Stonewater Limited (202317801)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317801

Stonewater Limited

31 March 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of ASB in 2023.
2. Response to the resident’s report of a storage heater fire.
3. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
4. Response to the resident’s reports of repair issues in the property.
5. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident moved to the property in March 2023. The landlord has a number of physical and mental health vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, including Multiple Sclerosis.
The resident made a complaint in April 2023 about repair issues in the property. The landlord addressed this at stage 1. It said how it had responded to the repair issues in the timeframe of its repairs policy.
The following month, the resident submitted a complaint about damp and mould. The landlord carried out a survey and recommended the resident be temporarily rehoused so that works could take place. She declined this. It reiterated this recommendation in its stage 1 response of 16 June 2023.
In June 2023 the resident reported that a storage heater had caught fire. The landlord took emergency action to disconnect the heater and investigate. It recommended that due to the fire and the repair issues, that the resident move to temporary accommodation. The resident declined. She subsequently made a complaint about the behaviour of contractors.
Between June and September 2023 the landlord was in contact with the resident about the condition of the property and its recommendation that she move temporarily. In September 2023 the resident’s MP told the landlord she had expressed that she had tried to take her own life. The landlord made a safeguarding referral and offered immediate temporary accommodation. The resident declined this.
On 20 October 2023 the resident was temporarily decanted. That same day the landlord responded to all of the complaint issues in a combined stage 2 response. It summarised the works it had done and how it had recommended a temporary decant. It acknowledged that there had been some delays and it had not fully taken account of the impact on the resident or her reasons for being reluctant to move. It offered compensation.
On 1 November 2023 the resident referred her case to us. She said:
1. The compensation was inadequate.
2. The fire had been caused by paper in the storage heater.
3. Mentally and physically she would never be the same again as her Multiple Sclerosis had deteriorated greatly. She had partially lost sight in one eye due to stress. The landlord had “ruined” her physical life and future.
4. It had not responded to her reports of ASB.
On 10 November 2023 the landlord sent a follow-on response. It advised it could not consider the impact on health. It signposted her on how to make a personal injury claim. It increased its offer of compensation, to a total of £4,800.
Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure and works at the property, the resident declined to move back. The landlord worked with her to facilitate a management move to another property in November 2024.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.l. of the Scheme says that we may not investigate a complaint which seeks to raise again matters which we, or another Ombudsman, have already decided upon.
The matters raised in the resident’s complaint about ASB in 2023 are the same issues as were considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LG&SCO) in February 2024. She also brought this complaint to us as the Housing Ombudsman. We determined at that time as part of case reference 202303514 on 27 February 2024 that as the LG&SCO had already investigated the complaint and issued a determination, the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman.
As the matters raised in the complaint about ASB in 2023 have previously been determined by the LG&SCO and also considered by the Housing Ombudsman before, this aspect of complaint is outside of our jurisdiction.

Scope of investigation

The resident feels that her physical health has been impacted by the condition of the property. The courts are the best place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is because independent medical experts give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased information on the diagnosis, prognosis and the cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of any such injury, this can be examined in court. Therefore, it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable and more effective to seek a remedy to this through the courts. While we cannot consider the effect of the landlord’s actions or inactions on health, if there is evidence of a landlord failing, consideration will be given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result.
During her correspondence with the landlord, the resident raised other issues of concern. As these issues were not part of the formal complaint to the landlord, these cannot be investigated at this stage. This is because the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate complaints and be given the opportunity to put things right if failing have occurred. The resident should raise these matters as a formal complaint with the landlord if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the issues. For clarity, the matters, which do not form part of this assessment are as follows:
1. Drainage in the bathroom.
2. ASB at the temporary accommodation.
Part of the resident’s complaint involves a fire at the property. She feels this was caused by the landlord’s negligence. The cause of the fire and allegations of negligence are matters that would need to be determined by a court. Our investigation will consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint and whether its investigation and actions were reasonable. The resident may want to seek legal advice or advice from her local authority is she wishes to pursue this further.

