A2dominion Housing Group Limited — case 202439590

Decision Case ID 202439590 Decision type Investigation Landlord A2Dominion Housing Group Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Shared Ownership Date 23 January 2026 Background The property is a flat in a 5-storey, purpose-built block. The resident wrote to the landlord to express her concerns that the cladding on the building was preventing leaseholders from selling their properties and her property was also affected by damp, mould and other disrepair. She advised the landlord that she had applied to remortgage her property and said the landlord had not provided the lender or her mortgage broker with the required information.

The landlord has not advised us whether it has any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, the resident told the landlord on various occasions that she was asthmatic. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s: Reports of damp and mould. Requests for information about the cladding on the building and fire safety. Concerns about the level of the service charges over the last 5 years. Request for it to buy back the property.

Request for information regarding her service charges. We have also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling. Our decision (determination) There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for information about the cladding on the building and fire safety. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the level of the service charges over the last 5 years is outside of our jurisdiction.

There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for it to buy back the property. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information regarding her service charges. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord did not provide evidence to show that it appropriately responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The evidence it provided showed there were delays in arranging inspections and therefore in carrying out any remedial works. There was a lack of communication with the resident about the findings from inspections and any work that it intended to carry out. The landlord took reasonable steps to provide updates to all residents in the block about the cladding and fire safety and to supply the information requested by the resident and her mortgage broker. However, there was a delay in the landlord replying to her request for an EWS1 form in October 2023.

We do not generally investigate complaints about the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase as these matters fall within the remit of the First-Tier Tribunal. The landlord acknowledged its communication failings in its response to the resident’s request for it to buy back the property and offered reasonable redress to put things right. The landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s request for information about her service charges.

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within appropriate timescales. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 20 February 2026 2 Compensation orders The landlord must pay the resident £600 made up as follows: £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

£100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for information about the cladding on the building and fire safety. This must be paid directly to the resident and the landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. No later than 20 February 2026 3 Other orders The landlord must write to the resident and us setting out its plans with timescales for carrying out remedial work for any damp and mould in the property for which it is responsible for addressing.

No later than 20 February 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations The landlord should reoffer the resident the £150 offered on 5 July 2024 in relation to its response to the resident’s buyback request if this has not already been paid. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this compensation is paid. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 29 October 2024 The resident made a complaint about the landlord’s response to her requests for documents to support a remortgage application on her property.

She said the landlord had not responded to her mortgage broker’s requests for information and the information it had sent her lender had been incorrect or insufficient. She also said that she had previously asked the landlord to buy back her property because of the outstanding issues regarding the cladding on the building. 14 November 2024 The landlord sent its stage 1 reply in which it said: It had provided the landlord’s certificate in line with the Building Safety Act in a timely manner.

The resident’s lender had requested non-standard information relating to fire safety and the landlord had provided an additional letter requested by the lender. The landlord had not identified any delays in providing the requirted information. 14 November 2024 The resident wrote to the landlord and said its stage 1 response had not been satisfactory and she wanted to proceed to stage 2. 18 December 2024 The landlord sent its stage 2 reply in which it said: It had explained to the resident that her request for it to investigate the last 5 years of service charges had not been part of her stage 1 complaint and therefore it would not be including this in its stage 2 response.

It explained about an adjustment it had applied in relation to the communal repair costs for 2023/24 and said if the resident had specific concerns about the 2023/24 service charges, she could request a full breakdown of the service charges and invoices under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. There were Government rules it had to follow in relation to property buybacks and it outlined the information the resident would have to provide for it to consider a buyback.

It did not uphold the resident’s complaint but it offered the resident £25 as it said it had delayed dealing with her stage 2 complaint. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident asked us to investigate her complaint because she said: The building had been poorly maintained by the landlord and had been given a B2 fire safety rating. She had not been able to sell the property because lenders had not been willing to lend money against the property. She had been paying for services that she had not benefited from.

Service charges had been incorrectly calculated and were now unaffordable. The property had damp and mould which had affected her health and made her asthma worse. Consequently, it had become necessary for her to move out of the property and she was now paying for alternative accommodation. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed.

We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould Finding Maladministration Under the terms of the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure, exterior and the common parts of the building. It is also responsible for any pipes that do not exclusively serve the resident’s property.

The resident is responsible for keeping the interior of the property in good repair. The resident has advised us that she reported the presence of damp and mould when she first moved to the property in 2019. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred.

