Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202014457)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014457

Notting Hill Genesis

24 August 2023

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

This is about the landlords handling of:
1. Roof leaks.
2. Damp and mould at the resident’s property.
3. The associated complaint.
4. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident holds an assured tenancy of the property which began on 4 November 1991. The property is a 2nd floor 2-bedroom flat.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s two stage complaint policy requires that complaints receive a written response within 10 working days. If then the complaint is escalated to a stage two review, then the landlord should send a final response within 20 working days.
At both stage 1 and 2 the landlord’s complaints policy states that contact will be made if the complaint’s written response cannot be provided in its proscribed timeframe.
The complaints policy says at stage 2 the complaint will be handled by a manager not involved in making the original decision. The stage 2 would also be reviewed by another independent manager who had not been involved in the original decision.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will carry out routine repairs within 20 working days of receiving the report.

Summary of events

On 6 March 2020, the resident reported a roof leak which occurred every time it rained. The landlord raised a job for a contractor to visit and inspect the roof.
When the contractor inspected on 1 May 2020, they found the roof had approximately 30 broken slates which were likely to be allowing water ingress into the resident’s property.
These tiles were replaced at an unknown date in June 2020. Whilst undertaking the work the contractor observed that where there had been water ingress into the property there had also been an effect on the adjacent flat roof which was now soft underfoot and would require replacing.
On 6 July 2020, the contractor completed a further inspection of the roof and identified a series of works needed to renew parts of the roof. These included renewing lead flashing which would require scaffolding so the roof could be accessed.
In August 2020, the landlord discussed this repair in a series of emails in which the landlord’s building surveyor noted ‘water had been observed running down the walls’ of the resident’s property. They also raised that the building also included 2 leasehold flats which meant that there would need to be a section 20 consultation prior to works commencing.
On 4 October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to say:
1. Damp had been an issue for many years and despite a previous construction of a partition wall to ‘hide the issue’ it continued to penetrate into her home.
2. The roofing contractor had photographs of holes in the roof above her property yet despite scaffolding being outside, no work had been done to her roof.
On 12 October 2020, the resident asked the housing officer:
1. For an update on works as the scaffolding still remained outside.
2. If she could see any damp survey produced so far.
The landlord’s repair records show a damp prevention job which related to the resident’s report dated 4 October 2020 and which was completed on 21 October 2020. This record comments ‘at the time of our survey dampness was noted in the front left corner of the right-hand bedroom’ a roofing contractor was recommended to ‘inspect the roof opposite the damp patch’.
Later correspondence from the resident indicated a contactor visited to inspect the roof on 29 October 2020. This service has seen no evidence regarding the findings or outcome of this inspection.
On 27 October 2020, the landlord’s contracts manager sent an internal email considering the roof. It said that the roof was in ‘very bad condition’ with roof tiles ‘deteriorating when touched’. The only solution recommended had been that of a full roof replacement.
The housing officer replied to the resident’s questions about the scaffolding and having sight of any completed surveys on 30 October 2020, in this reply she said:
1. That further works maybe required on the roof.
2. She had not seen any damp survey but had asked the surveyors if there was, whether it could be made available to the resident.
In November 2020, the landlord discussed internally the need for a section 20 consultation as the block contained leaseholders. It noted the repair carried out so far had cost in the region of £5000 and the potential cost of the replacement would far exceed this. This meant that it needed to tender for the roof replacement to obtain 3 quotes.
On 1 December 2020, after receiving a request from the resident the housing officer raised a mould wash for the property. The officer also contacted the resident to offer more mould washes as an interim measure whilst the full roof repair was completed as often as needed on request.
On 24 December 2020, the resident contacted the housing officer with images of water ingress and damp on the wall in her bedroom. She said that the roof needed to be fixed and asked that the repair was escalated to be resolved. She explained she was sleeping in a room which was wet, with the water coming through the roof and onto the bedroom walls.
On the same day, the resident made a complaint to the landlord using its online form. In the complaint the resident said:
1. There was ongoing damp in the property.
2. The landlord’s resolution to paint the wet wall was not good enough.
3. She wanted the landlord to fix the roof.
On 6 January 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and confirmed that a stage 1 complaint investigation would take place.
On 8 January 2021, the landlord updated the resident that as a major roof repair was required a section 20 consultation needed to take place, so leaseholders and residents were informed of the scale of the repair and the costs involved. Timescales had been requested so that the resident could be kept informed. The resident was also asked if she would like another mould wash.
On 13 January 2021, the landlord confirmed in an internal email the need for a section 20 consultation as the roof needed replacing and an instruction was made for 3 quotes to be obtained for the consultation.
During January 2021, the resident sent the housing officer a series of questions which included:
1. Why work had been done to the roof in June 2020 without a section 20 notice.
2. What had happened so far regarding the roof repair.
3. What the timescale was for the repair to be completed.
4. Whether the surveyors report following a visit on 21 October 2020 could be made available.
5. What the contractor who visited on 29 October 2020 had inspected and whether an update could be provided on the purpose of the visit.
6. Why the section 20 consultation had not been completed.
7. A concern that the landlord did not see the water ingress and black mould as a health concern and had only offered ‘ineffective’ mould washes.
The resident also sent photographs of how the damp appeared in the property. In an email dated 28 January 2021, 2 images showed water marks on a ceiling and wall, with paintwork bubbling.
The housing officer responded to the resident on 29 January 2021, she said:
