West Kent Housing Association (202420972)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420972

West Kent Housing Association

18 June 2025 (amended at review)

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. the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. the resident’s reports of rodents in the property.
   3. the associated complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy which began in February 2011. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives by herself in a first floor 2-bedroom flat with an open-plan loft shared with the neighbouring property. The landlord is aware that the resident is more vulnerable to the cold.
3. According to its records, the landlord conducted repairs to an extractor fan in Autumn 2022. The resident reported ongoing issues with damp and mould on 20 January 2023. She said the landlord had previously delayed repair work due to rodents in the loft. She said the extractor fan fitted had not helped the damp or condensation. The landlord carried out 13 investigations and repairs relating to the reports of damp and mould between 10 February and 13 December 2023.
4. On 29 May 2024, the resident told the landlord the ceilings were covered in a spreading black substance. In a damp and mould inspection on 30 May 2024, the landlord found a need to replace the bathroom extractor fan and that there was some thermal bridging in the lounge/diner. The survey stated the area needed to be cleaned and decorated. It recommended that the loft insulation be inspected above the affected areas. The resident reported hearing pests in her home on 5 June 2024.
5. The resident complained about continuous damp in her house on 3 July 2023 and expressed dissatisfaction again on 1 November 2023. These were not acknowledged by the landlord. She complained again on 11 June 2024. The landlord spoke to the resident on 17 June 2024. She said:
   1. she had reported damp walls and marks on the ceilings for several years. She had been told this was due to candles causing black marks and problems with the external wall.
   2. the landlord had sealed the outside, but watermarks and damp had increased along with the shadowing.
   3. the corners of the bedroom built up mould which she continually washed down.
   4. the landlord had carried out 3 or 4 surveys and still had not identified the underlying issue.
6. The landlord responded and apologised for some mistakes on 1 July 2024. It said:
   1. it did not have the damp and mould surveys before 2022 due to record keeping issues and it was unable to provide recent surveys as they were written in a technical way.
   2. in May 2024, a surveyor had identified that the main cause of water running down walls was condensation and that shadowing was not caused by damp and mould. It would complete the recommended works to extractor fan and loft insulation once the pest controller had completed works in the loft.
   3. the landlord had given damp and mould treatments, added insulation to the loft, hung thermal paper and painted the bedroom lintel with anti-condensation paint following the residents report in January 2023.
   4. it believed the issue was condensation and that the damp and mould was minor.
   5. it apologised for not raising her complaint on in July 2023 and offered £200 compensation for this.
7. The resident escalated the complaint on 2 July 2024. The landlord defined this as unhappiness that the damp and mould issues had not been resolved for over 7 years. It also noted that the resident felt she had been misled.
8. The landlord gave a stage 2 response on 20 August 2024. It provided the resident with 2 damp and mould surveys from 2023 and 2024. It said:
   1. following another survey, it was unable to find areas of damp and mould in her home.
   2. it would not fund an independent surveyor, but its’ internal team could visit again for a second opinion.
   3. there were no signs of rats currently in the loft. The insulation had not been damaged but it would remove the areas of insulation with historic rat droppings on them.
   4. it would clean and decorate the areas where there was thermal bridging.
9. The landlord carried out a further survey and repairs related to the complaint in Autumn 2024. The repairs included internal painting and decorating, installing an extractor fan in the kitchen, laying new loft insulation and completing a bio wash in the loft. The landlord also stated it would replace the roof soffit boards.
10. The resident contacted this Service on 1 October 2024. She said that the landlord had avoided completed repairs and the condensation and water mark problems continued. She wanted remedial work to be carried out to all the rooms and for the landlord to apologise.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

11. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable, and personnel involved may have left an organisation. This can make it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
12. The resident reports that she had been reporting the damp and mould for over 7 years, prior to submitting her stage 1 complaint. However, based on the evidence available, this assessment has focussed on the period from September 2022 onwards.
13. The resident said the issues in her property have had a significant impact on her mental well-being and may have impacted her family’s physical health. When there is an injury or a pre-existing medical condition that has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of a medical report. This will usually set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Policies and procedures

