From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Teign Housing (202229529)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229529

Teign Housing

15 May 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:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. The associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The property is a 1-bedroom, ground–floor flat within a building that has a basement underneath the property. The resident is an assured tenant and has lived there since 2007. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 13 February 2023 the resident reported damp and mould to the landlord. The landlord has a 3-stage treatment procedure to deal with mould. It completed the first 2 stages the day after the report. The third stage was due 8 weeks later but the resident refused it.
  3. A damp and mould survey was completed on 28 February 2023. This found there was no damp or water ingress. It identified some superficial mould due to condensation.
  4. The resident made a complaint on 2 March 2023 as he did not agree with the surveyor’s findings. The landlord responded on 14 March 2023, outlining the actions taken so far and the plan going forward.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 13 June 2023 as he sought a damp proof course as a permanent solution, instead of the proposed mould treatment.
  6. The landlord was then in regular contact with the resident, via telephone and in person, but it did not provide a written stage 2 response until prompted by us. The landlord apologised for what it described as an oversight and provided the response on 23 November 2023. It said its actions regarding damp and mould were in line with procedure and the damp proof course was not recommended by the surveyor. The complaint was not upheld.
  7. The resident referred his complaint to us as he remained unhappy with the action taken by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Handling of reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord was very responsive to the resident’s report of damp and mould by completing the first 2 stages of its mould treatment the day after the report. This surpassed the timescale target in its policy, which states it has up to 21 days to attend, dependant on the severity.
  2. The landlord had numerous conversations with the resident about the treatment as he was concerned it would exacerbate his health issues. The landlord offered reassurance and explained the process but the resident refused the third stage of treatment, which was due 8 weeks later. While it was within the resident’s right to decline the treatment, the landlord cannot be held responsible for the incomplete process here.
  3. A damp and mould surveyor attended the property on 28 February 2023. This was positive to identify the cause of any damp and mould and possible solutions. The surveyor noted there was some sign of condensation in the corner of the living room, behind a large plant pot. She did not find any penetrating damp or water and the damp detector did not find any wet areas. While the basement below the property had a lot of condensation, the surveyor did not identify any rising damp. The surveyor’s report was appropriately shared with the resident.
  4. The landlord spoke to the resident on 23 March 2023 and the resident did not agree with the surveyor’s findings. On 6 April 2023 it was agreed the contractor would take the lead in updating the resident and the site foreman would provide him with updates. This was a sensible decision as the contractor would be able to give the resident the most accurate information and plan the outstanding mould treatment.
  5. The landlord attended the property on 12 April 2023 to discuss the issue, but the resident refused access. It was positive the landlord attempted to speak to the resident in person, showing commitment to addressing the matter, even if it was unsuccessful.
  6. The landlord spoke to the resident on the phone on 26 June 2023 to again discuss the mould treatment process. The landlord explained the effectiveness of the 3-stage process, which would need to be started again as the third had not been done. The resident did not want it, stating a damp proof course was needed. The surveyor had identified that a damp proof course was already in place, 1m above the ground and it had not failed and there was no rising damp. The landlord was entitled to rely on this professional assessment, despite the resident disagreeing with it.
  7. Internal communication on 27 June 2023 showed landlord staff trying to work out how to complete the mould treatment when the resident was reluctant to allow it. It asked the surveyor to conduct another visit, to reiterate their findings. This showed that the landlord wanted to find a resolution and took measures to address the resident’s views and assist his understanding.
  8. The landlord spoke to the resident on 7 July 2023, to ask whether the surveyor could visit again. The resident agreed but remained unhappy that the landlord still wanted to complete mould treatment. He believed only a damp proof course would be a solution, despite the surveyor advising this was not the case.
  9. The surveyor and landlord conducted a joint visit on 13 July 2023. The surveyor reported condensation was causing slight signs of mould but the walls and floor were dry. The surveyor recommended the 3-stage mould treatment be completed.
  10. The resident requested he be moved out of the property while the treatment was done, as he said the chemicals would exacerbate his health issues. Internal communication shows the landlord took this request seriously and looked at options. It was decided that the cost of temporary accommodation was not proportionate to the quick treatment over 3 square metres of affected wall. The landlord took other measures to alleviate the resident’s concerns. It arranged for the first 2 stages to be completed as the first appointment of the day, to allow for full ventilation of the room. It also proposed to use a ‘mould shot’ in paint for the third stage, which had no odour. The landlord acted fairly and considerately in these decisions.
  11. The landlord remained in regular contact with the resident throughout July and August 2023 and sent him data sheets regarding the mould treatment, showing the ingredients of the chemicals used. This was positive action to further attempt to alleviate his concerns. The resident remained adamant there was damp and did not agree with the landlord’s proposed treatment.
  12. The 3-stage mould treatment was ultimately completed in October 2023. The delay was a result of the resident disagreeing with this measure. The evidence shows the landlord tried to complete it as soon as possible and took reasonable steps to work with the resident in order to do so.
  13. The landlord phoned the resident in December 2023 to follow up, which was appropriate. The resident was concerned about mould in the basement affecting his property. There was no evidence of this but the landlord assured him it would treat the basement and it would heat and ventilate the area throughout, so as to not affect the resident. This was a positive response and again showed the landlord considered the resident’s concerns.
  14. The surveyor visited the property in January 2024 and noted the action taken by the landlord. This included the mould treatment and installing a larger radiator in the bedroom to improve the temperature. The surveyor did damp meter tests, which were all in the green zone. It was noted there was no water ingress and the likely cause of superficial mould was poor ventilation and condensation on the window. The surveyor recommended it be monitored and the resident should ensure ventilation and a constant temperature in the property.
  15. The landlord took appropriate and reasonable measures to address the issue. It was fair throughout its decisions and contact with the resident. There was no maladministration in how the landlord handled reports of damp and mould.

