Accent Housing Limited (202328246)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328246

Accent Housing Limited

23 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould in the property and the associated repairs.
2. Concerns regarding vandalism in the communal car park.
3. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder for a first-floor flat which is accessed from the ground-floor through a porch and staircase, exclusively serving the property. The landlord is the freeholder of the building.
On 2 August 2023 the resident complained that repairs were needed to address leaks from the roof of the porch which was causing damp and mould to develop and to repair a hole in the roof of the building where birds and insects had previously been able to nest. He said the landlord had not taken action to resolve the repairs since he reported these in November 2022. He also said he had reported concerns about the communal carpark for the building following his car being vandalised and wanted to know how it would address these.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 August 2023. It said that the resident had not reported issues with damp and mould until his complaint and he had already carried out a mould wash by the time it attended. It had arranged for repairs to the porch roof. It had seen no issues with the management of the car park from its site visits and did not consider taking further action would be in the best interest of all residents.
The resident requested to his complaint on 1 September 2023. He stated the landlord’s stage 1 response was incorrect, and he had first raised the repairs to the roof and porch in November 2022 but had received no response. He asked it to provide additional information about the planned repairs to the porch roof. He also said it had not responded fully to his complaint about the hole in the main roof of the building and the car parking issues.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 October 2023, it accepted that it had not fully responded to the resident’s initial complaint due to a technical error. It said it had carried out a repair to the porch on 5 September 2023 and had scheduled an inspection for 18 October 2023 to assess if further repairs were necessary. With the car park it said it would not reimburse the resident for his car being vandalised in December 2022 as this was due to criminal damage. It reiterated that it had not seen evidence that further work to the car park was necessary. It offered the resident £150 as compensation in recognition of poor communication with the resident before August 2023 and the costs he had incurred in completing the mould wash himself.
The resident escalated his complaint to this Service to investigate. He told us the landlord did not complete repairs to the roof and porch until August 2024 and had not addressed the ongoing problems with the car park. He wanted it to provide additional compensation to reflect the impact of its failings and carry out work to resolve the issues with the car park.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident’s initial complaint to the landlord consisted of the following issues regarding its management of the car park:
1. His car being vandalised in December 2022 and its response to this.
2. Not acting on his requests for improvements to be made to prevent non-residents from parking in the car park.
3. Not acting on his requests for improvements to be made to prevent vehicles driving over the grass verges.
The resident’s lease makes no provision for parking. There is also no service charge attributed to parking in the car park. As such, this aspect of his complaint is not regarding the occupation of the property set out in the lease. The resolution of the parking issue is therefore outside of our jurisdiction. However, we have considered the landlord’s response to his report of vandalism as this comes under its responsibility to respond to reports of antisocial behaviour.
The resident told us the landlord completed repairs to the roof of the building and the porch following his escalation to this Service. However, he said there has been a reoccurrence of damp and mould in the porch due to difficulty in heating in the room and the location of an external vent. He stated he would want a radiator to be installed to prevent the damp and mould from reoccurring.
As this is a further issue occurring since the complaint referred to us, we cannot investigate it at this stage. The landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this. The resident will need to contact it and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved.

Leaks, damp and mould and the associated repairs

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is our opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, throughout its handling of the repairs to address the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.
The resident’s lease with the landlord confirms that it is its responsibility to maintain and repair the structure of the building including the roof, external parts and woodwork (including timber joists and beams of ceilings).
On 23 November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report several repair issues. He told it:
1. The walls of the porch near the front door were damp, with black mould present. He said the lead flashing above the porch was missing and had roofing felt there instead, which was inadequate. He also said the damp was near the mains electricity for the property which he considered was a hazard.
2. There was a hole in the roofline of the building above the property and the bricks around this appeared damp. He said he was concerned about water ingress and possible nesting.
3. The soffit under the roofline was rotten.
The landlord responded to the resident on 25 November 2022. It confirmed that it had identified the issues he had pointed out as well as other problems with the roof of the building as part of a recent site visit. It said it was putting together a plan to address these. It advised him this would likely be subject to a section 20 consultation, and it hoped it would send out the letters to all leaseholders “before Christmas”.
