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

Thrive Homes Limited (202433023)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202433023

Thrive Homes Limited

16 July 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould;
    2. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat which the resident has lived in since 8 January 2024.
  2. The resident first notified the landlord on 31 January 2024 that the external wall by her kitchen window was visibly wet. She said that the moisture penetrated through the wall to the kitchen cupboards, creating damp and mouldy patches.
  3. The landlord completed a damp and mould inspection on 8 February 2024. It recommended a mould wash to the affected areas. By 5 June 2024, a second survey and mould wash had taken place. The second survey identified the need to replace 2 storage heaters in the property.
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 21 June 2024, citing damage caused to personal items by the damp and mould. She said the 2 mould washes completed were ineffective as the mould had returned. She said that it was still present in the kitchen cupboards but had also damaged wall pictures and clothing.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 26 July 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint and acknowledged repairs delays and a failure to identify the cause of the mould. It admitted that due to poor record keeping, not all of the information about when washes were completed could be located. It explained that a precise timeline of events and repairs could not be established. As a resolution, it advised that it would replace the storage heaters as part of a wider project that was taking place. It offered £50 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused to her.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 5 August 2024. She expressed concerns that the mould wash was inadequate and she felt the landlord should complete a thorough investigation to establish the root cause of the damp and mould. She stated that the £50 compensation offered would not cover the items that were damaged and requested a managed move due to the time the repairs would take.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation on 12 August 2024 and requested an extension on 3 September 2024. It installed 2 new storage heaters during this period.
  8. In its final response on 29 October 2024, the landlord noted it had exceeded complaint handling timescales and thanked the resident for her patience. It also highlighted several areas of service failure, including:
    1. record keeping;
    2. delays in attending to the storage heaters;
    3. failure to arrange repairs to a kitchen window and extractor fan;
    4. ineffective planning of damp and mould works.
  9. The landlord acknowledged its delays had allowed for the growth of damp and mould, meaning the resident lived with this since 31 January 2024. It increased the compensation offer to £300 for distress and inconvenience caused to her.
  10. The resident brought her complaint to us in November 2024. She said that there were repairs outstanding and she would ask for a managed move as the property needed a lot of attention.
  11. The records show that, following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process and referral to this Service, mould and thermal surveys were done and further repairs completed. These included a damp and mould survey in November 2024, a thermal survey in December 2024 and identification of a cavity wall insulation fault in early 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation 

  1. In her communication with the landlord, the resident referenced how this situation impacted her health. It is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. Similarly, the resident has referred to damaged belongings. We cannot make liability decisions and determine that the landlord was responsible for the damage reported. Such decisions may be made via the landlord’s liability insurance, the resident’s own contents insurer, or via the courts. However, we have assessed how the landlord responded to the concerns raised about belongings damaged due to delays in handling the damp and mould reports.

Policy and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s mould policy sets out timescales of 28 working days for investigation of mild mould and 10 working days for moderate mould. It will visit to do a full investigation and record findings (known as a survey report). Once the visit is completed, it will confirm the findings and next steps in writing, or over the phone, arrange any repairs needed and provide a timescale for these.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy shows a range of £50-£250 for failure to meet service standards. This is payable if its actions, or inaction, cause damage to the property or decorations in the property, or if it has not done what it says it would.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If an extension is required, this will be for no longer than 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. It will seek to agree this with the resident and confirm the new deadline. All extensions will be confirmed to the resident in writing and include the reason for the extension.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

