Sanctuary Housing Association (202427340)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427340

Sanctuary Housing Association

7 August 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould in her property.
2. Complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and occupies a 2-bedroom bungalow with her children. The landlord has confirmed its records show she “suffers with her mental health”. In addition to this, she has told us she has dyslexia and struggles with written communications, so she was supported by a third party organisation to raise her complaint with the landlord and this Service.
From 2019, the resident regularly reported damp and mould in her property, mainly affecting her bathroom, and multiple mould treatments were carried out up to 2022. The landlord visited the property on 5 April 2022. It noted that the resident had advised that past damp and mould issues were no longer a concern since a new heating system was installed. However, she said she was still experiencing some damp and mould and her kitchen needed replacement. The landlord’s operative took photographs and said they would send these to the repairs team to assess.
The resident and her representative called the landlord on 24 March 2023, saying she had been reporting damp and mould for the past 6 years. She reported the property was in such a bad state, there was mould growing on the mattress, and her child had been very poorly.
A damp survey was carried out on 27 June 2023. The report noted mould in all rooms in the property. No leaks or other source of water ingress were found, and there was no elevated structural damp in the areas affected by mould. Heat-based images, included in the report, showed the mould was in colder areas, such as the ceiling and toilet cistern in the bathroom and under the kitchen sink. The contractor concluded this was most likely “seasonal mould caused by condensation due to ambient environmental conditions” arising from a lack of consistent heating and ventilation. They recommended remediating the mould-affected areas, installing an extractor fan in the kitchen, and advising the resident on controlling condensation “or mould will return over winter”.
On 28 March 2024, the resident complained to the landlord about “chronic damp and mould” in the property since 2018, which she said she had been “begging” it to fix. She said it had told her it would fix the issue, replace the kitchen and bathroom and provide paint vouchers, but this had not happened. She said she was told she might need to move out while the repairs were being done but had not heard anything further about this. According to the resident, all the landlord had done was come and take photographs of the mould.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 24 April 2024:
1. It acknowledged her concerns about damp, noting her increasing frustration with trying to contact it for updates and to arrange appointments to have these issues rectified.
2. It noted her multiple reports relating to damp and mould since June 2019 and the actions it had taken to address the issues each time.
3. It stated that, on 23 April 2022, a housing officer reported “damp and mould in kitchen and kitchen is in a poor state”. Operatives attended on 30 May 2022 and 8 September 2022, and “details were sent to seek approval for replacement kitchen”.
4. It said the contractor assigned to attend to her report of 24 March 2023 had advised there was no access when they visited.
5. It had arranged a new inspection by a surveyor on 25 April 2024. Its works co-ordination team would make sure all works were successfully undertaken as scheduled/as quickly as possible.
6. It had also contacted its assets team to ask if the resident’s kitchen and bathroom were due to be replaced.
7. It sincerely apologised “for the ongoing problems regards the damp… and for the distress this caused you and your family”, as well as the late response to her complaint.
8. In recognition of the time, trouble and inconvenience she experienced and its poor complaint handling, it offered compensation totalling £175:
  1. £150 for its “significant delays” in carrying out works, the impact the situation had on her, and her effort to have the issues resolved.
  2. £25 for the delays in providing its complaint response.
The complaint was escalated and photographs submitted on the resident’s behalf on 2 May 2024. She said she believed the surveyor had raised “an urgent piece of work”, but they had not advised how long this would take. She disputed that the contractor attended her property as arranged on 24 March 2023 as she had waited in all day. She said they did attend on 27 June 2023 and took photographs, but did not contact her thereafter as they said they would do. She told the landlord that living with these issues for 8 years was disruptive and had affected her and her children “emotionally and physically, becoming ill from the damp and mouldy conditions”. She noted that most of their belongings were lost due to being covered in mould and she feared the rest, stored in bags, would also have to be thrown away.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 26 September 2024. It stated:
1. In line with its complaints policy, the landlord had investigated the resident’s complaint for a period of 12 months before the complaint was raised, so from 24 March 2023.
2. A specialist contractor was appointed to complete a damp survey, but they advised there was no access to the property on 26 May 2023. The landlord could not see if a further appointment for 27 June 2023 went ahead.
3. On 25 April 2024, the landlord’s surveyor recommended – among other repairs – mould treatments and the installation of a new trickle vent in the kitchen. An operative attended on 4 July 2024 and advised follow-on works to replace the kitchen fan, and that the mould treatment needed authorisation due to the scale and nature of works. The fan was replaced on 25 July 2024, but the mould treatment was still outstanding and works were needed to make good the area surrounding the new fan.
