Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited (202432146)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202432146

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 damp and mould in the property.
2. The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s personal circumstances.

Background

The resident occupies the property under an assured tenancy agreement, and has done so since 2014. The property is a 2-bedroom terraced house, and the landlord is a housing association.
In 2022 the landlord began to organise retrofit works in the property to improve its energy efficiency. The landlord planned to start the repairs in 2024.
On 4 December 2023 the resident reported damp in the living room. On 2 February 2024 the resident’s neighbour reported that the damp was also impacting their property. The landlord inspected the property on 15 April 2024 and found the gutters were leaking and this was causing damp.
On 10 September 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. In their complaint the resident said:
1. Repairs in the property had been going on for too long, and she had to continually call and email the landlord for updates.
2. She had booked numerous days off work to facilitate access to the property, and on several occasions contractors did not attend or said they could not complete the required works.
3. She had been sleeping in the living room where mould was present, as children were occupying the bedrooms.
4. The landlord said the property was not significantly overcrowded as there was sufficient space in the living room to sleep. The landlord had committed to addressing the damp and mould in the living room for health reasons.
5. Tragically the resident’s baby passed away shortly after being born. The resident said she felt she would have to live with the thought that the damp and mould, and the associated stress, could have impacted her baby’s health.
6. Scaffolding had been erected around the property, and this affected the children’s enjoyment of the garden. The resident was frustrated as repairs had not been completed even though the scaffolding was up.
The landlord sent its stage one response on 23 September 2024. The landlord said:
1. It had previously advised the resident to clean the damp and mould and to apply damp proof paint. It said this advice was standard before it introduced its damp and mould policy in 2024.
2. Due to issues with its contractors, and because the resident’s neighbours had raised concerns, it had issued additional works for the damp and mould.
3. It arranged for an inspection to occur on 5 April 2024, but due to a technical error this date was not recorded on the surveyor’s diary. It re-arranged the inspection for 15 April 2024.
4. On 8 July 2024 it cancelled works relating to the damp and mould as it hoped it could get the work done faster by using another contractor.
5. On 6 September 2024 the landlord’s contractors said all works relating to damp and mould had been completed.
6. It upheld the resident’s complaint as delays had occurred when the resident reported damp and mould concerns. The landlord said it recognised the distress the resident experienced from repairs work occurring at the time her child passed away. It offered the resident £500 in recognition of how the delays experienced would have had an adverse impact on the family.
7. It also offered compensation of £10 for a missed appointment, £10 for a failure to complete repairs and £10 for a failure to adequately communicate with the resident.
8. It said there had been learning from the resident’s complaint about its need to understand the impact repair delays can have on residents. The landlord said it needed to have better communication with its residents about repairs, especially when external contractors were involved.
On 10 October 2024 the resident escalated the complaint as she felt:
1. The landlord had not acknowledged the impact of living with damp and mould.
2. The detriment experienced could not be put into words.
3. It was unfair that her family were not living at the property as she had to leave due to the disruption associated with the retrofit works.
In its stage 2 response dated 5 November 2024 the landlord said it had concluded the damp and mould repairs in September 2024. The landlord said it would not uphold the resident’s complaint as the compensation offer at stage one was in line with its compensation policy.
On 22 November 2024 the resident contacted this Service as she felt the landlord’s complaint responses did not reflect the detriment experienced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has expressed distress over the damp and mould affecting her, and her unborn child’s, health during her pregnancy. We understand how this must have caused her anxiety and distress. 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 the court after considering medical evidence.
However, the Ombudsman has considered the resident’s general distress about the potential impact on theirs and their family’s health.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend routine repairs within 28 days. It will complete non-routine repairs in 60 days. It classes non-routine repairs as repairs which are extensive or require specialist equipment. When booking in repairs the landlord will arrange appointments at a time which is convenient to the resident. It will also call a resident 24 hours beforehand to check if the repairs can still go ahead.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy was introduced in March 2024. Prior to this, actions relating to damp and mould fell under the landlord’s repairs policy.
Under the landlord’s damp and mould policy all reports of damp and mould will be triaged as low, medium or high risk. For high risk cases an inspection will occur in 1 working day, for medium risk cases an inspection will occur within 5 working days, for low risk cases an inspection will occur within 28 days. The resident will be kept informed of all planned works, scheduling and diagnoses. If a repair is complex, intrusive or there is a health and safety risk the landlord can temporarily rehouse a resident.
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 Housing Act 2004 places a requirement for landlords to assess hazards and risks within their rented homes. Hazards are to be assessed under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), included in this is damp and mould growth as a potential hazard.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it can offer £100 to £600 for a service failure which has no permanent impact but has had an adverse effect.
Under the Equality Act 2010 pregnancy and maternity are classed as protected characteristics. This means it is unlawful to treat someone less favourably because they are pregnant, have recently given birth, or are breastfeeding.
In 2022 the landlord learned that the resident’s stepchild was living in the property, and that the resident was pregnant with her first child. Evidence suggests the landlord learned of the resident’s second pregnancy on 15 April 2024, this would have further overcrowded the property. As the property was a 2-bedroom home this meant there were more occupants than there were bedrooms.
On 4 December 2023 the resident reported that damp patches she had previously reported to the landlord had got worse, and she could no longer treat the damp. The landlord logged the works, and noted an inspection was required. The landlord’s target date to complete the inspection was 1 January 2024.
