Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202347109)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347109

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

9 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 response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp, mould and associated outstanding repairs.
    2. Complaint.
  2. This report will also consider the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

  1. The residents are joint tenants of the landlord and have lived in a 3-bedroom property, which they have occupied since August 2008. During the period covered by the complaint the household included elderly residents and a young child. The residents are represented in making their complaint by a family member, who also lives in the property. In order to avoid any confusion, the tenants and representative will be referred to in this report as “the resident”.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 March 2021 to report “a lot of damp forming in the house”, which was affecting the health of the household. He stated that he had “tried to do everything to fix it” but that the damp kept coming back. He added that there was a smell of damp in the bedrooms and that the ceiling wallpaper had started to peel off. He agreed to send images showing the problems and the landlord said its home maintenance team would review them. It is unclear whether the landlord took any action following this.
  3. On 20 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that there was “a large amount of mould in the bedrooms”. He stated that he was ventilating the rooms every day and washing off the mould but it kept coming back. He contacted the landlord again on 4 November 2021 to say that someone had attended the property that morning “to look at the damp and mould” and take pictures. He wanted to know what the landlord planned to do. It is unclear what action the landlord took following this visit. However, the records show that between May and October 2022 it had carried out a number of repairs to the property that related to leaks the resident had previously reported in the kitchen and bathroom.
  4. The landlord carried out mould washes to the property on 7 December 2022 and 13 April 2023. On 1 May 2023, the resident contacted it to say that his property had had an ongoing damp and mould issue since 2021, which remained unresolved. He stated that he wanted it to send a surveyor as there was a 9 month old baby in the property and he was worried for their health. He wrote to the landlord again on 10 May 2023 and stated that:
    1. He had been living with damp and mould in the bedrooms for 2 years but the landlord had not provided any support or visited the property.
    2. Since the landlord was not doing anything about it, he had had to clean the walls to get rid of the mould.
    3. Operatives had cleaned and painted the bedroom that year but the damp had come back.
    4. He did not see the point of treating the inside of the bedroom when the damp was coming from the outside of the building. He added that nobody “had looked to get this sorted out”.
    5. He wanted it to look at the images he had sent, which showed the extent of the damp in the bedroom.
  5. The landlord responded on 18 May 2023 and stated that it could see from its records that it had recently carried out a mould wash in the property on 13 April 2023. As there were still issues with mould, it confirmed that it would raise a job to reassess the mould and damp in the property. It explained that it was working with a “new main contractor” who would contact him within the following 2 days. It added that, as this had been “a longstanding case”, it had raised a stage 1 complaint so it could look into the matter “thoroughly”.
  6. On 23 May 2023, the landlord carried out a damp and mould survey. As it has not provided a copy of a survey report, its findings of the inspection are unclear. However, the surveyor recommended works to:
    1. Mould wash the front bedroom and apply 2 coats of water repellent to the rendered lower half of the external walls, surrounding the room.
    2. Clear all the external drains and run a CCTV through them before carrying out internal repairs to the rear bedroom and living room.
    3. Clear the gullies outside the kitchen and replace external concrete render after installing a water proof layer.
    4. Replace the posts that hung the external double gates.
  7. The landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 25 May 2023. On 5 June 2023 the resident wrote to it to say he had not received a call or details of any appointments for the proposed works. On 8 June 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It stated that:
    1. Its contractor had not contacted him about the repairs to the front bedroom and it would chase the matter up.
    2. On 6 June 2023, its contractor had carried out “high pressure water jetting” of the gullies to “restore the flow to the property”.
    3. It had completed works to address the damp to the kitchen wall on 6 June 2023.
    4. It was due to carry out the repair to the external gates on 16 June 2023.
    5. It understood the resident had reported damp and mould in his property in 2021. It explained that it had taken “little action” until then because it did not consider the issue to have been “particularly serious”. It added that the mould “was treatable by regular cleaning”.
    6. It had carried out mould washes. However, a surveyor had since visited the property and recommended more work.
    7. The surveyor’s appraisal of the mould was that it was not “very bad”. While it required treating, it did not pose any health risks.
  8. The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 August 2023 to escalate his complaint. He stated that:
    1. Since his last conversation with the landlord on 9 June 2023, nobody had called him, given him any appointments or tried to fix anything he had complained about.
    2. Further issues had occurred since and there was damp and mould in the drawers of the child’s cot bed.
    3. Since the landlord had carried out work to the bedroom that year, the paint was flaking and exposing the wall underneath.
    4. His wardrobe had been damaged after being moved several times by surveyors and operatives and he wanted the landlord to replace it.
  9. The landlord wrote back on 21 August 2023 and stated that it would “officially” acknowledge his stage 2 complaint within 5 working days. It acknowledged that it was “unacceptable” that the resident had not heard back about the job it had raised and would chase this up with its contractor. It sent him a formal acknowledgement on 25 August 2023. On 21 September 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord with a list of how he would like the landlord to resolve his complaint. He stated that he wanted the landlord to:
    1. Fix all the damp and mould issues in the property to a “perfect” standard.
    2. Lower his monthly rent or provide him with alternative accommodation.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 September 2023. It stated that:
    1. It was sorry for the length of time it had taken to complete the repairs to his property and “for any upset this may have caused”. It accepted that its service should have been better.
    2. Its customer relationship advisor would be taking over the management of the repairs to the property.
    3. It would be liaising with its contractors and repairs team to ensure it booked and carried out repairs to treat the damp and mould “without further, unnecessary, delay”.
    4. Its contractor would contact him “shortly” to confirm a date when it could book the works.
    5. It wanted to offer the resident £200 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
      1. £50 for distress and inconvenience.
      2. £50 for the failed appointments and the delay in completing the repairs.
      3. £100 towards the damaged furniture.
  11. On 29 September 2023, the landlord completed a damp and mould treatment to the kitchen, bathroom and living room. On 1 March 2024 it upgraded the extractor fans in the property. The resident wrote to the Ombudsman to say that there were vulnerable residents in the property, one of which had breathing problems caused by the damp and mould. He stated that he had been paying the landlord for a service that it was not providing. He reiterated that he wanted the landlord to either provide him with alternative housing that was not damp or to lower his rent.

