Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202308931)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202308931
Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)
1 October 2024
Our approach
The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.
Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.
The complaint
- The complaint is about:
- The landlord’s handling of reports of damp in the resident’s property.
- The landlord’s handling of reports of the communal hallway being in poor condition.
- The landlord’s failures contributing to the death of the resident.
- The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident was the leaseholder of the property, a 1-bedroom ground floor flat in a low-rise block. She has held the lease since March 2020 and lived alone. The landlord has told this Service it was made aware the resident had cancer in March 2021.
- The resident died on 21 April 2023. The resident’s son (the representative) became the leaseholder and makes the complaint on the resident’s behalf. The representative has provided a Letter of Administration from the High Court of Justice naming him as the administrator of the resident’s estate. The Letter of Administration is dated 29 June 2023.
- On 1 March 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that she had damp in her property and queried whether it would be replacing the windows due to the condensation she was experiencing. The landlord apologised for the issues caused but stated that a planning application to change the windows was likely to be rejected and due to the cost involved, it would not be sensible to submit it.
- The resident made further reports of damp in July 2021, November 2021, and March 2023. The landlord took no action to instigate the source of the damp.
- On 2 June 2023, the resident’s representative made a complaint to the landlord about the presence of damp in the resident’s property and the general state of the communal areas that was affecting all residents.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 June 2023. It stated a surveyor had visited the resident’s property, and it was waiting for a report before determining the next course of action. The landlord offered to pay for all remedial works to the property, including those that would usually be the responsibility of the resident.
- The landlord apologised for the condition of the communal areas and agreed that they did not meet acceptable standards. It explained that when the drain covers were replaced, they were made aware of further problems with the communal drainage and decided not to replace the carpet until the further issues had been resolved. It stated it was working with a specialised contractor to address the repairs and the carpet would be replaced once all work had been completed.
- The landlord also apologised for its failures in communication and offered the representative £50 as a good will gesture for the distress and inconvenience caused.
- The resident’s representative replied to the landlord on the same day and requested his complaint be escalated as he felt complaint should be reviewed when the surveyor’s report had been received.
- The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 15 July 2023. It acknowledged that the resident had first reported issues with damp in March 2021 and that it had attributed the damp to the windows which could not be replaced due the property being a grade II listed building. The landlord agreed that further investigation should have taken place, and it had now identified repairs that needed to be completed to the roof and the damp proof course (DPC) of the property to minimise the risk of damp and prevent water ingress.
- With regards to the condition of the hallway, the landlord stated that improvement works would be carried out following the completion of the roof repairs. The landlord apologised for the length of time taken to resolve the issues and offered the representative £1,198.90 compensation for the delays in dealing with the reports of damp at the resident’s property.
- The representative remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to this service.
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.
- The resident’s representative has advised that he is seeking compensation from the landlord as he holds them responsible for the passing of the resident, due to the conditions in the property. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not investigate matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts. This allegation is out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and should be determined by a court.
- While we can consider the impact of the damp and mould on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability, issue a binding decision about personal injury claims or award of damages (including the cause of death). This Service shall not be looking into nor commenting on the cause of the resident’s passing.
The landlord’s handling of reports of damp in the resident’s property
- The resident’s property was a converted residential premises which was formerly part of a hospital. The building was built in the 1830’s and is Grade II listed. The building was converted to residential use in 1997 and features original single glazed Crittall windows. In 2007, the landlord made an application to the council to upgrade the single glazed Crittall windows on a neighbouring property, to become double glazed, but the application was refused. It is not disputed that in 2020, leaseholders in the resident’s block raised concerns regarding their windows and enquiries were made as to whether another planning application could be made.
- On 13 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to ask if it had received a reply from the council regarding the windows. She stated, “This is detrimental to all residents’ wellbeing”. While the resident did not specifically state what the detriment was, landlord internal documents suggest that on the same day, reports had been received from the resident’s neighbours regarding water ingress around the windows and 1 property was experiencing mould as a result.
