Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202309201)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309201

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

27 August 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Reports of pests.
3. Concerns about the property’s water tank.
4. Concerns about the property’s windows.
5. Vulnerabilities, health, and welfare concerns.
The Ombudsman also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and her tenancy began in 1990. The property is a 1 bedroom, first floor flat in a converted Victorian building (the block). The resident has a medical condition that affects her neck and spine (Scoliosis).The evidence indicates she later reported she has asthma. In its case evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord told us it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident in its systems.
The tenancy agreement shows the landlord must keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. This includes floors, walls and windows, along with heating and sanitary installations. It must also respond to any reported defects “as soon as is reasonably possible”. The resident is responsible for internal decorations. Providing she is given reasonable notice, the resident is obliged to provide access for inspections and repairs.
The landlord’s tenancy handbook shows the landlord is responsible for pest control in communal areas and inside the property if the infestation is being experienced across multiple homes. It is also responsible for treating some specific pests, such as mice and cockroaches which can carry serious diseases. Otherwise, the resident is responsible for pest control within the property.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy and procedure documents confirm it aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days. More time is available at each stage providing the resident is kept informed

Summary of events

On 6 April 2022 the landlord responded to a previous complaint from the resident. Its stage 1 response addressed several issues including damp and condensation in the property, flies and foul smells, rotting wooden windows, and outstanding major works to the block. The response said the landlord would arrange an inspection. Around a week later, the landlord’s surveyor relayed some brief findings to the landlord. They said the property should be included in a major works programme that was due to begin the following year.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the property again on 10 May 2022. Repair records show they found “some deflection” to the kitchen floor. The surveyor felt it related to a slow leak from a washing machine. The records said there were no visible damp patches so no further action was required. The surveyor also noted some cracking to the living room ceiling. They felt this was not an “immediate danger”. They said the resident was told to notify the landlord if either issue deteriorated. The surveyor recommended the following works:
1. Overhaul sash window in rear bedroom.
2. Renew bedroom door latch.
3. Fit draught proof strips around all sash windows.
4. Improve window operation and fit brush strips.
Records show the landlord completed the recommended works the following day. Around the same time, the resident reported a bad smell from the kitchen taps. She felt this could relate to a cold water tank in the property’s hallway. Records confirm the landlord flushed the tank 2 days later.
On 23 June 2022 a specialist contractor inspected the block’s roof. The contractor’s records said the resident had reported “a strange smell (coming) from the roof”. In addition, the contractor had inspected and cleared the gutters, outlets, and fall pipes. The records also said the contractor completed works to the block’s external pointing, but it had not noticed any strange smells.
A repair record on 20 July 2022 said, “resident confirmed works completed to her satisfaction – only problem is a bad smell from roof above bay window at front – pest control raised”. The record suggests this note related to the surveyor’s previous list of window works. There was a significant gap in the evidence at this point.
The resident complained to the landlord on 18 April 2023. She said there was damp “at the back of the property” and some of the windows “desperately (needed) replacing”. She referenced black mould and “floor swelling” near the bath, and a smell of damp in the hall and bedroom. She said she had stopped sleeping in the bedroom “over 3 years ago” because it felt cold and damp. The resident’s other key points were:
1. The landlord should confirm when the property would be included in a major works programme. It should also address the damp.
2. Over the years, many surveyors and contractors had tried to find the source of the damp without success.
3. A plumber previously lifted floorboards and checked the property’s cupboards. They felt the damp was caused by an external issue.
On 10 May 2023 the parties exchanged emails after the landlord failed to attend a prearranged inspection. The landlord said it had texted the resident first thing that morning to let her know. It apologised and asked if she was available the following week. From the evidence both parties provided, it is unclear if the resident replied.
The resident approached the Ombudsman in June 2023. This was around 14 months after the landlord responded to her previous complaint at stage 1. She said the smell of damp affected any clothing that she stored in the bedroom, a moth infestation was impacting “fibreboard flooring” throughout the property, and its defective windows were difficult to operate and allowed insects into her home. She also said there was a rodent problem in the kitchen, along with cloudy water and a strange smell from a water tank that fed the bathroom.
On 2 August 2023 we relayed the resident’s complaint to the landlord. We said it should respond by 23 August 2023. Six days later, the landlord’s local representative completed a joint inspection with its surveyor. Related notes said the resident was unhappy when the local representative arrived. They show the surveyor arrived first and the resident did not agree with their findings. They also show the resident subsequently discussed some of her repair concerns with the local representative. Other key points from the inspection notes were:
1. The resident filled a mug with water in the bathroom. The water appeared to be clear and no foul smells were evident to the local representative. The resident wanted the landlord to test the water in the tank for acidity.
