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

East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202430025)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202430025

East Midlands Housing Group 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which started on 17 February 2014. The property is a 2-bedroom, mid-terrace house.
  2. The landlord’s records state that the resident has a mental health condition and mobility issues. The landlord has also confirmed that during the complaints process the resident advised she suffers from chronic bronchitis and another medical condition.
  3. Both the resident and her husband contacted the landlord at different times. For simplicity, this report refers to ‘the resident’ regardless of whether the contact was with the resident or her husband. The resident and her husband are joint tenants of the property.
  4. The landlord arranged for a specialist dampness surveyor to inspect the property on 19 August 2022. Following the inspection, the landlord cleaned and checked the external gutters and downpipes as this was one of the recommendations in the survey report. In June 2023, the resident reported damp and mould in an internal meter cupboard in the living room. The landlord inspected the property on 7 July 2023 and identified various remedial works. These works were completed on 20 September 2023 and included clearing the guttering and refixing lead flashing.
  5. In November 2023, the resident reported that the floorboards in the meter cupboard were rotten and smelled of damp. She then contacted the landlord in January 2024 to report that high moisture levels were causing damp and mould in the kitchen and inside the kitchen cupboards. A specialist damp company inspected the property on 26 January 2024 and said that no treatment was needed based on the inspection but recommended that the landlord should top–up the loft insulation. The resident submitted a complaint on 13 March 2024 as she said she was still concerned about the high moisture levels in the kitchen and the cupboard. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 21 May 2024 in which it stated the following in relation to the resident’s reports of damp and mould:
    1.  The landlord outlined the main action it had taken since 2021, which included:
      1. Installing a horizontal damp proof course on 22 July 2021.
      2. Carrying out repointing to the external walls in December 2021.
      3. Cleaning the gutters at the front and rear on 7 November 2022.
      4. In September 2023, the landlord carried out further gutter cleaning, unblocked the downpipe, refixed lead flashing and removed a canopy.
      5. Increasing the loft insulation following the survey on 26 January 2024.
      6. Repairing mortar around the air bricks on 13 March 2024.
    2. The landlord concluded that although most jobs had been completed within its service levels, the resident still had concerns about damp and mould in the kitchen. It therefore upheld this part of her complaint and apologised.
    3. The landlord acknowledged there had been a delay in logging and replying to the resident’s stage 1 complaint and offered £60 compensation.
  6. On 18 July 2024, the resident wrote to the landlord and asked for her complaint to be escalated because:
    1. She questioned the recommendation from the specialist damp contractor to increase ventilation as she said she always ventilated the kitchen.
    2. Despite the repointing carried out by the landlord, the damp problem had worsened.
    3. The resident said she had to dispose of food from the kitchen cupboards due to mould.
    4. She said the canopy had not caused the damp problems because the damp had been present prior to the installation of the canopy.
    5. The resident said that the landlord had failed to treat the root cause of the damp and mould and that the landlord’s recommendations to increase ventilation, heating and move furniture away from external walls were unacceptable.
    6. The resident said she disagreed with the landlord’s conclusion that the position and location of the radiator in the lounge were fine. She said that the current position of the radiator meant that heat was not evenly distributed around the room.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 12 August 2024 in which it stated the following:
    1. It had reviewed various reports from surveyors and had not found evidence of any current issues with the building fabric.
    2. The landlord said it had seen photos showing the extractor fan in the property was switched off.
    3. The landlord emphasised the need for ventilation to be increased in the property. Therefore, it had arranged for the current extractor fan to be replaced with a humidistat fan, which would monitor humidity levels and switch itself on and off accordingly.
    4. The landlord said it did not consider that repositioning the radiator in the lounge would be effective in distributing heat in the lounge. However, it agreed to undertake a heat loss assessment and report back any recommendations.
    5. The landlord said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint because it had not found the conclusions of previous surveys to be inaccurate.
  8. On 20 January 2025, the resident requested us to investigate the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould. She said the property was cold and draughty and the landlord had not identified the root cause of damp and mould affecting the property. She said the radiator in the lounge was, in her view, incorrectly positioned and the landlord had not yet carried out the promised heat loss assessment.
