Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Notting Hill Genesis (202425027)

Back to Top

 

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

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425027

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

30 July 2025

 

Our approach

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. A leak in the property.
    2. Damp and mould in the property.
    3. Electrical safety issues.
    4. Temporary rehousing.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy agreement with the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat, that the landlord manages as temporary accommodation. The landlord let the property to the resident in June 2023 after taking over the management of the property from a homeless housing provider. The landlord has its own landlord who is not within our jurisdiction. but it is not clear if it owns the freehold of the building. For the purposes of this report, we will refer to it as ‘head landlord.’ This matters in respect of who handled the repairs in the resident’s home (the landlord) and who handled repairs to the structure and exterior of the property (head landlord). The resident has lived in the property since at least 2016.
  2. The landlord records that the resident’s daughter is vulnerable due to a health condition that requires electrical dialysis equipment.
  3. The landlord completed an inspection of the property to investigate the present of damp and mould in September 2023. It did not find damp and mould at the time of the inspection. However, it found high levels of humidity and decided it should install a new ventilation system and arrange for a damp inspection of the external walls. There is no evidence it did so following its inspection.
  4. The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 6 September 2024. She said she sent a letter from the hospital that confirmed her daughter could not live in the property which had damp and mould. She said a leak into the property was getting bigger. She said the landlord told her it could not rehouse her because she had a temporary accommodation tenancy, but it had a duty to handle her repairs and enquiries.
  5. The landlord replied to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint procedure on 21 October 2024. It said:
    1. It raised a repair to treat damp and mould in the property on 11 September 2024 but had no other records of reported damp and mould. Its did not gain access at the property on 18 and 28 September 2024. It raised a new appointment to take place on 25 October 2024.
    2. It had access difficulties investigating a leak into the property between September and October 2024. It asked the local authority to repair the leak as it handled the neighbouring property. An environmental health officer did not see a live leak when he visited the property on an undisclosed date.
    3. The welfare of the resident and her family was of importance and it understood she had contacted the local authority about the next steps available to her. The local authority handled the repairs to the neighbouring property and it would respond to her request to move home.
    4. It did not uphold her complaint as it did not agree there had been a service failure. It centralised its complaints team which would improve its customer service. It offered the resident £50 for its delays complaint response.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 November 2024. She said:
    1. The landlord completed a mould wash on 25 October 2024 but the mould had returned a week later. She asked the landlord to give the works to a different contractor due to this.
    2. She reported a tripping fuse box but the landlord did not keep its emergency appointment despite her chasing a response from out of hours staff.
    3. The landlord had not addressed the damp and mould issues and environmental health emailed about the works. The issues were serious especially as she had a child with medical needs.
  7. The resident sent an email to her MP on 9 November 2024 which the landlord registered as a new stage 1 complaint on 11 November 2024. She said:
    1. Damp and mould in the property had worsened since 2023 and mushrooms were growing in the property. She reported this in September 2024 but the landlord had not completed the required repairs.
    2. The property condition and its size affected her daughter’s health.
    3. She reported a faulty fuse box but the landlord did not arrive within the 4-hour window it promised so her daughter could not receive medical treatment. She said this neglect was unacceptable.
    4. She provided a letter from the hospital supporting a move, but the landlord had not addressed the mould or her housing need. She asked the landlord to rehouse her into a 3-bedroom property, complete damp, and mould repairs, and provide compensation.
  8. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 25 November 2024. It said:
    1. It would address the resident’s damp and mould concerns in a separate complaint it had logged at stage 2 of its procedure.
    2. The circuit protection issue may be due to a faulty appliance or damp and mould. It would not test the resident’s own white goods. Its electrical installation report (EICR) dated November 2020 was satisfactory, but it would complete a new electric test when it rehoused her.
    3. It was sorry the resident was not happy with its communication about rehousing. A hotel was the only choice available because it did not have any alternative temporary housing. Following her refusal to move into the hotel it asked the local authority if it could offer support.
    4. It was sorry for its communication delays. It offered the resident £255 as compensation which it itemised as £50 for poor customer service, £30 for a delayed appointment, £100 for the impact of the matter on the household, and £75 for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
  9. The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 11 March 2025. It said:
    1. The complaint was about a leak which caused damp and mould and the condition of the property which threatened her daughter’s medical condition. It would also investigate its handling of the faulty electrics in the property.
    2. It was sorry it had not updated her and she had sent a disrepair claim dated 19 December 2024. It requested a copy of this from her solicitor because it had been unable to find the claim.
    3. It agreed 2 complaint extensions and it was sorry it did not reply in January 2024 as promised. It should have upheld her stage 1 complaint.
    4. The cause of the problem was a leak from a property it did not manage but the local authority gained access to fix the leak on 5 December 2024.
    5. The resident required rehousing while it completed further repair works, but it could only offer her hotel accommodation. The resident decided this was not practical considering her daughter’s medical condition.
    6. Its surveyor drew up a schedule of works which it did not approve before the resident sent a disrepair claim. It was sorry for this delay and it should have responded sooner. This was a service failure.
    7. It investigated the fuse box, found an oven fault, and replaced this on 14 December 2024. It was sorry it took so long to resolve the issue. It said the resident’s actions had affected this because she did not want the landlord to deal with the issues without the intervention of her solicitor.
    8. It would visit her home as soon as possible to carry out a mould wash and assess the electrics. This would not prejudice her disrepair claim.
    9. It upheld her complaint due to its poor repair handling and complaint handling. In addition to the £50 it offered at stage 1 it offered £100 for its delayed stage 2 response and £250 for its repair handling delays totalling £400.
  10. The resident asked us to investigate the complaint. She said to put matters right the landlord should rehouse her and complete outstanding repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of her household. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. The Ombudsman cannot decide on causation based on a review of the housing file. While the Ombudsman can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident, we cannot decide causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. If the resident wishes to pursue a personal injury claim she may wish to seek independent legal advice.
  2. In the resident’s complaint she referred to damp and mould concerns in the property going back to 2016. We have not investigated any historical incidents, as the resident held a tenancy with a different housing provider at that time. This assessment looks at the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the events that led to the resident’s complaint of 6 September 2024.