1. Previous work had been authorised and completed due to slipped slates posing a health and safety risk. Due to its urgency a section 20 consultation exercise had not been carried out with the cost accepted by the landlord.
2. She understood the residents concern of black mould as a health and safety risk and explained mould washes where a temporary measure until the roof repair was completed.
3. All of the concerns raised by the resident had been sent to the surveyors who organised October 2020’s survey to ascertain what work was required.
4. The resident would not be ‘entitled’ to see a report produced by a surveyor on 21 October 2020. Following the report, due to the costs involved its recommendations had to be presented to the executive board who had ‘recently’ decided to progress the replacement.
5. She was not aware of the purpose of the visit on 29 October 2020 and despite asking the surveyors had not received a response.
6. As this decision had been made, the section 20 consultation process could begin. It was explained that this meant obtaining 3 quotes from different contractors to complete the work.
On 1 February 2021, the landlord’s surveyor asked the housing officer to organise for the resident to receive a dehumidifier. It was also requested that the resident’s last quarter electricity bills could be provided so that reimbursement could be arranged for the additional cost of running the dehumidifier. The resident responded to the landlord to agree for the dehumidifier and explained that she would send across digital copies of her bills. She also asked the housing officer to have her managers copied in on correspondence and questions because she now wanted her answers from the landlord’s management team.
On 12 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord with images of ‘darkness’ and mould patches around the joints on a false wall which had been installed ‘a couple of years ago’ which the residents view was completed by the landlord to cover up existing damp rather than repairing the roof. The housing officer responded to let the resident know the pictures had been sent to the surveyor.
On 5 March 2021, the housing officer sent a complaint response to the resident about the time taken to complete roof works. The letter did not provide detail on what stage the complaint was at however this was considered to be the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response which said:
1. The main reason for delays in progressing the roof repair was that the property was a listed building. This meant the landlord needed to comply with historic England and the local authorities additional planning requirements.
2. In addition, it had been identified that a silver birch tree needed to be trimmed for work to take place and the local authority had requested that tree and wildlife considerations were made prior to work commencing.
3. Other delays had occurred obtaining 3 quotes for the work along with ‘upshots’ of the entire roof that needed to be carried out by a specialist contractor, this had been requested in January 2021 and chased in February 2021.
4. A section 20 consultation exercise needed to be carried out for all residents who pay a variable service charge.
5. In summary, it said that the roof renewal had ‘many elements’ needing consideration which had resulted in delays.
On 17 March 2021, a mould wash was requested by the resident. The landlord attended 2 days later, applied treatment, and then painted over with stain blocking paint.
On 16 July 2021, the landlord sent letters to the buildings residents to consult them on the proposed work. The section 20 consultation period finished on 25 August 2021.
In August 2021, following the consultation the housing officer sought updates from the landlords planned works team about when the work would take place but there is no evidence of a response.
On 17 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said that:
1. She had asked for damp and mould to be assessed in her property in July 2020 when works were being carried out on the roof however this had not happened.
2. In February 2021, the resident had been told that the roof had ‘a reasonable and serviceable life’ and no further work would be carried out.
The resident requested a full inspection to be carried out before the autumn / winter of 2021/22 and asked for the following points to be addressed:
1. Why a full survey had not been carried out.
2. Why nobody had gone into the roof space as part of any survey.
3. What was causing the damp and mould if not the roof.
4. She had been notified that works would be completed by April 2022, why had it only just come to light that the property was in a heritage area.
5. Mould washes were not a solution, and she was sleeping in a damp and mouldy bedroom.
The resident received a complaint acknowledgement on 18 August 2021 explaining the complaint would be investigated and a response given within 10 working days.
On 2 September 2021, the landlords appointed contractor provided a scope of roofing works. This included:
1. Renewing the main roof in clay tiles.
2. Overlay rear flat roof with a new material.
3. Overlay top connecting roof in a new material.
4. Complete brick refacing and repairs to plinths.
On 10 November 2021, at the request of the resident a mould wash was arranged for the bedroom wall. This was attended on 13 November 2021.
On 22 November 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to apologise for the delay in handling her complaint at stage 2. An updated timescale was given for the complaint response to be provided by 17 December 2021.
On 11 January 2022, the landlord recorded a telephone conversation with the resident in regard to her stage 2 complaint. It was agreed that:
1. Mould washes could be requested anytime online.
2. The roof works had been referred to the local authorities planning department because the property was in a conservation area and the landlord required permission for any changes.
3. If a decant was required for the roof work, notice would be given.
4. A further update would be provided in April 2022.
On 7 February 2022, the landlord applied for planning permission to the local authority.
On 8 February 2022, following contact from the resident, the housing officer emailed the resident to confirm:
1. A damp and mould wash had been organised.
2. The section 20 consultation had taken place and a contractor approved.
3. A planning application had been submitted to the local authority and a response was expected within 8 weeks.
On 1 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to ask for her stage 2 complaint response.
On 2 March 2022, the landlord provided the stage 2 response. It said the response was to the formal complaint first made on 24 December 2020 regarding the roof repair. An unnamed independent manager had also reviewed the complaint. The response summarised a recent conversation with the resident into key points which were:
1. The resident could request mould washes at any time using the online repair function.
2. The roof work had been referred to the local authorities planning department as the property was in a conservation area. Once permission was granted the work would be planned with the resident informed in advance.
3. A decant maybe considered in the future if appropriate.
4. The next update would be expected to be provided in April 2022.

