Home Group Limited (202426535)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426535

Home Group Limited

15 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 response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 29 January 2010. The property is a 2 bedroom first floor flat.
The resident lives in the property with her husband and 3 children. The landlord’s records note that 2 of the children have asthma and had “severe” chest infections.
The resident’s property was on an estate which was part of a redevelopment project. All homes on the estate were to be replaced and all residents given new homes in a phased building programme.
On 29 November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report “large” amounts of damp and mould throughout the property that was making her ill. A request was made to inspect the property.
On 19 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to report that the problem was ongoing. She attached pictures and a video of the problem. A request was made to contact the resident because she was overcrowded and the condition of the property was affecting “all of their health.”
The landlord attended the property on 21 March 2024 to carry out an inspection. However, this could not go ahead because the only person in the property was the resident’s 13 year old daughter. She was asked to inform the resident to contact the landlord to make an appointment.
During a telephone call with the landlord on 5 April 2024 the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with its response. She said they were overcrowded and that the ongoing issue with damp and mould had damaged their belongings and furniture.
On 10 April 2024 the landlord noted that the inspection was outstanding and a request was made to email the resident to arrange an appointment because she worked full time. Also on the same day it emailed the resident to confirm that it had raised a stage 1 complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 April 2024, as follows:
1. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 March 2023 to report damp and mould. It raised an inspection request that day and its surveyor attended on 19 April 2023. However they were unable to gain access and the inspection was closed.
2. There are no further entries relating to damp and mould.
3. In February 2024 its regeneration team requested that a damp and mould inspection be carried out.
4. It attended the property on 21 February 2024 but only the resident’s 13 year old daughter was in the property. It could not proceed as no one over the age of 18 years was present. It asked her daughter to ask the resident to make contact to rearrange the appointment.
5. It did not receive a response so it raised a further inspection on 21 March 2024 and allocated the job to its contractor on 22 March 2024.
6. On receipt of the resident’s complaint it checked its records to see that attempts had been made to phone her to arrange an appointment. As the resident worked full time it asked the contractor to make contact via email to arrange the inspection. It was arranged for 14 May 2024.
7. Once this took place it would contact the resident to check she was satisfied with its completed actions. As agreed it would contact the resident on 15 May 2024.
On 8 May 2024 the landlord raised a works order to carry out a mould wash in the kitchen, to windows and skirting.
The landlord inspected the property on 14 May 2024 and subsequently raised works orders to resolve the substantive issue. It shared the contractor’s report with the resident on 30 May 2024 and discussed it with her on 31 May 2024. However, she advised that it did not contain all that had been discussed, including a recommendation to strip back the walls and replaster them. She also asked why she was not being prioritised to move as part of the regeneration project.
In an email to the landlord on 3 June 2024 the resident raised her concerns that it would not be possible to carry out the works in 1 day, particularly with the family in situ. In her email to the landlord of 18 June the resident confirmed she wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The reason being that when the housing team were on site the previous week they failed to visit her.
On 27 June 2024 the resident cancelled an appointment booked to carry out works that day. This was because she had not moved her belongings and she did not think the contractor would carry out the works. She said she could not move the items because there was nowhere to put them. She asked again about being moved into a property as part of the regeneration scheme. She also agreed to another appointment being made. A further appointment was booked for 25 July.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 22 July 2024, as follows:
1. Following the inspection on 14 May 2024 the contractor submitted a quote to erect scaffolding for access to windows, reseal the windows and apply a mould wash to all window reveals and affected ceilings.
2. Works were approved on 28 May 2024 however there was a delay in arranging the appointment because the resident asked that options be explored for her moving prior to works being carried out.
3. Its regeneration team confirmed that there were no properties available. It had advised that its contractor would advise if works were too extensive to be carried out with the resident in situ.
4. When it spoke to the resident on 27 June 2024 she confirmed she had cancelled the appointment for that day and explained why. It advised she still needed to allow access and should engage to ensure works were completed. The resident agreed to another appointment “as soon as possible.”
5. It attempted to call the resident on 1, 3 and 5 July 2024 and when it could not reach her it left voicemails. It spoke to the resident on 16 July who advised that her mother had been in hospital. She confirmed she had arranged for the contractor to attend on 25 July 2024.
6. The contractor advised they would carry out window repairs and assess damp. They would inspect the external walls and agree next steps with the resident. They also confirmed that if they felt works were too extensive they would recommend the resident be decanted.
7. It would monitor the inspection and associated works scheduled for 25 July 2024.

