Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202315817)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315817

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

29 July 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:
1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and water ingress including the remedial works required, and response to queries.
2. the landlord’s complaint handling including its offer of compensation.

Background and summary of events

The policy and legal context

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 a local officer should respond within 10 working days of the complaint being made. At stage 2, a local manager should respond within 20 days of the review request.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that it can make a discretionary payment of up to £250 to residents who experience distress and inconvenience. Where a leaseholder has lost use of a room “Compensation is based on the rental figure as provided via shared ownership rent. However, if you cannot find a shared ownership rental figure for your property please use the private rental set figures below.
1. Living room- £10 per day (or 20% of daily rent).
2. Bedroom if used- £12.50 per day (or 25% of daily rent).
3. No access to cooking facilities-£15 per day (or 30% of daily rent).
The Communal External Enveloping Procedure states that “The Assets Team is responsible for carrying out inspections of (planned works whilst the contractor is on site. The frequency of which will be defined by the complexity and duration of the works and the sensitivity of the scheme. The inspections should assess overall contractor performance and should consider:
1. Compliance.
2. Timeliness.
3. Standard of works.
4. Materials used.
5. QS (measurements), as assessed by Aecom.
6. Customer experience”.
The landlord’s Damp and Mould policy (March 2023) states:
1. A local officer visits a property where damp or mould is reported within 10 days of receiving a report.
2. For more severe cases, a follow-up inspection by a surveyor will be arranged within 10 days of the first inspection.
The policy references this Service’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) which contains several recommendations including:
1. Landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions.
2. Landlords should consider their current approach to record keeping and satisfy themselves it is sufficiently accurate and robust.
3. Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
4. Landlords should ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
5. Landlords must ensure there is effective internal communication between their teams and departments and ensure that one individual or team has overall responsibility for ensuring complaints or reports are resolved, including follow up or aftercare.
6. Landlords should identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
The lease states that “the Landlord shall maintain repair redecorate and renew the roof foundations and main structure of the Building and all external parts thereof including all external and load-bearing walls…”.

