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

Amplius Living (202301199)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301199

Longhurst Group Limited

28 February 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 the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning in December 2021. The property is a 2–bedroom house.
  2. On 11 January 2022, the resident reported damp and mould in the property. The landlord carried out an inspection on 21 January 2022, noting there was mould in the bathroom and utility room. It also noted that there was water penetration in the kitchen which indicated a “possible pointing issue”.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord in February, March, and April 2022 in relation to the damp and mould in the property. In May and June 2022 he said that the mould had been treated but was returning, and he was concerned for his health. A mould survey was carried out on 12 July 2022. This identified that:
    1. There were issues with the damp proof course that needed further investigation.
    2. The front guttering needed “attention”.
    3. The kitchen extractor needed to be replaced, and a fan installed in the bathroom.
  4. The resident continued to raise concerns regarding the damp and mould in the property throughout the remainder of 2022. In March 2023, he contacted the landlord saying he was unhappy at the length of time it was taking to address the mould issues. On 14 March 2023, another mould survey was carried out. The contractor’s notes said that:
    1. The bathroom wall was cold due to lack of insulation of the solid wall.
    2. It recommended the addition of “great depth of loft insulation” in the main roof.
    3. It recommended the following works:
      1. Treating the mould on the utility room ceiling. It noted that there was little mould formation and therefore this area would not require treatment immediately.
      2. Treating the stairs/hallway with a dry rod system and replastering.
      3. Repointing the windows of bedroom 2 and checking the radiator size was correct for the room, as it appeared to be undersized.
  5. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 19 April 2023. He said that despite the mould inspection, various issues remained outstanding. He went on to say that the mould was getting worse and he was going to contact a solicitor. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 April 2023 and provided more detail in relation to the issues. The resident said that despite previous mould treatments, the mould was still present and had “destroyed carpets” in 2 of the rooms in the property. He said the lack of loft insulation meant the property was “freezing cold”.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 30 May 2023, apologising for the service the resident had received. It outlined its understanding of the complaint and the action it had taken. It offered the resident £350 compensation. A works order was raised on 7 June 2023 to damp proof the kitchen prior to a new kitchen being fitted.
  7. The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 21 June 2023. He said he disagreed that there was no damage to the carpets and was waiting for a quote from a carpet specialist. He also requested a redecoration pack. The landlord contacted the resident to acknowledge the complaint. The case notes said that the resident was happy with the progress of the damp works in the kitchen and wanted to be reimbursed for the damaged carpets which were affected by the mould. An internal meeting was held by the landlord on 11 July 2023, with the notes saying that there was no written evidence as to the condition of the carpets and it would therefore reimburse the cost to the resident following any quotes.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 July 2023. It said it would reimburse the resident for the cost of the carpets following a quote of £244, and would provide a redecoration pack to compensate for the damage caused by the damp and mould. The landlord also offered the resident £50 in recognition of the “errors” it made and said it would be closing the complaint. It sent a further update the same day, explaining that it had implemented training for its staff in relation to “ensuring there is responsibility for acknowledging and responding to complaints on time”. This included assigning a member of staff to each complaint to raise “any needed actions and taking ownership for these to ensure they are completed”.
  9. Between August and September 2023 the landlord and resident liaised over the works, with the landlord evidencing that it was arranging work for 1 contractor to do everything as there was “less chance of delays co-ordinating several contractors”. The resident advised this Service on 9 October 2023 that he did not wish to progress his complaint with us as the landlord was to complete all works by the end of October 2023.
  10. The resident raised another stage 1 complaint on 2 January 2024, which covered the time period following the replacement of the kitchen on 17 November 2023. He said that the mould had returned as the landlord did not fully address the damp and mould problem prior to the kitchen’s installation.
  11. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 22 January 2024. It said that works to address the mould were carried out and it was sorry that it had returned. It said that work was currently being undertaken to replace the kitchen units to the right–hand side of the kitchen, and the mould would be cleaned by “dry wiping it” before installing the new units. It said it was “deeply sorry” that it “failed” in its service to the resident and offered him £250 for the distress and inconvenience. The same day, the resident contacted this Service to say that the mould treatment was done and the units in half the kitchen were in the process of being replaced. He also confirmed that the loft insulation had been replaced.
  12. The resident contacted the landlord again on 8 March 2024 to report that the mould was “reappearing”. The landlord carried out a damp and mould survey on 1 April 2024. It noted that:
    1. There was mould behind the radiator in the utility room. A mould treatment should be applied.
    2. The air quality was confirmed as “excellent” following tests.
    3. The kitchen was “dry” following a moisture test.
    4. There were no issues with the mechanical ventilation, and it had discussed moisture management with the resident.
    5. It recommended that a fungicidal wash be applied to the “mould affected areas”, and 2 full coats of fungicidal emulsion paint applied to the walls and ceilings.