  1. Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair. It must ensure that the property is fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy. The landlord must look at the condition of its properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
  2. HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential category 1 hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. The landlord should be aware of its obligations under HHSRS. This includes additional monitoring of a property where it has identified potential hazards.
  3. The landlord’s first survey on 8 February 2024 highlighted mould present inside 2 kitchen cupboards and on the wall above the same 2 cupboards. The surveyor also noted a trickle vent was closed. The surveyor recorded that a fan installation was not viable due to restricted space. They found that all the other rooms were clear from mould.
  4. The surveyor recommended a mould wash to the affected area along with advice to the resident around ventilating the kitchen while cooking and drying clothes. The landlord responded in an appropriate timescale and reasonably relied on its surveyor’s findings in completing follow-on mould washes.
  5. The landlord applied a first mould wash on 4 March 2024. By 21 June 2024, the following appointments were made to address the same issue:
    1. 20 March 2024 – Mould wash and repair to storage heaters.
    2. 9 April 2024 – Mould wash to kitchen cupboards.
    3. 16 April 2024 – Additional survey booked for 5 June 2024 due to the return of mould.
    4. 5 June 2024 – Inspection completed and mould wash arranged; identified need to replace storage heaters.
    5. 10 June 2024 – Mould wash completed.
  6. While it is appropriate for a landlord to complete a mould wash to remove potentially harmful spores as a reactive measure, this would be unlikely to resolve the underlying cause. The landlord should have given more regard to the resident’s reports of water ingress through the external wall. It could have carried out further tests to accurately gauge if this was the root cause of the mould. This represents a failure by the landlord to diagnose a permanent solution. Further inspections, and potential causes of damp, were done well into 2025 and these may have been avoided had a more thorough diagnosis attempt been actioned a year earlier.
  7. The records provided do not include the results of the inspection from 5 June 2024. The landlord’s policy states that it will communicate survey findings and next steps to a resident in writing, or over the phone, with arrangements for repairs and timescales for these. It is unreasonable that the landlord did not do so albeit some of this information was offered in its stage 1 response the following month.
  8. Although 3 mould washes were arranged over 5 months, the landlord’s inspections still did not include appropriate diagnostic tests needed to establish the root cause. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould says landlord should undertake appropriate investigations to determine the cause of damp and mould. The spotlight report recommendations were not applied in this case. Had the landlord acted in accordance with those recommendations, it may have diagnosed the root cause earlier than it did and avoided delays.
  9. The landlord upheld the resident’s stage 1 complaint in July 2024 and awarded £50 compensation. It acknowledged it had failed to identify the cause of the mould and action repairs in a timely manner. It accepted that part of the problem was poor record keeping as it was unable to locate evidence of mould washes taking place or a diagnosis. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail and track past actions. The landlord acknowledged that its record keeping in this case was poor.
  10. The landlord found that 2 storage heaters in the property needed replacing and said in its stage 1 response that this would be done as part of a renovation project. Although it was positive that the landlord awarded some redress and proposed to fit new heaters, it still did not specify how, or if, it intended to establish the root cause of the mould. It only advised that it would arrange for the new storage heaters and hoped this would provide a resolution.
  11. The resident had reported mould re-growth between April and June 2024. As this was not within winter months, it is unlikely that the storages heaters would have had a significant impact on resolving the returning mould growth. This would suggest a more through diagnosis attempt was still needed.
  12. The landlord completed a survey on 6 August 2024. This said the cause of the damp and mould was lack of heat ventilation and air flow. It also stated that the mould was now present in the bedroom and that long curtains exacerbated the situation. There is no evidence that the landlord assessed the hazards to the resident in accordance with the HHSRS. It should have ensured it understood the risks present to the resident and how it could minimise them, particularly given she had raised concerns that she needed to be moved away from the property and mould was spreading.
  13. Following this survey, the landlord proposed a further mould wash. This was carried out on 12 August 2024. However, records show this wash was only applied to the kitchen area and did not address the mould now present in the bedroom. It is unreasonable that the landlord did not fully treat the mould in all areas.
  14. During the period 28 August 2024 to 27 September 2024, the landlord installed new storage heaters, repaired a kitchen extractor fan, and installed a new kitchen window. These repairs were appropriately in accordance with its August 2024 inspection findings.
  15. By mid-October 2024, the resident again requested a property move due to the spread of damp and mould and delays in repairs. She said that some repairs did not happen, her clothing now smelt of damp and some items (including a pair of trainers, a child’s car seat and several items of clothing) were damaged by mould.
  16. In response, the landlord assessed pictures she provided of the damp and mould and reflected on HHSRS guidelines to assess the need for a move. Following this assessment, it provided appropriate information regarding her options of a mutual exchange and to register on the local council’s housing register. The landlord did not consider a move was necessary as the damp and mould was assessed as mild. This approach was reasonable given there is no indication that the property was not habitable. Nevertheless, there is no record that the landlord sought to address the damaged belongings. It is unreasonable that it failed to signpost the resident to any insurance options whether this was her own contents insurance or through its liability insurer.
  17. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its service failures in its October 2024 stage 2 response. Due to poor record-keeping, it was unable to ascertain dates for completion of all mould washes and how severe the mould was when it first inspected the property. It also accepted it failed to identify problems with the kitchen window and extractor fan until September 2024, as well as delays in inspecting and replacing the storage heaters, all of which could contribute to damp and mould.
  18. The landlord acknowledged the resident lived with damp and mould for 10 months and increased the £50 compensation offered at stage 1 to £300 in total for the distress and inconvenience caused by its service failures.
  19. It is positive that the landlord reconsidered its position and reviewed its offer of compensation at stage 2. However, the £300 offered was not reflective of the impact caused to the resident given her living conditions were regularly affected over at least a 10-month period and more surveys were required into 2025 to diagnose the potential causes of damp and mould.
  20. Further, the landlord’s November 2024 inspection indicated that the storage heaters installed in August 2024 were not working. It is of concern that the resident has recently advised that these problems are ongoing albeit there is evidence that she cancelled some appointments the landlord made to complete post-inspections. Nevertheless, additional compensation is warranted to reflect the adverse impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident over an extended period.
  21. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould. While it is positive that the landlord recognised and acknowledged some failings, its compensation award was insufficient given the uncertainty and time and trouble caused to the resident over a period of almost a year (up to the final complaint response). More recent inspections indicate that a full diagnosis earlier in the timeline could have established the correct cause of damp and mould. The landlord also failed to signpost the resident in response to her concerns about damaged possessions and it is unclear that it ensured new storage heaters were working correctly.

