All Case Studies

Damp and Mould (April 2024)

Summary

In April 2020 the resident made a formal complaint about the ongoing damp issues he had been experiencing. We responded and confirmed that the works had been raised. We carried out a post inspection in July 2020 and confirmed that there was no damp in the property and that the relative humidity was at a good level. In Jan 2022, we raised another job on the back of a report that the guttering was blocked and water was leaking into the residents property. Two follow up inspections were carried out which found a suspected leak from the roof and scaffolding was required to investigate and repair the leak. This was completed in January 2023.

On 25 January 2023, the resident wrote in a letter complaining that he had no response from us and that the damp had been present since 2019, caused by guttering. The resident sought compensation for the length of time the matter had been ongoing and for the stress and worry it had caused him. Poplar HARCA did not receive this complaint letter and our investigations into what happened with the letter was inconclusive. Further repair records show that in August 2023 scaffolding was erected to replace the guttering box which was damaged by squirrel.

The Ombudsman contacted us in February 2024. We confirmed that we did not have any record of the complaint from January 2023 and progressed the residents complaint straight to stage 2 of our complaints process. In March 2024, our surveyor visited and confirmed that all works to the roof, guttering and drain was completed. To improve the thermal efficiency of the bedroom a new works order was raised to thermos-board and decorate the external wall in the bedroom.

We issued our stage 2 response in March 2024 and explained that whilst we did not have a copy of the residents letter from January 2023, we make the assumption that it was received but not passed onto the complaints team. We further apologised for the way we handled the complaint, delays, lack of carrying out a post inspection of the works and the impact this had on the resident. The response further explained that whilst works and investigations did happen, the number of inspection visits exceeded what we considered reasonable.

We offered £750 compensation in recognition of the time taken, the lack of post inspections and the impact it had in the residents ability to enjoy his home.  A further £250 was awarded for the way in which we handled the residents complaint.

We upheld the residents complaint.

Outcome

The Ombudsman made the following determination on this case:

• There was service failure in our handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property.
• We provided reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolved the complaint case.

Orders:

The Ombudsman made the following orders:

• Pay the resident an additional £250 compensation for the failures identified in handling the residents report of damp and mould

Recommendations

• Review our post-inspection process.
• Provide staff with refresher training on the importance of identifying and logging complaints.
• Provide staff with refresher training on the importance of maintaining regular communication with residents.
• Review our current processes for complex works involving multiple staff and contractors with a view to improving accountability and communication.
• It is recommended the landlord review how it handles incoming mail with the view to implementing a system which it can be satisfied provides a clear audit trail of all incoming mail and its actions.