Citizen Housing (202418244)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418244

Citizen Housing

11 April 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 concerns of damp and mould in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 17 June 2002. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 2 bedroom flat. The landlord had no recorded vulnerabilities. The resident lives with her husband, who for the purpose of this complaint acted as the resident’s representative. Throughout this report both the resident and the representative have been referred to as the resident.
The landlord undertook a stock condition survey of the resident’s property in March 2024 which highlighted the property as having damp and mould in the living room, 2 bedrooms and the bathroom. The repair log noted that the resident had cleaned the mould herself at that time.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 17 June 2024 which detailed dissatisfaction about a cancelled repair appointment on 10 June 2024, which she knew nothing about. The evidence suggests following that the landlord spoke to the resident when she also raised concerns about ongoing issues with the home with damp and mould and the landlord’s communication.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 5 July 2024. The key points were as follows:
1. With regards to property issues, the resident had said a surveyor had attended earlier in the year, but the landlord had not raised the follow on works. The landlord said it had arranged for its surveyor to attend on 9 July 2024.
2. With regards to neighbourhood issues, the landlord apologised that the resident felt she was not listened to, but the resident had since confirmed she was liaising with the neighbourhood team leader, and it had arranged further contact.
3. It apologised for the lack of service received from the landlord. It confirmed the resident’s complaint had highlighted the need for further training to its customer experience advisors and repairs team.
The resident responded on 10 July 2024. The landlord had said a surveyor would attend on 9 July 2024 but after waiting in, the surveyor did not attend. She said the landlord had wasted her time and she had had enough of the “endless mental and emotional abuse” and the toll it had taken on her health. The resident said the landlord had 48 hours to resolve the matter before she went ahead with legal action.
The surveyor attended on 11 July 2024 and found no signs of damp and mould. It offered the resident extractor fans which the resident declined. The surveyor agreed to install passive air vents in 2 bedrooms, the living room and kitchen.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 August 2024. The key points were as follows:
1. It noted that the resident had raised wider concerns about the landlord’s communication, but it had addressed these in an earlier complaint in May 2024 and therefore it had not reinvestigated the issue.
2. With regards to the missed appointment on 10 June 2024, it confirmed the appointment was for the removal of rubbish in the communal area and it apologised for the misunderstanding.
3. It also apologised that the resident had not been able to query the appointment with its contact centre the following day and explained that was due to staff training.
4. It apologised for the errors in its stage 1 response and explained that was due to changes in its case processing system which caused formatting errors.
5. It apologised that the surveyor had not attended as planned on 9 July 2024 but confirmed it attended on 11 July 2024 following which it raised a job to install for air vents.
6. With regards to wider concerns about the landlord’s service it confirmed the resident was in regular contact with the neighbourhood team who was liaising with its ground maintenance manager about fly tipping and parking on the grass.
In referring to this Service, the resident asked that the landlord resolve the ongoing damp, mould, and ventilation issues in the property. The Ombudsman understands that the resident raised a further complaint about damp and mould in the property on 19 February 2025.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord did not at the time of the complaint have a dedicated damp and mould policy, however, in its repairs policy it sets out that it would respond to reports of damp and mould in a prompt way that takes a holistic approach to diagnosing and treating such issues. It sets out it will undertake remedial works as necessary but will also offer advice on the best way to heat homes and reduce condensation. It will ensure it communicates effectively with its residents during the process.

Scope of investigation

We are aware that the resident has made a further complaint about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property. This was made in February 2025. Our jurisdiction only allows us to consider complaints which have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Therefore, while the resident has to the choice of bringing that complaint to this Service should she exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, we have not considered the events surrounding that complaint in this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in the property.

The housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) assesses 29 housing hazards and the effect that each may have on the health and safety of current or future occupants of the property. The HHSRS offers a way that hazards can be assessed and the best way of dealing with them. One of the hazards is damp and mould growth. Damp and mould are health threats due to dust mites, mould, or fungal growth. It includes physical, mental, and social wellbeing ill effects associated with damp, humid and mouldy conditions. Health effects include allergies, asthma, breathing difficulties, fungal infection, rhinitis, depression, and anxiety. Landlords should be proactive and consider preventative measures before damp and mould arise.
The landlord undertook a stock condition survey of the resident’s property in March 2024 which highlighted the presence of damp and mould in 4 rooms in the property. It then undertook a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) inspection on 26 April 2024. While it noted that the resident had cleaned the mould away, it highlighted there was moderate levels of damp and mould in the property. Where a landlord makes such a finding, the Ombudsman would expect it to act swiftly in response to the reports of damp and mould, in doing so the Ombudsman would expect to see further works raised to investigate and resolve any issues, to risk assess the property to understand the potential risk to its resident’s and to consider if the property required any temporary measures to be put in place while awaiting repairs. The landlord has provided no evidence to show that it took any action following the stock condition survey or the HHSRS inspection. Furthermore, the evidence suggests it took no action until the resident raised the issue as part of her formal complaint. The landlords complete lack of action is inappropriate especially given the moderate levels of damp and mould found and highlights a disregard to the safety of its residents.
This lack of action goes against the landlord’s repairs policy which says that where damp and mould is present it would communicate effectively with its residents with regards to how it would manage the issue. The landlord should undertake learning with regards to its lack of effective communication in this case.
Following the resident making a formal complaint about the damp and mould in the property, the landlord appropriately arranged for its surveyor to reattend to investigate the issue. It arranged this for 9 July 2024, 16 days after the resident had raised the issue again, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
Unfortunately, the surveyor missed the appointment, and the landlord only became aware by the resident herself contacting it. While internal evidence shows the surveyor missed this by accident, it highlights a lack of effective diary management, and the landlord should consider any learning it can take from this.
The landlord promptly apologised to the resident and rescheduled the appointment for 11 July 2024. Although any delay is less than ideal, the landlord acted swiftly to rearrange the appointment for the resident.
The surveyor attended the property and found no evidence of damp and mould in the property but acknowledged a ventilation issue within the property. While this is contrary to the report from earlier in the year, the landlord is entitled to rely on its qualified professionals to make an informed decision.
Furthermore, the surveyor offered the resident extractor fans and while she declined these, the surveyor went on to agree to install passive air vents in the 4 rooms in the property identified as having moderate damp and mould in the HHSRS inspection.
While the surveyor agreed to install passive air vents and confirmed this to the landlord following the visit, the evidence suggests that this plan did not go ahead as it was found it would not solve the problem. Instead, it would raise a job to install a PIV unit. The landlord has provided no evidence to show when it made this decision, but internal evidence highlights that by December 2024, the landlord had undertaken no further work. This is completely inappropriate given that it was, at that point, 9 months since the surveyor had found an issue in the property.
Furthermore, while the landlord was satisfied that the issue was related to ventilation in the property and that there was no category 1 hazard present under HHSRS standards, there is no evidence that it offered temporary solutions or provided advice to the resident on managing ventilation while awaiting the unit’s installation. This lack of action highlights a disregard for the resident’s situation and a lack of effective repairs management by the landlord.
The landlord told this Service during the evidence request that it was unable to install the air vents due to the property brick type, so it had instead raised a works order to install a Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) unit. However, due to a missed appointment, the landlord did not install the unit. While the landlord provided this information after the complaints procedure and therefore cannot form part of this investigation, it would have been useful for the landlord to have contacted the resident again after the failed appointment to rearrange the installation. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord has since found that the property is in fact not suitable for a PIV unit and therefore, no order has been made in relation to this.
Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to this Service when asked, but also because this helps the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property. It enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In this case, despite requesting such evidence, the landlord’s evidence in relation to communication it had with the resident has been lacking and therefore, the Ombudsman has been unable to conduct a thorough investigation. Particularly in relation to issues with communication, which the resident raised in her formal complaint.
However, in its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted that its communication with the resident had not been of the standard it expected to deliver and confirmed that it had recognised the need for further training within its customer service and repairs team. Where a failing is found, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to learn from that failing and implement processes to ensure the failure did not reoccur in its service going forward. While it was appropriate of the landlord to recognise its shortcomings, an order has been made for the landlord to set out how it has learnt from this complaint and how it has embedded that learning into its policies and processes going forward.
During the investigation into this complaint, the resident informed this Service that she and her husband had repeatedly cleaned the mould and redecorated the property to alleviate the issue. The evidence shows that the landlord was aware of their efforts. While it was helpful for the resident to help in cleaning the mould, it was inappropriate for the landlord to be aware of this and still delay taking action. The resident is elderly and vulnerable, making the landlord’s lack of an effective system to track and monitor this issue particularly concerning.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord delayed unreasonably in taking action with regards to the damp and mould in the property. It took the resident raising a formal complaint for the landlord to undertake action and while it arranged for a surveyor to attend the property shortly after, this too was delayed. It then did not raise the necessary works meaning it left the resident to chase for action. The landlord’s lack of swift action and poor communication throughout leads to a finding of maladministration in this case.
A compensation order has been made for £400, made up of the following:
1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
2. £200 for the time and trouble taken by the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord provided both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses within the timescales as set out in its complaint policy.
However, it sent the stage 1 response to the resident with incomplete and missing words. While the landlord explained to the resident, in its stage 2 response, that this had been due to change in software and caused by a formatting issue, this is not appropriate. It highlights an impersonal approach to complaint handling and the landlord needs to ensure it proofreads all complaint responses and that it checks them prior to being sent to a resident. The landlord’s inability to do so and its reliance on software to complete its response does not reflect a resident centred approach to complaint handling as expected by the Ombudsman.
Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
A compensation order has been made for £50 to reflect this failing.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, a senior member of staff must contact the landlord to apologise for the failings found in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £450. This is made up of the following:
1. £400 for its handling of the damp and mould.
2. £50 for its complaint handling.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord set out that it had highlighted that further training was required in relation to communication with residents in its customer service and repairs team. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must set out to this Service how it has embedded that learning into its policies and procedures going forward.
The Ombudsman understands that the damp, mould, and ventilation issue is ongoing in the resident’s property. Therefore, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a timebound action plan, setting out the actions to intends to take to both investigate and resolve this issue for the resident.