As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as us, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. As the resident reported damp issues on 20 October 2023, we consider it fair and reasonable to focus our investigation from this date, which was 12 months before she made the stage 1 complaint we are investigating. The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 October 2023 and said that her property was affected by damp and mould.

She said mould was affecting her health as she was asthmatic. She added that her health had worsened as she had suffered from continuous chest infections caused by the damp in the building. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurance. The resident may wish to consider taking independent advice if she wishes to pursue such a claim.

In response to her report of damp and mould in October 2023, the landlord wrote to her on 29 January 2024 and said its legal disrepair team was due to inspect all properties in the block to assess the damp and mould issues. It said it would then carry out works to eligible properties following the inspection. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not arranged to inspect the reported damp and mould 3 months after the resident’s email was sent in October 2023. It was particularly unreasonable as she had advised the landlord about the impact on her health.

Although the resident was a shared owner and therefore would be responsible for most internal repairs, she had advised the landlord in her email that she believed the dampness was caused by the external walls. It was therefore incumbent on the landlord to investigate whether this was the case as it is responsible for maintaining the structure of the building. The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 June 2024 and again reported that damp and mould were affecting her property.

The landlord has not provided any details, such as repair logs or job sheets, to show inspections or works it carried out to address damp and mould, despite us requesting this evidence. However, it provided us with a letter it sent to the resident on 5 July 2024 to say its Surveyor had arranged for works to be carried out in the property for damp and mould and these were currently underway. The resident has also advised us that the landlord’s Surveyor inspected the property and, as a result, in July 2024 a contractor repainted inside a cupboard where there had been damp and mould issues.

It was reasonable for the landlord to have inspected the property and arranged remedial works. The landlord’s records show that it also issued a job to its contractor on 31 October 2024 to investigate damp and mould. Its records state that the contractor inspected the property on 18 December 2024. It was unreasonable that it had taken the landlord 7 weeks from raising the order to carry out the inspection given the health issues reported by the resident. Because of the lack of information provided by the landlord, we have not been unable to conclude that the landlord acted appropriately in line with its obligations or that it kept the resident reasonably updated throughout.

For example, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord took meaningful action to address damp and mould during the period from October 2023 to June 2024. Furthermore, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord took into account the health issues reported by the resident or showed any urgency in investigating the damp and mould. We have also not seen any evidence of the landlord setting out clearly to the resident the works it considered were its responsibility and those it considered were her responsibility.

We have found that the landlord’s communication in relation to the reports of damp and mould was poor and, based on the lack of evidence sent to us, we have also found issues with its record keeping in relation to the reports of damp and mould. In summary, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould: There was a delay in the landlord inspecting the property following the resident’s report of damp and mould in October 2023, despite informing the landlord it was affecting her health.

There was a delay in the contractor attending the property after the landlord raised an order in October 2024 for the contractor to inspect for damp and mould. The landlord did not communicate to the resident the findings from its inspections, the work that it would undertake and the work it expected the resident to carry out. Therefore, based on the failings we identified and the lack of evidence showing the landlord dealt with the reports of damp and mould appropriately, we have found there was maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

In terms of the impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident, she had advised the landlord on various occasions that the property condition was causing her distress and inconvenience. For example, she explained this to the landlord in her emails dated 20 October 2023 and 19 June, 13 September, 1 December and 3 December 2024. She also advised the landlord that she was asthmatic. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £500 to put things right. This sum reflects the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response.

It also recognises, however, that the landlord inspected the property and carried out some remedial work in July 2024. The amount ordered is in the range of sums recommended in our Remedies Guidance for cases where we have found maladministration due to a failure which has adversely affected the resident. This includes causing distress and inconvenience. Although we have not investigated events after the landlord’s stage 2 response on 18 December 2024, its records state that the contractor sent a quote for remedial works to the landlord on 6 January 2025.

However, it is unclear from the evidence seen whether remedial works were carried out. We have therefore ordered the landlord to write to the resident setting out the work it will carry out in the property to address the reported damp and mould and a timescale to complete the work. Complaint The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for information about the cladding on the building and fire safety Finding Service failure In December 2019 the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), the Building Societies Association and UK Finance agreed a new industry-wide valuation process to help people buy and sell homes and re-mortgage in buildings where cladding was present.

They introduced an external wall system form (EWS1), which is a way for a building owner to confirm to lenders and valuers that an external wall system on residential buildings has been assessed for safety by a suitable expert, in line with Government guidance and legislation. The RICS guidance on the EWS1 process makes it clear that not every building will require an EWS1 form. This guidance includes criteria to help decide whether a particular building should need an EWS1 form.

