Sovereign Network Homes (202433680)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202433680

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

13 June 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 response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom ground-floor flat. The landlord has said it does not have records of any vulnerabilities within the household.
The resident’s adult daughter (the representative) made the complaint on her behalf. For ease of reference, in the report both the resident and her representative will be referred to as “the resident”.
The landlord has provided evidence which shows it first responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in May 2022, when it raised an inspection.
In December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to advise the mould had returned. It responded by arranging a further inspection of the property, which was completed in January 2023. The inspection report said there were signs of damp and mould in both bedrooms.
In April 2023, a technical survey was completed. The surveyor confirmed the presence of damp and mould in the property and made recommendations for remedial works, which were passed to a contractor to complete.
On 26 May 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord regarding the damp and mould. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 12 June 2023. It recognised the resident had accommodated numerous appointments and there had been delays in carrying out the repairs required. It upheld the complaint and apologised for the delays and inaction. It also offered £437 compensation for time and inconvenience, and said this could be reviewed upon completion of the works.
The resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 25 April 2024. She said the damp and mould issues had been ongoing for over a year and she was dissatisfied with the service she had received. She said an inspection had been completed in April 2023 but there had been a lack of communication and progress since this time. She said someone had attended to install “small gaps” in the walls, but no other repairs had been completed, including those to the extractor fan. The resident said she was concerned as the mould was worsening. She asked the landlord to rectify the damp and mould issues and to consider compensation for the difficulties she had experienced as a result.
Due to the length of time that had passed since it had provided its stage 1 response on 12 June 2023, the landlord logged the resident’s concerns as a new complaint. On 10 May 2024, it provided its stage 1 response. It said that its contractor had confirmed that all agreed works from 2023 had been completed. It also noted that the order for the extractor fan raised on 9 May 2023 had been cancelled and not reallocated. The landlord upheld the complaint on the basis that it had taken longer than expected to resolve the damp and mould. It raised a new job to upgrade the kitchen extractor fan and a job for a mould wash. The landlord also apologised for the persisting issue following the remedial works and the delay in upgrading the extractor fan. It offered £23 compensation for time and inconvenience.
The resident escalated her complaint on 15 July 2024. She said:
1. She was not satisfied with the stage 1 response letter and felt it was “unsympathetic” to the inconvenience her family had faced.
2. The landlord had inspected the property multiple times, but she felt it had failed to properly assess the damp and mould.
3. She had called the landlord a “ridiculous amount of times” but “no serious action had been taken to combat the mould and dampness”.
4. The landlord had completed repairs to the windows, inserted air vents, and fixed the extractor fan. However, these repairs “were only done after consistent calls and emails”.
5. She had told the landlord that these measures had not helped and the air vents had left her struggling to heat the property.
6. Mould washes and paint had not helped as the mould reappeared rapidly, which she had told the landlord.
7. Her children should not be subject to the damp and mould, and they were suffering with respiratory issues as a result.
8. She felt there had been no urgency to resolve the issues and there had been a lack of communication from the landlord, which had left her feeling “in the dark”.
9. The damp and mould was still ongoing and she felt the landlord had taken “very minimal action”. She requested for it to resolve the issues.
On 13 August 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It referred to the surveyor’s report from April 2023 and its list of recommendations. It said the remedial works had been issued to a contractor, but upon review, not all the repairs in the initial report had been completed. It said it had sent the outstanding repairs back to the contractor to complete. The landlord said the job for the extractor fan had been deemed no longer to be required as the resident had confirmed on 10 May 2024 that it was working correctly. It acknowledged the delay in completing the mould wash, which had been raised following the stage 1 response, and said a new appointment had been booked for 20 August 2024. The landlord explained how the compensation had been calculated at stage 1 and offered an additional £490 for delay, distress, time and trouble.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The resident contacted the landlord on 16 August 2024 to accept the compensation but asked it to give her assurances regarding the ongoing damp and mould. She requested a response to confirm whether further repairs would be completed.