Storage heater fire

The landlord’s repairs policy says as follows:
1. High priority repairs are those which pose an immediate danger or could cause serious damage. It will aim to have a temporary or permanent repair done within 24 hours.
2. It aims to complete all other repairs within 28 days.
3. If a heating system breaks down between 1 November and 31st March, it may provide temporary heaters whilst it arranged the repair.
The resident reported that the front room storage heater was not working on 31 March 2023. There is no evidence that this issue impacted any other areas of the property. The landlord was not required by its policy to provide an alternative heater, given the date that this occurred. However, the landlord was aware that the resident had a number of vulnerabilities. There is no evidence that it considered her vulnerabilities in prioritising this repair.
Before the repair took place, the resident reported on 21 April 2023 that there was another issue with the storage heater. We have not seen details of this report.
The landlord arranged for the thermostat to be replaced on 24 April 2023. This was 24 days after the first report, within its repair timeframe. However, there is no evidence that the landlord checked if this had resolved the issue. This was a missed opportunity to ensure a good responsive repairs service was being provided.
Another contractor attended on 8 June 2023 and found there was no supply to the storage heater. They reconnected it and turned it on. Overnight on 8 June and into the morning of 9 June 2023, the storge heater caught fire.
Following the report of the fire the landlord took the following action that same day:
1. It advised the resident that she should stay in temporary accommodation.
2. It arranged for a contactor to disconnect the storage heater. This was done the same day.
3. It spoke to the contractor to find out what work had been carried out and how the storage heater had been left.
The evidence shows the landlord responded appropriately to the emergency situation. It ensured the heater was disconnected to reduce the possible hazard. It also spoke to the contractor to understand what had happened and get their version of events. It’s recommendation that the resident move to temporary accommodation was reasonable in the circumstances while it investigated further.
The resident made a complaint that same day. She said as follows:
1. The contractor who attended on 8 June 2023 had reconnected the storage heater without questioning why it had been disconnected. That evening it caught fire as it had been filled with paper.
2. The fire brigade attended. Both she and her daughter had been taken to hospital. She felt their lives had been put in danger.
3. The same contractor returned on 9 June 2023. She did not feel comfortable with this and asked that they not return.
4. She did not want to be decanted to a hotel as per the landlord’s recommendation. She wanted to be moved to a different property.
The landlord’s internal notes show on 14 June 2023 the contractor had said that the storage heater had been left in working order. They had said it may have been smoking due to burning off dust. The contractor replaced the storage heater on 19 June 2023.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 4 July 2023. It said as follows:
1. It apologised that the storge heater had not worked upon moving into the property in March 2023. It acknowledged that the resident had contacted it multiple times about the issue.
2. The storge heater had been reconnected on 8 June 2023. Its contractor had left it on and smoke from it may have been caused by dust.
3. It had subsequently replaced the storage heater.
4. It apologised that the contractor visits had caused distress. It acknowledged that its customer service had fallen below its standard.
5. To acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused, it offered £100 compensation.
The resident escalated the complaint. She said that the landlord had not explained why the fire occurred, or offered compensation for the “trauma” she had experienced. She said her health had been effected and belongings damaged.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 20 October 2023. It said as follows:
1. The contractor should have checked the operation of the heater before leaving on 8 June 2023. It would take learning from the incident.
2. While the cause of the fire had not been determined, the explanation in its stage 1 response did not fit with its understanding following further investigation. The picture from inside the heater did not reflect the comments about it being due to dust. It apologised for this.
3. Following the incident, the same operative had attended to disconnect the heater. It acknowledged that this had caused concern to the resident. It had raised the matter with its contractors.
4. It offered additional compensation to the resident. This totalled £3,400.
The landlord’s review of its stage 1 response was appropriate. It acknowledged that the information about dust being the possible cause appeared to be incorrect following its investigation.
The resident referred her case to us on 1 November 2023. She said as follows:
1. The compensation was inadequate.
2. The fire had been caused by paper in the heater.
3. Mentally and physically she would never be the same again as her Multiple Sclerosis had deteriorated greatly. She had partially lost sight in one eye due to stress. The landlord had “ruined” her physical life and future.
The landlord added to its stage 2 response on 10 November 2023. It said as follows:
1. It acknowledged that the fire had been “very distressing”. It had not received an official report from the fire brigade.
2. It reiterated the steps it had taken and the support it had offered of temporary accommodation.
3. Household items would be covered by contents insurance.
4. Any health issues would need to be pursued by a personal injury claim.
5. It offered a further £150 compensation for the effort of cleaning the property after the fire.
6. It offered a further £250 compensation for the impact of the fire on the resident.
We encourage landlords to resolve complaints no matter what stage a case is at. However, the main focus for a landlord should always be to make sure that a case is resolved during its internal complaints process.
It was not until the resident referred her complaint to us that the landlord conducted a further review of the case. It then increased its offer of compensation by an additional £400 for this aspect of complaint. Our outcomes guidance says that a finding of reasonable redress is less likely under such circumstances.
However, it is noted that the landlord’s stage 2 follow-on was in response to the resident’s dissatisfaction to its original offer of compensation. It was also within 7 working days of the original stage 2 response. As such, the stage 2 follow-on response, did demonstrate that the landlord had taken the resident’s representations on board and it tried to put things right.
The failures we have identified are as follows:
1. Although the landlord initially arranged the repair within its timeframe, it failed to show that it had considered the resident’s vulnerabilities in how it carried this out.
2. The landlord did not make sure the same contractor did not return to the property, as per the resident’s request.
3. The landlord acknowledged these failures within its stage 2 response. It explained the learning it had taken and it offered financial redress.
When failures are identified, we consider whether the redress offered by the landlord resolved the complaint. The total redress offered by the landlord for this aspect of complaint was £1,250. This was within a range we would expect to see from our remedies guidance where there was a severe long-term impact on a resident or where there were serious failings by the landlord which caused a “seriously detrimental impact” on the resident.
Taking into account the extent of the landlord’s failings and the impact the fire had on the resident, we consider the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable and was in line with our remedies guidance. As such, this leads to a determination of reasonable redress, in that the landlord has made an offer which fairly put things right for the resident.

