Origin Housing Limited (202330025)

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330025

Origin Housing Limited

26 March 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Pests in the property.
2. Damp and mould in the property.
3. A repair to the manhole.
4. Works to the external air vents.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy agreement for the property with the landlord. The landlord is a housing association.
The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident lives in the property with her 2 children. One of the resident’s children is autistic and has chronic lung disease.
In October 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that there were mice in the property. Following this the landlord raised works to seal holes in areas of the property. The pest contractor informed the resident that the external vents were an access point for the mice and agreed to order vent covers. In February 2023 the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property. He found damp and mould on the external walls of 1 of the bedrooms and in the living room. On 14 February 2023 the surveyor requested that the landlord’s contractor arranged various work in the property to address the issues.
On 1 October 2023 the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repairs in the property. She said that she had raised her concerns with her neighbourhood manager, however her correspondence often went unanswered. She confirmed the issues in the property were as follows:
1. The vent covers remained outstanding. The resident said that the landlord’s surveyor acknowledged the need for vent covers in 2022 and the pest contractor agreed to order them in October 2022. The landlord attended on 11 September 2023 and fitted mesh to some of the vents. However, the resident understood that this was only a temporary fix, and she reported that the mesh had since fallen out. The resident also said that she had repeatedly contacted her neighbourhood manager for help in getting the vent covers installed.
2. The manhole in the garden was open. The resident said that she reported this to the neighbourhood manager on 27 October 2022. She noted that the open manhole was another access point for rodents and posed a safety hazard.
3. There was mould in the bathroom. The resident said that she did not want the landlord to conduct another mould wash, as previous treatments had not resolved the issue. She asked that the landlord attend to investigate the underlying cause of the mould.
On 5 and 8 October 2023 the resident added to her complaint that the pest contractor did not attend to her property as agreed on 5 October 2023. As a result of this there was dead mice in the property for 6 days and she had paid a pest contractor to remove the mice.
On 17 October 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It confirmed that its pest contractor would visit on 18 October 2023 to complete baiting and remove any dead mice. It said that it had asked the contractor to assess if the mesh placed in the vents was sufficient to stop mice entering the property. The landlord said that if it needed to change the vents, as its contractor indicated in April 2022, it would arrange this. Regarding the damp and mould issues, the landlord said it found no record of an inspection that the resident said took place in April 2022. It confirmed that it had requested an inspection and said that the resident would be contacted with an appointment date.
On 25 October 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She said that the landlord’s response did not address the manhole repair and poor communication from her neighbourhood manager. She referred the landlord to its call records for evidence of the agreement of the appointment on 5 October 2023. She highlighted that the vent covers had been outstanding for 18 months, and the landlord had offered no explanation as to why. She said that the vents were also causing cold drafts in the property. She said that damp and mould had been present in the property since February 2022. She requested compensation for the delays, communication issues, increased gas costs, and the damage to her belongings as a result of the damp and mould.
On 7 December 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said:
1. It acknowledged that actions to fill the pest entry points, including the vents, had taken longer than they should have.
2. That it had agreed with the resident that the pest contractor would attend to remove the dead mice on 5 October 2023. It apologised that its contractor did not attend.
3. That it raised an order for vent covers in 2022, however its contractor reported that vent covers were unavailable, and it had closed the work order. It acknowledged that the pest contractor had agreed to fit the vent covers and apologised that it did not do so.
4. It inspected the property on 3 November 2023 and confirmed that it had raised the following work:
  1. Clearance of the guttering.
  2. A cctv drainage examination and the hydro jetting of the drains.
  3. The delivery of a dehumidifier for 2 weeks.
  4. Mould washes/stain blocking to the 2 bedrooms, the lounge, and the bathroom ceiling.
  5. The upgrade of the humidistat fan in the bathroom.
5. The installation of the fan in the bathroom and clearance of the guttering would provide a more lasting solution to the mould. It acknowledged that the issue of the damp and mould was recurring and that it did not act promptly to address it. It said that it expected to complete the repairs by the end of December 2023.
6. It acknowledged that it did not act on the resident’s report about the manhole. It confirmed that it would inspect this on 11 December 2023.
7. It found that the resident sent several emails to her neighbourhood manager to which she did not receive a response.
8. It requested evidence from the resident so that it could assess compensation for her energy use and the damage to her personal belongings.
9. It offered the resident £1,175 compensation comprising:
  1. £250 for its handling of the pest related work.
  2. £200 for its handling of the works to the vents.
  3. £450 for its handling of the damp and mould.
  4. £75 for its response to the report about the manhole.
  5. £150 in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble chasing the matters.
  6. £50 for complaint handling as its stage 1 was not comprehensive.

