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

Rooftop Housing Association Limited (202311579)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311579

Rooftop Housing Association Limited

25 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since October 2011. The property is a 3 bedroom, semi-detached house. The resident lives with her children and both she and her daughter have asthma. Based on the evidence provided the landlord was made aware of their asthma in December 2022.
  2. The resident has said that sometime in October 2022 he reported to the landlord that there was damp and mould throughout the property. The evidence provided by the landlord indicates it inspected the property on 18 November 2022. It then attended to treat the mould and install dehumidifiers on 16 December 2022 but found that additional works were required to resolve the reported issues. The landlord carried out additional works in May 2023.
  3. The resident raised her complaint on 4 July 2023. She said that she had been waiting for the landlord to resolve the damp and mould issues since September 2022. She also said that she had been waiting 3 months for the downstairs toilet to be repaired, which she said had caused mould under the flooring. The resident also raised concerns with the lack of communication from the building inspector and the number of appointments for which she had to take time off work. She asked that someone attend to assess the damp and mould damage to the kitchen.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 31 July 2023. It said:
    1. Following a recent inspection it had identified several repairs that needed to be made to the kitchen.
    2. It hoped the regular communication it now had with the resident was a positive step forward.
    3. It had found the delays caused were due to the need for follow on works by specialist contractors. It said it had learned from this and had had service discussions with its contractors to prevent such delays in future.
    4. The number of appointments was higher due to the complex nature of the ventilation system. It also said it was part of the tenancy agreement that the resident needed to make herself available in order to allow access for repairs.
    5. It offered £100 compensation in acknowledgement of the time the resident had had to take off work for the appointments.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 3 August 2023. She said:
    1. She disputed that the need for specialist contractors caused the delays. She said she had reported the damp and mould in late 2022 and the landlord inspected the property not long afterwards. However, she said that following this visit the landlord did not carry out any other works until 2023.
    2. The landlord had failed to respond to her reports of damp and mould within a reasonable timescale. She said that after the landlord had identified the issues with the ventilation system it had failed to make any appointments to resolve this until she had sought advice about potentially raising a legal disrepair claim.
    3. The reason there had been so many appointments was because the landlord had failed to repair the ventilation system and leaks in a timely manner. She said this had then caused the damp and mould issues to become worse.
    4. The landlord had not followed up on the decorative damage caused by the mould and water leak repairs. She said that as a result she had had to pay for the property to be redecorated.
    5. She did not accept the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation and said she would not accept anything less than £1,100.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 October 2023. It said it had investigated the issues raised by the resident during a call on 18 September 2023. It said it had found that the first damp and mould inspection was on 18 November 2022 and that it carried out works on 23 May and 3 August 2023. It also acknowledged that the resident had referred to other works it had carried out during that period. In recognition of the delay in identifying and resolving the cause of the mould between November 2022 and July 2023, the landlord increased the compensation offer to £948. It also confirmed that it was not due to replace the resident’s kitchen for several years. Therefore, it would arrange for repair or replacement door fronts as required.
  7. The resident contacted this Service on 12 October 2023 and confirmed that she wanted us to investigate the complaint. She said she was not happy with the landlord’s resolution regarding the damage in the kitchen. She said a surveyor had ‘condemned’ the kitchen due to the damage caused by the moisture and as such the landlord needed to replace it. She also said that while she had accepted the landlord’s compensation offer she did not think it was a fair amount as she had had the mould damage repaired at her own expense.
  8. The resident contacted this Service on 13 May 2024 and confirmed that the landlord had paid the compensation amount. She also said it had partially completed the repair works and had agreed to replace the kitchen. However, she said she was not happy with the quality of the work and still wanted us to investigate the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

  1. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints which have not gone through the landlord’s complaints process. We cannot fully consider any events after the landlord’s stage 2 response but may reference them for contextual purposes. This includes the standard of the repair works raised by the resident to this Service in May 2024.
  2. Within her correspondence the resident has said that the landlord’s delays in handling reports of damp and mould had an adverse effect on her and her family’s health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any effect on health and wellbeing. Personal injury claims must, ultimately, be decided by the courts, as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman can consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.

