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

Eastlight Community Homes Limited (202324723)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324723

Eastlight Community Homes Limited

5 March 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

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

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a semi-detached house.
  2. On 15 March 2023, the landlord raised a request for an independent damp survey at the resident’s property. This was due to the resident’s reports of ongoing issues with damp and mould. The landlord’s contractors undertook a ‘Healthy Homes’ survey on 7 June 2023. The surveyor did not identify any structural defects with the property that could contribute to damp and mould. However, it recommended that the landlord repair the bathroom extractor fan. The surveyor also completed a ‘clean and shield’ of all areas impacted by mould.
  3. On 20 September 2023, the resident raised a complaint. She said that she had been reporting damp and mould for over 12 years, and she believed that the issues were due to rising damp. She wanted a damp specialist to attend and resolve the issues.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 October 2023. It said:
    1. It had repaired the bathroom extractor fan on 31 July 2023 in accordance with the survey recommendations.
    2. It did another survey on 4 October 2023. The survey identified further work which included fitting a heated towel rail, tiling the bathroom wall and fitting a ‘passive vent’ in the bedroom. It also said it would service her Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) unit and install a new bathroom extractor fan. It said that it had scheduled the work for 6 November 2023.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on several occasions throughout February 2024 to discuss the ongoing issues. Due to the lack of response from the landlord, the resident escalated her complaint on 3 April 2024.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 May 2024. It said:
    1. It had completed the work it had agreed to undertake in its stage 1 response.
    2. The independent survey did not find any structural issues with the property. It had concluded that fluctuations in heating use was the main contributing factor to condensation and subsequent mould growth. As such, it determined that the agreed repairs were sufficient to improve the damp and mould.
    3. It was in the process of reviewing the energy efficiency of its properties. This included adding insulation where appropriate. It said that while it was not an issue identified during its survey, it was considering whether it was possible to add insulation to the resident’s gable end wall in a bid to improve the reported issues. It said that its energy and sustainability team would contact the resident to discuss further.
  7. The resident remains dissatisfied because of how long the damp and mould has been an issue for. The resident told this Service that she does not think that the landlord has addressed the root cause of the issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has stated that damp and mould has been an issue for over 12 years. We note the resident’s concern and the serious nature of the matter. However, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for us to conduct a thorough investigation and make informed decisions.
  2. Taking this into account, and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from March 2023 onwards. The records indicate that this was the beginning of the events that led to the resident raising a formal complaint. Any references made to events prior to this time are to provide context.
  3. The resident referenced in her communication with the landlord and this Service that the delays in resolving the damp and mould had affected her mental wellbeing. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s action (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s health and wellbeing.
  4. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health concern, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or effect on health and wellbeing. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route.
  5. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy and legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstance. This Service will also consider the general distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s actions.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

  1. Landlords must ensure that the accommodation they provide is free from serious hazards, including damp and mould, and that homes are fit for habitation. They must treat cases of damp and mould with the utmost seriousness. Furthermore, the landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth pose a health risk to residents and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a health hazard that may require prompt remedy.
  2. The landlord also has repair obligations under section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which places a statutory obligation on the landlord to maintain the structure and exterior of the property.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should “adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould”. The report notes that it is imperative that residents are not living with damp and mould for an extended period.
  4. The landlord operates a damp and mould policy. It states that following a report of damp and mould, it will attend within 10 working days to complete an initial mould wash. It will also:
    1. take damp meter readings of the walls and floor.
    2. take humidity readings of habitable rooms.
    3. check there is appropriate ventilation in bathrooms and kitchens.
  5. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy distinguishes between emergency and routine repairs, the former being a “serious health and safety risk”. Under this policy, it should complete routine repairs within 28 days. The Ombudsman understands that, where specialist assessment and works are required, this timeframe is not always possible. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to act proactively, not cause unreasonable delays, keep the resident informed of any delays and manage their expectations.
  6. The landlord received the general home condition survey report on 15 March 2023. It identified damp in the property and requested a further damp survey. In accordance with its damp and mould policy, the landlord should have attended by 29 March 2023.
  7. It conducted a healthy homes survey on 7 June 2023. This was a significant departure from its policy and caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It is unclear why there was delay in conducting the survey. However, there is no evidence that the delay was unavoidable. The landlord therefore failed to respond appropriately.
  8. The landlord repaired the resident’s extractor fan on 31 July 2023; 39 working days after the healthy homes survey. This was outside the timescales outlined within the landlord’s repairs policy for routine repairs, and therefore unreasonable. As with the survey, it is unclear why there was a delay in completing the repair. Nevertheless, it caused the resident frustration and inconvenience and was inappropriate. There is no evidence that the landlord managed the resident’s expectations and explained the reasons for the delay, which caused the resident further inconvenience and disappointment.
  9. Following the resident’s complaint on 20 September 2023, the landlord conducted a further survey on 4 October 2023. This was prompt and evidenced a willingness by the landlord to resolve the resident’s complaint. It agreed further repairs, which it completed on 6 November 2023. This was appropriate.
  10. The landlord explained to the resident that it had not identified any underlying issues with the construction of the property. It explained its survey findings, which was reasonable. This Service is aware that the resident was offered advice from surveyors about managing the heat in her home to prevent condensation. However, the landlord may wish to reflect on this complaint and ensure that it offers appropriate advice throughout its complaints process.
  11. At the conclusion of its complaints process, the landlord suggested potential improvement works. It explicitly said that while the improvements were not identified during a survey, it was a consideration to improve the overall energy efficiency of the property. This was reasonable and proactive of the landlord.
  12. Overall, the initial delay in organising a damp and mould survey and arranging repairs was inappropriate. It caused the resident distress and inconvenience and was a departure from both its damp and mould policy, and repairs policy. The landlord did not acknowledge these failures through its complaints process and therefore did not offer any remedy to put things right. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  13. This Service acknowledges that the landlord completed all repairs in a timely manner following the resident’s complaint.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to residents, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
  2. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. The landlord should provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. These timescales are in accordance with the landlord’s policy and the Code.
  3. The Code also states that should a landlord require an extension to respond to a stage 1 response, this should not exceed a further 10 working days.
  4. The landlord informed the resident that its response would be delayed as it was waiting for information following a survey. This explanation was reasonable and appropriately managed the resident’s expectations. It issued its stage 1 response 20 working days after the resident raised her complaint. This was appropriate in the circumstances, and in accordance with the extended timeframes within its policy and the Code.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 22 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. While the landlord’s complaint response was marginally outside the timescales outlined within its complaints policy and the Code, the evidence does not suggest that this minor delay had a detrimental impact on the resident.
  6. As such, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

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

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused by the identified failings in its response to her reports of damp and mould.
    2. Contact the resident and establish if damp and mould is an ongoing issue in the property. If the resident confirms an ongoing problem, the landlord should undertake a survey to establish how best to remedy this. The landlord must confirm in writing that it has done this.
  2. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be provided to this Service.