Leak in the property

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 says landlords must keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. It must also keep in repair the installations for the supply of water and for sanitations and complete repairs within a reasonable time.
  2. The resident reported a leak into her property on 6 September 2024. In a letter dated 30 April 2025 the landlord said it notified the head landlord on the same day and the head landlord reported this to the local authority. This was in keeping with its repair policy which says where a repair responsibility lies with a property owner it will work with the owner to complete repairs.
  3. The landlord inspected the property on 7 September 2024 in keeping with the repair policy. This says it would respond to serious leaks as an emergency within 4 hours and/or make safe the issue within 24 hours. It is unclear whether the landlord found or repaired a leak on this date.
  4. The landlord visited the property again on 11 September 2024 but found no active leaks at the time of the visit. It made 3 further attempts before it gained access on 25 September 2024 when, once again, it found no active leaks. The landlord tried to inspect the property above to trace the leak but it did not gain access into that property. It recommended a further inspection in the upstairs property which was a solution focussed approach for it to take.
  5. The landlord reconfirmed it did not manage the property above on 26 September 2024. It chased the head landlord and local authority about the leak again 6 working days later. This was appropriate given it reported the matter 14 working days previously. It also reinspected the resident’s property to locate any other leaks while it waited for the local authority repair. The landlord found the leak coming into the bathroom from above on 11 November 2024, but no further leaks. It obtained permission to remove the tiling on the same day in line with its repair policy which says it will work with property owners to carry out repairs satisfactorily.
  6. The landlord checked if the local authority repaired the leak on 26 November 2024. But there is no evidence it took any other action before the resident confirmed the local authority fixed the leak on 5 December 2024. Given the landlord reported the leak on 6 September 2024 it would have been reasonable for it to have escalated the matter such as by issuing a notice of legal action. This was a failing given the delay was likely to have caused the resident distress and inconvenience while living in the property. There is no evidence of any further leaks in the property after the local authority repaired the leak it was responsible for.
  7. When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. It summarised its handling of the leak in its complaint responses. It referred to its access difficulties and said it asked the local authority to repair the leak in a property it managed. This was appropriate. However, it should have recognised its failure to escalate the matter with the local authority was likely to cause further inconvenience to the resident. It could have offered compensation in keeping with its compensation and goodwill gesture procedure which says it will consider compensation when there have been unreasonable delays. Consequently, it missed the opportunity to put things right. Taking all matters into account, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the leak in the property.
  8. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 as compensation for the impact its failings had on the resident. This award is in keeping with our remedies guidance for situations where a landlord has not appropriately acknowledged repairs and/or has not fully put them right.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord has provided a damp and mould policy dated 2024. However, it addressed damp and mould in the property 2023. In the absence of an earlier policy, we have used the 2024 policy provided to assess the landlord’s actions.
  2. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards such as damp and mould can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
  3. The landlord raised a works order on 11 September 2023 to investigate damp and mould on the bedroom walls. It noted humidistats installed in the bathroom and kitchen. Upon arrival on 22 September 2023, it found no damp or mould on the walls. It was right for the landlord to inspect the damp and mould. It did so in keeping with its damp and mould policy which says it would prioritise damp and mould and visit properties within 10 working days. The resident explained works to remove and treat mould stains were completed by the previous landlord in June 2023.
  4. The landlord decided it should install a new ventilation system and test the exterior walls because the property was humid. However, there is no evidence that it did so before the resident complained a year later, on 6 September 2024. That was a failing. There is also no evidence it created an action plan following its visit in keeping with the damp and mould policy. This says it will find the sources of damp and mould and put in place an effective treatment plan. By not repairing the causes of the damp the landlord was likely to have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, while living in the damp property. This was unreasonable.
  5. The landlord investigated a leak at the property a year later, on 11 September 2024 which it reported to the lead landlord to repair. This was appropriate because the leak came from the property above which the landlord did not manage. The landlord made 3 attempts to inspect and treat the property for damp and mould, before it gained access on 25 September 2024. The landlord took a determined approach to access the property to address the damp and mould issues.
  6. While the landlord waited for the local authority to fix the leak it:
    1. Attempted to complete mould removal works on 7 October 2024 but did not gain access to the property. It raised a new works order on 14 October 2024 and treated mould in the property on 25 October 2024.
    2. Arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property on 13 November 2024 and prepared a works specification on 15 November 2024.
    3. Reported external repairs to the head landlord on 18 November 2024 in line with the repair policy and the head landlord’s repair responsibility.