The landlord arranged for an inspection to occur on 18 January 2024, but the day prior contractors cancelled the appointment and re–booked it for 12 February 2024. Both planned inspection dates were not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, or the landlord’s completion targets. This was inappropriate.
On 2 February 2024 the resident’s neighbour contacted the landlord to complain that the damp was causing damage to their property. The landlord’s records show it escalated the repair as it was affecting an additional property.
On 12 February 2024 the landlord’s contractor attended the property. The contractor determined that the damp was linked to the property’s downpipe. The contractor then transferred the work back to the landlord.
On 27 March 2024 the resident chased the landlord for an update, and she told the landlord the damp patch had now progressed to having mould growth. The landlord identified that its contractor had previously sent the works back to the landlord, but no further action had occurred. This was inappropriate. The landlord then put the report through its new triage system, as its new damp and mould policy had recently come into effect.
On 2 April 2024 the landlord arranged for an inspection to occur on 5 April 2024. This was a reasonable response time. On 5 April 2024 no one attended the property to complete the inspection. The landlord said this was due to a technical issue with the surveyor’s diary system. On 5 April 2024 the landlord assessed the repair as a medium priority, and an inspection was arranged for 15 April 2024. While this response time was in line with the landlord’s policies, this was an additional delay which would have caused the resident distress.
On 15 April 2024 the attending surveyor determined the downpipe was leaking and this was causing damp. The surveyor raised works for the landlord to replace the downpipe, damp proof the affected area, inspect the chimney and re-plaster and re-paint the affected areas. The landlord’s target date to complete the works was 14 May 2024. However, documents provided to the Ombudsman indicate the landlord did not take steps to arrange this repair after the works were raised. This was a failing and it would have caused the resident to feel the landlord was not prioritising her concerns.
Documents suggest the first occasion the landlord recorded the resident was pregnant was on 15 April 2024. On 23 April 2024 the landlord attended the property to discuss a possible move due to the overcrowding. Notes from this visit said the resident raised concerns about the mould and the landlord’s lack of action. This indicated the resident was significantly concerned about the impact of the mould. The attending member of staff committed to raising this with the repairs team. The resident said during this meeting she explained that due to the overcrowding she was sleeping in the living room where the mould was present. The resident said during this visit the landlord agreed to prioritise the repair due to the resident’s concerns about her health.
Upon learning the resident was pregnant and sleeping near the mould it would have been reasonable for the landlord prioritise the repair, and to consider if it had any additional obligations under the Equality Act. The resident would have been concerned that the mould could be affecting theirs, and their unborn baby’s health, and the landlord should have taken steps to mitigate this distress. It was unreasonable that the landlord appeared to not give the resident’s pregnancy greater consideration.
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. A landlord may be able to show proper consideration of the Equality Act if it has considered the impact decisions will have on the individuals affected.
On 19 June 2024 the landlord attended the property and put a temporary fix in place to the downpipe. This was 199 days after the resident’s initial report of damp, and 129 days after the landlord identified the downpipe as contributing to the damp. This was an unreasonable response time, and it fell far outside of the timescales in the landlord’s policies.
After putting the temporary fix in place, the landlord changed its target date for completing the remaining works to 6 September 2024. The landlord did not meet this target as it had not yet arranged for the replastering to occur.
On 4 September 2024 the landlord emailed the resident and asked her to provide a suitable time for it to complete the remaining works. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. In this email the landlord apologised to the resident for the time it had taken to address the repair, and said this had been linked to issues with external contractors.
The landlord completed the works on 27 September 2024. The landlord also conducted a post–work inspection on 20 November 2024, this was appropriate.
In total it took the landlord 299 days to address the damp and mould issues in the property. This was an unreasonable length of time when considering the landlord’s policies, and its responsibilities under the Landlord and Tenant Act.
The landlord’s failure to adequately and promptly address the damp and mould would have had a significant impact on the resident, as she was sleeping in the same room as the damp and mould. This would have been particularly distressing to the resident while she was pregnant, as she would have been worried and concerned about the impact mould could have on her unborn child.
In its stage one response the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It identified there had been delays in conducting an initial inspection and in completing the works. The landlord acknowledged its delays would have had a larger impact on the resident as it overlapped with the tragic loss of her child. The landlord said it had learnt from the resident’s complaint that it needed to be more understanding of the impact delays can have.
The landlord offered the resident financial compensation comprising of:
1. £10 for a missed appointment.
2. £10 for a failure to complete repairs.
3. £10 for a failure to adequately communicate.
4. £500 in recognition of the adverse impact the delays had on the resident’s family.
The Ombudsman considers the figure of £530 in its totality to be reasonable in the circumstances. However, the way in which it broke down the figure could have been improved. The resident would have likely felt the landlord’s offer of £10 in compensation for its communication failures, and £10 for its failure to complete repairs was insufficient considering the distress she experienced.
It was appropriate for the landlord to offer the £10 for a missed appointment. It would have been an improvement for the landlord to then offer the remaining compensation in recognition of the distress the resident and her family experienced from its handling of the damp and mould, during an already challenging period for the family.
Although improvements could have been made in the way the landlord explained its award of compensation, the Ombudsman does not consider this was a service failure. This is because the overall amount was proportionate to the failings identified and resulting distress and inconvenience caused. As such the Ombudsman has determined the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress.

