Westward Housing Group Limited (202406785)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202406785

Westward Housing Group Limited

22 July 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 the resident’s:
1. Reports of structural movement of the property.
2. Reports of damp and mould and the associated damage to his belongings.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant for a 2-bedroom bungalow which is owned by the landlord. He lives at the property with his partner, who is also an assured tenant. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident’s partner has fibromyalgia and requires the use of a mobility scooter. It records that the resident has described himself and his partner as disabled but he has not disclosed details to it.
On 3 August 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that it had not resolved the damp and mould he had previously reported. He said he and his partner had not been able to use the bedroom due to the amount of damp and he wanted to make a claim for damaged personal belongings.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 August 2023. It explained that it had inspected the property and was arranging repairs and further investigation regarding the issues. It advised him to make an insurance claim regarding his personal belongings
The resident’s partner asked for a follow-up meeting with the landlord. It issued the resident an ‘additional’ stage 1 response on 13 September 2023 after this meeting. It said it would not provide him with compensation for the personal belongings as it had seen no evidence these were damaged by mould. It explained the structural engineer had attended on 31 August 2023 and recommended carrying out further investigations.
The resident continued to contact the landlord with concerns about the property condition. On 15 December 2023 it told him it would escalate his complaint to stage 2, due to the amount of time the complaint had been ongoing without resolution.
On 26 January 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident. It said it had completed the recommendations to improve the ventilation, which improved the issue with damp in the property. It stated it did not agree with this view that the bedroom was unusable. The structural engineer had found the movement of the porch was relatively minor. It stated he had refused the work recommended by the structural engineer and he should contact it if he changed his mind.
The resident attempted to escalate his complaint to stage 3 of the landlord’s complaint process the following day. It wrote to him on 2 February 2024 explaining it no longer had a stage 3 in its complaint process and he should contact this Service if he remained dissatisfied. He told this Service that cracks are continuing to appear in the property and he and his partner are concerned it is unsafe. He said the issue with damp and mould had been resolved, but he remained dissatisfied with its decision not to reimburse them for their personal belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope

As part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord he complained that the landlord should have taken further action to put things right with the condition of the property before his tenancy began in July 2019. We have not seen evidence that he made complaints about damp and mould or the structure of the property before 3 August 2023.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that it has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as this Service, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. Therefore, while the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint this investigation focuses on events from 3 August 2022 which was 12 months prior to the current complaint.
The resident told this Service he wants the landlord to move him and his partner into a different property permanently. He says they no longer feel safe in the property due to their concerns about the structural movement and as it is unsuitable for their needs.
The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s reasons for wanting to move. However, the Ombudsman would not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing, such as people facing homelessness or fleeing domestic violence. We can see that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s desire to move property throughout its complaint responses and advised that it would be willing to arrange a discussion with him, his partner and their housing officer to explore their options. If the resident is still seeking this as an outcome we suggest that he contacts the landlord to discuss this.

Structural movement of the property

The tenancy agreement between the landlord and the resident confirms that it is its responsibility to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. This includes internal walls, floors and ceilings.
In April 2019, prior to the events complained about, the landlord commissioned a structural engineer to investigate possible structural movement and cracking in the porches of several properties it owned in the area, including this property. The engineer’s report stated:
1. The porches were clearly later additions to the dwellings, built around 25 years previously with a concrete block as a foundation.
2. A significant number of the porches investigated showed signs of rotational movement. Though it varied by property the cracking typically appeared where the porch met the original fabric of the building.
3. It could not say whether the movement of the porches was progressive and recommended it monitor these for a period of no less than 12 months with tell–tale gauges. If there was evidence of further movement at the end of this period remedial reinforcement work would be required.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 July 2020 to confirm that the structural engineer had reviewed the tell-tale gauges for the porch of the property and found no evidence of ongoing movement. It said it would carry out repairs and redecoration works to the porch.
From the available records the resident did not report issues with the structure of the porch until 14 March 2023. He told the landlord that the front porch appeared to be coming away and there was cracking around the property. It asked him to send in photographs so it could assess this and decide whether to arrange a visit from a technical surveyor. We have seen no evidence he responded to this.
The landlord arranged an appointment for 4 April 2023 to visit the resident to discuss this and other concerns he had about the property. This appointment was changed to 12 May 2023 at his request. Once he reported concerns about damp and mould on 9 May 2023 it brought this forward to 10 May 2023. This was appropriate action for it to take to understand his concerns and it was responsive to his requests.