  9. The landlord’s records show that its heating contractor attended the property on 11 March 2025 and carried out a heat loss assessment. The findings were that the heat loss calculation was reasonable and that the positioning and size of the radiator in the lounge were appropriate. The contractor confirmed that the radiator did not need to be repositioned. The landlord carried out a further damp survey on 26 March 2025 and found that there was minimal mould present. It noted that the trickle vents were all closed and some radiators were turned off. It concluded that the property was not getting enough ventilation or heating. It therefore advised the resident to open the trickle vents and keep the heating on at a moderate temperature.
  10. The landlord advised us on 9 April 2025 that all work to the meter cupboard in the lounge had been completed, including fitting new doors, insulation foam and rubber seals. The landlord also advised us on 28 April 2025 that it had arranged a meeting with the resident on 14 April 2025 to explore housing options, however, the resident was unavailable on this date. Therefore, the landlord had left a voice message for the resident to reschedule the visit.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident advised the landlord on 16 April 2024 that she believed the damp and mould were affecting her family’s health as they suffered from various medical conditions. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
  2. The resident also advised the landlord that the damp and mould issues had been ongoing for several years. We have reviewed the availability and reliability of evidence and consider it fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the events from the date of the inspection carried out by a specialist damp company on 19 August 2022. This is because with the passage of time, older evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Reference to the events that occurred prior this date has been made to provide context.
  3. We have received information showing events and correspondence that occurred after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 12 August 2024. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.

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

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that all repairs fall into one of the following categories:
    1. Emergency repairs – the landlord will respond within 24 hours to make the property safe.
    2. Appointed repairs – repairs will be carried out at a time and date agreed with the resident.
    3. Programmed repairs – these will be completed within 3 months.
    4. Cyclical maintenance – these are programmes of work where works are carried out on a regular cycle.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould policy, which was first introduced in December 2022 and then updated in September 2023, states:
    1. When a report of damp, mould or condensation is received, the landlord will arrange an inspection by a trained operative to diagnose and undertake the works if appropriate, where the cause is not immediately obvious, a surveyor or specialist contractor may need to visit the home to carry out an inspection.
    2. The landlord will make an appointment and visit within its target of 14 days.
    3. If the issue is identified as condensation-based, the landlord will provide information and guidance to the resident. This information will include a discussion on the possible causes of condensation and some solutions that may help.
    4. If the issue is identified as building related, the remedial works will be identified and scheduled in appropriately based on the survey recommendations.
  3. Following contact from the resident with the landlord during June and July 2022, the landlord arranged for a specialist dampness surveyor to inspect the property. The landlord arranged for the kitchen units to be removed temporarily and the inspection took place on 19 August 2022. The specialist surveyor concluded there was no evidence of rising damp and no treatment was required as a result of the survey. However, he said there was evidence of spalling brickwork and poor pointing on the external walls. The surveyor also recommended fitting vents to the kitchen cupboards to reduce mould and damp smells, which the resident had reported. Finally, he said that the landlord should check and maintain all gutters and downpipes.
  4. As the resident had reported damp and mould it was reasonable that the landlord had arranged for a specialist damp surveyor to inspect the property and that it had temporarily removed the kitchen units to ensure the inspection was thorough.
  5. The landlord’s records show that it considered the comments about the spalling brickwork and pointing. It had concluded that as the report had not linked these issues to any internal damp or mould, it would deal with these when planned or cyclical maintenance was next carried out to the property. As the surveyor had not identified any internal issues caused by the spalling brickwork and pointing, it was reasonable for the landlord to have decided to deal with these issues during a planned/cyclical maintenance programme. This would potentially allow the landlord to achieve better value for money by incorporating the work with other planned maintenance.
  6. The landlord’s records also show that it considered the surveyor’s recommendation about adding vents to the kitchen cupboards. It concluded that the design of the kitchen cupboards and the plinths underneath the base units had gaps to allow airflow so it did not consider it necessary to add vents to the kitchen cupboards. The landlord’s repairs policy does not place any requirements on the landlord to fit vents to kitchen cupboards. Therefore, having considered the surveyor’s recommendation, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinions of its staff in deciding there was already sufficient ventilation due to the design of the kitchen units.
  7. The landlord raised an order on 24 October 2022 to clean the gutters at the front and rear of the property and the work was completed on 7 November 2022. It was reasonable that the landlord had carried out works to the gutters and downpipes as the specialist damp surveyor had recommended checking them. The work was completed within an appropriate timescale as it was categorised as planned maintenance and was completed within 3 months of the survey inspection on 19 August 2022.