14. It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It ensures residents receive accurate information. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation. In this case, there were some limitations to the records provided by the landlord were limited and this has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances.
15. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) is available on our website. This further highlights the need for effective record keeping with recommendations which include a minimum standard for key data recording, to ensure quality records are available to support the wider business processes.
16. The landlord’s repairs (maintaining your home) policy stated it would complete:
    1. routine repairs within 21 days. This included severe dampness, repairing and cleaning of gutters and downpipes, repairs to a kitchen and roofing issues causing serious water penetration.
    2. planned repairs within 12 months. This included repairs arising from major water leaks and plaster repairs.
17. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
    1. adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
    2. ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
    3. identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, and share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on the next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations promptly.
18. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s repairs policy stated residents were responsible for condensation and mould growth. It stated that if residents had followed its mould prevention advice and there was no improvement after 4 weeks, the landlord would visit to investigate the cause.
19. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report, which details steps landlords should take to ensure it is not inferring blame on residents and it is taking responsibility for resolving the damp and mould. The spotlight report includes the recommendations that landlords should review, alongside residents, it’s initial response to reports of damp and mould to avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language that leaves residents feeling blamed.
20. Following publication of the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report, the landlord completed a damp and mould self-assessment in 2022/2023. The landlord removed the need for residents to wait 4 weeks until it would investigate the cause of damp and mould.

Reports of damp and mould

21. The landlord recorded work to replace the extractor fan in September and November 2022. It is unclear when the resident first reported the issue. We are therefore unable to assess whether the landlord raised the repair order in a reasonable time and in line with its repairs policy. This was a record keeping failure.
22. On 20 January 2023, the resident reported issues with the guttering and damp and mould. She was dissatisfied with the work the landlord had previously done to rectify the damp and condensation problem. The landlord carried out a guttering repair 21 days later, on 10 February 2023. This was in line with its repairs policy timeframe.
23. The landlord investigated the cause of damp and mould on 28 February 2023. This was 39 days after the resident reported this issue. This delay was unreasonable, and it was outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timeframe. It is unclear what the outcomes of the investigative visit were. Following this visit, the landlord installed loft insulation on 5 April and gave a mould treatment on 25 April 2023. It did not record whether these were regarded as routine or planned repairs. Therefore, it is not possible to assess if these were completed within a reasonable timeframe. These were record keeping failures.
24. The resident made a complaint about continuous dampness in the property on 3 July 2023. This was treated as a service request. The landlord noted roof structure repairs on 10 July 2023, but poor record keeping mean it is not possible to assess if this was related to the resident’s complaint.  The landlord recorded a missed damp and mould inspection appointment on 27 July 2023. However, there is no evidence that it told the resident about this in advance. This was not reasonable and was a communication failure.
25. The landlord investigated the damp and mould on 8 August 2023. This was 36 days after the landlord received the resident’s report and was outside of it’s repairs policy timeframe. The survey reported damp and mould problems in the bedrooms and the ceiling in the kitchen, but with an overall low risk. It reported condensation in the rear bedroom due to cold bridging. The survey stated that further tests were needed to establish if there was asbestos present in the ceiling and then this needed to be repaired.
26. On 1 November 2023, the resident called the landlord to request it started to log repairs properly. The resident reports that further work may have taken place between 8 August and 1 November 2023, but the landlord has not provided evidence. The resident’s frustration highlights that this is likely to be another example of poor record keeping.
27. According to its policy, repairs to a kitchen should be classed as ‘routine’ and completed within 21 days. 7 visits to repair the kitchen and install insulation took place in November and December 2023. This began 87 days after the landlord identified actions needed in August 2023. This was well outside of its policy timeframe and was unreasonable. This delay caused the resident time and trouble, as she had to chase the landlord to carry out the actions. 
28. On 29 May 2024, the resident reported the ceilings were covered in a black substance which was spreading. The landlord arranged a survey for the next day. The survey stated this was not mould growth but the result of airborne particles and condensation forming on colder areas of the ceiling. It recommended that an extractor fan needed replacing and the loft should be inspected for missing insulation above the thermal ghosting. This was a proportionate approach and reflects that the landlord had changed its approach following its damp and mould self-assessment.
29. The resident reported damp walls and mould in bedrooms again on 11 and 17 June 2024. The landlord fitted a bathroom extractor fan on 1 July 2024. This was 32 days after the survey recommended it. The landlord raised an order to inspect the loft for damage to insulation on 4 July 2024. It is not clear why there was a delay of 35 days between the survey recommending this work and it being raised as an order. In Summer 2024, the landlord discussed that it would not conduct this work before pest control had inspected the property.

