Walsall Housing Group Limited (202302975)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302975

Walsall Housing Group Limited

25 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damp and mould, including its associated communication.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began in February 2022. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the first floor of a low-rise block. The landlord has noted that the resident is a carer for his son.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 January 2023 to make a complaint. He said:
1. He had initially spoken to the landlord as there were issues of damp and mould in the property as well as heavy condensation.
2. A surveyor had attended and advised 2 extractor fans were to be installed in the property. Although the surveyor identified issues with the walls using thermal equipment, no further works were suggested for this apart from replastering of the walls.
3. He did not think the fans would resolve the matter. While he accepted that the landlord proposed the extractor fans for the issues he was facing, there were delays with the installation of them.
4. He wanted a new surveyor to attend and look into the issues of the wall, and the areas affected to be redecorated. He also wanted the landlord to pay compensation to him for the issue and the delays.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 January 2023. It offered £100 compensation for the repeated appointments required to install the extractor fan. It said:
1. The resident had initially contacted it about damp and mould in the property on 28 November 2022. He was provided with advice on how to initially deal with the issues. A further report was made by him on 1 December 2022, and a surveyor attended on 14 December 2022 to carry out an inspection. The landlord had subsequently drawn up a schedule of works.
2. The delay in installing the extractor fans was due to issues with the tiling, and also to an electrician being required.
3. At 3 other appointments the resident had refused access as he was seeking decoration costs which were not covered in its repairs policy.
The resident called the landlord on 31 January 2023 to escalate his complaint. He followed this up with a further call on 6 February 2023, in which he said:
1. The level of compensation offered by the landlord was too low.
2. He believed everything written in the landlord’s stage 1 response was false.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 March 2023. It offered a further £225 compensation, on top of the amount offered at stage 1. This comprised £25 for the purchase of a small dehumidifier, £100 for inconvenience, and £100 for the poor communication. It said:
1. The kitchen needed a new extractor fan and the extractor fan in the bathroom needed to be repaired/replaced. These issues would be addressed on 17 March 2023 when it was due to attend. It accepted there was confusion when its operative arrived initially on 21 February 2023 for the kitchen fan.
2. Remedial work including pointing was carried out by an operative on 14 March 2023 to the exterior wall.
3. It had misdiagnosed the repair required to resolve the damp issue in the bedroom wall. It would re-inspect the repair and carry out work to the external brickwork.
4. The resident had raised concerns over the double-glazed units which were installed on 1 December 2022. He felt the condensation/moisture on the windows was down to the quality of glass. The landlord confirmed that the fitting was in line with repair standards.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 24 April 2023. He said that the landlord had carried out sub-standard work which left damp and mould in the property.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 6 June 2023 as he was still experiencing condensation issues. The resident said that as the mechanical fans were making noise, he had switched them off. The landlord agreed to install data loggers to measure the humidity in the property. It also mentioned the possibility of a positive input ventilation (PIV) system to address the issues the resident was facing.
The landlord’s attended the property on 22 June 2023 to adjust the bathroom fan and to collect the data loggers it had installed 2 weeks earlier. This showed humidity at over 50% in the property and 55% in the bedroom. These levels were within the recommended levels of humidity for a property.
Following the resident calling the landlord on 21 September 2023 to raise a further concern about condensation, the landlord attended on 23 September 2023. It suggested a PIV system for the issues the resident was facing. However, the resident declined this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman understands the resident continued to contact the landlord since the end of its internal complaint process. This was in relation to ongoing issues with the humidity of the property as well as a number of further repairs. In the interests of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised within the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. We will then be able to investigate the matter separately if the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

The Ombudsman’s role

The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with these principles.