4. The landlord’s surveyor had confirmed the specialist contractor did attend and provide their report. They concluded the issues were caused by condensation and the recommended treatment was appropriate.
5. The landlord extended its sincere apologies for the delays and inconvenience caused following the order to its specialist contractor and once its surveyor had requested mould treatment. It also felt that communications with the resident could have been improved.
6. The landlord had asked its works co-ordination team if the mould treatment had been approved/appointed and to track this until completion.
7. It acknowledged it had failed to respond to the complaint within published timescales at both stages, and the resident had chased via her representative. It sincerely apologised for the delays and inconvenience this had caused.
8. It offered compensation totalling £955 (in addition to the £175 paid at stage 1). This comprised:
  1. £225 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
  2. £250 for its complaint handling.
  3. £480 for “loss of enjoyment (considering up to 26 November 2024 to allow completion of outstanding works)”.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 15 October 2024, stating there was a leak in 2018, “chronic damp and mould” in the bathroom, kitchen and in the corners of the bedrooms, and a further leak in 2024. She has told us the issues are ongoing, which makes her feel ashamed. She says the issues have made her health worse, especially her depression and anxiety, and have made her 8-year-old child unwell – both of them have constant headaches. There is also the inconvenience, physical disruption to the property, and back and forth to book visits and works, some of which have been cancelled. She does not feel she has been treated with respect. She says the compensation offered by the landlord is not enough to cover new carpet, paint/wallpaper and to replace goods, as well as compensate for the damage.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

While the historical reports relating to damp and mould give context to the complaint, the Ombudsman expects residents to raise complaints with the landlord and this Service in a reasonable timeframe, normally 12 months of the issues arising. The resident/her representative clearly expressed dissatisfaction in the telephone call of 24 March 2023. Therefore, we have considered events from 2022 onwards, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline.
The resident has told this Service she believes the longstanding damp and mould issues in the property have impacted on her and her child’s health. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused the health issues, or determine liability, and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts.

Damp and mould

Damp and mould are potential hazards under the government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). This places an obligation on the landlord to identify, monitor and minimise risks arising from such hazards. A proactive approach is consistent with the HHSRS.
The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy and procedure, dated May 2024, include its commitment to:
1. A zero-tolerance, proactive approach to identify, remedy, effectively resolve and prevent damp and mould.
2. Working with residents to diagnose the problem at an early stage and remedy the situation quickly, tailoring its approach based on residents’ needs.
3. Having the skills and knowledge to tackle the issue effectively.
The Ombudsman has also sourced a copy of the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy and procedure dated September 2023 from our previous casework. These provide the following repair categories and timescales:
1. Emergency repairs – attend and make safe within 24 hours and, if necessary, follow up with a second appointment to complete works.
2. Non-emergency repairs – complete within 28 days for vulnerable residents (although it does not clearly define what constitutes a vulnerability) and 45 days for all other residents.
3. Major works – complete within 90 days.
Although these policies post-date some of the events considered as part of this investigation, in the absence of the relevant policies and procedures in place at the time, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate to use these as broad guidelines against which the landlord’s service can be assessed.
Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for the landlord to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. It should have appropriate systems in place to keep records of repairs and monitor the outcome of contractor appointments so that it can demonstrate its actions and interventions. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision-making at the time. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
In this case, the Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence of the steps the landlord said it took following its visit to the resident’s property on 5 April 2022, nor its communications with her at the time. This points to issues with its record keeping and/or a failure to provide the Ombudsman with relevant information/documents. The stage 1 response indicated further attendances in May and September 2022, and a possible kitchen replacement. To be clear, the Ombudsman has only considered this element of the resident’s concerns insofar as it may have related to the damp and mould issues in the property. It is not clear if the kitchen and bathroom were so severely impacted by damp and mould that they required replacement. Planned and major works are matters for the landlord to determine, having conducted appropriate surveys.
There is no evidence the landlord took any steps to address the damp and mould reported at the visit on 5 April 2022. This was inappropriate given its obligations under the HHSRS.
There were then several delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of continuing concerns on 24 March 2023. It initially arranged an inspection, but subsequently cancelled this and requested a damp survey instead. This was appropriate, in line with its procedure, given the history of reports about the issue. However, although raised as a priority 7-day works order, the damp survey was not authorised until 25 April 2023, which was an excessive delay.
The contractor emailed the landlord on 1 June 2023, advising they had attended a pre-arranged appointment on 26 May 2023, but there was no reply at the door or when they tried to call the resident. While the Ombudsman notes the resident disputes this, there is no evidence she told the landlord at the time that the contractor had not attended. In the circumstances, we accept the contractor’s email as a contemporaneous record of events.