2. The resident reported she had recently been told that scaffolding would be erected to facilitate cyclical (major) painting works. She was unhappy the landlord’s programmed works did not include the block’s windows.
3. In the bedroom, the surveyor recommended replacing a sash window and removing the built in wardrobe. This was to investigate the area for damp.
4. The landlord would contact pest control about the reported moths. It would also complete proofing works around gas pipes in the kitchen. This was to address the resident’s report of mice.
5. The landlord would send the resident a medical self-assessment form and a transfer application form (for rehousing).
The resident emailed the landlord the following day. She said its surveyor had engaged in “bullying and intimidating behaviour”. She felt the surveyor’s “passive aggressive controlling behaviour” was evidenced when they opened the property’s door for the local representative. On 10 August 2023 the resident reported a contractor had attended the property without prior notice. Records show the landlord called the resident the next day to discuss the incident but it was unable to reach her. It also asked the surveyor what had happened during the inspection.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 16 August 2023. This was around 4 months after her complaint in April 2023. The landlord confirmed it had spoken to the surveyor about the resident’s concerns around their conduct. It said the surveyor was sorry for any distress caused and they had not intended to make her feel uncomfortable. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s main complaint. This was on the basis she had raised similar repair issues previously. In total, it awarded the resident £200 in compensation. The landlord’s other key points were:
1. The surveyor tested the property’s walls with a moisture meter. No damp areas were found, but the surveyor had some concerns about a built-in cupboard. The cupboard would be removed and the landlord’s contractor would investigate the exposed walls for any sign of water ingress. Any identified repairs would be completed. The surveyor had recommended dry-lining the area.
2. The landlord awarded the resident £50 in related compensation. This was to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by having to raise the issue again. Aside from the cupboard, the landlord’s operatives did not see any problems in the bedroom. When they asked the resident to clarify her concerns, she said the room’s “hard-board flooring” was attracting moths. The operatives did not see any moths or larvae.
3. The resident advised the moths were more of a problem previously because her neighbour used to work in a charity shop. The landlord had agreed to contact the neighbour to gauge the extent of the problem. It had also agreed to consider arranging pest control works to address the moths.
4. However, there were no issues with the hard-board flooring which was suitable for the bedroom. The resident was responsible for decorations in line with the tenancy agreement. She should install a suitable carpet to reduce any noise transfer to the home below.
5. The resident had advised mice were entering the property through gaps near the gas meter. There was no evidence of mice during the inspection. The landlord last arranged pest control works in July 2022 and a treatment was completed. The landlord would instruct a different contractor to proof any required areas. It awarded the resident £50 in related compensation.
6. The water tank had been flushed in 2022. The landlord did not see any related issues during the inspection. For the resident’s “peace of mind”, it would arrange a specialist to check the water that was stored in the tank. The landlord would update the resident in due course. It awarded her £50 in compensation because she had raised the matter again.
7. The landlord had agreed to replace the bedroom window during the inspection. However, its major works team had since confirmed that all the block’s windows would be replaced as part of an upcoming cyclical works programme. As a result, the landlord would not replace the bedroom window as agreed. It would confirm the start date for the major works in due course.
8. The front of the block would receive new wooden windows. The landlord would install double-glazed UPVC windows to the rear. It needed to obtain planning permission and this process could take several months. The resident had requested new windows “for a while”. The landlord awarded her £50 in compensation because she had raised the matter again.
9. During the inspection, the resident reported it was difficult to live and sleep in the property due to her health issues. The landlord had outlined her options for moving at the time and the relevant forms to apply were enclosed with its response.
On the following day, the landlord’s pest contractor told the landlord it had been unable to contact the resident on 2 phone numbers that it held for her. The contractor’s email included its proposed proofing works specification.
On 22 August 2023 the resident replied to the landlord. She said she agreed with its surveyor that there was no damp in the bathroom. She also agreed with their recommended works to the cupboard. She stressed the cupboard was damp and she was worried the landlord would not find the source. She said “the bedroom and particularly the bed” felt damp during the night, and this was “one of the reasons why” she was unable to use the room. She also said the problem was serious as she suffered from Scoliosis. Her other key points were:
1. Moths were a problem and they were usually active in the evenings. They entered the property through gaps in the flooring. The landlord’s bedroom flooring was badly fitted, and was “an ideal hiding place for moths”. The resident wanted to install a carpet but she did not want to cover an unresolved problem. She agreed the landlord should contact pest control.