Events after the complaints procedure

After the landlord provided its final response, the resident was in communication with the landlord’s contractor to arrange for the repairs. The resident was also in communication with the landlord about her request for compensation. On 31 May 2024 the landlord offered the resident £4,000 compensation.
The resident has informed us that as of March 2025:
1. Damp and mould growth is still present in both bedrooms, the living room and the bathroom.
2. The manhole is still open.
3. The vent covers are outstanding.
4. She has not had any sightings of mice.
The resident confirmed to us that she would like the landlord to address the outstanding repairs in the property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the reports of mice in the property.

When a resident reports a pest issue the landlord is expected to conduct prompt inspections of the property and any other affected areas.
The landlord’s stage 1 response to the complaint did not acknowledge any service failures in how it handled the pest issue. However, in its stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately recognised that there was a failure in its approach to resolving the problem.
The landlord does not have a specific pest control policy. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property. Therefore, when a resident reports a pest issue, the landlord should carry out prompt repairs, such as sealing entry points if found, to prevent further infestations.
The property repair records show that the landlord’s pest contractor attended approximately 11 times between the first report in October 2022 and October 2023. The contractor completed baiting and sealed holes within the property.
The resident reported that as early as October 2022 the pest contractor had found the vents as an entry point for mice and recommended covers. While we have considered the landlord’s response to the vent work separately in this report, it is important to note that the landlord’s contractor installed mesh in some of the vents on 11 September 2023. According to the landlord’s repair policy, it should complete non-emergency work within a maximum of 20 days. It was 11 months before the landlord’s contractor fitted mesh into some of the vents after the pest contractor noted that the vents were entry points in October 2022. The landlord’s final response appropriately acknowledged that the delay in addressing the entry points was longer than reasonably expected.
In addition to the delay in the landlord addressing all the entry points, its contractor also did not attend the property on 5 October 2023. In the stage 1 response the landlord said that the pest contractor was unaware of the dead mice in the resident’s flat. It explained that due to the operative’s workload, he was not able to visit the resident’s property on 5 October 2023. When the resident escalated the complaint, the landlord reviewed the phone call the resident made on 3 October 2023. As a result of this it found that it agreed, during that call, that the pest contractor would visit the resident’s property on 5 October 2023 to remove the dead mice. The landlord’s decision to uphold the resident’s complaint based on this and the time taken to install the mesh to the vents was therefore reasonable.
The landlord also apologised for the distress caused to the resident and her children due to the pest issue. This was appropriate. The landlord’s failure to promptly address the vents and its failure to attend as promised on 5 October 2023 to remove the dead mice contributed to the negative impact on the resident.
The landlord has offered the resident £4,000 as compensation for its handling of all the complaint issues but has not provided a breakdown of how much of this amount relates to each specific issue. Therefore, we have assessed what amount of this £4,000 offer we consider to be proportionate compensation in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. Our guidance states that where a service failure has occurred which adversely affected the resident but has not had a permanent impact on the resident, we consider compensation awards from £100 appropriate.
In this case there were several visits to the property from October 2022 until October 2023 due to the landlord’s failure to promptly address all entry points. The contractor did not attend as agreed on 5 October 2023, leaving the resident’s household with dead mice in the property for 6 days. As a result of this the resident had to arrange for a private contractor to remove the mice. Furthermore, the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates about the proofing work until its contactor fitted mesh to the vents in September 2023. This meant the resident spent a significant amount of time and effort pursuing the matter overall.
We consider £300 of the total £4,000 offered to be a proportionate amount to recognise the delay in the landlord’s response to the pest issue. There was an adverse impact on the resident as a result of the time it took the landlord took to do the relevant proofing work.
We note that the resident said to the landlord that the mesh installation was a temporary measure to prevent mice from entering the property. The resident confirmed that the mesh fell out shortly after, although she has not seen any mice since October 2023. Based on this, it is fair to conclude that the actions taken to install the mesh helped to resolve the pest issue. We have addressed the landlord’s handling of the recommended work to the vents separately in this report.

