Walsall Housing Group Limited (202417856)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417856

Walsall Housing Group Limited

23 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 in the property.
   2. Repairs to fencing, floorboards, a power socket, window sealant and paving.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy which began on 27 March 2003. The property is a semi-detached house. The resident has informed the landlord that her son is disabled, and that she has mobility issues and other long term health concerns.
3. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 8 December 2023. She said she felt there was damp in her son’s room, her bedroom, the bathroom and on the landing. In addition, she was unhappy that there were outstanding repairs with the rear fence and paving in the garden, which she said was a trip hazard. She felt the landlord was discriminating against her by not resolving these issues.
4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 25 January 2024. It confirmed it would inspect the reported damp in the lounge and the trip hazard in the garden. It would also repair the floorboards. It said it would complete a full property inspection on 2 February 2024. It stated that the damp in the rear bedroom and bathroom had been responded to in other complaint responses. Therefore, it would not respond further to this.
5. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 March 2024. She stated she was unhappy with the findings of the inspection which took place on 2 February 2024.
6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 April 2024. It said that it did not find any moisture in the property, or damp and mould related hazards. It said the socket repair would be rearranged as there was no access to the property at the last attempted repair.  It further stated the other remaining repairs relating to the floorboards, the window sealant and the fence were scheduled to be repaired on 2 to 3 April 2024.  
7. The resident referred her complaint to us. She remained unhappy that the damp issue was not resolved. She felt the growth of mould was significant. She explained that she and her son were suffering from respiratory issues and felt the landlord had not appropriately dealt with all the repairs. The complaint became one we could investigate on 25 March 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

8. It is noted that the resident’s complaint has referred to a number of other issues. These include reports of harassment from neighbours, the landlord’s decision not to remove a tenancy warning letter from her file, concerns around the bedroom tax, pointing outside the property, slabs above the front door, the condition of paths, handrails and damp in the rear bedroom and bathroom. While the serious nature of these matters is acknowledged, they did not exhaust the complaints procedure. If the resident remains concerned about these matters, she can ask the landlord to escalate her concerns now. Given the passage of time, the landlord may decline to do so. However, we would encourage the landlord to ensure that it is working with the resident to resolve the concerns she has raised. For the purpose of this investigation, we have only assessed matters that were addressed by the landlord within its stage 2 complaint response.
9. After the complaints process ended, the resident said she continued to experience issues related to damp and mould. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint up to the landlord issuing its final response in April 2024. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction before our involvement. The resident can raise any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord.
10. The resident has said that the landlord’s response to her reports of damp and mould has affected the health of her household. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance. We will, however, consider whether the landlord acted appropriately and whether this caused any distress or inconvenience.

Reports of damp and mould in the property.

