Castles & Coasts Housing Association Limited (202415888)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415888

Castles & Coasts Housing Association Limited

7 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a house, built in 2016.
The resident first reported to the landlord that there were issues of damp and mould in the living room, bedrooms, and bathroom in 2016. This was shortly after her tenancy began. The resident said that the landlord told her it was due to the way she was “living and using the house” and took no further action.
The resident contacted the landlord in January 2018 reporting the same issues of mould and damp. In December 2018, she told the landlord that personal items and furniture has become damaged due to mould. The landlord organised an independent survey of the property in January 2019. The survey recommended the landlord treat the mould, check the cavity wall insulation, and carry out a loft inspection to make sure the insulation was laid correctly. It also recommended the resident keep furniture away from walls and make use of trickle vents and mechanical extraction to help with air flow and ventilation.
From January 2019 to when the resident raised her most recent complaint in April 2024, the landlord completed a number of inspections and repairs including to the walls, roof and radiators.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord in June 2020. She said that mould had damaged personal items and furniture and had caused her to spend more money on heating. The landlord paid the resident £5250 compensation in November 2020 as a result of this complaint. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman of a breakdown of these costs.
The resident made another stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 22 April 2024. She said she was still experiencing mould and damp in the bedrooms and bathrooms and that:
1. The loft space becomes wet with condensation every winter and the landlord had failed to provide a “workable solution”.
2. A positive input ventilation (PIV) unit had been contributing to the problem for a period of time and had now been switched off.
3. Over the past 7 years her children had become ill with conditions such as chest infections which she believed had been caused by living in a property with mould.
As an outcome of her complaint, the resident requested the landlord compensate her for the stress caused and to ensure all works were fully complete so the mould would not return.
On 22 April 2024 the landlord carried out work to the loft space to improve air flow in order to address continued issues of condensation. These works were raised prior to the resident’s complaint and include:
1. Upgrading the loft insulation.
2. Installing eave ventilation, tray vents and a ridge system to the roof area.
3. Repairing the felt.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 24 May 2024. It:
1. Upheld the resident’s complaint and said there had been an issue with the construction of the resident’s home which it had not identified or correctly addressed in a reasonable time frame.
2. Accepted “full responsibility for the time and inconvenience caused” to the resident and said it would make an offer of compensation once it had taken legal advice.
3. Apologised for having told the resident her use of the property was to blame for the mould. It explained it had since trained staff to better understand the causes of condensation and not to blame residents.
4. Accepted that the PIV unit had been incorrectly specified at the time.
5. Committed to undertaking regular inspections of the loft space and to install a system of monitoring devices in the property to monitor relative humidity levels.
The landlord offered the resident £2380.79 and a £200 decorating voucher on 7 June 2024. It based its offer of compensation on a 10% rent reduction that covered the time period from when it had last paid compensation in November 2020.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 10 June 2024. She was unhappy with the amount of compensation and felt the landlord’s offer should have considered her experience of mould and damp since 2016. She said that the complaint and offer of compensation paid in 2020 was separate from the complaint she was making now.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 8 July 2024. It apologised again and said it would arrange for an independent survey of the property to identify any outstanding issues. It also increased the offer of compensation to £3000 and re-offered the £200 decorating voucher.
In September 2024, the landlord installed the monitoring devices in the resident’s home. The independent survey was completed in November 2024, and it found no defects to the property resulting in excessive moisture. It found the roof and loft space had been well ventilated and there were no condensation issues to note. It recommended the landlord continue to monitor the sensors it had installed and to inspect the property during colder weather.
In December 2024, the landlord inspected the loft. It reported that whilst there was evidence of water on the loft hatch, there was no evidence of water in the loft itself. The inspection found that the felt and insulation were both dry.
The resident escalated her complaint to us as she remained unhappy with the offer of compensation. She confirmed that there were currently no issues of mould, but she was concerned that it could return.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We acknowledge that the resident has been impacted by her experience of damp and mould from as far back as 2016. However, in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) we will not investigate complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matters arising. The landlord has taken a reasonable approach to its investigation by covering the period of time from November 2020 when it provided the resident with compensation as a result of a previous complaint about damp and mould. As such, this report will investigate the period of time from November 2020 to the landlord’s final response to the complaint in July 2024. We will also assess any actions the landlord committed to in its final response, up until the point when these actions were completed. The historical issues, however, provided useful contextual background to the complaint and are referenced for this reason.
The resident has also raised concerns about the impact of damp and mould on her children’s health. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. The Ombudsman can consider the general risk as well as the likely distress and inconvenience any identified failings may have caused, but we cannot determine effect of the landlord’s action or inaction on the health of the resident and her family. Any such claim would be more appropriately progressed through liability insurance or as a civil action through the courts. If the resident wishes to pursue a personal injury claim, she should seek independent legal advice.
The Ombudsman is aware that the resident has raised concerns that the landlord has treated her less favourably than a neighbour in regard to its response to reports of damp and mould. However, the landlord would not be expected to share information about the neighbour’s circumstances with the resident due to confidentiality. Our investigation has focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her property and whether it acted fairly, in line with its legal obligations, policies and procedures and industry best practice.

