Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202421085)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421085

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

20 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 the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 3-bedroom house.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported damp and black mould in her bathroom on 8 November 2023. An inspection of the property took place on 5 December 2023. The inspection confirmed that there was minor damp and mould around 2 of the bedroom windows. It said there was significant mould to all surfaces in the bathroom and damp to the small window reveals. The report outlined a number of remedial actions to address the issues in the property.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint regarding the ongoing damp and mould issues in her bathroom on 25 March 2024. She said the vent lacked a proper hole to extract air, that it was recirculating indoors, and caused mould and moisture growth. She said it was impacting her health and she was getting asthmatic symptoms.
  4. The resident said the landlord’s contractors attended on 21 March 2024 and confirmed the vent was not installed correctly. She said previous landlord staff had missed this and suggested inadequate solutions such as keeping windows open. She said the oversight and negligence had led to significant health hazards and property damage. She requested a thorough investigation, immediate rectification of the ventilation system, and compensation for her health and property damages.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 10 April 2024. It apologised for the distress caused. It noted that following the inspection, its contractor had carried out damp and mould works. It apologised for the delay in completing the works. It confirmed her complaint included concerns regarding the extractor fan and tiling. It said it had asked its contractor to re-attend and complete the works by 22 April 2024. It offered £210 compensation to reflect the time taken to complete the works, its lack of communication, and the impact on the resident. It awarded an additional £25 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 May 2024. She said despite the work carried out in the property, the mould had returned. She said it was continuing to cause her distress and inconvenience. The resident said she was concerned about the effectiveness of the measures taken so far. She requested further investigation to ensure the landlord permanently resolved the issues.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 August 2024. It apologised for the delay in providing its response and offered £25 compensation. It said it had been unable to make contact with the resident between 20 May 2024 and 9 July 2024. It confirmed it carried out a survey on 9 July 2024, which had recommended remedial works. It said it had assigned the resident a case manager who would be in touch to update her and manage the case going forward. The landlord said it did not uphold the complaint as it had completed the works from the original survey. It said sometimes original recommendations do not fully resolve issues and it would need to do further investigation.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the ombudsman. She said it was an insult for the landlord to suggest it completed the original works satisfactorily when the mould returned just 2-3 months after. She said the issue had worsened and had spread throughout her property. The resident said the £25 offered added further insult. She said she expected a more thorough investigation and a commitment to genuinely resolving the issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has stated that the landlord’s handling of the matters under review in this investigation had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. This Service is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Although, we will consider any impact that resulted in distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