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

The resident said that the landlord inspected damp and mould in the property in 2022. The landlord has no record of this. However, the repair records show that the landlord raised mould washes for a bedroom and the bathroom ceiling in January and February 2022. Therefore, we accept that the landlord was aware of mould in the property at least a year before the resident raised a formal complaint in October 2023.
During an inspection of the property on 10 February 2023 the landlord’s surveyor found damp and mould on the walls of one of the bedrooms and the living room. On 14 February 2023 the surveyor requested that the landlord’s contractor attend to:
1. Install a humidistat fan in the bathroom.
2. Repair and clear the guttering.
3. Mould wash and stain block the bathroom ceiling and the rear living room wall.
The landlord’s contractor did not complete the work following this request and the landlord did not follow up with its contractor about this at the time. The landlord’s surveyor found the same repairs outstanding during the inspection 9 months later, on 8 November 2023. The inspection in November 2023 noted that:
1. The moisture issues in one of the bedrooms was potentially due to obstructed drainage issues. To address this the surveyor recommended a CCTV drainage examination and hydro jetting.
2. The blockages to the rear guttering was causing water to pool at the foundation. The surveyor noted that this could lead to infiltration problems.
3. The condition of the second bedroom suggested ‘inadequate ventilation’ rather than extreme moisture. The surveyor noted that a comprehensive mould clean and stain block was required.
4. The upgrade of the bathroom fan was necessary due to a lack of natural ventilation in the room. The surveyor noted that advice to the resident to leave the fan running for a short period after using the room could aid in maintaining optimal humidify levels.
5. A dehumidifier was required in the affected rooms for 2 weeks to manage humidity levels in addition to the mould treatments.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not acknowledge that it had failed to carry out remedial repairs following the inspection in February 2023. However, its final response recognised this failure and acknowledged that the damp and mould had been a recurring issue.
The landlord introduced a damp and mould policy in November 2023. Therefore, we have assessed its response to the damp and mould following the inspection on 8 November 2023 in accordance with this policy.
The policy states that a surveyor will visit the property to investigate the cause of damp and mould. Following this the surveyor will arrange for remedial work, taking into account factors such as the resident needs and the scope of the work. The policy also states that the landlord will assess if a temporary move is necessary for the resident, and it will work with residents on issues related to condensation. The policy states that the landlord monitors all completed work, and any advice it has provided to residents, for a year to ensure its effectiveness.
On receipt of the complaint the landlord arranged an inspection of the property to investigate the damp and mould. The inspection took place 27 working days after the resident sent the complaint. The landlord’s policy does not provide timescales for it to arrange an inspection. However, considering that it was damp and mould, the time taken to inspect was unreasonable. After the inspection the landlord raised the identified remedial repairs to its contractor. The actions taken to investigate the issue, albeit delayed, and to raise the necessary remedial repairs, were therefore in line with the landlord’s policy.
On 22 November 2023 the landlord informed the resident that it had raised the remedial repairs. It said that its contractor would be in touch with the resident directly to complete the work and that it would do another inspection in January 2024 to see whether the completed work had resolved the issues. It provided the resident with a copy of the November 2023 inspection report.
The landlord’s inspection report from November 2023 noted that the condition of one of the bedrooms suggested inadequate ventilation rather than excessive moisture. However, there is no evidence that the landlord discussed this with the resident. This was not in line with its policy which states that it will work with residents to take measures to resolve issues where its inspections find that damp and mould is caused by factors other than the property. We have not seen that the landlord provided advice to the resident about how, in the long term, she could improve ventilation in the bedroom. This was unreasonable given the report finding suggesting that the damp and mould in 1 of the bedrooms was due to inadequate ventilation.
Our spotlight reports on damp, mould, and repairs highlight the importance of landlords maintaining oversight when contracting out repair services. Landlords should not rely on external contractors to arrange appointments directly, ensuring they remain aware of all issues without placing the burden on residents. This oversight was especially necessary in this case, as the landlord had failed to ensure its contractor completed the repairs raised in February 2023. Under its damp and mould policy the landlord was also responsible for arranging remedial works.
The landlord confirmed in its final response to the complaint that it expected to complete the repairs by the end of December 2023. However, the landlord did not take ownership of the works from the outset and left the resident to coordinate directly with the contractor. On 2 December 2023 the resident informed the landlord that she had not heard from the contractor after it raised the works in November 2023. The contractor attended to the property on 19 December 2023 without prior notice to the resident. The contractor then agreed to call the resident on 20 December 2023 to confirm start dates for the work and did not do so. Following this the resident emailed the contractor 5 times before she received a response on 9 January 2024. The landlord was copied into these emails and did not intervene to arrange the works on the resident’s behalf. On 9 January 2024 the landlord asked the resident and its contractor to copy it into correspondence. This was an inappropriate response. The landlord placed the onus on the resident to coordinate the appointments and the order of the works.
