Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Golding Homes Limited (202413086)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413086

Golding Homes Limited

16 July 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and deciding 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 sent 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:
    1. Repairs in the property including asbestos, damp, and mould.
    2. Communication.
  2. The Ombudsman has investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The landlord let the property which is a 3–bed house with a garden to the resident in 2018. The landlord records that the resident has health concerns that include hypertension and a heart condition.
  2. The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 16 January 2024 about its poor communication and handling of damp and mould in the property. She said she reported damp and mould in March 2023, and the cold house was affecting her health. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 23 January 2024 and said it would respond by 6 February 2024.
  3. The landlord responded on 8 February 2024. It said it completed part of the damp and mould repairs. It was searching for a property to rehouse (‘decant’) her, which was taking time, but it could widen its search if she chose other areas. It completed a mould wash on 23 January 2024 and would visit her on 15 February 2024 to see if it could complete more repairs with her in occupation. It would review its communication standards, provide her with monthly updates, and share her feedback internally. It asked if she had any support needs it could help her with, apologised for its service failure, and offered £50 for her time and trouble pursuing the matters.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 1 and 4 March 2024 to say it should not have closed her complaint as she escalated it to stage 2 on 6 February. She said she was not happy with the outcome and her house was getting worse. She had waited for a year which was too long for damp and mould repairs. She had not received an update on her decant since 18 January 2024 and the landlord had not contacted her on 26 February 2024 as promised. She also said it booked a heat loss survey without contacting her.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 March 2024, and sent its final response on 9 April 2024. It said it should not have closed her complaint which it previously apologised for. It also said:
    1. It emailed its action plan to her on 4 March 2024. This confirmed her temporary rehousing preferences, a bedroom ceiling repair, the completion of heat loss and structural surveys and external works. It also said it would renew the windows in 2026.
    2. It met her at home on 14 March 2024 to record a list of repairs which it summarised. It could share the extensive works schedule if she wished.
    3. It would inspect the damp proofing and check for signs of subsidence. It thought the works would take between 6 and 8 months which it would complete ‘in one go’ when it rehoused her.
    4. It checked an asbestos report dated 27 August 2021 which recorded asbestos in the ceilings. It checked an asbestos report dated 1 December 2023 which recorded no asbestos in the kitchen flooring. It would remove the ceilings when it completed the internal works in keeping with its consultant’s advice.
    5. Its heat loss survey of 21 March 2024 recommended replacing 4 radiators in the property which it would add to its works schedule.
    6. Its energy performance assessment rated the home below its target grade. A consultant would inspect and consider cavity wall insulation on 11 April 2024.
    7. It appreciated its poor communication and the time taken to find accommodation that matched her preferences was frustrating. It would discuss the rehousing process with her when it could offer her a viewing.
    8. It had not decided whether it would dispose of the property – and therefore offer a permanent decant – if the works were too expensive. It would update her by 3 May 2024.
    9. It was sorry its communication had not met her expectations, and it did not always update her as it promised. It apologised for the nuisance and distress this may have caused her. It said it had put in place staff training and reminded staff to keep residents up to date. It had also centralised it complaint handling which would improve communication.
    10. It asked if there were any reasonable adjustments or support it could help her with in consideration of her health needs.
    11. It offered her £700 for nuisance and distress which it itemised as £100 for its stage 2 complaint delays, £400 for its repair delays, and £200 for its poor communication.
    12. It said it could make a discretionary payment for any damaged personal items if she provided a summary of the items before 19 April 2024.
  6. The resident asked the Housing Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She said to put matters right the landlord should urgently complete the outstanding repairs and provide her with compensation for the loss of property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. The Ombudsman cannot decide on causation based on a review of the housing file. While the Ombudsman can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident, we cannot decide causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. If the resident wishes to pursue a personal injury claim she may wish to seek independent legal advice.
  2. Since the landlord provided its final complaint response, the resident reported further concerns about its handling of the decant, repairs, and its communication. However, she has not made a further complaint to the landlord about these matters. If the issues are outstanding the resident should report them to the landlord again and if necessary, raise a new complaint. She could then ask us to investigate if she remained dissatisfied with its response. This investigation looks at the resident’s complaint up to the landlord’s final complaint response of 9 April 2024.

Repairs including asbestos, damp, and mould

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 says the landlord must keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. It must also complete repairs within a reasonable time. Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 says the landlord must ensure the property is fit for human habitation and free from prescribed hazards. Section 10 of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) says hazards include asbestos, excessive cold, and damp and mould.

