Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited (202235018)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202235018

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited

30 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

The resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s handling of damage caused by damp and mould.
The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident has occupied the property under an assured tenancy agreement since 2008, the landlord is a housing association. The resident has a chronic auto-immune disease.
The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat, and it is located within a wider block of flats.
The resident has provided evidence that they first reported damp and mould concerns to the landlord in 2009. More recently, on 26 April 2023 the resident told the landlord that the damp and mould in the property had become unbearable, and they were concerned the mould was affecting their health condition.
The landlord arranged for a mould wash to occur on 20 September 2023. However, the landlord’s contractors were unable to conduct the mould wash as the landlord had not arranged for sufficient time to complete the work. On 29 September 2023 a member of staff who had attended the property said the mould was significant, and the landlord should conduct additional work to address the mould.
On 20 September 2023 the resident complained to the landlord over the phone. In this call the resident said:
1. They felt the landlord had not taken the mould issues seriously.
2. They had been living with damp and mould for a significant time.
3. They were unhappy with the mould wash being re-arranged. They felt that as the landlord had previously inspected the property it should have arranged for adequate time to complete the repair.
In its stage 1 reply dated 30 October 2023 the landlord said:
1. For any future works it would arrange for the resident to have 2 weeks notice.
2. It had arranged for contractors to attend the property to measure up vinyl flooring and to inspect the ventilation system. But it had cancelled this work after receiving an email from the resident on 27 October 2023.
3. It warned the resident that it would be contacting its legal team to assess if the resident’s email constituted a breach of tenancy. It was also considering if it should forcibly gain access to the property to complete the mould wash.
4. The landlord acknowledged repairs processes can be frustrating, but it urged the resident to work with the landlord.
On 12 December 2023 the resident expressed concerns about the landlord’s handling of the repairs. The resident was frustrated as contractors kept coming to the property without prior notice. The resident was also unhappy with the landlord’s planned repairs, as they felt it was unfair that the landlord would no longer conduct the full repairs it had previously committed to.
On 18 December 2023 the landlord decided it should treat the resident’s concerns as an escalation request.
In its stage 2 reply dated 27 December 2023 the landlord said:
1. It felt that the resident’s escalation request was not warranted.
2. The full works which were originally agreed upon were not repairs, and it said it had revised the planned works after obtaining views from its legal team. This was why it decided to only conduct a mould wash.
3. The planned refurbishments were not going ahead as it was concerned about its ability to access the property.
4. There had been several occasions where accessing the property was challenging and this had led to delays.
5. Several reports said there was no mould in the property. The landlord suggested the resident’s reports that they could smell mould would likely be linked to uncleaned cooking stains in the property.
6. If any works were raised to replace the resident’s flooring or radiators this work would be charged to the resident’s rental account.
On 16 January 2024 the resident brought their complaint to this Service as they felt the landlord’s concerns about access were unreasonable, and they wished for the landlord to complete repairs to the fixtures and fittings which had been damaged by damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has expressed distress over the damp and mould affecting their on-going health condition. The resident has said they have had on-going coughs and colds as well as being hospitalised for pneumonia, and they suspect this is linked to the damp and mould. Whilst this has been noted for context, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, a resident’s health and wellbeing. Claims of personal injury are to be determined by a court after considering medical evidence.
However, consideration has been given to the resident’s general distress about the potential impact on their health.