On 10 January 2024 the landlord informed the resident that it believed it should consider her for a temporary move due to the property’s condition. The resident declined and explained that moving temporarily would be too disruptive for her children. The landlord’s consideration of a temporary move was in line with its damp and mould policy, which requires it to assess the circumstances of all household members, including any health vulnerabilities. The policy states that this assessment would take place at the time of the inspection. Therefore, it was a shortcoming that it did not consider offering a temporary move until 2 months after the inspection in November 2023.
Despite knowing the resident could not temporarily move, the landlord did not manage the remedial work efficiently. Given the condition of the property and the vulnerabilities of members in the resident’s household, the failures by the landlord were substantial, as they involved a series of significant oversights and delays that directly affected the resident and her family. It did not have regard for the family’s vulnerabilities, did not plan the work with their needs in mind, and left the resident to coordinate the repairs herself.
From December 2023 until June 2023 there is evidence that the resident was in consistent communication with the contractor about the works. In addition to the difficulties the resident had arranging the work, there were further communication issues between the resident and the contractor, which the landlord did not step in and resolve. Between February and June 2024 there were instances of missed appointments, the contractor attending the property without prior notice and attending to do works other than what the resident had agreed.
On 22 October 2024 the landlord contacted the resident and acknowledged that there had been poor communication on its side. It agreed to work with the resident in future to ensure that she was kept up to date until it completed the repairs. It said to the resident that it wanted to do a follow up inspection to assess the status of the outstanding repairs. In response to the landlord the resident said that she required it to respond to her earlier emails before any inspections took place. The earlier emails referenced by the resident included explanations of the outstanding damp and mould issues and other repairs, as well as difficulties she faced in engaging with the contractor to arrange the necessary works.
The landlord’s policy states that it will monitor damp and mould related repairs. It also reassured the resident that it would review the completed repairs. In April 2024 the resident notified the landlord that mould had returned in the bathroom after its contractor had completed a mould wash 2 months prior. The landlord did not arrange a further inspection at the time to assess what repairs its contractor completed or whether other repairs were needed to the property. This was unreasonable given the expectation on the landlord to monitor the effectiveness of repairs to address damp and mould.
Overall, we consider the failings in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould amount to severe maladministration. While the landlord acknowledged in its complaint response that it had failed to address the damp and mould appropriately, there is no evidence that it applied learning from its findings. Despite its commitments to complete various work the landlord did not act in line with its policy and arrange or monitor the remedial work. It unreasonably placed the responsibility on the resident to coordinate with the contractor directly. It was aware of the resident’s difficulties in arranging the work from as early as December 2023 and did not take prompt action to intervene and arrange the necessary works directly, instead leaving the resident to manage the repairs. This lack of intervention contributed to further delays and frustration for the resident. Members of the resident’s family also had vulnerabilities, which would have likely been exacerbated by the condition of the property over the prolonged period.
On 31 May 2024 the landlord offered the resident £4,000 compensation. The landlord offered this amount in recognition of its handling of all the issues raised in her complaint and this was the amount the resident had requested.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that in cases where there is a compensation claim for damage to, or loss of personal belongings in damp and mould investigations it may consider compensation. From December 2023 the resident provided evidence, as the landlord requested, of her belongings that had been damaged due to mould. She also provided evidence of furniture that she had bought to replace furniture that had been damaged by mould. The landlord acted in line with its policy and considered this information to inform its offer of compensation.
While the landlord offered the compensation amount requested by the resident in May 2023, the offer does not provide proportionate redress for the overall handling of the damp and mould issues, particularly after the landlord made its offer. The resident suffered significant detriment over a long period, including after the landlord offered the compensation on 31 May 2024, and the remedial work remained outstanding.
We have therefore made an award of additional compensation. This has taken into account the fact that the remedial works remained outstanding after the landlord’s offer of compensation in May 2024, the resident’s rental liability, and our remedies guidance.
The property comprises 2 bedrooms, a bathroom and an open plan living room and kitchen. As well as the living room, the damp and mould was present in both the bathroom and the 2 bedrooms. Given the landlord’s poor handling of the remedial work after it offered compensation on 31 May 2024 and the fact that it did not offer inspection to investigate the ongoing damp and mould until 22 October 2024, we have determined that the landlord should pay a total of £1,309.12, comprising:
1. £609.12 which is equivalent to 20% of the rent amount for the period after the landlord’s offer of £4,000 compensation until it offered a further inspection on 22 October 2024. This amounts to 20 weeks and 3 days.
2. £700 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience likely incurred by the resident during the 20 week period before it offered a further inspection.
The £1,309.12 compensation that we have ordered is in addition to the £4,000 that the landlord offered to the resident prior to this investigation.
We note that on 17 February 2025 the landlord offered the resident a joint visit with its surveyor and a senior contractor representative to plan the outstanding work. We have made an order for the landlord to arrange this visit and take follow-up action to coordinate the necessary repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the repair to the manhole cover.

