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

Accent Housing Limited (202327198)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327198

Accent Housing Limited

4 April 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. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Repairs to the kitchen.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat. She lived at the property with her wife between March 2021 and December 2023. The resident has vulnerabilities related to her physical health, which the landlord was aware of.
  2. The resident reported a leak into the living room from the ceiling on 11 January 2023. The landlord inspected the property on 6 February 2023. It was unable to find a leak, but did find damp and mould in the living room. It provided a dehumidifier and requested its contractor conduct a survey of the ventilation in the property.
  3. On 8 August 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She said she was unhappy with the time taken to complete the repairs. She was concerned about the increased energy costs caused by running the dehumidifier. She said the damp had damaged her wallpaper and flooring. She added that the landlord had installed a new kitchen, but she was without a cooker or water in the kitchen for 4 weeks.
  4. The landlord issued its complaint response on 22 August 2023. It summarised the repairs conducted between January and August 2023. It said:
    1. There were delays installing the ventilation caused by its contractor’s availability.
    2. It calculated the additional energy cost for running a dehumidifier and offered £30 compensation.
    3. It did not find structural issues causing the damp and mould. It would not pay for any damages to the resident’s wallpaper and flooring. It recommended the resident claim for these damages through her own contents insurance. It offered a £50 decorating voucher as a goodwill gesture.
    4. It agreed that there were delays installing the kitchen. It inspected on 15 August 2023 and found the works were complete (other than some snagging issues). All works in the kitchen were complete by 18 August 2023.
  5. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 September 2023. It upheld its initial response at stage 1. It was unable to install the ventilation on 16 August 2023 due to issues with fixing the unit to the ceiling. It re-arranged the installation for 20 September 2023. It re-offered the £50 decorating voucher and increased its offer of compensation to £75 for inconvenience caused and the additional energy usage.
  6. The landlord’s records show that it found issues related to water penetration from a patio door and a bathroom shower in November 2023. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman in November 2023.

Assessment and findings

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it may not offer compensation for loss or damage that a contents insurance policy would cover. It does consider discretionary compensation where a resident is unable to use part of their home due to disrepair or service failure.

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 her tenancy. It must look at the condition of its properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards.
  2. Damp and mould are potential category 1 hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. It should conduct additional monitoring of a property where it has identified potential hazards.
  3. The landlord’s initial response was reasonable. The resident reported damp and mould on 11 January 2023. It inspected on 6 February 2023. This was 18 working days later, and within the 28 days set out in its routine repairs timescales.
  4. The landlord’s records show that it was unable to identify the cause of the damp and mould. It was therefore reasonable to arrange a survey of the ventilation and provide a dehumidifier. It took prompt action early in the timeline to reduce the impact on the resident.
  5. However, it did not conduct the ventilation survey until 6 April 2023. In the interim period, the resident called the landlord chasing updates. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s time and trouble in its complaint responses at stage 1 or 2.
  6. The resident and her wife both have vulnerabilities that damp and mould would impact. She told the landlord that her wife had been hospitalised with pneumonia and she has asthma. The landlord should have considered the vulnerabilities present and appropriately prioritised the works. In accordance with the HHSRS, it should have provided additional monitoring of the situation. It did not and this was a failure by the landlord.
  7. The landlord acknowledged delays in conducting a related asbestos survey and the works to repair the ventilation system in its complaint responses. However, it did not put things right. It did not apologise for the inconvenience caused or make a reasonable offer of compensation for the delay.
  8. The landlord’s offered of £30 for the additional costs incurred for the running of the dehumidifier was reasonable at stage 1. It was appropriate to review the overall compensation offered at stage 2. However, the combined offer of £75 for the running costs and distress and inconvenience did not reflect the detriment caused to the resident. The timeline shows extended delays of around 6 months, which potentially impacted the resident’s health and wellbeing.
  9. The resident told the landlord that the damp and mould damaged her carpet and furniture. The landlord responded to these concerns in its complaint responses. It followed its compensation policy and directed the resident to her own contents insurer to make a claim. It was fair to offer a £50 decorating voucher as a good will gesture. Its actions were broadly reasonable. However, the resident disagreed that she should make a claim through her own contents insurer. The landlord had acknowledged a delay and so it should have provided details of its own liability insurer. It did not and this was a failing by the landlord.
  10. Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould. Its later records show that leaks from the bathroom and patio contributed to damp and mould in the property. Although it did not identify these leaks in its inspection in February 2023, it responded promptly to the resident’s initial reports. It took reasonable action to mitigate the impact on the resident.
  11. However, there were combined delays of around 6 months before it repaired the ventilation system. The landlord did not use its complaint handling to put things right for the resident or identify where it had learned from the outcomes of the case. Given the time that has elapsed, it would no longer be appropriate to pursue a claim through the landlord’s liability insurer. As we are unable to determine the outcome of a liability insurance, we have considered the overall impact the delays had on the resident. We have also considered the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s failure to appropriately signpost the resident.
  12. It should pay the resident an additional £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This reflects our own guidance on remedies for maladministration. We consider that the landlord failed to address the detriment to the resident and did not make a proportionate offer to put things right.

Kitchen repairs

  1. In addition to the delay in repairs to remedy the damp and mould, there were delays replacing parts of the kitchen throughout the timeline. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident highlighted a 4 week delay completing the kitchen installation. During that period, she was without full access to her kitchen.
  2. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged there were delays with its kitchen fitter and gas engineer. There is no dispute that there was a 4-week period where the resident did not have full use of her kitchen. The landlord did not address the loss of amenity in its complaint response and did not offer any redress in its stage 2 response. The landlord should have considered this loss of amenity and offered compensation to put things right. It did not and this was a failing by the landlord.
  3. The Ombudsman finds service failure by the landlord in its handling of kitchen repairs. It did not fully address the impact the lack of these facilities had on the resident in its complaint responses. In deciding an appropriate level of redress, the Ombudsman has considered the resident’s level of rent, the landlord’s failures and the inconvenience and distress caused.
  4. The resident was without full use of her kitchen for 4 weeks. While the room was not entirely out of use, the resident could not have full enjoyment of it. As a result, the Ombudsman will order compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Our calculation will consider compensation to reflect her loss of use of the room, along with a separate award to address the resulting distress and inconvenience.
  5. The compensation is not a rent refund or intended to be an exact calculation of rent paid for that period. The landlord should pay the resident £80 compensation, which is around 25% of 4 weeks rent.

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. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of kitchen repairs.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £555 compensation. This is comprised of:
      1. £75 offered in its stage 2 response from September 2023.
      2. £50 previously offered as a decorating voucher in its stage 2 response from September 2023.
      3. £80 which is around 25% of 4 weeks rent to reflect the loss of use of the kitchen.
      4. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of reports of damp and mould.
      5. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of repairs to the kitchen.
    3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to the Ombudsman.