Assessment

The resident is a shared-ownership leaseholder of the landlord and is the sole occupant of the property. The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat with rear doors leading onto the outside communal patio area. The only heating in the flat is underfloor heating. The landlord is the freeholder of the building which is built within a private estate. An agency (the Agents) represents the freeholders who own the grounds of the estate.
In 2021 the landlord conducted works to an external path. Subsequently, in August 2021 the resident reported to the landlord and its insurers rising floors and staining to the walls of his property. In December 2021 specialists appointed by the landlord (Contractor A) submitted a report which stated that the root case was water entering the flat through a wall to the side alley, and from a leaking overflow pipe from an above neighbouring property. Contractor A thought it “likely that the water has been migrating down through the building materials to the flooring beneath and tracking out into the hallway and bedroom across and beneath the flooring”. It was also noted that the “membrane situated upon the substrate had multiple holes which would allow for water to ingress; damp rise through the defects in the DPC (damp proof course)”. It stated, “Due to the multiple defects having caused water loss sitting under a floating floor, wicking up walls, and causing high humidity and condensation related secondary water damage (including mould), it is recommended that the entire property be stripped, sanitised, structurally dried, certified, and restored.” Contractor A formulated a schedule of remedial works.
In February 2022, following air tests, the loss adjusters appointed by the landlord’s insurers accepted that the resident’s property was not fit for habitation and that he and his possessions should be accommodated elsewhere. The resident was decanted during this month.
The landlord appointed a contractor, (Contractor B) to carry out external works to the pathway to resolve the root cause of the water ingress, based on the schedule of works drawn up by Contractor A. The landlord had put the works out to tender and rejected Contractor A’s own quote. Contractor B carried out works between February and April 2022. Contractor A, appointed by the loss adjustor, carried out works to remedy the internal damage to the resident’s property from May 2022.
From 26 April 2022 the resident sent several emails querying whether the external works had been completed to the schedule of works drawn up by Contractor A which he understood to be:
1. Removing side alley paving.
2. Removing subsurface.
3. Adjusting subsurface to make it the correct distance beneath the damp proof course.
4. Fit new trench drain and angle paving and ground toward the existing drainage.
5. Reinstall existing slabs.
6. Repointing on the damaged wall to the area affected only.
The resident noted that the surface level against the wall was the same albeit with gravel not a slab. He asked whether this was an agreed adjustment to the schedule of works or whether Contractor B had not followed it. He noted that Contractor A would be conducting internal works and would check if their schedule had been followed.
In an email sent on 19 May 2022 the resident advised that Contractor A had been back to his property and agreed that the works completed had not met its schedule. He sent several further emails asking again if this was the case. In other emails the resident noted his concerns that insurance problems may occur if works had not been completed correctly. On 19 June 2022, he stated that the landlord had closed his complaint even though nothing had been resolved.
On 22 June 2022 the landlord advised that Contractor B had provided the following schedule of works:
1. “To treat this issue and stop the water to penetrate through, the path requires French drainage:
  1. 1.Cut slabs width 150mm along 13 mt
  2. 2.Cut deep 150mm along 13 mt
  3. 3.Level the earth to let the rain go down and slops away
  4. 4.Fill with shingle along 13 mt
  5. 5.Carry out pointing (remove the loose mortar and apply new) to the wall up to 8 bricks high to all 13 mt”.
The resident noted that the contractor had completed works according to the schedule it had provided to the landlord, but this did not correspond to the schedule identified by Contractor A. He asked the landlord why it had approved the works.
On 5 July 2022 the resident noted that he had been asking for 2 and a half months why Contractor A’s report was not followed but that he had not received a meaningful response. He stated “I will be speaking to your insurers within the coming days and if they ask if the issue has been resolved the only answer I can give them is that Notting Hill did not complete the remediation works as specified by the experts, this was raised to them at the time that the works were undertaken and they have failed to come back with any response in the 2.5 months since.” He also noted that the landlord had closed his complaint without any action being taken to resolve it.
In July 2022 the resident moved back into the flat after Contractor A certified it as dry and the internal works to reinstate the flat had been completed.
On 3 August 2022, after returning from holiday, the resident noticed new damage and damp to the bathroom and reported it to the landlord. He has advised the Service that the damage was worse than before. He stated that he wished to raise a complaint as he still had not been informed why the landlord did not carry out works to the required specification. He said this was unacceptable given the extent of damage to his property and the block and because of the risk of the same issues recurring.
After a further email on 29 August 2022 in which the resident reiterated that the landlord had not explained why works were completed to the schedule, the landlord registered a complaint. The resident then sent several emails to the landlord chasing up a response to his complaint and the substantive issue raised regarding the exterior works. He advised that the current damage to his property was worsening.