The landlord has an obligation to repair drains, guttering and pipes under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act. Therefore, the repair to fit the manhole cover was its obligation to address. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will complete repairs within 20 working days maximum.
The resident states that she reported the repair to her neighbourhood manager on 27 October 2022. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge in its response to the complaint that it did not act promptly to do the repair. The landlord also recognised that the resident was chasing the repair.
The landlord confirmed in the response to the complaint that it arranged an inspection of the manhole to take place on 11 December 2023. There is no evidence of this taking place. The landlord raised a repair for the manhole cover on 17 May 2024. On 31 May 2024 the contractor attended the property to do the work without prior notice. The resident confirmed to the landlord on the same day that its contractor had not completed the repair.
The landlord’s offer of £4,000 on 31 May 2024 also considered the time taken to repair the manhole. However, as the repair remained outstanding for several months after the landlord offered the compensation, it is not proportionate in recognition of the ongoing delay.
On 10 October 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that sewage had leaked from the manhole. We cannot assess the landlord’s response to this issue as it is a repair issue that the resident reported after the landlord provided its final response. We are aware that the landlord attended to the report and following this the resident continued to report that the manhole was still open. The resident has confirmed that to date the manhole is still open.
Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair to the manhole cover. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered that the landlord pay the resident £100 in recognition of the delay in repairing the manhole after May 2024, when it made the compensation offer. The landlord acknowledged its failure in its response to the complaint, however, did not address repair within a reasonable time following its response. The impact of this, while adverse, has had no permanent impact on the resident.
We have also ordered the landlord to repair the manhole cover.

The landlord’s handling of the work to the external vents.