The landlord’s actions were reasonable given the head landlord needed to complete external repairs and the local authority needed to repair the leak that caused damp in the property.

  1. We expect landlords to keep robust records of its housing services. When there is a dispute about repairs or the condition of a property, the onus is on the landlord to show how it completed repairs in line with its responsibilities. As set out above, we have seen no evidence of an action plan, a works schedule, a risk assessment, nor evidence that it provided advice to the resident about managing condensation. The absence of evidence suggests poor handling of damp and mould in keeping with its damp and mould policy and/or record keeping failings.
  2. The landlord offered to rehouse the resident for 6 days. Its recommended temporary rehousing on 15 November 2024 for it to complete internal repairs. However, the landlord later arranged to complete works with the resident in occupation. It is not clear whether the resident needed to move due to damp and mould in the property. The landlord should have been clear why, and on what basis, it offered rehousing. This was a failing.
  3. The landlord was unable to put alternative accommodation in place due to the resident’s concerns about the needs of her family and the landlord’s offer. Consequently, the landlord amended its works schedule and planned further mould treatment to improve the situation over the Christmas period. It was reasonable for the landlord to treat the mould and revise it works schedule given it was unable to move the resident from the property. Further because she reported ongoing distress caused by damp and mould.
  4. The landlord did not approve its revised works schedule before the resident sent a disrepair claim referencing damp and mould on 19 December 2024. There is also no evidence it removed mushrooms from the property (which the landlord had become aware of the previous month) prior to the resident sending the disrepair claim. This was inappropriate and suggests the landlord did not consider the ongoing impact of the damp and mould on the resident. It would have been appropriate for it satisfy itself that it had removed and effectively treated the reported mushrooms.
  5. There is no evidence the landlord or the resident communicated after the resident sent her disrepair claim on 19 December 2024, until 13 February 2024. The landlord did not act on the disrepair claim, as it should have until it requested a further copy from the resident’s solicitor in February 2025. The cause of this delay is unclear.
  6. The resident confirmed on 13 February 2025 that she was happy for the landlord to complete the works as her solicitor had already viewed the property. The landlord offered to do so on 28 February 2025; however, the resident said on 21 February 2025 that she would not be available on that day. The landlord was unable to complete any works in the property prior to providing its final complaint response dated 11 March 2025. However, it has since met the inspection requirements of the claim and the respective solicitors are coordinating the completion of the outstanding repairs.
  7. The landlord summarised its handling of damp and mould in its final complaint response and recognised its delay approving the revised works order. It offered the resident £250 as compensation for its repair handling delays. This was in keeping with its compensation and good will gestures policy. This says it will provide compensation where it has failed to follow its published policies.
  8. When a landlord has acknowledged its failings, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, acknowledgement of service failure, and compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  9. The landlord inspected the property, found a leak in the property above and external repairs, and it removed and treated mould. It referred the repairs it was not responsible for to the relevant authorities, and it chased their responses. These actions were appropriate. The landlord was reliant on the local authority to repair a leak and the head landlord to complete external repairs which likely caused damp. It also required access to the resident’s property and her consent to move from the property. However, it did not recognise that it should have put in place an effective treatment plan in keeping with its damp and mould policy. Furthermore, that it should have installed a new ventilation system, and tested the external walls prior to the resident reporting the damp and mould again in September 2024. By not putting in place these repairs it likely caused distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident. Consequently, taking all matters into consideration, we have found maladministration.
  10. While the landlord has tried to put things right its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the impact of the failings on the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay a further £250 (totalling £500) as proportionate compensation for the failings we have found. Additionally, we have asked it to write to the resident to apologise for these failings.