11. The landlord has repair obligations under section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the property in repair.
12. The landlord’s repairs policy further enforces these requirements. It also sets out routine repairs will be completed within a maximum of 45 days, urgent repairs will be completed within a maximum of 3 days and emergency repairs will be responded to in 24 hours.
13. 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 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.
14. The landlord’s damp and mould policy sets out that it will check for damp, mould and condensation by finding the cause of the problem. It will then capture the severity of the hazard and the impact on the resident. It states that where a hazard has been identified as severe or, reducing damp and mould through mitigating environmental factors has not been successful, a surveyor will contact the resident within 5 working days to arrange a visit.
15. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 June 2023 about damp in her son’s bedroom. The resident told the landlord a technician had attended a few weeks earlier in relation to the damp in her son’s bedroom. It is unclear if the resident was referring to an inspection which took place on 26 May 2023. However, the landlord advised the resident that in its opinion was there was no damp in the property. Though no inspection report has been provided, if this conclusion was reached due to the property inspection on 26 May 2023, the landlord was entitled to rely on that finding. However, we cannot assess whether the landlord’s advice was accurate, because a copy of the report was not provided to us.
16. The resident chased the landlord about the damp issue on 3 occasions in June and July 2023. The landlord’s call log suggests that a surveyor visited the property on 12 July 2023. This was 21 days after the job was raised on 13 June 2023. The attendance was therefore in accordance with the repairs policy and was conducted within a reasonable time. While a copy of that inspection has not been provided, the repairs log confirms that fungicidal wash was applied to the rear bedroom on 17 July 2023. This indicates that the landlord was satisfied that some treatment was needed for one of the rooms and it acted promptly.
17. The resident felt the damp repair work was not complete, so another visit was arranged on 9 August 2023. The landlord informed the resident it would apply the fungicidal wash to only one wall and not the whole room, as only one wall had been affected. The resident continually called the landlord to complain that the mould treatment was incomplete, and her son was sleeping downstairs.
18. The landlord maintained its position about applying the treatment to one wall only. This was appropriate given there had been inspections and visits to the property, and because the resident had not advised it that the condition in the room had worsened. For that reason, the landlord was entitled to rely on its previous inspections which determined that only one wall required treatment. In addition, the landlord clearly communicated this to the resident which was appropriate.
19. The resident raised the issue of damp in her son’s bedroom again on 3 November 2023. She chased the matter on 16 and 17 November 2023. The landlord told her the only damp patch found was on the bathroom tiles. It is unclear what evidence the landlord was referring to, but it appears it may have relied on the findings from an inspection in March 2023. Because almost 6 months had passed since the resident had raised the issue, she was understandably becoming increasingly concerned about the presence of damp. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange for another inspection to ensure that the conditions within the property remained the same.
20. The landlord subsequently visited the property on 19 January 2024. However, this was 52 working days after the report was made by the resident on 3 November 2023. It is unclear why the landlord did not arrange to attend sooner. As it did not, the attendance took place outside of the 45-day target set in the landlord’s policy for routine repairs.
21. Having regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord failed to consider the impact of the delay in dealing with this issue. It is noted that the inspection did not find any issues relating to damp. However, the resident was concerned about the conditions within the property and the impact that this may be having on the household. This worry was exacerbated by the delay in carrying out the inspection.
22. The landlord arranged a full property inspection for 2 February 2024, 62 days since the resident’s report of 3 November 2023. While it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange a full property inspection, it delayed in organising this. The timescale was not in accordance with its policy. It added to the resident’s concerns and prompted her to visit the landlord’s offices with photos of the issue. Given the resident and her son’s health issues, and that the last inspection relating to damp and mould took place 6 months prior, it is unclear why the landlord did not seek to expedite an inspection.
23. It is acknowledged that previous inspections had not identified any matters of concerns. However, given the passage of time, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to act promptly in response to the resident’s further report. In our Spotlight Report on damp and mould we explained that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. Landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach, be proactive in identifying potential problems and respond to reports of damp and mould in a timely manner. Had the landlord responded promptly it could have allayed the resident’s concerns sooner.
24. The inspection that took place on 2 February 2024 by the senior building surveyor noted that the relative humidity reading on the equipment was ‘good’ in various rooms. The report also noted that all areas that were tested for moisture, showed as dry. The resident expressed her disagreement with these findings and raised further reports of damp to the landlord. While it is recognised that the resident disagreed with the findings, the landlord was entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified surveyors. 
25. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was reasonable. However, there were delays in arranging inspections in response to the resident’s reports. The reason for the delay is unclear and we have not been provided with any evidence to suggest that it was unavoidable. For that reason, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
26. Due to the identified failings, the landlord should pay the resident £250 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which have caused an adverse impact.

Repairs to fencing, floorboards, a power socket, window sealant and paving.

27. During an inspection on 26 May 2023, the resident reported an issue with the fence, and the floorboards on the landing and in her son’s room. A double power socket which was not working, and window sealant issues were reported by the resident during an inspection on 2 February 2024. Uneven paving at the rear of the property was reported on 4 July 2023.