On 11 October 2022 the landlord sent the stage 1 response.
1. It reiterated the original works schedule written by Contractor A and the works carried out by Contractor B. It noted that the Contractor B did not carry out works to “fit new trench drain and angle paving and ground toward the existing drainage” according to its report, but it was not clear why this was the case. Contractor B would only complete these works for an additional £20,000.
2. It was responsible for the maintenance of the structure of the resident’s block and all communal internal areas, whilst the Agents were responsible for the maintenance of all external areas and roadways on the estate. Therefore, it should not have instructed the works that were completed except for repointing a damaged wall. Consequently, it had asked the Agents to carry out the further works that were now required.
3. The Agents would arrange for its surveyor to inspect, and it would confirm details of the visit.
4. It would send a claim form so the resident could make a claim against its insurers for damage to his home.
5. It would offer £250 compensation comprising:
  1. £50 for its oversight in not checking repair responsibility before arranging works.
  2. £50 for the delay in instructing further works following notification of further water ingress, and confirmation from Contractor A that the works were not completed correctly.
  3. £100 for the stress and inconvenience suffered as a result of the ongoing repair issue, which caused damp in the resident’s home.
  4. £50 for delays experienced with the complaints process itself.
In response the resident advised on 13 October 2022 that the works carried out to resolve drainage in the alley had made things worse as there was significant staining and black mould which was not the case before. He advised that a plan to resolve the matter was needed before he could respond to the offer of compensation.
After visiting the resident’s property on 6 September 2022, Contractor A wrote to the landlord on 14 October 2022. It advised:
1. “Following rainfall observations and having taken measurements on the exterior that they have not actually completed these works to the standard required nor followed my recommendations. Damp penetration is still occurring”.
2. “Until these works are done, [the resident’s property] may continue to become water damaged and mouldy. Given the cost of the restoration project internally, I would strongly advise swift action to the exterior before the weather gets much wetter.
3. The landlord may wish to recall [Contractor B] with a view to “discussing the specification they provided and its failings, and looking into their design liability insurance (given design and implementation failure leading to potential internal significant cost consequences). Ultimately, the water still splashes back too high, still has the ability to pass into air bricks in line with internal water damage, and still ponds in the affected area to the exterior. There’s no purpose built drainage route other than a slightly lower channel that doesn’t appear to be directed to a drainage point.”
There followed negotiations between the landlord and the Agents about the further remedial works to remedy water ingress into the building and the resident’s property. On 5 January 2023 the landlord advised the resident that the Agents had provided the directors of the freeholders of the estate with estimates.
On 2 February 2023 the landlord provided the Agents with information about the works that had been carried out. On 8 March 2023 the landlord advised the resident that it and the Agents had agreed to split the cost of the works 50/50 with leaseholders not being charged, but issues of legalities and responsibility remained unresolved.
On 8 March 2023 the resident advised the landlord that the bathroom wall adjacent to the side alley had bubbling paint, staining and black mould which he wiped down every few days. He sent several emails over the next two months chasing up an update from the landlord. on the works being considered, and the scheduling and phasing.
The resident has stated that he raised another complaint in April 2023 which the landlord took to be a stage 2 escalation. The landlord has not provided a copy of this complaint. It is clear that a complaint was received as on 3 May 2023, the landlord advised that the stage 2 response would be sent on 22 May 2023 within 20 working days of receipt.
The landlord did not wish to recommission contractor B and on 19 May 2023, another contractor, Contractor C provided quotes for excavation works, backfill, reinstatement and the cleaning of the pathway upon completion of work. It would also carry out damp proofing works to the building.
On 2 June 2023 the landlord sent a holding response but advised that the Agents were happy for it to proceed with works, and it would be in touch with contractor C to arrange the works.
On 12 June 2023, the landlord sent the stage 2 response. It reiterated the action taken on the case. It advised:
1. As its split of the cost of the works (just under £7000) exceeded the Section 20 threshold it would begin a 2-week consultation.
2. It had planned to commence the consultation on 12 June 2023. However, as the resident stated the previous day that he did not believe the works would meet the ISO standard for protecting buildings from water from the ground, it would seek advice from its surveyors before issuing the consultation notice and update him.
3. The resident could submit an insurance claim for repairs within the building and it would reimburse the £100 excess fee.
4. It would offer:
  1. A further £150 for stress and inconvenience which was the maximum it could offer.
  2. £75 for the 14 working day delay in dealing with the stage 2 complaint.