After the final response letter

On 12 April 2022 the resident repeated questions that she had asked the landlord in her stage 2 escalation request. She asked for the landlord to respond to the following points:
1. She did not believe the landlord had carried out a full survey of the roof.
2. How could it be sure the roof had a reasonable and serviceable life.
3. If the problem of mould/damp is not the roof, why is the landlord not seeking to resolve the situation.
4. Could it explain how the extra delays due to heritage planning restrictions had only just come to light.
5. Painting over the mould was not a solution and resulted in the resident sleeping in a mouldy bedroom.
On 12 April 2022, in what was identified as a further complaint response, the housing officer responded:
1. A roof contactor would inspect the roof and submit a report to the landlord.
2. A full roof survey was not always required if the issues were limited to one area of the roof.
3. Mould washes were available as an interim solution and could always be increased as necessary. These washes were completed in October 2020, December 2020, and March 2021.
4. A dehumidifier had also been gifted to the resident as an additional interim solution.
5. The landlord’s surveyors were of the view the mould and damp related to the roof and they would be inspected on ‘13 September to explore further’ and organise remedial work.
6. The surveyors in place did not work directly for the landlord and had no knowledge of the property so did not know about the heritage planning restrictions until the later stages of planning the repairs delivery. The housing officer speculated that the property’s previous landlord may have held information, but this information had not been passed to it ‘as part of the merger’.
7. In summary, the housing officer said she had been in regular contact with the resident and had escalated her concerns to the surveyors who were managing the repair to the roof. The property was due to be inspected on 13 September and then advice would be given on the next steps to address the damp and mould.
The roof repair was completed in December 2022. The resident has reported to this service that there are remaining items of disrepair in the property related to the replacement of the roof which the landlord has agreed to repair however are outstanding at the time of this report.