On 27 November 2024, the resident contacted the landlord again about the damp and mould. She said that following her email in August 2024, the landlord had attended to check for mould in the property and said there was no mould present. She said it was evident she had been struggling with damp and mould for a long period of time, and she felt there had been a “lack of service and care”. She said not enough had been done to support her to resolve the issues she was facing. She asked the landlord to “take action”, or she would escalate the issue further. The landlord responded to advise it had completed its complaints process. It referred the resident to the Ombudsman and said it had forwarded her email to its dampness project team.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 2 December 2024. She said:
1. The smell of damp and mould was very strong in the property and her belongings smelt of it. The mould was also growing on her furniture.
2. She was concerned how this was impacting her and her children’s health due to the longevity of the issues. They were suffering from consistent coughs, mould migraines and headaches. She often found it hard to sleep as a result.
3. The landlord had only completed a few repairs, which she had advised it multiple times had not helped. She felt that more invasive repairs were needed to be carried out to improve her family’s living conditions.
On 10 April 2025, the landlord contacted the resident to say it understood she had referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. It said it wanted to check if she was having any issues with damp and mould or if there were any outstanding repairs.
During contact with this Service in May 2025, the resident advised the damp and mould problems were still ongoing. She said she was now cleaning the mould herself once per week to keep it to a minimum, but it continued to reappear, and the property still smelt of mould. She said she had not heard from the landlord since she had replied to the email it sent her on 10 April 2025.
As an outcome, the resident told us she would like the landlord to identify the root cause of the damp and mould and complete any necessary remedial works to prevent the issue from reoccurring. In addition, she asked the Ombudsman to consider awarding compensation for the landlord’s handling of her reports.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould impacted her and her children’s health. We are not medical specialists, so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident may choose to seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord. This includes any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Reports of damp and mould

The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s statutory repair responsibilities under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord’s website says it offers 3 repair priorities (emergency, routine and planned). It defines planned repairs as those that may require a specialist contractor, surveys, or further investigation. It does not give a timescale for completion of planned repairs but says it will provide the resident with a completion date and progress updates.
The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation (DMC) policy says it will investigate the cause of damp and mould and deliver effective remedial solutions. It states it will “remain in regular and effective communication with a resident, following a report of damp and mould being made, providing progress updates from beginning to end – especially on the occasion where an investigation into a case may be complex”. It also says that in the situation of statutory overcrowding resulting in damp and mould, it will work with the resident and local authority to review and explore the available options.
The landlord’s website says it will treat all reports of condensation, damp and mould as a priority repair. It says it aims to complete an assessment and initial work within 14 days. It states it will provide follow-ups as needed, and for more severe cases a follow-up visit or call will take place within 3 months to ensure the issue has not returned.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider a partial reimbursement of rent where a customer has been unable to use a room in their home.
Landlords are required to keep a property secure and safe using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould are hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards.
The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 says that rented properties must be “fit for human habitation” on the day of letting and throughout the tenancy. This means they must be safe, healthy and free from defects that could cause harm. This includes ensuring that the property is in a good state of repair, has no signs of damp or mould growth, and is structurally sound.
Within the landlord’s complaint responses, details of key events that occurred in relation to the reports of damp and mould were provided to the resident. However, during our investigation, it appeared that the landlord had not supplied evidence of certain aspects mentioned in its complaint responses. We therefore asked the landlord to provide a full copy of the repair history for the property from January 2021 to current date, but some pieces of evidence remained absent from its submission. Some of these examples have been highlighted within this section of the report. The missing information has made it difficult for us to assess certain aspects of the case. It is, however, indicative of poor record keeping in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. We will take this into consideration in determining the case.
It is unclear from the landlord’s records when the resident first reported damp and mould affecting her property. The landlord has provided evidence which shows it first responded to these reports on 27 May 2022, when it raised an inspection, to be completed within 28 days. Its repair records show this was marked as completed, but it is not clear when the inspection was carried out or what the outcome was. This points to a record keeping issue. Due to the lack of clear records, we are unable to establish whether the inspection was completed within the landlord’s published repair timescales.
The landlord raised jobs in June 2022 and November 2022 for a mould wash and stain block in the living room and 2 bedrooms, but its repair records state the jobs were closed and no completion date was given. On 28 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to advise the mould had returned following the mould wash. This suggests the landlord had taken prior steps to mitigate the risks from the damp and mould growth, which was reasonable in the circumstances. However, it is not clear what work had been carried out and when. The absence of this information is concerning.