After the complaints procedure

On 31 July 2023 the landlord sent a Notice of Intention and Estimates for drainage and repointing works. The works were to “Fit new trench drain and angle paving and ground toward the existing drainage. Repointing on the damaged wall”. The reserve fund would cover the works. The notice expired on 4 September 2023.
On 16 August 2023 the landlord asked Contractor C to confirm effectiveness of the works to be carried out to the exterior of the building. Contractor C advised that the works would not conform with BS8102 as it was not instructed that its waterproofing works should comply, and it was only waterproofing parts of the area. BS8102 stated waterproofing should be extended internally and externally. For the same reason it could not provide a 10-year guarantee. Contractor C also recommended the use of humidifiers for 6-8 weeks.
On 30 August 2023 the resident referred his complaint to the Service. He advised “it is 16 months since I flagged that the repair was not done properly and a year since damage became visible again; have spent months living in a damp, mould contaminated property, months living away from home (and will need to do so again), have no plan to resolve and am unable to move due to property not being saleable.”
On 27 September 2023 the resident queried how landlord would check if the works were successful and what it would do if the insurers would reject a claim for interior damage as this time it arose from “negligence” in undertaking the original repairs. He asked what the landlord would do about the air quality which was being affected by damp and mould as shown by a test, the results of which he received on 27 September 2023.
On 23 October 2023 the landlord advised the occupants of the building that Contractor C would commence works on 30 October 2023. It advised works entailed installing a pipe with holes to filter water and take it away from the block. It would dig further up the side of the resident’s block to connect the pipe to a sewage pipe, then it would waterproof the building. On 31 October 2023 the resident advised that the landlord did not respond to section 20 observations and asked for testing to ensure exterior repairs were successful.
During an exchange of correspondence throughout November 2023 the resident stated that with regards to Contractor C, the landlord had opted out of a repair that conformed to industry best practice as set out by the British Structural Waterproofing Association where works had a 10-year guarantee. He disagreed with the landlord’s advice that it was highly unlikely that a contractor would ever commit to assurance that an issue will be solved in these circumstances as there were several variables that could change the outcomes of the works.
It is understood that the works by Contractor C were paused due to an amendment in the works schedule causing disruption to occupants of the building. During January and February 2024, the resident raised concerns that external works had stalled for months and asked for the plan. On 14 February 2024 the landlord advised that the back filling of soil and laying of slabs should be completed over the next few days. On 23 February 2024, Contractor C advised that the external works would be completed that day.
The landlord undertook to pay for the second set of works to remedy the interior of the resident’s property. On 13 February 2024, the resident provided 2 quotes, one from Contractor A and one from another contractor. The landlord was not satisfied that the quotes were just to make good therefore arranged for an independent surveyor to inspect on 8 March 2024. The independent surveyor confirmed that the quotes reflected the schedule of works required to reinstate the damaged surfaces and other associated elements within the flat, and therefore were reasonable. The landlord agreed to the quote by Contractor A.
There has been discussion about structural drying works. On 11 March 2024 the resident suggested instead of letting flat dry out naturally, the landlord should strip all saturated materials from the flat. It would then be able to test if the repairs had worked once the flat was fully dried out. He stated it could establish whether any new moisture was from water ingress through the wall from a failed repair as opposed to residual water.
The resident was to be decanted on 12 May 2024 for 12 weeks so internal works could be completed by Contractor A. The resident advised the Service on 15 July 2024 that he is still decanted and the drying out process has not finished.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Service has noted the events subsequent to the end of the complaints procedure in order to put the resident’s complaint into its current context and to inform the orders made.
Following the stage 2 response of 12 June 2023 the resident has raised further issues with the landlord. This includes concerns about works carried out by Contractor C not meeting accepted waterproofing standards and not being checkable or guaranteed, ongoing damp and mould and poor air quality, delays in the commencement and completion of works by Contractor C, a failure to respond to section 20 observations, the landlord querying his quotes for the second set of internal remedial works and how best for the property to be dried out again. Moreover, the delay in the completion of works allowing the resident to live in his property again is ongoing.
However, in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions within its complaint process prior to this Service investigating its handing of the matters raised.
Nonetheless, the Service recognises the continuity of events and ongoing distress and inconvenience to the resident. Therefore, the Service orders the landlord to raise a new complaint taking into account its handling of matters following the stage 2 response of 12 June 2023. It should confirm the details of the complaint with the resident and offer redress for identified service failures, with full regard to the impact on him. Should the resident remain dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint he can refer it to this Service for a separate investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and water ingress and the remedial works required, and response to queries

