Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202339553)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339553

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

25 October 2024

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Reports of multiple outstanding repairs.
    3. Reports of overcrowding.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of a 2-bedroom house, owned by the landlord, where she resides with her partner and 3 children. The landlord has multiple vulnerabilities recorded for the resident and her household.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 18 January 2024, stating that she was living in a “mould infested house” with vulnerable adults and children. Her complaint included as follows:
    1. It had advised her that the mould was due to overcrowding and it therefore had a responsibility to rehouse her.
    2. She had severe asthma, and her GP was concerned about her and her baby’s health. She said that it should have done further investigations into underlying structural causes such as holes in the roof, guttering and poor heating. She said that it was breaching Awaab’s Law, which stated that homes should be free from damp, mould, and cold.
    3. She reported multiple outstanding repairs to her home including an unsafe banister. She said that the draughts from the windows and doors were making it difficult to heat her home, causing financial hardship.
  3. On 21 January 2024, the resident asked the landlord to add additional concerns to her complaint. These included a damaged kitchen unit, asbestos in the living room ceiling, exposed wires to the living room ceiling light, and safety of the tiled kitchen floor.
  4. In its stage 1 complaint response on 15 February 2024, the landlord explained its position in relation to overcrowding, the homeswapper service, and its management transfer process. It provided information of its investigation into previous reports of damp and mould and its actions since receiving the complaint. It provided a response to each of the reported outstanding repairs, apologised for its late stage 1 response, and offered her £50 compensation for the delay.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 14 March 2024. She provided a comprehensive response to each of the landlord’s replies and said that she was not satisfied with its response.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 25 March 2024. It provided an update in relation to the repairs, damp and mould, and reiterated its position in relation to overcrowding. It said it was arranging for an HHSRS visit and would check the property’s EPC rating, as requested by the resident. Its stock condition team would also check the condition of the kitchen, bathroom and windows. It responded to the resident’s comments in relation to Awaab’s Law and the Housing Act 2004.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service. She said that it had promised to complete work but had failed to do so. The guttering, banister, door and windows, sealant, and kitchen radiator remained outstanding. She said that her family were at risk and the overcrowding had become more serious due to vulnerabilities.

Assessment and findings

  1. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident explained that the presence of damp and mould, draughts in the property, and overcrowding, were causing health and financial concerns for her family. This Service can consider any inconvenience or distress caused, as a result of any service failure by the landlord. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or finances, nor can it calculate or award damages. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts.
  2. Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says 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. Should the resident wish to pursue matters of health further, she could consider this via the courts.

Reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure, dated November 2022, says that when a resident reports an issue of damp and mould, its surveyor will complete a pre-inspection and raise any required work. The surveyor will keep the resident informed throughout the ongoing repairs. It will complete a post-works inspection to check the quality of the work and make contact after 6 weeks to see if the work has continued to be successful. It will make a further check 6 months following the completed work.
  2. The landlord has a responsibility under the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
  3. In the resident’s complaint she said that her home was “mould infested” and impacting her and her family’s health. Her complaint included as follows:
    1. She said that during the last inspection, the surveyor had informed her that the mould was due to overcrowding. It had recorded humidity levels of over 70, which was high. When looking into the damp and mould it had advised her to buy a device which told her when to open and close the windows. Due to the severe cold in her home this was not a valid option as she had a 3-month-old baby and could not heat her home effectively as it was.
    2. It had already painted over the mould, and it had come back within a few weeks. It should have done further investigations into the underlying causes. It had not painted the outer walls to prevent damp.
    3. The mould had affected her family’s health and was putting them at risk, it was not her responsibility to remove it, and it was damaging her belongings. The inspector had told her that it was acceptable to live with a bit of mould.
    4. She was raising her concerns, as instructed by the local authority environmental health department, so that if it failed to resolve the matter in a timely manner, she could take further action. She had complained previously, spoken to numerous people, with no outcome. She was extremely concerned about her children’s health, was constantly upset, and worrying about her baby. She referred to Awaab’s Law and the landlord breaching this. She said that cold affected the respiratory system, and she was now using 2 inhalers a month.
