My Space Housing Solutions (202347604)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347604

My Space Housing Solutions

11 August 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 damp and mould at her property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident held an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, between August 2022 and April 2024. The property was a 1-bedroom, ground floor flat. The tenancy agreement specified that the resident had to engage in a package of support provided by the landlord. The landlord was aware that the resident has vulnerabilities.
Between February and November 2023 the resident regularly reported damp and mould, particularly in her bedroom around the windows. The landlord provided her with advice on reducing condensation. In December 2023 it agreed to install a ventilation unit to try and address the damp. The landlord could not install this in December 2023 due to access issues.
On 5 February 2024 the resident raised a complaint. She said she had been reporting damp and mould since shortly after she moved in and the landlord had done nothing in response. She said she had been ventilating the property as advised, and that she had contacted Environmental Health. She said she was vulnerable, and her health was worsening.
On 19 February 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said:
1. the videos the resident had sent showed damp effecting the windows.
2. it would attend on 20 February 2024 to repair the affected areas and install the positive input ventilation (PIV) machine to address the damp.
The landlord installed the unit as agreed. The resident responded on 19 and 21 February and 9 March 2024. She said:
1. no-one had explained what the PIV unit did. It should have been discussed with her. She did not want extra noise or cost.
2. there was mould everywhere and her furniture was destroyed. She wanted compensation for her belongings.
3. the landlord was supposed to support her, but its communication caused her stress, upset and suffering.
4. she wanted to report that she heard operatives outside her property calling her ‘hard work’ and ‘a pain.’ She said she felt pressure to let them in which was uncomfortable and distressing.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 March 2024. It upheld her complaint and said:
1. the resident reported damp in February 2023. It addressed the issue in February 2024. This was beyond the standard expected.
2. it was satisfied the resident’s furniture was impacted by the damp and mould.
3. it apologised for comments made by its contractors.
4. it offered her £100 in compensation broken into £50 for repair delays and £50 for the inconvenience caused.
The resident responded that the compensation offered was insulting. She said her property was still damp and she couldn’t afford to use the PIV unit. In March 2024 the local authority Environmental Health team contacted the landlord to request clarification on what actions it was taking to address the damp. In April 2024 the landlord undertook a damp survey and found evidence of damp. The resident moved out this month, citing the inaction of the landlord as the reason.
The resident told this Service in 2025 that the experience impacted her health conditions. She said she felt her concerns were ignored by the landlord. She said she spent a lot of money on dehumidifiers, furniture and clothes replacement. She is seeking a higher amount of compensation and for the landlord to reflect on its handling and treat other residents more fairly in future.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the living conditions had on her health. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at her property

