Calico Homes Limited (202223644)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223644

Calico Homes 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 the resident’s reports of water ingress and mould.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a 3-bedroom house with her husband and 2 children, who were 15 and 12 at the time of the complaint.
On 15 January 2024, the resident reported wet patches on the upstairs ceilings of the property, as well as on the living room wall and the kitchen fan. She said that previous repairs were ineffective. On 19 January 2024, the resident complained that the insulation in the loft was soaking wet, and the ceilings had water damage.
On 26 January 2024, a technical inspection completed by the landlord confirmed that previous attempts to rectify the issues had not been properly completed. The landlord raised an order to relay the roof insulation and adjust the ducting from the extractor fan in the loft.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 16 February 2024, stating that a visit on 26 January 2024 revealed that previous works had not successfully resolved the issue. It confirmed that the works recommended on 26 January 2024, were scheduled for 2 and 9 February 2024.
Following contact from the resident, we wrote to the landlord on 14 February 2024, requesting that the landlord provide a stage 2 complaint response. The resident remained dissatisfied with the stage 1 response because she wanted the landlord to investigate the cause of the issues and provide compensation for the time, stress, and inconvenience caused.
An inspection by a contractor on 1 March 2024 concluded that the loft space suffered from heavy condensation, primarily due to the lack of ventilation and poor-quality loft insulation installation.
The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 18 March 2024 and stated:
1. it had visited the resident’s property with a senior technical inspector on 1 March 2024 to discuss the complaint and conduct a full inspection
2. it confirmed that earlier repairs had been unsuccessful. Since it had not followed up on the repairs, it left the resident in a position of having to make continued contact, for which it apologised
3. It confirmed works to:
  1. remove ridge tiles to ensure proper ventilation and repair as necessary. Fix the leaking rainwater pipe at the gable end and treat any mould on the loft timbers
  2. clear the loft space entirely, inspect all ventilation, and replace the old insulation
  3. once completed, a post-inspection would be conducted, followed by decoration work
4. it recognised the importance of learning from the complaint about previous linked issues to ensure they are escalated when necessary, at the earliest opportunity
5. It offered £750 compensation, made up of:
  1. £500 for its failure to address the matter, which meant the resident had spent an unreasonable time trying to resolve the situation
  2. £250 for the delay in resolving the complaint
The landlord post-inspected the works on 22 April 2024, and all the works had been completed satisfactorily, including the decoration. The resident asked us to investigate the complaint in October 2024 because she said she had been told verbally by various contractors that the roof needed replacing and that the repairs the landlord had completed only masked the issue.

Events after the completion of the landlord’s complaints process

On 17 January 2025, a joint inspection was completed with the resident, the landlord, and the roofing contractor. The resident highlighted water running down the wall in the rear bedroom at the ceiling junction. The landlord and the roofing contractor confirmed it was not water ingress, and the roof appeared to be in good condition. A Chartered Surveyor was instructed to investigate further. The resident has confirmed that the Chartered Surveyor has recommended installing a dehumidifier system in the loft. As these events have not been through the landlord’s complaints process, they have not been included within our assessment but have been noted for context.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has reported the water ingress as a recurring issue that has caused distress and inconvenience for several years. We have confirmed that an earlier complaint was made in January 2023 regarding the same issue. This was investigated and resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 of the complaints process. Therefore, our assessment will focus on events from January 2024, when the resident made a new report of water ingress that prompted the new 2024 complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress and mould

