Peabody Trust (202225405)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225405

Peabody Trust

30 April 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 the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of water ingress through the ceiling.
2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. The resident’s concerns about the standard of insulation and associated noise transference.
4. The resident’s reports of repairs required to the water tank and his request for a new boiler.
5. The resident’s complaints.

Background

The resident lives in a one-bedroom flat on the fourth floor of a property that is owned and managed by a housing association. The property was let under an assured tenancy agreement in 2022.
The landlord records that the resident is autistic and has bipolar disorder.
In an email the resident sent to the landlord on 24 February 2023 and 6 October 2023 he said that his bipolar disorder had worsened because of noise transference between his property and the neighbouring properties. He also said that being autistic meant he reacted differently to noise than others. This Service is unable to look into and make a decision about the cause of, or liability for, any impact on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
This Service asked the landlord to provide evidence related to this investigation to assist with the assessment and determination. The information it provided contained evidence of activity that occurred after its final stage 2 complaint response and is therefore beyond the scope of this investigation. It is, however, prudent for some elements of the additional evidence to be considered and referenced in the report; where it provides clarity on activity that is within the scope of this report. Where this occurs it is noted.

Relevant policies and procedures

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters, and external pipes). It also says it is obliged to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas, and electricity and for sanitations. It is also obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
The tenancy agreement says the landlord will keep the installations, services, fittings, fixtures, the structure, and outside of the property in good repair.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it aims to complete routine repairs within one visit and within an average of 10 working days. However, some repairs may take longer to resolve, due to their complexity or specialist nature. Where this is the case, the landlord will inform customers of the timescales required to resolve the affected repairs and keep them informed throughout the repair process.
The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy says it will investigate all reports of damp, mould, and condensation within residents’ homes. It will make sure it carries out, and completes, any necessary repairs that would help tackle the issue. Where the damp and mould are not because of repair issues, it will work with residents to help them manage condensation in their homes.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will not usually take action where a complaint concerns behaviour that results from different lifestyles, or which would not generally be considered to be unreasonable. It will only investigate noise nuisance where the noise is frequently excessive in volume and duration or occurs at unreasonable hours. It will agree an action plan with the resident and any witnesses and keep them informed of the actions it takes. The procedure says that once a course of action is agreed, the case manager is to monitor the case and update the resident accordingly.
The landlord’s compensation and remedies guidance policy says compensation payments and other remedies are considered when a resident has experienced a delay, or if it has failed to carry out a service within its published guidelines, or not handled a complaint properly. It offers up to £250 for time, trouble, and inconvenience due to a minor disruption, up to £100 for minor complaint handling failings and up to £200 for moderate complaint handling failings.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy which says stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days.
Paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the ‘Code’) says a complaint should be acknowledged and logged within 5 days of receipt. Paragraph 5.6 says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. Paragraphs 5.8 and 5.16 of the Code say that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint and any reasons for the decisions made.

