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

Citizen Housing (202329922)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329922

Citizen Housing

31 March 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 response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2019. The property is a 1-bedroom flat.
  2. The resident first reported damp and mould in her bedroom on 15 December 2021. She instructed a solicitor to raise a disrepair claim and it contacted the landlord on 20 June 2022.
  3. As part of the disrepair claim a surveyor inspected the property in October 2023. It completed a report that set out what repairs the landlord should complete as follows:
    1. Mould washes to the surfaces of the hallway, living room, kitchen, bathroom and storage room.
    2. Apply 2 coats of suitable paint finish to the internal areas of the hallway, living room, kitchen, bathroom and storage room.
    3. Repair plaster on the outer facing wall of the hallway and refit a skirting board.
    4. Insert a clay/concrete ventilator in living room, bedroom and storage room.
    5. Survey and replace the kitchen extractor fan.
    6. Install an extractor fan in the bathroom.
  4. The landlord and the resident’s solicitor reached an out of court settlement on 20 April 2023. Under the terms of the settlement the landlord would pay damages of £1,250 to be offset against any rent arrears. It would also complete all repairs as set out in the surveyor’s report within 120 days. The landlord paid the settlement figure to the resident on 22 May 2023. She received £619.79 after the landlord assigned £630.21 to rent arrears
  5. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 10 July 2023. She said the damp and mould issues had gone on too long. She did not want to stay in the property because she had a young baby.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 19 July 2023. It told her it had completed all the damp and mould works agreed in the settlement. It arranged for her Housing Officer to contact her to discuss her options for moving home.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 11 August 2023. During its stage 2 investigation the landlord identified delays in arranging appointments to inspect the damp and mould. It apologised in its stage 2 response on 12 September 2023. It awarded her £100 compensation.
  8. The resident contacted this Service on 4 December 2023. She said landlord’s actions to treat the damp and mould had been ineffective. The damp and mould damaged her belongings and had caused her baby to be unwell. She wants the landlord to move her to a new property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has reported damage to her personal belongings. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. As she did not raise the damage to her personal belongings to the landlord during her complaint we have been unable to consider that in our investigation. She should contact the landlord directly and ask it to consider a new formal complaint about the damage to her personal belongings if she remains unhappy about that.
  2. This Service’s jurisdiction guidance states that “a threat of possible court action is not, in itself, legal action and will not normally take a matter outside our jurisdiction.” The landlord confirmed to this Service that it agreed the disrepair settlement with the resident, through her solicitor without the involvement of the courts. Therefore, we have considered the settlement as part of our investigation.
  3. The resident has raised concerns about the impact of damp and mould on her family’s health. The Ombudsman cannot determine liability for damages, including whether a landlord’s action or inaction caused or worsened a health condition. Such matters are best suited to investigation through the courts or by way of a personal injury insurance claim. However, any distress or inconvenience caused by the landlord’s level of service is considered below. 