Though the resident provided details of damp and mould in the property there is no evidence the landlord acknowledged this in its response of 25 November 2022. We asked the landlord for a copy of any damp and mould policy it had at the time, but we did not receive a response to this. From its website it says it will work with residents to work out the cause of the problem by sending a contractor to inspect the property, carry out necessary repairs and treat mould. It did not do this. It is of particular concern that though he reported a potential hazard it did not acknowledge or assess this.
The resident asked for an update on the planned section 20 works on 27 January 2023. The landlord responded to this on 30 January 2023 saying that it had carried out remedial work on the roof on 23 January 2023. It said it had completed the remedial work to make the roof safe and as it did not meet the value threshold for a section 20 consultation. It confirmed follow-on repairs to the roof were being arranged but it could not provide a timescale for this. Due to a lack of adequate records we have not seen any evidence of what the repairs the landlord said it carried out on 23 January 2023 were and whether these were related to his repair requests.
In its internal emails on 3 March 2023 the landlord recorded that it was planning for a full replacement to the roofline of the building which would be subject to a section 20 consultation. It described the repairs as including the fascia, soffits, bargeboards and rainwater goods. In its later internal email of 16 March 2023, it recorded the fascia, soffits and bargeboards were reaching the end of their expected lifespan and it would not be cost effective to carry out repairs when these were due for replacement shortly. It did not specify in either email that repairs to the porches across the building would be included in the planned work. As part of its later stage 2 response it said it had not scheduled to replace porches across the building until 2026.
The resident asked for a further update on 21 March 2023. The landlord responded on the same day. It said that it had decided to complete all the repairs to the roof under one project to provide the best value for money for all residents. It said it hoped to be able to issue the section 20 notices “shortly”. Considering some of the repairs the resident requested in November 2022 were for the porch rather than the main roof of the building it would have been reasonable to clarify with him whether it would raise a separate repair for these. It did not do so.
From the available records there is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident further until 30 June 2023. On this date it issued a notice of intention to all leaseholders explaining that it intended to replace the fascia, soffits, bargeboards and rainwater goods. He made his initial complaint to it on 1 August 2023, as part of his observations on the section 20 notice of intention, and said:
1. The landlord had told him the repairs to his porch would be included within the section 20 consultation but he could not see this was the case.
2. Water ingress and damp and mould had been an ongoing problem with the porch since November 2022. He said because of the delay in the repairs he had needed to redecorate and removed the mould himself.
3. He would like confirmation it would resolve the repair to the hole in the roofline as part of the work in the section 20 consultation.
The landlord stated in its stage 1 response of 29 August 2023 that it had arranged for repairs to the resident’s porch for 5 September 2023. It said it had no record that he had reported damp and mould in the property until his complaint and by the time it attended to carry out a mould wash he had already cleaned this himself. Its response did not address the point about the hole in the roofline, it later accepted that due to a technical error it had only scanned the first page of his complaint into its system and had not seen this part of his complaint.
The resident requested an escalation to his complaint on 1 September 2023. In this he:
1. Told it that its statement that he had first reported damp and mould in August 2023 was incorrect. He said he had first reported this on 23 November 2023 but received no response.
2. Asked it to provide further details about what repairs it had arranged to the porch roof for 5 September 2023 and whether this would investigate if there was water damage below the roof tiles.
3. Said it had not responded to the point about if the hole in the roofline would be repaired as part of work in the section 20 consultation.
In its stage 2 response of 13 October 2023 the landlord said that it had replaced the lead flashing for the resident’s porch on 5 September 2023 as it said it would in its stage 1 response. From the available information there is no evidence of this repair. It completed a scheme inspection of the building took place on 5 September 2023, which recorded the roof of the building was not in good condition but there is no evidence that any repairs were raised or completed from this. This was a records management failing by the landlord.