Summary of events

The landlord held a welcome meeting with the resident in the property on 4 October 2022, the day after he moved into the property. The landlord noted that the resident wanted the outstanding repair works that he had raised to be completed as soon as possible.
The landlord recommissioned the boiler in the property on 18 October 2022.
The landlord raised a works order to complete a roof repair on 4 November 2022. The date of the appointment is unclear. The landlord inspected the windows in the property on the same day.
The landlord completed a boiler inspection on 18 November 2022 and did not find any faults with the flue, or holes around the boiler.
The landlord serviced the boiler in the property on 19 January 2023.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 7 February 2023. He said that the roof was leaking, the windows had mould, there was no insulation in the flat which had caused noise transference issues from his neighbours at night, the water tanks were not working which caused low water pressure, and he had been told by the landlord that a new combi-boiler should be installed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 February 2023 to ask it to send a block letter to other residents to be mindful of noise during unsociable hours.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 February 2023 to say that the property soundproofing requirements were in line with properties built at that time, it would not be able soundproof the property as the costs were prohibitive and offered little improvement in noise reduction. If noise was ongoing and unreasonable it might be able to address this. It also said that it had sent a block letter the same day to ask neighbours to be mindful of noise.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 13 February 2023 to ask it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 27 February 2023. The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint acknowledgement email to the resident on 14 February 2023 and said that it would provide a complaint response by 28 February 2023.
The landlord sent an internal email on 22 February 2022 that said it had looked into the request to replace the boiler but that a new boiler had not been recommended.
The resident provided diary sheets to the landlord on 24 February 2023 which covered the preceding 2 weeks from 6 February to 23 February 2023. The resident reported that the noise prevented him from focusing on work, snoozing in the afternoon, enjoying watching TV, and getting a good night’s sleep. He stated that his autism and bipolar made him respond to loud noise differently from others and that his symptoms had worsened due to these issues despite “being on a treatment for bipolar.”
The landlord opened an ASB case on 24 February 2023 following its receipt of incident diary sheets from the resident. The landlord noted that the resident was aware that the noise was primarily household noise and that he had spoken to his neighbours and that they had agreed to be mindful.
The landlord sent an internal email on 27 February 2023 that confirmed that it would attend the property on 6 March 2023 to complete roof works.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 28 February 2023. The landlord said:
1. A roof repair had been raised on 4 November 2022 and the contractor would attend on 6 March 2023 and would reattend afterwards to make good the affected areas. It said that the delay was due to approving the quote for the work.
2. It had attended the property a few times she he had moved into the property in October 2022 including on 20 February 2023 and had concluded that the water pressure was normal.
3. It had attended the property a few times since he had moved into the property in October 2022, including on 20 February 2023, and concluded that the water pressure was normal.
4. It had attended an appointment on 4 November 2022 and reported that all of the windows were in working order with no signs of a leak.
5. There had been a build-up of condensation from drying washing and a lack of ventilation which had begun to turn to mould and that nothing could be done other than ventilating the property and cleaning condensation.
6. It had asked a contractor to assess the insulation in the property to agree a suitable appointment by the end of the approaching week.
7. It had not recommended a new boiler in the property following visits it had completed on 18 October 2022 and 18 November 2022 when no issues were found and on 19 January 2023 when the boiler had been serviced.
8. It apologised for the delays in completing the roof repair which it said had fallen below its service standards and had caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
9. It would complete the outstanding repairs and calculate some form of compensation based upon the outcomes of its investigation and the experiences of the resident.
10. The resident could escalate the complaint to stage 2 and contact this Service if he remained dissatisfied with the response. The landlord did not say if it upheld the complaint.
The resident sent a complaint escalation request to the landlord on 3 March 2023. The resident thanked the landlord for its complaint response and said:
1. When his water tanks had been inspected by contractors, including the landlord’s manager, he had been told that they were too old and should be changed to a combi–boiler which would improve the water pressure.
2. He lived in the property alone and so heating up an entire tank was consuming more energy and resulted in bigger bills.
3. Why had the landlord said everything was fine when the contractor had said he would advise the landlord to change the boiler.
4. There was mould around the windows due to their age and the condition of the seals which didn’t close properly and when it was cold outside the windows were steamy and there was condensation.
The landlord attended the property to complete roof works on 6 March 2023.
The landlord sent an internal email on 8 March 2023 that said it had inspected the property and that there was nothing it could do about noise transference from a washing machine and doors banging. The landlord confirmed that it had explained to the resident that it could not tell people how to live their lives and that it would not do anything regarding soundproofing. It confirmed that the resident had accepted the information and that he would apply for a transfer.
The landlord attended the property on 13 March 2023 to inspect the windows for signs of a leak. The landlord reported that there was condensation in the property from a lack of ventilation when drying clothes and that nothing could be done other than ventilating the property and cleaning the condensation. The landlord called the resident later the same day to advise him to ventilate the property when drying clothing and that it would arrange for the damp and mould to be treated.
The landlord forwarded the resident’s stage 2 escalation request internally on 16 March 2023.The landlord sent a further internal email the next day that said it had previously inspected the insulation in the property in response to the resident’s request for sound proofing but that it would not complete this work. It said that it did not identify any other concerns in the property during the visit.
The landlord inspected the condition of the property on 21 March 2023 and concluded that it did not require soundproofing insulation.
The landlord sent an internal email on 22 March 2023 that said it would not remove a cylinder and convert the mains to fit a combi-boiler and that windows in the building were all the same and they would be for the investment team to oversee unless it could complete an overhaul repair.
The landlord sent an internal email on 23 March 2023 that said insulation would not be provided to soundproof the property and that it would call the resident the same day to book a mould wash appointment at the property.
The landlord sent a letter and action plan to the resident on 23 March 2023 about the reports of ASB they had discussed over the phone the same day. It said that the resident had agreed to continue to record a diary of noise incidents, he would contact the noise team if loud noise was experienced, the landlord would contact the resident’s neighbour to discuss the matters and it would be in contact with the resident every 28 days to reassess the situation.
The landlord sent an internal email on 28 March 2023 to confirm that it had attended the property and that there was no damp and mould.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 14 April 2023 to confirm that it had booked a property inspection on 24 April 2023.
An external noise and nuisance representative emailed the landlord on 7 and 19 May 2023 to report that it had been contacted by the resident about poor sound insulation in the property. He said that the landlord had advised him to contact the representative and that it would respond to his suggestions following an inspection of the property.
On 9 June 2023 the landlord made an appointment for the noise and nuisance representative to assess the property on 22 June 2023 and determine if it was deficient, had defective sound insulation and/or whether it would be considered an actionable hazard. The landlord issued a letter to the resident later the same day to confirm the appointment.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 28 June 2023 asking it to provide a stage 2 complaint response to the resident by 2 August 2023. The letter said that the complaint was about the landlord’s handling of water leaks from the ceiling and damp and mould in the property, insulation in the property which caused noise nuisance, outstanding repairs to the water tank that caused low water pressure, and a boiler replacement.
The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint acknowledgment to the resident on 3 July 2023. It said that it would respond to the resident within 20 working days. It listed the complaints and asked the resident to advise if anything was incorrect.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 July 2023 to say that he had been expecting a response to his second complaint escalation “weeks ago.” The landlord replied to the resident the next day to say that the stage 2 complaint had been received from this Service. It apologised for the delay in escalating the complaint and for any confusion that had been caused.
The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 25 July 2023. The landlord said:
1. The resident had been unhappy with the time it had taken to address the outstanding repairs and the lack of compensation it had issued for the time, trouble, and inconvenience that the repair delays and noise issues caused.
2. Although the roof repair had been completed on 7 March 2023, the resident had reported that the property had since started to overheat due to the materials used during the roof repair.
3. Despite the windows being opened, the resident had reported that the internal temperature of the flat was at least 6 degrees warmer then the external temperature.
4. The resident had now agreed to allow contractors to complete window repairs and would forward his availability when he had spoken about a transfer with his neighbourhood manager.
5. The resident understood that the landlord could not take any further action in relation to the property insulation and that noise transference would be managed within the landlord’s ASB policy.
6. It was in the process of adding the resident to its transfer list to be moved due to the noise nuisance he had been experiencing.
7. It apologised for a delay in logging the stage 2 complaint and the inconvenience and frustration it had caused him.
8. It had expanded its staff team to prevent complaint handling delays and had recently merged with another housing association and was reviewing its policy and procedures and how it handled noise complaints and repairs.
9. It apologised for the resident’s experience and offered £300 as compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing a roof repair outside of its policy timescales and £150 for its complaint handling delays.
10. It referred the resident to this Service if he remained dissatisfied but did not say if it had upheld the complaint.