- The landlord replied to the resident on 17 November 2020 and informed her that it was highly unlikely that it would be allowed to change the windows. However, the landlord stated that repairs would be made to the windows as part of the cyclical works that it was in the process of arranging. At this stage, the landlord did not appear to have been made aware of any specific problems with damp in the resident’s own property.
- The resident first notified the landlord that she was experiencing damp in her property on 1 March 2021. In her email, the resident stated she was suffering with excessive condensation and the damp was ruining her curtains. She also stated that she suffered with asthma and the stress of the situation was not helping with her cancer diagnosis. The landlord replied toher the same day and stated it was sorry she was experiencing these issues, but because of the costs involved in submitting a planning application for the windows, and the unlikelihood it would be approved, it was “not sensible” to submit the application to have the windows changed.
- The terms of the resident’s lease state that she was responsible to keep the property in good repair, while the landlord was responsible for maintaining the main structure of the building, including the windows, roof, and communal areas. While the landlord made it clear that it was unable to change the windows, it made no attempt to look beyond the windows as to the cause of the damp.
- The landlord’s damp procedure, dated March 2020, sets out the action it will take when a report of damp is made. This includes arranging a home visit to investigate the damp and record any evidence. The procedure also states that the visit should also include an external inspection of the building to assess for defects that may cause water penetration, including “high external path levels that are above the damp proof membrane”.
- The landlord failed to follow its own policy by not conducting an internal and external inspection of the property when it was first alerted to the resident’s issues of damp. This was a significant failing, and a missed opportunity to deal with the problem at a much earlier stage.
- Furthermore, the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) identifies damp and mould as a hazard in a residential property. It states that damp and mould can be a threat to health, including breathing difficulties and asthma. It is understandable that the resident felt distressed, given her pre-existing medical conditions.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 6 July 2021 and asked for its insurance details as she was “scared another winter may bring the ceilings down”. The landlord replied by email on 16 July 2021, 8 working days later, and informed her that she could only claim for damage to the internal structure, not personal belongings, and she could only make the claim “once the leak has been resolved”.
- The landlord’s leasehold customer guide sets out the standards that leaseholders can expect to receive in its properties. It also has performance standards for communication which state that all phone calls will be responded to within 1 working day, and emails will be responded to within 5 working days. Throughout this report, it is apparent that the resident did not receive the level of communication she could have expected.
- The resident responded on 21 July 2021 and stated that she thought the landlord would investigate the leak that was staining her ceiling as it was responsible for this. The landlord replied to her the same day and stated it was not aware that there was an active leak and could the resident send photos. This contradicted the landlord’s email of 16 July 2021, which indicated it was aware of a leak in the resident’s property. The landlord did not inspect the roof until 14 October 2021, 3 months later.
- Given the resident had the roof above her property, and the leak was coming through the ceiling, it was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the roof as it was responsible for its repair and maintenance in the lease.
- The landlord’s leasehold customer guide states that where it is responsible for carrying out a repair, it will allocate a priority level to the repair depending upon how urgent the repair is:
- Emergency repairs (for example, burst pipes in shared areas and repairs which affect health and safety) should be completed within 24 hours.
- Urgent repairs (for example, repairs to outside lighting, vehicle entry gates or outside taps that are leaking) should be completed within 7 days.
- Routine repairs (for example, faulty intercom systems, repairs to walls, pathways, or driveways) should be completed within 28 days.
- Based on the information provided, and the fact that the resident was already experiencing issues with damp, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to treat the leak as an urgent repair, to be completed within 7 days. By deviating from its own policy, the landlord caused further delay to the matter being resolved and may additionally have been a contributory factor to the damp the resident was experiencing.
