From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Citizen Housing (202408800)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202408800

Citizen Housing

1 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy of a 2-bedroom flat that started in October 2013. In 2024 the resident told the landlord her household experienced “breathing issues”.
  2. On 9 February 2024 the resident reported damp and mould in her bathroom, bedroom, hallway, kitchen, and living room to the landlord. She complained to the landlord on 6 March 2024 about living with ongoing mould for the past 10 years. The resident added she now had rising damp in the hallway.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 12 April 2024 and said it inspected the property on 12 March 2024 and completed mould treatment work on 4 April 2024. It agreed to contact the resident to arrange “remedial works”.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 April 2024 and complained about the quality of paintwork completed by the landlord. She also said how wet some of her walls, carpet, and wooden flooring were.
  5. On 2 May 2024 the resident’s legal representative sent the landlord a letter before legal action for alleged disrepair. This involved alleged damp to the resident’s hallway, living room, bedrooms, and damage to plasterwork, walls, and flooring.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 29 May 2024 and said it had requested air vents for her property. It also agreed to repair a leak to the rainwater downpipe, install a French drain, and trace and fix a bathroom leak.
  7. The landlord and the resident’s solicitors reached an agreement on 20 March 2025 which included:
    1. a payment to the resident of £1,500 less any rent arrears or monies she owned the landlord
    2. a payment of £3,000 towards the resident’s legal costs
    3. completion of the works recommended in a report dated 11 July 2024 by 11 July 2025 relating to flooring, ceilings, walls, and plastering.
  8. The resident expressed dissatisfaction to us at the level of compensation. Both the landlord and resident have confirmed no legal proceedings have been issued. The resident asked for an additional £3,000 compensation to cover damage to her furniture, sofa, and beds. The resident would also like the landlord to rehouse her. The resident said the damp and mould work the landlord agreed is outstanding, but the landlord has told her it cannot complete it with her in the property. It has told this Service it intends to move the resident but has not explained when or confirmed if this will be a permanent move.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental effect on her health and well-being and that of her children. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. The resident said she experienced damp and mould for 10 years and has referred to the period 2014 to 2015 in her complaint. The Ombudsman encourages 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 while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. In view of the time periods involved in this case this investigation has assessed the landlord’s handling of damp and mould from 2024 until the landlord’s final response, including any actions it agreed in this.