The damp survey was completed 3 months after the resident’s report. The stage 2 response indicated that the landlord could not establish if the appointment on 27 June 2023 went ahead, which further highlights issues with its record keeping. It also overlooked the recommended works, which were not completed at the time. In fact, the order for these works was not raised until 10 months later, on 29 April 2024, following the resident’s complaint and a further inspection on 25 April 2024. This was a significant failing on the landlord’s part and resulted in a prolonged delay in addressing matters for the resident, during which time she experienced avoidable frustration and inconvenience.
An internal email by the landlord on 17 July 2024 noted a water leak that had now been fixed, but the Ombudsman has seen no other records relating to this. It is unclear if this was the landlord’s responsibility and whether or not the leak contributed to the damp and mould in the property. This is a further example of the landlord’s poor record keeping and/or failure to provide information for our investigation.
There were further delays in completing the works. The extractor fan was fitted in the kitchen on 25 July 2024, 13 months after the damp survey was completed. This was a non-emergency repair under the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy. While it is unclear from the policy what it regarded as a vulnerability, the Ombudsman is of the view it should have provided the enhanced service for vulnerable residents due to children in the property and the resident’s own health issues. Therefore, the delay was excessive and unreasonable. Further, no meaningful progress was made with the mould treatment.
Multiple further attendances and repeat inspections took place – at least 3 between July and December 2024 – and records show several works orders were raised, cancelled and re-raised, causing confusion among staff. This demonstrates a prolonged failure by the landlord to monitor the outcome of appointments and oversee the outstanding works to completion, despite assuring the resident it would do so in its complaint responses.
Communication with the resident was also poor throughout the landlord’s handling of the matter. The Ombudsman recognises the difficulties the resident has with written communication, it is unclear if the landlord was aware of this at the time. That said, when she contacted it on 24 March 2023, she was being assisted by someone from a learning disabilities drop-in and this was clearly recorded in the landlord’s note of the call. Therefore, it would have been good practice for the landlord to at least ask the resident if she required any reasonable adjustments or had any specific communication needs.
The landlord’s email to the resident’s representative on 30 July 2024 noted that its works co-ordination team were keeping the resident updated – “the last update was provided on 18 July 2024, and the next is due 8 August 2024” – but we have not seen these communications. There are examples of the resident chasing the landlord for information and updates, for example, by way of her telephone call of 24 March 2023 and throughout the complaints process. This suggests the landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy was not being implemented in its day-to-day practices.
Internal emails by the landlord dated 12 August and 15 October 2024 indicated the request for approval of the mould treatment was not submitted on 4 July 2024 and/or it was cancelled, which contributed to the overall delays. The works were finally approved on 23 January 2025, almost 19 months after the damp survey and 6 months after the need for approval was identified. This far exceeded the maximum 90-day (3-month) timeframe provided in the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, and was unreasonable.
The resident asked to re-schedule an appointment to carry out the mould treatment booked for 25 March 2025, with the next available being 2 June 2025. It is unclear from the available evidence why there was such a long delay for what appears to have been routine damp and mould works. The landlord’s internal emails of 24 and 26 March 2025 claimed this was the second time she had re-arranged and “the tenant keeps delaying the damp and mould works”, noting its “duty of care to enforce works where necessary”. There is no evidence the resident changed the appointment twice. In any case, we consider the tone of the emails was unnecessarily harsh, especially given the landlord’s repeated failings to progress matters up to that point. Further, it did not reflect a healthy landlord/tenant relationship.
The resident has told the Ombudsman the mould treatment was completed in June 2025, almost 2 years after the damp survey. This was unacceptable and did not reflect the landlord’s zero-tolerance approach to resolving damp and mould. The longstanding nature of the issues in the resident’s property caused her evident concern, frustration, distress and inconvenience. Several photographs she submitted to this Service showed mould in a number of rooms. In addition to this, the landlord’s internal email dated 22 January 2025 noted the contractor’s feedback following their visit: “Extensive Mould to Various Areas in property”.
The landlord’s complaint responses accepted its failings in its handling of theresident’s damp and mould reports and sought to put things right. It offered compensation for loss of enjoyment, which was appropriate in line with its compensation policy. However, it is unclear how this (£480) was calculated and, in any case, completion of works went beyond 26 November 2024.Although the compensation offered for delays, time, trouble and inconvenience (£375) represents “high effort” and “high impact” under its compensation policy, given the significant period of delay and resulting impact to the resident, we find this was not sufficient to put things right. Furthermore,the landlord failed to follow through on its promises of action to address the substantive issue. Essentially, it failed to utilise its complaints procedure as an effective tool for resolving the complaint.