The Housing Act 2004 ensures landlords are responsible for assessing hazards and risks within their rented homes. When assessing any such hazards and risks, the assessment should be considered in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould growth are potential hazards that may require remedy. Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also requires the property to be free from hazards to be fit for human habitation.
The landlord did not have a damp and mould policy in place until November 2023. The landlord has not provided this Service with evidence of a repairs policy covering the period from February to November 2023. The damp and mould policy states that:
1. tenants will be advised in their support sessions of the causes of damp, mould and condensation, and provided information on preventative measures.
2. when a resident makes a report, staff will try to identify the cause of the issue and log a maintenance request in line with repairs timescales. If the cause is not obvious, a specialist contractor may be required to inspect and produce a report.
3. once the cause is identified the landlord will take steps to resolve the problem and prevent recurrence.
4. it will keep tenants informed of any property inspections, diagnosis of issues and the timetabling of works, where these are required. This includes explaining to a tenant why work might be needed and what work might be done. Where work is not required, tenants will be informed.
This Service’s spotlight report on repairs published in 2019 outlines good practice. It says landlords should agree actions and timescales for responding in line with their policies and obligations and confirm these in writing. Landlords should inform residents of any delays and explain why these are necessary. Our spotlight report on damp and mould published in 2021 says landlords should avoid taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident. They should evaluate what they can do to support residents and satisfy themselves they are taking all reasonable steps.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it strongly advises customers to take out home contents insurance to insure their personal possessions and decorations against damage or loss due to fire or water damage, burglary etc. It says the compensation policy is not intended to replace or make up for a customer not having contents insurance.
On 7 February 2023 the resident showed the landlord videos of condensation on her windows and water on her windowsills. The landlord gave the resident a leaflet on reducing condensation and raised a maintenance request for an inspection. The request was logged with a 10-day repair timescale. The landlord acted reasonably by providing relevant information on preventing damp and raising a repair request.
On 21 February 2023 the landlord’s internal records show that the repair team told the housing support team to advise the resident to open all her windows for 30 minutes a day, for 7 days. If there were no signs of improvement, it said it would complete a damp report. There is no evidence this plan was communicated to the resident, the situation monitored, or a damp report raised. This was a record keeping failure which prevented the landlord from inspecting and resolving the issue within a reasonable timeframe.
On 9 March 2023 the resident reported that no one had contacted her about the damp. The landlord was on notice of damp since February 2023. That it had not acted was unreasonable and considerably outside the 7-day repair timescale agreed when it raised the repair.
On 23 June 2023 the landlord raised another request for a damp inspection due to damp at the back of the resident’s bed and around her windows. The resident reported keeping the property ventilated, so the inspection was needed to identify the underlying issue. It gave a 28-day repair timescale. A note states that this repair was cancelled, though it is unclear why or when, which was a record keeping failure. The landlord did not communicate this cancellation to the resident, which was unreasonable.
On 27 June and 11 July 2023, the resident chased the landlord for updates on the damp repair. The landlord responded that the repair was with the maintenance team. On 18 July 2023 the landlord’s records show it submitted a works order for PIV unit installation with a priority date of 10-days. There is no evidence it discussed this with the resident. The landlord did not install the unit within 10 days, nor contact the resident with any deadlines for inspection or progress. The resident had to chase the repair again on 17 August 2023, which was unreasonable.
On 8 September 2023 the landlord’s records show that the housing support team requested an update from the repair team. On 12 September 2023 the resident asked whether the landlord would pay for a new carpet as the damp had ruined her current one. The landlord agreed to provide a response to her query during their next appointment on 18 September 2023. There is no evidence an appointment took place on this day or that the landlord responded to the resident about the carpet. This was unreasonable.
On 14 November 2023 the resident reported she had mould because of the damp. She said she was washing the mould on the walls and keeping her window open. The landlord raised another order to inspect the damp on 15 November 2023. On 16 November 2023 it texted the resident to confirm an appointment for 21 November 2023. The landlord undertook a general support session on 21 November 2023, but it did not complete a damp inspection. This was a failing when assessed against the landlord’s damp and mould policy, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have assessed the cause of the damp.
On 28 November 2023 the resident told the housing support team she had raised a complaint due to the landlord’s inaction. The housing support team chased the repairs team for an update as the repair was outside the 10-day timeframe from when it raised the repair on 15 November 2023. Because of this, the resident’s repair was delayed.
Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management recommends that landlords keep up-to-date repair records which are easily accessible to all staff. The landlord failed to keep its repair records up to date which caused unnecessary delays and worsened the situation for the resident. Had the landlord considered the recommendations it may have prevented this failing.
There was a further delay until 8 December 2023 when it approved the quote for the PIV unit. This was not communicated to the resident until 14 December 2023, when the landlord tried to book an installation date of 19 December 2023. The resident asked for works to be completed in the new year as she was away or busy over Christmas. Accordingly, the delay from 19 December 2023 to mid-January 2024 cannot be attributed to the landlord.
On 9, 17 and 23 January 2024 the resident enquired about re-booking a repair date during her support sessions. The landlord informed her it was waiting on the contractor’s availability. It is understandable that repairs are sometimes delayed due to contractor availability. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided a date it could guarantee the repair would be completed by, to manage the resident’s expectations.