Assessment and findings

Legal and policy framework

  1. 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 damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure the property is “fit for human habitation” in relation to, by virtue of Section 10 of the same act, ventilation.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will attend to emergency repairs within 3 hours with the aim of completing the job within 24 hours. It aims to complete routine repairs within 20 working days. It states that some works may require a pre-inspection to assess the work required before works can be arranged, and an appointment agreed. In such circumstances, it will attempt to arrange both the pre-inspection and repair appointments within the timescale, but may be unable to do so where works required are extensive or timely to arrange.
  3. The landlord presents a number of guiding principles in its landlord’s damp and mould policy. These include:
    1. Taking responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould in a timely and effective way.
    2. Supporting resident in resolving damp and mould and providing them with appropriate, clear, sensitive, practical and accessible advice.
    3. Communicating with residents clearly and regularly regarding any actions it plans to take.
  4. The policy states that when the landlord receives a report of damp and mould it will apply an initial severity rating based on the information provided to it. It will tackle immediate risks quickly, including by treating mould growth and carrying out repairs if required. Any repairs will be dealt with in accordance with its responsive repairs policy. It adds that it will give residents advice on how to prevent damp and what they should do to remove mould. Although it published its policy in January 2024, which was around 8 months after the resident raised his stage 1 complaint, it consolidates some of the good practice that the landlord would have been expected to follow for such issues.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a 2 stage formal complaints process. It will log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It aims to provide stage 2 responses within 20 working days. If it is unable to provide a response within the abovementioned timescales, it will let the resident know by explaining the reasons for the delay. Its extension will not exceed an additional 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 days at Stage 2 without good reason. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  6. The landlord has guidelines for compensation and goodwill payments. It offers compensation for quantifiable loss and goodwill payments in recognition of poor service provision and the time and effort residents have had to make to resolve the issue. Goodwill payments range from £50 to £250 depending on the severity of service failure and the impact caused.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has stated that the damp and mould in his property has negatively impacted the health of the household. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding the health of those who live in the property. However, the Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. They are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one), as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  2. The resident has requested compensation for damage to personal belongings. We can consider the impact of the outstanding repairs, and damp and mould on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably. However, we cannot determine liability or issue a binding decision about awards for damages. As above, this matter is better suited to an insurance claim or the courts.