Fencing.

28. The landlord has a statutory duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, as well as the installation and supply of electricity. It is obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
29. The landlord arranged for the fence to be inspected on 20 July 2023. No evidence has been provided about this inspection. However, the landlord’s repair log entry of 8 August 2023 confirmed that the rotten posts should be replaced. This was booked for 8 November 2023. This was 117 days after the resident reported the repair, and it was significantly outside of the landlord’s policy for routine repairs. The landlord should have explained the cause for the delay. Its failure to do so was not appropriate.
30. The repair did not go ahead, due to the resident having a medical appointment. It is unclear when it was rescheduled for. However, the repair was mentioned in the resident’s complaint of 8 December 2023, indicating it remained outstanding. The landlord noted it would treat the repair of the fence as a priority, at a meeting with the resident on 15 January 2024. It had been 162 working days since the repair had been reported, so it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise it needed to be prioritised.
31. However, the landlord arranged for another inspection of the fence. It is unclear why this was necessary given it had already agreed to repair it and previously scheduled the repair. By repeating the inspection without completing the repairs already identified, this would have added unnecessary delays in addressing the issues. This would have also understandably caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
32. This inspection was done on 2 February 2024 where it was noted by the surveyor that the posts had rotted and needed securing. However, the repair was not raised in the repair log until 25 March 2024. The fence repair was completed on 3 April 2024 which was 218 days after it was first reported.
33. While it is acknowledged that one appointment was changed due to the resident’s circumstances, there is no reasonable explanation for why the repair took so long to be completed. This understandably left the resident feeling frustrated and that her concerns were not being taken seriously.

Floorboards.

34. The floorboard repairs were originally booked for 26 September 2023. The landlord said that it could potentially try to repair the landing and bedroom floorboards at an earlier visit on 20 June 2023, when an operative was due to attend anyway. The landing floorboard repair was attempted on 20 June 2023, but a dispute arose about the scope of work to be completed that day. The resident was asked to lift the carpet but was unable to and it is noted that she did not wish for the operatives to do this either. As a result, the floorboard repair work was not completed. Given the circumstances and the events that transpired that day, this was not unreasonable. However, the landlord should reasonably have ensured that steps were taken to discuss the scope of works with the resident and rebook them accordingly. 
35. As the landlord did not, the resident chased the repair on several occasions. On 9 August 2023 when the landlord visited the resident’s home, she agreed to allow the carpets to be lifted. However, the repair logs show this work was scheduled for 3 January 2024. There is no explanation for why the repair could not be scheduled within 45 days in line with the landlord’s policy.
36. The resident chased the landlord in August, September and October 2023. The landlord’s call records stated it informed her on 17 October 2023, that the floorboard repair was booked that same month. However, this is not supported by any other evidence, and it is at odds with the repair being scheduled for 3 January 2024. It is therefore unclear why the resident was advised as such.
37. Due to the lack of updates provided, and it not completing the repairs as promised in October 2023, the resident continued to chase the landlord.
38. The landlord told the resident on 18 December 2023, that the date for the repair was changed to 15 January 2024. However, when the landlord attended, the floorboards were inspected, and no repair was carried out. It is not clear why another inspection was necessary, however this added to the overall time taken to deal with this issue.
39. The property inspection report of 2 February 2024 noted that the floorboards needed fixing. A further repair was raised on 25 March 2024, and the works order confirmed the repair was completed on 3 April 2024. The cause of this excessive delay has not been reasonably explained. The landlord is obliged to carry out repairs within a reasonable timescale and this repair took over 200 days to be completed. It is noted that some delays were not attributable to the landlord. However, the landlord’s overall response to this repair was inappropriate. The landlord’s failure to coordinate repairs in a timely manner was the cause of inconvenience to the resident as she was left to chase the matter for a number of months.
40. The resident has since told us that the floorboards are now rotten and preventing her son from using the room. We have not seen any evidence that the resident has made the landlord aware of these concerns. As such, the resident is advised to raise this formally with the landlord and allow it to investigate this. If she remains unhappy with its response, she can bring the complaint to us. 

