Cornwall Housing Limited (202431990)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431990

Cornwall Housing Limited

28 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The tenancy began in December 2020. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident lives at the property with her non-dependent child.
The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 15 April 2024. The landlord issued the final stage 2 complaint response on 16 October 2024.
During the complaint process:

a. The resident expressed dissatisfaction about unresolved damp and mould in the property since the start of the tenancy. The resident told the landlord that it should either resolve the damp and mould or move her. She asked the landlord to compensate her for the damage caused to her furniture and belongings, and for the length of time it was taking to resolve the substantive issue.

b. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and stage 2. It tried to put things right by apologising, by committing to a course of action to remedy the substantive issue, and by making an offer of compensation. This compensation was broken down as follows:

£500 compensation as reimbursement for the resident’s damaged items (offered at stage 1).
£96.32 as reimbursement for the costs of cleaning the resident’s computer (offered at stage 1).
£250 compensation for the length of time that the matter had been ongoing (offered at stage 1).
£250 compensation for the length of time it had taken for the landlord to complete the repairs (offer at stage 2).

The resident brought the complaint to us in November 2024 after continuing to experience issues with damp and mould in the property. She said this was impacting her mood and was adversely affecting her health and the health of her child. The resident explained that her bed and furnishings were damp, which was “utterly miserable”.
The resident told us on 3 April 2025, that the landlord fixed the drainage problems outside the bedroom window in February 2025, after persistent chasing. But said there were still unresolved issues with damp and mould, everything was still wet and she was unclear if there was a plan for addressing the outstanding issues. She confirmed that the landlord had recently added her to its management move list. She reiterated that the landlord should fix the damp and mould in a timely manner or move her somewhere more suitable.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident referenced in the stage 1 complaint, that she had repeatedly complained to the landlord about damp and mould. We were unable to verify any formal complaints made by the resident prior to April 2024, after liaising with both the landlord and the resident.
Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between April 2023 and October 2024. This being 12 months prior to the resident making the substantive complaint, through to when the landlord’s internal complaint procedure was exhausted. Events that happened outside of this timeframe may be referenced in this report but will not be assessed.
We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is a matter for the courts. However, this investigation may consider the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the situation.
We are unable to determine liability for damaged belongings. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. But we may investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures, when considering the resident’s request for compensation.

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

The landlord had a contractual and statutory obligation under the tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. Landlords are expected to complete identified repairs within a reasonable timescale of being notified of the repair.
The landlord had an obligation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the property free of hazards, which were so serious that the dwelling would not be suitable for occupation in that condition. In accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), damp and mould growth are considered as potential hazards. A property that is fit for human habitation would be free of damp and mould that could cause significant harm.
According to the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours to make safe. It will complete urgent repairs within 7 days and routine repairs within 28 days.
The landlord had a separate policy for handling reports of damp, mould, and condensation. The landlord will respond to reports of damp and mould within 10 working days. It will work with the resident to understand the cause(s) of the issue and then provide a plan with a suitable timeframe as to how the situation will be resolved. If damp and mould returns, it will arrange for an independent surveyor to carry out further investigations to establish what other actions could be taken. The landlord will ensure that the resident is contacted following any action taken and will check that the matter has been resolved.
The landlord had a compensation policy, which set out the landlord’s approach to compensation. The landlord may pay compensation where there has been a serious failure of service, such as failure to carry out repairs within a set timescale, damage to property and belongings due to its negligence, loss of use a room for more than 2 days.
The amount of compensation offered by the landlord was dependent on the level of responsibility accepted by the landlord and the impact upon the resident’s quality of life, as a result the service breakdown. The landlord will pay between £50 and £250 compensation, where it accepts partial responsibly. And between £100 and £500, where it accepts full responsibility.