The landlord’s obligations

The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are potential hazards, and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. It is expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it prioritises repairs according to 4 categories: emergency, urgent, routine and programmed repairs.
1. Emergency repairs are those that pose an immediate risk to safety, security or health. The landlord responds to emergency repairs 24 hours a day, every day of the year. It will attend to these repairs within 3 hours to make the property safe and will try to complete the full repair within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs are those which cause serious inconvenience. The landlord will make an appointment and complete the repair within 3 working days.
3. Routine repairs are ones which do not cause immediate inconvenience. The landlord will make an appointment and complete the repairs within 45 days.
4. Programmed repairs are those which can be scheduled for a later date and carried out with other similar repairs in the area. The landlord will make an appointment for an inspection within 1 month and complete the repairs within 45 days.
The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy – which was initially introduced in July 2023 – sets out that the landlord takes all reports of damp and mould seriously, and it encourages residents to report any concerns to it as soon as possible. Reports can be made in a number of ways including via its website, portal, email, by phone or in person in its offices. The landlord says that it will “adopt a zero-tolerance approach to proactively addressing structural and environmental defects that cause damp and mould” and that it will avoid inferring blame on residents due to lifestyle.
The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy states that each report is risk assessed by it, and that it assesses whether there is a category 1 or 2 hazard present under the HHSRS. Remedial measures are actioned and prioritised in relation to the severity of the hazard. Category 1 hazards will be considered as either emergency or urgent, with the response timeframes in keeping with the landlord’s repairs policy for the priority. Category 2 hazards are treated as ones which do not cause immediate inconvenience, and the response times are in keeping with routine and programmed repairs.
The damp, mould and condensation policy notes that residents “must take reasonable steps to keep their home adequately ventilated and heated and reduce any moisture levels generated through their own actions, to as low as is reasonably practicable. Low level cases of damp, mould and condensation can be mitigated through wiping down early signs of mould with a fungicidal spray”.
The landlord’s policy says that conditions which increase the risk of condensation include:
1. Inadequate ventilation, including natural opening windows and trickle vents and mechanical extraction in bathrooms and kitchens.
2. Lack of use of mechanical ventilation (extraction fans) while bathing and cooking (including items isolated or switched off).
The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for the structure and outside of the property. This includes outside doors, windows frames, internal walls, floors and ceilings, door frames, doors and hinges, and skirting boards, but “not including internal painting and decoration”. It adds that the resident is responsible for “internal decorations including minor plasterwork”.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that the landlord will consider paying compensation in the event that an individual has experienced a delay or has incurred additional costs because of a service failure on its part. The level of compensation is linked to the impact any distress and inconvenience has caused. Low impact awards are up to £50, moderate impact awards range from £50 to £250, and for high impact the awards are from £250 to £500.
The landlord operates a 2-stage formal complaint process, with an optional third stage which is a panel review. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and at stage 1 it will provide its response within 10 working days of the acknowledgment. At stage 2 it says it will provide its response within 20 working days of receipt of an escalation request. At either stage if it is unable to meet the deadline, it will liaise with the complainant and agree a date for its response.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould, including its communication