The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that emergency repairs (where there is a risk to health, safety or serious damage) should be responded to within 24 hours. Urgent repairs should be completed within 5 working days, and routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy requires initial inspections within 10 working days of a report. Where issues are repeated, it states that root-cause investigations should be conducted, and follow-up visits should confirm the effectiveness of repairs.
On 15 January 2024, the resident reported widespread wet patches throughout her property. She said the property needed a complete re-roof and expressed concerns about the ongoing issue. The landlord arranged an inspection on 26 January 2024. This was appropriate in line with its damp and mould policy, which requires an inspection within 10 working days of a report.
The inspection confirmed that the insulation needed to be topped up and installed in layers that alternate directions. Additionally, it needed to be pulled back from the eaves to allow for proper ventilation. The landlord rightly noted in its stage 2 response that it failed to follow up on the repairs completed in 2023 before our investigation, which it should have done to ensure the issues were resolved satisfactorily.
On 2 and 9 February 2024, works were completed to relay the loft insulation and adjust ducting from the extractor fan in the loft. This was appropriate and within the 20-working-day timeframe detailed in the landlord’s repairs policy.
On 12 February 2024, the resident contacted us, for help with her complaint. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had reported the same problem without a satisfactory resolution. On 16 February 2024, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her concerns further. As a result of this conversation, the landlord committed to conducting an additional inspection of the property on 1 March 2024. This was a prompt step that showed the landlord’s reasonable response in its attempt to ensure that the resident’s concerns were addressed.
The landlord’s March 2024 inspection identified that previous repair works were not completed satisfactorily, resulting in unresolved issues affecting the resident’s living conditions. Necessary remedial actions were identified during the inspection, which included:
1. the removal of existing loft insulation
2. the installation of additional ventilation
3. a repair to the rainwater pipework
4. a full replacement of loft insulation
5. a mould treatment to bedroom ceilings, bathroom and landing and redecoration
The inspector determined that the primary issues stemmed from inadequate ventilation in the loft and poorly installed insulation. This finding contrasted the resident’s suggestion that contractors said a roof replacement was necessary. We recognise the resident’s frustration regarding the ongoing repairs and her belief that the only solution was to replace the roof. Nevertheless, the landlord had the right to rely on the conclusions of qualified professionals about the cause of the problem and what was required to address the issues. While we acknowledge the resident’s frustration, the evidence does not support the assertion that the roof required replacement.
According to the landlord’s records, the loft insulation was replaced on 9 February 2024, and adjustments were made to the ducting linked to the extractor fan. Nevertheless, the inspection in March 2024 uncovered the same problems. This indicated that the issues were not resolved in February 2024 or the completed work did not meet the necessary standards and was subjected to a thorough inspection. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge this failure in its stage 2 response.
Although there was a minor delay with the scaffold installation, the work began as soon as the resident was available (week commencing 8 April 2024), which was reasonable. The work was completed, and a post-inspection was carried out on 22 April 2024, within 3 months of the January 2024 report, which was a reasonable timeframe given the nature of the work required. The evidence shows that the landlord maintained communication during this period, managing the resident’s expectations and completing the work within a reasonable timeframe.
In summary, from January 2024 onward, the landlord responded appropriately by:

a. conducting inspections within policy timeframes

b. undertaking and completing remedial works in a reasonable time

c. maintaining timely communication with the resident about timeframes

d. appropriately escalating new concerns

The landlord acknowledged that it missed the opportunity to follow up on previous repairs to ensure their success and recognised the need for training in this area. To address the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the situation, the landlord offered £500 compensation. This offer was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance when a resident had suffered significant unreasonable distress or inconvenience because of the landlord’s failures. Therefore, the landlord’s offer is considered reasonable, and we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Complaint handling

The resident raised a complaint on 19 January 2024. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 16 February 2024, 10 days outside the landlord’s 10 working-day response time.
On 16 February 2024, we asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 response. The landlord responded on 18 March 2024, which was 1 day outside the landlord’s 20-working-day response time.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delays in handling the complaint. In addition to the £250 compensation offered for its failure to adhere to the timeframes set out in its complaints policy, it confirmed that it reviewed its complaints process in line with the Housing Ombudsman Code (the Code) and would provide training for all staff dealing with complaints. Therefore, we have found reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of water ingress and mould
2. the complaint

Recommendation

To pay the resident £750 as offered at stage 2 if it has not already been paid.