Assessment and findings

Roof leak

There is a lack of proactive communication from the landlord about work being undertaken to her home throughout the period 2020 until 2022. The resident was not provided with any plan of action or communication regarding timescales for remedying of the roof repair. It is noted that the housing officer responded to the residents’ questions when asked however it is reasonable to expect the landlord to effectively communicate directly what stage it was at within its repairs process. It is good customer care to explain the steps being taken and when updates will be received. This did not happen during this case, leaving the resident regularly chasing the landlord for updates and without any clear direction as to how the roof leak would be solved, causing her additional distress, time, and trouble over the 2-year period of this investigation.
Following the residents initial report of water ingress from a roof leak on 4 March 2020, the landlord’s initial response was prompt when considered alongside the Covid-19 national lockdown which began on 26 March 2020. A contractor was instructed to inspect and remedy the issue with a repair made to the roof tiles in June 2020. It was reasonable for the landlord to have expected this repair to have resolved the issue at this point.
Following further reports of water ingress and damp from the resident, the landlord inspected the property on 21 October 2020. This inspection recommended that a contractor inspect the roof, which it did on 29 October 2021 and was appropriate. However, there are no notes on the outcome of this inspection and no evidence that the resident received any feedback on the outcome of either inspection. Later contact with the housing officer shows the resident was unaware of the landlord’s findings or intentions which demonstrates a lack of proactive communication from the landlord about how it was going to resolve the damp issue.
When the contractor reported that the roof was in a very poor state and reports were received from the resident of a continued leak, the landlord’s progression of the recommended full roof replacement stalled to an unacceptably slow pace. With the executive approval for the work given at some point during January 2021, the section 20 consultation process itself did not take begin until 6 months later, on 14 July 2021. During this time the landlord later explained that it had tendered for 3 quotes for consultation, however this evidence has not been provided to the Ombudsman and these delays have not adequately explained to the resident at the time or in later complaint responses.
When the Section 20 concluded on 25 August 2021, a further delay occurred in progressing the roof repair. The landlord did not ask the local authority for planning permission until 7 February 2022, 5 months after the completion of the tendering and consultation process. This represented a further failing by the landlord to ensure that the residents repair case was progressed in a competent and timely manner.
In the resident’s stage 2 complaint escalation she refers to being informed that the roof had a ‘reasonable and serviceable life’ at a point in February 2021. No evidence has been provided of this information being passed to the resident nor the context in which this comment was made. However, the landlord’s communications and subsequent actions to progress the section 20 consultation show that it considered the roof to need replacement from as early as October 2020. Whilst failings have been identified in how the landlord progressed this replacement and communicated with the resident on the matter, there is no evidence that the landlord did not plan to carry out the identified major work of the roof replacement.
After the stage 2 response on 3 March 2022, the resident repeated concerns about damp and mould and ongoing water ingress she had initially raised with the landlord on 18 August 2021 for which the housing officer responded on 12 April 2022 by organising an inspection for 13 September 2022 to consider remedial works required. This inspection was scheduled to take place 6 months after the resident escalated her complaint on 1 March 2022. This is an unacceptable delay for the landlord to offer an inspection of disrepair issues related to the damp and to agree remedial work this represents a failing of the landlord.
It is understood that at the time of this report some remedial works remain outstanding in the residents property following the renewal of the roof, which is now watertight. As these items are related to this complaint and are outstanding and Order will be made for the landlord to ensure these works are completed.

Damp and mould at the resident’s property.