Events that took place after the completion of the complaint procedure.

The resident emailed the landlord on 27 November 2023 to say that he had met the roof contractors on an undisclosed date and had shown them where leaks were coming in. He said that he had not been aware that they had completed any work previously as the bedroom was still damp from leaks and the damp patch kept growing.
The landlord sent an internal email on 6 December 2023 that confirmed that it had gained access to the roof the same day and had sealed the spots where leaks could be getting in using 2 different repairing materials.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 February 2024 to say that the windows had been measured the day before and that the landlord had attended to clean mould in the property 2 days before.
The landlord emailed the resident on 3 April 2024 to confirm that it was still waiting for window materials to arrive. It apologised and said that this was common when sourcing window materials.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress through the ceiling.

It is not clear when the resident first reported a roof leak to the landlord, but the landlord raised a works order to complete the repair on 4 November 2022. The landlord did not book an appointment to complete the repair until 6 March 2023, which it said in its stage 1 complaint response of 28 February 2023 was due to a delay in approving a quote for the work. A delay of 4 months was an unreasonable amount of time for the landlord to have taken to approve a quote. Furthermore the completion of the repair was completed 3 months later than the landlord’s 10-day routine repair policy timescale which was inappropriate.
The resident raised the landlord’s handling of the roof leak again in his stage 2 complaint dated 28 June 2023. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord recognised and apologised for its delay in completing the roof repair and offered the resident an award of compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience the matter had caused and also suggested that it was reviewing its handling of repairs and the associated policies.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (a roof repair, an apology, an acknowledgement of service failure, and compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by apologising for its delays and indicated it would learn from outcomes by reviewing its repair policies. The landlord offered the resident £300 as compensation which was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings. The award was also in line with the provisions of the landlord’s compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance. The landlord also completed the repair and this, together with the level of compensation put things right.
Consequently taking all matters into account this Service finds reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress through the ceiling.
It is evident that the landlord was required to repair the roof again as further water penetration had occurred in December 2023 after the landlord had issued its final complaint response. This is addressed in an order later in this report.

