Citizen Housing (202417758)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417758

Citizen Housing

23 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 response to the resident’s:
   1. Request for compensation for damage to her belongings caused by damp and mould.
   2. Associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord and lives in a house with her 3 children.
3. On 3 December 2023, the resident complained that the landlord had removed her house keys from the key safe without permission while she was temporarily moved out of the property for repairs. She also said the landlord had not returned the keys.
4. On 18 December 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It said it had temporarily moved the resident out to upgrade her kitchen and bathroom but had discovered severe rising damp throughout the property. It highlighted that it had no record of the resident reporting damp and that all repairs should be reported as soon as they arise. It said it had placed dehumidifiers in the property to dry it out, and that this process would take around 3 months before it could start the works. The landlord explained that it had removed the resident’s access to her keys for her safety, as it considered the property unsafe. The landlord told the resident to get back in touch once she had moved back into the property and said it would address any claims for compensation at that stage.
5. The resident returned to her home on 19 April 2024.
6. On 30 June 2024, she asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. She explained that she had purchased a new sofa and left it in the property during the drying-out period. She said the landlord had not kept the dehumidifiers running at all times, which led to damp and mould damaging the sofa. She also said the carpets throughout her home had been ruined during the repairs.
7. The resident said she felt unhappy with how the landlord managed her temporary move, stating that she had not received clear updates about whether she would remain in the temporary accommodation or move elsewhere, which caused her and her children stress and anxiety. She also said she felt unhappy that the landlord had reported her to children’s social services and believed it had discriminated against her because of her parenting.
8. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 1 August 2024. It said it was not responsible for the damage to the resident’s sofa, as she had not reported damp or mould before contractors discovered it. Therefore, it was not given the opportunity to address the matter at an earlier stage. It also said the resident chose to purchase a new sofa before it had dealt with the damp and mould in the property. The landlord said it had regularly checked the property after moving the resident out to ensure it remained dry before starting repairs. However, it acknowledged that it should have offered the resident storage for her furniture during the temporary move, and for that reason, it agreed to reimburse her for the cost of the sofa if she could provide proof of purchase.
9. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also said that its contractors had placed plastic covers over the carpets during the works. However, after reviewing a photo the resident sent showing marks on the carpet, it would arrange to have the carpets deep cleaned. Finally, it said it had learned from her complaint and would now make sure to discuss storage needs with residents during temporary moves.
10. On 2 August 2024, the resident emailed the landlord a copy of a handwritten receipt for the sofa. She explained that she had purchased the sofa through Facebook Marketplace. The landlord replied on the same day and said it needed clearer proof of purchase such as a bank transfer screenshot, messages with the seller, or the original listing for the sofa. The resident stated that she had spoken to the seller over the phone and paid in cash, so did not have any other evidence. The landlord offered her £250 compensation to acknowledge its failure to discuss storage options during the temporary move but said it could not reimburse her for the sofa without sufficient proof of purchase.
11. On 10 September 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to our service. She said she disagreed with the landlord’s decisions about the sofa and carpets. She explained that she had rejected the offer of a carpet clean because works had been extensive and, in her view, would have transferred bacteria and germs that a deep clean could not remove. She said she wanted the landlord to either replace or reimburse her for both the sofa and the carpets.
12. On 19 December 2024, the resident told the landlord that she had removed the carpets throughout the property because of the damage and the smell. On 24 December 2024, the landlord repeated the points from its stage 2 complaint response and said the resident did not accept its offer of a deep clean. It said that because she had removed the carpets without giving it the chance to put things right, it would not offer compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

13. The resident’s stage 2 complaint stated that she was unhappy with how the landlord handled her temporary move. We asked the resident whether the landlord had addressed this concern separately, as its stage 2 complaint response did not refer to it. She confirmed that the landlord was investigating the handling of the temporary move under a separate complaint. As such, we have not assessed the landlord’s actions on this point as part of this investigation. Once the resident completes the landlord’s complaints process for that issue, and if she remains dissatisfied, she may bring a new complaint to this service for consideration.
14. The resident also said she was unhappy that the landlord had reported her to children’s social services. We recognise that this was a significant concern for her. However, paragraph 42 (j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which can be found on our website, states that we will not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) is the appropriate body to investigate the landlord’s decision to make a safeguarding referral. We have therefore not assessed this aspect of the complaint as part of this investigation. The resident can contact the LGSCO if she wishes to pursue this matter further.