Electrical socket.

41. In response to the resident raising her complaint, the landlord arranged an inspection at the property on 2 February 2024. At this inspection the resident informed the surveyor that the double socket was not working. As a result of this, the surveyor raised an urgent electrical repair. It was noted that the socket screw was broken and there was evidence of an old electrical burn or scorch mark on the left-hand outlet. The landlord texted the resident to tell her that this would be replaced on 9 February 2024. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s policy on urgent repairs. However, it is noted that the resident subsequently asked for the repair to be moved to 12 February 2024. The resident called the landlord on the day of the appointment to check that it was going ahead as planned. The landlord confirmed it would be attending. It is not clear from the landlord records what happened that day, however the repair was not completed on that day.
42. The landlord’s call log entry shows the date of the repair was changed again on 25 March 2024. The new date for the repair was for 2 to 3 April 2024. It is unclear why the repair was not carried out as planned on 12 February 2024 and why it was not rescheduled for prior to 2 or 3 April 2024. It should have been completed within 3 days. The reason for the delay should have been recorded within the repairs log. While the resident asked for a new date, it should not have taken the landlord so long to arrange this urgent repair. It also should have scheduled it promptly and communicated the new date with the resident.
43. The works order confirms that the repair was attempted on 3 April 2024. There is a lack of evidence to show the resident was told about the new appointment date, which potentially hampered the landlord’s ability to carry out the repair.
44. The fault with the double socket was categorised by the surveyor as urgent.  This is likely to be because of the potential risks associated such as a fire hazard or electrical shocks. As a result of the surveyor’s remark that a scorch mark was evident, the landlord should have prioritised the completion of this urgent repair. The evidence does not show why it did not do this. By not doing so it was a failing and it did not act in accordance with its policy. The delay in completing this repair would have understandably caused the resident distress and inconvenience. 

Window sealant.

45. The repair concerning the external window sealant was raised on 25 March 2024 and completed on 3 April 2024. This was in line with the landlord’s policy for routine repairs and the appropriate action was taken.

Paving.

46. The repair concerning the uneven paving at the rear for the property was reported on 4 July 2023. The landlord has not provided any evidence of any action it took in relation to this after it was reported. The resident raised the issue again on 3 November 2023 and in her complaint of 8 December 2023.
47. The notes from the meeting on 15 January 2024 with the resident indicate the landlord would inspect the “trip hazard by the washing line”. This was confirmed in its stage 1 complaint response. The inspection report of 2 February 2024 did not refer to any defects in the paving or slabs. However, the repair log does show an entry for this on 15 April 2024. It is unclear whether a repair was completed on this date, and therefore whether the repair is still outstanding.  
48. The landlord had been put on notice of a repair, a hazard had been identified and therefore it should have ensured that appropriate and timely action was taken to complete the repair. The evidence does not show that it did so, and we are therefore not satisfied that it responded to the repair appropriately and in accordance with its repairs policy.
49. Overall, the identified failings caused avoidable distress and inconvenience for the resident. While some of the repairs were rescheduled at the resident’s request, there were still some lengthy delays which were not explained. This has resulted in a finding of maladministration.

Determination

50. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
51. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to fencing, floorboards, a power socket, window sealant and paving.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

52. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failings identified by this investigation, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on making apologies.
    2. Pay the resident £750 compensation caused by the identified failings. This is comprised of:
       1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp.
       2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the outstanding repairs. 

It should pay this directly to the resident and not her rent account.

3. Provide evidence that the socket repair and paving repair was completed.

53. The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance within the timescale above.

Recommendations

54. It is recommended that the landlord considers whether it is recording an adequate level of information about the reasons for any delays associated with scheduling appointments.