Damp and mould

  1. Damp and mould are potential category 1 hazards that fall within the scope of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of its obligations under HHSRS and where a potential hazard is identified, conduct inspections and additional monitoring of the home. Inspections should be carried out as soon as possible after an issue is reported, with any recommendations being followed up and actioned. Communication with the resident during this time is essential to set out clear expectations and timescales for the works that have come from the inspection. 
  2. At the time the resident reported damp and mould the landlord did not have a separate damp and mould policy. Its repairs policy stated it should respond to reports of damp and mould in a timely way. It did not include timescales for how long it should respond to a resident’s first report of damp and mould. However, from evidence the landlord provided it appears it had an internal target of 1 week to inspect a report of damp and mould at that time. It’s repairs policy also said it would attend to and complete repairs in line with published timescales. However, it is not recorded what timescales it was expected to follow at the time of the resident’s complaint. Where available we have used the landlord’s evidence to assess it against what timeframes it had set for repairs.
  3. The resident first reported damp and mould in her home on 15 December 2021. Against its internal target of 1 week, it was not appropriate the landlord took over 7 weeks to first inspect the damp and mould on 7 February 2022. During that visit it identified a further visit with a mould inspector was required to identify how to improve the ventilation in the property. It was not appropriate it took a further 6 weeks for it to attend to that appointment, on 28 March 2022. Given there was no access for that visit it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have arranged another appointment with the resident but there is no evidence it did that. The resident had reported further damp and mould in other areas of her home on 25 March 2022. It is unclear why it took almost 2 months for the landlord to raise a job on 12 May 2022 to complete a mould wash.
  4. The resident, through her solicitor issued a letter of claim to the landlord on 20 June 2022, for a disrepair claim relating to the damp and mould in her home. It said it had previously sent it in May 2022 but there is no evidence the landlord received that letter. From the evidence provided it appears the landlord handled the claim under the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims.
  5. The landlord cancelled the outstanding mould wash on 22 June 2022 due to the resident’s disrepair claim. Internal system notes from that time showed that it would only complete emergency repairs for the resident. If she wanted any general repairs, she would need to contact her solicitor. That approach was not reasonable because the landlord was still under its legal obligation to repair under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It also meant it prolonged the resident’s experience of living with damp and mould
  6. After the surveyor provided its report in October 2022, it was positive that the landlord began action to complete those repairs in advance agreement of the settlement. That showed it was treating the resident’s concerns seriously. It raised the job to complete those repairs on 3 December 2022. Its internal system showed it aimed to complete those repairs within 12 days. It attended within that timeframe on 8 December 2022 but there was no access to the property.
  7. It completed the majority of the repairs outlined in the surveyor’s report on 28 March 2023 (after 2 further appointments without access on 23 January and 10 February). After that appointment the only repairs outstanding were to the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen. Given there were issues accessing the property it was reasonable that the landlord did not complete the repairs within its initial 12 day target. However, it did not provide evidence to show that it had kept the resident updated during that period as it should have.
  8. On 20 April 2023 the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord accepting its offer of £1,250 in full and final settlement of the claims for damages and disrepair of the property. It told the landlord it should complete the works set out in the surveyor’s report within 120 days of the settlement. It was appropriate the landlord completed the extractor fan repairs within the time allowed by the settlement, on 22 June 2023. That meant it had completed all the repairs agreed to in the settlement.
  9. The resident told the landlord that the damp and mould issues had gone on for too long in her stage 1 complaint on 10 July 2023. She also reported further damp and mould in her home. The landlord acted promptly. It treated a small amount of damp and mould on the window frames on 13 July 2023. In a call to discuss her complaint on 18 July 2023 she confirmed that the landlord had completed all the repairs agreed in the disrepair settlement.
  10. In its stage 1 response on 19 July 2023 the landlord did not uphold her complaint because it had completed all the repairs from the disrepair settlement within the 120 days allowed. As she had complained about the length of time it had taken to resolve the damp and mould it missed an opportunity to set out its position of whether the amount offered in the settlement considered the period from when she first report damp and mould. It was appropriate it arranged for her Housing Officer to contact her to discuss her options for moving home. It was also reasonable that it agreed to complete another inspection. When it returned on 26 July 2023 it found no signs of damp and mould. It noted the property was well ventilated after the repairs it had completed.
  11. The landlord reconsidered its position at stage 2. In its investigation it identified it delayed in responding to the resident’s first report of damp and mould by over 6 weeks. It also found it had taken a further 6 weeks to arrange a follow up appointment though as previously mentioned in this report that appointment was not successful. Given it could have considered that it already addressed that delay within the settlement it was reasonable that it apologised and awarded her a further £100 compensation. The amount awarded was proportionate as the landlord’s compensation policy allows it to pay up to £250 for low impact service failings. It also falls within the service failure banding of this Service’s remedies guidance. It also agreed to complete a further inspection.
  12. The landlord attempted the further damp and mould inspection it agreed to in its stage 2 response in October and December 2023. It was unable to access the property on both occasions. After 2 failed attempts it was reasonable it asked the resident to contact it to arrange a new appointment. The resident did not contact the landlord to arrange an inspection.
  13. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould prior to the resident’s letter of claim would normally be considered as maladministration. This Service would usually order compensation of between £100 to £600 where the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident was significant, but not permanent. In this instance, the failings identified had no permanent effect on the overall service provided. While it should not have taken the involvement of a solicitor to prompt the landlord to take action it is noted that it was proactive in its response to the repairs the surveyor identified. It completed most of those repairs before the settlement was agreed and the remainder shortly after. As the landlord has already offered the resident a total of £1,350 to acknowledge the impact of its failings. The Ombudsman considers the offer to be reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the compensation of £100 offered in its stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
  2. The landlord should complete a further damp and mould inspection of the property. The inspection should include a risk assessment that considers any vulnerabilities within the household. It should update its records to include details of any vulnerabilities within the household.
  3. The landlord should provide the resident with details of how to make a claim against its insurance for her damaged personal belongings.