Policy, procedure and guidance

The landlord’s repairs policy says for routine repairs it will aim to complete works within 28 days. The landlord classes non-routine repairs as repairs which are complex. The landlord will aim to complete such repairs within 60 days. When organising repairs the landlord will offer residents appointments which are suitably convenient.
At the time of relevance to the resident’s complaint the landlord did not have a specific damp and mould policy. It introduced a damp and mould policy in 2024.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a legal duty on a landlord to make full, effective and lasting repairs once it becomes aware a repair is required.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. Not place the onus for damp and mould on a resident, and to avoid seeing damp and mould as being linked to a resident’s lifestyle.
2. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions.
3. Identify complex cases at an early stage.
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used. Landlords should share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents, and act on accepted survey recommendations promptly.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it can offer residents discretionary compensation for its service failures. Any compensation offered will reflect the severity of the issue, how long the issue has been on-going for and the number of failings. The landlord will also consider a resident’s vulnerability when considering compensation.
The landlord’s vulnerable persons policy says the landlord will record details of a resident’s vulnerability on its systems. When the landlord engages with a vulnerable resident or provides a service it will tailor its approach to account for a resident’s vulnerabilities.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property and this includes the property’s walls, ceilings and floors. The landlord is also responsible for keeping in working order infrastructure which supplies heating, water and gas.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

