Connexus Homes Limited (202330013)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330013

Connexus Homes Limited

10 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident held an assured tenancy of a 1-bedroom ground-floor flat with the landlord. Her tenancy began in October 2022. The landlord is a housing association and freeholder of the property. The landlord is aware of the resident’s physical and mental health vulnerabilities.
On 26 April 2023 the resident reported mould on her hallway skirting boards. Her local MP also sent a letter raising concerns about the resident’s reports. The landlord raised an order on 27 April 2023 to survey the property for damp and mould and completed an inspection on 4 May 2023. The landlord identified a leak under the property’s concrete floor and discussed temporarily moving the resident to complete the repair.
On 5 May 2023 the resident informed the landlord that she was in hospital. She considered her property’s condition the cause of her ill health. The landlord secured her a 2-bedroom temporary home where she remained until February 2024.
The resident complained to the landlord on 20 September 2023. She said she needed a permanent move and did not want to move back to her flat. She said it had not done anything to resolve “rising damp” and repeated her concerns about the effects on her health.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 3 October 2023. The landlord said it had:
1. identified and resolved a leak at the property
2. surveyed the property and found no signs of rising damp
3. considered the resident’s health concerns and was supporting her to find permanent alternative accommodation
4. explained why she was not able to remain in the 2-bedroom temporary property
5. offered to meet her to explain the findings of the property survey
The resident escalated her complaint on 27 October 2023. She stated she was due compensation for her damaged possessions and for 11 days in hospital. She alleged the wet concrete floor and resulting mould had damaged her laminate flooring, decoration, dado rail, and her health. Furthermore, she alleged a former tenant had told her that there had been ongoing problems with the property’s floor which the landlord had not resolved.
The landlord sent it stage 2 response on 3 November 2023. It said it:
1. fully recognised that having a leak in the flat and moving out for repairs would have been stressful
2. remained satisfied with its response to the repair and her complaint
3. had reminded the resident of her responsibility to have contents insurance but said it had referred her claims to its insurer
4. had acted quickly to provide the resident with an alternative temporary home and also secured her a permanent move in February 2024
5. disputed her claims that the identified leak had happened before
6. would not agree to compensate for her damaged decoration but it would pay her removal costs
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She said the landlord should compensate her for the damage caused to her flooring, decoration, and her health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident considers the landlord should pay her compensation for the water damage caused to her flooring and decoration. Her complaint to us also said the landlord should pay her compensation for her ill health, which she attributed to the property’s water leak.
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability, nor award damages. Whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or personal finances requires a decision by an insurance claim or through the courts. Our role is to investigate if the landlord acted fairly, reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages.
While this will not form part of our investigation, we will consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. Our decisions consider whether the landlord kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. If we find failure by a landlord, we can consider any distress and inconvenience caused.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