2. Some work had been done previously to “reduce gaps” around the kitchen pipework, but they were not fully sealed. “The only pest control that was previously done was “someone that (the resident had) contacted and paid for personally”. She appreciated the landlord’s offer to instruct pest control.
3. The resident agreed there was no evidence of cloudy water during the inspection. However, she had to run the bathroom tap each morning “to get rid of the smell”. She had not been willing to skip her morning wash to prove a point to the landlord (on the day of the inspection).
4. The living room window was repaired in July 2023 but the repair had since failed. The window was heavy and would not fully close. This created a draft in the property. The problem only affected the top half of the (sash) window. The resident could use the bottom half. She was pleased the windows would be replaced and recognised double-glazing was an upgrade.
5. The resident understood there were outside factors in relation to the timing of the cyclical works. She looked forward “to knowing when the works” would start. This was because the bedroom window was ill fitting, draughty, and allowed insects to enter the property even when it was closed.
On 28 August 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said damp was “a very real problem” as she was unable to use the bedroom. With reference to her Scoliosis, she also said she needed her mattress because it provided specialist support to her neck and spine. She wanted the landlord to provide a timeline for the repairs, and address the condition of the bedroom floor.
The parties’ records and correspondence show the following events occurred between 11 September and 23 October 2023:
1. The resident postponed prescheduled works to the bedroom cupboard at short notice. She raised concerns about the repair specification and said she was “not comfortable with how the job was being handled”.
2. Around 8 days later, the landlord’s contractor was unable to access the property for a repair appointment.
3. The resident chased the landlord and the landlord called her several days later. The resident wanted the landlord to provide written confirmation of any repair appointments. The landlord said it would reschedule the cupboard works and send her a written confirmation. It also confirmed it had received her transfer application and supporting medical form.
4. The resident updated the Ombudsman. She said the landlord had “asked for medical confirmation of (her) existing condition, scoliosis and lordosis of the neck and spine”. She said her condition meant she slept on a special mattress and further deterioration may lead to surgery on her spine. She also said she had been unable to use the property’s bedroom for 3 years.
5. The landlord updated the resident on 5 October 2023. It confirmed the cupboard works had been assigned to a new contractor because the resident was unhappy. It said a different contractor would connect the bathroom to the mains water supply. In addition, pest control would complete proofing works throughout the property. The landlord shared a related works specification.
6. Around 12 days after the above update, the landlord’s internal correspondence confirmed a water sample had been obtained from the property. The correspondence also said an engineer had been unable to complete the mains conversion because they encountered a problem when shutting off the water supply.
7. The landlord was unable to access the property for a prearranged inspection. It called the resident when it arrived on site but it was unable to reach her. The inspection was subsequently rearranged for early November 2023.
8. Around the same time, the landlord raised an order with its pest contractor for external mice proofing works. It also provided some contact details for the resident. It is unclear what prompted the landlord’s correspondence.
The resident emailed the Ombudsman on 16 November 2023. She said the landlord had not responded to her escalation request. She also said its new contractor had not been instructed to investigate the cause of the damp. She was worried this “sticking plaster approach” would leave her with damp in the bedroom. She said the landlord had only recently applied for planning permission. In addition, it was costly and difficult to heat the property due to energy loss through the windows. She also said the landlord was aware she could not use the bedroom but it had not acted on her medical information.
The parties’ records and correspondence show the following events occurred between 24 November and 13 December 2023:
1. The resident cancelled a prearranged pest control visit at short notice.
2. The landlord’s major works programme started early the following month.
3. The Ombudsman told the landlord to issue a stage 2 response
4. The resident agreed to extend the landlord’s response deadline and accepted its offer of £250 in compensation for complaint handling delays. Related correspondence shows she was concerned about works to replace the block’s roof.
5. The landlord’s major works contractor was unable to erect scaffolding around the block due to access issues. The landlord said a formal notification had been issued to the block’s residents the previous month.
6. Another contractor told the landlord it had been unable to schedule the works to the bedroom cupboard. It said the resident had advised she was away for Christmas and the contractor should contact her in the new year.