Events post internal complaints process.

The landlord attended the property on 25 July 2024 but was unable to carry out works due to the amount of furniture inside.
On 20 September 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to close her stage 2 complaint because it could not carry out any works until she had moved her belongings.
The resident contacted us on 8 October 2024 because she wanted to be moved out and wanted to be compensated for damage for lost goods. The complaint became one we could investigate on 18 February 2025.
An internal email dated 10 April 2025 confirmed that the resident had been granted a management move to an alternative property due to overcrowding.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

The landlord’s responsive repairs compliance notes (repairs guidance) states that it will endeavour to provide appointments at times which are suitable for its residents.
Its damp, mould and compensation compliance notes (damp and mould guidance) says that it will:
1. Consider the resident’s individual needs and preferences when deciding on the right response to reports of damp and mould.
2. Regularly engage and communicate with residents.
3. Ensure processes support a risk based approach so responses are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
4. Act on surveyor recommendations in a timely manner.
5. Consider the risk associated with damp and mould to be high where household members have medical conditions such as asthma. In such cases it will carry out an inspection within 24 hours.
Its Complaints, Compliments and Comments Policy (complaints policy) says that it will acknowledged complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from receipt of the complaint.
Its Discretionary Compensation Policy says it will consider paying compensation as part of a formal complaint. It will consider the merits of the case and work with residents to find solutions to put things right.

Scope of the investigation.

The resident advised us that she initially noticed damp and mould 6 months after moving into the property and reported that it has been an ongoing issue for the past few years. This investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 2022 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