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

It is not clear to this Service when the resident first reported concerns about damp and mould in the property, but in its stage 1 complaint response the landlord explained that it had inspected the windows in the property on 4 November 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to have inspected the windows in response to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord inspected the windows in the property again on 13 March 2023 in response to concerns of damp that the resident had reported on 3 March 2023. The landlord completed the inspection in line with its 10-day routine repair policy timescale. The landlord contacted the resident later the same day to provide appropriate advice about ventilating the property following the outcomes of the property assessment it had completed that day. Furthermore it made an appointment with the resident on 23 March 2023 to complete a mould wash in the property.
It is evident that the landlord had been unable to access the property to complete further works for an undisclosed period of time. However the landlord referred to this in its stage 2 complaint response indicating that it would complete window repairs in the property when the resident confirmed his availability. This was a reasonable approach for it to have taken in the circumstances. However, we note that the repairs have still not been completed and we have made an order concerning this below.
It is unclear why the landlord came to consider that window repairs were required when during its previous inspections it had said there were no concerns. It was inappropriate for the landlord not to have correctly diagnosed the window repairs when it had inspected the property. This caused the resident to incur time and trouble in pursuing the window repairs and addressing the associated condensation, damp, and mould.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds maladministration in the landlord handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of insulation and associated noise transference.

It is not clear when the resident reported concerns about sound insulation in the property prior to making a stage 1 complaint on 7 February 2023. However the landlord responded to him the next day to say that it would not soundproof the property because the property had met soundproofing regulation when it had been built. The landlord also indicated that the costs would be high for little noise reduction. The landlord did not refer the resident to any policy that indicated it had a standard approach to declining soundproofing requests. Therefore, it was unreasonable for the landlord to have said that it would not consider the resident’s request prior to inspecting the property.
The landlord took an appropriate approach to the receipt of diary sheets from the resident by sending a block letter to the neighbouring properties about noise, agreeing to a property assessment by an independent noise specialist and agreeing to assess the insulation itself in the property in its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord also explained to the resident that it could not tell neighbours how to live their lives and that there was nothing it could do about everyday noise transference from a washing machine and banging doors. It was reasonable for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining that it was limited in how it could address the lifestyle issues.
It is evident that the landlord opened an ASB case to address matters it had identified related to household and everyday noise. This Service’s October 2022 Spotlight report on noise recommended landlords avoid escalating noise complaints into ASB and focus more on prevention. It is accepted that the landlord had put in place practical actions to prevent noise transference, as previously outlined. However, it was inappropriate for the landlord to have pursued the matters using its ASB procedures and to subsequently refer to its intention to continue to use this approach in its stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord addressed its handling of the resident’s request for soundproofing insulation in the property in its stage 2 complaint response in which it said that it could not take any further action. It also said that it would add the resident to the transfer list as a result of the distress the noise had caused to him. This was an appropriate approach for the landlord to have taken in line with its policies and procedures. However, the landlord did not explain the outcomes of the noise specialist’s assessment of the property, and this was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have further explained the reasons for its decision.
Whilst sufficient information was provided by the landlord during this investigation to complete an assessment of the resident’s complaint the information provided as evidence of the landlord’s actions was incomplete. The landlord failed to provide evidence of a block letter it had sent to residents about noise transference and the outcome of the noise transference assessment of the property. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of its communications with residents and inspections carried out at properties. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of insulation and associated noise transference.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the water tank and his request for a new boiler.