7. The landlord’s surveyor responded to an internal enquiry about the resident’s complaint. They disputed there was damp in the bedroom and said there was no evidence of water ingress. They reported they had agreed to address “trapped moisture” in a “cold corner” by removing the cupboard. They also said they could not confirm there was a moth infestation, and mice were not mentioned (to them) during their inspection. They also said the water tank had been tested for Legionella and it was certified to be safe.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 16 January 2024. This was around 5 months after the resident’s escalation request. The landlord said it was investigating the delay and it was sorry for any distress and inconvenience caused. It reiterated its offer of £250 in related compensation. Its response included details of the works to be completed to the bedroom cupboard, and to the block as a whole (as part of the landlord’s major works programme). Other key points from the landlord’s response were:
1. The landlord’s surveyor did not find any damp or mould during their visit to the property. “To ensure accuracy”, they had instructed a contractor to remove the cupboard and check for water ingress.
2. The landlord was only responsible for infestations that involved harmful pests that were capable of transmitting disease. This meant the resident was responsible for addressing any moths. The response included some guidance around treating them.
3. New windows had been installed (to the front of the property) as part of the landlord’s major works. This had addressed the resident’s concerns about her ability to open and close the living room windows. The remaining major works would begin when the scaffolding was constructed at the block.
4. No trace of Legionella was detected in the property’s water tank. The landlord had enclosed a safety certificate that confirmed this.
5. The resident had recently confirmed there had been no rodent activity at the property since the new windows were installed. She should notify the landlord if the situation changed.
6. The landlord awarded the resident another £250 to acknowledge “shortcomings” with its service (the response wording suggests it double counted the complaint handling delay by mistake. This is because the response did not identify any other service failures). The landlord would offset its total of £500 in compensation against the resident’s rent arrears.
On 19 January 2024 the contractor that was carrying out the cupboard works reported an access issue to the landlord. It said the resident had asked its operatives to leave because she had to go to work. It also said she had not given them a return date. The contractor confirmed it would charge the landlord for an additional visit. In related internal correspondence, the landlord discussed pursuing legal action to enforce access to the property.
Within days, the resident reported the contractor had “made a complete mess” of the job. She said works had been ongoing for 3 days, the property was “completely covered with dust”, and the “thick” air made it difficult to breathe. She felt there would be a “hefty” charge on her energy bill from the power tools. In addition, the situation would not have happened if the “job had been done properly”. In internal correspondence on 26 January 2024, the landlord said it had spoken to the resident and she was happy with the completed works. However, she had advised the water tank still needed to be removed.
The landlord’s correspondence shows a contractor was scheduled to install a UPVC bedroom window (at the rear of the block) on 31 January 2024. On this date the resident reported an attempted break-in at the property (the evidence indicates the scaffolding may have been used to attempt access). Repair records show the landlord attended the same day and “securely fastened the window shut”. The contractor rescheduled the bedroom window works for 1 February 2024. Subsequently, the works were unable to proceed on this date.
The contractor reported that the resident declined the window works on the basis she struggled with breathing problems. It said she was worried about the fumes from solvent cleaner and silicone sealant. In addition, she was unwilling to leave the property for a few hours to facilitate the works. The contractor also said the resident did not want operatives left in her home unattended, even if the landlord arranged for a representative to supervise them. Related internal correspondence shows the landlord was unsure how to proceed at this point.
On 20 February 2023 the resident updated the Ombudsman. She said she felt scared and vulnerable because the window was a security risk. She also said recent works to her neighbour’s window had caused breathing difficulties, given her a headache, and made her feel disoriented. In addition, the contractor had advised it was unable to use different materials during the installation. She reiterated previous concerns about her ability to use the bedroom and its hardboard flooring. She also said she had no way of knowing if the damp issue was resolved.
The resident raised similar issues in an email to the landlord on 29 February 2024. She said she was waiting for the landlord to respond to her concerns about the solvents. She also said the contractor had “knocked paintwork” near the window during its works. She felt the knock had revealed “thick black mould” on the block’s external wall. She felt the issue was related to her damp concerns. A supporting image was attached to her email. She also said there appeared to be a damp patch on the recently completed (internal) plaster work.
The Ombudsman has seen several images of a comparatively small chip in the block’s external paintwork. The pictures seem to have been taken through the window pane from the property’s interior. Black mould was not clearly evident in the images, which appeared to show weathered external stonework below the paint. We have not seen any images to support the resident’s concerns about damp patches on the landlord’s recent internal plasterwork. Similarly, there was no indication that the resident supplied any related images to the landlord.
On 13 May 2024 the landlord’s window contractor updated the landlord. It said it had spoken to the resident and she wanted a short decant to facilitate the works. It also said she had “bad asthma” and was worried about dust. It confirmed the window was in storage awaiting installation. During internal correspondence several days later, the landlord said it had told the resident it would not decant her. However, she agreed to provide access because the landlord promised to complete a deep clean after the window was installed.