- The contractor who attended the roof emailed the landlord on 20 October 2021. They stated that the windows were the cause of some of the damp the residents were experiencing. The contractor also stated that the whole roof needed maintenance, the coping stones were in poor condition and large amounts of pointing was missing. The landlord updated the resident the following day, but there was no mention of the leak included in the reply.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 2 November 2021 and informed it that the damp was getting worse. She stated that the government had recognised these conditions as being unacceptable for the health of residents. The landlord replied on 17 November 2021, 11 working days later, and advised the resident how to make an insurance claim.
- The landlord again failed to meet its own performance indicators for communication, by not replying to the resident within 5 working days. Furthermore, it failed to acknowledge that the damp was getting worse and again failed to apply its own policy. This was another missed opportunity to begin to put things right for the resident. As a result, this increased the distress experienced by the resident.
- The day before the landlord replied, internal emails suggest that the landlord became aware that there was an issue with the DPC at the block. The paving had been placed above the DPC level allowing the water to penetrate the porches and flats. Had the landlord followed its own policy when damp was initially reported by the resident, an external inspection of the property could have picked this up 8 months sooner.
- The cyclical repairs to the windows were completed on 1 February 2022. However, landlord internal documents show that residents continued to report damp issues over a month later. On 30 March 2022, the landlord consulted with the residents regarding the intended works to the external walls to remedy the damp.
- The landlord’s damp procedure states that where there are no obvious defects causing the damp, it may consider appointing a damp specialist. Given the windows had been repaired and the issue was ongoing, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to conduct a survey to ensure that the proposed works would address all the causes of the problem.
- On 20 December 2022, the landlord recorded a call out to one of the flats due to a leak coming through the roof. It is unclear from the documentation whether this was the resident’s property. However, the repair log states the roof was allowing water to pool and the water was unable to drain away. Problems with the roof had been noted by the landlord in October 2021, but no repairs had been carried out.
- On 1 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report water coming in through her kitchen ceiling, to the extent that it caused her blinds to fall down. She stated she had terminal cancer, and this was detrimental to her health. Under the landlord’s leasehold customer guide, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to prioritise this repair as an emergency and to have the repair attended within 24 hours. The lack of documentary evidence provided by the landlord around this request makes it difficult to establish what further steps, if any, the landlord took to support the resident. In the absence of this information, this Service cannot conclude that the landlord treated the resident fairly in regard to considering her specific needs and concerns due to the leak and presence of damp in her property.
- The landlord carried out a further inspection of the roof on 14 March 2023, following reports of leaks from other residents. The repair log stated the roof was in a poor state of repair and looked like it had not been repaired for many years. Following this inspection, the landlord took no action until the resident’s representative contacted it later that month.
- In his email, dated 30 March 2023, the resident’s representative stated that the resident had received a text to say the damp and mould works had been completed, but this was not the case. He stated that the severity of the damp and mould posed a health risk due to the resident’s terminal illness and there was water pooling on the top of the resident’s emersion heater. He also stated that the that the resident was unable to speak due to her illness and requested all correspondence was made with him going forward. The landlord replied on 4 April 2023 and agreed to arrange an inspection, which took place on or after 12 April 2023.
- Under the landlord’s leasehold customer guide, it would be reasonable to assume that a leak (known to be caused by a poorly maintained roof) that was affecting electrical appliances, would be treated as an emergency repair given the potential hazards it could cause. The landlord’s damp and mould policy was updated on 7 March 2023, and stated that following a report of damp, a visit would be carried out on the property within 10 days. The visit did not take place until at least 2 weeks later and there are no records of what the visit entailed. This was a significant failing, leaving the resident who was in poor health, in a potentially hazardous environment.
- Sadly, the resident passed away on 21 April 2023. The resident’s representative is the administrator for the resident’s estate.