The landlord responded by arranging a further inspection of the property, which was completed 7 days later, on 4 January 2023. This was in line with its published repair information. The inspection report confirmed damp and mould was present in both bedrooms, noting it was in the corners, on the ceiling and walls. It said there was also condensation on the inside of the windows. The records show that the landlord completed a risk assessment at this visit, as the resident was asked questions including who lived in the property and how the household had been affected by the damp and mould. This was appropriate and showed the landlord was assessing the circumstances of the household. The report stated there were 4 adults and 3 children living in the property. The resident told the landlord that the household had sought medical advice because of the damp and mould.
The landlord’s complaint responses indicate that other than raising a mould wash, no action was initially taken following the inspection as it had taken the view that the damp and mould was condensation related. However, the landlord reviewed this again on 12 January 2023 and arranged for a surveyor to attend. Based on the findings outlined in the risk assessment, the landlord’s review of the case was reasonable and appropriate. It acted quickly in doing this, which did not cause any excessive delays. We have not seen a copy of the surveyor’s report, but the landlord’s complaint response indicates a report was submitted on 2 February 2023. The complaint response referenced the surveyor’s report, which said there were no signs of rising damp or a leak in the property. It noted a high level of condensation in the bedrooms, which it said could be attributed to the resident’s lifestyle, lack of ventilation, and the layout of the property.
There was no contact from the landlord to the resident on completion of the survey to advise what the outcome was. This was unreasonable of the landlord, as it should have updated the resident at the earliest opportunity. Its failure to communicate with the resident regarding a clear plan of action for remedying the issues caused her uncertainty and distress. It also resulted in her having to make further repeat calls, which added to her time and effort in trying to get the issues resolved.
Following further contact by the resident on 15 February 2023, another inspection was completed by the landlord on 28 February 2023. We have not seen a copy of the inspection report, but the landlord’s complaint responses indicate this was reviewed by its dampness project team on 1 March 2023. Recommendations were made for the kitchen extractor fan to be replaced and for a surveyor to attend. An appointment with the surveyor was made for 25 April 2023, almost 2 months after the inspection. The length of time the resident was left waiting for the survey to be completed was unreasonable given the landlord was aware of the impact of the living conditions on the resident and her family. It apparently did not take into consideration the length of time that she had been waiting and the previous survey that had been completed, which it had failed to act upon.
On 25 April 2023, a surveyor attended and completed a technical survey of the property. The landlord’s complaint response indicates the survey report identified the following:
1. Front elevation – the guttering was blocked and brickwork spalled.
2. Living room – there were minor traces of mould to the walls and skirting. The damp meter recorded acceptable moisture readings.
3. Bedroom 1 – the damp meter recorded high moisture readings to the external thermal boarded wall in isolated locations.
4. Bedroom 2 – condensation was pooling on the windowsill. There were no visible signs of damp and mould. The damp meter recorded both acceptable and high moisture readings.
The landlord’s complaint response indicates the surveyor recommended the following remedial works:
1. Front elevation – gutter clearance, repointing of brickwork and installation of damp proofing injection cream.
2. Living room – mould wash and redecorate with damp resistant paint.
3. Bedroom 1 – removal of thermal boarding to investigate the source of the high moisture readings, eliminate and reinstate.
4. Bedroom 2 – removal of airbrick to check for blockages. Removal of thermal boarding to investigate the source of the high moisture readings, eliminate and reinstate.
5. Side/rear elevation – repointing of brickwork and installation of damp proofing injection cream. Remove existing rendering and renew. Remove raised slab area to rear and install level concrete path.
Repeated inspections of the damp and mould were carried out between May 2022 and April 2023, yet the root cause remained unidentified for some time. It was not until the fifth inspection, on 25 April 2023, that the landlord identified that more extensive works and investigation were required that went beyond treating with a mould wash. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not identify these repairs sooner, given it had first responded to the reports of damp and mould in May 2022, which was 11 months earlier. While it is accepted that more complex repairs – which may involve a diagnostic or ‘process of elimination’ approach – can take longer than a landlord’s usual timescales to resolve, we consider the landlord should have been more proactive in light of the resident’s circumstances and concerns. The delays contributed to the distress and inconvenience caused to her.