Electrical safety issues

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 says landlords must keep in repair the installations for the supply of electricity (but not other fixtures, fittings, and appliances for making use of electricity). They must complete an EICR every 5 years or at a change of tenancy. It must also complete repairs within a reasonable time.
  2. The landlord confirmed the property electrics were safe on 26 September 2024 when it investigated a leak into the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to verify this in keeping with its obligation to determine that the property was safe and fit to live in.
  3. On 3 November 2024, the resident told the landlord the electrics were tripping. She said this was a risk because her daughter used electrical medical equipment. The landlord arranged an emergency appointment to attend within 4 hours. This was in keeping with its repairs policy timescales.
  4. The landlord records that it attended the property on 3 November 2024 but did not gain access. This contradicts a complaint the resident sent on 5 November 2024 which said she was at home but the landlord did not attend. The evidence suggests the doorbell intercom was not working which led to the missed appointment. On a works order it raised the next day it instructed the operative to call the resident on arrival. This was reasonable in the circumstances to avoid a second missed appointment.
  5. The landlord inspected the property on 5 November 2025. It raised a works order on the same day and gave the works a medium priority. It did not visit the property again until 7 November 2024. This was inappropriate given resident told the landlord the electric issues were serious due to the family’s medical needs. The landlord should have given due regard to these vulnerabilities by handling the matter as an emergency. Its failure to do so was likely to cause significant distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family.
  6. The landlord tested the circuit board on 7 November 2024 and found a faulty oven had caused the fault. It repaired the fuse box on the same day and arranged to replace the oven. In an internal email it sent on 19 November 2024 it said a faulty appliance or damp and mould may have caused the circuit protection issue. The landlord’s decision to replace the oven was reasonable and in keeping with the tenancy agreement which says it will keep in repair and working order any installations it provided. There is no evidence the resident reported any electric faults after the landlord repaired the fuse box on 7 November 2024. However, she included this in her disrepair claim.
  7. The landlord provided and installed a new oven on 14 December 2024. While it was right for it to replace the oven it had previously supplied it took an unreasonable time to replace this given it found the fault on 7 November 2024. This was likely to cause inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident living without use of the oven and pursuing the matter with the landlord.
  8. The landlord considered the resident’s request for it to check all the electrical appliances in the property. However, in internal emails it sent on 19, 20, and 25 November 2024 it said it would not test the resident’s electrical appliances. The repairs policy says the landlord was not responsible for repairing electrical appliances but it also says it must repair electric hazards. The landlord’s contractor noted damp and mould may have caused the circuit fault, and it also said it could not access all the sockets and the circuit was difficult to navigate. Considering this, and the medical needs of the family, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to test the property electrics. Instead, it said it would complete a EICR when it rehoused the resident. This was inappropriate under the circumstances. The landlord should have satisfied itself the property was safe by completing a new EICR. Consequently, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the electrical safety issues.
  9. The landlord offered the resident £255 for its poor repair handling in its stage 1 response. In its final response it apologised for the time taken to replace the oven, recognised the resident’s disrepair claim included electric faults and offered to reinspect the property. This was appropriate. However, the response did not find the failings this investigation has found. Therefore, we have ordered it to pay a further £145 (totalling £400). This recognises the distress and inconvenience its failure to respond to the electrical safety issues was likely to have on the resident. It is also in keeping with the range awards set out in our remedies guidance for matters where we have found maladministration that the landlord has not proportionately addressed.