- On 2 June 2023, the resident’s representative complained to the landlord that despite repeated attempts to inform the landlord of the conditions in the resident’s property, no action had been taken by it. In response, the landlord instructed a surveyor to attend the property on 8 and 12 June 2023, to assess the condition of the property and set out a plan of action for any remedial works.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 June 2023. It stated that a surveyor had inspected the property, and it was waiting on the surveyor’s report before setting out the next steps it would take. The landlord acknowledged that the report was likely to highlight work that was the responsibility of the resident. The landlord offered to lead and pay for all of the works required, irrespective of responsibility, as a gesture of goodwill. The resident’s representative escalated his complaint the same day and said he wanted the complaint to be revisited when the extent of the surveyor’s report was known.
- A damp survey report, dated June 2023, documented the conditions in the resident’s flat. It noted that there was moisture and staining in the kitchen from a leak, and the bedroom walls had damp patches and peeling paint. The report concluded that the damp and mould within the property was primarily caused by structural defects to the property.
- The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 16 July 2023. The landlord apologised for the delays and stated:
- It should have done more when the original report of damp was received in March 2021.
- The survey confirmed the DPC at the property had failed and it had begun consultation with the residents over the proposed plan of works to remedy the issue.
- An inspection of the roof noted that repairs were need and this had been included in the consultation with the residents.
- The surveyor noted that the living room of the flat was most affected by the breach of DPC. The landlord offered compensation of £1,198.80, based on a 5% refund of average market rent for a 1-bedroom flat in the area (£888), from March 2021 to Jun 2023.
- The landlord had already consulted with the residents on works to the external walls to remedy the damp in 2022. From the documentation provided, it is not clear that this work was ever carried out or whether the work was the same as that identified by the surveyor’s visit in June 2023. This evidences poor project management and a significant failure to rectify a damp issue of which it was already aware.
- Furthermore, the roof’s poor state of maintenance had been recorded by the landlord in October 2021, December 2022, and March 2023, yet no action had been taken to rectify the issues. This was a further significant failing that added to the distress experienced by the resident.
- The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation may be applicable in situations where there has been a service failure in relation to cyclical works, due to the length of time taken, and a reduction in management fee may be applicable. However, the policy also allows for discretionary payments for inconvenience and distress and provides examples of relevant situations including “an elderly or sick person has problems with damp…and this is impacting on their health”. The landlord failed to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
- The landlord’s compensation policy also covers partial loss of rooms, as used by the landlord in calculating its compensation claim. However, the policy states that loss of a living room would be eligible for a 20% rent reduction, rather than the 5% offered by the landlord. This was a further deviation from its own policies.
- Had the landlord followed its damp procedure in March 2021, when the resident first reported she was experiencing issues with damp, an external inspection of the property could have picked up the structural deficiencies over 2 years earlier. The repeated deviation from this policy, over the 2 years that followed, did not demonstrably improve the issue and added to the distress of the resident who was already in poor health.
- Therefore, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp in the resident’s property. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £8,010 compensation to the resident’s representative for the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This is made up of:
- £5,510 (rounded up) for loss of the living room from April 2021 to when the repairs were fully completed in November 2023. This has been calculated using an average market rent for the property of £888 and applying a 20% reduction as per the landlord’s compensation policy (20% of £888 = £177.60, x 31 months = £5,505.60).
- £2,500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This has been calculated at £100 a month from April 2021 to April 2023 (£100 x 25 months = £2,500).
The landlord’s handling of reports of the communal hallway being in poor condition
- The communal hallway of the resident’s block experienced issues with the main drains sited in the area. Repairs had been booked to take place in May 2022. However, there were delays to the repairs and subsequently a further issue with the drains was discovered, that need to be rectified before the hallway drains and carpets could be reinstated.
- The resident’s representative emailed the landlord on 30 March 2023 and stated that drains were exposed within the communal hallway and ceiling tiles were missing. He stated that there was no signage to indicate a tripping hazard, and the area had been like that for 6 months to his knowledge. The landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property on or after 12 April 2023. However, there is no record of what the inspection found.