Although the resident had raised issues with water ingress to the landlord as early as 6 March 2020, the first report of damp and mould occurred on 4 October 2020 where the residents report her ongoing concern about the condition of the roof contributing to damp in her property. In line with its repairs policy the landlord inspected the property on 21 October 2020 and in its assessment, it decided that a roofing contractor was needed to inspect the area ‘opposite the damp patch’. This is a reasonable step for the landlord to take to consider the cause of the water ingress causing the damp.
From December 2020 the landlord did make it clear that it was prepared to undertake as many mould washes as was necessary to prevent mould build up whilst the underlying issue with the roof repair was resolved. This is a reasonable step for the landlord to take. The resident made use of this offer 3 times in the period December 2020 to March 2022.
In email correspondence between the resident and housing officer during January 2021, reference is made to an inspection undertaken on 21 October 2020, for which the resident requested sight of the report. This request was declined by the landlord who said the resident was not ‘entitled’ to see the report. This service has not seen evidence of any formal written survey produced by the landlord. Whilst a record keeping finding is made below, it is also of note that the landlord declined to provide the resident with any information on this inspection. The resident was impacted by regular water ingress, damp and mould occurring in her home and it is reasonable to expect that the landlord was transparent in its findings and decision making by providing the resident with information relevant to her repair case.
In addition to mould washes on the resident’s request, the landlord offered and provide a dehumidifier to the resident along with reimbursed costs for electricity for its use. This is an appropriate step for the landlord to take as a further interim measure to mitigate risk of moisture causing damp and mould whilst plans were made to undertake the repair the roof. The landlord also acted reasonably by making an offer of monetary payment for the operation of the dehumidifier. This was accepted by the resident on 2 February 2021. There is no evidence provided that this was discussed further between the resident and the landlord. An order will be made for the matter of reimbursement to be fully considered by the landlord so that it can make an appropriate offer.
It is noted that since March 2023 the landlord has produced and now operates a separate damp and mould policy. Whilst this has no bearing on this case as the policy did not exist at the time of these events, it is important to recognise the landlord’s action which means it has adapted its service in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould which was published in October 2021.

Complaint Handling.

The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code says:
1. Landlords must confirm in writing to the resident at the completion of stage one in clear, plain language what the complaint is about, the complaint stage, the decision, reasons for the decision, any remedies, or actions it is offering to put things right.
2. Complaint responses must not be delayed beyond 10 working days without good reason.
3. Complaint responses must set out details in how to escalate to the next stage or to the Ombudsman on the completion of the complaints process.
In line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, the landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage 1 complaint response would be provided within 10 working days. The resident received her response 47 working days outside of the 10-day response time. This is a failing by the landlord to adhere to its policy timescales.
In line with the complaint handling code, when the landlord sent the stage 1 response it did not make it clear what stage of the complaints process or how to escalate the complaint to stage 2 as would have been appropriate.
When the resident requested a further escalation of her complaint on 18 August 2021. As the issues presented were the same as addressed 6 months earlier at stage 1 it was appropriate for the landlord to consider this complaint at stage 2 in its process.
However, the stage 2 response was unacceptably delayed. Despite receiving an acknowledgement on 19 August 2021 stating a reply would be received within 10 working days, the resident did not have a telephone call to discuss the complaint until 11 January 2022. Whilst this service notes an apology email was sent on 22 November 2021 with a new date set for a response by 17 December 2021 this target was again missed, with no evidence that the resident was communicated with an update or given any explanation.
In addition to these delays, when the landlord discussed the complaint with the resident on 11 January 2021 and provided a series of explanations, no written communication was sent to the resident to confirm the outcome of the stage 2 complaint until 2 March 2021, almost 3 months later and after the resident contacted the landlord to request her formal written stage 2 response. In total the resident had waited 6 months for her complaint to be investigated and to be provided with a written response. This represents an unacceptable timeframe which required the residents time and trouble to pursue the landlord to receive her written outcome.
The stage 2 response dated 2 March 2022 said that it had also been reviewed by an unnamed independent manager. This is not transparent, and no evidence has been seen by this Service of this review taking place. Further explanation of this managers position and role would assist the landlord in demonstrating the purpose of this review, although this absence in itself does not amount to a failure.
The written stage 2 response dated 2 March 2022 mirrors the telephone records made by the landlord during the conversation with the resident on 11 January 2022 during which it was explained that the delay was due to planning permission being required due to the heritage status of the building. It is of note that this Service has seen evidence that planning permission was not applied for at the point of the telephone call, with the planning request being submitted on 7 February 2022. In this matter the landlord had not communicated with the resident openly about where it was within its process.
It is appreciated that by the time of the written stage 2 response on 2 March 2022 the planning permission had been submitted, however, the content of the stage 2 failed to fully address the points the resident had made in her escalation request dated 18 August 2021. The response did not provide explanation on the resident’s requests for surveys related to damp, mould or roof repair and failed to provide satisfactory answers as to the landlord’s plans for resolving disrepair to the internal and external of the property. The landlord reiterated that delays had occurred due to the requirement of planning permission however did not identify or set out the delays that had occurred between the completion of the section 20 consultation exercise and the application for planning permission. This is a failing of the landlord to fully investigate and respond to the resident’s complaints in an open and competent manner.
After the formal stage 2 response, due to the landlord’s lack of formal reply in its stage 2 complaint letter, questions asked by the resident in her original escalation request, dated 18 August 2021 were asked again. These questions were then answered in a follow up complaint response sent by the housing officer who originally handled the stage 1 response, rather than the manager involved at stage 2. This is not in keeping with the landlord’s complaint policy which says that an independent manager will investigate and provide the stage 2 response. Whilst it was important that the landlord answered the resident’s questions, this response sent after the formal stage 2 written letter demonstrates that the resident’s complaint was not fully considered at stage 2 and therefore this represents a further failing in how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint.
The resident had by the time of the stage 2 response on 2 March 2022 been waiting for a repair to her roof for almost 2 years. During this time, she lived in conditions of disrepair which included water running down the walls of her bedroom. By not responding to the resident’s complaint in full the landlord did not recognise and therefore address the substance of the resident’s complaint and failed to provide an adequate complaint response.