There is a significant history of the resident reporting damp, mould and condensation in the property. The resident has told this Service that other properties in the block have similar issues, and this has been reported to the landlord.
The resident has a diagnosis of Lupus, which is an auto–immune disease. The landlord was aware of the resident’s diagnosis throughout the events described in this report. The Lupus Trust, a charity specialising in advocacy around the disease, says lupus can constitute as a disability under the Equality Act 2010 if it has a significant impact on an individual.
The landlord’s vulnerable persons policy commits to tailoring its services for vulnerable persons. As such it should have considered the resident’s health condition, and its associated vulnerabilities, when it addressed the damp and mould.
On 15 December 2022 the landlord conducted a damp and mould inspection. Notes from this inspection said there was significant mould in the property and the property’s humidity reading was 99%. The inspector recommended a ventilation system should be installed.
On 19 January 2023 a ventilation company inspected the property. Readings from this inspection showed the property was sufficiently heated but still had humidity readings from 68% to 73% and mould in every room. The company arranged for it to install an extractor fan in the kitchen, replace a broken extractor fan in the bathroom and install a ventilation system.
The company also suggested the landlord should inspect the insulation in case there was a thermal bonding issue. It also highlighted that there were no trickle vents in the property’s windows. The landlord has not provided any evidence to indicate the additional issues highlighted by the ventilation company were acted on. This was inappropriate because taking steps to check the insulation and consider whether trickle vents were needed could have helped to reduce the issues that the resident was experiencing. Alternatively if the landlord did not intend to take any action in respect of these recommendations it should have explained this to the resident.
The ventilation unit was installed on 28 June 2023.
The resident asked the landlord for a copy of the 19 January 2023 report and for a timeframe for the works. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have accommodated this, as recommended within the Ombudsman’s spotlight report. Instead, internal communications showed the landlord decided not to share this information with the resident, and members of staff cited the resident’s lifestyle as the primary reason behind the damp and mould. This decision was inappropriate, and the landlord’s justification for its decision was unsympathetic to the resident.
On 26 April 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and said the mould in the property was unbearable. The resident said they had to store clothing in the kitchen due to the condition of the bedroom. The resident also said the conditions were exacerbating their health issues.
The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act, this can only be done by the courts. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties and followed its own related policies and procedures. Landlords may be able to show they have properly considered the Equality Act if they consider the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected.
At this point the landlord should have acted to address the damp and mould as it knew the resident had a significant medical diagnosis. The landlord did not act on the resident’s concerns or take timely steps to mitigate the distress the resident was experiencing. This was unreasonable and the lack of action from the landlord indicated it did not appropriately consider the resident’s personal circumstances and its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act. There was also no evidence to suggest that it had given due consideration as to whether the resident could be disabled and if so, its associated responsibilities under the Equality Act.
On 30 August 2023 the landlord conducted an additional damp and mould inspection. The attending surveyor’s report was critical of the resident, and it suggested the damp and mould was caused by the resident’s lifestyle and their cleanliness. The language used in the report was unfair and unsympathetic, it was also inappropriate when considering the resident had a health condition which could have impacted their ability to physically clean any mould. Following this survey the landlord raised works to complete a mould wash in the property.
The landlord should have given greater consideration to the property’s history of damp and mould. Furthermore, the resident has supplied evidence which suggests as other residents of the block had reported concerns around mould growth. The landlord should have considered if this indicated the matter might be a complex case, or that there were building fabric issues rather than simply citing the resident’s lifestyle.
On 20 September 2023 a contractor attended the property to conduct the damp and mould wash. The attending operatives were unable to complete the mould wash as they felt the landlord had booked in insufficient time for the work. Considering an inspection had recently occurred the landlord should have adequately prepared for this work. Cancelling this work on the day would have distressed the resident and led to them feeling let down. The landlord decided it would reschedule the works and temporarily rehouse the resident to complete the mould wash. It was appropriate and considerate of the resident’s circumstances that the landlord decided to rehouse the resident while the works were ongoing.
The contractors who attended on 20 September 2023 said they felt the flat was a ‘health hazard’. As the resident had a health condition the landlord should have taken steps to ensure the mould was removed in a reasonable timeframe given the assessment that it could be a health hazard.
On 2 October 2023 the landlord told the resident it would arrange for the collection and storage of the resident’s personal items and temporarily rehouse the resident while it conducted a mould wash and deep clean. There were delays in arranging the works linked to internal disagreements around the works, logistical considerations, the resident’s concerns, and rehousing the resident in a hotel which met their medical needs.
Such discussions took place over email, and it would have been difficult for the resident to keep track of what was going on, especially considering this was occurring at a time which was already stressful for the resident. It would have been a better course of action for the landlord to talk to the resident in person. This would have ensured both parties understood what was occurring, the resident’s needs, and the landlord’s considerations and plans.
The landlord completed the mould wash on 19 December 2023, this was 111 days after the landlord requested the works. The landlord did not follow up the mould wash with any steps to investigate factors which could be contributing to the mould. This was inappropriate, and it appears to the Ombudsman that the landlord had already come to a decision that the mould was a result of the resident’s lifestyle. If a landlord is to adequately address damp and mould in the properties it manages, it is required to investigate potential contributing factors, and to address these. In this case there is no evidence that the landlord took these steps.
After the mould wash was completed, the resident raised concerns about smelling mould in the property. In its stage 2 response the landlord denied there was additional mould in the property, and it suggested the smells could be linked to uncleaned cooking stains in the property. Such comments were inappropriate and dismissive of the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s records show the mould wash was not successful in eradicating damp and mould in the property as the landlord conducted additional damp and mould works in May 2024. The resident said in May 2024 the landlord applied anti-mould paint to the property to try and prevent the mould from returning. An order has been made for a damp and mould specialist to inspect the property to assess if any contributing factors can be identified.
In its complaint responses the landlord did not offer the resident an apology, nor did it address any of its own shortcomings. The Ombudsman expects landlords to use complaint procedures to remedy issues, identify poor performance and make improvements. In this instance the landlord did not act in such manner. The landlord appeared to be defensive about actions it had taken, even stating in its stage 2 reply that the resident’s escalation request was not warranted.
The Ombudsman finds severe maladministration occurred after considering:
1. The property, and neighbouring properties, had a history of damp, mould and condensation and the landlord did not adequately consider this.
2. The landlord failed to sufficiently address or investigate why the property had damp and mould issues.
3. The landlord took a significant time to clean the mould, and this work was not successful as the mould later returned.
4. The landlord did not identify that the resident was vulnerable due to their health condition, or that this might indicate it had responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. It did not ask the resident for any details about their condition or health, and it did not assess if the resident was struggling or needed further support.
5. The landlord used language which was unsympathetic to the resident and blamed them for the damp and mould.
6. The landlord did not allow the resident to obtain copies of reports, or provide them with timescales for planned works.
Considering the finding of severe maladministration the Ombudsman has made orders for the landlord to address the damp and mould. Additionally, orders have been made to pay the resident compensation of £1000 in recognition of the distress experienced from its handling of the damp and mould concerns. A further order has been made for payment of compensation of £300 in recognition of the distress experienced by the landlord’s failure to appropriately consider the resident’s health condition and associated vulnerabilities.