  8. The resident phoned the landlord on 9 June 2023 to report damp and mould in the living room, which she said she was particularly concerned about because her family members had various medical conditions including chronic bronchitis and auto-immune disease. The landlord’s records show that an operative attended on 13 June 2023. Although the operative attended within a reasonable timescale, it is unclear from the landlord’s records whether he carried out any works. The operative’s notes stated the resident was concerned that the meter cupboard in the living room smelled of mould and she said there were slugs in the cupboard. The notes also stated the resident was concerned that the floorboards in the cupboard were rotten and that a different tradesperson was required.
  9. The landlord raised an order on 14 June 2023 to investigate the reported damp and slug issues in the meter cupboard. The landlord’s records show that various appointments were made to carry out this work, however, the resident phoned on various occasions to ask for appointments to be rearranged. For example, she phoned on 22 June 2023, 26 June 2023, 13 September 2023 and 20 September 2023 to cancel and rearrange the appointments. The landlord had therefore made reasonable attempts to carry out the work as it had booked various appointments, which the resident had phoned to rearrange.
  10. The landlord carried out various works in September 2023, which included clearing the gutters, sealing joints on the gutters, unblocking the downpipe, refixing lead flashing and removing a canopy. The landlord’s notes show it had identified that these issues were causing dampness and that slugs were entering the property through the downpipe. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to have carried out these works and to have relied on the opinions of its staff that the works would address any damp issues.
  11. The landlord raised a further order on 25 September 2023 to seal up any holes in the meter cupboard to prevent slugs from entering. An operative attended on 5 October 2023 and stated that he could not see any obvious holes but he could see the wall behind the gas meter was damaged. The operative said he could not reach behind the gas meter to fill the holes. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord followed up the operative’s reports of damage to the walls or communicated its findings and any proposed solutions to the resident. This was unreasonable as the resident had continued to report issues with the meter cupboard and therefore the landlord should have at least communicated how it intended to address the reported issues.
  12. The resident phoned again on 20 November 2023 to report damp smells coming from the meter cupboard. She said that in her view the floorboards inside the cupboard were rotten. The landlord raised a further order on the same day for the matter to be investigated. An appointment to carry out the work was booked for 13 March 2024 and the work was completed to the meter cupboard on this day. The work included securing the floorboards around the gas meter, applying a damp proof course by lining the bottom half of the cupboard, filling holes with wire wool, fitting plywood over the top of the floorboards and painting with stain block paint.
  13. The landlord’s records show that it carried out comprehensive works in relation to the meter cupboard, which was reasonable as the resident had continued to report damp smells and rotten floorboards in the cupboard. However, as previously stated, the lack of communication from the landlord following the operative’s visit on 5 October 2023 was unreasonable and had led to the resident chasing the landlord for a response on 20 November 2023 and 11 January 2024. It was also a shortcoming on the part of the landlord that it took almost 4 months to complete the work to the meter cupboard after it raised the order on 20 November 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy states that planned maintenance of this nature should be carried out within 3 months.
  14. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 January 2024 and reported having high moisture levels and damp and in the kitchen. She said the damp was affecting her health. The landlord arranged for a further survey to be carried out by a specialist dampness surveyor. The survey was carried out on 26 January 2024. As the resident had reported damp in the kitchen, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a further survey to identify the cause of any damp and identify solutions.
  15. The main findings outlined in the report were:
    1. There was no evidence of rising damp and no visual evidence to indicate problems with condensation on the ground floor, however, relative humidity levels in the property were higher than ideal levels.
    2. There were no defects noted to the damp proof course or to the external brickwork.
    3. The report said that no treatment was needed based on the inspection, but that ventilation should be increased to reduce the risk of mould growth. The report added that heating should be increased, windows should be opened where possible and furniture should be kept clear of external walls.
    4. The extractor fan in the kitchen was found to be in good order.
    5. It was recommended that the landlord should maintain and repair any brickwork that needs repointing around the air vents on the front elevation as this could allow future water ingress.
    6. It was recommended that the loft insulation should be increased.
  16. The landlord’s records show that a contractor increased the loft insulation on 12 February 2024, which was reasonable as the specialist surveyor had identified there was insufficient loft insulation present. The work had also been carried out within a reasonable timescale following the survey on 26 January 2024.