Damp and mould

Resolving the damp and mould

  1. The landlords repairs policy says that non-emergency repairs will be carried out within 20 working days.
  2. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould sets out what the Ombudsman expects from landlords where damp and mould are concerned. It says landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, carry out proactive intervention, communicate effectively with residents, and, where significant works may be required, it should consider whether the resident is vulnerable and should be moved from the property at an early stage.
  4. The resident indicates that they reported to the landlord that there was mould in the upstairs bathroom, bedrooms, living room and downstairs hallway in October 2022. The landlord has not provided a copy of this contact nor an exact date. The Ombudsman has only been provided with photos of the mould in the bathroom. These photos show the mould was localised around the edge of the bath and a corner of the bathroom. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that following the resident’s report it inspected the property on 18 November 2022. However the landlord’s repair logs do not contain an entry for an appointment on this date. Rather, the logs provided show that on 22 November 2022 an order was raised for a condensation and mould survey to be carried out. This was to include inspection of the ventilation system. The log does not provide a completion date nor has the landlord provided a copy of the survey report from this works order. In the absence of that evidence, the Ombudsman cannot reasonably conclude that the landlord carried out a reasonable investigation into the cause of the damp. As such, the landlord has not shown that it acted reasonably at this stage. This also indicates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
  5. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that on 16 December 2022 the landlord attended to treat the mould and install dehumidifiers at the property. However, it was unable to complete the treatment works as it considered the mould remover was too strong and might impact the resident and her children due to their asthma. The evidence also shows that during this visit the landlord identified the cause of the mould to be a cracked tile which allowed water to come in through the ceiling. It sealed this crack during this visit. The landlord returned on 18 December 2022 and treated some of the mould. However, the job notes say that another appointment was needed to carry out additional works. The landlord has not explained why it took 2 months for it to start treating the mould in the property. Without such an explanation the Ombudsman can not reasonably conclude that the landlord was proactive in its responsibilities to resolve damp and mould issues as quickly as possible.
  6. The landlord’s records show that between December 2022 and May 2023 there were multiple appointments. However, the repair logs show that the majority of these related to plumbing works in the downstairs toilet and it is not clear if these were directly related to the mould throughout the property.
  7. On 4 May 2023 the landlord inspected the ventilation system and found that while it was working, it was severely below the required capacity for the property size. The inspection notes recommend that a ventilation engineer attend to size up the rooms and suggest a suitable ventilation unit. The landlord’s repair logs and the resident’s version of events indicate that it did not attend to fix the ventilation system until June 2023. The landlord has not provided an explanation for why it took 7 months, from when it first raised an inspection of the ventilation, in November 2022, for the remedy to be affected. Without such an explanation the Ombudsman cannot but conclude that such a delay was unnecessary and unreasonable.
  8. Similarly, the landlord’s records show that on 28 April 2023 it raised an order for the cleaning and treatment of mould at the property. The notes say that despite recent works the mould had returned throughout the property and was now worse in the bathroom. However, the records show the landlord did not treat the mould until 3 August 2023. The landlord has not provided an explanation as to why it took 4 months for it take action and treat the mould the resident reported as having returned in April 2023.
  9. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that between November 2022 and July 2023 it took longer than it should have to identify and resolve the damp and mould issues. In recognition of this it offered £948 compensation.
  10. Overall, it took around 8 months for the landlord to resolve the reported issues with damp and mould at the property. During this time there were delays in the provision of dehumidifiers, the treatment of the mould as well as the inspection and repair of the ventilation system. These delays were in breach of policy standards and not in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould. Additionally, the delay in the landlord providing a suitable ventilation system for the property would have affected the damp and mould issues. These failings impacted the resident’s full enjoyment of the property and caused unnecessary time, trouble and inconvenience. The delay in resolving the damp and mould issues also can not but have caused the resident additional distress due her family’s health.
  11. Additionally, the Ombudsman has noted that the landlord’s damp and mould policy does not provide clear service expectations or timeframes for responding to reports of damp and mould by residents.
  12. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  13. The nature and level of the failings by the landlord in this case would usually amount to a finding of maladministration. The Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance recommends compensation in the region £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by that level of failing. The landlord offered the resident £948 compensation in recognition of its failings. The compensation offered by the landlord is significant and demonstrates the landlord took its failings and the resulting effect on the resident seriously.
  14. The Ombudsman has noted that in her complaint correspondence the resident asked the landlord to compensate her for loss of income due to the number of appointments.
  15. In general, the Ombudsman would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a complainant for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out. Whilst such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, the tenancy agreement requires the resident to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed. The landlord does not have a contractual or policy obligation to reimburse loss or earnings. The resident did not show evidence of provable, actual losses as opposed to nominal losses. Residents also have a responsibility to mitigate losses and she did not provide evidence that it was totally necessary for her to lose income. Therefore it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order the landlord to pay the resident reimbursement for loss of earnings to attend repair appointments. However it is appropriate for landlords to offer redress for the inconvenience caused.
  16. Having taken into consideration the delay and the impact this had on the resident, the Ombudsman finds that the total amount of £948 offered is reflective and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. This is because the landlord has compensated the resident for the impact of the delays in treating the mould but also the time, trouble and inconvenience caused. However, the ombudsman will be recommending that the landlord review its damp and mould policy to include clear service expectations and timeframes.