The landlord’s handling of damage caused by damp and mould

Under the tenancy agreement it is the resident’s responsibility to:
1. Maintain the internal condition of the property to a reasonable standard.
2. Repair any damage caused by themselves, or their visitors.
3. Keep the property’s fixtures and fittings in a good condition.
On 29 September 2023 an operative who had inspected the property recorded that there was significant damage caused by the damp and mould. The inspector noted the landlord should:
1. Remove all carpets and blinds from the property as they had been damaged by the mould.
2. Replace the flooring with a suitable wipe down material.
3. Replace rotten woodwork from the kitchen units.
4. Replace the rotten skirting boards.
5. Replace rusty radiators.
When discussing the works the operative said that because of the resident’s medical condition, the landlord would need to ensure the work was completed prior to the colder months. This was appropriate as it was considerate of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
On 2 October 2023 the landlord decided it would not fund replacing the resident’s flooring as it felt the upkeep of this was the resident’s responsibility. The landlord contacted the resident with the dates it planned to complete the works. The landlord offered to obtain a quote for new flooring from a contractor and recharge the resident for this cost.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to no longer replace the damaged items. The resident said:
1. They felt the damage to the flooring had occurred because the landlord had ignored their concerns around damp and mould. However, the resident agreed to pay for the flooring costs if they could pay the cost back in instalments.
2. They felt leaving the radiators in the property would be harmful for their health as the radiators were mouldy.
3. The damage to kitchen units had occurred from the damp and mould and the lack of ventilation in the kitchen, and this was linked to the landlord’s failure to action their concerns about damp and mould.
The landlord told the resident that if they wished for the radiators, kitchen units, windowsills or skirting boards to be replaced the resident would have to fund this work themselves. The resident had a responsibility under the tenancy agreement to keep the property in good condition. However, the resident’s ability to do so would have been affected by the landlord’s lack of timely action to address the damp and mould (as previously discussed), and the physical limitations associated with the resident’s health condition. As such it was inappropriate that the landlord placed the financial burden for the repairs on the resident.
The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for keeping heating infrastructure, and the structure (including floors) of the property in good condition. The landlord’s stance on replacing the radiator was unfair when considering terms of the tenancy.
There was a dispute over who was responsible for replacing the flooring. The landlord was first made aware in September 2023 that the flooring should be replaced, and in October it said that it considered the resident should be responsible. It was however willing to arrange the work and recharge the resident. The resident agreed to this if they could pay in instalments. However the flooring is yet to be replaced.
Given that the tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for keeping the floors in good repair, it is not clear why the landlord considered this to be the resident’s responsibility, and it did not explain why. However it is not disputed that the flooring was identified as needing to be replaced, and this work is outstanding. Taking into consideration the landlord’s obligations in the tenancy agreement, the original advice that it should be replaced, and the findings in this report that there were significant failings in the landlord’s overall handling of the damp and mould, we consider it is fair that the landlord should replace the flooring. This is because the condition of the flooring has been affected by the damp in the home and the landlord has not taken adequate steps to resolve the property condition. It is therefore appropriate that the landlord now replaces the flooring and an order has been made to that effect.
On 24 October 2023 the landlord informed the resident contractors would be attending the property on 25 October 2023 and 27 October 2023. The resident expressed frustration with the short notice they received and said they were fed up with frequent inspections.
In an email the resident told the landlord ‘do not send anyone’. This appeared to be in reference to the inspections on 25 October 2023 and 27 October 2023. However, the landlord took this to mean the resident would not allow access for any future works. This was an unreasonable assumption considering the context of what the resident was unhappy about, and their ongoing distress linked to the property condition.
If the landlord was concerned about access, it could have taken the time to speak with the resident, understand their concerns and attempt to regain some trust. Instead, the landlord escalated the matter by informing the resident it was contacting its legal department. This would have caused the resident to feel further distress as they would be concerned for their housing situation.
On 16 November 2023 the landlord told the resident that because of the access concerns all works previously discussed (aside from the mould wash) had been cancelled. This was unfair to the resident.