The landlord acknowledged that it asked its contractor to fit covers to the vents in 2022 and this did not happen as it closed the work order. It also recognised that the pest contractor later agreed to order the covers for the vents and had not done so.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it confirmed that it would ask its pest contractor to assess whether the mesh installed on the vents in September 2023 was sufficient to prevent pests from entering the property. There is no evidence that such assessment took place. On 22 November 2023 the landlord informed the resident that it had requested its contractor install the vent covers and it was chasing this.
At stage 2 the landlord upheld this aspect of the complaint as it had not arranged the work.
While the decision to uphold the complaint was reasonable the landlord did not take the action that it agreed to address the vents. The resident informed the landlord when she initially complained on 1 October 2023 that its contractor had only installed the mesh to some of the vents. She confirmed that the mesh installed had fallen out since then. Therefore, it was aware that the vents required attention after the contractors visit on 11 September 2023.
On 14 May 2024 the resident confirmed to the landlord that the vent remained uncovered after the landlord’s contractor was due to attend that day. The landlord did not make further attempts to complete the repair, and the resident has informed us that the vent covers are outstanding.
Despite the landlord’s agreement to follow up on the installation of the vent covers, it has not completed this work. While the landlord has resolved the pest issue the resident continued to report having drafts in the property due to the vents.
We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the work to the vents. Following the landlord’s offer of £4,000 and its agreement to arrange the installation of the covers, it has not completed the work in a reasonable time.
We have ordered that the landlord pay the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the overall time that it has taken the landlord to complete the repair to the vents. This has taken into account the fact that the landlord’s offer of £4,000 acknowledged that there had been delays, however the repair has been outstanding since then.
We have also ordered the landlord to assess, as part of its inspection of the property, what remedial work it needs to complete to the vents and complete this work.

Complaint handling

The landlord has 2 stages in its complaints procedure. Its complaints policy states that at stage 1 it will provide a response within 15 working days of receipt. At stage 2 it will provide a response within 25 working days. The response times at both stages include an initial 5 working days for it to acknowledge the complaint.
At stage 1 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in accordance with its policy timeframes. At stage 2 the landlord responded 11 days outside of its policy timeframe. The resident followed up with the landlord 1 day after the initial stage 2 response deadline. The landlord promptly explained the reason for the delay and set a revised deadline. While there was a delay, the landlord promptly explained the reason for this to the resident and provided the stage 2 response by the revised deadline.
The landlord’s complaints policy explains that it stage 2 investigation will focus on several aspects. One of which includes an assessment of whether its stage 1 investigation was handled appropriately and considered the issues raised. In accordance with this the landlord’s stage 2 response appropriately acknowledged that the stage 1 investigation did not consider all the elements raised in the resident’s complaint. It recognised the additional time and effort that the resident spent in her efforts to get the complaint resolved and it initially offered her £50.
The landlord’s later offer of £4,000 compensation to the resident in May 2024 took its communication into consideration, and we consider the offer proportionate when factoring in its complaint handling.
Overall, we believe the landlord’s offer to the resident was reasonable in recognition of how it handled her complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the pests in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair to the manhole.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the works to the external vents.
In In accordance with paragraph 53b of the scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the complaint.

Orders

We have ordered that within 4 weeks of this report, a senior member of the landlord’s staff write to the resident, apologising for the failures identified in our investigation.
We have ordered that within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is to pay the resident £1,559.12 comprising:
1. £1,309.12 in recognition of the delay in addressing the remedial works to the damp and mould and the potential impact on the resident as a result of this.
2. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience likely incurred by the resident as a result of the delay in the landlord addressing the repair to the manhole.
3. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience likely incurred by the resident as a result of the delay in the landlord addressing the works to the external vents.
Our above order of compensation is in addition to the £4,000 that the landlord offered. The landlord is to pay the additional compensation that we have ordered directly to the resident. Once the payment has been made the landlord is to provide confirmation to us.
We have ordered that within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is to arrange an inspection of the property to investigate the:
1. Damp and mould.
2. Manhole.
3. External vents.
Within 2 weeks of the inspection the landlord is to provide the resident with a schedule of works to address the outstanding repairs. A copy of this should be provided to us.
The schedule of repairs should include:
1. Details of the repairs that it will complete to address the damp and mould, the manhole and the vents.
2. The order in which it will complete the works. Prior to confirming this, the landlord should consult with the resident to plan the order of the internal works in a way that minimises disruption to the household as much as possible during completion.
3. Appointment dates for each repair. If necessary, the landlord should discuss the resident’s availability prior and coordinate with its contractor to schedule the appointments.
4. Confirmation as to who will oversee the works, including a post inspection once the landlord has completed the works.

Recommendation

We recommend that the landlord arranges the payment of the £4,000 compensation that it offered to the resident if it has not already paid this.