Onward Homes Limited (202335241)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335241

Onward Homes Limited

30 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 impact of damp and mould issues on the resident’s family’s health.
2. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and flooding to the rear garden.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom bungalow where the resident lives with her husband and adult son. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident’s household including arthritis, mental health, long term sickness and physical disability.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy does not set out timescales for repairs. However, its website states that emergency repairs will be completed the same day and other repairs within 20 days. It says that, with bigger, more complex repairs, it will aim to complete work within 90 days. The landlord sets out in information available on its website that it will respond promptly to any reports of damp, mould and condensation. It says that after receiving a report, it will assess the issue to identify the most appropriate solution and explain to the resident what work is required. It says that if anyone in the household is particularly at risk of the effects of damp and mould, it will visit the property within 5 working days.
The landlord’s remedies and redress guidance says it can consider discretionary payments for delays to services, such as repairs. It says it may also consider making payments to reimburse for damaged personal possessions. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint policy. It aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and to those at stage 2 within 20 working days.
The resident contacted the landlord at the end of October 2023 reporting extensive damp in her bathroom and her son’s bedroom. She also said her rear garden was flooding. The landlord’s repair records show that it raised work to mould wash various rooms and to check gutters at the back of the property on 3 November 2023.
On 19 December 2023 the landlord inspected the property and noted:
1. one bedroom smelt of damp and a mould wash had been completed the previous day. However, further work was needed to remove wallpaper, clear items and mould wash areas that had not been cleaned.
2. the other 2 bedrooms had mould growth to items and a patch of mould on the ceiling.
3. there was mould growth on the bathroom ceiling, and a mould wash and extractor fan upgrade was needed.
4. the resident had a spinal condition and was a wheelchair user.
5. it needed to improve ventilation throughout the whole property, and mould wash bedrooms.
6. the positive input ventilation (PIV) unit needed to be replaced.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 22 December 2023. She expressed concerns about flooding at the back of the property. She said:
1. her gutters had recently been cleared by the landlord but, prior to this, they had not been done for 2 years.
2. she had reported damp and mould to the landlord “time and time again” and although the bathroom had been treated, mould had come back, and other rooms ignored.
3. the mould in her son’s room was now so badly affected that he was using her room instead.
4. she had showed the surveyor who attended on 19 December 2023 that the garden flooded and he had appeared to doubt this.
5. she felt “ignored and fobbed off”.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 19 January 2024. It said it had completed work to the resident’s gutters in December 2022 and December 2023. It noted that there had been a delay in completing the work raised on 3 November 2023, which was completed on 11 December 2023. It apologised for this and the inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord said there had been some delays in resolving damp and mould at the property and it apologised for this. It said that the survey completed on 19 December 2023 confirmed that a PIV unit and a fan were needed in the bathroom but no further work had been identified. However, it noted that a bedroom carpet was damp and it had since discussed this with its neighbourhood team and would arrange to replace this. It apologised for the upset caused as a result of the resident’s personal belongings being damaged by damp and mould.
The landlord address the resident’s concern that said she did not feel supported addressing hoarding issues. It said it had asked its adaptions and hoardings team to contact her to discuss clearance of items. It partly upheld the complaint and offered the resident £400, made up of:
1. £50 for the delay responding to the complaint.
2. £100 for the upset and inconvenience.
3. £100 for the delays completing repairs.
4. £150 towards the cost of damaged items.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 26 February 2024. She said her garden was flooded and waterlogged after heavy rain and she could not let her pet rabbits out to exercise. She said:
1. she believed this was contributing to damp and mould issues and that drainage was needed.
2. she was still having to sleep on the sofa in her lounge due to damp in one of the bedrooms and this was causing her pain and discomfort.
3. she had agreed to having a PIV unit and fan fitted even though this would cost her a “fortune in electricity”.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 26 April 2024. It said that the survey it had undertaken at the property on 19 December 2023 had found humidity levels to be above ideal. It said:
1. carpet in the front bedroom needed to be replaced and it had agreed to cover this.
2. a job had been raised to replace the existing extractor fan and the PIV unit. It said that this work was initially refused by the resident, but eventually completed on 1 March 2024.
3. a post inspection of 14 March 2024 found the extractor was working but that further work was now required to strip wallpaper in the front bedroom, screed flooring, mould wash the bathroom ceiling, regrout tiles and increase loft insulation. It noted this work was programmed for 29 April 2024.
4. there was no evidence of a flooding issue in the rear garden but as a precautionary measure it had raised work to check the downpipe to the rear of the property.
5. a request had also been made to its hoarding team to help clear the rear garden.