The EWS1 form is not a legal requirement and the RICS guidance states that it is not a safety certificate. The landlord’s website says: “We will not be providing EWS1 forms for buildings below 18m in height, although all our buildings have regular Fire Risk Assessments (FRA)”. We issued a guidance note on fire safety and cladding, which was followed by a spotlight report on the subject in May 2021. This recognised that many landlords were using a risk-based approach in carrying out inspections.

It also highlighted the distress that was being caused to residents when trying to sell their properties. This was particularly felt in buildings considered lower risk. The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 October 2023 and requested a copy of the EWS1 form for the building. She then wrote to the landlord on 10 July 2024 and again requested a copy of the form. The landlord replied on the same day and apologised for not responding to the email she had sent in October 2023.

It said that at present it did not have an EWS1 for the building and instead attached a copy of the fire risk appraisal of externals walls (FRAEW) report, which it said the resident may be able to provide to her lender instead of the EWS1. It took the landlord over 8 months to reply to the resident’s request for the EWS1, which was unreasonable as she had made it clear that she wanted the EWS1 because she wanted to sell her property. The delay caused the resident distress and inconvenience and meant she had to chase the landlord for a response.

We have, however, noted that the landlord did write to all residents in the building on 5 December 2023 and included in its letter a link to its building safety pages on its website, which included information about the EWS1 form. In terms of the information the landlord gave to the resident when it responded in July 2024, we have found this was reasonable because: It was consistent with its website which said it would not provide EWS1 forms for buildings below 18m in height.

The landlord was not legally obliged to provide an EWS1 form. It sent the resident a copy of the FRAEW report and suggested she could send a copy to her lender as an alternative. We have reviewed the landlord’s general communications about the cladding and fire safety and found that it sent various letters to residents to update them about the cladding. For example, it sent letters on 9 May, 10 July, 24 August, 13 September and 5 December 2023 and on 13 August 2024. The letters provided residents with various information, including: That the building had been given a B2 EWS1 rating and that remedial work was needed.

It outlined the remedial work needed and reassured residents that in the meantime, the building was safe due to other measures it had introduced, such as carrying out regular checks of communal areas to remove items posing a fire safety risk. It explained that residents would not have to pay for the remedial works as they were protected under the Building Safety Act 2022, however, it said it would nevertheless be applying for funding under the Government’s Cladding Safety Scheme.

It provided residents with a timescale for the works, which it originally said were programmed to start in Autumn 2024, which subsequently changed to 2025/26 and then to 2026/27. It acknowledged the difficulties residents were facing and included a phone number that residents could ring for free counselling and emotional support. It was reasonable that the landlord provided updates to residents, including information to reassure them about their safety and a facility for them to receive health and wellbeing support.

In terms of the safety of the building, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its building safety staff, who concluded that the building was safe to occupy while it was waiting for remediation of the cladding. It was also reasonable for the landlord to rely on their expertise and that of its third-party engineers to prioritise its remediation programme based on risk. One of the concerns raised by the resident was that the landlord had not provided the necessary information for her to sell her property or apply to remortgage it.

The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 July 2024 and said she wanted to sell her share of the property. She asked how the cladding might affect the sale of the property. The landlord replied on the same day and sent her a link to the page on its website which outlined the steps involved in selling a shared ownership property. The landlord had therefore responded promptly and reasonably by providing the resident with a link showing details of how to sell her property. The landlord wrote to all residents in the building on 13 August 2024 regarding the cladding and the letter included information about selling or remortgaging a property in the light of the cladding issues.

The landlord had therefore provided the resident with information about how the cladding might affect the sale of her property, which was reasonable as she had requested this information. It was, however, a shortcoming that it took almost a month for the landlord to provide the resident with the information she had requested on 19 July 2024. During October and November 2024, the resident and her mortgage broker exchanged correspondence with the landlord about information needed by the lender to process the resident’s remortgage application.

The evidence seen shows that the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s requests for information because: The resident asked the landlord on 8 October 2024 for a deed of certificate and the landlord replied on 14 October 2024. It explained that she would need to serve a deed of certificate on the landlord so that it could send the landlord’s certificate with the required information. This advice was in line with the process outlined on the Government’s website. The landlord’s records state that it sent the landlord’s certificate and a copy of the FRAEW report to the resident’s broker during week commencing 20 October 2024.

