From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Arawak Walton Housing Association Limited (202423457)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423457

Arawak Walton Housing Association Limited

29 August 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 repairs including:
    1. A window.
    2. A bathroom leak.
    3. The associated damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord recorded the resident’s wife as vulnerable due to a mental health condition and unspecified disability.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord in August 2023 and reported a leak coming from the bathroom into the hallway below. The landlord inspected the same day and identified a large amount of water on the floor in the bathroom and down the side of the bath panel. Its operative noted the resident reported his wife had difficulty using the shower which “added to the amount of water on the floor”. The notes reflect it recommended installing a wet room.
  3. In January 2024, the resident reported a window had come out of its frame. The landlord logged this as a window replacement.
  4. The landlord completed an annual inspection at the property in February 2024. It found issues with damp and mould in the kitchen, bathroom, and hallways. The landlord completed an inspection of the bathroom in March 2024 and found “movement” in the bathroom floor. It raised interim repairs to the bathroom floor while the resident was awaiting the installation of the wet room. It also raised a repair to replace the extractor fan that was not working. It does not appear the repairs went ahead at that time.
  5. The resident made a complaint on 20 June 2024 about the outstanding repair issues at the property. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 1 July 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £300 in compensation. It accepted it was “wrong” not to progress with the interim repairs while the resident was waiting for the wet room and had raised the repairs again. It said it was unable to explain why it had taken so long to replace the window, but it was now in stock and its contractor would be in touch to book the repair. It gave advice about ventilation in the property and said it had raised a repair to the extractor fan in the bathroom.
  6. The landlord raised a mould treatment at the property in July 2024. The information available indicates the resident asked it to complete the bathroom repairs before doing the mould works. The landlord replaced the extractor fan in the bathroom on 8 July 2024, and the window on 16 July 2024.
  7. The resident asked the landlord to open a stage 2 complaint on 9 September 2024. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs and the “majority” of the repairs were outstanding. The landlord inspected the property again in October 2024 to identify the works needed.
  8. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 24 October 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint, apologised, and offered a further £200 in compensation for its handling of the repairs. It outlined the findings of its inspection in October 2024 and outlined the repairs it planned to complete. This included repairing the bathroom floor, treating the mould, redecorating all 3 bedrooms, and renewing the hallway ceiling damaged by the leaks.
  9. The landlord installed the wet room in February 2025, and it repaired the bathroom floor around this time. It also completed the ceiling repairs around this time. The landlord completed the mould treatment and decoration of the bedrooms in March 2025.
  10. The resident contacted us in May 2025 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs, including damp and mould. He said he was concerned about the impact of mould on the health of his household members. He also raised a concern about a leak from the roof that he said was contributing to damp and mould issues.

 

 

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

  1. The evidence shows the resident raised concerns about the bathroom, and the flooring in particular, dating back to 2021. He also raised concerns about damp and mould from 2017. We are unable to investigate matters dating back to 2017 and 2021, due to the passage of time. This is because evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation. This makes it difficult to carry out a thorough investigation of historic matters. We have considered the landlord’s handling of the events in the 12 months leading up to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of June 2024. This approach is taken in line with that set out in our Scheme which says we will not investigate complaints which were not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable amount of time, normally within 12 months of the matter arising.
  2. When the resident asked us to investigate his complaint, he raised concerns about a leak from the roof which he said was contributing to damp and mould in the property. We have also seen evidence the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection at the resident’s property in June 2025. This investigation is focused on the matters in the complaints process when the resident complained in June 2024 up until the landlord’s final complaint response in October 2024. We have seen no evidence the resident raised concerns about the roof during this complaints process, and the damp and mould inspection took place 8 months after the resident exhausted the complaints process. As such, these concerns are not within the scope of this investigation.
  3. The resident may wish to raise a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the roof leak and more recent actions in relation to damp and mould. We may be able to then investigate if he remains unhappy after exhausting the landlord’s complaints process.
  4. When he asked us to investigate, the resident said the landlord’s handling of the repairs had impacted on the health of his household. We acknowledge the serious nature of this issue and the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of our remit.
  5. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if he considers the health of his household was affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. However, it is widely accepted that damp and mould can pose a risk to health. We have considered this general risk, rather than any specific impact on health. We have also considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord, and how it responded to his concerns about health.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
  2. Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Where landlords identify a hazard in the property, they should inspect, assess, and decide what preventative measures should be taken within a reasonable time in order to prevent harm or injury to occupants. Landlords should also consider if a property affected by a hazard is fit for human habitation under s 9A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  3. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it has 3 categories of repairs. Emergency repairs which it will attend to within 24 hours. Urgent repairs which it will complete within 7 days. Routine repairs which it will complete within 21 days.
  4. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will take proactive responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould issues.