As part of the stage 2 response the landlord said it would arrange an inspection on 18 October 2023 to assess if further repairs to the porch roof were necessary and to consider a temporary repair to the hole in the roofline. It told him it could not locate a copy of his original repair request and report of damp and mould from 23 November 2022. However, this was included in the repair logs the landlord sent to this Service as evidence so it is unclear why it did not have access to this at the time. There was also no evidence it asked him if he could provide a copy of this, so it could consider what had happened, before it issued its stage 2 response. This was unreasonable as it did not seek sufficient information from both parties before issuing its response, meaning it did not address why it did not arrange repairs or a damp and mould inspection prior to his complaint.
The landlord’s inspection of the resident’s property on 18 October 2023 found that the lead flashing for the porch had not been replaced and the porch roof was bowing. It also recorded there was a hole in the roofline. It created repair requests on 19 October 2023 to complete the following work to:
1. Remove the tiles from the roof of the porch, check if the felt was watertight and assess if there was any repair issue why the roof is bowing. It should replace any damaged tiles or felt and carry out further repairs as needed.
2. Replace the flash band on the porch and check this was watertight.
3. Repoint the porch due to ongoing water ingress.
4. Drop off a damp and mould kit for the resident to allow him to clean any further mould.
5. Fill the hole in the gable end of the roof with mortar. This was a temporary repair which it would address permanently as part of the section 20 works.
On 6 November 2023 the resident informed the landlord that a contractor had attended in relation to the repairs to the porch and roofing. They had denied that the repairs recommended from the inspection were necessary, which he was unhappy with. He asked it to forward the findings of the inspection to the contractor so it had the full scope of the agreed work. Due to a lack of adequate records there is no evidence of the contractor’s attendance that day nor the information given to them and the resident by the landlord. This was a records handling failing by the landlord.
From the available records there is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s email on 6 November 2023. He wrote to it again on 22 November 2023 and said its contractor was due to attend on 7 December 2023 but it had still not confirmed the scope of the work. He said he did not want the contractor to attend if they were not going to complete all the work raised from the inspection. The landlord recorded that it would inspect the property again on 30 November 2023. Again, we have seen no evidence that this inspection took place or that it provided a response to his query. Its lack of a response to his questions about the scope of the agreed repairs was also unreasonable. It is contrary to the principles of its repair policy which says it will keep residents informed about how it will manage a reported repair until completion.
The landlord recorded on 18 December 2023 that the resident had refused the porch works as he said not all the repairs agreed from the inspection on 18 October 2023 had been raised. It agreed to carry out another inspection on 19 January 2024.
The landlord recorded from the inspection on 19 January 2024 that the resident was unhappy with the attitude of the previous contractor and that it had agreed to allocate the repairs to a different contractor. It raised the following repairs on the same day:
1. Remove the tiles from the porch to inspect the felt and wooden battens, replace the felt if needed and make watertight.
2. Fit new lead flashing to the top of the porch.
3. Repoint the verges of the porch.
4. Fill in the hole on the gable end of the roof and repoint.
The resident contacted the landlord for updates about the repairs on 21 February, 27 February and 8 March 2024 as he was unhappy with the time this was taking. He said the issues with damp and mould had not been resolved and he wanted the hole in the roofline to be resolved before the nesting season began. On 24 May 2024 it closed the repair order and created a new order with the same repairs. There is no explanation in the records to show why this was necessary.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy says it will make appointments for repairs based on the urgency of the work and the resident’s personal needs. There is no evidence it assessed if it should prioritise the agreed repairs from its inspection on 19 January 2024 considering the time taken to complete these, and that these were fundamentally the same as those identified on 18 October 2023. There also is no evidence it provided a substantive response to him between January 2024 to May 2024 about when the repairs would take place. This was unreasonable as it was not in line with the principles of its policy.
On 7 June 2024 the resident told the landlord that, though it had agreed to give the work to a new contractor, the previous contractor from 6 November 2023 had attended. He said the contractor had filled in the hole in the gable of the roof but had disagreed that repairs to the porch were necessary and left without doing the rest of the repairs raised from the inspections. As such it took approximately 8 months to complete this repair after the landlord agreed to this following its inspection on 18 October 2023. This was inappropriate as it greatly exceeded the 28-day timescale for routine repairs from its repair policy.