  13. The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 7 May 2024. It noted that the resident had previously raised a complaint regarding mould in the kitchen at stage 1, and said it should have escalated the matter to stage 2. It said the resident had advised that there was a mould issue in the utility room, but it could not find any repair raised on its system in relation to this, and so did not identify any service failure. It said the resident should report any new repairs through its customer service team. Additionally, as a “gesture of goodwill” it arranged for its surveyor to raise a repair on his behalf. It offered the resident £50 in recognition of its service failure for the “mishandling” of his complaint.
  14. During recent contact with this Service in February 2025, the resident said that while mould treatments had been carried out, the mould had returned, and the kitchen units were mouldy and unusable. He said that he would like an action plan of what works the landlord is going to carry out to rectify the issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to concerns about the impact his living conditions may have had on his health and that of his family. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s concerns regarding the potential impact the damp and mould has had on him and his family. Unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused or worsened a health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with through the courts or as a personal injury insurance claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs

  1. This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould, published in October 2021, outlines that landlords should take a proactive, zero tolerance approach to damp and mould, ensuring that their responses to damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord provided this Service with a copy of its damp and mould action plan which was updated in December 2023 and based upon our spotlight report.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that works related to damp and mould treatment, and works related to kitchen units, will be classified as appointed routine repairs and attended to within 28 days.
  3. The evidence shows that the resident first reported issues with damp and mould in the kitchen on 11 January 2022. An inspection was carried out on 21 January 2022 which identified water penetration in the kitchen and mould in the utility room. The resident chased the landlord on 4 February and 28 March 2022, and it said that it was going to arrange a visit. The resident then contacted the landlord again on 11 April 2022 in relation to the damp and mould with the case notes saying that “no appointment had been booked”. This was not appropriate, as the landlord failed to follow its repair policy by attending to the damp and mould within 28 days. Furthermore, our spotlight report says where inspections result in recommended works to tackle damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner. This was evidently not the case here, as the landlord had not raised a repair in the 80 days that had passed following the inspection.
  4. The case notes show that works began around 14 April 2022, when more mould was identified behind the kitchen units. The resident asked the landlord what steps it was going to take to address this. He contacted it again on 23 May and 27 June 2023, saying that although 2 walls were treated, the mould had come back. The case notes show that the landlord contacted the resident on 7 July 2022 but received no response. It took 56 working days to contact the resident, again failing to evidence that it was taking a proactive approach. It has not been evidenced that any meaningful response was provided, which was evidently frustrating for him.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 July 2022, saying that the mould was “back really bad” and that he was concerned for his health. The landlord attended the following day to carry out an inspection, which was prompt and in line with the high priority approach recommended in our spotlight report. The inspection notes identified problems with the damp proof course and the guttering. They also said that the kitchen extractor fan needed replacing.
  6. A further inspection was carried out on 8 August 2022. It identified further issues with the front render which was “bubbling off”. The resident then contacted the landlord on 16 August 2022 in relation to an appointment that had been scheduled for that day. The case notes said that the appointment had been “rescheduled”, and a contractor would be attending in the following 2 days. The case notes are unclear as to what work this related. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to this Service when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. It enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 November 2022 to say there was mould in the kitchen and utility room. He felt this was not treated initially as the units needed to be removed to treat the mould. The landlord’s case notes said its contractor had advised the resident it would arrange for an electrician to replace the extractor fan. It was not appropriate that the extractor fan had not been replaced. This was because the extractor fan replacement had been raised as an issue 89 days earlier on 12 July 2022. The landlord’s failure to address the replacement within 28 days was contrary to its routine repair policy timescale.
  8. The landlord contacted the resident on 8 December 2022 to apologise for the time it had taken to complete the repairs. It explained that the repairs had not been raised previously, but it had now scheduled them for 19 December 2022. This is another example of where the landlord’s poor recording keeping resulted in a delay for the resident, which was unfair.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 December 2022, saying that no contractor had attended the property the day before as arranged. This was again unfair to the resident, and a repeat failure by the landlord to attend to the damp and mould. The resident also contacted the landlord on 6 January 2023 to highlight the contractor’s further failure to attend on 19 and 30 December 2022. The case notes said that the resident was getting frustrated at “being let down and the lack of communication”. The situation was understandably distressing to the resident, and it is evident that he spent a great deal of time and trouble chasing the landlord in relation to the repairs. The landlord should have taken steps to ensure that it maintained oversight of the actions of its contractor in relation to the repair, and that it had access to records of the actions taken by the contractor. This was not demonstrated in this case, and was not appropriate.