Overall, it is appropriate to make a finding of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the resident’s property because:
1. Gaps in the evidence provided to the Ombudsman suggest a failure to keep adequate records and/or to provide information for our investigation.
2. The landlord apparently took no action to address the damp and mould reported on 5 April 2022.
3. There were numerous lengthy delays in resolving the resident’s damp and mould reports.
4. The damp survey was carried out 3 months after the resident’s report in March 2023 and the landlord failed to action the recommendations made at the time. The same recommendations were made by the surveyor in April 2024.
5. There were multiple attendances and repeated inspections between July and December 2024, which did not progress the outstanding works. This demonstrated a failure to monitor the outcome of appointments and follow up on recommendations.
6. An extractor fan was fitted in the kitchen in July 2024 and the mould treatment completed in June 2025 – approximately 16 months and 27 months, respectively, after the resident reported damp and mould issues in March 2023.
7. The landlord’s communications with the resident were poor and she felt the need to chase it, via her representative, for progress and updates.
8. The landlord did not utilise its complaints procedure as an effective tool for resolving the resident’s concerns.
9. The level of compensation offered in its complaint responses did not reflect the significant and long-term impact of its multiple failings over a prolonged period of time.
The delay in completing the mould treatment meant the resident and her family did not have full enjoyment of their home for over 2 years. The level of compensation prescribed in the landlord’s policy is inadequate to provide a fair remedy. The Ombudsman considers 10% of the weekly rent is proportionate having regard to the extent of the mould in the property. This has been calculated from 24 March 2023 to 25 March 2025 (104 weeks) less 4 weeks (being the appropriate timescale in the repairs and maintenance policy for it to complete works), as follows:
1. (Weekly rent 2023/24 £114.43 x 10%) x 49 weeks = £560.70
2. (Weekly rent 2024/25 £123.24 x 10%) x 51 weeks = £628.52
In addition to this, we find the landlord should pay compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over 3 years. As above, its compensation policy does not provide proportionate redress. Therefore, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, it is appropriate to award compensation at the higher end for severe maladministration.
For completeness, no learning order has been made in this case as the events pre-date a wider order previously made by the Ombudsman for the landlord to review its handling of damp and mould reports.

Complaint handling

Different complaints policies and procedures were applicable at various stages of the resident’s complaints. However, the principles were broadly consistent. Noted below are those applicable in this case:
1. The landlord adopts the definition of a complaint provided in the Ombudsman’s statutory Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”): “An expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.”
2. It recognises its obligations, under the Equality Act 2010, to make reasonable adjustments for residents with disabilities.
3. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints and stage 2 escalation requests within 5 working days.
4. It aims to provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days. If not possible, it will inform the complainant of this and confirm when a response will be provided.
5. It aims to provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days. If not possible, it will discuss this with the complainant and agree an extension not exceeding 20 working days. It will keep the complainant updated throughout.
During the telephone call on 24 March 2023, the resident and her representative clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the significant length of time she had lived with damp and mould issues. Therefore, in line with its complaints procedure in place at the time, the landlord ought reasonably to have treated this as a complaint, particularly as it was made aware the resident was being supported by someone from a learning disabilities drop-in. That it did not do so, or at least ask the resident if she wished to make a complaint, was a failing on its part. It also demonstrated a lack of due regard for its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 28 March 2024 promptly, within 2 working days, and stated it would provide a resolution “no later than 10 working days from this email”. It issued its stage 1 response 17 working days later. There is no evidence it contacted the resident in the interim to advise of the delay, contrary to its policy. This compounded the landlord’s failure up to this point to address the resident’s long-outstanding damp and mould reports.
The stage 1 response itself comprehensively addressed all aspects of the resident’s complaint. It accepted the landlord’s shortcomings and tried to put things right. While in our view somewhat low, its compensation offer (£25) for its delayed stage 1 response was in line with its policy. The landlord also sought to address the resident’s ongoing concerns relating to damp and mould by providing assurance that its works co-ordination team would see matters through to the completion of works. This was broadly consistent with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, put things right, learn from outcomes), except that the landlord did not demonstrate it took any learning from the resident’s experience.
Further, as noted above, it did not follow up on actions it relied on as part of resolving the complaint. For instance, it did not update the resident about replacement of her kitchen and bathroom. Nor is there any evidence its works co-ordination team monitored or actively progressed damp and mould works. This was unsatisfactory.