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

  1. It is not the role of this Service to reach a decision on the extent of the damp and mould itself. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This report will focus on whether it acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.
  2. In accordance with the landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy, it will complete any remedial works/measures, following a report of damp and mould, within a reasonable timescale. The timescale will depend on the severity and urgency of the problem and on the complexity of the solution and the remedial works required.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, standard repairs within 20 working days, and planned repairs within 90 days.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for 3 categories of general compensation it will award depending on the level of disruption. For minor disruption and/or customer effort it will award between £50-£100. For moderate disruption and/or customer effort it will award between £100-£350. For extensive disruption and/or customer effort it will award between £350-£750 and above.
  5. Following the resident’s report on 8 November 2023, the landlord initially arranged to inspect the property on 21 November 2023. This was then rearranged due to the surveyor no longer being available. The inspection took place on 5 December 2023. The landlord’s initial response to the reports was reasonable, it attended within 19 working days, which was in line with its repairs policy for a standard repair.
  6. The findings from the inspection identified significant mould in the bathroom and outlined a number of remedial works required. The landlord’s records do not show that it raised any follow on works until 20 February 2024. The works were completed on 22 March 2024, over 3 months since the inspection.
  7. The time taken to complete the works was not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s repair timescales for standard repairs. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this in its stage 1 response. It apologised and offered £210 in compensation. It said it had recommended that there was better internal communication, an improvement in its record keeping, and in its monitoring of repairs. It said it had spoken to the relevant parties about providing a good service and providing updates on repairs. The landlord said it would complete the outstanding repairs by 22 April 2024.
  8. The landlord’s response was reasonable. The amount offered was in line with its compensation guidelines for moderate disruption and customer effort. It was positive that the landlord showed learning and put things right for the resident in addressing the more recent issues.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 May 2025. She said despite the work undertaken in the property, the mould had returned. It was positive that the landlord then arranged a further inspection. While the inspection did not take place until 9 July 2024, the landlord explained that it had been unable to make contact with the resident in that time. The inspection identified further remedial works to address the issues in the property. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not uphold the complaint as it said it had completed the original works. It said sometimes it needed to undertake further investigation and new repairs to establish the cause of damp and mould in a property.
  10. The landlord’s response was fair to an extent, sometimes a landlord would need to carry out additional investigation and repairs following initial remedial works. This would not necessarily be a fault of the landlord.
  11. However, it also stated that it completed all the works specified from the first inspection. The report dated 5 December 2023 stated that the rear drains appeared to be blocked. It said they should be unblocked as soon as possible. It said the landlord should undertake a CCTV drain survey, clean out the drains, and undertake any repairs. There is no evidence of the landlord undertaking those actions prior to the stage 2 response. This is a failing and contradicts the landlord’s position that it had completed all the works. It is not surprising, therefore, that the resident continued to report a smell coming from the drains.
  12. The report dated 9 July 2024 referenced the same issues with the drains and actions required. This further suggests that the landlord never completed the works. As such, the landlord’s findings in its stage 2 response were not appropriate. As part of her stage 2 escalation, the resident had asked for a thorough investigation into the work carried out so far and felt there were oversight issues. In not acknowledging the missed repair, it did not consider the likely distress, time, and trouble caused to the resident in living with and having to re-raise the issues.
  13. Overall, the landlord appropriately addressed the delays in its stage 1 response. It was positive that it arranged inspections within a timely manner, which was in line with its policy. Given the resident’s concerns and that the issue had been ongoing for some time, it was reasonable for it to appoint a case manager to update the resident moving forward.
  14. However, the landlord failed to evidence that it had completed all the repairs required from its first inspection. It is unclear whether the failing would have impacted the damp and mould reported within the property. Although, it likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family who reported a damp smell coming from the bathroom drains and pipes. As a result, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
  15. The landlord must pay the resident an additional £100 in compensation. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a service failure which was not appropriately acknowledged or put right.
  16. The landlord said it completed all the outstanding works. However, the resident has reported to this Service that she is still experiencing damp and mould in the property. The landlord must therefore carry out a further damp and mould inspection.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge complaints at stage 1 within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It says at stage 2, it will acknowledge the escalation within 5 working days and provide its response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. It says where it cannot meet the timescale it will inform the resident of the expected timescale and the reasons for the delay.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for 3 categories of poor complaint handling compensation it will award. For failure to follow its policy with low level impact it will award between £50-£100. For failure to follow its policy or correctly investigate a complaint causing inconvenience and effort to progress it, it will award £100-£150. For extensive failure causing a significant impact it will award £150 and above.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint within 1 working day and provided its stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. This was in line with its policy. It is therefore unclear why the landlord awarded £25 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 May 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 August 2024, 68 working days after the escalation. This was not appropriate or in line with its policy. The landlord apologised for the delay and awarded £25 in compensation. The Ombudsman finds the amount offered was not proportionate or in line with its compensation policy which suggests it should award a minimum of £50 for complaint failures. As we did not identify any delays at stage 1, we will not order any additional compensation to the £50 the landlord offered in total for its delays in responding.
  5. The landlord did not outline the reasons for the delays. However, in an internal email dated 20 May 2024,a member of landlord staff said they had “called the customer to avoid a stage 2”. In an email to the resident on the same day, they thanked the resident for agreeing to put the stage 2 complaint on hold to allow for further investigations. The resident contacted the landlord again on 30 July 2024 toask for a reply and prompt resolution. The landlord provided a stage 2 acknowledgement on the same day.
  6. The landlord’s internal email which referred to avoiding a stage 2, was not appropriate or in line with section 5.11 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This section of the Code states that landlord’s must not refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of its complaint procedure. If it had a valid reason to do so, it should have explained this to the resident.
  7. If the landlord needed to conduct further investigations in order to respond to the complaint, then as per section 6.15 of the Code it should have informed the resident of the expected timescale. By putting the complaint on hold, this did not manage the resident’s expectations and delayed her bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman. It also likely caused time, trouble, and inconvenience in her having to re-escalate the complaint on 30 July 2024.
  8. To conclude, the stage 2 response acknowledged there was a delay in escalating the complaint. However, it did not expand on the reasons why or its failing in asking to put the complaint on hold. The £25 it offered for the delay was not in line with its compensation policy. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
  9. The landlord must pay a total of £150 for its complaint handling failures which are broken down as:
    1. £50 it previously offered for the delays in responding. The £50 should now reflect the delays at stage 2, as there were no delays identified in its stage 1 response.
    2. £100 for putting the complaint on hold, this was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and led to the resident having to escalate the complaint again. This likely caused her time, trouble and inconvenience.
  10. The total amount is calculated in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which were not fully addressed and delayed getting matters resolved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. The complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must apologise to the resident for the additional failures identified in this report.
  2. The landlord must carry out an inspection of the property. If it identifies additional repairs, it must create an action plan with defined timescales for the remedial work.
  3. The landlord must pay a total of £460 in compensation, which is comprised of:
    1. £210 it previously offered for the delays in carrying out the repairs. If it has not already done so.
    2. £100 for its failure to complete all the repairs outlined in the first inspection report.
    3. £50 it previously offered for the complaint handling delays. If it has not already done so.
    4. £100 for its failure when it put the complaint on hold.
  4. The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of this determination.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should reflect on the complaint handling failures, specifically, putting the complaint on hold and not offering compensation in line with its compensation policy. It should consider whether further staff training is required to avoid similar mistakes in future.