Despite the landlord’s stated stance about repairing and replacing the damaged items, on 15 May 2024 the landlord decided to complete the repairs after an inspector noted the property was in an ‘appalling’ condition. The inspector said units in the property were unhygienic and rotting. The landlord replaced the kitchen units, skirting boards, window ledges and radiators between August and November 2024.
The resident has told this Service that the landlord has not replaced the flooring and that the flooring in the property is still affected by mould.
On 21 October 2023 the resident applied to the landlord for compensation for personal items which were damaged by damp and mould. The landlord formally responded to this application on 8 October 2024, just under a year later. This was an inappropriate response time.
The landlord said it was awaiting input from this Service before responding to the resident’s claim. This response was not necessary as the Ombudsman is able to assess the reasonableness of a landlord’s offer of redress when completing an investigation. As the landlord has not fully addressed the resident’s claim, an order has been made for it to do so in line with its policies.
In its complaint responses the landlord did not offer the resident any redress. The landlord maintained that its stance to only conduct a mould wash was reasonable considering the access concerns.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration occurred after considering:
1. The resident’s health condition may have affected their ability to maintain the property and prevent damage from the damp and mould.
2. The landlord did not fully consider the content of the tenancy agreement when determining what works it would conduct.
3. The landlord rescinded its commitments to address the damage in the property, and this would have distressed the resident.
4. The landlord assumed that the resident would deny access to the property without speaking to them to understand their concerns and needs.
5. The landlord was slow to respond to the resident’s compensation claim, and its response was not sufficiently detailed.
Considering the finding of maladministration the Ombudsman has made orders for the landlord to pay £400 in compensation to the resident, for it to replace the flooring and respond to the resident’s compensation claim.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its relevant complaints policy. However, the landlord’s website says its complaints policy is in line with this Service’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code).
Under the Code landlords should acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days, and provide its stage one response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. If the resident wishes for their complaint to be escalated to a stage 2 complaint, the landlord should acknowledge this within 5 working days and provide its response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 30 October 2023, this was 29 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This was a failing as it was outside of the timescales in the Code. The landlord later provided its stage 2 response within the timeframe outlined in the Code, this was appropriate.
While the landlord did not respond to the resident within the timescales outlined in its policy, the delay was not significant and the impact on the resident would have been limited. As such the Ombudsman has determined no maladministration occurred with respect to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of damage caused by damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about this matter.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £1,700 to the resident. The compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £1000 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of the reported damp and mould.
2. £300 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s failure to demonstrate that it has given appropriate consideration to the resident’s health condition and associated vulnerabilities when considering its overall response to the reports of damp and mould.
3. £400 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of damage caused by damp and mould
Within 6 weeks of this determination the landlord is to
1. Arrange an inspection of the property which should be conducted by a suitably qualified professional with an aim to establish the contributing factors for the damp and mould. This inspection should also inspect if the property’s insulation is in line with expected standards or contributing to the damp and mould.
2. The landlord is to share any inspection reports with the resident.
3. The landlord’s CEO is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings outlined, it is to explain the steps it will take to address the damp and mould, and to make improvements.
4. The landlord is to contact the resident and discuss their health needs and any adjustments it can make to better meet the resident’s needs.
5. The landlord is to replace the resident’s flooring with a suitable wipe clean material.
6. The landlord is to respond to the resident’s compensation request.
7. The landlord is to conduct a case review of the resident’s complaint to learn from the Ombudsman’s outcomes. This review is to be shared with the landlord’s governing body.

The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders within 6 weeks of the determination date.