On 25 May 2023, 30 days after the technical survey, the landlord raised an order for its contractor to carry out an intrusive survey of the property. It was reasonable and appropriate of the landlord to arrange this. This showed that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and it was committed to identifying the cause of the damp. We note that the delay in raising works was not excessive. However, it is unclear why the works were not raised immediately given the delays the resident had already faced. There is also no evidence in the landlord’s records to suggest that it contacted the resident following the technical survey to explain its plan of action, which was unsatisfactory. This gave rise to her submitting her first complaint on 26 May 2023.
In the landlord’s first stage 1 response on 12 June 2023, it identified that there had been an issue with the order for the remedial works going through to the contractor’s system. The works order was re-raised, and the resident was informed that the contractor would make an appointment within the next 5 working days. The contractor did not do this, resulting in her contacting the landlord twice on 28 June 2023 and 18 July 2023 to request an update. This was a failing under its policy, which states that where planned maintenance is required, it will provide the resident with a completion date and progress updates. This also added to the resident’s time and effort to try to get the issues resolved.
We have been unable to establish whether the landlord’s contractor completed an intrusive survey of the property or what repairs were completed as a result. This Service has not been provided with a survey report. The landlord’s repair records indicate that 3 orders were raised in October and November 2023 for the contractor to proceed with work as per the specification. However, we have not been provided with a record of repairs completed by its contractor for us to assess whether all the recommended works highlighted in paragraph 35 were completed. The resident said in her complaint on 25 April 2024 that someone had attended her property to install “small gaps” in the walls. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that some action was taken by the landlord between its first stage 1 response on 12 June 2023 and the resident’s further complaint on 25 April 2024. However, it appears this did not go far enough to resolve the damp and mould issues in the property, which was unsatisfactory.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 10 May 2024, it identified the repair raised in May 2023 to inspect and upgrade the extractor fan had been cancelled and not reallocated. It also said the contractor had confirmed all agreed remedial works from 2023 had been completed. However, in its stage 2 response on 13 August 2024, it said upon review with the contractor, some of the repairs identified in the survey report were still outstanding. This apparent discrepancy is concerning. It also demonstrates that the landlord had limited oversight of its contractor, which led to unnecessary delays. The repairs had been outstanding for 16 months at the time of the landlord’s final response. This caused distress and inconvenience for the resident. We find the landlord should have had greater oversight of the case. It should have processes in place to monitor the progress of outstanding repairs through to completion. Instead, its inaction allowed the repairs to go unresolved for an unreasonable period. By not identifying the outstanding repairs sooner, it also missed the chance to resolve the issues at an earlier stage.
The lack of communication from the landlord to the resident contributed to its failings. The landlord’s DMC policy requires it to maintain regular and effective communication. It did not do this, which was not fair or reasonable. The resident was not kept informed of the outcome of inspections and surveys or provided with a clear plan of action. She was also left unaware of when repairs would be fully completed, leading her to complain to the landlord. In its first stage 1 response, the landlord advised it would continue to update the resident. There is no evidence in the landlord’s records to suggest it did this, which resulted in the resident having to repeatedly chase the landlord for progress updates. This led to her making a further complaint regarding the same issues. The lack of the communication between the landlord and its contractor also meant that there were occasions where the landlord was unable to give an update when the resident asked for one.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (published in October 2021) states, “It is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for an extended period” and “Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.” The Ombudsman expects a landlord to resolve reports of damp and mould within a reasonable time, which it did not. Had the landlord followed these recommendations it might have prevented a service failure.
The landlord’s records show it did not respond appropriately to potential hazards caused by the damp issues. Under HHSRS, it is required to consider whether any damp and mould in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. While it did complete inspections and mould washes, which were positive steps to identify and mitigate the potential hazards, it failed to complete a long-lasting repair within a reasonable timeframe. It also did not consider other mitigation methods such as a positive input ventilation (PIV) unit, for example, which may have benefited the property given the condensation identified.