  4. The landlord’s repairs records show the first report of damp and mould on 1 August 2023. The resident reported damp and mould on the bedroom ceiling, all of the windows in the children’s bedroom, and in the brickwork. It should be noted that the repairs records, provided as evidence to this Service, did not pre-date April 2022.
  5. The landlord’s records show that it made 2 attempts to carry out damp and mould inspections in August and September 2023. It was unable to gain access and left calling cards. A further inspection was raised and successfully completed on 27 October 2023. The findings included as follows:
    1. The report stated that it was a 3-bedroom house, and that the resident was using the heating during the morning and evening only. The property had an EPC rating of D.
    2. There was no disrepair identified to the stairs and landing, kitchen, bathroom, or bedrooms at the time of the inspection. There were also no defects identified externally.
    3. The property was in a good state of repair. The resident kept it clean and in good order. The property was free from any surface mould at the time of the visit. The report included photographs taken in each room along with device moisture readings.
  6. In its stage 1 response the landlord said that since receiving her complaint, it had referred her reports to its damp, mould and disrepair team. This was a relatively new team, introduced to help tackle all issues with damp and mould. Its response included as follows:
    1. It had reviewed its repairs history to check previous reports of damp and mould. It could see that it had inspected in December 2021. The resident reported that damp and mould had returned on 1 August 2023, and it had raised a works order to carry out a mould treatment.
    2. Its surveyor had made 2 attempts to carry out inspections in August and September 2023, however, had been unable to gain access. On 1 September 2023, its contractor attended and completed a mould treatment, removed mouldy silicone, and resealed the windows and doors.
    3. An inspection took place on 9 February 2024, and it had provided a copy of the report. It confirmed that there were no required repairs following the visit. The property was in a good state of repair and free from any surface mould at the time of its visit. However, it acknowledged her anxiety about it returning.
    4. It provided advice about opening the window trickle vents to help air circulate and enable a constant airflow into the room to help remove moisture and control humidity. It also advised to open windows to help ventilate when humidity levels were high.
    5. It acknowledged that overcrowding could increase the risk of condensation. With more occupants in a home, the building did have more moisture to contend with due to more people breathing, showering, cooking and washing which would create more moisture in the air. It was important that it took necessary actions and steps to help control the levels in the property while she waited for a larger property to become available.
    6. The ideal humidity level for her home was between 40-60%. However, to discourage the growth and spread of mould, levels should be below 50%. It had advised her to purchase a hygrometer which would allow her to react, ahead of time, such as adjusting the thermostat to increase ventilation to help control humidity. It offered to reimburse her for the cost should she wish to purchase this.
    7. It said that she was happy with the guidance at the time of the inspection and took an image of the device from the surveyor. It had also left a damp and mould booklet on how to minimise condensation.
    8. Overall, the property was in good order and there were no defects identified for the surveyor to action.
  7. The landlord’s response appropriately demonstrated that it had investigated its repairs history and previous reports of damp and mould. From 2021, when the resident first reported concerns with damp and mould, there was a gap of 19 months before she made further reports of the damp and mould returning. It provided advice on reducing humidity levels and appropriately offered to reimburse her if she wanted to purchase the device.
  8. The landlord’s response did not mention the inspection which took place on 27 October 2023 and this Service has not seen a copy of an inspection report dated 9 February 2024. However, the findings appear to reflect the survey undertaken in October 2023.
  9. The landlord undertook a further inspection on 21 February 2024. The report repeats the need to keep trickle vents open and the information given in its stage 1 response. However, it identifies damp and mould in the kitchen. It recommends a mould treatment, along with the replacement of the extractor fan for one with an adjustable humidity sensor.