Within days, the resident told the landlord she did not agree to its deep cleaning solution. She denied she had asked for a decant and said she would not allow the landlord to “experiment with (her) health”. She later reported she felt pressured into agreeing the installation because the landlord told her refusing access was a breach of her tenancy agreement. She also said the works had previously been rescheduled without her prior consent.
In internal correspondence in July 2024, the landlord said the scaffolding was ultimately removed from the block. It said it had been left in place for several months to facilitate the replacement bedroom window works. It also said the resident could have the window installed but she would need to provide access.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 21 August 2024. She said works that were completed to the property’s windows had resolved any rodent issues. This was because various gaps were sealed when they were installed. She explained the landlord’s pest contractor had never attended the property to complete the agreed internal sealing works. She confirmed several key aspects of her complaint were still ongoing.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The evidence shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we cannot determine if a landlord was responsible for any health impacts.
The scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be limited by various factors. This includes the amount of time that has passed since the events in question. In addition, residents must bring their complaint to the Ombudsman within a reasonable period. In this case, there was no evidence to show the resident ever escalated her previous complaint to the landlord. She also approached this Service around 14 months after the landlord’s related stage 1 response.
In line with our remit and in fairness to both parties, we focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s current complaint, which is reflected in the timeline above. Any events that occurred before April 2022 are out of scope for our investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The resident has consistently said she cannot use the property’s bedroom due to a damp issue. She also says the situation has been ongoing for several years and she needs to sleep on her mattress for health reasons. The evidence shows her concerns relate to a corner where the built-in cupboard used to be. Although it has disputed that there is any damp or mould in the property, the landlord partially upheld the resident’s related complaint at stage 1. It awarded £50 in compensation for the inconvenience caused by “raising this issue again”.
Its stage 1 response did not include a date when the resident previously raised the issue. However, the landlord’s inspection records from May 2022 did not mention any damp or mould in the bedroom. They also show the surveyor did not identify damp or mould elsewhere in the property (they felt there was a slow leak in the kitchen but did not take any action because there were no visible damp patches). It was noted the surveyor recommended some repairs for the bedroom including a new door latch. This suggests they visited the bedroom.
The same surveyor inspected the property again on 8 August 2023. The evidence shows the resident was initially unhappy with their findings. The landlord’s related record (from the day of the visit) did not reference damp, mould, or an unusable bedroom. It shows the surveyor recommended removing the cupboard so the landlord could investigate the area further. It also shows they recommended dry-lining the area afterwards. In an email on 22 August 2023, the resident told the landlord she agreed with the surveyor’s approach.
In December 2023 the surveyor provided additional information to the landlord about their previous inspection findings. They disagreed there was damp and mould at the property or that the bedroom was unusable. They said they raised a repair order to remove the cupboard and “thermal board the area if (it was) found to be sound”. This was to address “trapped moisture” in a “cold corner”. The evidence shows this was a reasonable approach in the circumstances. The landlord was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its qualified surveyor.
Ultimately, aside from her related comments, there was little evidence to support the resident’s assertions around damp, mould, or an unusable bedroom. From the evidence both parties provided, the Ombudsman has not seen any images to suggest the property, or the bedroom had a damp or mould issue. Nor was any conflicting information seen in the landlord’s case evidence that would undermine its surveyor’s previous findings. Overall, we cannot fairly say the landlord failed to address a significant long-term damp issue.
Based on the period between 8 August 2023 and 26 January 2024, it took the landlord around 6 months to complete the surveyor’s recommended works to the cupboard. The tenancy agreement shows the landlord must respond to reported defects “as soon as is reasonably possible”. The timeline shows the landlord changed its contractor at the resident’s request and the resident subsequently postponed the works until January 2024. Overall, we were unable to evidence any unreasonable delays by the landlord during this period.
However, no information was seen to show the landlord responded to the resident’s recent report of damp and mould from around 29 February 2024. At this point, the resident raised concerns about external mould and said there appeared to be a damp patch in the corner (the area that was plastered when the cupboard was removed). Based on the timing of this assessment, the above points to a related delay of around 6 months. This was inappropriate given the wording of the landlord’s tenancy agreement. It was also unfair.
Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point. We were unable to fairly say that the landlord failed to address a significant long-term damp issue from the evidence both parties provided. However, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s most recent damp and mould report from around 29 February 2024. The evidence points to a related delay of around 6 months. This was unfair to the resident

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of pests

This assessment considered events from April 2022 to date. There was no evidence to show there was any confirmed rodent activity at the property in this period. There was also no evidence to show the landlord failed to respond accordingly to any related reports from the resident. The timeline shows she raised concerns about mice with the Ombudsman in June 2023. It suggests we alerted the landlord to her concerns on 2 August 2023. There was no indication the resident raised the issue with the landlord during the interim period.
The landlord promptly completed an inspection and found no evidence of mice. Nevertheless, it agreed to complete proofing works to any required areas throughout the property (not just the kitchen). This was a reasonable approach given the potential health implications of a rodent infestation. In its stage 1 response the landlord awarded the resident £50 in compensation on the basis she had raised the matter previously (it was unclear when this took place but there was no evidence of continuous infestation or failures by the landlord).
By 17 August 2023, the landlord’s pest contractor had attempted to contact the resident on different phone numbers to arrange the proofing works. This was an appropriate timescale in the circumstances. The evidence indicates the resident did not raise concerns about mice again until October 2023. Subsequently, she cancelled a prearranged pest control appointment at short notice on 24 November 2023. There was no indication that she attempted to rearrange this appointment or that she reported further rodent issues afterwards.
Given the above, the Ombudsman was unable to point to any related failures on the landlord’s part. In relation to moths, there was a similar lack of evidence along with some conflicting information about the extent of the problem.
In June 2023 the resident referenced a moth infestation. In its stage 1 response on 16 August 2023, the landlord said the resident had reported (during the inspection) that the moths were less of a problem because her neighbour no longer worked in a charity shop. Nevertheless, it agreed to investigate the matter with the neighbour and with a pest control contractor. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances. Within days, the resident reported the moths were a problem and they were usually active in the evenings.
The evidence suggests the resident feels the moths are linked to badly-fitted flooring which the landlord previously installed in the bedroom. The landlord’s inspection in August 2023 did not identify any structural issues with the flooring. The landlord has said it is suitable for the property and the resident should provide a carpet. Ultimately, there was no conflicting evidence from a qualified specialist to undermine the landlord’s assertion. Given the circumstances, the Ombudsman was unable to point to any problems with the flooring.
It is accepted moths are unpleasant for the resident. The British Pest Control Association (BPCA) advise most moths are harmless but a few are considered pests. In addition, moths are not known to spread disease and do not bite humans. However, they can damage fabrics and may cause allergic reactions for some people. In its stage 2 response, in January 2024, the landlord said the resident was responsible for treating the moths. It also provided some relevant guidance to help her manage the situation.
The evidence shows this approach was reasonable in the circumstances and it was consistent with the information in the landlord’s tenancy handbook. This is because there was no evidence to show there was a wider moth infestation in the block, the moths were not capable of carrying diseases, and no related structural issues were identified for the landlord to address. Overall, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point. This is because the Ombudsman was unable to point to any pest related failures.
It is noted the landlord awarded the resident £50 in related compensation. This investigation has not considered the appropriateness of this offer on the basis no landlord failing has been identified.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property’s water tank

The evidence suggests the property has a combi boiler that serves most of its rooms, but a separate water tank supplies the bathroom. In May 2022 the resident reported there was a bad smell from the kitchen taps. She felt the smell related to the water tank. Repair records show the landlord flushed the tank within a few days of the resident’s report. This was an appropriate timeframe in the circumstances. There was no evidence the resident reported any similar issues until she approached the Ombudsman in June 2023.
In August 2023 the parties agreed the water ran clear in the bathroom during the landlord’s inspection. However, the landlord agreed to test the tank for the resident’s piece of mind. The Ombudsman has seen a certificate from a laboratory. It shows the landlord had a sample of the tank water tested for Legionella in October 2023. It confirms the bacteria was not detected in the sample. While there was no indication the water was potentially hazardous, the evidence indicates there was a short delay in completing the testing.
Around October 2023 the landlord agreed to remove the water tank and connect the bathroom to the mains. The evidence shows these works remain outstanding around 11 months later based on the timing of this assessment. While this was an unreasonable timescale, the evidence shows the resident had safe and adequate washing facilities during the interim period. Given the wording of the tenancy agreement (keep in good repair), the landlord was not obliged to remove the tank. Overall, the evidence shows the above identified delay had a limited impact on the resident.