The landlord’s handling of the damp and mould

  1. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a detailed record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, easily accessible records provide an audit trail. They also improve the landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. We consider the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records. This has affected our ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a significant failure by the landlord and contributed to other failures identified in this report.
  2. When a resident reports damp or mould, the landlord should quickly inspect the property and check for hazards. The landlord has a responsibility under the Decent Home Standard and s.9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation and free from ‘relevant hazards’ and risks. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard. Therefore, the landlord needs to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy.
  3. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance, gas, and cyclical and planned maintenance policy states it will follow the Ombudsman’s guidance on dealing with damp and mould. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould published in October 2021 recommends that landlords should:
    1. adopt a zero- tolerance approach to damp and mould
    2. ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue
    3. identify when it should use an independent, mutually agreed, and suitably qualified surveyor and share the outcomes of all surveys with residents
    4. examine the mitigations they can put in place to support residents.
  4. The landlord therefore had an obligation to inspect the property to find the cause of the reported damp and mould. The resident reported damp and mould on 9 February 2024. The landlord said it completed a damp and mould inspection on 12 March 2024 and raised works then. The landlord has not provided details of its findings but said in its stage 2 response that it agreed to:
    1. install 3 passive air vents in the bedroom and living room
    2. install trickle vents in the living room windows
    3. repair a downpipe leak
    4. install a French drain to the rear of the property
    5. trace and fix a bathroom leak.
  5. Based on the available evidence we cannot say if or when the landlord completed these works. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord took over a month to respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and inspect the property. This is especially as the resident said she had been living with damp and mould for 10 years.
  6. While the landlord said it completed a mould wash and treatment together with all “necessary treatments for damp and mould” on 4 April 2024 it has not provided evidence of the work it completed. Therefore, we cannot be satisfied that the landlord responded in line with the expectations in the spotlight report.
  7. The resident complained again on 28 April 2024 about the painting work the landlord’s operative completed. She explained she still had wet walls, carpets, and wooden flooring. Despite the resident reporting that there was still an issue there is no evidence the landlord re-inspected the property between 28 April 2024 and its final response. This was unacceptable as this was not in line with its damp and mould policy. While the landlord said it raised a job for a mould wash and treatment on 20 May 2024 it is unclear if or when it completed this.
  8. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord partly held the resident responsible for the damp and mould due to “lifestyle” involving the “wet clothing being aired”. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp mould outlines that landlords should avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language that leaves residents feeling blamed for damp and mould.
  9. The Ombudsman has serious concerns that the landlord raised the resident’s ‘lifestyle’ as a contributing factor. In the foreword of our Spotlight report in 2021 our Ombudsman said: “I hope the word ‘lifestyle’, when it may be a consequence of limited choices, is banished from the vernacular.” Our report went on to explain: “The term ‘lifestyle’ suggests that it is a resident’s choice to live in that way.” The landlord’s choice of wording here was inappropriate.
  10. Of significant importance, homes should be fit to allow residents to dry their clothes indoors in winter months which means having suitable installations for heating as well as appropriate ventilation. A property may not be fit for human habitation if a resident cannot wash and dry their clothes in the home, during the winter months in British weather. Some households do not have a choice as they do not have access to external areas for drying clothes.
  11. The resident told the landlord she wanted to move on account of her living conditions. She said in her complaint that the conditions were causing constant “respiratory issues” to her and her children, like sneezing and coughing. This meant her children sometimes needed to sleep elsewhere. She also told the landlord her mental health had been affected. The landlord advised her to contact Homefinders and bid on other properties. It was appropriate the landlord offered advice about her housing options. However, the landlord’s lettings policy says that discretionary moves may be considered where there are circumstances that would seriously impact on the health and wellbeing of a resident or other household member if they were to remain in the property. The Ombudsman understands from the resident and landlord that in March 2025 the landlord agreed to move her. Given the resident’s health concerns it would have been reasonable for it to consider whether a discretionary move would have been appropriate sooner.
  12. The resident told the landlord she had incurred additional costs in running the dehumidifiers she purchased. The landlord ought to have considered if it was under a responsibility to help with these. This is because the landlord’s non–statutory (discretionary) compensation framework allows it to reimburse the costs of running dehumidifiers.
  13. The resident said she had to throw away household furniture and clothes and was seeking compensation for this. However, the landlord had a discretion under its compensation framework to either consider compensation for these losses or refer the resident to its insurer. On 14 April 2025 the landlord agreed to consider the compensation for these losses and has asked the resident to provide receipts. However, it was unreasonable that it did not do this sooner.
  14. Overall, the landlord’s handling of damp and mould was unreasonable. It failed to show that it acted in line with the expectations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, its policies, or its legal obligations. This amounted to maladministration.
  15. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord puts things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. When considering this the Ombudsman will have regard to whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  16. Following the stage 2 response, the landlord inspected the property on 31 July 2024 and recommended other work. The landlord also agreed in March 2025 to complete the work recommended in a report dated 11 July 2024.This report found water on the children’s bedroom floor, entrance hallway and bathroom, an elevated ground level near the children’s bedroom, a dislodged downpipe and damp and mould with the lower-level floors and walls. The inspection on 31 July 2024 found a leaking joint to the main water supply to the bath pipework, the ground level on one side was level to the damp proof course and loose downpipes.
  17. These inspections, completed within 2 months of the landlord’s final response to the complaint, are relevant as they showed the landlord had not put things right up to this point which means it missed a chance during the complaint procedure. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord apologised to the resident in its final response and agreed to further work. This was appropriate as a way of acting fairly and attempting to put things right. That was in May 2024. In March 2025 (9 months later) the resident accepted compensation of £1,500 less any debts she owed the landlord. It is important to note, that the resident had to seek the services of a solicitor in order to get this redress. The resident confirmed she received the sum of £1,050 while the landlord stated it paid £1,500.
  18. Moreover, we cannot establish if or when the landlord completed the work it agreed to do in its final response. Therefore, there is no evidence the matter is resolved. Given it was initially reported on 9 February 2024 and as at to date we cannot say if all the works are completed – we have found maladministration overall. We have made an order in relation to the damp and mould and outstanding related work. We have ordered the landlord to contact the resident concerning the reimbursement for the resident’s damaged belongings and the costs of running the dehumidifier.
  19. While the resident would like the landlord to rehouse her this is not an outcome the Ombudsman can fairly order. This is because we do not know the local housing need or available properties. However, we note that the landlord has now agreed to move the resident.
  20. The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review and consider what improvements it could make to record keeping on case 202337021. As the landlord has taken steps to comply with this order, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case which would duplicate that order.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord failed to show it acted in line with paragraph 6.17 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This requires landlords to track and action outstanding actions which it agrees to in its stage 2 response, updating the resident appropriately. The Ombudsman has not seen the landlord did this which likely made the resident feel ignored and caused her significant distress.
  2. The landlord missed the chance during the complaint procedure to arrange to resolve the repairs and offer a fair level of compensation. This was a missed opportunity.
  3. There was therefore service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have therefore made an award of compensation for the landlord’s complaint handling failures of £100 This is in line with our remedies guidance for situations such as this where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 4 weeks of this determination:
    1. arrange with the resident to inspect the property for damp and mould and complete an inspection, raising any required work.
    2. within 2 weeks of the inspection the landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a list of outstanding work required at the property and confirmation of when this will start and likely be completed.
  2. Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
    1. pay the resident directly £600, comprised as follows:
      1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord failing to consider temporary accommodation or a permanent move and delaying offering fair redress and completing the works sooner
      2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its complaint handling
    2. write to the resident to explain if it will consider reimbursing the costs of running the dehumidifier costs.
    3. write to the resident confirming what evidence it requires for compensating her for damage to her belongings.
  3. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.