.
While the landlord had taken some action here to put things right and acknowledged its failures, it failed to learn from its complaint process and did not take further action when the resident reported again that part of the work was not completed. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs. Further compensation of £250 had been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance where there has been a failure which has adversely affected a resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about staff conduct

In her complaint, the resident raised concerns about the conduct of a staff member who had visited her property. This Service, when investigating a complaint about a landlord, will consider the response of the landlord as a whole, and will only comment on the actions of individuals only in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than the individual.
In its final response the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and confirmed the action it had taken. The landlord demonstrated that in response to the complaint about the staff member, the landlord arranged for an alternative member of staff to work with the resident. This was an appropriate action and demonstrated it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
The resident raised concerns in her complaint escalation about a conflict of interest following an inspection of works by a supervisor who was related to the operative completing the work. The landlord acknowledged in its final response that this was a conflict of interest and should not have taken place. The landlord’s internal correspondence from the time, demonstrated it investigated the matter. The landlord stated it had assigned an alternative supervisor to inspect the work. This was appropriate action.
In summary, the landlord acknowledged its failures here. It attempted to put things right for the resident though the action taken at the time of the resident’s reports to investigate the issues raised and reassign alternative members of staff to work with the resident. It also accounted for the impact of its failure on the resident within its offer of compensation of £250 which included an element for the conflict of interest. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Service that the landlord offered reasonable redress through its offer of compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the scheme the resident’s complaint about the landing handling of a SAR are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handing of the resident’s reports about staff conduct

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident further compensation of £250 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation is in addition to the landlord’s offer during its complaints process.
The landlord is to contact the resident about the outstanding repairs to the damp and mould and provide her with a timescale for the completion of these.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord is to pay the resident the £2017.50 of compensation it offered the resident through its complaints process, if it has not done so already. The Ombudsman’s findings are based on the understanding that this compensation is to be paid.
The landlord is to contact the resident about the carpet and consider if it needs to refer the matter to its insurer, if it has not already done so.