The evidence shows the landlord was aware of the Legionella test results by mid-December 2023. However, there was no evidence to show it shared the results with the resident before mid-January 2024. Since it agreed to test the water for her piece of mind, this short delay suggest the landlord could have done more to reassure her in line with its initial objective. It is reasonable to conclude the resident remained concerned about the safety of the water tank until she received a formal confirmation of the result (a copy of the certificate).
Overall, the evidence shows there was service failure by the landlord in respect of this complaint point. There were several delays from August 2023 to date. Significantly, the landlord has not fulfilled its commitment to remove the property’s water tank and connect the bathroom to the mains water supply. The landlord was not obliged to do this and the evidence shows the resident had safe and adequate facilities during the interim period. The landlord could have shared its test results with the resident sooner to provide reassurance.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property’s windows

The evidence shows the resident requested replacement windows multiple times over the years. It is recognised this was likely to be frustrating for her. In its stage 1 response, the landlord awarded the resident £50 in compensation on the basis she had raised the matter again. The tenancy agreement shows the landlord was not obliged to complete cyclical works within a certain timeframe. Prior to the landlord’s inspection in August 2023, there was no evidence to show any of the windows were deemed to be in poor condition or in need of replacement.
Ultimately, there was no evidence to show the landlord ignored any professional recommendations about the requirement to replace the windows, or that it failed to comply with its related repairing obligations during the initial phase of the timeline (April 2022 – August 2023).
The bedroom window replacement remains outstanding around 13 months after the surveyor recommended replacing it. The landlord must respond to reported defects as soon as is reasonably possible. The landlord decided to replace all of the block’s windows during its major works programme. This was a reasonable decision. Its major works programme began in December 2023 and the installation was initially scheduled for 31 January 2024. In the circumstances, we were unable to fairly say that the landlord failed to comply with the tenancy terms.
From late January 2024 onwards, the resident raised health and safety related concerns about the works. This was based on her breathing condition. The evidence shows the landlord’s major works contractor told her it was unable to use alternative materials during the installation process. In general, decants may apply where extensive works are required, and they cannot be completed with the resident in situ. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest the landlord was obliged to offer the resident a decant to facilitate the works.
The evidence shows the resident was offered a number of solutions to alleviate her concerns. She was told the works would take a few hours and the landlord could supervise the contractor on her behalf. Later, the landlord offered to deep clean the property (as soon as the installation was complete). These were reasonable and proportionate solutions in the circumstances. The landlord has confirmed it is ready to install the window when the resident has agreed access. The Ombudsman was unable to point to any flaws in this approach.
No evidence was seen to show the landlord unfairly pressured the resident into agreeing the works in May 2024. Nor was any evidence seen to show the landlord rescheduled the works without her consent. However, the landlord could have made its position clearer to the resident and it could have done this earlier in the timeline. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows it was unsure how to proceed in February 2024. To date there is no evidence it has ever explained its position to the resident in writing. During the interim period, the resident made enquiries about the works and the materials to be used. The evidence shows she has not received a suitable response to date.
There was no evidence the landlord failed to comply with its repairing obligations at any point before January 2024. It subsequently offered a number of reasonable and proportionate solutions to alleviate the resident’s health concerns. However, it could have made its position clearer to the resident and it could have done this earlier in the timeline. This may have avoided some of the resident’s subsequent enquiries, which have not received a suitable response to date. Overall, there was service failure in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health, and welfare concerns

During the timeline, the resident raised a number of concerns that were relevant to this topic. For example, she said the landlord did not engage with information that she provided about her situation and vulnerabilities. She also said the landlord’s surveyor had bullied her. We used the Ombudsman’s inquisitorial remit to include this topic within the scope of our assessment.
Overall, the evidence suggests the landlord was broadly responsive to the resident’s concerns. It generally responded promptly to reported repairs, it offered solutions to problems, and it went beyond its obligations at times. For example, the landlord changed its contractor for the bedroom works because the resident was unhappy. It also agreed to remove the water tank even though it was not obliged to do this.
Similarly, the landlord investigated the resident’s bullying concerns accordingly and apologised if she had been made to feel uncomfortable. The evidence confirms this was a reasonable approach in the circumstances. It also provided rehousing information promptly following its inspection in early August 2023. However, the landlord should have been aware of the resident’s Scoliosis from around 22 August 2022 (it was unclear if she alerted to the landlord to her breathing condition at this point). In its case evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord told us it had no record of any vulnerabilities on file for the resident.