- The landlord’s leasehold customer guide states that leaseholders are not responsible for repairs to the communal areas, and these are the responsibility of the landlord. The guide also states that an emergency repair would be attended within 24 hours. While it is accepted that repairs to the drains were dependent on other work taking place first, the landlord was responsible for the drains and their condition at the time of the complaint was exposing the residents to potential hazards.
- Following the resident’s death, her representative complained to the landlord on 2 June 2023 and provided pictures of the state of the communal hallway. He requested that the matter be rectified for the safety of others.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 June 2023. It stated that a surveyor had conducted an inspection of the block on 12 June 2023, and it was awaiting the report before it could take further action to complete the repairs needed. The landlord explained that the further drain issues that were discovered meant the carpet could not be replaced until all work was finished, to avoid further damage to the new flooring. The landlord did not comment on any action it had taken in the interim to mitigate any potential trip hazards.
- The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) identifies falling as a hazard in a residential property, with more severe implications for elderly or vulnerable people. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide signage to alert all residents to the trip hazards within the area. It is unclear from the documentation provided whether this took place.
- The resident’s representative escalated his complaint the same day and requested that the complaint was reviewed once the surveyors report had been received.
- In its stage 2 complaint response dated 16 July 2023, the landlord confirmed that the works required had been identified and would need to take place prior to the new flooring being fitted. It stated that it had already began consultation with the residents over the repairs needed and it hoped that the communal hallway could be brought back to standard within the next month.
- From the documentation provided, the landlord was only alerted to the condition of the communal hallway in March 2023, when the resident’s representative emailed. While it is accepted that ongoing work meant the hallway could not be fully restored, the landlord should have done more to support and ensure the safety of residents, by ensuring that clear signage was present where trip hazards existed.
- The impact to the resident during this time is not clear and there is no record of the resident reporting the matters herself, however, it is reasonable to infer the presence of trip hazards was an inconvenience.
- There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of the communal being in poor condition. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the £50 for its failings. This amount of compensation is line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
Complaint handling
- A landlord’s complaint handling process is an essential aspect of its overall service delivery provision. An effective complaints process will enable a landlord to identify and address service delivery issues in a timely manner. It will also provide learning for future service provision.
- On 2 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to express her dissatisfaction that the damp had not been addressed and was getting worse. She stated she was going to take the matter to the Ombudsman. The landlord replied on 17 November 2021 and advised the resident she could make a complaint by either:
- Using the landlord portal.
- Sending another email with full details of the complaint and the outcome she was seeking.
- The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord. The policy also states that the word complaint does not need to be used for it to be handled as such. The complaints policy is supported by an internal complaints procedure, which recommends that a complaint should be recorded when a resident has contacted the landlord several times about the same issue.
- From the landlord’s reply to the resident, it clearly identified the resident had a complaint, but the landlord failed to record it in line with its policy. The landlord was also aware that the resident had contacted it regarding this issue on multiple occasions previously. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to record the complaint and then seek any further clarification needed from the resident during its investigation. By deviating from its policy, the landlord has failed to provide the resident with the level of service she should have reasonably expected and caused lengthy delays to the resident’s issues being resolved.
- On 30 March 2023, the resident’s representative emailed the landlord after leaving voicemails that were not responded to. He said that the property posed a severe health risk due to the severity of the damp and mould. The resident’s representative also expressed concern that the floor drains were exposed, and this had been the case for the past 6 months. He also made the landlord aware that the resident was unable to talk due to her terminal illness.
- The landlord’s complaints policy states that anyone can raise a complaint on behalf of a resident with written permission. The email from the resident’s representative was a further expression of dissatisfaction, which related to an issue that had been reported to the landlord on multiple occasions. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident’s representative that written permission was required, while registering the complaint. This did not happen, and this was another missed opportunity to resolve the issues sooner.