It spoke to the resident’s broker on 30 October 2024 and attached a letter that the broker had requested to provide further clarification about the funding of the cladding remediation works. The resident’s broker wrote to the landlord on 18 November 2024 to confirm that the documentation supplied by the landlord had been accepted by the lender. The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 December 2024 and said that the lender had reduced its valuation of the property because of the condition of the building, the damp issues and the fire safety report.

She said that this meant she was unable to obtain a remortgage or sell the property on the open market. The landlord replied on 3 December 2024 and asked her to provide evidence from the lender that she could not secure a remortgage because of issues relating to the block. It explained that it could submit a buyback application by the end of the week if the resident supplied this and other outstanding information. As the resident had advised the landlord that she had not been able to obtain a remortgage because of the condition of the block, it was reasonable for the landlord to request evidence of this for use as part of the buyback application.

The landlord used its stage 2 response to again ask the resident to supply evidence that her lender had refused a remortgage because of the condition of the building, damp and mould and fire safety issues. It was reasonable for the landlord to have used its final complaint response to restate the need for the resident to provide this evidence. Overall, we have found that the landlord provided reasonable updates to residents about the cladding and fire safety issues and it took reasonable steps during October and November 2024 to supply information to the resident and her mortgage broker.

It also took reasonable steps in July 2024 to provide the resident with information about the EWS1 and reasonably asked the resident to provide evidence of the reasons for the refusal of her mortgage so it could be used to support her buyback application. However, the landlord delayed replying to her October 2023 request for an EWS1. Although it had provided residents with general information about EWS1 forms, we have found there was a service failure due to the landlord’s failure to specifically reply to the resident’s request for the EWS1.

The landlord apologised for failing to respond to the resident’s October 2023 request. However, we consider it appropriate for the landlord to also compensate the resident for the additional distress that its failure to respond caused the resident. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £100, which is within the range of sums in our Remedies Guidance for service failure that has adversely affected the resident. Complaint The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the level of the service charges over the last 5 years Finding Outside jurisdiction We do not generally investigate complaints about the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase because such matters fall within the remit of the First-Tier Tribunal.

Complaint The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to buy back the property Finding Reasonable redress The Homes for England guidance on buybacks says the only time a landlord must buy back a shared ownership home is when the property is in a Designated Protected Area (DPA) and the lease is one of the special mandatory buyback leases. It adds that the landlord may offer to buy back a shared owner’s share of the property, but only in exceptional circumstances and if they have the funds.

In this case, the resident’s lease agreement does not state the property is in a Designated Protected Area and does not contain mandatory buyback clauses. The landlord has said that it is finalising its buyback policy, however, the key elements of its process are: It considers all buyback requests on a discretionary basis. Shared owners must submit a formal request with supporting evidence such as evidence that they are unable to sell the property, a financial assessment and medical evidence, where this is relevant.

The landlord’s Executive Management team will decide whether to approve the buyback. It is not our role to decide whether or not the landlord should have used its discretion to buy back the resident’s share of the property as we are unable to make a legally binding decision on such matters. This would have to be decided by a court. However, we are able to consider whether the landlord responded to the resident’s request for a buyback fairly given all the circumstances of the case.

The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she considers that the landlord has a legal obligation to buy back her share of the property. The landlord’s notes indicate that the resident may have submitted a buyback application before October 2023, which it rejected. However, we have not seen any details about the earlier application. As the resident made a complaint in October 2024 regarding her buyback request, we consider it fair and reasonable to start our investigation 12 months prior to this from October 2023.

The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 October 2023 and said she wanted the landlord to buy back her 25% share of the property because she said it had breached its contractual obligations. She wrote again on 19 June 2024 and requested a buyback. The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 July 2024 and said it had spoken to the resident in February 2024 regarding her request for a buyback. It said it had explained to her at the time that it would only buy back a property in exceptional circumstances and that residents had to go through the resales process first.

The landlord apologised that it had not followed up the conversation with a clear decision in writing regarding her request for a buy back. It offered compensation of £150 for its poor communication and the inconvenience caused. It also used its letter to confirm that a buy back was not presently an option as the resident had not been through the resales process. Given that the resident had requested a buy back in October 2023, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not responded to her request until the conversation in February 2024.

It was also unreasonable that it had not followed up the conversation by sending a written response. This would have provided a record of the conversation and confirmed the landlord’s response to her request for a buy back. The landlord had used its letter of 5 July 2024 to acknowledge the communication failings, to provide a clear response regarding the resident’s buy-back request and to offer compensation. The amount of compensation was in line with the landlord’s Compensation Policy for service failures that have caused “moderate disruption and/or customer effort”.