  10. The case notes show that the landlord chased the contractor on 18 January 2023, asking for confirmation as to when the repair would be completed. Given the length of time the repair had been outstanding and the 2 failed visits, the landlord should have been prompt in chasing the matter and not delayed by 8 working days in doing so.
  11. An inspection was carried out on 24 February 2023, and the resident contacted the landlord the same day. The case notes said that the contractor advised him there was nothing wrong with the loft insulation, and that the resident should report the issue to the landlord himself. It was not appropriate to put the onus back on the resident when the contractor have updated the landlord following its visit. As the contractor is an agent of the landlord, the landlord is considered responsible for its actions. Effective contract management should aim to prevent situations such as this.
  12. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 and 3 March 2023 in relation to the outstanding repairs. The case notes said that he was advised by the landlord’s contractor that the outstanding issues were not for it to attend to. These included the bubbling render and damp and mould in the kitchen. As previously outlined above, the landlord should have oversight of its contractor’s actions, and in turn both the landlord and contractor should be aware of what their responsibilities are. This has not been evidenced in this the case, which is not appropriate.
  13. A mould survey was carried out on 14 March 2023. At this point, 5 inspections had been carried out. The inspection notes said that some of the walls in the property were cold and recommended a “great depth of loft insulation” in the main roof. Further mould treatment was recommended, along with works to the hall and bedroom. The need for repeat visits prolonged a resolution for the resident, which evidently caused him distress and inconvenience. The landlord failed to follow the recommendations in our spotlight report, which says landlords need to ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed of an effective resolution.
  14. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 19 April 2023. He said that despite various visits from contractors, the issues remained outstanding. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 April 2023. It said that its contractor had attended on 3 April 2023 and carried out several repairs. No evidence of this was seen by this Service, and we are unable to confirm what works, if any, were carried out. This points to a record keeping failure.
  15. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 30 May 2023. It apologised that the mould was “not attended to efficiently” and some repair work was not carried out which “resulted in the mould spreading”. It said that the loft insulation had been replaced on 25 April 2023 and there were no signs of damage to the carpets. It offered the resident a total of £350 compensation. While the offer of compensation was solution focused, it did not go far enough to reflect the impact the substantial delays had on the resident, or reflect the time and trouble he spent chasing the repairs.
  16. The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 21 June 2023. He said he disagreed that there was no damage to the carpets, and asked for a decoration pack to decorate following the works. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 28 June 2023 and discussed the complaint with the resident. The case notes say that the resident was happy with the progress of the damp works in the kitchen and explained the outstanding issues. It is positive that the landlord provided this update and documented the resident’s satisfaction with progress where appropriate.
  17. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 21 July 2023. It outlined that it had previously said in its stage 1 response that its surveyor had advised there was no damage to the carpets. The landlord said it had checked its records and could not find any written record of this. Therefore, it was happy to compensate the resident for the cost of replacing the carpet and would provide a decoration pack. It also offered the resident £50 compensation in recognition for its error regarding the carpet and would close the complaint. This was an appropriate step by the landlord in acknowledging its error and offering compensation to put things right. However, had it thoroughly investigated the complaint at stage 1, it would have identified the lack of written evidence and may have resolved the complaint much sooner for him.
  18. The landlord wrote to the resident again the same day, outlining learning it took from his complaint. It said that it had implemented training for its staff in relation to “ensuring there is responsibility for acknowledging and responding to complaints on time”. This included assigning a member of staff to each complaint to raise “any needed actions and taking ownership for these to ensure they are completed”. This was an encouraging step taken by the landlord, as it demonstrated that it was actively following our dispute resolution principles of being fair, putting things right and learning from outcomes.
  19. The landlord contacted the resident on 7 August 2023, saying it wanted to “touch base” with him. It said that it was working with the team responsible for the damp and mould works to allow these to be done whilst the resident was in situ, meaning it “would not have to move” him. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord. It demonstrated that it was considering the available options, which was solution focused. Following this, the resident chased the landlord in relation to the works 4 times. Internal communication shows that the landlord was co-ordinating works to treat the mould and arrange for the kitchen to be replaced. It is good practice to keep residents updated, even when there is no new information. The landlord failed to do so in this case, which was not appropriate. Its omission would have caused uncertainty and further frustration to the resident.