Damp, mould and associated outstanding repairs

  1. The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge the time and trouble the resident has spent over a long period while reporting damp and mould within the property. However, it is not the role of the Service to reach a decision on the extensiveness or seriousness of the damp and mould itself. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This report will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.
  2. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould, published in October 2021, states that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. They should take a zero-tolerance approach, be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about actions. Where inspections result in recommended works to tackle condensation, damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner. Any deviations from the recommendations should be clearly documented and explained to the resident.
  3. The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
  4. The evidence shows that the resident first reported “a lot of damp” in his property on 4 March 2021. This included damp and mould formation in one of the bedrooms. Although the landlord advised him that it would review the images he had sent it, there are no records to indicate it had done so, or taken any further action.
  5. The records show that it was not until 24 November 2021 that an operative attended the property to inspect the bedrooms. This was over 8 months after the resident’s initial report. The reason for this delay is unclear and there is no indication the landlord had contacted or updated the resident during this time. This was poor and demonstrates a lack of urgency in responding appropriately to reports of damp and mould.
  6. Despite reporting damp and mould there is no evidence the landlord provided any advice on how to deal with this in the interim, or that it sent the resident any written information about mould management. The importance of this is highlighted in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. The lack of guidance provided to the resident was a shortcoming in the circumstances. The landlord should ensure that it has measures in place to provide residents with information about dealing with damp, mould and condensation when such reports are received.
  7. Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord had considered whether it was appropriate to provide the resident with dehumidifiers to help reduce the damp within the property, while repairs were pending. It is important landlords are proactive in discussing any support they could provide to residents who report damp and mould. Landlords should also ensure they properly take account of vulnerable residents and whether it would be reasonable in the circumstances to offer appropriate support.
  8. The spotlight report recommends that landlords should implement a risk-based approach with respect to damp and mould. It states that this will reduce over reliance on residents to report issues, help landlords identify hidden issues before a complaint or disrepair claim is made. The landlord has not provided any records to show it had assessed the severity of the damp and mould or that it had considered undertaking any kind of risk assessment. Given there were vulnerable residents living in the property, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed any possible risks shortly after receiving the resident’s initial report.
  9. The landlord attended the property on 4 November 2021 to “look at the damp and mould”. Furthermore, the landlord’s repair log shows that an operative attended the property on 24 November 2021 to assess the walls in the resident’s bedroom. The landlord has not provided a report of the findings. However, the repair log notes that the operative was “not sure” if the issue was with the brickwork and said a bricklayer was needed. There are no records to indicate that a bricklayer or any other operative attended the property following this. It is also unclear what action the landlord took with regard to the damp and mould the resident had reported in the bedroom. That the landlord failed to take prompt or effective action to assess the damp within the resident’s bedroom was a failing.
  10. The records show that the landlord carried out works in the resident’s bathroom and kitchen between 14 June and 26 August 2022 to repair damage caused by leaks in both rooms. As the landlord has not provided copies of any inspection reports, it is unclear from the records what prompted those repairs. There is nothing to show if they were raised as a result of the resident’s report on 4 March 2021.
  11. It is evident the landlord was proactive in addressing some of those repairs. It is also noted that the landlord upgraded all the extractor fans in the property on 1 March 2024, which was appropriate. However, there were excessive delays completing other repairs. For example, it took the landlord nearly 6 months to carry out work to the resident’s bathroom ceiling.
  12. It is unclear why this work could not have been done sooner. However, the records show that it had been re-booked several times, and that the contractor had missed one appointment without prior notice. The landlord has provided no evidence to show it had contacted the resident during this time to provide updates or that it had been liaising and monitoring its contractor to ensure the repairs were being completed on time. The landlord’s lack of communication would have caused understandable frustration. It would also have negatively impacted the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s handling of the repair issues.
  13. There is an entry in the landlord’s repair log from17 June 2022 stating that a surveyor was needed to assess the damp in the bedroom. There is no indication the landlord had carried out a damp and mould inspection until 23 May 2023. The evidence suggests that the landlord only took action after being prompted by the resident raising his complaint. It should not have taken the resident complaining to compel it to carry out a damp and mould survey.
  14. That it took the landlord nearly a year to arrange the survey was a failing. This would have caused the resident significant uncertainty as to whether the landlord would take any action to address the issue.
  15. The records show that, on 27 September 2022, the landlord had raised various works to address damp and mould in the bathroom and to carry out a mould wash in the bedroom. The repair log states that these should have been completed by 25 October 2022. However it was not until 13 April 2023 that the landlord carried out the mould wash in the bedroom. This was over 6 months after the repair was first raised, and over 5 months after the repair due date.
  16. The reason for this delay is unclear but demonstrates excessively protracted repair management by the landlord. Furthermore, there is little evidence to show it had made reasonable efforts to ensure its contractor was complying with its repair obligations as set out in its policy.
  17. It is noted that the resident had been reporting recurring damp and mould from March 2021 and had also suggested that the damp could be coming from outside the property. The landlord should have, at an earlier stage, reasonably considered whether any external factors, like penetrating damp, were contributing to this. This was particularly relevant given it had previously suggested a bricklayer should attend to assess the brickwork. Given the survey completed on 23 May 2023 recommended various exterior damp works, the delay in addressing this sooner caused avoidable delays in addressing the issue. That the household was left with the impacts of recurring damp and mould in the property for longer than necessary was a failing.
  18. The damp and mould survey of 23 May 2023 recommended a number of works. The landlord then committed in its stage 1 response to carry them out. The records show that the landlord completed some of the repairs within 10 working days, which was reasonable. Furthermore, it was appropriate that, following this, it completed mould treatments to the kitchen, bathroom and living room. However, there is no evidence to show it completed the works to the resident’s front bedroom, as it had advised in its stage 1 response.
  19. There is a record from 30 October 2023 that states the repair was closed because the contractor could not access the property. The evidence shows that between 1 June 2023, when the job was raised and 12 October 2023, when a contractor first attended, there were delays assigning the works to a contractor. Between 12 and 30 October 2023, the records show that the contractor had attempted to carry out the repair on 4 occasions but could not gain access.
  20. The Ombudsman accepts there can be many reasons why it may not be convenient for the resident to allow work to go ahead. However, delays to repairs being resolved because of issues with gaining access to the property cannot be considered to be within the landlord’s control. Unless the landlord could gain reasonable access to the property, it would have been unable to carry out required works in a timely manner. However, the delay of 4 months in assigning a contractor to attend to the repair was unreasonable and demonstrates a lack of effective contract management by the landlord.
  21. There is an email from the resident dated 1 March 2024, where he states “the bedroom is getting worse”. It is therefore unclear whether the works to the front bedroom remained outstanding at this point. It is also unclear from the repair logs whether the landlord had replaced the external gate post as part of the surveyor’s recommended works. The Ombudsman will order the landlord to confirm whether those repairs have been completed. If not, it should contact the resident to reschedule them.
  22. There is little evidence the landlord made adequate contact with its contractors to monitor the repairs or take any steps to ensure they were going ahead as planned. The Service recognises the landlord may have had some challenges with its contractors. It told the Ombudsman that it changed its main repairs contractor during the period covered by the complaint. It explained that the service provided by the previous one had become unreliable towards the end of its contract. Although this is noted, the landlord should always take all necessary steps to ensure contractual issues do not impact on the services provided to residents. It has not demonstrated it took adequate steps to minimise any disruption. Its lack of any effective repair management and failure to put any contingency planning in place meant it failed to take reasonable steps to keep delays to a minimum.
  23. Furthermore, there are no records to show the landlord considered appointing a single point of contact to take overall responsibility for co-ordinating the repairs until after conclusion of the complaint. This would have helped give the resident some reassurance and explain the reasons for any delays. The failure to do so was a missed opportunity to take a customer focussed approach and help build a positive landlord and resident relationship. This oversight would have contributed to its overall failure in responding to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  24. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
  25. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays in completing repairs and for its poor service in this regard. It also offered £200, which included £100 towards damage caused to the resident’s furniture. Although its attempts to put things right are noted, the landlord’s offer of redress falls short of fully recognising the impact on the resident. This is specifically in view of the time it took to carry out inspections and complete some of the repairs. The landlord has also failed to acknowledge its inadequate communication. Its failings left the household to live in a property that suffered from the effects of damp and mould for longer than was necessary. The landlord had also failed to take sufficient account of the time and trouble the resident took to chase the outstanding repairs. Due to the impact these cumulative failings would have had on the resident, the Ombudsman has made a finding of severe maladministration and will order further redress.
  26. The records have identified the following delays:
    1. 8 months to carry out an initial inspection of the resident’s property after he reported damp and mould.
    2. 6 months to complete a repair to the bathroom ceiling.
    3. 12 months to carry out a damp and mould survey following a request by an operative for a surveyor to inspect the damp in the bedroom.
    4. 5 months to assign a contractor to carry out damp and mould works to the resident’s front bedroom, following the damp and mould survey.
  27. The resident has paid approximately £576 per month (taking account some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period in question. The Ombudsman can reasonably consider this to have started in March 2021, which was when the resident first reported damp and mould in the property. It is also the start of the period on which this investigation focused. The Ombudsman considers that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the delays, which total 31 months. It also takes into account the impact of the resulting damp and mould on the resident’s enjoyment of the property.
  28. Factoring in the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £1,249.92 compensation. This figure has been calculated as approximately 7% of the total rent during the period in question. There is no evidence to show the resident’s bathroom and front bedroom were unusable during the times of the delays. The abovementioned percentage therefore reflects the loss of enjoyment of those 2 rooms as a result of the landlord’s delays in addressing the damp and mould, and associated repairs. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account. The Ombudsman will order an additional amount for distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint

  1. The spotlight report on damp and mould states that landlords should ensure they treat residents reporting damp and mould with respect and empathy. It goes onto say that landlords should consider their approach to accountability and transparency and how they can demonstrate these values to their residents.
  2. In its stage 1 response, the landlord states that it took little action when the resident reported damp and mould in 2021 because it did not consider it to be “particularly serious”. It further states that the ”surveyor’s appraisal of the mould is that it isn’t very bad”. The landlord has not provided any inspection reports or evidence to corroborate this. Furthermore, it failed to acknowledge that it had taken it around 8 months to carry out an initial inspection for damp and mould.
  3. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged its delays in assessing the damp and mould. It should have explained in its response why it did not deem the issue to be serious and cited information from the inspections to back this up. That it did not adequately explain what it meant would have made the response come across as dismissive of the resident’s reports. The attempt by the landlord to minimise the problem as an excuse for its lack of action, rather than to acknowledge what went wrong, was inappropriate.
  4. Furthermore, the surveyor’s recommendations show the issue was serious enough to carry out several repairs in order to resolve the issue. The landlord failed to act in a timely manner in response to the resident’s report. This meant it was unable to establish the full extent of the work that was required at an earlier stage, and whether the damp and mould posed any significant risks. That the landlord did not acknowledge this in its stage 1 response was a failing.
  5. The landlord took 15 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint and 29 working days to issue its stage 2 response. Although these delays were not excessive, there is no evidence the landlord sought to contact the resident to agree an extended timescale. This was a departure both from its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Furthermore, it did not acknowledge the delays in its complaints responses, provide any explanation or offer any redress. The combined complaint handling failures, as outlined above, amount to maladministration. The Ombudsman will order the landlord to pay some redress to the resident in recognition of its complaint handling failures.