Asbestos

  1. The resident reported asbestos in her home to the landlord on 9 May 2023. The landlord previously arranged for a specialist contractor to complete an asbestos survey on 27 August 2021. The survey found the property ceilings (Artex) held asbestos. It said the landlord should remove these prior to any demolition or refurbishment works. The survey also said the landlord should notify any person associated with the property of the presence of asbestos. It was right for the landlord to arrange a specialist asbestos contractor to inspect the property in keeping with its HHSRS obligations and update the resident on its conclusions.
  2. The landlord reviewed its asbestos survey again on 9 May 2023 in response to the resident’s concerns. It found the ceiling coverings did not present a concern until it completed refurbishment works. It said the resident could contact it if she was concerned. It was reasonable for the landlord to review its earlier survey and any potential risks. However, it would have been better if it contacted the resident itself to manage her expectations and discuss the asbestos.
  3. The landlord completed a temporary repair and a further asbestos survey of the kitchen flooring on 1 December 2023 in response to reports that the tiles had lifted. It was right for the landlord to secure the disturbed flooring and assess whether it held asbestos and/or presented a hazard. The survey concluded the flooring did not have asbestos. The landlord did not update the resident of this outcome until 18 December 2023, after she chased a response on 11 December 2023. This was unreasonable given the potential impact the matter may have had on resident’s health and safety.
  4. The landlord addressed its handling of asbestos in its final complaint response. It explained it surveyed the property and would remove Artex from the ceilings when it completed internal works in keeping with its consultant’s recommendations. It was right for the landlord to address the resident’s concerns to reassure her it would address the presence of asbestos. The landlord’s investigation and handling of asbestos was reasonable under the circumstances. But its communications to the resident should have been better.

Damp and mould

  1. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard, and the landlord had to consider whether the problem in the resident’s property amounted to a hazard and required remedying. In the resident’s stage 1 complaint she said she reported damp and mould to the landlord in March 2023, but the landlord did not record this, so the date is unclear. The landlord arranged for a contractor to complete a specialist damp and mould survey on 4 April 2023. The landlord’s complaint policy says its dedicated damp & mould team will agree a plan of action within 5 working days in line with its damp and mould policy. However, its response was in keeping with the Ombudsman’s 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould. This recommends landlords have contractors and staff with proper expertise to diagnose and respond to damp and mould reports.
  2. The landlord completed a leak detection survey on 28 April 2023 to investigate the drainage system following its damp and mould inspection. This was reasonable under the circumstances to investigate the potential causes of damp and mould. It did not complete its investigation until after the water authority repaired an inoperable stop tap, 5 months later. The landlord was not responsible for the stop tap repair and was reliant on the water authority to repair the stop tap.
  3. The landlord arranged a specialist contractor to complete a CCTV drainage survey on 7 July 2023. This was right, because the drainage system may have caused damp and mould, and the stop tap repair was delayed. However, the survey recommended replacing the same ‘soakaway’ it recommended 5 years previously which it said may have caused damp. The landlord did not replace the expired soakaway until 2 months later. This was likely to have contributed to the damp and mould in the property for an unreasonable amount of time. Consequently, it contributed to the distress and inconvenience the damp and mould caused to the resident.
  4. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will carry out an initial mould wash on each reported area to prevent mould returning or escalating. The landlord arranged to complete mould washes in 4 rooms on 9 August 2023. However, there is no evidence it did so when it inspected the property on 4 April 2023. This was a failing given the landlord found mould in the property that was likely to affect the resident’s living conditions.
  5. The landlord addressed its handling of damp and mould in its final complaint response on 9 April 2024. It explained the conclusions it reached based upon its investigations and summarised its works schedule. It was right for the landlord to address the resident’s concerns, but it did not identify or apologise for the failings this investigation found. Overall, the landlord’s investigation into damp and mould was reasonable, but it should have responded sooner and coordinated its inspections and surveys to reduce the time and trouble to the resident. We have not seen evidence the landlord completed a risk assessment in keeping with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report. This recommends landlords understand the risk profile of a properties in relation to damp and mould.
  6. Between August 2023 and October 2023, the landlord found the property needed a series of internal and external repairs. It decided it would need to decant the resident to complete extensive repairs which it discussed with her on 19 October 2023. The landlord added her to its temporary decant list following a discussion about her property preferences which was reasonable.
  7. The landlord was entitled to decide how to respond to the property repairs based upon the recommendations of its qualified staff and contractors. Its plans to decant the resident to limit any negative impact the extensive repairs were likely to have on her was reasonable. However, due to the resident’s property preferences it was unable to find alternative accommodation before it sent its final complaint response. In the meantime, it completed further property inspections, repairs, heat loss and cavity wall surveys, and a mould wash. It was reasonable for the landlord to complete these repairs and inspections to further understand the repairs while waiting to rehouse the resident.
  8. The landlord summarised its action plan and the works it intended to complete on 9 April 2024 in its final complaint response. It told the resident it would send her a copy of its works schedule and update it when it completed further investigations. It managed her expectations by confirming the repairs would start after it rehoused her and take between 6 and 8 months. It said it would discuss the rehousing process with her when it could offer a viewing of a property. The landlord also recognised and apologised for its repair handling delays and for any nuisance and distress she may have experienced. It offered her £400 compensation. This was in line with its policy which says it can offer discretionary payments where residents experience delays or it does not meet target response times.
  9. When a landlord has acknowledged its failings, we will consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. We look at whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, acknowledgement of service failure, and compensation,) was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. At the time of this report the landlord has not completed the repairs due to difficulties finding the resident a suitable alternative property.
  10. The landlord agreed to provide compensation for damage caused to her personal goods by damp and mould if she provided itemised information of the damage. This was reasonable. Furthermore, it was appropriate for it to offer compensation to put right the recognised failings that adversely affected the resident. However, given the extent of the failings this investigation has found the award was not proportionate to the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience she may have experienced. The landlord investigated, surveyed, and decided an action plan to address the extensive property repairs. However, it did not act quickly, nor sufficiently consider the long term effect its failure to repair the damp and mould had on the resident. Taking all matters into account, we have found maladministration.
  11. We have ordered the landlord to pay a further £200 (totalling £600) compensation for the repair handling failings we found the landlord has not addressed. We have also ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing and provide her with an update on its plans to rehouse her and repair the property.
  12. After the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure it offered to reimburse the resident £1,175 for damage caused to her personal items by damp and mould. This was in keeping with the commitment it made in its final complaint response.

