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

Home Group Limited (202428206)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202428206

Home Group Limited

05 June 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 handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She resides at the property with her 3 children and husband. The landlord is aware that several household members have health issues.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 September 2023 to report the property was damp and mould was present in several areas, including the kitchen, bedrooms and bathroom.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 16 April 2024. She said it had not done enough to resolve the damp and mould, the problem was worsening, and she was concerned over the health of her family.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 1 May 2024. It apologised for poor communication from its maintenance team. It said it would complete further actions to address the damp and mould including conducting repairs identified in a recent visit.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 10 May 2024. She said it was not doing enough to resolve the issues. She was unhappy at a lack of communication around repair work.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint process on 27 June 2024. It said it had raised repair works and would contact the resident to confirm a start date for these. It said once works were complete it would contact her to make a compensation offer.
  7. The landlord issued a second stage 2 response on 12 August 2024. It said its prior agreed actions were complete and apologised for its failings. It offered the resident £300 in compensation, which it broke down as:
    1. £75 for disruption caused by numerous appointments to attend the property.
    2. £150 for the delays in carrying out repair work.
    3. £75 for a service failure resulting from incorrect positioning of a bathroom extractor fan.
  8. The resident brought her complaint to us as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said the property was still affected by damp and mould and she wanted the landlord to resolve this.

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said hers and her children’s health conditions were affected by the conditions in the property. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman assesses landlords’ handling of residents’ complaints to ascertain whether they took reasonable steps to resolve these within their internal process. This investigation has, therefore, focused on the events and evidence from September 2023 leading up to its final response on 12 August 2024.

Reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s ‘rented home handbook’ issued to the resident upon commencement of her tenancy, states it will:
    1. Respond to emergency repairs within 6 hours and complete works within 24 hours.
    2. Complete routine, non-emergency repairs in 14 days.
  2. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy states it has a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to damp and mould interventions. It will carry out a risk assessment upon notification of damp or mould and base its response on this.
  3. The policy states it will conduct a maintenance inspection of the issues and will attend:
    1. High risk cases, including households with children or experiencing health issues within 24 hours.
    2. Medium risk cases, including households with no children or vulnerabilities where damp is in multiple rooms, within 48 hours.
    3. Low risk cases, including households with no children or vulnerabilities where damp is in 1 room, within 72 hours.
  4. The policy sets out that a ‘checklist’ will be used to ensure a consistent approach, and the cause of damp and mould will be diagnosed. Repeat or linked issues will be escalated accordingly by the landlord.
  5. Upon reporting damp and mould throughout the property on 21 September 2023, the resident told the landlord that she was disabled and had 2 children residing in the property with additional needs. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord assessed the case as ‘high risk’ in line with its policy guidelines. Repair records show it raised a damp and mould inspection and noted that attendance should be within 24 hours. The landlord’s stage 1 response confirms this did not take place.
  6. The resident chased a response from the landlord on 5 and 6 October 2023. She said that she had received no contact in relation to her prior reports. She said that she believed the damp and mould was affecting her family’s health and that her son had been taken to hospital due to illness.
  7. Despite the resident’s contact, records show that the landlord did not inspect the damp and mould until over a month later, in November 2023. This is significantly outside of the 24-hour response time set out in its policy. There is no evidence that it kept the resident informed or updated during this time. It is unclear from the records presented to us if it completed a checklist during this visit, in line with its policy, or the reasons for its delayed response. Its lack of urgency in addressing the matter was inappropriate, particularly given its knowledge of the vulnerabilities present in the household.
  8. The inspection notes show that several repair jobs were recommended in response to the landlord’s findings of damp patches throughout the property. These included a mould wash, lagging of sink pipes, further inspection of the decking area, and extractor fan overhaul. Although it was positive that the landlord conducted repairs on 14 November 2023 to the decking, there is no evidence to indicate that it arranged any of the other repair work at this time. It would have been reasonable for it to schedule the remainder of the recommended works. Doing so would have demonstrated its willingness to tackle the issues faced by the resident.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 December 2023 and again on 12 December 2023 to advise that the mould was worsening and she had received no contact since the inspection. The records of her contact indicate that she was chasing the installation of air vents in the loft. The records presented to us do not include any details of this repair, however the landlord stated in its complaint response that it took place in December 2023. It is apparent it failed to keep the resident updated on the matter, resulting in her needing to chase up contact. This, along with its failure to maintain adequate records in relation to the repair, was unreasonable.
  10. On 2 January 2024 the resident told the landlord that mould had appeared on the exterior of the building. It acted in accordance with its policy by raising an inspection, which it attended promptly on 3 January 2024. Repair work raised following this, including a mould wash and repairs to an extractor fan and guttering, were completed within its set timescales.
  11. The records show that the landlord requested for dehumidifiers to be delivered to the resident upon this contact. It was unfortunate it subsequently did not complete this action. It is not clear from the records the reasons for this. Its consideration of interim solutions to mitigate the impact of the housing conditions on the resident were reasonable. The provision of dehumidifiers would have been in line with the landlord’s policy guidance to provide – ‘a menu of options appropriate to the situation’.
  12. The resident told the landlord on 4 January 2024 that she was unhappy with the standard of the mould wash that had been carried out. She said that ‘half’ of affected areas had not been treated and that mould was still present. She asked for the issue to be escalated to a management level due to the length of time it was ongoing. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to follow up the resident’s concerns and re-attend to complete the mould wash in full. Its failure to do so likely left the resident feeling frustrated and ignored.
  13.  Between February and March 2024, the landlord contacted the resident on 3 occasions in relation to her rent account. During these interactions she relayed her dissatisfaction with its handling of the ongoing damp and mould issue. There is no evidence that this information was shared with the relevant team to prompt a resolution. This was another missed opportunity for it to address the resident’s concerns and respond appropriately.
  14. Upon raising her complaint on 16 April 2024, the resident had approached her local councillor and GP surgery regarding the damp and mould, both of whom had been in touch with the landlord on her behalf. Her involvement with external agencies relating to the issue was a direct result of the poor communication she had experienced.
  15. It was appropriate that in its stage 1 response the landlord recognised and apologised for this poor communication. It took reasonable action as part of its response including arranging for the damp and mould to be inspected by a manager. It said it found no signs of damp and raised further repair work to address mould in the kitchen and loft. It said it would complete a mould wash in the loft, replace and relocate the bathroom extractor fan so that it was above the shower and further inspect and repair the guttering. While this showed efforts to address the mould, the resident remained concerned that it had failed to offer her an explanation for the root cause of the problem, as set out in its policy.
  16. The landlord’s initial response to these repairs was timely and appropriate. Upon attendance to complete works set out in the stage 1 response on 14 May 2024, the contractor attending found nesting birds in the loft and due to this was unable to complete the repair work. It was reasonable that it updated the resident on 16 May 2024, to advise that as soon as permission was granted to remove the birds, it would reschedule the repair work. Although it is not clear from the repair records when this took place the landlord said in its stage 2 response that it replaced the extractor fan on 13 June 2024 and work to the guttering would be completed alongside upcoming roof repairs.  
  17. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process on 20 May 2024. It acknowledged this request 10 working days later, outside of the 5-day timescale set out in its policy. It would have been best practice for it to acknowledge and apologise for the delays in dealing with her escalation request.
  18. The landlord contacted the resident on 31 May 2024 after receiving her escalation request. She said that she was unhappy that work to address the mould was outstanding. She explained that during the repair visit on 16 May 2024 a roof leak was found, but she had received no further contact regarding this. Records show the landlord’s complaint team acted appropriately by following the issue up with its maintenance department. It confirmed to the resident in its stage 2 acknowledgement letter on 3 June 2024 that it was investigating this and would respond to the matter in its complaint response.
  19. During this conversation the resident also told the landlord that her personal items had been damaged by mould in the property. In cases like this where a resident states that their personal items have been damaged due to the landlord’s actions or omissions in dealing with damp and mould it is reasonable for the landlord to refer them to its liability insurers. The landlord promptly addressed this in its stage 2 acknowledgement letter on 3 June 2024 where it provided contact details for its insurance claims team. The resident has, however, informed us that she has subsequently had difficulty contacting this team. We have made a related recommendation addressing this below.
  20. The landlord’s records show that the complaint handling team requested an update on the progress of the roof repairs several times between 31 May and 22 July 2024. This demonstrated a determination to seek a resolution for the resident, however the repair work was not authorised until 25 July 2024. Apart from its stage 2 response, there is no other evidence that it updated the resident during this time. It also did not offer any timescales for completion of the works so as to manage her expectations. The repair work to the roof and guttering was subsequently completed on 9 August 2024, over 12 weeks from its notification of the leak. This was significantly outside of its agreed response time of 14 days. Its delay in arranging this work was unreasonable and along with its poor communication on the matter led to further distress for the resident.
  21. Overall, there were delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It did not adhere to actions set out in its damp and mould policy nor carry out repairs within its agreed timeframes. Its communication with the resident was poor and it did not consider her vulnerabilities in its responses. It failed to recognise the level of distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident having to continually chase it for further action to be taken. 
  22. Issues with damp and mould are often complex, and it can take time to find the cause. This can make it difficult for landlords to remedy the problem as quickly as its residents would expect. Our spotlight report on damp and mould states that a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach, and its responses must be prompt and reflect the urgency of the issue. We expect landlords to communicate well between teams and departments, and to ensure one team or individual has overall responsibility for making sure it resolves complaints and reports relating to damp and mould, including follow up or aftercare. Had the landlord followed this best practice, it may have avoided the failings present in this case.
  23. The missing records in this case have presented challenges for us in investigating this complaint as we have been unable to assess whether some of the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable. As highlighted in our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, it is vitally important that landlords keep detailed records of all actions taken in respect of repairs, including inspections and works completed. This allows the landlord to account for its actions and decisions to residents and this Service, where required.
  24. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  25. The landlord acted fairly by apologising for delays in dealing with the resident’s reports of damp and mould. We welcome the fact it offered her compensation in its final response to try and put right its evident failings. It is our opinion, however, that its offer of £300 in compensation failed to recognise the level of distress caused to the resident with the matter continuing for over 10 months. It did not go far enough to recognise the effects of its failings and the fact these were compounded by the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  26. Our remedies guidance provides for compensation in the range of £100 to £600 for situations where there was failure by a landlord that adversely affected the resident causing distress and inconvenience. We have made orders for it to pay increased compensation as the evidence does not clarify whether that the issue was resolved and the events in this case warrant redress at the higher end of this range. The resident has told us that mould is currently present in the property therefore we have ordered specific actions to resolve the issues.

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

 

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must take the following actions and provide evidence of its compliance to this Service:
    1. Arrange for an independent damp and mould survey of the property. It should provide the resident and this Service with the survey report and a schedule of required repairs with a timeline for the completion of these works.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £500 (this includes the £300 previously offered if not already paid) for its failures in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    3. This payment must be paid directly to the resident and not to her rent account.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to discuss the insurance claims process relating to damaged personal belongings.
  2. We recommend that the landlord reviews its record keeping arrangements to ensure that these are robust. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and collated, both of works raised and completed and of resident contact. It may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.