The landlord noted the resident’s concerns about the loss of belongings. It said these had been removed from the property with the assistance of its hoarding team. However, it reassessed and increased its offer of compensation. It offered her £850, made up of:
1. £50 for the delay in responding at stage 1.
2. £250 for the upset and inconvenience caused by its poor service and delays in completing repairs.
3. £250 for the delay and poor service completing the repairs.
4. £150 for the delay acknowledging and responding to the stage 2 complaint.
5. £150 towards the cost of damaged items. It said it would contact the resident on 1 May 2024 to agree further compensation for damaged items.
Since its stage 2 response the landlord has offered the resident a further £2,750 in respect of items damaged by damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident says damp and mould at the property may have had a negative impact on her family’s health. While her concerns about this are acknowledged, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. This is a matter which is most appropriately decided by a court following a claim for damages. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer, and it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how she can make such as claim.
Paragraph 42.f of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. It follows that we have not investigated the resident’s concerns about the impact of the property conditions on her family’s health. However, this investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health and well-being when considering her complaint. We have also considered any distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Scope of investigation

The resident raised concerns that there had been damp and mould issues and flooding in the rear garden of the property since she move there in 2007 . We acknowledge the resident’s concerns about this and note that she previously reported damp to the landlord in December 2022. But there were no further reports until October 2023. The Ombudsman expects residents to raise any ongoing concerns with landlords in a timely manner. This investigation has therefore focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s damp and mould issues since October 2023, when she reported damp and mould to the landlord, in addition to flooding issues.

Handling reports of damp and mould and flooding of the rear garden

When the resident contacted the landlord on 30 October 2023 she reported extensive damp and mould and that the rear garden was flooding and needed draining. While the landlord raised work on 3 November 2023 to mould wash rooms and check gutters, we have seen no record that shows it attended the property to inspect the extent of issues in advance of booking this work. It should reasonably have done so. Its guidance to residents sets out that following such a report, it will attend the property within 5 working days if anyone in the household could be particularly at risk of the effects of damp and mould. If the landlord had attended prior to booking work on 3 November 2023 it should have made an appropriate record of this so that it could evidence how it was meeting its obligations and responsibilities. It had noted when the resident made contact that the damp and mould issues appeared extensive. She also reported that her son had complained of wheezing, and the landlord identified that there were household vulnerabilities. In these circumstances it would have been appropriate for it to make an early inspection of issues, in line with its own processes, and record details of this attendance. It is unclear why it did not do so. However, that it did not was a failing.
The resident made further contact with the landlord on 11 December 2023, when she said that no work had been completed to treat the mould issues. While the landlord then took steps to book this work for 18 December 2023, it should not have been necessary for the resident to chase matters before work was booked. By this time nearly 6 weeks had passed since her report of damp and mould. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould sets out that landlords should ensure that investigations and actions in response to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord failed to do this. We have seen other evidence that the landlord did not effectively manage the work it booked to treat the damp and mould at the property. It had attended the resident’s property on 14 and 15 December 2023 following reports from the fire service of hoarding issues. At this time the landlord noted damp and staining to the walls and hoarding in every room. Having attended the property and identified a large amount of items in rooms, the landlord should reasonably have considered actions needed in advance of the mould wash to ensure all walls could be treated.
The resident later said an operative had attended to start work to mould wash the bedroom most affected on 18 December 2023 but had only treated one wall as he said he could not move furniture. That is evidence of a failing by the landlord to appropriately plan and communicate internally about the work needed. It should reasonably have taken appropriate action to ensure all walls could be mould treated at this time. We have also seen no evidence it had any discussions with the resident in advance about planning for this work. In addition, there was a record keeping failure as the work completed on 18 December 2023 was not detailed in repair records. Without recording what work was being completed the landlord could not effectively monitor progress.
The landlord later said in its stage 1 complaint response that its operatives had attended and had completed a mould wash on 18 December 2023. It appeared to conclude at this time that work to mould wash the property was complete. But the surveyor’s report of 19 December 2023 had noted that there was various work still outstanding. This included removing wallpaper, clearing items and mould washing areas not previously cleaned. Yet, we have seen no records that demonstrate the landlord was taking appropriate steps to plan this work, or communicate with the resident about it. The evidence therefore suggests a lack of clarity on behalf of the landlord about what work had been completed and what remained outstanding. The resident had made contact in late December 2023 questioning what was being done about stripping wallpaper. She said she was unsure whether she was responsible for doing so and expressed concern about her household’s ability to do this and move furniture. She had also set out her concerns about this in her initial complaint.