Damp and mould

The resident reported a leak on 14 March 2023. A contractor attended the next day to carry out an emergency repair. This was in line with the landlord’s high priority response timescale as per its repairs policy.
The resident reported damp and mould on 21 April 2023. The landlord carried out a mould wash on 28 April 2023. This timeframe of 7 days was reasonable.
The landlord’s internal notes from 17 May 2023 show the resident reported damp and mould again. She also expressed that the condition of the property was making her feel suicidal. The landlord responded within its high priority timeframe. A surveyor carried out a damp and mould survey within 24 hours. This found minor damp and mould. Further treatment was carried out (details of this were not provided).
The resident told the landlord on 9 June 2023 that she was “desperately upset and depressed” by the condition of the property. She believed it had impacted her health. The landlord treated this as a complaint. That same day, it advised her that she should be temporarily decanted. (This was due to repair issues and the fire). The resident declined this.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 16 June 2023. It said its surveyor had recommended a temporary decant in order to address the damp and mould and other repair issues.
The surveyor inspected the property again on 19 June 2023. It concluded the property was not suitable in its current condition. It noted that the condition of the property was a contributing factor to the resident’s welfare.
It is not clear how many times the landlord reoffered a temporary decant between late June and 26 July 2023. However, on 26 July 2023 the landlord’s internal notes show the resident had continued to decline a temporary decant. She had requested a management move. The landlord asked for an update on this.
The surveyor spoke to the resident on31 July 2023 about letting the landlord carry out some repairs. The resident said she wanted to wait until she heard about her management move. The surveyor attended again on 1 August 2023 to discuss works with the resident. There was no access given.
The landlord raised a job on 9 August 2023 for a humidistat fan to be installed in the bathroom. A contractor attended the following day. They noted there were high levels of moisture in the kitchen. It recommended this be investigated by accessing the property next door. It completed works in the neighbouring property in respect of a leak on 31 August 2023.
The resident reiterated to the landlord on 2 September 2023 that she felt the mould was impacting her health. The landlord said it would carry out another damp and mould assessment. It also felt that a multiagency approach would help the resident. It said that her peer support from the Community Mental Health Team could be present during the damp and mould assessment.
On 21 September 2023, the resident told her MP that she had made an attempt on her life. The MP alerted the landlord. The landlord spoke to the resident that day and made an urgent safeguarding referral. It also told us that it had called the resident’s Doctor. The landlord said to us the resident was supported by Adult Social Care and the Community Mental Health team.
The landlord visited the resident the following day. It said it would carry out mould treatment every week until the resident was moved. It requested photos and a report after each weekly visit and for an action plan to be written. The resident agreed to re-engage with one of its mental health partners. The landlord asked her to consider moving temporarily. It offered immediate hotel accommodation, where she could have her cat with her. The resident declined this. She said she would move to a 2 bedroom property. The landlord committed to try to find her somewhere suitable. It noted that it was keeping in daily contact with her.
On 20 October 2023 the resident moved into a temporary property.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint procedure on 20 October 2023. It said as follows:
1. Following the surveyor’s findings, it had offered temporary decants on a number of occasions. The resident had declined these.
2. It had since found her suitable temporary accommodation. It apologised that it had not done so sooner. It said it could have tried to better understand her situation and property requirements.
3. From September 2023, it had arranged to undertake weekly mould treatments. This was a partial solution whilst it was trying to find alternative accommodation which the resident was happy with.
4. Its surveyor had identified a possible leak between the walls. This had not been apparent during the pre-tenancy inspection.
5. It had failed to recognise the negative impact the situation was having on the resident’s health. It had reviewed the support it had offered in order to learn from the situation.
6. It offered £1,000 compensation to acknowledge the impact of the damp and mould and the inconvenience of the decant.
Following the resident’s dissatisfaction with this response, the landlord added to its stage 2 response on 10 November 2023. It said as follows:
1. It could not compensate for health issues. These would need to be pursued by a personal injury claim.
2. It offered additional compensation of £500 to acknowledge the effort and inconvenience caused to the resident of cleaning the mould.
The evidence shows the landlord responded to the report of mould in line with its repairs timeframe. It appropriately arranged for a surveyor to attend who would be able to fully consider the condition of the property. The landlord acted on the recommendation of its surveyor in advising the resident that a temporary decant was required during the works.
When the resident declined the temporary decant, there is no evidence that the landlord was proactive in discussing the reasons for her reluctance with her. However, the landlord acknowledged this failure as part of its complaints process.
Despite the resident advising of the impact the damp and mould was having on her, it was not until she described that she had taken action to try to end her life, that the landlord put mental health support in place. On being made aware of the situation, the landlord was responsive and acted appropriately in arranging safeguarding referrals and support services. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to fully appreciate the impact on the resident.
Following the safeguarding concern, the landlord appropriately visited the resident and committed to regular attendance at the property to check on her and carry out mould washes. Its commitment to an action plan and weekly reports with photographs also demonstrated that it had taken the matter seriously. It appropriately offered the resident temporary hotel accommodation but she declined this. It committed to find the resident a property she was happy with and the resident was temporarily decanted on 20 October 2023.
There were failures in how the landlord responded to this aspect of complaint, however, it acknowledged these within its complaint responses. It also explained the learning it had taken from the case.
In respect of this aspect of complaint the landlord offered a total of £1,500 compensation, with £1,000 being offered during the internal complaints procedure. This was in line with the amount we would expect to be offered where failures had a seriously detrimental impact on a resident. As the compensation was reasonable, this leads to a determination of reasonable redress.