Handling of the associated formal complaint

  1. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint the same day it was made. The stage 1 response was issued 8 working days later and within target timescales. The landlord explained the steps it had taken so far, including the first 2 stages of mould treatment and the inspection survey. It said it would meet with the resident to address any further issues. The stage 1 response was, therefore, timely, thorough and accurate.
  2. During a telephone call on 27 March 2023 the resident told the landlord he wished to escalate his complaint as he did not agree with the survey findings. The landlord asked to complete the work and update the resident accordingly. The resident agreed he would escalate the matter if he remained unhappy after this. This seemed reasonable. There was no evidence the landlord refused to escalate, rather it appeared committed to finding a resolution and working with the resident to achieve it.
  3. When the resident later escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 13 June 2023, he should have received a written response within 15 working days in accordance with policy. This did not happen, although the delay did not impact the substantive issue. During this time the landlord was in regular contact with the resident, updating him and trying to address the issue. There was failure in the landlord’s following of the complaints process, but it is not assessed as serious as it was working to resolve the substantive issues throughout. The landlord spoke to the resident regularly over the phone and in person, visiting with the surveyor. A formal written response should have been given but it did not cause any detriment to the resident due to the action the landlord was taking alongside the complaints process.
  4. Following the prompt from us in November 2023, the landlord acknowledged it had failed to follow its complaints process and apologised to the resident for the oversight. It issued its stage 2 response on 23 November 2023, over 5 months after the escalation request and well outside of target timescales.
  5. The content of the response was accurate and thorough. The landlord correctly said the actions taken were in line with its damp and mould procedure. It said it had taken the matter seriously, which was the case. It acknowledged the resident wanted a damp proof course as a resolution, but this had not been recommended by the surveyor. As the mould had been treated sufficiently and there was no evidence of damp, the landlord did not uphold the complaint. Notwithstanding the late response, this action was fair and appropriate.
  6. The delay in providing a stage 2 response is assessed as service failure, as there was no adverse effect to the resident. It did not cause any delay to the overall resolution and the landlord was taking suitable action alongside it. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the delay in providing a formal written stage 2 response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. No maladministration in how the landlord handled reports of damp and mould.
    2. Service failure in how the landlord handled the associated formal complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has paid the resident £50 compensation for its delayed stage 2 response.