The landlord subsequently arranged for items to be cleared from the property and garden at the end of January 2024. But it is apparent the resident remained unsure about what action she needed to take about removing wallpaper before walls could be treated. The records show that she made further contact with the landlord about this on 22 February 2024. It noted that it had sent an internal email at this time to ask that arrangements be made for wallpaper to be stripped and carpet removed. But it did not communicate effectively with the resident as she continued to question what was being done about this. The landlord should reasonably have taken appropriate steps to liaise with the resident so that she was clear about what it was doing to address the damp and mould issues, and who would be doing the work. Instead it left her concerned she may need to complete some of this work herself.
We have also seen no evidence that suggests the landlord took any prompt steps to arrange for this work to be completed, even after clearance of items at the end of January 2024. It did not keep clear records of when work to strip wallpaper was completed, but had stated in its stage 2 response that this was work still outstanding when it attended on 14 March 2024. The resident told us she began to remove wallpaper herself and that she believed the exertion of this may have caused issues she now has with her spinal cord implant. As noted earlier in the report, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. However, we acknowledge that the landlord had failed to be clear with the resident that it would remove wallpaper and this lack of clarity left her feeling she had no option but to begin removing wallpaper herself. This caused her distress and time and trouble, in addition to that she was caused chasing confirmation about who was to complete this work.
The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response of 26 April 2024 that the resident had initially refused work to install a PIV unit, but this work was eventually completed on 1 March 2024. We have seen records that note the resident was initially concerned about installing a PIV unit and extractor fan due to concerns about her utility bills increasing. The landlord appropriately discussed this with her and referred her to its financial inclusion team to ensure she was claiming all benefits to which she was entitled. It also completed a post work inspection on 14 March 2024, where it noted that it had checked the extractor fan and PIV unit were working correctly. Later, in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said further work had been identified following this inspection. This included increasing loft insulation, screeding the floor following carpet removal and re-grouting wall tiles. But this work was not raised on the landlord’s repair records. That is a further record keeping failing. The lack of appropriate recording of work needed to resolve issues can only have impeded the landlord in ensuring this work was completed within reasonable timescales, and in line with repair targets.
In a previous Ombudsman investigation, determined in April 2023, we ordered that the landlord complete a review of record keeping practices to ensure robust repair records are kept. However, we have identified a number of record keeping failings in this investigation, and events are subsequent to the orders made in our previous report to the landlord. As a result, it is apparent that learning highlighted in that investigation has not been appropriately embedded. We have therefore ordered that a senior manager for the landlord complete a review of record keeping failings we have identified, and consider whether processes and guidance to staff is sufficiently clear on the importance of keeping accurate records. This review should be completed with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
We have seen that the landlord completed a post work inspection of the property on 14 June 2024 when it recorded that various work had been completed to the property. This included wallpaper removal, floor tile removal and mould treatment of the walls. However, it stated the work to screed the floor had still not been completed. The resident told us in July 2024 that as this work to her son’s bedroom is outstanding she is still sleeping on the sofa in the living room.
It is acknowledged that some additional work came to light only later, such as the need to screed flooring. It is also acknowledged that addressing the issues with damp and mould would have been complicated by the need to arrange for items to be removed from the property. But we have seen evidence that the landlord failed to plan, record and communicate effectively regarding work needed to address the damp and mould issues. That has resulted in work being prolonged over a period of nearly 9 months, and some work is still outstanding. In light of this we have ordered that the landlord write to the resident to set out a clear plan of how it will address all outstanding issues at the property within a reasonable timescale.
The resident raised concerns in October 2023 that her garden was flooding, and that drainage was needed. The landlord raised a repair to the rear gutter in November 2023, which it later noted was completed on 11 December 2023. But it failed to give appropriate consideration to the concerns she set out in her initial complaint in late December 2023, that her report of flooding had been dismissed by the surveyor. She said she felt “fobbed off” and “ignored”. The records of the surveyor’s inspection of 19 December 2023 do not detail consideration of the resident’s concerns about flooding in the garden. Any inspection of this specific issue during the survey in December 2023 should have been recorded so that the landlord could show how it was responding to this concern. That it did not do so was a record keeping failing. Even if it had considered the issue at this time, it should still have addressed any ongoing concerns the resident had when she raised it in her initial complaint.