Actions following the ICP

30. Following publication of the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report, the landlord completed a damp and mould self-assessment in 2022/2023. This stated that if a property had ongoing damp or mould concerns, it would refer these to a specialist contractor to carry out a thorough review of the property.
31. The resident continued to raise her dissatisfaction and express that she felt there was condensation and dampness present in the property as part of the ICP in Summer 2024. She asked for an independent survey to take place. The landlord stated it was unable to offer an external company for the survey as it had expert staff. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its own staff and to offer a second opinion.
32. As agreed in the ICP, the landlord surveyed the home again for damp and mould again on 12 September 2024. It was positive that the landlord arranged for a second survey in 2024. The survey recommended that sealants should be applied to walls and ceiling surfaces, an extractor fan installed in the kitchen and to replace the external soffit boards. It noted:
    1. thermal ghosting present in the living room.
    2. dried out water streaking in the bedrooms, bathroom and hall.
    3. no evidence of damp in the loft.
    4. that two large storage tanks were positioned directly over the stained living room ceiling. This was the apparent source of previously highlighted dampness.
    5. condensation of atmospheric moisture on the internal walls and ceilings surfaced.
33. The landlord’s records show that on 27 September 2024 an operative was on route to replace the extractor fan. This was 120 days after it was raised in the May 2024 survey and was outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timeframe. There is no record confirming that the repair took place, nor that the resident was notified in advance of this visit. This is another record keeping failure and highlights an ongoing difficulty for this investigation to accurately assess the actions taken by the landlord.
34. The landlord completed work to apply sealants and redecorate the areas affected by thermal bridging in the living room, bathroom, bedrooms and hallway on 7 October 2024. On 14 October 2024, it installed an extractor fan in the kitchen. This was 138 days after it was raised in the survey.
35. The resident has disputed an extractor fan was fitted, and provided supporting photographic evidence of this.
36. In light of the resident’s evidence, the landlord will be ordered to inspect the kitchen and to provide both repair records and photographic evidence of the extractor fan having been installed to this Service
37. In November 2024, the resident contacted the landlord 3 times to ask about soffit ventilation and to ask about waste insulation left at her home. The landlord has not provided records on the insulation being laid or the leftover insulation being removed from the resident’s garden.
38. It has also not provided evidence that further investigations of the storage tanks which were thought to be the source of the damp and mould have been completed.
39. These failures impacted the landlord’s ability to assess what works had been completed, and to satisfy itself that the potential cause of the damp and mould in the property had been investigated and (if necessary) remedied.
40.  The landlord will be ordered to inspect the storage tanks, and take any remedial action necessary. It will also be orders to confirm that the leftover insulation has been removed from the resident’s garden has been rectified.
41. The survey on 12 September 2024, recommended that the external front and rear soffit boards should be replaced. The landlord has since reported that it considered this a recommendation, however this was not communicated to the resident. This communication failure led to the resident chasing the landlord for updates and added to her confusion over which work the landlord would be carrying out and when.
42. The survey conducted by the landlord on 12 September 2024 found that two large storage tanks were positioned directly over the stained living room ceiling, and that this was the apparent source of previously highlighted dampness. There is no evidence the landlord has since conducted further inspections or remedial works in relation to this.
43. The landlord assessed the soffits for asbestos on 17 December 2024. On 5 March 2025 it told the resident it was unable to carry out this work until nesting birds had left the area. This communication was after the Ombudsman had requested information from the landlord. As of March 2025, the landlord stated it intended to action this repair at the earliest opportunity, but did not provide a clear schedule. The delay between assessment and communication is another example of the landlord’s actions contributing to the breakdown of trust within the resident/landlord relationship.
44. The landlord has not shown how it is monitoring the nesting birds, in order to action the soffit works. This is a shortcoming and likely to delay the soffit board replacement work further.
45. In light of this, the Ombudsman will order that in the event birds are still nesting, the landlord must inform the resident of its monitoring process, and what it intends to do if the bird’s nest persists over time.
46. The resident repeatedly asked for copies of previous damp and mould surveys conducted by the landlord. That the landlord could not access all these reports was a record keeping failure. This prevented the landlord from confidently assessing the condition of the property and further contributed to a strained relationship between the landlord and resident. 
47. The landlord provided two damp and mould surveys in its stage 2 response. It states it has changed its processes and now aims to disclose reports to residents when requested. This is a positive step and shows the landlord is working to support residents to better understand their homes and the repairs needed.
48. The landlord has told this Service that all repairs are now complete in relation to reports of damp and mould, apart from the soffit board replacements. On 22 May 2025, the resident told this Service that she feels the key issue has not been addressed and that repairs have not solved the core issue.
49. In summary, there were several failures. These included:

record keeping failures.

communication failures that caused confusion and led to a deterioration of the landlord and resident relationship.

delays to investigating the reported damp, mould and condensation.

delays to repairs across the home and an overall theme of the landlord failing to classify its repair orders as urgent, planned or routine.

a failure to clearly communicate to the resident that the landlord assessed that the reports of damp and mould were instead condensation and thermal ghosting/cold bridging. It did not clearly communicate what actions it would and would not be taking. It did not explain to the resident why it had assessed this as low risk.

50. The resident has reported that she is deeply frustrated by the damp or condensation issues and that she has been caused time and trouble in her attempts to get it resolved. The landlord acknowledged some failings in its complaints process and showed that it would take actions to put things right. However, it did not show how it categorised these repairs nor did it clearly explain the timeframe to the resident. This caused a further breakdown of trust.
51. The Ombudsman considers this did amount to maladministration. Considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience cause by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. We have also ordered that the landlord set a schedule for the soffit works and to meet with the resident to discuss the works undertaken to address the thermal bridging and how she can report further issues if necessary.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rodents in the property

52. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, residents were responsible for pest control including treatment of vermin inside of the home. However, the landlord would treat communal areas. The open-plan loft is accessed from the resident’s home but spans her neighbour’s property also. The landlord agreed to address rats in the property.
53. Both parties acknowledged ongoing rat issues in the loft, with treatment taking place in 2022. The resident reported hearing scratching on 5 June 2024 and was advised that if this was found to be birds, the landlord would charge for this. It may be that the landlord’s potential re-charge was a deterrent. Given the history of rats in the property, it may have been beneficial for the landlord to intervene and this point and assess if they had returned.
54. She reported rats in the roof 3 times in June and July 2024. The landlord recorded an email from pest control on 2 July 2024 noting some droppings in the loft and that they did not think it was a current infestation. It is unclear when this visit took place. This record keeping failure means it is not possible to assess if the landlord took appropriate action. 
55. On 5 August 2024, the pest controller attended and stated that the resident reported no recent rodent issues or noises. The landlord recorded that there were no fresh droppings and untouched bait in the area. On 27 August 2024, the landlord attended to check for potential holes for rats to enter via. There are no records of the outcome of this visit.
56. In September 2024, the resident contested the landlord’s record of no rats currently in the property. She said the rats continued to eat the bait and she had been told the rats were eating the lagging in the loft by pest control. The landlord stated it would instruct pest control to visit again. There is no evidence that this visit took place. On 22 November 2024, the landlord blocked up holes to prevent rodent entry.
57. The resident disputes the work of 22 November 2024 has been completed satisfactorily. She has also said the landlord did not complete the bio wash, as it had promised it would.
58. Although the landlord was responsive to the resident’s complaints of rodents from the end of June 2024 and throughout the ICP. There was a lack of records of the pest control visits and outcomes of these. The Ombudsman considers this did amount to service failure.
59. Considering this Service’s remedies guidance, we have made an order for the landlord to inspect to ensure all holes which may be allowing rodents to access the loft have been filled, and to assess whether the bio wash remains outstanding and if so, to complete this within its repair timescales. We have also recommended that the landlord review its position on re-charging residents for pest control visits.