Legal policy and framework

15. The landlord’s compensation policy says it may offer compensation when a resident suffers a loss due to its negligence. This could include reimbursing specific financial losses, such as the cost to replace personal belongings damaged as a direct result of its actions.
16. The policy also says that when making a compensation claim, residents must provide relevant supporting information, including proof of negligence and evidence of the item’s value or damage.
17. The landlord may also offer discretionary goodwill payments of up to £700, depending on the significance of a service failure and its impact on the resident.
18. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to her belongings caused by damp and mould

19. The resident said the landlord failed to keep the dehumidifiers running at all times during her temporary move, which caused damp and mould to spread and damage her new sofa. The landlord disputed this and said it had regularly inspected the property during her temporary move to ensure it remained dry. As an impartial service, we base decisions on the available evidence. In this case, we cannot determine whether the dehumidifiers were switched off or whether this contributed to the damage, due to conflicting accounts and a lack of supporting evidence either way.
20. However, the landlord acknowledged it failed to offer the resident storage for her belongings during the temporary move. In the context of known damp issues, it was reasonable for the landlord to accept some responsibility for the damage as it should have offered storage for the resident’s belongings. Its offer to reimburse the resident for the cost of the sofa, subject to proof of purchase, was in line with its compensation policy and represented a proportionate response.
21. The landlord’s compensation policy requires residents to provide evidence to support the value of any items lost or damaged. The landlord showed some flexibility in what evidence it was willing to accept, including informal sources such as a copy of the listing or messages with the seller. In this case, the resident could not provide anything beyond a handwritten receipt. These circumstances are not uncommon, particularly where residents purchase second-hand items at short notice or with limited resources.
22. However, in the absence of further supporting evidence, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the resident had not met the evidential threshold set out in its policy. Its decision not to reimburse the full costs of the sofa was in line with its stated requirements. Social landlords are expected to account for any costs they incur, and the landlord needed to have evidence of the cost of the sofa to confirm why it had reimbursed the amount it had. Its decision instead to offer a discretionary payment of £250 for failing to offer storage during the temporary move, was a proportionate and reasonable response based on the information it had been provided with and appropriately reflected its partial responsibility for the damage.
23. The resident said the carpets throughout her home had been damaged during the works, and that a deep clean would not have addressed the extent of the problem. While we acknowledge the resident’s legitimate concerns, the landlord took reasonable steps to protect the carpet and was entitled to offer a practical remedy for any damage caused before considering compensation. In cases of visible marks or contamination, a deep clean would usually be the appropriate first response. This is different to cases involving clear physical damage, such as a rip or tear, where replacement may be required. If the clean had not restored the carpets to the resident’s satisfaction, she could have raised further concerns at that stage, giving the landlord the opportunity to reassess its position. It may have been appropriate to offer a replacement if the cleaning did not remove the damage.
24. The resident later informed the landlord that she had removed the carpets herself due to the smell and extent of the damage. While we recognise the distress this caused, by the time the landlord became aware of this, it no longer had the opportunity to inspect the carpets or confirm their condition. In line with its compensation policy, the landlord was entitled to request evidence to support the claim before considering compensation. In these circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to decide not to offer compensation for the carpets once they had been removed.
25. Overall, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s compensation request. It acted in line with its compensation policy when assessing the claim for the sofa and provided a practical remedy for the carpets. While we acknowledge the resident’s distress, the landlord took appropriate steps to put things right. We find that this element of the complaint was reasonably resolved.
26. We recommend that the landlord pay the resident the £250 compensation it offered for failing to offer storage of her sofa, if it has not done so already. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress determination is on the basis that this payment is made.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint

27. The resident complained that the landlord had removed her keys from the key safe without permission and had not returned them. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord explained it had done so to prevent access while the property was considered unsafe. This was a reasonable explanation, as landlords have a duty to secure vacant properties and limit liability or risk where works are pending. However, it would have been better practice to explain this decision to the resident at the outset, so she understood what to expect during the temporary move.
28. Clear communication in advance helps to avoid confusion, manage expectations, and build trust during major works. We recommend that going forward the landlord considers asking residents to sign a schedule of works or temporary move agreement, outlining expectations about access and responsibilities during a temporary move, to ensure a shared understanding and better record-keeping.
29. Both the landlord’s complaint responses said that it had no record of the resident reporting damp and mould in the property. When we spoke to the resident on 11 April 2025, she told us that she did report a leak in her kitchen that was not addressed. While we would expect a landlord to consider whether an unresolved leak could contribute to damp and mould, we have seen no evidence in its records that the resident reported a leak. The resident was also unable to locate any correspondence to support her account. As a result, we cannot conclude that the landlord acted unreasonably in stating it had no record of her reports of damp and mould. However, if the resident is able to locate evidence of her reports, she can raise a separate complaint with the landlord so these can be considered.
30. Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaints in a timely and reasonable manner and provided a clear explanation for removing the key safe. While there were opportunities to improve communication, the landlord’s overall approach was fair. We find no maladministration in its complaint handling.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer prior to our involvement, which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to her belongings caused by damp and mould.
32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s associated complaint.

Recommendations

33. We recommend that the landlord pay the resident the £250 compensation it offered for failing to offer storage of her sofa, if it has not done so already. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress determination is made on the basis that this is paid.
34. We recommend that going forward, the landlord consider asking residents to sign a schedule of works or temporary move agreement, outlining expectations about access and responsibilities during a temporary move, to ensure a shared understanding and better record-keeping.