On 5 February 2024 the resident complained about the landlord’s inaction in response to her reports of damp and mould. She said her health was suffering. She also asked about what action the landlord was taking. It is clear from the communication that she didn’t understand what the PIV unit was or how it worked. The landlord responded that it didn’t know what it was installing, but that it would be an improvement.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy sets out that it would establish the cause of damp and keep residents informed of the solution and associated timescales. The landlord had not undertaken a damp inspection or explained the reasons for the proposed solution before approving the installation of a PIV unit. This was a failing.
On 7 February 2024 the landlord requested the resident’s availability so it could arrange an appointment. The resident responded with the information requested. On 13 February 2024 the resident said the issue was affecting her mental health and that she wanted to move. She asked what specific works were being completed. The housing support team said it didn’t know as it was with a specialist damp team. This was not a reasonable response, it would have been fair for the landlord to find out what the repair entailed and discuss this with the resident.
On 14 February 2024 the landlord confirmed a repairs appointment with the resident for 20 February 2024 and made sure it would have access. This was reasonable.
On 19 February 2024 the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and agreed that videos provided by her showed a build-up of damp. To put things right it confirmed that its contractor would install a PIV the following day. It said the PIV was a home air ventilation system that works by drawing in fresh, filtered air into the property from outside cancelling out moisture. It was fair that the landlord tried to put things right by acknowledging the problem and providing an explanation of the solution.
However, the landlord did not acknowledge the extent of the delay in its handling of the reports of damp and mould, nor the impact on the resident’s health and wellbeing. It did not consider financial redress, offer advice about moving or respond regarding the resident’s belongings. This was unreasonable.
The resident responded on the same day with concerns about the PIV unit creating noise in her flat. She said the landlord should have checked what needed doing before booking things in. She said the mould had destroyed her furniture and that the landlord had failed to properly investigate the issue or consider the impact on her health.
The landlord responded to the resident. It said:
1. the PIV unit would run silently, and the attending contractor would explain in depth how the device runs. The resident could then decide if she wanted it to go ahead on the day.
2. the contractor would carry out a full assessment of works needed including to the walls. The landlord would then share that feedback with the resident.
3. it would contact her on 21 February 2024 after the installation to see how she wanted to proceed, as she could escalate her complaint if she wasn’t happy.
This was a reasonable and timely response to some of the resident’s concerns. However, it did not respond to the resident on the impact of her health. It also failed to acknowledge the resident’s frustration that the area was not inspected before the landlord agreed a solution.
On 20 February 2024 it fitted the PIV unit as agreed, which was appropriate. However, there is no evidence that a damp and mould inspection of the walls, any other responsive or redecoration works such as a mould wash were completed. The landlord did not share any feedback to the resident. A ventilation unit may prevent damp from recurring but was unlikely to address any pre-existing damage. It was not in line with the damp and mould policy that the landlord only acted preventatively.
On 21 February 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. She said she didn’t like the way the landlord had communicated. She said the landlord should have investigated the problems fully and explained the and solutions. Instead, she said she had been left questioning contractors and the housing support team which was unfair. She refused to use the PIV unit because it would increase her electricity bill. She wanted financial compensation for her damaged furniture.
On 9 March 2024 she said she wanted to report the landlord’s contractors who she overheard calling her “hard work” and “a pain.” She said she asked them to wait outside but that they let themselves in and she felt pressured to allow this to speed up the appointment.
On 19 March 2024 the landlord upheld the complaint and acknowledged both that the time taken to install the PIV unit was beyond the standard expected and that the damp and mould had impacted the resident’s furniture. To put things right it offered the resident £50 for the delay in repairs and £50 for inconvenience. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged some of its failings.
The landlord apologised for the comments made by its subcontractors and confirmed it did not endorse their behaviour. It was reasonable that the landlord tried to put things right by way of apology. The resident responded that an apology was insufficient. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have advised the resident how it would feed this information back to the subcontractors or otherwise evidenced how it would learn from the outcomes of the feedback to prevent similar issues happening in future.
The landlord’s position at stage 2 was that it had completed repairs by installing the PIV unit. However, there is no evidence it had put things right in terms of the damp and mould build up or by meaningfully addressing her request for compensation for damaged items. The landlord did not acknowledge that it failed to adhere to its damp and mould policy by not conducting a survey or investigation into the cause or explaining the reason for the chosen solution.
Had the landlord explained to the resident that the unit would increase her monthly electricity bill, she would have had the opportunity to refuse in December 2023. This would have prevented it from installing a repair that was effectively unsuccessful, and it would have encouraged cooperation between the resident and the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident wanted compensation for damaged items and agreed that the damp and mould impacted her furniture. However, it did not clarify why it did not offer her compensation in light of this. There is no evidence throughout the complaint responses or information submitted to us that the landlord referred the resident to its insurers. It was unreasonable of the landlord not to have provided this information or respond clarifying that it would not reimburse her for damaged items, with reference to its policies.