The landlord recognises its repair obligations in the resident’s tenancy agreement and in its damp, condensation, and mould policy. This is appropriate and consistent with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Upon receiving a report of damp and mould, the landlord’s damp, condensation, and mould policy states it will:
1. instruct a specialist contractor to contact the resident within 5 working days
2. visit the resident within 10 working days
The same policy says it will discuss with the resident any major remedial work and if required it will arrange temporary accommodation.
The landlord’s compensation policy advises residents to have their own home contents insurance to insure their personal possessions and decorations against damage.
The same policy states if a resident does not have home contents insurance, it will consider whether their claim is an issue for its own insurers to advise and determine.
The resident’s tenancy conditions state a resident must not make any improvements, alterations, or additions to the property without first getting consent from the landlord. This includes installing laminate flooring.
In contact with us on 5 March 2025 the resident confirmed that her tenancy started in October 2022. She said she decorated the property, fitted laminate flooring in January 2023, and reported the presence of damp and mould on 26 April 2023. The resident stated that the concrete floor was dry prior to installing the new flooring.
On receipt of the resident’s reports, the evidence shows the landlord visited the property within 5 working days. This was appropriate and within the landlord’s damp, condensation, and mould policy response times.
During the landlord’s inspection, it identified a leak from under the property’s concrete floor which required major remedial work. It was satisfied this had caused the presence of damp and mould as the laminate flooring had trapped the water. It considered the work involved to resolve the issue and planned to move the resident to temporary accommodation due to her health and the repair disruptions. This was consistent with its damp, condensation, and mould policy.
On 5 May 2023 the resident required hospital treatment for breathing difficulties for pre-diagnosed health conditions. She remained in hospital for 11 days and considered the property responsible for her ill health. It is understandable that the need for medical support would have caused the resident distress. It is however a matter for a court or insurer to decide whether the landlord’s actions or lack of action affected her health.
The landlord secured temporary accommodation for the resident between May 2023 to February 2024. She moved directly from hospital to the temporary accommodation in May 2023, avoiding the need to return to her flat. This demonstrated the landlord took the resident’s health concerns seriously.
Between May 2023 to September 2023 the landlord completed the necessary repairs and checked the property for damp and mould. It identified no evidence of rising damp and meter readings continued to remain within the required moisture levels. It was satisfied the property was safe for the resident to return to. The evidence shows the resident did not want to return home and sought to remain in the 2-bedroom temporary accommodation.
The resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on 3 May 2023 and 3 August 2023. They sought an update regarding the resident’s reports of rising damp and her desire not to return home. While the evidence demonstrates the landlord acted on the resident’s concerns, we have been unable to identify if it responded to the MP on either occasion. We have therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to remind its staff of the importance of record keeping.
Between September 2023 to February 2024 the landlord encouraged the resident to return home. It also explained housing law and that she was unable to remain in a 2-bedroom property based on her 1-bedroom need. It met with her on 13 September 2023 to discuss her concerns.
The evidence from the meeting shows it considered the resident’s health vulnerabilities and offered her a direct let and supported living. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord using its discretion to offer her alternative permanent accommodation. There is no evidence of an obligation for the landlord to offer this.
The resident’s complaint said a former tenant had told her the landlord had repaired a similar flooring problem before. In contact with us on 5 March 2025, the resident explained photographic evidence she had supplied. She described images of work to the concrete floor during the former tenant’s and her own tenancy. As such, she considered the landlord had failed to complete the repair properly, resulting in damage to her flooring and decoration.
The landlord disputes the resident’s understanding of past repairs at the property. We have identified that it completed an inspection and work to improve the condition of the concrete floor in April 2022. However, this involved improving the floors condition, and screeding. There is no record of a similar leak repair.
Furthermore, while the photographs supplied clearly show exposed pipework, there was no evidence of any leak or water damage. This is consistent with the resident’s comments to us that there had been no visible water leak when she laid her laminate flooring in January 2023.
The resident questioned whether the landlord’s workmanship to repair the concrete floor had caused the pipes to leak. While we are not expert in construction, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its specialist staff and contractors. It completed the work approximately 8 months before the resident experienced a leak. We are therefore unable to determine any failure by the landlord.
The evidence supplied shows the landlord had no record of it giving the resident consent to lay the laminate flooring. In contact with us the resident said she had received verbal consent from a named officer but had nothing in writing. In these situations, it is common for landlord’s to recharge residents for the removal of non-standard items at the end of their tenancy. It is reasonable in the circumstances that the landlord did not do this in this case.
The evidence shows the landlord discussed the resident’s health and laminate flooring claims. Its stage 2 response informed her it had referred these matters to its insurer. This was appropriate and consistent with its compensation policy.
That said, in contact with us on 5 March 2025, the resident advised she had never received any contact from the landlord’s insurers. She believed all matters remained with her complaint through us. Given the landlord informed us that its insurers had logged the resident’s claim on 30 November 2023, it is unclear why she did not receive a response or decision. We have therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to follow this matter up and provide the resident with a response.
While the effects of a leak would understandably cause distress, we have not identified a failure by the landlord. The evidence shows the landlord completed work to the concrete floor approximately 8 months before the resident’s repair need. It is reasonable that the laminate flooring temporarily hid the evidence of the leak. This may have caused the damp and mould to develop under the flooring and the skirting boards.
The landlord demonstrated responding appropriately when informed of the damp. It took steps to identify the repair and supported the resident with temporary accommodation. It completed the repair, confirmed there to be no rising damp, and based on the resident’s wellbeing, supported her with a permanent move to suitable alternative accommodation.
Based on our findings, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In contact with the resident in March 2025, she said she still did not have home contents insurance and was unsure what to do about this matter. We have therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to contact her to inform her of the home contents support it advertises via its website.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days. And for landlord’s to respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
The landlord provided us a copy of its relevant complaints policy which demonstrated compliance with these expectations.
The resident complained on 20 September 2023. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord acknowledged her complaint within 5 working days and sent its stage 1 response within 10 working days. This was consistent with its complaints policy and the Code.
The resident escalated her complaint on 27 October 2023. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord acknowledged and responded to this request within its complaints policy response times.
The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint at either stage 1 or 2 of its complaints procedure. It demonstrated thoroughly considering the resident’s concerns, explaining its actions in line with its policies and procedures, and met the expectations of its complaints policy and the Code.
Based on our findings, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord reminds staff of the importance of information management and accurate record keeping.
We recommend the landlord follows up on the insurance claim of November 2023 and provides the resident with an explanation why she received no contact.
We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to offer her information about its ‘my home contents insurance scheme’.