Response to the resident’s reports of repair issues

The repair issues have been considered separately for clarity. This approach also reflects how the landlord considered the issues in its complaint responses.

Leak from the property above

The resident reported a leak from the flat above on 14 March 2023. A contractor attended as an emergency within 24 hours. Follow-on work to the resident’s ceiling was done on 27 March 2023.
There was a gap in the evidence until the resident referred to this leak in her contact with us on 16 August 2023. The landlord told the resident’s MP on 30 August 2023 it had raised works in the resident’s kitchen to tackle the issue.
It attended the neighbour’s property to identify the source of the leak on 21 September 2023. It resealed the neighbour’s bath. Despite this, the resident continued to report a leak.
This repair issue was not raised in the resident’s initial complaint and so the landlord did not consider this with a stage 1 response. In its stage 2 response of20 October 2023 the landlord said the report of the leak had been attended within 24 hours on 15 March 2023. It had completed follow-up work to the ceiling on 27 March 2023. It reiterated this in its stage 2 follow-on response. It concluded there had been no failure.
Although the landlord did respond to the initial reports of the leak appropriately, it failed to check if the repair in March 2023 had resolved the issue. As the leak continued, the landlord’s conclusion that there had been no failure in its response to this was not appropriate. It missed the opportunity to be proactive in checking its actions had resolved the issue.

Immersion heater

The resident reported an issue with the immersion heater on 14 March 2023. The landlord completed an emergency temporary repair within 24 hours. Although not within the category of an emergency repair as defined by the landlord’s policy, it was appropriate for the landlord to respond within these timescales. This is because it demonstrated the landlord had taken the resident’s vulnerabilities on board in prioritising the necessary works.
Further work was carried out to the immersion heater on 23 March 2023. This was in line with the timeframe for a general repair.
The resident reported another issue with the heater on 25 April 2023. The landlord again treated this as an emergency. A contractor attended the same day to make safe and tightened the pipework to stop a leak. A contractor attended the following day and noted parts of the heater were in poor condition. It replaced these the following day.
A follow-on inspection conducted on10 August 2023 confirmed the work was of an acceptable standard. There had been no further issues reported. The landlord responded appropriately to this repair issue.

Bathroom

The issue with the shower hose was reported on 16 March 2023. The landlord completed this repair on 23 March 2023. This was in line with its repair timeframe for a general repair.
The landlord took 30 days from the date of the report on 16 March 2023 to re-seal the tiles and bath on 24 April 2023. This was 11 days longer than the timeframe in its repairs policy.
The issue with the seal on the shower hose was reported on 31 March 2023. The landlord completed this repair on 24 April 2023 . This was in line with its repair timeframe for a general repair.
The resident requested a longer shower hose on 31 March 2023. The landlord installed this on 28 April 2023. This was in line with its repair timeframe for a general repair.
The evidence shows the landlord generally responded appropriately in response to requests for repairs to the bathroom, however one repair had been delayed, but not significantly.