There is no evidence the resident reported further concerns to the landlord about structural movement until 11 July 2023. At this point he told it he was concerned that there was subsidence and cracking in the porch and he was concerned it would come away from the property.
In its stage 1 response of 16 August 2023 the landlord said in relation to the resident’s concerns about the structural movement:
1. It had visited the property on 10 May 2023 as part of its response to his concerns about damp and mould. It noted from the visit that most of the cracks the resident had reported in the property were hairline but there were some larger cracks on the floor of the porch.
2. Following him raising further concerns in July 2023 it had visited the property on 26 July 2023 to discuss his concerns. It said it had consulted with its structural engineer in relation to the cracking in the porch and they would attend the property to investigate further.
3. Would not offer compensation for damaged personal items and he should make a claim against his home contents insurance.
The landlord’s response to this was appropriate. In line with its repair policy filling “hairline and minor cracks” is the tenant’s responsibility so it was reasonable for it to take no further action about these. There is evidence it wrote to its structural engineer for advice about the cracks in the floor of the porch following the visit in May 2023 and when the resident reported further concerns about these on 11 July 2023 it took further action to investigate the cause of these.
From the available evidence the structural engineer attended the property on 31 August 2023. The landlord said in its ‘additional’ stage 1 response of 13 September 2023 they had recommended creating a trial hole to expose the foundations of the porch to investigate any possible structural issue.
It took 51 calendar days for the structural engineer to attend following the resident’s reports of possible structural movement on 11 July 2023. The landlord’s repair policy says that planned maintenance, work which is not required straight away but is necessary to keep a property in a good state of repair for the long-term, will be carried out in a 90-day target time. It explains this is because this work will typically require site attendance, external quotes and/or organisational planning. The landlord had visited the property on 26 July 2023 to assess its current condition. Though there are no contemporaneous notes there is no evidence from its stage 1 responses it identified any immediate safety concern that would have made treating it as a planned maintenance issue inappropriate. As such the landlord’s actions were in accordance with its repair policy.
On 19 September 2023 the landlord told the resident it would be attending to dig the trial hole on 22 September 2023. It attended on the day to carry out the agreed work, 73 calendar days after he reported possible structural movement and still within the required timescales.
The structural engineer reviewed the findings from the trial hole and photographs provided by the landlord. On 28 November 2023 it recorded that it had received the following advice from the structural engineer:
1. The foundation of the porch was relatively shallow and on top of “clayey subsoil” materials. These materials were not dimensionally stable and could cause the foundations to move.
2. Based on the extent of the movement seen they had no concern about a complete failure of the structure of the porch.
3. The porch had shown no progressive movement between May 2019 and May 2020 when the tell-tale gauges were in place. They acknowledged further movement may have occurred since 2020, but it was relatively minor.
4. They recommended 2 options for the landlord to resolve the current cracking:
  1. That it underpins the existing porch foundation by digging under these and casting concrete to a greater depth.
  2. That it repairs the current cracks and monitor for progressive movement again.
The landlord recorded that it visited the resident on 6 December 2023 to discuss what it planned to do but he refused the proposed work. In its stage 2 response of 26 January 2024 it:
1. Explained it understood he considered the porch was unsafe which is why it asked the structural engineer to investigate.
2. Outlined the structural engineer’s findings that the current movement of the property and their recommendation that it should fill the existing cracks and carry out further monitoring.
3. Advised that if he had changed his mind about allowing the planned work to take place he could contact it to rearrange this.
4. Told him it would not be upholding the complaint or offering compensation.
The landlord’s response was appropriate. It was entitled to rely on the recommendations of the structural engineer on how to respond to the resident’s reports of structural movement. The information it gave him was consistent with what they had advised.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 January 2024 following the landlord’s stage 2 response. He said:
1. He considered its proposal to fill the cracks was just covering up the structural issues.
2. An independent surveyor inspected the property in August 2023 and had identified other structural issues, such as that the roof of the property was not sitting properly on the joist.
3. Cracks have continued to appear within the interior walls of the property since its previous visits.
The landlord recorded on 29 January 2024 the resident had refused the proposed works again. It noted that he had raised new structural issues which it should respond further to. In its ‘additional’ stage 2 response on 2 February 2024 it:
1. Reiterated the findings of the structural engineer and its offer to carry out the work they recommended.
2. Stated it had inspected the further cracks he reported and considered that these were minor cracks which could be filled in and redecorated.
3. Explained it was not aware of the different structural survey he had referred to and the claimed structural issues with the roof. It asked him to provide a copy of this report.
The resident did not respond to the landlord’s request. In this Service’s correspondence with him he stated the landlord appointed the independent surveyor he was referring to. He said he was given the information verbally during the inspection but he was not sent a copy of a report.