  20. On 14 November 2023, the works to replace the kitchen began. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 November 2023 to express his concerns regarding the exterior work. He said that the work to the exterior was to be completed before any internal works began. The case notes said, “these do not look like they have been raised”. This was not appropriate, as the landlord’s records show that the bubbling render was highlighted twice by its contractor on 8 August and 8 December 2022. Despite this, the repair was not raised for over 15 months. The landlord therefore missed opportunities to progress this aspect of the works in a timely way.
  21. On 2 January 2024, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. This covered the period from when the new kitchen had been installed. He said that since the installation of the new kitchen, the mould had returned. The landlord responded at stage 1 saying works to address the mould were carried out, and it apologised the damp and mould had returned. It said works were in the process of being completed. It apologised it had “failed in its service” to the resident and was “deeply sorry” that it had failed to “adequately” treat the damp and mould. It went on to offer the resident £250 compensation. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failings and offer the resident compensation to put things right.
  22. The case notes show that a visit was arranged for 25 March 2024 to treat the damp and mould. On 26 March 2024, the resident contacted the landlord explaining that the contractor did not attend and requested to raise a complaint. An inspection was subsequently carried out on 1 April 2024. It said the kitchen was “dry” and the air quality “excellent”. However, it noted mould behind the radiator in the utility room and recommended for all affected areas to receive a fungicidal wash and be painted with antimould paint.
  23. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 7 May 2024. It said the complaint was regarding mould in the kitchen and noted that the resident had previously raised this at stage 1. It identified that it should have escalated the matter to stage 2. It said it had spoken with the resident on 3 May 2024, and he had confirmed the mould treatment works had been completed and there was no longer an issue. It said it was not aware of any mould in the utility room, and therefore did not find any service failure on its part. It did, however, offer the resident £50 for its “mishandling of the complaint”. It was not appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident that there was no service failure on its part due to the mould in the utility room. This is because the damp and mould survey carried out the previous month, on 1 April 2024, identified mould behind the radiator in the utility room and recommended treatment. It is concerning that the landlord’s complaint handler apparently did not have access to this information.
  24. The decision has been made to address the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the substantive complaint. This is because it offered £50 compensation for its complaint handling on 30 May 2023 and an additional £50 on 7 May 2024 for its failure to raise a stage 2 complaint. Its total offer of £100 is considered proportionate to put things right, and had this Service assessed complaint handling separately, we would have found reasonable redress.
  25. In summary, the landlord did not adequately identify the cause of the damp and mould issues and therefore was unable to carry out appropriate repairs, resulting in the need for repeat visits. Its record keeping was poor, resulting in the repairs not being monitored through to completion. It also failed to maintain oversight of its contractor, with several appointments not being kept and inappropriate advice given. The evidence clearly shows that the situation was frustrating for the resident and caused him to expend avoidable time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. For a period of 28 months between 11 January 2022 and 7 May 2024, the property was in disrepair, resulting in partial loss of use and enjoyment for the resident. Therefore, the above failings by the landlord amount to severe maladministration.
  26. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for compensation to be paid for loss of rooms at a percentage of the rent. It allows up to a maximum of 30% for kitchens, which would be equivalent to the total loss of the room. The policy also provides for an additional category for impact of a service failure.
  27. The Ombudsman has awarded compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Our order includes a rent–related element with an approximate calculation based on 10% for the period from January 2022 to May 2024. This reflects the impact on the resident of the property having been in some form of disrepair during this period. The rent figures have been used as a guideline only and are not intended to amount to an exact refund. As a result, a total of £1,975 has been awarded to reflect the partial loss of use of the property. An additional £600 has been ordered for the impact of the service failure, including distress and inconvenience and time and trouble. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for circumstances where there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, as well as our remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £2,575, made up of:
      1. £ 1,975 for the partial loss of use of the property he experienced in relation to the damp and mould.
      2. £600 for the impact of its service failure, including the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble he experienced.
    3. Share this report with its contractor, highlighting the failures identified. It must also ensure the contractor is aware of its responsibilities when responding to repair requests and instructions from the landlord.
    4. Instruct an independent external specialist damp and mould contractor (not previously used in this case) to survey the property and carry out any recommended works. The works should then begin within 8 weeks of this determination, and the landlord should provide a timebound schedule of works/action plan to the resident and this Service.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord familiarises itself with this Service’s spotlight reports on complaints about repairs and knowledge and information management (KIM). It should consider self-assessing against these reports, if it has not done so recently, and any training needs of its staff in these areas.