  17. The landlord raised an order on 6 February 2024 to repoint around the airbrick. The work was carried out on 13 March 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to raise an order to carry out the repointing as this had been recommended by the specialist dampness surveyor. The landlord also carried out the work within a reasonable timescale as the surveyor had identified the work as a preventative measure to stop future water ingress.
  18. The landlord therefore acted on the recommendations in the surveyor’s report in a timely manner. However, the evidence shows there was a lack of communication with the resident to advise her of the outcome of the inspection on 26 January 2024. This lack of communication prompted the resident to write to the landlord on 22 February 2024 to ask for information about the outcome of the inspection. She then submitted a complaint on 13 March 2024 and requested a copy of the survey report. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not communicated the outcome of the survey to the resident, particularly as the report had highlighted steps that the resident could take to reduce the risk of mould developing. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that if condensation-based issues are identified, it will provide information and guidance to the resident.
  19. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 April 2024 to report further concerns about humidity and mould in the kitchen. The landlord raised an order on the same day to investigate. The landlord booked appointments to attend on 4 and 24 April 2024, however, the resident was unavailable on these dates so the appointment was rescheduled to 10 May 2024. The landlord attended on this date and carried out further work to clear the gutters, treat the kitchen units for mould and add new gutters to the coal shed to prevent rainwater running down the wall and creating mould. Given that the resident was unavailable on the earlier appointment dates, the landlord attended and carried out works within a reasonable timescale.
  20. The landlord’s notes state that when it attended on 10 May 2024, it found that the extractor fan had been switched off. It therefore added a tamper tag so it would not be switched off in the future. This was reasonable as the landlord was concerned that the extractor fan was not being used effectively to remove moisture from the air to reduce condensation.
  21. The landlord spoke to the resident on 14 May 2024 and she confirmed that works had been carried out on 10 May 2024. However, she said she had been advised that a follow-up visit would be carried out to check the positioning of the radiator in the living room and to carry out further mould treatment. The landlord therefore carried out an inspection on 16 May 2024. This was reasonable to check whether the radiator was positioned correctly in the living room as it had agreed to do. The landlord noted on 16 May 2024 that, in its view, the radiator in the living room was adequate.
  22. The landlord advised the resident in its stage 1 reply on 21 May 2024 that a follow-up visit was planned for 6 June 2024 to carry out further mould treatment as a follow-up to the treatment carried out on 10 May 2024. The appointment was rescheduled to 11 June 2024 due to an operative being sick on the day of the appointment. The landlord removed the kitchen units carried out mould treatment, renewed the hardboard backing and refixed the units. It was undoubtedly inconvenient for the resident that the landlord had not attended on 6 June 2024. However, this had been due to unforeseen sickness and the landlord had rescheduled the appointment in a timely manner. Following the visit on 10 May 2024, the landlord had carried out the follow-up visit within a reasonable timescale to remove the kitchen units and carry out further mould treatment.
  23. The resident sent a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 18 July 2024 as she said the landlord had been slow to deal with the reports of damp and mould and this had caused her stress and anxiety. She said that, in her view, the recommended solution for her to increase ventilation, increase heating, open windows where possible and move furniture away from external walls was unacceptable. She said she also disagreed with the landlord’s assessment that the size and location of the living room radiator were fine.
  24. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 12 August 2024 in which it reiterated the advice for the resident to increase the level of ventilation in the property. To help with this, the landlord said it would order a humidistat fan with a built-in sensor to measure humidity levels and switch itself on and off accordingly. This was reasonable as the landlord and the specialist dampness surveyor had identified the need to increase ventilation in the property and the resident had reported concerns about the humidity level in the kitchen.
  25. The landlord also said in its stage 2 response that it did not believe that repositioning the radiator in the living room would help alleviate the resident’s concerns about heat distribution in the room. The landlord said, however, that it would arrange for a heat loss assessment to be carried out. As the landlord had checked the positioning of the radiator, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinions and expertise of its staff. As the resident had expressed concerns about the distribution of heat in the living room, it was also reasonable for the landlord to arrange a heat loss assessment. This would enable the landlord to check the effectiveness of the heating and insulation within the property and would help provide reassurance to the resident about the adequacy of the heating.
  26. Overall, we have found that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports of damp and mould by arranging for its own staff and specialist surveyors to inspect the property. It carried out various remedial works, including mould treatment, work to the meter cupboard, clearing and repairing gutters, increasing the loft insulation and repointing. Finally, the landlord provided advice to the resident about the importance of increasing ventilation and heating and of taking other steps to reduce the humidity levels in the property.