  10. In the resident’s escalation request she said that the inspector had instructed the contractor to replace the kitchen and bathroom fans. However, it had only replaced the kitchen fan. The surveyor had said that the mould would never go away due to the overcrowding. She was concerned about the mould washes as it seemed to make it worse and moved the mould to other areas. Her response also included as follows:
    1. The mould had damaged cupboards and was near food preparation areas. It was in her children’s bedroom where her baby slept. She had provided 2 GP letters expressing concerns for health. The mould was causing a “tremendous amount of fear, anxiety and depression”. It had taken it over a month to inspect and under the Housing Act 2004, homes should be free from mould and hazards.
    2. She repeated her concerns about overcrowding being the cause of the mould and asked for an HHSRS inspection of the property. She also asked for the EPC rating, as it was out of date in November 2022, and said that properties should be rated D and above by law. She said that mould should be removed within 24 hours of being notified and urged it to look at the housing act, Awaab’s Law, and HHSRS guidance.
    3. She asked it to review the last inspection, stating that the document was dated 27 October 2023, but it had been fraudulently signed and dated 5 November 2023. She said that there was no one of the signatory’s name residing in her home other than her son who was 16 years old who would have been at school. The document also stated that the property was a 3-bedroom house for 5 persons, where it was a 2-bedroom house for 4 persons.
  11. The landlord completed a mould treatment to the walls and ceiling, and window reveals to the kitchen and 1 bedroom on 20 March 2024.
  12. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it was sorry to read of the upset and stress caused to her family. Its response included as follows:
    1. It had checked the works raised following its inspection on 21 February 2024. It could see that both the kitchen and bathroom fans required replacing. It apologised for the error and said it would arrange for the bathroom fan to be replaced.
    2. The previous 2 inspections had found no issues with leaks, rising or penetrating damp. As this was the case, a mould wash would be the only repair required to help manage the condensation.
    3. It responded to her statement about the Housing Act 2004, stating that properties must be free from hazards at the most dangerous ‘category 1’ level, as assessed using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), a risk-based evaluation tool.
    4. It had assessed the risk and whilst there was mould present, this would be reduced to “typical” once it was removed. The mould wash treatments had been raised to manage the issue. It had reviewed the letters the resident had sent and advised that it was not reportable to environmental health. It said that all category 1 issues were reported to senior management, and it would self-report to the regulator.
    5. It was arranging an HHSRS visit, as requested by the resident, and would be in contact to book this. It would also check the EPC rating of the property.
    6. It had raised a works order on 29 February 2024 with a target completion date of 21 March 2024. The work was completed on 20 March 2024.
    7. It said that Awaab’s law was a proposal by the government and proposed new legal requirements for social landlords to investigate hazards within 14 days. The proposal was to undertake emergency repairs within 24 hours and start identified work within 7 days. It explained what would constitute emergency repairs and explained its emergency repairs service.It said it would undertake mould washes within its usual repairs timescales.
    8. It had investigated her claims about the inspection report of October 2023. It explained that there were sometimes delays in completing administration work due to surveyors completing several visits each day. Sometimes paperwork was completed later in the week and the date automatically updated on completion of uploading the survey. It apologised for the inconvenience.
    9. It said that when the resident had reported concerns with damp and mould, it had raised inspections, given advice, and raised repairs within its policy timescales. While mould was exacerbated by overcrowding, it was unable to control the amount of people in her home or move residents without available homes to move them to.
  13. The landlord’s response was comprehensive. It demonstrated that it had investigated its repairs records and history of reported damp and mould. It followed its damp and mould procedure and demonstrated that it had raised inspections and ordered repairs where necessary. It provided explanations regarding HHSRS, demonstrated that it had listened to the resident’s requests, and committed to complete a further inspection as requested by the resident. This was despite finding no hazards during previous inspections. It acknowledged and apologised for its error in relation to the bathroom fan and said it would resolve the matter.It also provided an appropriate response in relation to Awaab’s Law and empathised with the resident’s situation.
