One Housing Group Limited (202318227)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318227

One Housing Group Limited

24 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

This complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

Background

The resident occupies the property under a shared ownership lease. The property is a 1-bed flat.
The resident reported issues with damp and mould on 13 December 2022. He told the landlord he believed it was caused by problems with the external walls. The landlord told him on 22 December 2022 that he would need to provide an official report from a specialist to prove the issue was external.
The resident made a complaint on 5 June 2023. He said he had raised several issues with the landlord over the previous 6 months, and was unhappy with its response. He said its only response had been to try to blame him for the damp, and it had repeatedly given inconsistent information about whether or not it had logged any works.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 22 June 2023. It said it should have responded to the resident’s report within 10 working days, but there was no evidence it had done so. It said it had asked a surveyor to be a single point of contact until the issues were resolved, and had booked an inspection for 26 June 2023. It offered £250 compensation.
The resident escalated his complaint on 11 August 2023. He said there had been no progress in resolving the damp and mould.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 8 September 2023. It said:
1. Its surveyor had identified extensive cracking in the walls and recommended a structural survey.
2. There had been a delay in arranging the survey because it did not have structural surveyors as part of its supply chain. It had identified a firm, and would appoint them in the following fortnight.
3. It had arranged a mould wash with redecoration on 3 July 2023, and booked an additional inspection for 13 September 2023.
4. It had no internal repair obligations for the property as the resident was a shared owner. It said it only had to do repairs where there were structural concerns.
5. It would not carry out any window repairs. However, as they were a result of potential structural defects to the building, the resident may be able to make a claim on the buildings insurance.
6. Any works it had carried out were a gesture of goodwill to reflect the delays in identifying a structural engineer.
7. It accepted there had been miscommunication about the work it would do.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, so referred his complaint to us. He said:
1. He had repeatedly called and emailed the landlord for updates prior to his complaint.
2. The landlord arranged for a mould wash and surveyor inspection in response to the complaint. There had been no progress since then.
3. At that time (5 October 2023), the landlord had not yet arranged the structural survey promised in its stage 2 response.

Events after the complaint

The landlord arranged for a structural engineer to inspect the property on 14 November 2023. The surveyor identified the following:
1. Cracks in the external render and window frames, and internal cracks in the plaster. They said the cracks did not line up, so did not appear to go through the brickwork.
2. The cracks appeared to be cosmetic rather than structural, and could be fixed with standard decorating techniques. If it became apparent during those works that the cracks were extensive, further intrusive works would be needed.
3. The cracks were caused by deterioration of weatherproofing seals around openings, leading to water ingress. They said this could explain the presence of mould on the surfaces around windows and doors.
4. Exterior door frames showed signs of deterioration, which was most likely caused by weathering.
5. There was cracking to the painted timber surrounds on each ground floor window.
6. The cracks appeared to be caused by a lack of general maintenance.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

On 12 March 2025, the resident said the landlord had failed to resolve the damp and mould to date, and that remedial works for the building were also more than 8 years out of date. The rules which govern this Service say we may not investigate events which have not gone through the landlord’s complaints process. This means we cannot investigate any concerns which were not part of the resident’s original complaint. This includes events after the stage 2 response, or concerns about general remedial works. However, we may refer to events or actions after the stage 2 response for context.