The landlord responded on the same day. It told the resident:
1. It did not consider it was necessary to fit lead flashing to the porch as 2 separate contractors had confirmed the felt present was doing the same job. It added that removing the felt could damage the tiles underneath it.
2. Its contractor had previously investigated under the tiles and not found an issue with the felt or battens under these which required further repair.
3. It intended to address the repointing of the porch as part of the planned section 20 work to the roof of the building rather than a separate repair.
4. If there was continuing water ingress into the porch, he should send photographs of this so it could assess if further repairs were required.
Due to a lack of adequate records there is no evidence to show what repairs or investigations the landlord’s contractor had carried out to support the account of events it gave in its response of 7 June 2024. It identified the repairs should take place in both of its inspections on 18 October 2023 and 19 January 2024 and told him it would complete these to put things right following his complaint. Thus, our view is that it was unreasonable for the landlord to have told the resident it would not install lead flashing to the porch and would not repoint the porch as a separate repair.
The landlord wrote to the resident again on 4 July 2024. It agreed to get a final opinion from another contractor about whether to install lead flashing to the porch roof. It also said its contractor would reinspect the felting and battens under the porch tiles and repoint the verges of the porch. It is unclear why the landlord changed its position as there is no record of any further contact from the resident.
From the resident’s account the landlord’s contractor completed the repair on 19 August 2024. From the available evidence it took approximately 10 months to complete the repairs after the landlord agreed to these following its inspection on 18 October 2023. This was inappropriate as it greatly exceeded the 28-day timescale for routine repairs from its repair policy.
There were leaks into the porch of the property which, the resident said resulted in damp and mould and he had needed to redecorate the porch on multiple occasions. From the records the leaks, damp and mould in the porch were ongoing over the approximately 21-month period between him first reporting the issue in November 2022 and the completion of the repairs in August 2024. The records also show he had expressed concern the delay in repairing the hole in the roof allowed birds and insects to nest there.
As part of the landlord’s stage 2 response it accepted there had been a lack of communication and offered the resident £150 in recognition of the inconvenience of redecorating the porch. It arranged an inspection to establish what repairs were needed, though it has not acknowledged the significant delays in completing these following the inspection or taken further action to put this right. It also did not describe what it had learnt from the circumstances of his complaint and what action it would take to prevent similar failings from occurring.
We consider the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the extent of the failings in this case. There were a series of failures over a significant period of time in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould and the associated repairs. Our view is that, cumulatively, this series of failures caused a seriously detrimental impact on the resident and meet the criteria for severe maladministration in line with our guidance on remedies. As such, we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional financial remedy and to review its handling of his case.
In summary, there was very significant failings by the landlord in its handling of the reports of leaks, damp and mould and the associated repairs in that it:
1. Did not keep adequate records for how it responded to the reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
2. Did not arrange for a damp and mould inspection to take place following the resident’s initial repair request on 23 November 2022.
3. Did not give the resident adequate information about the planned section 20 consultation over a period of approximately 3 months, and did not raise a separate repair for the roof of the porch at that time.
4. Failed to arrange the replacement to the lead flashing of the porch on 5 September 2023, as it told the resident it would do.
5. Did not adequately communicate with the resident what repairs it had asked its contractors to complete following its inspections or update him about the planned timescales for these repairs.
6. Did not complete the repairs to the hole in the roofline, as recommended from its inspection on 18 October 2023, for approximately 8 months.
7. Did not complete the repairs to the roof of the porch, as recommended from its inspection on 18 October 2023, for approximately 10 months.

Vandalism in the car park

On 2 December 2022 the resident told the landlord that someone had spraypainted his car overnight. He said he had reported it to the police who had asked if there was CCTV, he asked if it could respond to him about this. It confirmed it did not have CCTV in the area.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 5 December 2022. He said that other residents had told him similar incidents had happened previously, and they believed another resident may be involved. However, he acknowledged he did not have proof of this. He asked it if it would write out to residents and whether he would be able to install his own CCTV over the car park.
