Plymouth Community Homes Limited (202336249)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336249

Plymouth Community Homes Limited

27 November 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation and the removal of her damaged possessions.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy, which started on 22 September 2006. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The housing records confirm the resident has depression and anxiety.
The resident reported a leak coming from the bathroom on 28 June 2022 and said the airing cupboard was damp. She told the landlord on 7 September 2022 that there was water in the hallway and the leak got worse when she used the shower. The resident told the landlord on 8 September 2022 that she could not contain the leak and water was running down the walls and across the floor.
The landlord raised a job on 8 September 2022 to inspect the damp and mould. A further inspection was arranged on 9 September 2022 as it said the resident missed the previous appointment. The appointment arranged for 30 September 2022 did not go ahead because the resident was not at home at the time.
The landlord noted on 11 October 2022 that the grouting around the bath had perished and was causing damp and mould. A job was raised on 19 October 2022 for ‘‘various issues with water damage.’’
The resident made a complaint on 19 October 2022. She said she reported the leak in June 2022, but the landlord had been unable to identify the source despite numerous visits. She said the property and her possessions were damaged and there was damp and mould everywhere. She also said a painter turned up for the appointment to identify the source of the leak but could not do the work.
The resident told the landlord on 21 October 2022 that the appointment scheduled for 30 September 2022 should not have been ‘‘carded as no access’’ because she told a member of staff that her bus was running late but she was on her way home. She wanted this adding to her complaint and compensation for the damage to her possessions and having to take time off work.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 October 2022 and said:
1. It had arranged an inspection for 26 October 2022.
2. It would send the resident an insurance claim form for the damage to her possessions and loss of earnings.
3. The inspector who visited the resident’s home on 30 September 2022 did not receive the message confirming the resident would be late for the appointment. He should have telephoned the resident before leaving a no access card.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 19 May 2023. She said the damp and mould had come back and she had not been able to use the living room for 8 months. She also noted the landlord was only planning to treat 2 walls and the new bathroom suite was poorly fitted. She asked to be reimbursed for her damaged furniture.
The landlord visited the resident on 25 May 2023 and identified there was damp and mould in every room and her possessions were damaged.
The landlord confirmed on 30 November 2023 that there was no signs of damp and mould in the property following the completion of the identified remedial works. It did, however, note there was mould staining on the hallway floor. It was recommended that this was investigated further and noted that arrangements had been put in place to complete the bathroom repairs.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 31 May 2024 and said:
1. There were significant delays in completing the damp remedial works and some of the work was still outstanding.
2. The work carried out by its contractor was not done to the required standard and this caused a further leak and exacerbated the damp and mould.
3. It failed to remove the resident’s damaged furniture despite agreeing to do so. As a result, the resident had been unable to use her living room since December 2023.
4. An appointment had been booked to replace the bathroom flooring. It would also arrange for the furniture to be removed and carryout painting work in the property.
5. It would offer the resident £4,500 compensation. This included £500 for her time and trouble, £1,000 for the considerable stress and inconvenience caused and £3,000 for the damaged caused to her possessions.

Post complaint events

The issues with the bathroom were rectified in May 2024.
The resident told this Service her damaged goods are still stored in the living room and as a result, she is unable to use the room. She also noted the outstanding repairs in the living room had not been completed because the room was full of furniture. She said she did not want the furniture removing until the landlord reconsidered its offer of compensation for the damaged furniture.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation to be undertaken. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord has a duty to carry out repairs and works in accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement. It also has an obligation to ensure it complies with the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS.
Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Whilst reasonable timescales are not defined in law, the potential health risks from damp and mould are significant.
The landlord’s damp and condensation policy says it will respond to reports of damp promptly and arrange a survey within 1 week of receiving a report of damp and mould. It also says it will use a range of solutions to tackle damp and mould, although no timescales are included in the policy for completing works. In addition, the landlord says it will ensure residents are kept updated and it will offer help with making claims for benefits if they cannot afford to put the heating on.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend to reports of leaks that cannot be contained as an emergency. Emergency repairs are completed within 24 hours and residents are advised that someone must be at home and available during this time. The landlord’s decant policy says it may offer residents temporary rehousing if there are any risks that may affect the household.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will offer compensation if a resident has been unreasonably inconvenienced, although no guidance is included on the amount of compensation that is offered. The policy also says residents should have their own home contents insurance to cover the cost of any personal damage to their possessions.