We have seen no evidence of a separate structural survey from the one on 31 August 2023. The landlord told this Service that there was not a formal report from the inspection. Notwithstanding this, we have seen no indication that the structural engineer identified any structural issue other than with the foundations of the porch. There is no evidence they or the resident gave it any information about concerns with the roof following the inspection on 31 August 2023.
In summary, we consider that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports was reasonable overall. When he reported concerns it took appropriate action to visit the property and inspect the issue. After he reported ongoing concerns with the porch it sought input from a structural engineer to investigate this further. It attempted to follow their recommendations, but he chose not to accept this work.

Reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s repair policy says that it is its responsibility to repair damp and mould which “can be attributed to a building defect” and for clearing blocked gutters and downpipes.
From the available records the resident first reported damp and mould in the property on 9 May 2023. He told the landlord there was “severe damp and mould” in the main bedroom and it had ruined the carpet and bed. He asked for a surveyor to attend.
As set out previously the landlord attended on 10 May 2023 to inspect the reported damp and mould and other concerns the resident had with the property. This was consistent with the approach published on its website which says when it receives a report of damp and mould it will book a video call or home visit to give advice and start treatment and prevention work. From this inspection it arranged for a specialist damp and mould inspection to take place and raised a repair order to clear blocked guttering at the back of the property, which it considered may be contributing to moisture.
The resident originally stated he wanted the landlord to move him and his partner out of the property until it resolved the damp and mould. The landlord contacted him on 11 May 2023 and explained that as he had only reported the damp and mould that week and it had already arranged work to address this it did not consider a temporary move was necessary. This decision was consistent with its decant policy. This said it would consider a temporary move in situations where emergency or major repairs were required or if the property condition would cause serious harm or detriment to the resident(s). The landlord had inspected the property and there is no evidence these criteria were met.
The landlord told the resident on 16 May 2023 it may take 4 to 6 weeks for the damp and mould inspection to take place. He wrote to it on 4 July 2023 to complain he had heard nothing further about this. He said they were unable to use the main bedroom and sleeping in the lounge which was affecting their disabilities.
The damp and mould inspection took place on 17 July 2023, 68 calendar days (around 10 weeks) after the landlord requested this. Its damp and mould guidance to residents does not specify a timescale for how quickly it will complete a damp and mould inspection. This Service expects landlords to address reports of damp and mould within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the issue. Where there is a delay we expect landlords to be proactive in:
1. Communicating the cause of delays to residents.
2. Explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays.
3. Identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.
From the available information there is no evidence the landlord provided an explanation to the resident about why the damp and mould inspection did not take place within 6 weeks as it originally advised. This was unreasonable. In addition, though the landlord has said it has no details of the resident and his partner’s disabilities, it did not request further information about this to assess if they had specific vulnerabilities. This was not in accordance with its self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s ‘Spotlight report on Damp and Mould’. This said it would check for vulnerability information when a resident reports damp and mould to assess whether special adjustments or prioritisation of the case are necessary.
The report from the damp and mould inspection on 17 July 2023 recorded:
1. There was no visible mould across the property and only “traces of mould” in the main bedroom at the skirting board level, it noted the trickle vents in the room were closed.
2. The overall humidity across the property was at a “medium level”, it saw no issues from examining the moisture levels in the walls.
3. The resident had told it that he had only had the heating on 6 times last winter which may have contributed to humidity issues.
4. The extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen of the property were not working effectively. It made recommendations for these to be improved.
The resident told this Service that the damp and mould surveyor advised him there was an issue with the damp-proof course due to how the patio of the property had been laid. We have seen no evidence the surveyor made any comments or recommendations about the damp proof course from their report.
The landlord cleared the guttering on 18 July 2023, 69 calendar days after it identified this as requiring repair. This significantly exceeded its 28 calendar days timescale for routine repairs, there is no evidence it informed the resident of any reason for the delay.
The resident’s partner made a claim for compensation to the landlord on 2 August 2023 for personal items including the bedroom carpet, their bed and clothing which had been damaged by damp. The resident complained the following day that the bedroom was unfit to sleep in and it had not resolved the damp and mould.
In its stage 1 response of 16 August 2023 the landlord outlined its findings from its original inspection on 10 May 2023. It explained its testing had found raised, but not high, moisture across the property which was indicative of surface moisture rather than rising damp. It noted there was a high moisture reading in one corner of the bedroom which, from an external inspection, was caused by the blocked guttering that it later cleared on 18 July 2023. It explained the findings of the damp and mould inspection and said it had raised repairs to complete the recommendations from the inspection. It did not acknowledge the delay in carrying out the damp and mould inspection or the guttering repair.