Record Keeping.

Clear record keeping is core to a repair service and assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate, complete, and accessible records ensure that the landlord can understand what repairs are required, monitor outstanding repairs, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents.

There is evidence contained within the resident’s emails that a temporary wall was put in place in the property at some point during 2019 which in the resident’s perspective, was to ‘hide’ damp that had appeared on the chimney breast rather than undertake any repair to the roof leak. This Service has requested repairs information from this period which the landlord has been unable to provide. It has explained that this is due to a system change. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to maintain accurate repairs history for its properties so that it can investigate and respond to repair issues. The absence of these records will have impacted the landlord’s ability to fully consider the chain of repair issues that had impacted the resident.
The landlord has not been able to provide clear and concise evidence of all of its interactions with the resident, steps it has taken and decisions it has made relating to the repair and decision to replace the roof. Examples being:
1. Discussions or instructions from the surveyors to the housing officer.
2. Evidence of the tendering process.
Whilst an email chain has been provided of the landlord’s internal discussions on the likely requirement for the roof to be renewed and the need for a section 20 consultation from October 2020, this service has seen no evidence of a decision-making progress that at an unknown point in January 2021 included executive sign off and thereafter steps taken to progress tendering, obtaining 3 quotes, and instructing the agreed contractor.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the roof repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in how the landlord handled damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s complaints.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord did not communicate its plans for the roof repair, it did not keep the resident suitably updated. There were unexplained delays in progressing the section 20 consultation and in applying for planning permission to progress the repair works themselves. This resulted in the resident living with damp, mould, and disrepair for a protracted period.
The landlord suitably offered damp and mould prevention remedies. This included mould washes on request and a dehumidifier with running costs. However, the landlord was not open and transparent about any damp inspections that took place.
The landlord did not respond to complaints as per its policy timescales at stage 1. Its complaint responses were not compliant with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. The stage 2 response did not provide explanation or redress for the delays that had occurred in the progression of the roof repair. Due to this the landlord was unable to offer reasonable redress.
The landlord has not been able to provide historic repairs data relating to the property. There are missing records of property inspections and correspondence between the housing teams and the landlord surveyors.

Orders

It is ordered that within 10 days of receipt of this report the landlord pays direct to the resident £1350 compensation. This is made up of:
1. £700 for the landlord’s handling of roof leaks.
2. £150 for how it handled damp and mould at the resident’s property.
3. £400 for how it handled the associated complaint.
4. £100 record keeping.
It is ordered that with 28 days of the receipt of this order the landlord provides the resident with a written action plan of what, how and when internal works will be completed.
It is ordered that within 28 days of the receipt of this order, the landlord considers the residents energy bills for the period between February 2021 and the roofs repair in December 2022, and makes a reasonable offer to reimburse the resident for any additional costs incurred whilst running the dehumidifier.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord ensures that all complaint handling staff are trained on its own complaints policy and in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
It is recommended that the landlord assesses itself using the Ombudsman’s spotlight on knowledge and information management with a particularly focus on its record keeping relating to complex / major repair cases.
It is recommended that the landlord considers how it handles communication on complex repair cases to ensure effective customer service.