Repairs to the bathroom

  1. The evidence shows the landlord was on notice about repairs to the bathroom from 16 February 2024, when it completed its annual inspection. It inspected the bathroom on 29 February 2024. This was within the timeframe for routine repairs set out in its policy, and within a reasonable period. The notes from the inspection show the operative noted there was “movement” in the floor, and raised interim repairs. The evidence shows the repairs raised to the floor did not progress at the time. This was unreasonable. The resident was evidently concerned at the condition of the floor. The lack of action by the landlord may have increased the distress he experienced.
  2. The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to acknowledge and apologise for its failure to progress with the interim repairs. It was also appropriate to manage the resident’s expectations that it may take 14 to 16 months to install the wet room. Installing a wet room can be a lengthy process as in this case it involved applying for a grant from the local authority and the landlord then needed time to arrange for contractors to inspect and give quotes before it could schedule the works and order fittings. It explained it would complete interim repairs ahead of installing the wet room.
  3. However, the landlord failed to progress with the bathroom repairs following its stage 1 complaint response. This is evidence it failed to learn from the outcomes of its handling of the repairs up to that point. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to chase the repairs in July 2024.
  4. The landlord replaced the extractor fan in July 2024. This was 5 months after it was on notice and was an unreasonable delay. The lack of urgency to complete this repair is particularly concerning considering the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  5. The resident was further inconvenienced by the need to make a stage 2 complaint in September 2024, before the landlord sought to complete further bathroom repairs. The evidence shows the landlord sought to progress with the interim repairs in September and October 2024 but had difficulty in gaining access to the property. We have seen evidence the landlord sent the resident 3 letters during this period. It explained it was seeking to progress with the interim repairs and reminded the resident of his responsibilities to give access for repairs. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances. The difficulty in gaining access to the property impacted on the landlord’s ability to progress with the repairs at that time.
  6. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to set out the interim repairs it planned to complete in the bathroom before the wet room could be installed. It also, appropriately, apologised for the further delays in progressing with the repairs.
  7. According to the landlord’s repair records it raised the bathroom repairs again in November 2024. This repair was marked as complete in February 2025. The evidence shows the landlord completed the repairs to the flooring when it installed the wet room. This was a pragmatic approach considering the previous difficulty it had in gaining access, and the complex nature of the repairs. To schedule all the outstanding repairs alongside fitting the wet room to reduce the inconvenience to the resident of having to be available for multiple separate appointments. The landlord appropriately completed all the bathroom repairs needed when installing the wet room. This is evidence it sought to minimise the disruption for the resident.

Damp and mould

  1. The evidence shows the landlord identified issues with damp and mould at its annual inspection of the property in February 2024. We welcome the fact it uses such inspections to proactively identify damp and mould issues in its properties. This is evidence it adhered to the approach set out in its damp and mould policy. However, we have seen no evidence it sought to complete a further inspection, or progress with repairs related to damp and mould, at the time. This inconvenienced the resident and the landlord missed an opportunity to quickly identify possible solutions to the damp and mould within the property.
  2. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to make a complaint before the landlord sought to progress with repairs related to the damp and mould. The landlord appropriately used its stage 1 complaint response to apologise to the resident and set out the repairs it planned to do to alleviate the damp and mould.
  3. The evidence shows the landlord sought to progress with the mould treatment and redecorations of the bedrooms in July and November 2024. This is evidence it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. The information available shows the resident declined the mould treatment at the time as he wanted the landlord to complete the bathroom works first. This impacted on the landlord’s ability to respond to this issue.
  4. The evidence shows the landlord completed the mould treatment and redecoration works in March 2025. We acknowledge this was a long delay from when it was on notice. However, we have decided the landlord cannot be held responsible for the entirety of the delay. The evidence shows the landlord sought to book the works again in November 2024, but the resident asked to wait until the wet room installation was finished. The works were completed on 28 March 2025. This was outside of the timeframes in its repairs policy. However, it was not an excessive delay following the completion of the wet room.

Repairs to windows

  1. The evidence shows the landlord was on notice about the window repair and the need to replace it from January 2024. There was an unreasonable delay of 6 months in completing the repair. The resident was inconvenienced by having a boarded up window in his property for this period.
  2. The landlord accepted it was not proactive in progressing the repair. It used its stage 1 complaint response to apologise for its handling of the window replacement. It showed transparency by explaining the window was now in stock but it had not progressed with the repair. It sought to reassure the resident it would progress with the repair now the window was in stock.
  3. There was an unreasonable delay in replacing the window. However, the landlord replaced the window 2 weeks after it sent its stage 1 complaint response. This is evidence it showed learning from its handling of the matter. It progressed with the repair with the appropriate urgency after identifying errors through its complaint investigation.

The landlord’s offer of redress for the repairs

  1. The landlord accepted that its handling of the repairs was poor and the time taken to complete repairs was unreasonable. It is not possible to determine how the compensation offered was calculated against individual repair issues because the landlord has not provided a breakdown. As such, this investigation has considered the overall offer of compensation and whether it fully put things right for the resident.
  2. We welcome the fact the landlord apologised, showed transparency in its response, and offered compensation for its handling of the repairs. This is evidence it sought to adopt our dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes and putting things right. Our remedies guidance sets out that an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident when there is a failure by the landlord “which adversely affected the resident”. This depends on severity of the failing and the impact on the resident. Considering, the errors identified above we have determined the landlord’s total offer of £500 in compensation was appropriate to put things right for the resident. This decision was reached when taking all the circumstances of this case into account.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress which, in our opinion, resolved errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs including a window, a bathroom leak and the associated damp and mould.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £500 in compensation it offered in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the repairs. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on an understanding that this will be paid.