Temporary rehousing

  1. The landlord recorded that the resident’s daughter was vulnerable due to a medical condition. It offered to rehouse the family while it completed repairs. It explained it could only offer hotel accommodation because it had no other temporary accommodation. This was in keeping with its decant policy. This says if a move is for a short period of time (up to 10 working days), it will arrange hotel accommodation and cover the associated costs and reasonable expenses.
  2. Our guidance says housing associations must give “due regard” to certain equality considerations when carrying out their functions and those obligations in the Equality Act 2010. This means they must actively consider how their decisions and actions might affect people with protected characteristics, such as a disability. The landlord’s offer to rehouse the family showed it had due regard to the vulnerabilities and needs of the family.
  3. The landlord agreed to accommodate the resident’s requests for alternative hotel accommodation to be near her home, with free parking. It explained it could only offer her a family room due to the ages of her children, but it would accommodate the medical equipment if she provided the measurements. This was in keeping with its relocation policy which says wherever possible, alternative accommodation will meet the size needs of the household. It also says it will recognise the needs of disabled residents and consider the suitability and the location of alternative accommodation.
  4. The resident raised concerns about hotel accommodation on 29 November 2024. She asked the landlord to clarify its reasons for offering this. She also asked if it considered the wellbeing of the family, the medical needs of her daughter, and if the hygiene and space standards were suitable for a patient requiring dialysis. She said confined space, limited facilities, heating and comfort, toilet access, and the duration of a stay in a single hotel room raised serious concerns about infection control during treatment. There is no evidence the landlord answered the resident’s questions. Consequently, she was unable to make an informed decision about the suitability of the hotel before the landlord concluded she had declined the offer. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to reassure the resident it would work with her to find suitable accommodation, such as by considering alternative self-contained properties. There is no evidence that it did so.
  5. The landlord offered to discuss the suitability of the hotel with the resident’s medical consultant if she provided their contact details. This was supportive and showed due regard to its obligations to consider the family’s vulnerabilities. It is unclear whether the resident provided these contact details, or the measurements of the medical equipment for it to follow through on its offer.
  6. The landlord said it could not transport the medical equipment because it was not insured. However, its relocation policy says it would cover the reasonable rehousing expenses. While the landlord’s position that it was unable to move this equipment itself was reasonable. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have explored other ways of transporting it such as by using a removal company with the required liability insurance.
  7. The landlord asked the resident to register a housing application with the local authority and it contacted the local authority itself to seek support with finding alternative accommodation for her. Furthermore, it put in place a specialist rehousing support worker to help the resident approach the local authority and reassess her circumstances. Given the resident occupied temporary accommodation, it was reasonable for the landlord to seek the support of the local authority in considering the needs of the family. There is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with supporting documentation to present herself to the local authority due to the repair and condition of the property.
  8. The landlord addressed the matter in its final complaint response. It said rehousing did not take place because the resident decided it was not practical due to her daughter’s medical needs. The landlord did not recognise it should have provided her with information to make an informed decision. It also did not consider how else it could have supported her such as by finding self-contained accommodation and agreeing to move the medical equipment. We understand the landlord was trying to be supportive in recognition of the family’s medical needs. Also, that its qualified surveyor suggested the move for it to complete repairs. However, its handling of the rehousing was poor. This was likely to cause further distress, time, and trouble to the resident while living in a property that was not suitable for her family. The landlord’s failure to fully consider the matter in its complaint responses meant it did not offer compensation to put right the failings we have found. Taking all matters into account there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of temporary rehousing.
  9. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £300 as compensation for the rehousing failings we have found. This award is in keeping with our remedies guidance where there was maladministration that the landlord has failed to appropriately acknowledge and has not proportionately addressed.
  10. Since the landlord issued its final complaint response it chased the local authority for further information about its housing duty to the resident. There is no evidence the local authority has given clear advice. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pursue advice from the local authority and for it to share this with the resident and us. We have also ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing for its rehousing failings.