We consider this to have been appropriate financial redress to recognise the delay in responding to the resident’s buy back request and the landlord’s failure to follow up the February 2024 conversation in writing. The landlord’s records show that it spoke to the resident on 11 September 2024 and during the conversation she said she wanted the landlord to buy back the property. The landlord wrote to her on the same day and sent her the information to apply for the buyback. The landlord therefore responded promptly to the request she made on 11 September 2024.

The resident returned the form on 12 September 2024 and said the form had not allowed her to input the income and expenditure details. The landlord replied on 13 September 2024 and offered to add the missing information to the form if the resident sent it in an email. It was reasonable that the landlord had offered to help complete the form as the resident had said she had not been able to input some of the information. The landlord also asked the resident for any evidence or documentation to support her application.

Again, this was reasonable as it gave the resident an opportunity to provide additional information to help her request for a buyback. In its email of 13 September 2024, the landlord explained that the resident would need to show that she had marketed the property and had been unable to sell it before it would consider buying back the property. It was reasonable that the landlord had clarified that this was one of the criteria it would consider when deciding whether to buy back the property.

The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 November and 1 December 2024 and again asked the landlord to buy back the property. As part of its stage 2 response on 18 December 2024, the landlord explained that the Government’s housing and regeneration agency (Homes England) expected landlords to provide evidence to justify buying back a shared ownership property. The evidence would include the resident’s financial circumstances and information to show the resident had tried to sell the property through the resales process.

It was reasonable that the landlord had used its complaint response to reiterate clearly the evidence the resident would need to provide before it would consider a buyback. Overall, we have found that the advice given by the landlord to the resident in response for it to buy back the property was consistent with its stated process and with information published by Homes for England. Although there were communication issues, the landlord acknowledged these and took reasonable steps to put things right.

We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress in terms of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to buy back the property. Complaint The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information regarding her service charges Finding No maladministration The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 June 2024 and requested details of every item of works costing more than £250 for her household since she became a shared owner in 2019. She said that none of the works had been completed to an acceptable standard.

The landlord replied on 10 July 2024 and said it had checked the resident’s service charge account and could not find any service charges greater than £250 that had been charged to the resident. It was reasonable that the landlord had checked the resident’s service charge account and advised the resident of its findings. The landlord appropriately pointed out that under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 it would need to have consulted with leaseholders for any major works or works carried out under a long-term agreement if the cost was more than £250 per household.

As part of its response, the landlord also asked the resident to specify the area of expenditure she was concerned about so it could carry out further investigations. It was reasonable for the landlord to request more specific information from the resident. Without this, the landlord would need to spend a disproportionate level of resources looking at all services provided since 2019. The landlord spoke to the resident as part of its investigation of her stage 2 complaint and during the conversation she raised concerns about an adjustment on the 2023/24 service charges.

In response, the landlord gave details in its stage 2 reply showing the amount of the 2023/24 adjustment and the date it had been posted to the resident’s account. It added that if she wanted further details about the 2023/24 charges, under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 she could request a full breakdown of the charges and the invoices. It was reasonable that the landlord had given details of the adjustment the resident had queried and had advised the resident that she was entitled to request a full breakdown of the charges.

The resident had also asked the landlord to investigate the service charges over the last 5 years. However, the landlord pointed out that this had not been part of her stage 1 complaint and therefore it had not included this as part of its investigation. As the resident had not requested information about the last 5 years of service charges as part of her stage 1 complaint, it was reasonable for the landlord not to have included this in its final response. In summary, we have found that the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s requests for information about her service charges.

We have therefore found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information regarding her service charges. Complaint The landlord’s complaint handling Finding No maladministration The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.

The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 29 October 2024 and the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint on 1 November 2024 in line with its policy. The landlord then sent its stage 1 response on 14 November 2024, which was 9 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. The landlord therefore responded within an appropriate timescale in line with its policy. The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 November 2024 and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2.

The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 22 November 2024, which was 6 working days after receiving the stage 2 complaint. It was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord that it did not acknowledge the complaint within the 5 working day timescale in its policy. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 18 December 2024, which was 18 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint. It therefore sent its response within an appropriate timescale in line with its policy.

Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within appropriate timescales and we have therefore found there was no maladministration in its complaint handling. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) Despite our information requests, the landlord did not provide sufficient information, such as repair logs or job sheets, to show it had responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Communication The landlord’s communication in relation to the resident’s reports of damp and mould was poor as we have not seen any correspondence from the landlord setting out its inspection findings and proposals for carrying out remedial work.