This was concerning in the circumstances and it confirms there was a record keeping failure on the landlord’s part. While there was no clear evidence to show the resident was adversely impacted by this failure (since there was no evidence to show the bedroom was unusable, or that the property was otherwise unsuitable for the resident), it is reasonable to conclude it could undermine the resident’s confidence in the landlord. If it is not addressed, it may also lead to adverse impacts in the future. Overall, service failure is a proportionate finding in respect of this complaint issue.

The landlord’s complaint handling

From April 2023 onwards, the evidence shows there were combined complaint handling delays of around 8 months in total. It also shows the Ombudsman’s intervention was necessary to progress the resident’s complaint at both stages of the landlord’s complaints process. It is reasonable to conclude that this was avoidable and the situation caused additional inconvenience for the resident. The landlord also failed to consider its own complaint handling at stage 1. As a result, it overlooked its related delays and failures in August 2023.
The landlord’s stage 2 response in January 2024 did not include a complaint outcome. Nor did it provide a clear rationale for the additional compensation that the landlord awarded at this point. This was contrary to section 5.16 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), as published in March 2022. This section confirms a stage 2 response must include the landlord’s decision on the complaint, the reasons for any decisions, and details of the remedy offered. This shows the landlord’s response was inappropriate.
The wording of the landlord’s stage 2 response suggests it awarded the resident a total of £500 in respect of its complaint handling failures. This amount is consistent with the figures detailed in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. While there was no indication it recognised its previous failures at stage 1, or their related impact to the resident, the landlord’s award was ultimately sufficient to redress the resident for all of the failures identified above. Since the landlord did enough to put things right, there was reasonable redress in respect of this complaint point.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
  1. Concerns about the property’s water tank.
  2. Concerns about the property’s windows.
  3. Vulnerabilities, health, and welfare concerns.
3. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of pests.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

We were unable to fairly say that the landlord failed to address a significant long-term damp issue from the evidence both parties provided. However, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s most recent damp and mould report from around 29 February 2024. The evidence points to a related delay of around 6 months. This was unfair to the resident.
The Ombudsman was unable to point to any pest related failures on the landlord’s part.
In relation to the water tank, there were several delays from August 2023 to date. Significantly, the landlord has not fulfilled its commitment to remove the property’s water tank and connect the bathroom to the mains water supply. The landlord was not obliged to do this and the evidence shows the resident had safe and adequate facilities during the interim period. The landlord could have shared its test results with the resident sooner to provide reassurance.
In relation to the windows, there was no evidence the landlord failed to comply with its repairing obligations at any point before January 2024. It subsequently offered a number of reasonable and proportionate solutions to alleviate the resident’s health concerns. However, it could have made its position clearer to the resident and it could have done this earlier in the timeline. This may have avoided some of the resident’s subsequent enquiries, which have not received a suitable response to date.
The landlord was broadly responsive to the resident’s health and welfare related concerns. It generally responded promptly to reported repairs, it offered solutions to problems, and it went beyond its obligations at times. However, it should have been aware of the resident’s Scoliosis from around 22 August 2023 onwards and it later told us it had no record of the resident’s vulnerabilities. This confirms there was a record keeping failure. While there was no clear evidence to show the resident was adversely impacted by this issue, it may undermine her confidence in the landlord. It may also lead to adverse impacts in the future.
There were delays and failures at each stage of the landlord’s complaint process. The Ombudsman’s intervention was needed to progress the resident’s complaint on 2 occasions. The wording of the landlord’s stage 2 response suggests it awarded the resident a total of £500 in respect of complaint handling failures. This was sufficient to put things right for the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident for the key failures identified in this report (summarised in the reasons section above). The landlord should share a copy of its relevant correspondence/call summary with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord to inspect the property’s bedroom within 4 weeks. This is to assess the reported damp spots on the new plasterwork. The landlord must share its findings with the resident and the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £150 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £50 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to her reports of damp and mould.
2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to her concerns about the water tank.
3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to her concerns about the property’s windows.
The landlord to write to the resident and clarify its position on the outstanding bedroom window and water tank works. Ideally, the landlord should fulfil its previous commitment to replace the tank. The landlord should share a copy of its relevant correspondence with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord to ensure its records accurately reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities. Before updating its records, the landlord may need to contact the resident to gather the correct information (she previously supplied a medical form in August 2023). It should evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord to investigate why it failed to respond to the resident’s most recent damp and mould report and provide internal feedback if necessary. It should evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

Our reasonable redress finding is contingent on the resident receiving the £700 that the landlord previously awarded at stages 1 and 2 (£200+£500). The landlord should provide evidence it has made these payments.
The landlord should provide evidence it has complied with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendation within the relevant timescales.