The resident continued to report issues with flooding to her garden in correspondence with the landlord in January and February 2024. It said in its stage 2 response of April 2024 that it had not identified an issue with flooding to the garden but, as a precaution, it had raised a check to the downpipe at the rear of the property. But, yet again, there is no evidence this work was appropriately raised in repair records. As noted earlier, doing so would have helped the landlord in monitoring the progress of this work through to timely completion. The inspection completed on 14 June 2024 detailed that this work was still outstanding and we have seen no records that suggest it has now been completed. The resident has told us that issues with her garden flooding remain an ongoing concern. The landlord has not demonstrated that it has appropriately responded to the resident’s ongoing concern about this that remained even after guttering was cleared in December 2023. In light of this, we have ordered that the landlord contact the resident to arrange to inspect the issue, and set out clearly what it will do to investigate and address her concerns.
The resident told us of her family’s upset that they had been unable to take in her grandson, who has since been placed in foster care. We acknowledge that living with the damp and mould issues and the prolonged repairs would have been extremely upsetting and inconvenient for the resident and her family. However, we do not have sufficient evidence to know whether the resident’s grandson would have been able to live with her family had this work not been outstanding. Nonetheless, this work should not have been ongoing for so long, far in excess of any of the repair timescales set out on the landlord’s website. The resident told the landlord in February 2024 that she was having “panic attacks and sleepless nights” about the ongoing issues. She had also told it of her discomfort due to sleeping on the sofa. We are also in no doubt that the resident would have felt frustration and upset that it had failed to appropriately investigate her concerns that the rear garden was flooding. She spent more time and trouble repeatedly raising this issue as a result.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and flooding of the rear garden since 30 October 2023. Issues are yet to be fully resolved almost 9 months after the resident reported them. While it is acknowledged that the scale of work needed to be increased, it was unreasonably prolonged due to the landlord’s poor planning, monitoring of work, and communication. It is apparent that the resident suffered frustration, distress and inconvenience due to the length of time work has been ongoing.
So far the landlord has offered the resident £500 for the delays in the repairs. This award does not adequately recognise the impact of failings on the resident and her family based on the evidence that has been provided to this Service. With reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance a further award has been ordered. We have considered the resident’s loss of amenity since October 2023. Since that time her son’s bedroom has been affected by damp issues and subsequent repair work. The resident has told us that she is still sleeping on her sofa in her living room. While the landlord took some steps to try to resolve issues by installing a PIV unit and extractor fan, and by arranging clearance of items, its management and handling of the issues was poor. That was particularly so given it was aware of a number of vulnerabilities within the household, and as the resident had said she was sleeping on the sofa. The landlord’s failings resulted in work being prolonged. It has also been unable to demonstrate that it appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns that her garden was flooding, which she said affected her use of it.
This loss of amenity has been calculated as 25% of the property. We have noted the resident has paid weekly rent since October 2023 of between £100 and £108.44. Using the rent amount paid, we have calculated the total compensation for loss of amenity as £787. That is 25% of the rent paid since October 2023 to date. It is acknowledged that this is not a precise calculation. However, it is considered a fair and reasonable amount to recognise the impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident’s ability to make full use and enjoyment of her home and garden. We have ordered this award in addition to the compensation of £500 already offered by the landlord for the impact of delayed repairs.
In line with the landlord’s remedies and redress guidance, it is appropriate for it to consider reimbursing the resident for personal possessions damaged by mould. It initially offered £150 during its stage 1 consideration of her complaint. Since then it has corresponded further with the resident about items that have been damaged and disposed of and has offered her £2,750. The landlord told us that its repairs manager had discussed with the resident on 3 May 2024 the cost and details of items that have been damaged and later removed. It set out in correspondence to us details of the cost of items it would reimburse. However we have seen no record of this discussion with the resident. This is a further record keeping failing. The landlord should ensure it makes and retains adequate contemporaneous notes so that it can demonstrate that it has responded appropriately when making offers of compensation. As a result, we have ordered that the landlord check with the resident that it has made an accurate record of all items she said had been damaged.
The resident told us that she was unhappy the landlord was not offering to replace 2 sofas, but had instead offered to professionally clean them. She also raised concerns that it had only offered to replace her son’s games console and games as used items, rather than offering the purchase price. While we understand the resident’s concern, it is not for us to decide upon the amount that should be reimbursed for the damaged items. We also cannot direct that the landlord offer to replace the sofas rather than professionally clean them. However, it would be reasonable for it to consider any further evidence from the resident, such as receipts showing the purchase of the games console/games or of how much it would cost to replace damaged items. It would also be appropriate for the landlord to give reasonable consideration to photos of the damage to the sofas, and to review the results of any professional cleaning of the sofas so it can consider if this has resolved damage. As such, we have ordered that the landlord communicate with the resident to set this out and explain how she can provide any further evidence of costs of replacing damaged items.