The housing records confirm the resident reported a leak in the bathroom on 28 June 2022. She also said the airing cupboard was damp following the leak. The landlord was placed on notice at this point and had a duty to meet its obligations as set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement. This confirms the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building and repairing water pipes. The resident is responsible for reporting repairs and proving access.
It was appropriate for the landlord to order an emergency repair on the same day to repair the leak. This was in accordance with its repairs policy. It also sent the resident a text message regarding the damp and mould, although it is unclear from the housing records what information was included in the message.
It is unclear from the housing records whether the landlord attended to the leak and if so, what action was taken to resolve the matter. This Service expects landlords to keep accurate and clear records of repairs and contacts. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. This demonstrates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord. It is also unclear whether the landlord arranged an inspection of the damp and mould at this point. This was a failure.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 7 September 2022 and said there was water in the hallway and the leak got worse when she used the shower. While it was appropriate for the landlord to raise a further emergency repair on the same day, it is unclear from the housing records whether it attended and repaired the leak. Again, this demonstrates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
The resident told the landlord on 8 September 2022 that she could not contain the leak and water was running down the walls and across the floor. A further emergency repair was raised on the same day in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, although again it is unclear from the housing records whether the landlord attended and remedied the leak. This was a further failure.
The landlord did not raise a job to inspect the damp and mould until 8 September 2022; some 10 weeks after the resident first raised concerns. While it said the resident had missed a previous appointment, no record of this was provided to this Service. This Service expects landlords to maintain records of missed appointments, including taking photographic evidence confirming it attended at the appointed time. This was a failure.
While the landlord said it visited the resident’s home on 30 September 2022 but could not gain access, it did not provide this Service with any information confirming this to be the case. This Service expects landlords to keep accurate and clear records of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. Such evidence is also required should it later be determined that legal action is required to gain access to a property. This was a failure.
The landlord raised a further job to carry out an inspection on the same day, although it is unclear whether an appointment was booked or the resident provided with an update. The landlord’s failure to take a proactive approach meant it did not identify the cause of the damp and mould or assess the risks it could have on the resident and her son. This Service expects landlords to complete prompt and sufficient investigations to establish the cause of damp and mould.
The housing records confirm a job was raised on 11 October 2022 to establish if water was seeping underneath the bath tiles and causing damp and mould in the bathroom cupboard. While it was appropriate for the landlord to attend on 19 October 2022, it is unclear if the source of the leak was identified. The resident said a painter turned up for the appointment and was unable to complete any work. The landlord’s failure to send the correct tradesperson caused delays and likely inconvenienced the resident.
The resident told the landlord on the same day that there was damp and mould everywhere. There is no evidence the landlord acted on the resident’s concerns or considered her vulnerabilities. This was a further failure. The lack of engagement around the potential damp issue was contrary to the approach required under the HHSRS, the Ombudsman’s spotlight review and its own policy. It also led to the resident and her son living unnecessarily with damp and mould.
While the landlord noted on 21 October 2022 that it had been unable to carry out inspections on 2 occasions due to being unable to gain access, it nonetheless was responsible for ensuring the property was fit for habitation. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have had processes in place for gaining access and recording the actions it took to ensure it met its repairing obligations. This was a further failure.
It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm on 24 October 2022 in its stage 1 complaint response that an appointment had been booked for 26 October 2022 to carry out an inspection. While the landlord offered an apology for the poor communication, it did not offer any compensation at this stage. The landlord’s compensation policy says it may make a payment if a resident has been unreasonably inconvenienced.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 26 October 2022, but did not provide this Service with a copy of the inspection report or details on the action that was taken following the visit. This was a further failure. It is also unclear what works were ordered and completed following the inspection. The resident told this Service that the bath, sink and bathroom tiles were replaced in December 2022, but she felt that the work was poorly done.
While the housing records confirm the landlord raised a job on 21 February 2023 to fit roof vents to improve the air flow in the property, it is unclear if and when the work was carried out. It arranged for the mould in the roof space to be cleaned on 6 April 2023. There is no evidence, however, that the landlord put monitoring arrangements in place following the completion of the mould wash. This was a failure. Having an aftercare programme in place can help landlords to quickly identify when matters have not been resolved without residents having to report the problem again.
There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request on 16 March 2023 for a timeline for completing the outstanding repairs. This was a failure and supports the resident’s view that the landlord was not taking her reports seriously. It is also further evidence that it did not adopt a proactive approach in seeking to resolve the issue for the resident.