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

The repair logs show that on 29 November 2022 the resident reported “large” amounts of damp and mould. The entry noted that the issue had also been reported in August but that the works order had been cancelled because it incorrectly referenced the communal area. This was a record keeping failure which caused an avoidable delay.
The entry also noted that the resident said it was making her “ill.” The order requested that an inspection be carried out. However, there is no evidence that it did so which was a failing. The failure was compounded by its error in August and by the reported health implications.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 20 June 2024 confirmed that the resident contacted the landlord again on 27 March 2023 to report damp and mould. It attended on 19 April 2023 but was unable to gain access so the inspection was closed. The details of its visit are unclear which is a record keeping failure.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have tried to contact the resident to discuss the issue of access before closing the inspection However, there is no evidence it did so. Its damp and mould guidance refers to potential risk of harm. Therefore, considering the earlier report in November 2022, it would have been appropriate for it to have tried all avenues to inspect before closing the job.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 February 2024 to report ongoing damp and mould. She sent photographic evidence which the landlord circulated on an internal email the following day. The email confirmed that the resident had completed a survey over the phone the following year but “nothing came of it.” A contractor had attended but was unable to complete the work. They recommended a new appointment be booked but it never was. The details of the survey and subsequent appointment are unclear which is a record keeping failure.
The email requested that contact be made with the resident because she was overcrowded and the condition of the property was affecting “all of their health.” There is no evidence that the landlord assessed the level of risk to shape its response in line with its damp and mould guidance.
The landlord’s inaction caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble when she emailed the landlord on 15 March 2024 about the ongoing issue. She raised the following points:
1. She requested to be moved sooner as part of the regeneration project.
2. Her blood pressure was raised due to the stress of the situation and her medication had subsequently been increased.
3. She was spending £100 per month to run a dehumidifier to try to reduce the mould.
4. The mould always came back after a clean or treatment.
5. The landlord should email her to make appointments because she worked.
There is no evidence that the landlord responded which was inappropriate, causing distress. Furthermore, the resident was caused time and trouble when she emailed the landlord to follow up on 19 March 2024. She said the property was not habitable and the condition was affecting the welfare of her and her children who were ill “all the time.”
On 21 March 2024 the landlord attended the property to inspect but was unable to proceed because the only occupant present was under the age of 18 years. This was reasonable however, there is no evidence that it had emailed the resident to make an appointment so that she could ensure access would be given. This caused a further avoidable delay.
During the visit the landlord asked the resident’s 13 year old daughter to ask her to contact it to make another appointment. It was unreasonable to rely on the resident’s young daughter to pass the message onto her. In the circumstances it would have been appropriate for the landlord to follow up with her directly however, there is no evidence that it did so.
An internal email dated 22 March 2024 requested flexibility around booking appointment because the resident worked. This was appropriate and in line with its repairs guidance.
An internal email dated 5 April 2024 set out its phone call with the resident that day. It noted the property was overcrowded with “severe” damp and mould which was affecting her health and that of her children. The resident had also reported that it was causing damage to her furniture and belongings. It requested that an inspection was booked “as a matter of urgency.” It asked that appointments be arranged with the resident because she worked full time.
There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response to the resident regarding damage caused to her belongings which was inappropriate.
A further internal email dated 10 April 2024 said that the resident had “never reported” damp and mould. It said its attempt to visit on 21 March 2024 followed the regeneration team’s request for the property to be inspected. The evidence set out above shows that this statement was incorrect. A further internal email repeated the need to arrange appointments by email because the resident worked and could be difficult to contact by phone.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 19 April 2024 confirmed that an appointment had been arranged with the resident for 14 May 2024. It is unclear why it was booked so far in advance given the urgent nature of the inspection request.
The landlord inspected the property on 14 May 2024 and noted the following:
1. 2 bedrooms, the bathroom, hallway and living room were affected around the window areas.
2. There was a ventilation system in the kitchen but it did not work. This was the only ventilation in the property as there were no brick vents in place.
3. The external render was adequate.
4. The damp and mould may have been caused from the seals on the window and a lack of ventilation in the property.
A quote was submitted to attend site to carry out a further damp and mould inspection. It would also erect scaffolding to access the windows and reseal them, apply mould wash to all window reveals and affected ceilings. Works were approved on 28 May 2024 and an appointment arranged for 27 June 2024. An internal email dated 28 June 2024 noted that the appointment was scheduled 6 weeks in advance at the resident’s request.
On 30 May 2024 the landlord appropriately shared the outcome of the inspection with the resident. However, she emailed later that day to say that the report did not convey what was discussed. For example, she had been told all the walls need to be stripped back and replastered. She also expressed concern about whether the works could be carried out while she was in situ because they were overcrowded. She asked why they were not being prioritised to move as part of the regeneration works.
During a phone call with the landlord on 31 May 2024 the resident said she had asked the housing team to contact her on 14 May 2024 but had not received a response. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 19 April 2024 had made a commitment to contact the resident on 15 May. Its failure to do so was inappropriate.
An internal email, also dated 31 May 2024, enquired if there was another property available for the resident to move into while works were carried out due to overcrowding.
An internal email dated 3 June 2024 set out the resident’s response earlier that day that the contractor’s report did not address the issue of mould “embedded into the external walls”, behind the washing machine and in the internal wall in her son’s bedroom. She was concerned that resealing the windows and wiping off the mould was covering up the problem without addressing the root cause.
The landlord failed to provide a response to the resident’s concerns about the inspection. It would have been appropriate for it to have discussed the matter with its contractor and provided an update to her. This would have reassured her it had taken her concerns seriously. Furthermore, there is also no evidence that it considered her point about the root cause of the issue.
In her email she again expressed her concerns about carrying out the works in 1 day while being in situ. An internal email dated 3 June 2024 confirmed that the resident was in phase 3 of the regeneration programme so any decant would need to be assessed during the “normal” process.