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

For context, the landlord carried out a tenancy visit in September 2021, noting damp in the front bedroom that “may have come from the garden outside being above the damp proof course”. The resident reported extreme condensation and damp and mould in the property between September 2021 and March 2023. The landlord carried out several damp and mould inspections over this timeframe and completed some works. We noted that the landlord raised an inspection for its contractor to look under the kitchen floor, which the resident said was bowing. However, this was not actioned. The landlord received a quotation on 29 March 2023 to upgrade the bathroom and kitchen fans, service the positive input ventilation unit (PIV) in the utility, and complete a mould wash.
The landlord received a quotation on 11 April 2023, to:

a. Investigate the damp along the party wall of the rear bedroom above the skirting board level and report back.

b. Check the recent downpipe repairs at the rear, where the bottom elbow joint was previously renewed. And check the integrity of the downpipe connection into the ground on the other side of the fencing.

c. Reduce the ground level below the front bedroom window opening to a minimum of 150mm below the damp proof course, to open up the sub floor ventilation air bricks. Which suggests that the landlord had not yet acted on its own observations from the 9-month tenancy visit in September 2021.

The landlord issued several works orders between 3 May 2023 and 4 May 2023, instructing its contractors to progress with the works previously quoted for on 29 March 2023 and 11 April 2023. This shows that the landlord was taking measures to diagnose and eliminate the possible causes of damp, mould, and condensation in the property, in line with its damp and mould policy. But it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have raised these works orders in a timelier manner. We also note that it gave these jobs a target completion date of 31 March 2024, which significantly exceeded expected completion timescales under its repairs policy. This was unreasonable given the landlord’s repairing obligations and the potential risk to the resident and her household from unresolved damp and mould.
We saw no evidence of the landlord proactively contacting the resident to update her on its plan to resolve the damp and mould in the property, or its expected timeframe for doing so. This was inappropriate and is likely to have left the resident unclear of its intentions.
The landlord’s contractor emailed the landlord on 11 January 2024, explaining that it had attended the property on 9 January 2024, to install 2 fans, complete a mould wash, and service the PIV but the tenant had refused the work. It explained that the resident wanted the landlord to remedy the subsidence issue and the water coming up through the floor. It noted that the resident was not using or switching on the PIV because it had no heating element and only blew cold air into the property. It suggested that the landlord may wish to fit a new PIV wall unit. It said it was unable to complete the kitchen fan upgrade, as it was located behind a cupboard and the resident did not want any more holes. It clarified that the resident had insisted that the fan be fitted after the landlord refurbished the kitchen. It asked the landlord to confirm how it should proceed.
The landlord emailed its contractor later the same day, expressing surprise that it had taken so long for it to attend, given that it had issued the works order in May 2023. The landlord then chased up the other contractor it instructed in May 2023, to investigate the damp and mould. The landlord said this job was “long overdue” and asked it to make an appointment with the resident to complete the work.
It was unhelpful that the resident did not allow the landlord’s contractor to carry out necessary remedial works on 9 January 2024. The resident ought to have been using the PIV, to help control the level of moisture in the property. We accept that it may have been uncomfortable for the resident if the PIV was blowing out cold air. The resident could have reported this to the landlord, who could then have addressed this, rather than switching the appliance off.
However, if the landlord had expected the jobs it raised in May 2023 to be completed in a timelier manner, it should have set a target completion date for its contractor, which reflected the urgency of the investigations and works it had instructed. It should also have been proactively monitoring completion of these jobs and keeping the resident appropriately informed. The landlord’s surprise that these jobs had not been completed sooner, suggests there was an inadequate level of oversight by the landlord over the case. This resulted in some avoidable delay, in diagnosing the possible causes of the damp and mould in the property and resolving the substantive issue for the resident.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 January 2024, asking for someone to call her to discuss the ongoing issue with rising damp in the property. The landlord told the resident on 28 January 2024, that it had requested appointment dates from its contractor.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 12 February 2024. It explained that its contractor had been trying to contact her, to agree an inspection date in relation to damp and mould. It requested that she contact its contractor directly to arrange the appointment. The landlord’s actions were encouraging and show that it was trying to progress the matter.
Following this, its contractors arranged appointments to inspect the property and carry out the works previously instructed. The resident stated during the complaint process, that when its contractor lifted the kitchen floor on 20 February 2024, it found extensive mould on the underside of the floorboards, including swollen and mouldy foundation beams. She suggested that the cause of the rising damp was a crack in the foundations, which had resulted in 3 feet of percolating water underneath the kitchen floor.