While the landlord noted on 8 April 2023 that it was struggling to gain access to carry out an inspection, it did not provide this Service with any evidence confirming this to be the case. As noted previously, this Service expects landlords to keep accurate records of all attempts at trying to gain access, including photographic evidence confirming attendance at the appointed time. It was appropriate for the housing officer to visit on 14 April 2023 and try to gain access but was unable to do so. There is, however, no evidence the matter was followed up.
The resident told the landlord on 19 May 2023 that the damp and mould had returned and she was waiting for an inspection to be completed. She said the landlord had only arranged for 2 walls to be treated and she was waiting for the landlord to decorate her flat. She also said she was unable to invite visitors into her home because of its condition and the smell of damp. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange to visit the resident on 22 May 2023. This demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident.
A surveyor did not attend the appointment on 22 May 2023. This was a missed opportunity and meant the housing officers who visited were unable to diagnose the cause of the damp and mould. They did, however, confirm there was damp and mould in every room. They said this was because the landlord had failed to diagnose the leak on 3 occasions and the resident was not using her heating. There is no evidence the landlord acted on this information. It did not arrange for the property to be inspected or assess whether it was habitable. This was a failure.
Neither did it consider whether the resident needed to be rehoused temporarily whilst work was completed. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s decant policy and meant the resident and her son continued to live in damp and mouldy conditions. The landlord also failed to offer advice on preventing condensation or assess whether the resident was entitled to additional benefits to help with heating costs. This was not in accordance with its policy.
The resident told the landlord on 28 July 2023 that no one had contacted her since May 2023 and work in the lounge, bathroom and kitchen was outstanding. She noted the painter had been on a number of occasions but sometimes only gave 11 hours’ notice. The resident said she could not accommodate such short notice requests given she worked shifts.
This Service’s spotlight review on damp and mould highlights the importance of landlords clearly communicating with residents and sharing relevant information to ensure they have confidence in it and understand the next steps. This includes explaining if follow up work is required and providing a clear timetable for any future works. If there is any slippage to the timetable, landlords are encouraged to inform residents as soon as possible and explain why the timetable has changed.
While the landlord noted on 31 July 2023 that it had been working closely with the resident to arrange the work, it did not provide this Service with any evidence confirming this to be the case. It said the resident cancelled appointments and there were delays in completing the work due to her work commitments.
It was appropriate for the landlord to order a job on 7 August 2023 to decorate the bedrooms, kitchen, hallway cupboard and bathroom, although it is unclear from the housing records if, or when the work was completed.
While the landlord confirmed on 17 November 2023 that the majority of work had been completed in the resident’s home, it is unclear from the housing records what work was done and when. It said it still needed to fit skirting boards and windowsills, along with some ‘‘minor work in the bathroom,” but again it is unclear what works were outstanding and when the work was completed.
The landlord confirmed on 30 November 2023 that there were no signs of damp and mould in the resident’s home following the completion of the works. It did, however, note the plywood flooring in the hallway cupboard had been stained by the mould. It said this could have been due to the previous leak and recommended this was investigated further. While it was appropriate for the landlord to visit the resident on 8 December 2023, it did not provide this Service with any evidence confirming what discussions took place or what the outcome of the visit was.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to raise a further job on 16 January 2024 to undertake works in the bedroom, kitchen, hallway and bathroom, it is unclear from the housing records what this entailed.
The landlord noted on 8 March 2024 that it had difficulty gaining access to the resident’s home due to her work commitments. It said it gave her as much notice as possible for appointments, but these were later cancelled by the resident. The landlord noted it was due to start work in the kitchen, but the appointment was cancelled by the resident at short notice and had to be rearranged for 9 March 2024. It said the work was completed on 12 March 2024, but again did not provide this Service with any evidence confirming this to be the case.
The resident told this Service on 13 March 2024 that the work was outstanding. She told the landlord on 13 May 2024 that the bathroom sink was unstable, the flooring did not match and no one had confirmed if the leak had been resolved. She also noted the hallway needed redecorating and the skirting in the living room needed replacing but this could not be done until the damaged furniture stored in the room had been removed.