The landlord’s records show that the resident initially contacted it on 28 November 2022 to report damp and mould. The notes stated the resident informed it that the mould had appeared in the previous 2 weeks and the area where the mould appeared was not wet. The landlord sent self– help information to the resident. This was reasonable and in keeping with its damp, mould and condensation policy.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 1 December 2022 to report damp and mould on an internal wall. The landlord’s contemporaneous notes recorded that the mould had been present for a few months, and that in addition to this there was also damp and mould in the bedroom. The resident requested a home visit. The landlord attempted to contact the resident on 8 December 2022 but was unable to speak to him. It then attended the property on 14 December 2022. While the landlord did attempt to arrange an appointment with the resident, this was not done until 5 working days after he contacted it. This was a missed opportunity by it. Although it would not know the exact extent of the damp and mould until it investigated the matter thoroughly, it should have treated the resident’s reporting of the damp and mould in line with a possible category 1 hazard and responded accordingly.
Following the inspection on 14 December 2022, the landlord’s surveyor raised a number of jobs. These involved replacing the extractor fan in the bathroom, which was not functioning efficiently, installing a mechanical fan in the kitchen, and raising the thermal properties of the gable wall of the property. The repair/replacement of the extractor fans was scheduled for 3 January 2023. This was in keeping with the landlord’s policy timescale for a routine repair. This was appropriate given the nature of the work and taking into account the festive period.
The landlord has accepted that although the repair to the extractor fan was initially scheduled for 3 January 2023, the repair could not be undertaken at the time and needed to be rebooked. This was because other work was required before it could replace the bathroom extractor fan, including tiling and attendance of an electrician. The landlord’s records show that the bathroom extractor fan was replaced by it on 20 January 2023 and that the kitchen fan was not installed until 17 March 2023. Although further work was required for the bathroom extractor fan, the landlord’s records did not provide clarity on why the kitchen extractor fan could not be installed at the same time as the bathroom one. The landlord failed to adequately communicate with the resident over the need for multiple appointments and operatives required to carry out the work. This would have caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience.
In addition to the extractor fans, the landlord’s records show that it attempted to attend the property on 27 January 2023 to carry out plastering work to the internal wall. However, its operative noted the resident did not allow it to carry out the work as he wanted it to pay him compensation for decorating costs he incurred. The landlord explained that it informed the resident it would not cover decoration costs. This was reasonable, as it was in keeping with the resident’s obligations under the tenancy agreement which included internal decorations.
The resident informed the landlord that he did not think the proposed works identified by the surveyor would resolve the damp and mould in the property and that he wanted a different surveyor to attend. This was on the basis the landlord had not addressed the damp and mould, and there was also condensation on his windows. The landlord’s records show that it replaced the windows in the property in December 2022. It also informed the resident in its stage 1 response (as well as verbally) that if the proposed scheduled works had not resolved the issues, it would investigate the matter again. This was fair and reasonable by the landlord, and shows that it was committed to finding a solution.
The landlord’s records show that it also made arrangements to undertake a visit to the property in early March 2023. This followed on from the resident’s concerns about the recently changed bathroom fan and the absence of a fan in the kitchen. The resident also raised concerns about the damp and mould on the walls. The landlord’s actions were appropriate, as the visit allowed it to visually inspect the property and listen specifically to his concerns.
The landlord’s records show that, following the visit, it arranged further works. This included asking the operative to look again at the bathroom fan when they installed the kitchen fan. It also carried out pointing work to the external brickwork. This was appropriate to address where the landlord believed there was water ingress, leading to the damp and mould on the internal wall. This was because if it did not address the cause of the damp and mould, it would be possible for it to return at a later time.
The landlord’s records show that in addition to repairing the bathroom fan in March 2023, it also followed up with the resident following the end of the internal complaints process. The notes show that it attended the property in June 2023 to look at the kitchen fan as the resident reported that it was not working correctly. The resident had informed the landlord at this time that the fans were making excessive noise, so he shut them off. As the shutting down of the fans would have impacted on the dampness and condensation in the property, the landlord acted appropriately by inspecting them. It also agreed to install equipment into the property to measure the relative humidity levels within it. This demonstrated it taking the resident’s ongoing concerns about the issue of the damp and mould seriously. It also followed up by discussing the option of a PIV with the resident, which was a reasonable approach.
Overall, while the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about the damp and mould when he raised them, there were delays in it installing the extractor fans in the property. The landlord also failed to communicate clearly with the resident over the matter, which led him to having to contact it on a number of occasions. As the surveyor had visited the property prior to scheduling any works, the landlord should have taken clear notes and made arrangements for the correct operatives to attend to carry out the work, minimising the need for repeated appointments.
In its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, the landlord offered £300 for the delay and poor communication. It also made a payment of £25 to cover the purchase of a small dehumidifier. The landlord’s offer of £325 is in keeping with this Service’s remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, but no permanent impact. It is also in keeping with the landlord’s compensation policy. As a result, the Ombudsman finds that reasonable redress has been offered for the landlord’s failures in handling the damp and mould and that no further compensation is due.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

After the resident made his complaint on 6 January 2023, the landlord acknowledged it on 9 January 2023. This was in keeping with the timescales within its complaint policy. It then issued its stage 1 response on 27 January 2023. This was 12 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. While this was outside of the timescales contained in its complaint policy, the landlord did write out to the resident on 23 January 2023 extending its response time by a further 2 working days. This contact was within the timescales in the complaints policy.
The resident escalated his complaint after receiving the stage 1 response on 31 January 2023. As he did not hear back from the landlord, he called it again on 6 February 2023 to request the matter was passed to stage 2. The landlord did not acknowledge the escalation request until 16 February 2023. This was 12 working days after the resident’s initial request. It also did not provide its stage 2 response until 16 March 2023, 32 working days after the initial escalation request. While the landlord did contact the resident to ask for an extension of 10 working days on 6 March 2023, this request was not made until after the initial deadline of 20 days from the escalation request had passed. This delay would have caused the resident some distress and inconvenience. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of service failure.
The Ombudsman considers that an award of £50 is appropriate in the circumstances. This award is in keeping with this Service’s remedies guidance for instances of service failure where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of damp and mould, including its associated communication.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next 4 weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £50 for its failings in its handling of his complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident the £325 it previously offered in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. This is in respect of its handling of the damp and mould and its related communication. Should the landlord have already made any payment to the resident, it should deduct the amount paid and pay any remaining balance to the resident.
The landlord should contact the resident to determine if he has any further concerns following the end of its internal complaints process in March 2023. If he raises any such concerns, it should respond to these in accordance with its policies and procedures.