In relation to the claimed damage to the resident’s personal belongings the landlord’s stage 1 response said, in line with its compensation policy, it would not reimburse him and he should claim against his contents insurance policy instead. Its compensation policy does say that it should not be used to compensate customers for a lack of contents insurance. However, contents insurance will only usually cover sudden and unexpected damage. There is often a standard exclusion called the ‘gradually operating cause’ exclusion. The Financial Ombudsman Service’s website says: “Policy exclusions will explain under which circumstances you won’t provide cover – these often include damage that’s been caused gradually. Gradual damage is also called a ‘gradually operating cause’ exclusion in policies. (…) Some damage to a home or its contents happens gradually over time. For example, mould isn’t usually something that suddenly appears.”
This means, even if the resident had a contents insurance policy, the claim for damaged personal belongings from mould may not have been covered. The landlord should have considered the claimed damage under its compensation policy or considered referring the matter to its liability insurer.
Notwithstanding this, the landlord’s ‘additional’ stage 1 response on 13 September 2023 said that, with the resident’s permission, it had examined the personal items he had claimed were damaged. It said it would not accept financial responsibility for these as:
1. There was no evidence of mould damage on the clothing. It accepted there was an “odour” from these but said this was from the resident having kept these bagged over a long period.
2. There was no evidence of mould growth on the bed frame or mattress.
3. The bedroom carpet was frayed but there was no evidence of mould growth or that the damage was due to moisture.
As such, though the landlord’s original response on 16 August 2023 was not reasonable it later put this right by examining the claimed damage and explaining why it would not reimburse the resident. We consider the landlord’s decision was reasonable, as there was no evidence of a problem with mould from the previous inspection on 17 July 2023.
From the available records the landlord completed the repairs to improve the extractor fans in the property on 19 September 2023, 64 calendar days after the damp and mould inspection. This significantly exceeded its 28 calendar days timescale for routine repairs from its repairs policy, there is no evidence it informed the resident of any reason for the delay.
The resident made a further repair request on 3 November 2023 to reposition the extractor fan in the kitchen. He complained on 10 November 2023 that the operative who attended had not removed and replaced the extractor fan as agreed. He also stated mould was still present in the bedroom and it was unusable.
From the landlord’s repair logs it recorded that the kitchen extractor fan was in the correct position and installed to its standards, so no repair was necessary. There is no evidence it responded to the resident with this information or to get further information about his report of mould.
As set out previously on 6 December 2023 the landlord visited the resident in relation to his concerns about the condition of the property. As part of this he confirmed the installation of new ventilation had improved the damp in the property. He did not refer to any issue with mould in the bedroom but said that he and his partner intended to not start using it until the landlord redecorated.
The landlord decided to escalate the resident’s complaint on 15 December 2023 as the complaint had been ongoing without resolution. In its stage 2 response on 26 January 2024, it said the damp and mould inspection had only found trace amounts of mould in the bedroom. From the findings of the damp and mould inspection there were not high levels of humidity in the property and he had agreed this had improved since it had added new ventilation. It explained it did not agree with his view that the bedroom was unusable and it would not be upholding his complaint or offering compensation.
In our view the landlord’s response in relation to the resident’s complaint about the bedroom being unusable was reasonable. In line with the landlord’s repairs policy painting and decorating walls and/or ceilings is the tenant’s responsibility unless these became damaged as a result of its repair responsibilities (e.g. from fixing a leak). As the damp and mould inspection only found trace amounts of mould there is no suggestion the impact on the room was significant enough the landlord would be expected to redecorate.
We have seen the landlord took action to put right the issues with damp and mould the resident reported. However, its stage 2 response did not acknowledge there were delays in carrying out the initial guttering repair and damp and mould inspection, or the delay in completing the repairs recommended from the inspection. In the Ombudsman’s view though the impact of these failings was likely minor due to the limited problem with damp and mould found, it still would have delayed resolving the issue for the resident. As there were minor failures by the landlord which it did not appropriately acknowledge or remedy we have made orders for it to put this right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of structural movement of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of this determination:
1. Issue the resident with a written apology. The landlord must recognise its failings as identified in this report and the impact these had on the resident.
2. Pay the resident £50 in compensation for the delays in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
3. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any monies he may owe the landlord.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord reviews its compensation policy to consider providing additional guidance on responding to requests for reimbursement for claimed damage to personal belongings from damp and mould.