A further internal email sent on 4 June 2024 confirmed that the maintenance team would provide advice on whether a decant was necessary. A response, also sent on the same day, said the resident would not accept a decant “as such.” However, she was prepared to move to a 3 bedroom property until the 4 bedroom assigned as part of the regeneration project was ready. There is no evidence that the landlord had discussed potential options for a decant and it is therefore unclear what this statement was based on.
In the landlord’s email to the resident of 5 June 2024 it said it was trying to resolve the resident’s concerns about carrying out the works with her in situ. It also confirmed it was exploring whether she could move to a 3 bedroom phase 2 property. Given the internal email of 3 June 2024 it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have managed the resident’s expectations at this point. Instead, it gave the impression there may still be a chance it could meet her request which was inappropriate.
An internal email dated 6 June 2024 again confirmed that the resident’s request for a decant could not be resolved through the regeneration project. The associated explanation was reasonable. On 10 June 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to chase an update about her request to move. The landlord replied to say the regeneration team could not assist but it was chasing the housing team.
On 18 June 2024 the resident called the landlord to say that the housing team had been on site the previous week and had failed to call into the resident to see the property for themselves. Although this was the catalyst for her stage 2 complaint the landlord failed to provide a response on this point, including in its complaint response of 22 July 2024, which was inappropriate.
A file note of a conversation between the resident and landlord dated 27 June 2024 noted that she had cancelled an appointment to carry out works that day. This was because she believed the contractor would decline to carry out works because her belongings needed to be moved and there was nowhere to move them to.
The landlord failed to consider what options might be available to support the resident to be able to provide access for works. For example, it could have considered assistance with packing up belongings to move them to storage and/or offered a decant to a hotel.
The landlord’s failure to investigate the resident’s concerns about the inspection on 14 May 2024 caused distress and inconvenience. This was evident when she raised the matter with the landlord again during a conversation on 27 June 2024. The landlord said it would query this. It advised that only the maintenance team could recommend a decant. This was inconsistent with its update of 10 June 2024 which said it was liaising with the housing team. Its approach lacked consistency causing confusion for the resident.
During the conversation the landlord gave the resident advice about potential factors which may be contributing to the damp issue. This included the drying of clothes indoors and lack of ventilation. It is noted that the resident disputed this was the case.
Given the overcrowded conditions in the property it was appropriate for the landlord to provide relevant advice which was in line with its damp and mould policy. However, given that it was aware of the resident’s living situation it would have been appropriate for it to have done so earlier in the process. This would have assisted to manage the resident’s expectations and may have helped to improve conditions in the property.
During the call the resident also raised concerns about damage caused to her clothing and furniture by mould. The resident was unaware that she could make a claim on the landlord’s insurance. Later that day the landlord emailed the resident to provide the details of its insurance claim and provide advice on what she should include in her claim. While this was positive this was over 2 months after the resident first raised the matter. During a telephone call with us on 10 April 2025 the resident advised that she had recently submitted a claim.
Despite the resident’s reservations about the arrangements to carry out works she agreed to another appointment being made “as soon as possible.”
An internal email dated 6 July 2024 set out the difficulties the landlord experienced reaching the resident by phone on 3 occasions to arrange the appointment before leaving a voicemail on 9 July 2024. As set out above the landlord had previously been asked to email the resident to make appointments. It is unclear why it did not do so on this occasion.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 16 July 2024 to advise that a relative had been in hospital which is why she had not been available to speak on the phone. She confirmed that she had spoken to the contractor and arranged an appointment for 25 July 2024.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 22 July 2024 confirmed that the appointment on 25 July would include a mould wash. It also said that the contractor would confirm if it felt works were too extensive requiring a decant.
An internal email dated 30 July 2024 confirmed that the works did not go ahead due to the “amount of furniture inside.” It said that all furniture needed to be “cleared out” in advance of attendance in order to carry out treatment inside.
There is no evidence that the number of items in the home had been reduced or moved to allow works to commence. Therefore, it is unclear why the landlord did not inspect the property prior to the appointment to assess the situation for itself. By not doing so it caused further inconvenience to the resident in addition to prolonging resolution of the substantive issue. Furthermore, by not taking proactive steps to manage the process and work with the resident to reach a solution it failed to make efficient use of its resources.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £600 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there no permanent impact.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident made a stage 1 complaint during her phone call with the landlord on 5 April 2024. On 10 April 2024 the landlord appropriately wrote to the resident to acknowledge the complaint. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 April 2024 which was within time.
The response was inaccurate because it said that the landlord attended on 21 February 2024 when the repairs logs show it attended on 21 March 2024.
On 18 June 2024 the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. On 20 June 2024 the landlord sent a comprehensive response to the resident to set out the details of the complaint. This included costs associated with running a dehumidifier. It confirmed it had raised a complaint and said it would be in contact within 5 working days.
On 26 June 2024 the landlord appropriately wrote to the resident to acknowledge her stage 2 complaint and said it would respond within 20 working days.
In an internal email dated 27 June 2024 the landlord set out its telephone conversation with the resident earlier that day. It had advised her that it would not progress her stage 2 complaint if she failed to allow access. This was inappropriate because its position was not consistent with its complaints policy.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 22 July 2024. The complaint response was 24 working days after the complaint was raised which was 4 working days over target. Although the delay and detriment caused to the resident was minimal it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged and apologised for the delay.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to address all points raised in the complaint definition. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 22 July 2024 failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the inspection on 14 May 2024. It also failed to provide a response regarding the costs incurred by operating a dehumidifier.
The landlord’s failure amounts to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

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

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to:
  1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Set out its position with regards to compensation for the costs of operating a dehumidifier.
2. Pay the resident £700 comprised of:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. £100 for its failures in its complaint handling.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman also within 4 weeks of the date of the determination.