The associated complaint

  1. The resident raised her complaint on 21 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged this request on 28 June 2024, advising it would respond within 10 working days. Its response was issued on 26 July 2024. This meant that there was a delay of 10 working days for which it provided no explanation.
  2. The resident requested an escalation on 5 August 2024 and this was acknowledged by the landlord on 12 August 2024. This was within the 5 working days stated in its policy. The landlord requested an extension to its investigation on 3 September 2024 and said it would provide a response by 29 October 2024. This was 61 working days after the escalation request and the landlord acknowledged that this was outside of its complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code.
  3. The landlord stated that it reflected this delay within the total £300 compensation amount awarded at stage 2. While it was positive to recognise the delays, the landlord did not acknowledge that there was also a delay at stage 1. It also failed to explain what proportion of the total compensation it offered was for delays in its complaint handling. Overall, the offer of £300 at stage 2 is not considered proportionate to address both the delays in its handling of repairs and in its responses to the complaint.
  4. Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. While there was acknowledgement of some delays, the landlord did not offer sufficient redress for these and it should have offered separate compensation for complaint handling. As such, we have awarded £150 compensation for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to:
      1. apologise for the failures identified in this report;
      2. advise her of options available to her to claim for damaged possessions, including via its own liability insurance.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £650, comprised of:
      1. £500 for the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused to her by the failings in its handling of damp and mould reports (this is inclusive of the £300 offered at stage 2, if not already paid);
      2. £150 for the time and trouble caused to her by its complaint handling failures.
    3. Contact the resident to offer dates for a new damp and mould survey to post-inspect any works completed since its final complaint response, establish whether there is an ongoing damp and mould problem and, if so, use appropriate tools to provide a clear rationale for any diagnosis.
  2. Within 2 weeks of the date of the new damp and mould survey, the landlord must write to the resident with the surveyor’s report detailing their findings and proposed actions and timescales for completion of any repairs.
  3. The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.