We understand from internal communications seen, that the landlord had been made aware of the water under the kitchen floor by its contractor. But it decided that no further action was required at that time, because it was winter, there had been a prolonged period of rainfall, and the water was well below the damp proof course level within a ventilated sub floor void. The resident states that its contractor explained to her that the landlord had instructed it to replace the kitchen floor. But said someone would be back during the summer months to reinspect under the floor. It may have offered the resident greater reassurance, if the landlord had contacted the resident to explain this itself, and its rationale for waiting until the summer.
According to the landlord’s repairs notes, the job raised in May 2023, to inspect the damp along the party wall of the rear bedroom, check the downpipes, and reduce the ground level to below the damp proof course was completed on 29 February 2024. This significantly exceeded expected completion timescales under the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord later established (paragraph 39 refers) that the ground level had not been reduced below the damp proof course. This suggests that landlord did not satisfy itself that its contractor had competed all of the works it had instructed, prior to closing the job.
The landlord’s job notes suggest that the works order raised in May 2023, to upgrade the bathroom and kitchen fans, service the PIV, and complete a mould wash was completed on 21 March 2024. Again, this significantly exceeded expected completion timescales under the landlord’s repairs policy. It was not possible to verify if the issue with the PIV blowing out cold air was addressed during the service.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 March 2024 asking for someone to contact her to discuss what landlord was going to do to resolve the issue of damp and mould in the property. She explained that all of the rooms were suffering from mould except for the kitchen, her sofa and carpets were wet, and she was sleeping on a wet bed. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss its plan for addressing this. Either the landlord did not contact her, or there was an issue with the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord ought to have taken steps to reinspect the property within 10 working days in line its damp and mould policy, given the resident’s report.
The resident contacted the landlord’s complaint team on 5 March 2024, requesting compensation for damage caused to her furniture and personal belongings. This included her computer, speakers, and sofa. The resident confirmed that she had no contents insurance. We understand that the landlord may have compensated in the past for damage caused to the resident’s bedroom furniture. It is unclear when the landlord paid this compensation or the circumstances around this. The landlord and resident entered into a lengthy email exchange over the course of the few months concerning compensation. The landlord asked the resident to provide evidence of the damage and receipts, which was fair.
The landlord’s complaint’s team contacted its damp and mould team on 12 March 2024 asking what action it was taking to resolve the damp and mould. Its surveyor explained on 8 April 2024 that it had addressed an issue with atmospheric damp in the property by installing fans. He suggested that the number of fish tanks in the property was unlikely to be helping the situation. We have seen no evidence of the landlord raising any concerns with the resident about fish tanks, prior to this.
Its surveyor further clarified that it had recently attended and discovered an issue with ground water collecting within the floor void below the suspended floor in the kitchen, which would require further investigation. It surmised that this was either due to a high-water table given the amount of rain, or a possible leak from the below ground surface water drainage at the front of the property. It added that it would be “probably worth a further look / inspection”. This suggests that landlord may not have had a plan in place, to check the cause of the water pooling under the kitchen floor, as its contractor had previously suggested.
The landlord’s complaints team emailed the resident on 8 April 2024. It confirmed that its surveyor would attend the property later that day, to see what it could do about the damp and mould, check for any leaks causing the floor to become damp, and then progress any repairs that it identified. It noted that it had previously attended and had installed fans to combat the issues experienced. It repeated its surveyor’s comment, that the number of fish tanks in the property was not helping the situation.
It was positive that the landlord committed to carrying out a further damp and mould inspection as there were still issues. But its complaint handler’s response suggests an inadequate level of understanding of the events leading up to that point, which was likely to have been frustrating for the resident. The reference to the resident’s fish tanks was perhaps ill-conceived given the history of damp and mould in the property. And it provoked a strong reaction from the resident, who pointed out that fish tanks did not cause rising damp.
Ultimately, the landlord’s complaints team said that there was insufficient evidence to reimburse the resident for the furniture and personal belongings she claimed had been damaged by damp and mould. It suggested that the damage shown in the photographs was consistent with dust and dirt, rather than damp and mould. But committed to revisiting this decision if the resident could provide proof that the damage had been caused by damp and mould. Or if its damp and mould team felt this should be revisited following its inspection.
We do not expect a landlord to compensate for damage that may have been caused by a resident’s own actions or inaction. But given that it was visiting the resident later that day, it may have been better for it to have waited until the outcome of this inspection was known. It could then have made an informed decision, based on a physical inspection rather than photographs. The landlord’s response lacked empathy.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 8 April 2024, as it committed. We have not seen a damp and mould report from this inspection or any evidence that the landlord satisfied itself that the property was fit for habitation at the time of its inspection. But internal communications, shared with us by the landlord, suggest that it did identify several areas of concern. And committed to a course of action to diagnose the possible cause of damp and mould. In summary, it:

a. Identified that the ground level at the front of the property had not been reduced as previously instructed and the airbricks were still taking in water.

b. Suggested that it ought to replace the airbricks under the kitchen window in case there was water ingress from the integral soil stack in the bathroom, or from the broken downspout near the kitchen window. This is a concern because the landlord’s job notes suggest that its contractor had previously checked the drainpipes.

c. Recommended that it survey under the kitchen floor with a borescope, to rule out any leaks. This was a sensible line of enquiry in the circumstances. But given that the landlord had identified unresolved damp and mould in the property following its previous intervention, it should have also instructed an independent damp and mould surveyor to inspect the property, in line with its damp and mould policy.

According to the stage 1 complaint, the resident showed its surveyor the extensive damp and mould throughout the property on 8 April 2024. This she said, included wet mattresses, wet carpets, water damaged and mouldy electronics, and the mouldy sofa. Given the conditions in the property, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explored ways of supporting the resident pending further investigation and completion of remedial works. If it felt that the property was still fit for habitation, it could have offered the resident some dehumidifiers to help dry out her carpets and assist in controlling the moisture levels in the property. It might have offered to carry out another mould wash. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this.
After its inspection, the landlord promptly sent instructions to its contractor to carry out the investigations and remedial works mentioned at paragraph 39. It is unclear if the landlord explained its plan for resolving the substantive issue to the resident. It was unfortunate that its contractor was unable to take on this job, which resulted in the landlord having to sourcing another contractor. Although this added some additional delay, this was beyond the landlord’s control. The landlord sought a quotation from a different contractor in a timely manner, on 17 April 2024. However, there is no evidence that the landlord was keeping the resident proactively informed over this period, which resulted in the resident chasing it for an update on 17 April 2024. The resident expressed frustration at the landlord’s poor communication, its lack of action, and worsening issues with damp and mould in the property.
The resident emailed the landlord’s complaint team again on 18 April 2024, providing evidence from a computer repairer, confirming that her computer had “an odour of damp”. They confirmed that there was a fine layer of dust all over and inside the device, which suggested she had used the device in a “somewhat damp environment”. They explained that they had needed to clean off several patches, which were mould-like in nature. The landlord requested a copy of the receipt, showing the cost of cleaning the computer, which she later provided.
The landlord chased its contractor for the quotation on 24 April 2024, which suggests that it was monitoring the job. We understand that its contractor was unable to provide the quotation until it had received costs from its specialist contractor.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 25 April 2024, asking for an update. There is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident, which continued to leave the resident unclear of its intentions.
The landlord told the resident in the stage 1 complaint response on 5 May 2024, that it had requested a quotation from its contractor to carry out further investigations and detailed what those investigations would entail. However, it ought to have given the resident an expected timescale for completing the investigation, to help manage her expectations.
The landlord proactively chased its contractor for the quotation again on 15 May 2024, which shows that it was trying to progress the matter. But because the landlord was not proactively keeping the resident informed, she chased the landlord the following day, asking for an update. The resident said that she had been hopeful that the landlord was going resolve the substantive issue after its last inspection. But expressed concern that it might leave her again without a resolution. This suggests that the resident had lost confidence in the landlord’s ability to provide a timely resolution to the substantive matter and did not feel supported.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 May 2024, asking for a copy of any damp and mould survey reports for the property, which she might upload to the choice-based lettings portal, to help her move. The landlord could not identify any damp and mould surveys previously carried out at the property. We would expect a landlord to keep a robust records showing its actions relating to each casefile. Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to insufficient communication and redress.
The landlord told the resident on 1 July 2024 that it had intended to issue a works order to its contractor to investigate the cause of the water under the kitchen floor. But said its surveyor, who had now left its employ, had not shared this works order with its contractor. It is evident that the landlord’s inaction delayed crucial investigations and further works to the property. It also suggests an inconsistent and an inadequate level of oversight over the case. Landlords should have robust systems in place to monitor the progress of jobs through to completion.
It was encouraging that once the landlord identified its error, it issued the works order. And then contacted the resident, explaining that its contactor would be in touch to arrange the appointment for that week. The landlord received the quotation from its contractor the following day.
The landlord proactively emailed the resident on 2 July 2024, detailing the instructions it had given to its contractor. It explained that once it had received the closed-circuit television (CCTV) drainage survey report, it would determine the next steps. This was positive and was likely to have given the resident reassurance that the matter was being progressed. An appointment was subsequently made for its contractor to carry out the CCTV survey on 22 July 2024, which was outside of the timeframe the landlord had committed to.
The landlord’s contractor issued the CCTV drainage survey report to the landlord on 25 July 2024. The report noted:

a. Defects where water could egress from the pipes. It found no sign of sitting water or mould under the kitchen floor. But noted that it had carried out the survey during a dry period.

b. Suggested that there was no way for surface water to drain, which was causing the garden to fill during heavy rain, causing water to drain into the air brick.

c. Noted that the resident was living in “very damp conditions” and her furniture was consistently getting soaked.

d. Suggested that the property had many issues, which the landlord needed to look at as a whole. It pointed out that, while it was highly likely that the addition of improved surface water drainage would help alleviate the problems, it was unlikely that it would resolve the problems without other works being carried out at the same time.

The landlord ought to have recognised that its contractor had described the property as “very damp” and considered how best to support the resident. Again, there is no evidence that it did.
The resident expressed concern on 26 July 2024, that its contractor been out to survey the drains, but had only surveyed the drain to the toilet. The resident asked the landlord to confirm when its contractor would be returning to complete the survey. The resident added on 30 July 2024, that its contractor had explained to her on the day of the inspection, that the job was not complete as he had been unable to get his camera down the drainpipes. The landlord told the resident that its contractor had advised that it would provide it with a quotation the week commencing 12 August 2024, so it would wait to see what it said before deciding the next steps.
The resident chased the landlord for updates several times between 13 August 2024 and 21 August 2024, which suggests the landlord was not proactively keeping the resident informed. The resident said the landlord should move her if it was not going to fix the problem. The landlord was responsive to the resident’s emails. It is evident that the landlord did not receive the quotation from its contractor when it initially envisaged, but demonstrated that it was actively chasing this up, before receiving the quotation on 16 August 2024.
The landlord confirmed the outcome of the CCTV survey to the resident on 21 August 2024 and explained that it had instructed its drainage contractor to return, to lift a portion of the flooring and investigate the damp proof course. However, it did not address the resident’s suggestion about rehousing, which she had raised several times by this stage.
The resident chased the landlord for a further update on 28 August 2024. She stated that she was getting extremely frustrated. The landlord responded the same day, stating that its contractor would be in touch to arrange a further CCTV survey of the drains and cavity wall. It was not possible to verify from the available evidence if the landlord raised a works order for this.
The resident told the landlord again on 31 August 2024, that if it was unable to fix the damp and mould issues in the property, it should rehouse her. The resident added on 5 September 2024, that she did not want to live another winter in the property, in a wet and damp environment. There is no evidence that the landlord offered the resident any reassurance, which was unreasonable.
The landlord’s contractor told the landlord on 9 September 2024, that it had not instructed it to carry out any additional surveys. This was a concern given that the landlord had told the resident that it had arranged another survey.
The landlord assigned a new surveyor to manage the case on 17 September 2024, who decided that it needed to start the case again from scratch. This suggests that the landlord itself was unclear on the measures that it had already taken and that it needed to take to remedy the substantive issue. Given this, it was positive that it immediately requested a detailed damp and mould survey, stressing that this needed to be progressed swiftly due to the “adverse conditions”. This shows that the landlord was treating the case with some urgency.
The landlord proactively emailed the resident the next day, advising that she should hear from its surveyor soon. Its surveyor emailed the resident on 19 September 2024, making an appointment for 23 September 2024, to discuss the situation and look at the damage. It said this was essential for it to instruct its contractors.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 23 September 2024 as planned. We have seen a comprehensive report, detailing the findings from its inspection and its dialogue with the resident. There was no suggestion in this report that the property was unfit for human habitation, but equally it is unclear if the landlord considered this. The landlord:

a. Recorded moderate damp readings in the bedroom located on ground floor front elevation. And found the foundation was slightly damp on the external wall of the lounge.

b. Remarked that the resident’s carpet was “very wet” in the bedroom. It noted that the resident believed the sofa to be wet but said this was more difficult to test.

c. Identified that ground level of the neighbouring property was higher than the property itself, which had resulted in the damp proof course being buried under the ground. It said this was allowing water to drain over the damp proof course and ground vents, which was then flooding the property and causing penetrating damp.

d. Said large trees just behind the boundary were likely to be increasing the occurrence of damp and mould issues.

e. Said the rear and side walls were impacted by significant shrub roots about 1.5m from the side elevation wall, which was evident from significant cracks on the path and the kitchen floor. It noted that it had already completed a CCTV drainage survey and had repaired the kitchen floor.

f. Suggested that there was some repointing needed around the corners of the property and around the windows.

g. Identified blocked guttering at the rear of the property.

h. Made several recommendations for further action, which included:

Digging out the ground dig between the property and the neighbouring property and installing an ACO drain, tied into the downpipe.
Some minor repointing on 3 elevations of brickwork, particularly under the rain goods and filling vertical cracks on wall corners.
Unblocking the guttering at the rear.
A mould wash in the front ground floor bedroom.
Repairs to drainage.
To carry out an assessment of trees and shrubs.