The resident said that her children were suffering from respiratory issues because of the damp and mould in the property. The landlord was initially made aware of this on 4 January 2023 at the time of its inspection, and again 18 months later, on 15 July 2024, when the resident escalated her complaint. When we asked the landlord for details of any vulnerabilities or special circumstances, it responded to say it had none recorded. Therefore, it appears that it did not update its records to reflect the household’s circumstances. This demonstrates that its record keeping was inappropriate, which resulted in the landlord failing to act upon the information gathered in its risk assessment.
We find the landlord should have acted with more urgency given the potential health concerns that it was aware of. The damp and mould was present primarily in the bedrooms of the property. This meant that the resident and her children were exposed to a higher risk than if other rooms were affected (due to spending a high proportion of their time sleeping in the rooms). It is reasonable to conclude that the resident and her young children were at an increased risk of harm for an unreasonable amount of time. There is also no evidence to suggest that the landlord made any assessments to ascertain if there was statutory overcrowding in the property, even though the number of occupants living in the household had been recorded in January 2023.
We are unclear of the current position regarding the remedial works required to the resident’s property. However, in her communication with us in June 2025, the resident advised she was still experiencing damp and mould in the property and had resorted to frequently cleaning this herself. It therefore appears that a lasting repair to resolve the damp and mould has not yet been completed by the landlord. The landlord’s failings have had a significant and long-term impact on the resident. She has suffered unreasonable and unaccounted–for delays over a period of 3 years while continuing to live with the damp and mould.
Overall, there were a series of significant failings by the landlord which accumulated over a prolonged period. These failings have had a serious detrimental impact on the resident and her family. In its response to the resident’s reports, the landlord failed to meet its obligations under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 and to fully mitigate the risks from potential hazards under HHSRS. It also showed a lack of ownership of the resident’s case and a lack of urgency to resolve her complaint through to completion. It held information regarding the household’s vulnerabilities but failed to use it, leading to avoidable distress and inconvenience. Poor communication and record keeping also added to the unreasonable delays that the resident experienced. Considering the above, it is our decision that there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to damp and mould.
The landlord’s final complaint response offered an additional £490 to the resident. It said it had considered the £23 offered at stage 1 and the £437 offered in its previous stage 1 response in June 2023. Therefore, the amount offered to the resident across its 3 complaint responses totalled £950. The landlord’s compensation policy calculates awards by the detriment or impact to residents. It categorises these into low, medium and high impact and offers varying payments dependent on these categories. Payments range between £5 and £20 per week for delay, distress, time and trouble.
While the landlord tried to put things right in terms of financial redress for the resident, we find its compensation offer was insufficient given the circumstances of the case. It did not take into consideration the length of time the issues had been ongoing for. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, awards over £1,000 would be considered appropriate where there have been serious failings by the landlord which have caused a long-term impact. In addition, the landlord failed to adequately assess the impact of its actions on the resident by not also considering a reduction in rent for the resident’s loss of amenity.
The Ombudsman has considered whether compensation based on rent is appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The landlord took little action to address the damp and mould which was primarily present in both bedrooms in the property. Although this did not prevent the bedrooms from being used, it would have had a significant impact on the family’s use of the property. The landlord’s compensation policy does not state how it will calculate a partial refund of rent. The Ombudsman considers that a 10% rent reduction is appropriate over a period of 110 weeks to reflect the reduced amenity and the family’s loss of full enjoyment of their home. The number of weeks has been calculated from 25 April 2023 (when the landlord’s surveyor confirmed remedial works and further investigations were required) to 4 June 2025 (when the resident confirmed to this Service that the damp and mould remained unresolved). During this 110–week period, the resident was charged rent of £140.07 per week for 49 weeks and £142.85 per week for 61 weeks. Based on 10% of the rent, the total amenity loss compensation is calculated at £1,552. This is an approximate calculation.
The landlord must also pay the resident an additional £300 in compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the additional failings identified in this report. This brings the total compensation the landlord is ordered to pay the resident for distress and inconvenience to £1,250. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £950, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.