  27. However, we have found that the landlord’s communication was poor during certain periods. For example, the landlord did not give the resident timely information about the findings or proposed solutions from the operative’s visit on 5 October 2023. The landlord also did not provide the resident with timely information about the outcome of the survey on 26 January 2024. This lack of communication led to the resident spending more time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates.
  28. We have therefore found service failure due to the communication issues identified. An order has been made to pay the resident £100 to put things right in relation to the additional time, trouble and inconvenience caused by needing to chase the landlord for updates. The amount ordered is within the range of sums suggested in our remedies guidance for service failures. Furthermore, it takes into account that the landlord’s failings may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident as the landlord carried out inspections and remedial works in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will log a complaint within 5 days of receiving it. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. This timescale may be extended but the extension will not exceed 10 days without an exceptional reason. If an extension beyond 20 working days is needed, this will be agreed by both parties.
  2. If any part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction, it will be progressed to stage 2 within 5 days of receiving the request. The landlord will reply to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. This timescale may be extended but the extension will not exceed 20 working days without an exceptional reason. If an extension beyond 20 working days is needed, this will be agreed by both parties.
  3. The resident submitted a complaint on 13 March 2024 and the landlord logged and acknowledged the complaint on 8 April 24, which was 17 working days after it received the complaint. The landlord therefore did not log and acknowledge the complaint within the 5-working day timescale stipulated in its complaints policy and therefore this was inappropriate.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 21 May 2024, which was 30 working days after the landlord had logged the complaint. However, the landlord had written to the resident on 22 April 2024 to advise it would need to extend the deadline for responding. It had also spoken to the resident on 7 May 2024 to extend the deadline as there was not yet a resolution to her complaint. Although the contact from the landlord regarding the extensions helped to mitigate the delays in responding to the complaint, the overall time taken by the landlord to respond was still inappropriate. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will only extend a deadline by more than 10 working days in exceptional circumstances. In this case, we have not seen any evidence of exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.
  5. The landlord used its stage 1 response to apologise for the delay in logging the complaint and replying. It offered compensation of £10 for the delay in logging the complaint and £50 for the delay in replying. As the landlord had maintained contact with the resident while her complaint was outstanding and had advised her about the delays, our view is that the landlord’s apology and offer of £60 were reasonable. The landlord had acted fairly by acknowledging the failings and it had offered appropriate compensation to put things right. It had also identified learning by stating in the stage 1 response that it carried out staff training and made improvements to its complaints handling.
  6. On 1 June 2024, the landlord received an email from the resident asking to discuss her complaint over the phone. The landlord contacted the resident on 6 June 2024 but it was unable to discuss the complaint fully with the resident as she had to go to an appointment. The landlord agreed that the resident could have extra time to escalate her complaint and it was agreed that the resident would email her concerns to the landlord.
  7. The landlord’s complaints policy says that residents should advise the landlord within 20 working days of the stage 1 response if they want to request the landlord to escalate their complaint. As the resident had advised the landlord shortly after receiving the stage 1 reply that she wanted to escalate her complaint, it was reasonable for the landlord to agree additional time for the resident to detail her reasons for requesting the escalation.
  8. The resident emailed the landlord on 17 June 2024 to say she had been unwell and had not had an opportunity to send further details of her complaint. Following further correspondence between the resident and the landlord, the resident wrote to the landlord on 18 July 2024 to ask for her complaint to be escalated. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on the same day, which was appropriate as it was within the landlord’s 5-working day target for acknowledging complaints.
  9. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 12 August 2024, which was 17 working days after the complaint was escalated. The landlord had therefore replied within the 20-working day deadline stipulated in its complaints policy and had therefore responded within an appropriate timescale.
  10. Overall, we have found that the landlord dealt with the resident’s stage 2 complaint appropriately and it offered reasonable redress to put things right in terms of the delays at stage 1 of the complaint process.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to provide evidence it has:
    1. Written to the resident to apologise for the failings we identified in the landlord’s communications regarding the reported damp and mould issues.
    2. Paid the resident £100 to put things right in terms of the communications.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should reoffer the resident the £60 it offered in its stage 1 reply for complaint handling if this has not already been paid.