The landlord issued a copy of the damp and mould report to its contractor on the same day and asked it to provide costings. It also requested an inspection of the trees and shrubs. Again, it might have considered offering the resident a dehumidifier given that the lounge carpet was reportedly “very wet”.
The resident emailed the landlord’s complaints team on 27 September 2024, expressing concern about the size of the job and whether it would have the works completed by winter. The resident again stated that she would like to be moved. The landlord said that it had passed the resident’s query about moving to the appropriate team. We were unable to verify from the available evidence if the resident received any further contact about this.
The landlord noted in internal communications on 2 October 2024, that the subsidence related issues with the foundations noted in kitchen could not be related to the trees. It suggested that it was likely that the excessive water accumulation to the front, side, and rear of the property was due to blocked drains from trees debris, and excessive surface water pooling at property, causing erosion of earth and affecting the shallow foundations. It noted that “the hydrogeology stipulates the area is a natural sink where a low elevation adjacent to an old culvert”. It said cracked drainage under the property was exacerbating the issue.
The landlord responded to this information, by asking its contractor to extend the scope of its works, to confirm the cause of the cracks to the drainage, and to add some ACO drainage to the rear of the property as well. This shows that the landlord was being responsive to new information as it became available, which it acted on in a timely manner.
The landlord received the quotation from its contractor on 16 October 2024, after chasing for this. The quotation was reissued the next day, after the landlord asked for an amendment.
The landlord issued the final complaint response on 16 October 2024. The landlord set out the action it had taken to address the damp and mould since April 2024. It accepted that it should have completed the works in a timelier manner. It noted that it had not yet approved the quotation for the works or an appointment date for the works to begin. But said it would keep the complaint open until all of the works were complete. It upheld the complaint, apologised, and offered £250 compensation for the length of time it had taken to get to that point in the necessary repairs.
We note that this was in addition to the £846.32 compensation that the landlord had already offered at stage 1, of which £250 was for the length of time it had taken the landlord to resolve the substantive issue. The remaining £596.32, was a goodwill gesture for damage to the resident’s furniture and to cover the costs associated with cleaning the resident’s computer.
The landlord’s final complaint response shows that it was accepting responsibility for continued delays in resolving the substantive matter for the resident, which was positive. It was encouraging that it tried to put things right by apologising, by committing to a course of action, and by offering compensation.
But the landlord ought to have been clearer about when it expected the substantive issue to be resolved. It might have created greater reassurance for the resident if it had included an action plan with its response, setting out the measures it was taking to resolve the substantive matter, with expected timescales for completing works. It could then have committed to keeping this action plan under review, at regular intervals, with the resident.
The landlord should have recognised that it had not always kept the resident proactively informed, which had resulted in increased time and trouble for the resident having to repeatedly chase for updates.
The landlord should have considered if it had done enough to support the resident, given the living conditions she had repeatedly described, its own observations, and the observations of its contractors.
The compensation paid by the landlord at stage 1 towards the cost of cleaning her computer and for damage caused to her furniture was reasonable, given that she was unable to provide receipts for the damage furniture. Ultimately, the resident accepted the landlord’s offer and did not seek any further compensation in relation to this at stage 2.
The landlord’s combined offer of compensation for the length of time it had taken to resolve the substantive matter, was at the higher end of compensation that it was able to award according to its complaints policy.
We have seen no evidence to suggest that the resident was unable to use any specific room in the property for the purpose it was intended. But it is likely that the conditions in the property over the timeframe of the complaint, resulted in some loss of enjoyment of the property for the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have recognised this in its final offer of compensation.
Following issue of the stage 2 complaint, the landlord’s contractor completed all of the repairs the landlord had instructed on 7 February 2025. This was outside of the expected target deadline due to poor weather and contractor staffing issues. However, the resident has continued to experience issues with pooling water under the property, damp, and mould. The landlord suspects there is a secondary issue with subsidence, which is allowing water penetration. The landlord told us on 4 February 2025, that a full investigation was underway in relation to subsidence and this would inform whether or not the resident could remain at the property. The resident told us on 3 April 2025, that the landlord had approved a management move.
In summary, there were multiple failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould, which adversely affected the resident, as evidenced throughout this report. The landlord acknowledged some of those failings itself during its internal complaint process and made some attempt to put things right. However, the landlord’s final offer of compensation did not adequately address the detriment to the resident and was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
To remedy the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation which reflects the loss of enjoyment of the property, over the timeframe of the complaint. We consider 25% of the rent between April 2023 and October 2024 to be a reasonable compensation award. This equates to £1,475. A separate order for compensation is made in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s poor communications. This compensation has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and with the landlord’s own compensation policy in mind.
The landlord must also pay the compensation it previously offered the resident, in recognition of its delay in resolving the substantive issue, the damage caused to the resident’s belongings, and for cleaning her computer.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified by this investigation.
The landlord must pay £2,821.32 compensation directly to the resident, which may be reduced to £1,725 if the landlord has already paid the £1,096.32 compensation it previously offered. This compensation is made in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and with reference to the landlord’s own compensation policy. This compensation is broken down as follows:

a. £1,475 compensation in recognition of the loss of enjoyment of the property over the timeframe of the complaint.

b. £596.32 compensation towards the cost of cleaning the resident’s computer and in recognition of the damage caused to her furniture and belongings, as previously offered by the landlord.

c. £500 compensation in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by delays in resolving the substantive issue, as previously offered by the landlord.

d. £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by inadequacies in the landlord’s communications.

The landlord must endeavour to arrange to a face-to-face meeting at the property with the resident. During the meeting, the landlord must:

a. Confirm the outcome of the investigation into whether there is subsidence at the property and its intentions in relation to a managed move for the resident. If the resident is to remain at the property, the landlord must explain what it intends to do in relation to the damp and mould.

b. Agree a comprehensive action plan with the resident, setting out any actions agreed by the parties during the meeting and any support that can be offered. The action plan must include timescales for action and must be issued to the resident, in writing, within 5 working days of the face-to-face meeting. The landlord must commit to reviewing the action plan with the resident at a regular frequency, to be agreed between the parties.

The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 6 weeks of the date of this decision.