Policies and procedures

The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (October 2021) states that landlords would benefit from a consolidated and comprehensive policy in relation to damp and mould. The landlord has said it is now in the process of updating its reactive repairs policy to reflect this.
Whilst the landlord does not have a dedicated policy on how it handles reports of damp and mould, it has provided the Ombudsman with its ‘spotlight on damp and mould action plan.’ Within this the landlord has stated it:
1. Has a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and attends/investigates all reports, offers advice, or completes remedial works where appropriate.
2. Will attend all pre-inspection appointments within 10 working days with any subsequent appointments being time bound.
3. Uses independent surveyors when an outcome cannot be mutually agreed, and all recommendations are implemented.
The landlord states that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 7 days, and routine repairs within 21 days.

Handling of damp and mould

The landlord arranged a roof inspection on 6 January 2021 following the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord then carried out repairs to the roof a few days later. As the landlord had already established issues of condensation in the loft space were resulting in mould on the bedroom and bathroom ceilings, it was appropriate for it to continue raising works to address the issue.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 4 December 2022 to report that the loft insulation was wet, and there was mould. The landlord responded to the resident’s report appropriately by carrying out another inspection and making further attempts to address the issue of condensation in the loft.
On 4 December 2023, the resident made another report that the loft insulation was wet. It was appropriate that the landlord arranged a further inspection and updated the resident promptly with a list of works it would carry out following this. The landlord completed the further roof works on 22 April 2024.In her complaint, the resident questioned the standard of previous inspections and associated works completed by the landlord. The landlord said it had tried “various remedies” to ventilate the roof void but it had been difficult to know the effectiveness of the works until the weather turned cold again which was normally 12 months later.
Whilst we note that the landlord inspected and completed works to the loft space a number of times over the course of 4 years, it is important to note that when trying to resolve issues of damp and mould, it can sometimes take time to find the right solution and different repairs may need to be attempted before the problem is fully resolved. This does not necessarily mean there was negligence by the landlord. It is encouraging to see that the landlord has been responsive to each of the resident’s reports, but it has acknowledged itself that there were failings in addressing the underlying issues in a timely manner.
Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint, the landlord committed to carrying out regular inspections of the loft space and to install monitoring devices in the property. Given that the issues of condensation and mould had persisted in the resident’s home for a number of years, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for a regular inspection and to install monitoring devices.
The landlord also addressed the resident’s concerns that it had first told her the mould was caused by her use of the household. It explained that this was “totally unacceptable” and that it had since trained staff and property surveyors to identify condensation issues and not to blame residents. Despite this being a historical response from the landlord, it was still appropriate for it to apologise to the resident and give assurance around staff training. This in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould, which states landlords should avoid automatically apportioning blame to residents.
At stage 2 of its complaints process, the landlord also committed to ordering an independent survey of the property to ensure that there were no outstanding issues. Given the resident’s complaint, it was appropriate for the landlord to organise an independent third-party inspection. This is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould which states landlords should highlight instances where using an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor may be useful. The landlord was entitled to rely on the survey’s findings that the landlord did not need to take any further action regarding the damp and mould, aside from monitoring the property.
As part of its commitment to inspecting the property during cold weather, the landlord visited on 12 December 2024 and found no evidence of water in the loft. It also found the felt and insulation to be dry. In this instance, the landlord acted appropriately and followed up with the action it had planned to take as part of its stage 1 complaint response.
The landlord said the original developer had not used a breathable roofing felt at the point of construction. This led to issues with condensation build up in the roof void which saturated the loft insulation making it colder and more difficult for the resident to heat the property. The landlord offered £3000 and £200 in decorating vouchers for failing to fully address this since November 2020. The landlord used a rent-based calculation to come to this figure which was based on the impact of mould to the affected rooms.
When the landlord has made an offer, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether the offer is fair and reasonable. Our approach to compensation is set out in our remedies guidance published on our website. The amount the landlord offered is in line with what the Ombudsman might consider ‘severe maladministration’ by the landlord. The landlord’s offer adequately reflects the significant distress and inconvenience that the resident would have experienced as a result of the delays in the landlord addressing the damp and mould between 2020 and 2024.
As a result, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord has made an offer prior to our involvement which was reasonable and proportionate to resolve the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord should pay the resident £3000 compensation already offered in June 2024 (if it has not already) along with the £200 decorating voucher. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.