Kitchen repairs

  1. The landlord has not provided a copy of the first instance in which the resident raised concerns of damp damage to the kitchen. However, its records show it inspected the kitchen on 13 June 2023. The inspection report says it found parts of the kitchen to be damaged due to moisture and damp. It said that previous repairs had not ‘helped’ and recommended that the landlord replace various units as well as the doors and drawers. The repair logs show the landlord replaced the doors and drawers on 30 August 2023. This was significantly outside of its 20 working day repairs timescale. The landlord has not explained why there was such a delay. In the absence of any such explanation, the Ombudsman can only conclude that the delay was both unreasonable and avoidable.
  2. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident has said the landlord’s surveyor condemned the kitchen and as such it needed to replace it. However, the surveyors report does not support this. The report says that various units, the doors and the drawers had suffered damage from damp and recommended the landlord replace them. Additionally, the evidence provided indicates there was no adverse impact on the kitchen as it was in continual use during the period in question.
  3. Landlords are entitled to take into consideration information provided to them by their contractors and representatives in the absence of independent third party evidence to the contrary. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to rely on this and arrange for the damaged units to be replaced rather than replace the entire kitchen.
  4. However, the Ombudsman is aware that on 24 November 2023 the landlord inspected the property. It then wrote to the resident on 1 December 2023 and confirmed that it would be replacing the kitchen.
  5. Overall, the Ombudsman finds that the total amount of £948 offered is reflective and proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of being logged. It says that if it needs more time it will agree an extension of no more than 10 working days with the resident. It also says the landlord will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from the date of the escalation request. The policy says that if it needs more time it will agree an extension of no more than 20 working days with the resident.
  2. In this instance, the resident raised her complaint on 4 July 2023 and the landlord agreed a 10 working day extension with her on 18 July 2023. The landlord then issued its stage 1 response on 31 July 2023. This was within the timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 August 2023. On 19 September 2023 the landlord agreed a 10 working day extension with the resident.
  4. If a landlord requires an extension then it must agree this with the resident within the original timescale. In this instance, the landlord did not agree an extension for its stage 2 response until 33 working days after the resident’s escalation request. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to show why there was such a significant delay in the landlord contacting the resident to request an extension. Additionally, we have not seen evidence that the landlord kept the resident up to date during this time. The resident contacted this Service on 5 September 2023 to inform us that she not heard from the landlord and the deadline for the stage 2 response had passed. This was an unreasonable delay and not in line with either the landlord’s complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code).
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 October 2023. This was 11 working days after the resident agreed to the extension. While the landlord missed the extension deadline by only a day, overall this meant that it took a total of 44 working days for it to issue its stage 2 response. The landlord did not acknowledge or address this significant delay in its stage 2 response nor has it provided an explanation for it. In the absence of such evidence, the Ombudsman can only conclude that the delay was both avoidable and unreasonable. However, the stage 2 response was well constructed and made a reasonable offer of compensation for the substantive issue.
  6. Overall the landlord’s failure, as set out above, can be summarised as failing to adhere to the timescales set out in its complaint handling policy and the Code. This failure amounts to a service failure as it led to a significant delay in it issuing its stage 2 response. This in turn caused the resident avoidable time, trouble and inconvenience as it led her to contact the landlord and this Service about the delayed stage 2 response.
  7. In view of this, the Ombudsman will be ordering the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and pay £150 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which did not have an impact on the outcome of the complaint nor a lasting impact on the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its failures. This written apology must be from a member of the landlord’s management team and should follow the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance on our website.
    2. Directly pay the resident £150 compensation for its poor handling of the complaint.
  2. The landlord is to reply to this Service to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should directly pay the resident the total compensation of £948 it offered through its complaints process. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress determinations are made on the basis that this amount is paid.
  2. The landlord should review its damp and mould policy to ensure it contains clear information regarding service expectations and timeframes for how it responds to reports of damp and mould.
  3. The landlord should write to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to set out its intentions regarding the above recommendation.