In response to the resident’s escalation request of 2 May 2024, the landlord appears to have provided a ‘holding’ response on 8 May 2024. It subsequently acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 21 May 2024, 13 working days after the escalation request was submitted. This exceeded its 5-working-day timescale for acknowledging complaints and escalation requests.
The resident’s representative chased the landlord for an update on 18 June 2024, noting a form of authority provided on 26 February 2024 to confirm the resident’s consent for them to act on her behalf in this matter. They asked if the case had been allocated as the resident had not had call from a senior customer relations officer. The landlord replied the following day, apologising for the delay in providing its response to the complaint. It said it was “not in a position to respond at the moment” and would contact the representative by 16 July 2024. The representative chased again on 22 and 29 July 2024, and the landlord replied on 30 July 2024. It simply apologised for the delay, but provided no indication of when it would provide its response. This was unsatisfactory as it prolonged a resolution for the resident, causing her uncertainty, frustration and inconvenience.
The landlord’s complaint handler tried to call the resident without success on 25 and 26 September 2024 and recorded that an email had been sent to the resident for her to forward on to her representative. The landlord did not dispute it had received a form of authority for the representative. Its insistence on sending the email to the resident indicates a failure on its part to understand the resident’s additional needs arising from a disability. This reflects a lack of due regard for its obligations to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.
The stage 2 response was issued 91 working days after the landlord acknowledged the escalation. This was excessive and unreasonable. Further, it did not keep the resident updated, in line with its complaints policy, which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s complaints policy, dated March 2024, provided that it would not consider “[i]ssues that occurred more than 12 months ago, unless there is evidence that this has been raised to staff and no action has been taken”. By using this provision to limit the scope of its stage 2 response, the landlord demonstrated it had failed to recognise its previous failure to treat the telephone call of 24 March 2023 as a potential complaint. A fair and sufficiently robust review of the records ought reasonably to have identified this. In the circumstances, its limitation of the scope of its stage 2 response to the 12 months immediately preceding the complaint was unreasonable and contrary to our Dispute Resolution Principle of fairness.
As with the stage 1 response, the stage 2 letter addressed the resident’s concerns and accepted the landlord’s failings. It, too, sought to put things right by way of a compensation offer and assurance its works co-ordination team would oversee the completion of works by 26 November 2024. However, as with its response at stage 1, the landlord did not demonstrate any learning or improvements to its processes to avoid similar failings in the future, which further highlights practices inconsistent with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
The landlord’s offer of £250 for its complaint handling failures at stage 2 represented “significant difficulties in raising a complaint, delayed response and poor quality correspondence” under its compensation policy, which was appropriate. While the Ombudsman recognises it offered a total of £275 for its poor complaint handling, which is substantial, compensation on its own is insufficient to find reasonable redress in this case. As noted above, the landlord failed to use its complaints process effectively to resolve the substantive issue, did not demonstrate lessons learned from the resident’s experience, and did not have due regard for its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. In all the circumstances, it is appropriate to find service failure in its handling of the complaint.
No additional compensation has been awarded for poor complaint handling, as the level of compensation already offered by the landlord is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. Instead, our orders focus on learning from outcomes and the resident’s experience.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for its failings in this case, in accordance with this Service’s apologies guidance. The apology should be made in writing by the landlord’s chief executive officer.
2. Contact the resident to discuss her disabilities/needs and any reasonable adjustments she requires it to make. It should ensure its records are updated accordingly and visible to all staff.
3. Provide a clear response to the resident’s request for replacement of her kitchen and bathroom.
4. Pay the resident compensation totalling £2,464.22, which comprises:
  1. £1,189.22 for the loss of enjoyment of her home due to the extent of mould in her property.
  2. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of its multiple failings in the handling of her reports of damp and mould in the property since 2022.
  3. £275 it offered for its poor complaint handling.
  4. These sums should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.
  5. If already paid to the resident, the landlord should deduct from the total compensation payable under this order the £175 offered on 24 April 2024 and £855 offered on 26 September 2024.
The Ombudsman orders that, within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Arrange for a suitably-qualified surveyor to carry out an inspection of the resident’s property to determine if there are any further damp and mould issues affecting the property.
2. If any works are identified, produce a schedule of works, including clear timescales for completion.
3. Provide a copy of the surveyor’s report and any schedule of works to the resident (and/or her representative, depending on her preference and any reasonable adjustments) and the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord consider the resident’s request for reimbursement of the cost of any items lost due to the mould in the property and any further assistance it may be prepared to offer with redecoration costs.
It is recommended that the landlord self-assess against the recommendations made by the Ombudsman at pages 62 to 64 of our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights – relationship of equals, unless it has done so within the last 12 months.