The landlord’s complaint handling

60. A landlord’s complaint handling should aim to resolve issues quickly, effectively, and fairly. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out what good complaint handling looks like. The Code and further guidance are available on our website.
61. The Code states that extensions to the timeframe can be considered if the reasons and new expected timescale are clearly explained to the resident.
62. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time defined a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action.
63. It would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days of receipt and provide response within 10 working days of acknowledgement. The resident made a complaint on 3 July 2023 and expressed dissatisfaction again on 1 November 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge either of these complaints. This failure delayed the resident’s complaint by nearly a year. The resident was caused time and trouble by having to raise the complaint 3 times before response.
64. The resident made another stage 1 complaint about the same issue on 11 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged this within its timeframe on 18 June 2024. The stage 1 response is dated 1 July 2024.
65. The landlord took some steps to recognise its failures and put things right. It apologised for not responding to the 14 July 2023 complaint and offered £200 compensation for this. However, it did not recognise the complaints made on 3 July and 1 November 2023. It also has not provided this investigation with evidence of the complaint raised on 14 July 2023. These record keeping failures show an obstructive complaints process.
66. The landlord’s stage 1 response is dated 1 July 2024. However, it’s complaints log shows that the resident contacted it on the same day, and the landlord advised it would send the stage 1 response ‘tomorrow’. It is unclear why the response is incorrectly dated. This is a record keeping failure.
67. The landlord stated it would contact the resident within 3 working days to understand stage 2 complaints. It would then acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days of acknowledgement.  The resident escalated the complaint on 2 July 2024 and the landlord acknowledged this on 10 July 2024. This was reasonable. 
68. The landlord told the resident it would be extending her complaint on 6 August 2024 as it needed further time to investigate. However, it did not provide a new timescale for the response. This was a complaint handling failure which added to the resident’s frustration. The landlord provided it’s response on 20 August 2024. This was 29 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s escalation.
69. In summary, the landlord did not accept the resident’s initial complaints, nor recognise all these failures in its eventual stage 1 response. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer £200 compensation. However, it did not apologise for the missed complaint reports in July and November 2023. This caused the resident time and trouble, as well as distress and inconvenience.
70. The Ombudsman considers this did amount to maladministration. Considering this Service’s remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. If the £200 offered in July 2024 has already been paid, this can be deducted from the compensation.

Determination

71. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
72. In accordance with paragraph 52, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of rodents in the property.
73. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Orders

74. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord must:
75. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in the report.
76. Pay compensation to the resident of £550. This is made up of:
    1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. £250 for the time and trouble caused by its complaints handling failures. If the £200 offered in July 2024 has already been paid, this can be deducted from the final amount.
77. Write to the resident with a schedule for the soffit works. This should include dates by which it is expected to be complete. In the event birds are still nesting, the landlord must inform you of its monitoring process, and what it intends to do if the bird’s nest persists over time.
78. Inspect the kitchen and provide both repair records and photographic evidence of extractor fan installed to this Service.
79. Discuss with the resident the results of the surveys and why they understand there to be low levels of damp and mould in the property. This should include discussing the works undertaken to address the thermal bridging and how she can report further issues if necessary. The landlord should send the resident and this Service a written summary of the conversation.
80. To inspect and confirm that the left over insulation has been removed from the garden to this Service. If it has not, the landlord must complete this within four weeks of the inspection.
81. Within four weeks, the landlord must conduct an inspection of the two large storage tanks which are positioned directly over the living room ceiling to assess if this is the source of any dampness. In the event this is established, the landlord should complete any necessary repairs within its repair timescales.
82. Inspect the loft to ensure all holes which may be allowing rodents to access the loft have been filled. If they have not, it must take action to ensure this is completed within four weeks.

Recommendation

83. It is recommended that the landlord review its position on recharging residents reporting vermin issues in their homes.