The resident’s complaint.

  1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
    1. Did not issue its response to the resident’s complaint of 6 September 2024 until 21 October 2024. This was 21 working days later than the 10 working day complaint policy target timescale.
    2. Said it did not uphold the stage 1 complaint which it later said it should have upheld because its response did not address the complaint fully.
    3. Did not acknowledge the stage 2 complaint in keeping with paragraph 6.2 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It should have done so within 5 days of receipt of the complaint.
    4. Extended the stage 2 response on 26 November 2024 until 23 December 2024 without providing a reason. This was not in keeping with paragraph 6.4 of the Code. This says extensions must be no more than 10 working days without good reason.
    5. Extended the stage 2 response target again on 23 December 2024 until 23 January 2025. This was not in keeping with its earlier promise to provide its complaint response by 23 December 2024. This was likely to cause time and trouble to the resident pursuing the complaint.
    6. Did not send its complaint response in keeping with the promise it made in its second extension request. This was unreasonable and was likely to have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident while waiting for its reply to her health and safety concerns. It issued its stage 2 response on 11 March 2025. This was 88 working days later than its 20 working day complaint policy target timescale.
  2. The landlord provided 2 separate stage 1 responses to the resident in reply to her concerns about a leak, damp and mould, electrical safety, and rehousing. However, it provided one stage 2 response to both stage 1 complaints on 11 March 2025. We understand that the landlord responded to our request to provide its outstanding stage 2 response, dated 7 March 2025. However, it landlord should have realised there were 2 different complaints and therefore provided 2 separate stage 2 responses. This was not in keeping with the landlords complaint policy and the Code.
  3. The evidence suggests the landlord delayed the stage 2 response while waiting to complete repairs. However, landlords need to ensure they do not allow complaints to stay open indefinitely while completing repairs. This runs the risk of blocking residents from escalating their complaints. Our position is that a landlord can normally send a response detailing its assessment of the service provided so far and its proposed plan to put things right. It should still check its progress of this plan even if it has already sent a complaint response.
  4. The landlord considered its complaint handling in its complaint responses. It did not recognise the failings we found but acknowledged and apologised for its delayed handling of the complaints. It also said it centralised its complaint handling to improve its communication. It offered the resident £150 compensation for its poor complaint handling.
  5. The complaint handling failings had no permanent impact on the resident but may have had an adverse effect in terms of the time, trouble, and inconvenience they caused to her. We have ordered the landlord to pay an added award of £50 (totalling £200) in keeping with the range awards set out in our remedies guidance for matters where we have found maladministration that the landlord has not proportionately addressed. We have also ordered the landlord to write to the resident to apologise for its poor complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of a leak in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Electrical safety issues.
    2. Damp and mould in the property.
    3. Temporary rehousing.
    4. The resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its handling of damp and mould, electrical safety, rehousing, and for its complaint handling failings.
    2. Pay the resident the £255 compensation offered in its stage 1 response if it has not already.
    3. Pay the resident the £400 compensation offered in its stage 2 response if it has not already.
    4. Pay the resident an added £845 in compensation made up as follows:
      1. £100 for distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak may have caused her.
      2. £250 for distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould may have caused her.
      3. £145 for distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s handling of electrical safety issues may have caused her.
      4. £300 for time, trouble, and inconvenience that the landlord’s handling of rehousing may have caused to the resident.
      5. £50 for time and trouble that the landlord’s complaint handling failures may have caused to the resident.
    5. Inspect the property to assess if it needs any repairs. If it does, the landlord should send the resident and us details of the works, together with a timetable for the works within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.
    6. Contact the local authority to obtain clear advice on its rehousing duties to residents that occupy the landlord’s temporary accommodation and share this information with the resident and us.
    7. Provide advice and support the resident with her application for rehousing via the rehousing options available to her.
  2. The landlord should pay the compensation directly to the resident and not offset this against any arrears, where they exist.