Assessment

The landlord’s and resident’s repair obligations are set out in the lease. The landlord is responsible for any structural repairs, as well as repairing and maintaining the external walls, and any part of the building which is not a leaseholder responsibility (including the window frames for windows in any external walls). The resident is responsible for internal non-structural repairs, including the internal plaster and wall surfaces, and for any repairs to the front door and its frame.
This means that when issues with the external walls (including window frames in those walls) cause damp and mould, the landlord would be responsible for external repairs, and the resident would usually be responsible for resolving any internal damage. We would only expect the landlord to repair any internal damage when that damage was caused by its failings (such as failing to carry out the relevant repairs in a reasonable time), rather than the initial water ingress.
The resident reported issues with damp and mould on 12 December 2022. He set out the multiple steps he had taken to prevent mould growth (such as not drying clothes in the bedroom, opening the windows, using the heating to dry the walls out, and deep cleaning the mould). He said the mould was only on the external walls of the property, so he believed the issue was with the external walls.
A landlord can only determine the cause of damp and mould, and therefore whether or not dealing with the mould would be its obligation or the resident’s, by carrying out an appropriate inspection. This would include taking damp meter readings, and getting advice from an appropriately qualified professional on the likely cause of the mould. This would also be in line with its damp and mould policy, which says it will carry out an inspection to determine the cause of damp and mould, and then carry out repairs in line with its repairs policy. Instead, it declined to take any action unless the resident could produce a formal specialist report proving that the issue was with the external walls. This was not in line with either standard industry practice or its own policies, and was unreasonable.
The resident reported ongoing issues with damp and mould on 16 March 2023. He said an electrician had confirmed there was water in the walls, and that he had taken multiple steps to try and prevent mould growth. He said this included using dehumidifiers, ventilating, and painting the room with mould-proof paint. He asked the landlord to arrange an urgent inspection. The landlord took no action for more than a month after this. When the resident chased a response, the landlord said it had forwarded his email to the area supervisor. It has provided no evidence to show it did so. The evidence shows it took no further action of any kind until the resident made a complaint, despite him chasing a response on multiple occasions.
The landlord did not take any steps to arrange any inspection, or take any other appropriate action, until the resident made a complaint in June 2023 (6 months after his initial report). This was clearly inappropriate, and shows the landlord did not take reports of damp and mould seriously. Following the resident’s complaint, it arranged an initial inspection by a surveyor on 26 June 2023. It has failed to provide any notes from that inspection, or any evidence of having taken any damp readings. As such, it has not shown that it carried out a reasonable inspection at that time.
Following the June 2023 inspection, the landlord carried out a mould wash and redecoration on 3 July 2023. It told the resident there was extensive cracking in the external walls, and that it would seal the larger cracks while awaiting a structural survey. However, it has not provided any evidence of booking those works in, and the resident had to continue chasing for updates. Its internal emails show it only took any steps to book a structural survey because of concerns about the complaint being escalated to stage 2, rather than any desire to resolve the issues. This shows that the landlord’s failings continued after the complaint, and that it failed to learn from the complaint.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged some of its failings. It accepted there were delays in arranging the structural survey, and miscommunication about what works it would or would not carry out. However, it did not acknowledge its ongoing delays in carrying out any works, or its continuing poor communication. It also told the resident that any internal works were a goodwill gesture. This was despite its lack of appropriate investigation into the cause of the damp and mould, and its internal correspondence confirming this was not the case (its internal emails show it booked in the works by mistake, not as redress for its delays in arranging the structural survey).
When the landlord obtained a structural survey in November 2023 (11 months after the resident’s initial report), the surveyor identified problems with the external brickwork and window frames as a likely cause of damp and mould.
While the landlord’s surveyor has stated in internal emails that the damp and mould was caused by condensation and therefore a resident responsibility, the landlord has provided no evidence which supports that conclusion. It has also failed to provide a copy of the damp and mould survey it said it carried out in July 2024, despite us specifically requesting that information. As such, the only expert evidence available identified problems with the external walls and window frames as a likely cause of damp and mould in the property.
The evidence the landlord has provided shows it raised a works order on 3 June 2024 to complete the works recommended by the structural surveyor. This was almost 7 months after the survey, and around 3 weeks after we confirmed we had accepted the complaint for investigation. While the landlord said on 17 March 2025 that there are ‘no current issues’, this is disputed by the resident, and the landlord has provided no evidence to show it completed those works.
It is reasonable to conclude, based on the evidence provided and the landlord’s further actions after its stage 2 response, that, had it acted appropriately at the outset, it would have carried out an inspection within a reasonable time, and booked the appropriate works. As its repairs policy allows 28 days to complete repairs, there was a total of 8 months of unreasonable delays up to the point of its stage 2 response. This is a serious and significant delay, for which the landlord has provided no reasonable explanation. We have therefore considered what effect that delay had on the resident.
The landlord was not initially responsible for removing the mould in the property. It was only required to repair the external walls and window frames once it was on notice of a problem, and the mould was already present at the time of the resident’s first report. However, the landlord was on notice of possible issues with the external walls from December 2022 onwards. While the water ingress continued, damp and mould caused by water ingress would inevitably continue, preventing the resident from carrying out lasting internal repairs. The resident also told the landlord that his various attempts to deal with the mould failed because it had not fixed the problems with the external walls.
Overall, the landlord’s failings in this case can be summarised as follows:
1. A failure to respond appropriately to reports of damp and mould from external walls (either within a reasonable time, or in line with its own damp and mould policy) until the resident made a complaint.
2. Repeated failures to appropriately update or respond to the resident.
3. A failure to learn from the complaint.
The landlord has recognised some of its failings, and offered £250 compensation in its stage 1 response. It did not offer any further compensation in its stage 2 response.
In the 8 month delay between his initial report and the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for a response to his report. He also had to chase it for actions it promised, but failed to carry out. Throughout that time, he had to live in a property affected by damp and mould, which the structural survey confirms was most likely caused by defects in the external wall. This would inevitably cause distress and inconvenience.
Based on all the circumstances of this case, we do not consider the £250 compensation offered to be sufficient to make up for the level of failings. As such, we find there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. We have therefore considered what else it needs to do to put things right.
In addition to a written apology, the landlord must arrange for an appropriately qualified surveyor to carry out a damp and mould survey at the property. They must produce a survey report confirming the investigations they have carried out, the likely cause of the damp and mould, how they reached their conclusions, and any recommendations for resolving the damp and mould. On receipt of the survey, the landlord must write to the resident to confirm whether it believes any works identified would be its responsibility under the lease, or the resident’s. If the repairs are the landlord’s responsibility, it must set out its action plan for completing the works.
The landlord must also pay the resident £800 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. This is inclusive of the £250 offered in its stage 1 response. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which have a significant impact on a resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £800 compensation for the failings identified in this report. This is inclusive of the £250 offered during the complaints process.
3. Arrange for an appropriately qualified surveyor to carry out a damp and mould survey at the property and produce a survey report setting out the following:
  1. The investigations they carried out.
  2. The likely cause of damp and mould in the property, and how they reached their conclusions.
  3. Any recommendations for resolving the damp and mould.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to confirm the following:
  1. The results of the damp and mould survey.
  2. Whether it believes any recommended works are its responsibility or the resident’s. If it believes any repairs are the resident’s responsibility, it must explain its reasoning with specific reference to the surveyor’s findings and the repair obligations in the lease.
  3. When it will carry out works (if any) which fall under its repair obligations, and how long it expects those works will take.
2. Arrange refresher training for all of its repairs staff, using this complaint as a case study, to avoid a recurrence of these failings.
The landlord must provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord log a stage 1 complaint for the resident – following further complaints – within 2 weeks of the date of this determination. The complaint investigation should include the resident’s:
1. Dissatisfaction with its handling of the reported damp and mould (and related repairs) from the stage 2 response to the present day.
2. Dissatisfaction with scheduled building maintenance.
The landlord should respond to us within 4 weeks to set out its intentions regarding the above recommendation.