The resident initially reported water ingress in August 2021. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord was required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. The Spotlight report confirms that the landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. Inspections by appropriately qualified staff and contractors are crucial to the diagnosis of issues. In this case, it was appropriate that the landlord employed a specialist (Contractor A) to inspect and draw up works.
However, the Spotlight report notes that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. In this case it was unreasonable that it took 4 months for the landlord to receive Contractor A’s report, especially as this period was over autumn and winter when the weather was likely to become more inclement and mould more likely to form. Similarly, it was unreasonable that it took 6 months for works to ultimately commence. The impact on the resident was significant insofar as air tests corroborated that he had been living in a property that was for a period not fit for habitation, and that he should be decanted.
The landlord commissioned a contractor, Contractor B, to carry out external works showing a commitment to prevent the water ingress and to meet its obligation to keep the structure and exterior of the building in good repair. However, the external works which were to a pathway outside the building did not fall within its demise and therefore it did not have the right to carry out the works. This showed that staff were unaware of maintenance responsibilities on the estate and neglected to check the plan for the estate. Staff had opportunity to make the necessary enquiries given the delay in commencing works. While this oversight may not have been impactful had the external works been successful, further works were needed and delayed by the late involvement of the Agents.
With regards to the works carried out by Contractor B, the resident expressed concern that it had not carried out works according to the agreed schedule and which he had a reasonable expectation would be completed. Having instructed Contractor B, there is no evidence that the landlord took steps to ensure that works were completed according to the schedule. This was not consistent with its Communal External Enveloping Procedure which states that the Assets Team should maintain oversight of contractors, assess their performance and consider, among other matters, the standard of works and materials used. This was all the more unreasonable given the significance of the impact on the resident and his uncertainty that the water ingress, damp and mould would be resolved, with the possible consequential impact of insurance matters. In fact, the works he queried would appear to be the most important aspect of the schedule.
Compounding the resident’s distress and uncertainty was the fact that both the landlord and Contractor A confirmed that works had not been completed to the schedule; however, the landlord provided no good reason why this was the case, despite numerous emails. It transpired that the works were unsuccessful as damp reoccurred soon after the resident moved back in his flat, during the summer months.
It was not until the stage 1 response that the landlord addressed the resident’s concern about Contractor B’s work. It was not sure why this contractor did not follow the schedule. This confirms that the landlord failed to manage the contractor and lost oversight of the works and/or that it failed to keep an adequate audit trail for the works. This can only have lessened the resident’s confidence in the ability of the landlord to ensure that his property would be brought up to a good state of repair again.
It was necessary for the landlord to carry out a second set of remedial works and to negotiate with the Agents about the funding and responsibility of the works. It was not until June 2023 that the landlord confirmed it would be proceeding with works (by Contractor C). This was a significant delay which could have been mitigated had the landlord liaised with the Agents prior to the initial works. The Agents were partly responsible for the delay; however, there is little evidence that the landlord sought to expedite the reaching of agreements with the Agents. This was particularly unreasonable given that the resident was advising it of worsening interior damage and mould which he needed to regularly wipe down.
The Spotlight Report notes that landlords should ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould. The landlord also did not consistently provide the resident with regular or meaningful updates when seeking to arrange the second set of works, which exacerbated his distress and frustration, and his time and trouble pursuing the matter. In fact, the landlord missed opportunities to show empathy and recognise the resident’s inevitable disappointment with the failed works and the repeated impact of mould on him which was potentially hazardous.
In the stage 2 response the landlord confirmed that it could commence works although it would need to consult with other leaseholders. It was reasonable that the landlord delayed the consultation pending further enquiries into the works proposed to be carried out by Contractor C. Nonetheless, there had already been a significant and impactful delay in reaching this point.
In summary, there were lengthy delays by the landlord in responding to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and water ingress, originally made in August 2021, both in appointing Contractor B and Contractor C for the second set of works. Compounding this, it did not establish responsibility for the external works which showed incompetence, and which ultimately exacerbated the delay in arranging a second set of works. The landlord also failed to ensure that the works by Contractor B were completed according to the schedule and provided no good reason why this was the case, despite numerous emails from the resident. The landlord generally did not consistently provide the resident with regular or meaningful updates, which exacerbated his distress and frustration, and time and trouble pursuing the matter. Taken altogether, these failures amount to severe maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling and compensation offer