It was appropriate for the landlord to offer an apology on 31 May 2024 in its final complaint response for the delay in completing the damp and mould remedial works and to acknowledge the bathroom works that were completed were not done to a satisfactory standard. It said it promised to complete the work in December 2023 but some of the work was still outstanding. The landlord agreed to replace the bathroom floor and arrange for the outstanding decorating work to be completed. The work in the bathroom was completed on 26 June 2024.
The landlord offered the resident £1,000 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused and £500 compensation for her time and trouble. It did not say how much of this related to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Based on the evidence seen, it is reasonable to conclude that 50% of the amount relates to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. This equates to £750.
In summary, the landlord failed to act on the resident’s reports of damp and mould in a timely manner. It is evident there were delays in arranging an inspection and completing the necessary work. Whilst the landlord said this was in part due to the resident, it did not provide this Service with any evidence confirming this to be the case. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times, it failed to consider whether the property was habitable or recognise the severity of the situation on the resident or her family. The landlord also failed to put things right for the resident and there is no evidence it learnt from this aspect of her complaint. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The offer of £750 compensation was, however, fair and proportionate in the circumstances and no additional compensation has been awarded.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation and the removal of her damaged possessions

It is not this Service’s role to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. Neither do we make orders of compensation in the way that a court may order a payment of damages. We have, however, investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation and the removal of the damaged possessions and whether it acted fairly, reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 19 November 2022 that her possessions had been damaged by damp and mould and she wanted to make a claim for the time she had to take off work for repair appointments. She told the landlord on 21 November 2022 that she also wanted compensation for the damage that was caused to her carpet. While it was appropriate for the landlord to confirm in its stage 1 complaint response on 24 November 2022 that it would send the resident an insurance claim form, there is no evidence it did this.
The landlord did not send the resident an insurance claim form until 27 April 2023; some 5 months after the request for compensation was made. A further copy was sent on 19 May 2023 as the resident said she did not receive the original form. She also said she had not been able to use the living room for 8 months as all of her damaged possessions were stored in the room.
It was appropriate for the landlord to visit the resident’s home on 23 May 2023. It confirmed all of her possessions smelled of damp and her furniture were damaged. While it was recommended a further visit was carried out, there is no evidence the landlord arranged one. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken an inventory of the damaged items at this point and advised the resident what steps it would take to address her concerns. This was a failure and meant the resident was unclear on what action was going to be taken by the landlord. She asked for an update on 28 July 2023, but no response was provided. This was a further failure.
The resident asked the landlord to contact her on 5 September 2023 as she had a number of questions regarding the claim form. She also asked for a new claim form to be sent to her. The landlord responded on 7 September 2023 and confirmed 2 claim forms had previously been sent to her. A further form was sent and the resident was asked to provide supporting evidence so it could start processing her request. It is unclear from the housing records whether she did this.
The resident asked the landlord to contact her again on 27 October 2023. She said she needed to speak to someone before completing the claim form. It is evident from the resident’s email of 8 November 2023 that someone did contact her to discuss her claim, but no record of the conversation was provided by the landlord to this Service. This demonstrated poor record keeping on the part of the landlord. The resident also said she struggled to send photographs to the landlord via her phone.
It was appropriate for the landlord to visit the resident’s home on 17 November 2023 and to take photographs of the damage. This demonstrated it wanted to help the resident and put things right for her. The landlord confirmed the list of items that were damaged by the damp and mould and noted that it had previously agreed to dispose of them. It said it had not done this because the resident had not confirmed the items could be removed. This was a reasonable response. However, the landlord missed the opportunity to then agree a date for removing the damaged items with the resident at this point.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to visit the resident on 8 December 2023, it did not provide this Service with any evidence confirming what discussions took place or what the outcome of the visit was It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with an update following the meeting. The failure to do this meant the resident was unclear on what steps the landlord would take to resolve the matter.
The landlord noted on 13 May 2024 that it told the resident to move the damaged possessions into the living room in December 2023 and it had agreed to arrange for the items to be disposed. It also said it agreed at the time to replace the carpets and furniture given they were damaged by the leaks and damp and mould.
The resident told the landlord on 20 May 2024 that she did not want the damaged furniture to be removed until her request for compensation was agreed. This meant the landlord was not in a position to honour the agreement made in December 2023.
The landlord told the resident in its final complaint response on 31 May 2024 that it would not be pursuing her claim for compensation through its insurance route. It said this was because it was offering £3,000 compensation to replace the damaged goods and this would mean the resident could replace the items quicker. It is unclear on what basis this calculation was made. The offer was refused by the resident as she said it would not cover the cost of her damaged furniture.