The landlord’s communication

  1. The resident reported poor communication from the landlord on 28 July 2023 because it had not responded to her update request 10 days earlier. It arranged to contact her on 31 July 2023 to prevent her concerns becoming a complaint. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have updated the resident until the likelihood of a complaint. This caused the resident time and trouble escalating her enquiry which the landlord could have avoided.
  2. The landlord completed damp and mould inspections, a leak detection survey, repairs, and mould washes in the property between July 2023 and October 2023. There is no evidence it updated her while investigating these matters. It therefore missed the opportunity to improve her confidence in its housing services. However, it updated the resident on 19 October 2023, which was appropriate, given its action plan included rehousing the resident.
  3. The resident reported poor communication again on 5 and 11 December 2023 when the landlord did not keep to its promise to update her on 1 and 8 December 2023. This was unreasonable and caused the resident further time and trouble chasing its response again on 18 December 2023. The landlord had the information it promised to send, and added the resident to its decant list, so it was unreasonable not to update her sooner. We can see no reason for the landlord not to have kept to its promises or agreed a new target response timescale. The resident raised a formal complaint about its poor communication a month later.
  4. Between January 2024 and the landlord’s final complaint response of 9 April 2024, it made a series of further promises to update the resident that it did not keep. It also failed to reply to her complaints in keeping with the agreed dates, which added to her view its communication was poor. It was inappropriate for the landlord to wait for the resident to request updates, before replying to her. Its failure to keep its commitments were likely to cause the resident distress because of the ongoing rehousing and repairs matters. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the resident’s situation and updated her to manage her expectations and rebuild her confidence in its housing services.
  5. The landlord acknowledged its communication failings in its final complaint response. It said it would share the resident’s feedback, put in place training, and remind staff to keep its promises. This was reasonable. It offered the resident £200 compensation for its poor communication. This was in line with our remedies guidance where there were service failings that adversely affected the resident. It was also proportionate to the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience the landlord’s poor communication was likely to have caused during the period of this investigation.
  6. For the reasons set out above, we found the landlord offered reasonable redress for its communication failings. We have recommended it pays the resident the compensation it offered for poor communication if it has not already done so.

The resident’s complaint

  1. There were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as the landlord:
    1. Did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 16 January 2024 until 8 February 2024. This was 7 working days later than its 10 working day complaint policy target timescale.
    2. Did not say if it upheld the stage 1 complaint in line with paragraph 5.8 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time of the complaint. This says landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made.
    3. Did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request of 6 February 2024. Instead, it wrote to her on 4 March 2024 confirming it closed the complaint. This caused the resident further time and trouble escalating the complaint again on the same day.
    4. Did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 4 March 2024 until 9 April 2024. This was 5 working days later than its 20 working day complaint policy target timescale.
    5. Did not say if it upheld the stage 2 complaint in line with paragraph 6.19 of the Housing Ombudsman’s April 2024 Code. This says landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for its decision.
  2. The landlord considered its complaint handling in its final complaint response. It did not recognise the failings we found, but it acknowledged and apologised for its delayed handling of the complaint. It also said it centralised its complaint handling to improve its communication. It offered the resident £100 compensation for its complaint handling delays.
  3. The landlord’s complaint handling failings caused the resident time and trouble pursuing the complaint but were unlikely to have changed the outcome. Its compensation award was in line with our remedies guidance where there was service failure that adversely affected the resident over a short duration. It was proportionate to the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience the landlord’s poor complaint handling was likely to have caused her. The landlord offered reasonable for the complaint handling failings. We have not ordered the landlord to pay any further compensation, but we have recommended it pays the £100 compensation it offered the resident if it has not already done so.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs including asbestos, damp, and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of:
    1. The landlord’s communication.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its handling of the property repairs.
    2. Pay the resident the £400 compensation offered in the stage 2 for its repair handling delays if it has not already.
    3. Pay the resident an additional £200 compensation for any time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience the landlord’s handling of repairs caused the resident.
    4. Provide the resident with a written update that clearly addresses its plans and expected timescales to rehouse the resident and repair the property.
  2. The landlord should pay the compensation directly to the resident and not offset this against any money the resident may owe the landlord.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pay the resident the:
    1. £300 it offered as compensation in its final complaint response for its poor communication and complaint handling.
    2. £1,175 it offered as compensation for damage caused to her personal items if it has not already done so.