Record keeping

  1. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that “it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre- and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates”. In addition, the Ombudsman’s latest spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”.
  2. The evidence that the landlord provided in response to our initial request for information, is lacking in detail. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the progress of ongoing repairs at any given time to be able to provide updates to residents.  Records also enable outstanding repairs and complaints to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong.
  3. The landlord has not provided copies of any inspection reports and its records are often unclear as to when repairs were completed. Contemporaneous records of telephone calls and written correspondence between the landlord and resident before and during the complaints process were also very limited. The landlord provided limited records of correspondence with its contractor during the period when the resident was waiting for repairs to be completed.
  4. The landlord’s poor record keeping would have contributed to the landlord’s poor repairs management. It would also explain its failure in responding to the residents reports in a timely manner and complete the required outstanding repairs within a reasonable amount of time. It would have also contributed to the landlord’s poor communication and lack of updates. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
  5. We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023, we published our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence that it has self-assessed already.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and associated outstanding repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident, in line with this Service’s guidance on making apologies. The apology should come from the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer.
    2. Pay the resident the revised compensation amount of £1,749.92, which is calculated as follows:
      1. £1,249.92 in recognition of the loss of enjoyment of the property while inspections and works to address the damp and mould remained outstanding.
      2. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s lack of action.
      3. £200 in recognition of the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
      4. The £100 it offered to the resident towards damage to his furniture.

This replaces the landlord’s offer of £200 it made in its stage 2 response.

  1. Confirm to the Service whether it has completed all works recommended by the survey of 23 May 2023. If not, the landlord is to contact the resident to arrange appointments for those works to be completed. It should report back to the Ombudsman with the relevant dates.
  1. This investigation has identified a number of issues relating to the liaison between the landlord and its own contractor. The landlord may have since addressed these matters with the contractor through its contract management processes. If so, the landlord is asked to provide confirmation to the Ombudsman, within 8 weeks of receiving this determination, that the issues have been addressed and robust contract monitoring arrangements are in place with this contractor. If the landlord is yet to raise these issues with this contractor, it should now do so and provide confirmation to the Ombudsman of the actions taken within 8 weeks, as above.

 Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review its complaint training to ensure that complaint handling staff contact residents whenever it expects there to be delays in issuing responses, and to agree revised timescales wherever appropriate.