Conclusion to the landlord’s handling of repair issues

Within its stage 1 response 27 April 2023 the landlord said that it had arranged for an engineer to attend the following day install a new shower hose. It said the contractor would also investigate an issue with the water pressure issue (it is not clear when this was reported). It summarised how it had responded to the thermostat issue. It apologised for the recurring issue with the shower. It offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
At stage 2 dated 20 October 2023 the landlord acknowledged it did not have a record of follow-on work being completed in respect of the water pressure. It committed to resolve this during the temporary move. It acknowledged it should have addressed repair issues before the resident moved in. It said it had implemented a new system to ensure issues were identified. It offered compensation as follows:
1. £200 for the delay in responding to the water pressure issue.
2. £900 for the cumulative effect and the significant inconvenience and distress experienced by the resident.
The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with this response. The landlord sent a follow-on response on 10 November 2023. It said that it had addressed the repairs in line with its repairs timeframes.
The evidence shows the landlord acknowledged some of its failures in how it responded to the repair issues. However, it was not proactive in checking that the leak repair had resolved the issue. As such, it incorrectly concluded this had been resolved in line with its repair timeframe. It also failed to address the delay in carrying out tiling and re-sealing works in the bathroom.
Despite this, the landlord acknowledged that it should have resolved repair issues before the resident moved in. It also considered the effect the issues had on her.
In total it offered £1,200 compensation for the impact of its handling of the repair issues on the resident. This was within the range we would expect to see where there has been a severe long-term impact on a resident.
The landlord failed to fully consider the leak issue and it did not identify that it had delayed in carrying out bathroom works. However, it offered compensation during its internal complaints procedure, which was in line with our remedies guidance. As such, there was reasonable redress.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a two stage complaints policy. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2 it will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. If additional time is required at ither stage it will keep the resident informed.

Complaint A – repairs

The resident made a complaint about repair issues on 6 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged this within 4 working days on 13 April 2023. It responded at stage 1 on 27 April 2023. This was 10 working days after the acknowledgment. This was within its complaints timeframe.
The landlord took the correspondence from the resident’s MP on 21 September 2023 as an escalation request. It acknowledged this within 5 working days on28 September 2023. It advised that due to the number of complaint issues, it may need extra time. It hoped to respond at stage 2 by 20 October 2023.

Complaint B- damp and mould

The resident made this complaint on 17 May 2033 and the landlord acknowledged it the following day. It responded at stage 1 on 16 June 2023. This was 20 working days after the acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledge it had delayed providing this response. It offered £150 compensation for this.
The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the response on 16 June 2023. The landlord failed to treat this as an escalation request. It did not acknowledge the escalation until 28 September 2023 following correspondence form the resident’s MP.

Complaint C- storage heater

The resident made this complaint on 9 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged it within 3 working days. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 4 July 2023. This was 14 working days after the acknowledgement. The landlord recognised this delay and offered compensation of £150 at stage 1.
The resident escalated this on 9 July 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge this until the involvement of the resident’s MP on 28 September 2023. It responded at stage 2 on 20 October 2023.

Complaint D- contractor behaviour in attending the storage heater

The resident made this complaint on 9 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged it the following day. As this related to the storage heater, it combined this with complaint C and addressed this within its stage 2 response of 20 October 2023. This was reasonable as the issue were connected.

Complaint handling conclusion

The landlord appropriately offered compensation within its stage 1 responses for delays in its complaint handling.
It provided a combined stage 2 response on 20 October 2023. Despite taking longer than its complaints policy, this was in line with when it had told the resident it aimed to respond by. Within its combined stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that there has been a consistent theme of poor complaint handling. It explained its team had recently undergone a restructure, training and it had recruited additional staff as a result.
Within the stage 2 response, it offered additional compensation for its complaint handling as follows:
1. £50 for a delay in acknowledging complaint A.
2. £500 for its poor complaint handling and a failure to escalate complaint B to stage 2.
This brought its total offer of compensation for complaint handling to £850. This was within a range of our remedies guidance that we would expect where there have been failures which had a significant impact on the resident.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged its complaint handling failures, it set out the learning it had taken from this and it offered appropriate compensation. As such, there was reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42.l. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB in 2023 is outside our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a storage heater fire.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repair issues in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the total compensation it offered the resident of £4,800. For clarity this is made up as follows:
1. £1,250 to acknowledge the effect on the resident of its handling of the storage heater fire.
2. £1,500 to acknowledge the effect on the resident of its handling of the damp and mould.
3. £1,200 to acknowledge the effect on the resident of its handling of the repair issues.
4. £850 to acknowledge the effect on the resident of its handling of its complaint handling.