The landlord also offered the resident £1,500 compensation; made up of £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused and £500 for her time and trouble. Based on the evidence seen, it is reasonable to conclude that 50% of the amount relates to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. This equates to £750.
In summary, the landlord did not process the resident’s claim for compensation in a timely manner. It failed to initially send a claim form, did not complete an assessment of the damaged items or later respond to her request to make contact. The landlord also failed to confirm how the £3,000 compensation for the damaged possessions was calculated. The landlord acknowledged some of these failings in its final complaint response and confirmed it was prepared to dispose of the resident’s possessions. The resident refused to agree to do this. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for compensation and removal of her damaged possessions. The landlord’s offer of £750 compensation was, however, reasonable in the circumstances and in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance. As such, no additional compensation has been awarded.

The landlord’s record keeping

The records provided to this Service by the landlord point to failures in effective record keeping practices.
As part of this investigation, the landlord was requested to provide relevant information that would reasonably be recorded and retained by the landlord. The landlord’s repair records were limited and do not provide the level of detail reasonably expected to be recorded and readily accessible when dealing with a repeat problem that carries potential health risks. Internal communication seen by this Service also acknowledges there were no damp inspection reports and it failed to record details of when it was unable to gain access or when ‘‘delays were caused by the resident.’’
It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s record keeping hindered the timeliness and effectiveness of its response to issues reported by the resident. It also adversely affected its communication with the resident who said she did not know the cause of the damp and mould or what the landlord did to remedy it.
This Service finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping. It was unable to demonstrate adequately how it responded to a situation with health and safety implications. This hindered its response and this investigation.
This Service encourages landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight reviews following publication. In May 2023, we published our spotlight review on knowledge and information management (KIM). The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with the recommendations in the KIM report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations in the spotlight review unless it can provide evidence it has already completed a self-assessment.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy comprises of 2 stages. Complaints are acknowledged within 2 working days. The landlord responds to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The resident made a complaint on 19 October 2022. There is no evidence the complaint was acknowledged by the landlord. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy. This was a failure.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 October 2022. This was in accordance with its complaints policy. While it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for its poor communication, there is no evidence it considered whether the resident was eligible for compensation for the inconvenience caused. The landlord’s compensation and payments policy says it may pay compensation in such circumstances.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 19 May 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 27 November 2023. While the landlord confirmed it would provide a response within 20 working days, there is no evidence it sought to understand the resident’s complaint or the outcomes she was seeking. This was not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code). This was a failure.
The landlord said it de-escalated the resident’s complaint and closed it on 8 December 2023. This was not appropriate or in accordance with the Code which states that landlords should not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all the stages of its complaints process. There is no evidence it updated the resident or told her she could approach this Service if she remained unhappy. This was a further failure.
The landlord issued a further stage 2 acknowledgement letter on 13 May 2024, following contact from this Service. It told the resident it did not escalate her complaint as it was dealing with the issues she raised through its insurance process. This was not in accordance with the Code. This says landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm it had escalated the complaint to stage 2 and to offer an apology to the resident. It also confirmed the nature of the resident’s complaint and the outcomes she was seeking.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 31 May 2024; some 12 months after the resident asked for it to be escalated. While the landlord recognised some of the failings identified in this report, there is no evidence it took learning from the complaint. This Service’s dispute resolution principles encourage landlords to not just resolve the immediate complaint, but to learn from outcomes in order to improve its wider service delivery. This was a further failure.
In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaints procedure at times and there were significant delays in issuing its final complaint response. The landlord also failed to take learning from the complaint and did not offer specific redress for the complaint failures identified. The identified failures in the landlord’s complaint handling caused inconvenience and distress to the resident. She told the landlord on numerous occasions that her property was damp and she was unable to make full use of her home. She also said she could not invite family and friends home due to the condition of the property. Therefore, we find there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint, for which it is ordered to pay £150 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for compensation and the removal of her damaged possessions.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology letter must be shared with this Service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident by its handling of her complaint.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident regarding her claim for compensation for the damaged possessions and clarifies its position.
It is recommended that the landlord arranges for the damaged items to be disposed of, in agreement with the resident.
It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to confirm if there is any outstanding work required in her home and arrange for it to be completed, as appropriate.
It is recommended that the landlord pays the £1,500 compensation previously offered to the resident, if it has not already done so.