The landlord responded on the same day. It advised the resident it would be difficult for it to take any action in line with its antisocial behaviour policy unless it was proven that a resident was responsible for the vandalism. It agreed that it would write to all residents in the building in relation to the incident and to encourage them to report any incidents they witness to it and the police. This was a reasonable response in line with its antisocial behaviour policy as it took a proactive approach to prevent a further incident.
The landlord also advised the resident there would be potential difficulties in him installing his own CCTV as his neighbours could object to this if it covers their property. It signposted him to government guidance about domestic CCTV for further information. It said it would be prepared to allow him to install his own CCTV provided he could make sure it was solely looking at his vehicle. This response was reasonable as it was consistent with its policy, which allowed its customers to install CCTV in their property provided it does not intrude on the privacy of others.
As part of the resident’s escalation on 1 September 2023, in relation to his complaint about the landlord’s management of the car park, he asked it to reimburse him for the damage to his car from the vandalism incident in December 2022. It said it would not reimburse him as the vandalism was caused by criminal damage, from an unknown party, that it did not have the power to prevent. In our view its decision was reasonable as it was consistent with its compensation policy not to provide financial remedy where there is no negligence or failure on its part.
Overall, we find that the landlord took reasonable action to respond to the resident’s report of vandalism.

The associated complaint

From the available records the resident first complained to the landlord on 2 August 2023. It acknowledged the complaint on 18 August 2023, 12 working days later. Though the landlord said in its acknowledgement that he made the complaint on 16 August 2023 this is not consistent with the other records it provided. This was not in line with the principles of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which said a complaint should be acknowledged within 5 days of receipt. The version of the Code that was in place during the time of the events complained about was published on 9 March 2022.
The landlord’s stage 1 acknowledgement did not set out its understanding of the resident’s complaint or what he was seeking as an outcome. There is also no evidence that it contacted him separately before it issued its stage 1 response to discuss and define his complaint. This was not consistent with the principles of the Code. The landlord later acknowledged it did not correctly scan his initial complaint into its system which meant it did not respond to all points of his complaint at stage 1. Whilst we recognise this was a mistake, it likely would have identified this sooner if it had defined the complaint with him before issuing the stage 1 response.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 August 2023, 7 working days after its acknowledgement, in accordance with the timescales of the Code.
The landlord did not issue its stage 2 response until 13 October 2023, 30 working days after the escalation request. This exceeded the timescales of the Code, which stated a stage 2 complaint must be responded to within 20 working days of the escalation.
The landlord did not acknowledge the delays to the complaint response or other failings, nor offer any remedy for these. In the Ombudsman’s view, compared to our guidance for remedies, its apology was not proportionate to the failings we have identified. As such we have ordered it to pay a financial remedy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about vandalism in the car park.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must within 4 calendar weeks of this determination:
1. Issue the resident with a written apology by a senior member of staff. This must recognise the landlord’s failings in addressing the reports of leaks, damp and mould, and the associated repairs as well as its handling of his complaint. It also must recognise the impact these failings had on the resident.
2. Pay the resident a total of £750 in compensation comprising:
  1. £700 (inclusive of the £150 it previously offered) for the resident’s distress, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of his home caused by its handling of the damp and mould and subsequent repairs to the property.
  2. £50 in recognition of the time and trouble of pursuing a complaint and the frustration caused by the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any monies he may owe the landlord.
The landlord must carry out a management review of the resident’s case. This should consider:
1. How the delays in responding to the repair requests occurred in this case and its practices regarding how it deals with, responds to and monitors repairs. This is to ensure that they are recorded, investigated and responded to in a timely manner. In doing so the landlord should have regards to the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (published on our website).
2. How the complaint handling failings occurred and how the landlord will make improvements to reduce the likelihood of a reoccurrence
3. Any staff training that may improve its future response to similar cases.
The landlord must provide a written report to the Ombudsman setting out its findings to the management review specified in paragraph 57 of this report. The landlord must provide this report within 8 calendar weeks of the date of this determination.