  14. However, it is not known whether it had undertaken an HHSRS visit following its stage 2 response or confirmed the EPC rating for the property. The landlord has also not confirmed whether the bathroom fan has been replaced. We have therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to ensure that these actions are complete.
  15. Following the landlord’s stage 2 response there were further repairs records in August 2024. The resident reported the return of damp and mould, 5 months after the mould treatments. The landlord completed an inspection on 29 August 2024, which concluded that there was no presence of damp or mould at the time of the inspection. It said that there were no defects or disrepair in the kitchen impacting mould growth. The recent mould treatment had removed the mould, and the resident had since applied emulsion. It had also inspected the bedroom and found that the mould treatment had removed the mould and there were no structural defects or disrepair identified.
  16. In the landlord’s explanation to this service, it said that it had found no issues with leaks or penetrating damp. The recurrence was due to overcrowding and condensation.
  17. We appreciate that damp and mould, and the resident’s overcrowding situation, would have been distressing for the resident and her family. Particularly given the upsetting events leading to the proposal to implement Awaab’s Law. However, the landlord has demonstrated that it responded to the resident’s reports, undertook multiple inspections, and raised repairs to treat the mould. It found no structural concerns on its inspections and offered appropriate advice. It has recently reinspected the property and found no surface mould present. We, therefore, find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Reports of multiple outstanding repairs

  1. In the resident’s complaint she said that her home was extremely cold. This was due to the doors not being secure, and gaps in the windows. She said that even with the heating on full, the bedrooms and hallway only reached 11 degrees. She said that there was no radiator in the kitchen. She reported that the draughts in the house were causing financial hardship due to having to put more money on the heating. The banister was unsafe, and the repairs operative had said he could not fully secure it as the landlord would not pay due to the cost. She added further concerns to her complaint as follows:
    1. She had been told that the living room ceiling had asbestos. The ceiling light had come away exposing the wires.
    2. There were outstanding repairs to her kitchen unit, which was damaged during installation.
    3. The tiled kitchen floor was a slip hazard, and the landlord was responsible as it was structural.
  2. The landlord’s repairs records of 1 August 2023 show that an order was raised to inspect the windows and banister. Attempts were made in August and September 2023, but it failed to gain access. A further order was raised on 14 August 2023 to remove and encapsulate asbestos identified in a survey; however, this does not refer to where the asbestos was found or confirm that it was removed. There were no repairs records referring to heating, a kitchen radiator, the kitchen unit, kitchen floor, or the living room light.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 response encompassed the information set out in the above paragraph. It said that it had attended on 1 September 2023 and confirmed that the windows were free from movement and were not loose. However, they did need resealing from the inside, which the operative completed. It had received no further repairs requests since. Its response included as follows:
    1. The kitchen unit was replaced in 2021 and was, therefore, not covered by its complaint policy. Kitchens should have polysafe vinyl flooring, however, its surveyor would assess this during his visit. If the flooring were tiled, and put in by the resident, this would be her responsibility to change or repair.
    2. A repair was raised on 1 August 2023 for the banister to be resecured. This had been scheduled for 22 August 2023, but the resident had called the day before to reschedule the appointment. This was rebooked for 1 September 2023. Its contractor attended and advised that the banister was wobbly, however, inserted fixings to solve the problem. It was recommended for this to be passed onto the surveyor for further review. It partially upheld the complaint due to the delays with the banister which had not been passed back by its contractor.
    3. It could not see that asbestos and the light fitting had been reported previously. It had, therefore, raised a works order for its contractor to safely remove any asbestos present. An electrician would visit at the same time to carry out repair work to the light to avoid further appointments.
    4. It had asked for its repairs contractor to arrange a surveyor visit with its own repairs surveyor to assess the banister, kitchen unit, windows, doors, tiling and guttering, along with any other outstanding work in the property.
  4. The landlord’s response demonstrated that it had investigated its repairs history. Its response was appropriate, and landlords can only address repairs where they are aware of them. In this case, its records did not show that it had been made aware of the repairs prior to the resident’s complaint, with the exception of the banister and windows. It carried out inspections and raised repairs.