- Despite the resident’s representative sending further emails expressing dissatisfaction with the same issues on 4 April, 12 April, and 12 May 2023, the landlord did not follow its own complaint policy or advise him to provide written permission. His complaint was not recorded until he sent a further email to the landlord on 2 June 2023.
- The documentation provided to this Service does not include an acknowledgement from the landlord to the complaint. The next documented contact from the landlord to the resident’s representative was 9 June 2023. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will acknowledge all complaints within 2 working days. This did not happen, and it was unreasonable for the landlord not to follow its own policy and provide the resident’s representative with assurance that his complaint was being dealt with.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 June 2023, 6 working days after the latest complaint was received. It apologised for the poor communication and stated it should have clearly set out the information required from him to act on the resident’s behalf. The landlord also set out a plan of action to address each aspect of his complaint. It offered the resident’s representative a good will gesture of £50 for its communication failings. The landlord’s complaint policy states that a stage 1 response will be issued within 10 working days, therefore the response, once the complaint was subsequently acknowledged, was issued in accordance with its policy.
- The resident’s representative escalated his complaint the same day. He stated he did not think the compensation offered was adequate and he wanted the matter reviewed further following the results of the survey on the property.
- On 16 July 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, 22 working days after the complaint had been escalated. The response dealt with each aspect of complaint and offered compensation in respect of the allegations discussed above. In respect of its poor communication, the landlord stated that £50 had been paid at stage 1 and it hoped communication channels had been significantly improved.
- The landlord’s complaint policy states that a stage 2 response will be issued with 20 working days unless it is unable to resolve the issue. In that case, the policy suggests an action plan detailing the timescales for any outstanding actions will be provided within 20 working days. This minor deviation from the policy could have been avoided by the landlord contacting the resident and agreeing an extended timescale for its response.
- It is noted that after the resident’s representative brought the complaint to this Service, the landlord was willing to engage in mediation, but this was declined by the resident’s representative. While it is positive that the landlord wanted to work with the resident’s representative to reach a fair outcome, the landlord had the opportunity to do this during the 2-stage complaint process.
- From the point the complaint was recorded, the landlord’s handling of it was in line with complaint policy, albeit there was a small delay with issuing the stage 2 response. However, at the heart of this complaint was the ongoing damp issue, which should have been recorded as a complaint 20 months earlier in line with its own complaint policy.
- Had the landlord followed its complaint policy and recorded the complaint, this would have given the landlord the opportunity to review its handling of the substantive issue. A fully functioning complaint system at this point could have given cause for the landlord to take a different approach to that which it did, and would have given the opportunity to be proactive in tackling the underlying cause of the substantive issue. This was a significant failing that caused the resident, and her representative, prolonged distress, and inconvenience, and ultimately resulted in the damp and mould in the property not being resolved for a significant period after it was first reported.
- There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, the complaint relating to the landlord’s failures contributing to the death of the resident is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of the communal hallway being in poor condition.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
- Provide the resident’s representative with a written apology from a senior executive for the failings identified in this report.
- Pay directly to the resident’s representative a total of £8,360 compensation, inclusive of compensation already paid, made up of:
- £8,010 for its failings in handling reports of damp.
- £50 for its failings in handling reports of the communal area being in poor condition.
- £300 for its failures in complaint handling.
- Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, in accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to conduct a review of the key failures highlighted in this report. The landlord should present this review to its senior leadership team and provide the Ombudsman with a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should focus on:
- Understanding why the landlord was unable to demonstrate it had followed its damp procedure, specifically why actions under this procedure to identify the root cause were not implemented, and any changes it needs to make to ensure it is able to effectively tackle reports of damp and mould are made.
- Understanding why the landlord was unable to demonstrate what action it had taken following repeated reports of a poorly maintained roof. Its review must examine why its repair policy target times were not met and any changes it needs to make to ensure large-scale maintenance projects are conducted in a timely and cost-effective manner for its residents.
- The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.