Post internal complaints procedure

On 26 March 2024 the local authority’s Environmental Health team sent the landlord photographs of the damp in the resident’s property. They asked what it was doing, aside from installing a PIV unit, to help with ventilation including whether there had been a damp survey. The landlord’s internal communications show that:
1. in response it was going to arrange a visit and push through repairs as urgent. The visit would need to include photographs and a report on required works including a wash treatment to address immediate risk before it completed any repairs.
2. it had installed the PIV unit, however it had not adequately treated the damp and mould in the property. It said the issue was throughout the property and not limited to the bedroom.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have identified these failures and actioned the solutions within the complaint responses and before the involvement of Environmental Health. That the resident had to go to Environmental Health and this Service to encourage action from the landlord was unreasonable and is evidence of the landlord failing to consider its legal obligations under the Housing Act (2004).
The resident moved out of the property at the beginning of April 2024 citing damp and mould as the reason. The landlord completed an inspection after she moved out and found small patches of damp in the lounge and damp and mould around the window in the bedroom, requiring remedial works. The landlord did not put things right for the resident in response to her reports of damp and mould within the complaint procedure.
In September 2024 the landlord told this Service that it reviewed the complaint again and outlined that it was going through a full transformation including a full review of policies and processes. It did not communicate the outcome of this review to the resident or apologise to her for the further failures identified.

Conclusion

We have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at her property. This is because:
1. the landlord did not undertake a damp and mould inspection of the property to establish the cause of the damp until 14 months after the resident reported it. By which time the resident had moved out.
2. it failed to adhere to its damp and mould policy by not explaining the reason for installing the PIV unit to the resident. Despite the fact she asked for this information several times.
3. the landlord failed to address the damage caused by the damp and mould.
4. there were record keeping failures that contributed to the delay and led to a breakdown in trust between the resident and landlord.
5. the landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s concerns around the impact of the damp on her mental and physical health.
6. although the landlord accepted that the damp and mould had damaged the resident’s belongings including her carpets, it did not meaningfully respond to her request for compensation for items or provide her with details of its insurer.
There were several independent service failures which accumulated over a period of time. The resident reported that the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould had a serious detrimental impact on her.
The resident told this Service that she found the compensation offer insulting. She said the effect on her mental and physical health was significant. She said felt ignored by the landlord and that she lost money whilst trying to manage the damp herself. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report and to outline the changes it has made since her complaint to prevent similar failures happening in future.
With consideration of our remedies guidance, we have also ordered the landlord to pay the resident £1,200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified. The landlord can deduct the £100 paid during the internal complaints procedure if this has already paid this. The landlord must also clarify its position on the damaged belongings and provide its insurers information.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond at stage 1 of its complaints process within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The policy is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
On 28 November 2023 the resident told the housing support team she had raised a complaint due to the landlord’s inaction. There is no evidence within the landlord’s records that she had raised a complaint. The Code states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction however made. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have clarified whether the resident wanted to raise a complaint at this stage.
On 5 February 2024 the resident raised a complaint via the landlord’s portal. The landlord acknowledged and responded at both stage 1 and 2 within the timescales outlined in its complaint policy. This was appropriate.
However, the landlord failed to meaningfully respond to the resident’s concern that the damp and mould was affecting her health and that she wanted to move. This was a complaint handling failure in accordance with the Code. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
Overall we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to
1. provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report. This apology must come from a director.
2. send the resident evidence of what changes it has made since her complaint to prevent similar failures happening in future.
3. pay the resident compensation of £1,200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord can reduce the total compensation by the £100 already offered in the complaint procedure, if it can show that this has already paid this.
4. write to the resident and set out whether it will compensate for damage caused to the resident’s carpet and belongings due to the damp in the property. This should include the landlord’s considerations of its compensation policy. If it does not compensate for these items, it should explain why in the response to the resident and provide details of its insurance and how the resident could make a claim.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.