  5. The landlord’s response in relation to the flooring was reasonable. While the resident advised this Service that the tiled floor had been there since she moved into the property in 2013, this is not considered to be structural. It also does not appear that the matter had been raised previously and it had been in situ in excess of 11 years.
  6. However, the landlord’s response failed to mention the lack of a kitchen radiator, state whether it would inspect the heating system, or acknowledge the resident’s assertion of financial hardship. It would have been appropriate to have inspected the efficiency of the heating system given her reports of the hallway reaching only 11 degrees. It would also have been appropriate to signpost her to services to receive support in relation to financial hardship.
  7. An inspection was undertaken on 26 February 2024. The findings of the inspection were as follows:
    1. It recorded poor workmanship of the banister which was in 2 pieces and therefore wobbled. It recommended to renew the newel post at the bottom of the stairs.
    2. The front door was draughty, and it recommended overhauling the UPVC front door.
    3. The worktop around the kitchen sink required replacing, along with the renewal of 7 wall unit doors.
    4. 10 windows required overhauling.
    5. The roof felt, underneath the tiles, required attention. The works could be done from inside the loft which required patching in 2 places.
    6. It recommended to clean and flush the gutters at the front and rear of the property.
  8. In her escalation request the resident repeated her concerns about the temperature of the property, draughts, and the windows and doors. She repeated that it was causing financial distress and that her asthma was worsening due to the cold conditions. The surveyor had advised her that there should be a radiator in the kitchen, that the banister still required repair, and that the roof required insulation. She also said that the kitchen units and flooring required replacing. She confirmed that the asbestos and light fitting had been rectified.
  9. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that it had raised all of the identified repairs on 5 March 2024 and transferred these over to its direct labour organisation (DLO) as it was currently changing from contractors to its own team. All residents had been sent letters regarding the change to its repairs service.
  10. The landlord’s response was brief in relation to the repairs. It would have been helpful to have provided further information in relation to its inspection, confirm the repairs it proposed to undertake, and a timescale in which it would complete the repairs. It again failed to consider the resident’s reports about her heating and the temperature of the property or acknowledge her reports of financial hardship. It also failed to clarify its position in relation to the kitchen floor.
  11. The resident advised this Service, on 22 October 2023, that she had 17 outstanding repairs. She said that the work promised in the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses was incomplete. We have not received any evidence to suggest that the repairs have been completed, with the exception of the asbestos and living room light. We, therefore, find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple outstanding repairs.

Reports of overcrowding

  1. Section 3.1 of the tenancy agreement states that “you must not allow the property to become statutorily overcrowded.” Section 3.2 states that the property will be overcrowded if the number of people living in it means that a male and female over twelve years old (unless they are living together as partners) will have to share the same room.
  2. The landlord’s allocation policy sets out its management transfer process. It will only offer management transfers under extremely limited circumstances. It will make a single offer only for the same bedroom size as the current home. Management transfers can be considered in the following circumstances:
    1. Where a tenant or member of their household is at risk of significant harm from someone not living in their household. This can be due to serious domestic abuse, gang violence or being a victim of cuckooing or hate crime.
    2. Where an individual personal evacuation plan (PEEP) has been identified and a resident or family are unable to evacuate the property in the event of an emergency.
    3. Where an occupational therapist or qualified medical practitioner details a medical diagnosis, confirms why a property is unsuitable, and provides details of future housing needs.
  3. The landlord’s allocation policy also says that residents have the right to swap or exchange tenancies with another social housing provider.
  4. In the resident’s complaint she said that if the house was overcrowded, it was the landlord’s responsibility to re-house her, particularly as it had attributed the damp and mould to overcrowding.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that the resident had made contact in February 2023, asking about her housing options. It explained her options at the time of the call and also in writing. Its response also included as follows:
    1. It had created a homeswapper account in August 2023 and her profile was “really good”. She had a lovely home, with a large garden, in a popular area. As long the repairs issues were resolved, she would be able to find someone in a 3-bedroom home who needed to downsize.