On 19 June 2022 the resident stated the landlord had closed his complaint even though nothing had been resolved. This indicates that he understood the landlord had registered a complaint; however, there is no evidence that the landlord had done so at this point. The Service’s Complaint Handling Code in effect at the time stated “Effective complaint handling enables residents to be heard and understood. The starting point for this is a shared understanding of what constitutes a complaint”. As such the resident’s email should have prompted the landlord to register a complaint at that time, seeking details from the resident as necessary.
The resident stated again that he wished to raise a complaint when reporting that water ingress and damp had occurred again on 3 August 2023. Again, there is no evidence that the landlord logged a complaint and confirmed its understanding of the complaint as required by the Code. After registering a complaint on 29 August 2022, it was only after the resident sent several emails that the landlord sent the stage 1 complaint response. This was 4 months after the resident stated that he wished to make a complaint during which period his time and trouble pursuing a response was unreasonably exacerbated.
The landlord registered a stage 2 complaint in April 2023. The landlord has not provided documentation which confirms what prompted it to escalate the complaint at this time. This demonstrates a failure in its record keeping as the Code highlights that a “full record must be kept of the complaint”. The response was also delayed being sent 3 weeks after the given target date of 22 May 2023.
The purpose of the complaints process is to resolve disputes and awarding redress for service failures in integral. In total the landlord offered £475 compensation to recognise delays in carrying out works, not ensuring that works were carried out to the schedule, not checking the repair responsibility, delays in the complaint process and for general stress and inconvenience from the unresolved damp issue. However, the impact on the resident was significant. At the time of the stage 2 response the water ingress, damp and mould had been ongoing for 22 months. There were consequential impacts such as the inconvenience of moving when decanted, reduction in the value and saleability of the property, and not being able to entertain. The resident has advised the Service that he could not host his parents for a considerable period (also taking into account Covid-19). As noted, the resident was uncertain that Contractor B’s work would be effective and why it did not follow the schedule, and he faced the disappointment that there would have to be a second set of works, both internally and externally, with the resulting inconvenience. Taken altogether, it is not considered that the landlord’s offer was proportionate to the circumstances of the case. In fact, the maximum award of £250 for distress and inconvenience in the Compensation Policy fettered the landlord’s discretion.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy awards shared owners a daily compensation rate where they have lost use of a room in the property. Bearing this in mind and the fact that resident’s enjoyment of his property was curtailed by the damp and mould, the Service awards the resident compensation of £5 per day for the period 1 August 2021 to 20 June 2023 when the landlord sent the stage 2 response less the days when the resident was in decant accommodation. The landlord is ordered to calculate this amount and make payment to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and water ingress and the remedial works required, and response to queries.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling including its offer of compensation.

Reasons

There were lengthy delays by the landlord in responding to the residents’ reports of damp, mould and water ingress, originally made in August 2021, both in appointing Contractor B and Contractor C for the second set of works. Compounding this it did not establish responsibility for the external works which showed incompetence and which ultimately exacerbated the delay in arranging a second set of works. The landlord also failed to ensure that the works by Contractor B were completed according to he Schedule and provided no good reason why this was the case, dispute numerous emails from the resident. The landlord generally did not consistently provide the resident with regular or meaningful updates, which exacerbated his distress and frustration, and time and trouble pursuing the matter.
The landlord did not register a complaint at the earliest opportunity and there were delays in its responses. While the landlord offered redress to the resident, it was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

Orders and recommendations

Within the next four weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. arrange for the Chief Executive to apologise to the resident, either in person or in writing, depending on the preference of the resident.
2. to pay compensation to the resident for the loss of enjoyment of his property as outlined in paragraph 59 of this report.
3. to pay further compensation of £550 comprising:
  1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and water ingress including his queries about works.
  2. £150 for the resident’s time and trouble and distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the handling of his formal complaint.
  3. The landlord may deduct any payments already made to the resident within its complaints procedure.
4. register and respond to a new complaint taking into account its handling of matters following the stage 2 response of 12 June 2023. It should confirm the details of the complaint with the resident and offer redress for identified service failures with full regard to the impact on the resident.
5. provide an update to the resident on the current works to his property and a timeframe when he will be able to return.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within the next 12 weeks the landlord must carry out a review of its practice in relation to its system for managing and responding to repair issues on the resident’s block and other locations where the landlord manages stock and similar contractual arrangements are in place. The outcome of the review should be shared with the senior management team and this Service. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. its record-keeping practices with a view to ensuring that all relevant staff and contractors are aware of its repair responsibilities and those of others.
2. steps to ensure that there are effective channels of communication with freeholders and their agents so that works that fall under their responsibility or where joint-working is required can be progressed in a timely way.
3. its practices for keeping residents updated.
4. its practices for maintaining oversight and monitoring the performance of staff and contractors responsible for carrying out tendered works.
5. if it has not done so already, consider implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.