It is not clear when the resident first reported concerns about the water tank and the boiler, but the landlord confirmed in an internal email it sent on 22 February 2022 that it had investigated whether a new boiler was required and concluded that it was not needed..
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord indicated that it had inspected the property and had concluded that the water pressure was normal. It was appropriate for the landlord to have inspected the property and for it to have relied in the expertise of its contractors when deciding whether the water tanks required replacement. The landlord also explained in its stage 1 complaint response that it had recommissioned the boiler when the resident moved into the property in October 2022 and had inspected the boiler on 18 November 2022 and serviced it on 19 January 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to have referred to the investigations it had completed into the condition of the boiler to the resident. Furthermore, the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified engineers when deciding whether a new boiler was required.
The resident responded to the landlord’s complaint response on 3 March 2023 in which he indicated the contractor had said that that the water tank should be removed and replaced with a combi-boiler which would improve the water pressure. The landlord circulated the email internally which led to it sending a further internal email which confirmed it would not remove a cylinder and convert the mains to fit a combi- boiler. It is not clear on what basis the landlord had made this decision when its contractor had said otherwise.
There is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident that it had decided not to remove the water tank and install a combi-boiler. As set out above it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinions of its qualified engineers when deciding whether the tank should be removed, and a new boiler installed. However it was not reasonable that this decision was not communicated to the resident, and this represent a service failure.
The landlord recognised the resident had escalated this element of the complaint in its stage 2 complaint acknowledgement. However, the landlord did not to respond to this aspect of the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 complaint response and this is addressed below in the assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of repairs required to the water tank and his request for a new boiler..

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
1. Did not acknowledge or register the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 7 February 2023 until this Service emailed the landlord on 13 February 2023.
2. Logged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 14 February 2023 and said that it would respond by 28 February 2023 rather than the date that had been requested by this Service.
3. Did not log the resident’s stage 2 escalation request of 3 March 2023, despite forwarding the email internally on 16 March 2023.
4. Did not address the resident’s complaint about repairs required to the water tank and his request for a new boiler in its stage 2 response despite referring to the matter in its stage 2 acknowledgement on 3 July 2023.
5. Did not investigate the ongoing nature of the roof leak in the property prior to issuing its stage 2 complaint response on 25 July 2023.
6. Did not indicate it the complaint had been upheld in both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses.
The landlord considered its handling of the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 complaint response and apologised for a recognised service failure and offered the resident an award of compensation for the detriment this had caused to the resident. The landlord also indicated it would learn from outcomes by reviewing its complaint policies. By doing so it evidenced that it had acted fairly and had sought to learn from outcomes.
The However, the landlord offered £150 compensation to the resident which was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of its failings. Especially given it had not responded to 2 elements of the resident’s stage 2 complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress through the ceiling.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of insulation and associated noise transference.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the water tank and his request for a new boiler.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord failed to complete roof repairs in line with it repairs policy timescales. However it apologised for its recognised service failure and offered an award of compensation that was proportionate to the detriment that had been caused.
The landlord completed assessment in the property and identified condensation which it attributed to ventilation and lifestyle. However it later completed mould washes in the property and decided to repair the windows in the property which it took an unreasonable amount of time to progress.
The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of noise transference due to insulation in the property by inspecting the property and addressing the matters directly with the resident and his neighbours. However the landlord did not clearly explain its reason for not completing insulation repair in its complaint responses.
The landlord did not communicate to the resident its decision not to remove the water tank and install a new boiler.
The landlord failed to comply with its own complaints policy and the Code during its handling of the resident’s complaints. The landlord investigated its own complaint handling in its stage 2 complaint response and apologised for its recognised service failure and offered an award of compensation. However this was not proportionate to the detriment it had caused to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in managing the repairs to the windows and the associated condensation, damp, mould it treated, it’s response to the resident’s concerns about insulation in the property, repairs required to the water tank, a request for a replacement boiler, and its complaint handling failures. This is to be provided in writing within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £900 in compensation made up as follows:
1. £450 previously offered if this has not already been paid.
2. £200 for time, trouble, and inconvenience associated with the completion of outstanding repairs to the windows which caused condensation, damp, and mould at the property.
3. £75 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of insulation and associated noise transference.
4. £75 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the water tank and request for a new boiler.
5. An additional £100 for the time and trouble associated with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to inspect the property to assess if any outstanding repairs to the windows, roof, water tanks, and boiler are required. If works are required the landlord should send the resident and this Service details of the works, together with a timetable for the works to be carried out within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.
This Service notes that the landlord completed a self-assessment of its response to damp, mould, and condensation in Q4 of 2022, prior to addressing matters in this complaint. However it is evident that the landlord recorded that it had partially implemented some elements within the assessment. The landlord is therefore ordered to review and update its damp, mould, and condensation self-assessment in light of its handling of matters associated with this case. The landlord is ordered to provide the outcome of the reassessment to this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.