    2. The reason she may not have seen much success was because she had selected 4-bedroom properties alone in her search. She only qualified for a 3-bedroom property and therefore needed to change the criteria to enable the correct matches.
    3. It would not usually offer a management transfer in her case as it was not classed as an emergency. The overcrowding was by 1, and while this was an issue, it was not classed as severe. The options it had outlined were appropriate. Waiting for a larger 3-bedroom property would be the quickest option.
  6. The landlord’s response was appropriate and provided information in relation to the homeswapper account and suggested ways the resident may improve her search options. It also confirmed its position in relation to management transfers. The resident’s situation did not meet the landlord’s criteria for a management move, as outlined in its allocation policy, and had it made an offer it would have been for the same size property.
  7. In her escalation request the resident stated that there were 5 people in a 2-bedroom house. She referred to the room and space standards and said that the children’s bedroom was only suitable for 1 person. When her baby reached 1, she would be statutorily overcrowded, and it was the landlord’s responsibility not to allow properties to go over the stated number of occupants by the room and space standard. Her response also included as follows:
    1. She was on homeswapper and searching daily. It had said that she needed to change her search to 3-bedroom houses, however, her family ranges of sexes, ages, and disabilities meant she needed a 4-bedroom as confirmed by the local authority.
    2. Her partner suffered from agoraphobia, anxiety, and depression. She had severe asthma, depression, and anxiety. Her 16-year-old son awaiting spinal fusion surgery. Her 10-year-old had ADHD, ODD, tics and learning delays and needed his own room due to sensory and anger problems.
    3. She had been told not to leave her home for a private rented property. She was, therefore, in need of social housing to prevent health conditions from worsening. The current waiting time for a 4-bedroom house was 7 plus years. She attached GP letters and pictures of mould. She asked it to notify environmental health of the update as it had written to the landlord. She also asked the landlord to contact the local authority to request an urgent move due to medical needs and the impending statutory overcrowding situation.
  8. In its stage 2 response the landlord empathised with the resident’s situation. It said it had contacted its home moves manager in relation to the issues raised and its response included as follows:
    1. The tenancy agreement stated that it was the tenant’s responsibility not to overcrowd the property. It was impossible for it to predict when or if a family would choose to expand their household. While unexpected changes may occur, it was important for residents to be mindful of space limitations and avoid overcrowding in order to prevent any potential issues.
    2. She had accurately mentioned that the wait for a 4-bedroom council house was approximately 7 years. This was true, and it was highly likely to be applicable to its own properties as well. The reason behind this was that it only had a limited number of properties of this size. In the entire previous year, it had only received 1 notice for a 4-bedroom property. It had asked its home moves officer to contact her to go through available rehousing options.
    3. Whilst overcrowding may exacerbate mould, it was unable to control the amount of people in the home or move residents without available homes to move them to.
  9. While we appreciate that the resident’s housing situation would be distressing, the landlord’s response was appropriate. It provided a comprehensive response to her comments and explained its position. It also offered support from its home moves manager. Its explanation with regard to 4-bedroom homes was reasonable as it is not uncommon for landlords to have limited stock of this size of property. Its response was also appropriate in relation to the terms of the tenancy agreement and overcrowding. Statutory overcrowding is not an offence if it is due to natural family growth. We, therefore, find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of overcrowding.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Reports of overcrowding.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple outstanding repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay to the resident, and not offset against the rent account, the sum of £100 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience for the delays in completing repairs.
    2. Complete an inspection to ascertain what repairs are outstanding and provide a reasonable timescale to complete any identified repairs.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident £50, offered in its stage 1 response in relation to its complaint handling failure.
  2. The landlord should ensure that it has completed its HHSRS visit and provided the EPC rating to the resident, if it has not already done so.