Complaint handling

The landlord received the resident’s initial complaint, by post, on 2 January 2024 and so its stage 1 response of 19 January 2024 was just outside response timeframes set out in its complaints policy. It appropriately acknowledged this in its response by awarding the resident £50 compensation for the delay. Its stage 2 response was more significantly delayed. It received the resident’s escalation request on 27 February 2024 but did not respond in full for more than 2 months. That was a month in excess of the target set out in its complaints policy. It is acknowledged that the landlord communicated with the resident about this delay in March and April 2024. At this time it noted it had delayed responding to the complaint in full as it had not been able to discuss the proposed repair/resolution with the resident due to her personal circumstances at the time. While it is positive the landlord communicated with the resident, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) the landlord could reasonably have avoided this delay by setting out clearly the actions it planned to take to resolve the outstanding repair issues and the resident’s concerns about damaged items. However, the landlord’s offer of £150 in recognition of this delay was reasonable.
While the landlord appropriately acknowledged delays in its response to the resident’s complaints, there were other complaint handling failings that it did not identify or address. As noted earlier, while the resident expressed her concerns that the flooding of her rear garden had been dismissed by the landlord’s surveyor, it did not appropriately address this point. Instead it focused on whether it had completed timely guttering repairs. But that was not the resident’s concern. She said that guttering repairs had been completed and she was still concerned about flooding. In such circumstances it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider what its surveyor had done to review the resident’s concerns about flooding in the garden. It could then have considered whether a further inspection of the issue was appropriate. That it did not do so was a failing. The landlord missed the opportunity to address the resident’s concern appropriately and it resulted in her having to spend more time and effort raising the issue.
We have also found the landlord did not identify work that was still outstanding following its contractor’s attendance on 18 December 2023 to complete a mould wash. That was despite the outstanding work being set out in the surveyor’s report of the following day. Again the landlord focused on the time it had taken to attend, and failed to appropriately establish whether issues had been resolved, or what steps were necessary to ensure they would be. While it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge any past delays in its repairs, the consideration of the complaint was an opportunity to ensure it had clear plans in place for addressing the resident’s concerns within a reasonable timescale.
In its stage 2 response the landlord should reasonably have gone further in assessing whether appropriate action had been taken to progress necessary damp and mould repairs. As noted earlier, the landlord had failed to clearly communicate with the resident about how it planned to complete repairs, such as who would be responsible for stripping wallpaper. It had also failed to take timely action to ensure this was completed. By the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response the resident had been waiting nearly 6 months for issues to be resolved. As set out earlier, we acknowledge the scope of work increased, and issues were complicated by factors such as the need to clear items. But the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, and of how issues were affecting her. In the circumstances, it should reasonably have put in place plans for monitoring all work through to completion. That it did not do so was a failing. It did not do all it could to ensure repair issues, which are still outstanding, were resolved within a reasonable time following conclusion of the complaint process. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, which has yet to be recognised. As a result, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guide and the circumstances of the case, we have ordered an increased award aimed at putting things right for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the impact of damp and mould on her family’s health falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property and flooding in the rear garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failings found in this report. This apology should be made in line with guidance on apologies provided in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. pay the resident compensation of £4,587, made up of:
  1. £500 previously awarded by the landlord for delays in completing repairs.
  2. £787 to recognise the impact of its failing on the resident’s ability to make full use and enjoyment of her home and garden.
  3. £400 for the impact of its complaint handling failings. This includes the £200 previously awarded.
  4. £150 for damage to property awarded previously by the landlord.
  5. £2,750 awarded by the landlord in respect of damage to the resident’s personal possessions.
3. write to the resident to set out a clear plan of how it will address all outstanding damp and mould issues at the property within a reasonable timescale.
4. contact the resident to arrange to attend to inspect the issue of flooding in her rear garden, and then set out clearly what it will do to investigate and address her concerns.
5. check with the resident that it has made an accurate record of all items damaged by damp and mould.
6. communicate with the resident to set out steps it will take to review whether the sofa clean resolves damage, and explain how she can provide any further evidence of costs of replacing damaged items.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager. This should:
1. review record keeping failings we have identified during this investigation.
2. consider whether processes and guidance to staff is sufficiently clear.
3. be completed with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, and with the aim of ensuring record keeping failings identified in this report are not repeated.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with this order to the Ombudsman within 10 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should contact the resident to:
1. ensure it has accurate details of all vulnerabilities that should be recorded for the household.
2. provide her with details of how she can make a personal injury claim to the its insurer.