The Ombudsman has recently determined a case for the landlord (case reference 202403595) where record keeping issues were identified. The landlord was ordered in this case to conduct a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould focusing on the effectiveness of how it records and monitors damp and mould. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order, so we have not included any orders or recommendations as part of this case which would duplicate those already made. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will consider a range of remedies. These include financial compensation, an action plan to put things right, service improvements, and a commitment to review policies and/or processes.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out the following:
1. Under section 6, landlords are required to ensure any actions outstanding following the stage 2 response are tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident. It also requires landlords to address all points raised in the complaint.
2. Under section 7, landlords are required to acknowledge where things have gone wrong and set out the actions they have already taken or intend to take to put things right for the resident. They must ensure any remedy offered reflects the impact on the resident, using our remedies guidance to support their decision making.
The landlord adhered to the timescales set out within its policy during the complaints process. However, there were other failures. The landlord’s final response failed to fully address all the points raised in the resident’s complaint escalation and did not go into enough detail regarding the substantive issue of the damp and mould. There was no acknowledgement of the resident’s concerns about impact of the issues on her family’s health, the communication issues she had faced, or the concerns she had raised regarding heating the property. The landlord’s response was not proportionate to the severity of the impact on the resident and her family, which is a failing.
The landlord also failed to offer adequate redress in its complaint responses. At stage 1, it attempted to put things right by raising repairs for the extractor fan and mould wash. It also offered £23 compensation (broken down into £10 for delay, £10 for distress and £3 for time and trouble), which it calculated from 2 May 2024. While arranging repairs and offering financial redress were positive steps, we consider they did not go far enough. The landlord did not commit to taking further steps to identify the source of the damp and mould, even though it recognised the length of time the issues had been ongoing for. The compensation offer at stage 1 was also unreasonably low given it had upheld the complaint and recognised the issues had been outstanding since 2023. The landlord should have considered awarding compensation to the resident dating back to its previous stage 1 response on 12 June 2023, where it had clearly indicated the offer of compensation could be reviewed.
In addition, at stage 2, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint but offered no apology to her, which was not fair or reasonable. The resident told the landlord in her complaint escalation that previous mould washes it had carried out were not working, but it failed to recognise these concerns by booking another appointment as part of its redress. It also failed to produce a clear action plan for the repairs it had identified were still outstanding. As a result, the landlord missed opportunities to remedy the substantive issue and improve the landlord–tenant relationship. It consequently failed to use its complaints process as an effective tool to put things right.
The landlord then failed to monitor the complaint following completion of its process. In November 2024, the resident contacted the landlord requesting an update regarding the repairs as the damp and mould was still ongoing. It is reasonable to conclude that the reason for the resident’s contact was because the contractor had not completed the outstanding repairs which the landlord said in its final response that it had sent back to the contractor to “review and complete”. The landlord should have tracked the outstanding actions following its stage 2 response and provided the resident with updates. It did not do this, which was not fair or reasonable.
Considering the circumstances of the case, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s complaints policy does not provide any details of the awards it will make in the event of a failure in complaint handling. This Service considers a payment of £150 to be appropriate compensation for the complaint handling failures. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided which adversely affected the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. This should be written by a member of its executive team.
2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £2,952, which comprises:
  1. £1,552 for loss of amenity as outlined in paragraph 50.
  2. £1,250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of the damp and mould.
  3. £150 for the complaint handling failures identified.
  4. This should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.
  5. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £950, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.
3. Arrange an independent specialist damp survey with the resident to identify any outstanding or new issues with damp in the property. It should share a copy of the resulting report with the resident and provide her with a schedule of works to resolve any issues highlighted in the report. It should also provide copies of both to this Service. It should ensure that all repairs are scheduled within 4 weeks of the survey and resolved within 8 weeks.
4. Confirm whether it has completed the remedial works identified in the technical survey, as outlined in paragraph 35. It should provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a report detailing which repairs have been completed and any that remain outstanding (if applicable). If any remain outstanding, they should be combined into the above schedule of works (if still required).
5. Provide the resident with a single point of contact who will take responsibility for providing regular repair updates at a frequency agreed with her.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to assess whether the property is statutorily overcrowded. If this applies, it should signpost and support her accordingly.
The Ombudsman has identified poor communication between the landlord and its contractors. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its relationship with its contractors to make sure communication is efficient and residents are not impacted. When delays are unavoidable, the landlord should make sure it updates the affected resident/s.