The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s personal circumstances

The landlord’s vulnerable persons policy says it will ensure it meets the resident’s specific needs and consider any vulnerabilities when communicating with residents or providing a service. When a resident requests a service from the landlord it should establish if the resident requires any reasonable adjustments. The landlord should also report any changes in a resident’s needs or circumstances which would indicate vulnerability.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights provides recommendations for landlords, including:
1. Landlords should adapt and meet the needs of all residents and ensure the most vulnerable residents are not left behind.
2. Landlords should provide a high standard of care and adopt a human centric approach for all residents.
The landlord had been planning to complete retrofit upgrades to the property since 2022. The works related to making the property more energy efficient and were classed as low priority planned repairs.
The landlord planned to begin the retrofit works in May 2024. As the landlord was aware of the resident’s pregnancy, it should have spoken with the resident about the planned works to discuss the disruption it might cause and its estimated timescales. This would have aided it in establishing if it was suitable for the works to go ahead as planned due to the resident’s circumstances. This would have been a considerate human centred approach as having on-going works while pregnant and shortly after childbirth would be particularly challenging. It was a shortcoming that the landlord did not act in this manner.
On 20 May 2024 contractors attended the property to setup scaffolding to start the retrofit works. The resident refused access citing her inability to cope with the works due to the distress she was already experiencing.
The resident has told this Service that the contractors attended the property shortly after she returned home from the hospital. Undoubtedly this would have been significantly distressing for the resident. While there is no evidence to suggest the landlord was aware of the resident’s loss at this time, the distress the resident experienced could have been limited if the landlord had acted in line with its repairs policy. If it had contacted the resident before its planned attendance to check if the works could still go ahead, this could have prevented contractors attending on 20 May 2024. Under the landlord’s repairs policy this is standard practice, and it was a failing that this did not occur.
After this attendance the landlord paused the works due to the resident’s circumstances. This was appropriate.
The landlord restarted the retrofit works in August 2024. In her complaint dated 10 September 2024 the resident said the landlord had erected scaffolding around the property over the summer, and it had not completed the works. The resident said this meant that her children could not play in the garden. The resident also told this Service the retrofit works and the damp and mould works were highly disruptive and took over the whole house. This meant there was no area where they could gather as a family, and the area where the resident was sleeping was messy and unclean.
This would have caused the resident additional distress during the grieving process, and the landlord should have been mindful of the impact its actions could have on the resident. The resident has told this Service that she phoned the landlord to talk about the disruption, and the landlord said it would only temporarily rehouse her if the water or gas supplies were affected.
While there is no independent evidence to assess what exactly was said during this phone call, it was still inappropriate that the landlord did not consider temporarily rehousing the resident. The landlord’s policies allow for temporary rehousing relating to disruptive repair works, and for it to consider how it can best meet a resident’s needs.
At this time the resident would be experiencing grief, and the disruption associated with the repairs would have added to the resident’s distress. Additionally, the resident was sleeping in the room where the landlord was conducting re-plastering and re-decorating works. This would have been inconvenient and disruptive to the resident.
Considering these factors the landlord should have at least discussed the disruption with the resident. If temporarily rehousing the resident was not suitable, the landlord could have made alternative arrangements to meet the resident’s needs. This could have included simpler measures such as ensuring contractors cleared away tools and equipment at the end of each day, or arranging for the works to occur outside of the school holidays. Such steps would have provided a human centric approach where the landlord tried to meet the resident’s needs.
The resident has told this Service she felt the landlord dealt with her as a tenant, rather than as a person. This would have been particularly upsetting for the resident in an already challenging time in her life. The resident’s feelings also indicate that the landlord has further work to do if it wishes to meet the standards outlined in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration occurred after considering:
1. The landlord did not adequately consider the resident’s circumstances when it arranged for the retrofit repairs to occur.
2. The landlord did not adjust the services it provided to better meet the resident’s needs.
3. The landlord’s actions added to the distress the resident was experiencing during what would have already been a highly distressing time.
The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £400 in recognition of the significant distress the resident experienced. The Ombudsman has also ordered the landlord to conduct a case review, apologise to the resident and outline improvements it plans to make.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolved the complaint in respect of its handling of the damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s personal circumstances.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £400 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s personal circumstances.
Within 8 weeks of this determination the landlord is to conduct a case review and outline any improvements and learning it has identified taking into consideration the resident’s experiences in this case.
Within 8 weeks of this determination the landlord is to apologise the resident. The landlord is also to explain how it intends to make improvements.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the orders within 8 weeks of the determination date.

Recommendations

The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights and consider implementing its recommendations.
The determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation previously offered of £530 is paid to the resident if the landlord has not yet paid this amount.