From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Home Group Limited (202405842)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405842

Home Group Limited

23 September 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould in his property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy. He lives in a 2-bedroom, ground floor flat. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has said it had no vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its systems, but it did have vulnerabilities noted on its repair reports. The resident has told us that he is vulnerable due to anxiety and depression.
  2. The landlord raised a damp and mould repair job for the resident’s property on 1 June 2023. Its record shows he told it he had “bad kidneys,” and the issue effected all rooms in his property and there was also mould on his clothes.
  3. On 16 June 2023 the landlord raised 5 separate repairs to the resident’s property, to tackle the damp and mould. These were to:
    1. Overhaul an extractor fan and positive air unit.
    2. Renew the sealant in the bathroom and main bedroom windows.
    3. Renew the silicone around the bath.
    4. Treat mould in the bathroom, bedroom and cupboard, including applying a stain block to bathroom ceiling.
    5. Renew the pointing to the bathroom window.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 August 2023. He said that it had not applied a mould treatment to the window areas in his property and damp and mould was still present. As a result, the landlord raised a repair job to complete damp and mould treatment.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 August 2023. He wanted to know what it was doing about the damp and mould issue and asked for someone from its repairs team to call him back.
  6. On 25 September 2023 the resident asked the landlord to raise a complaint. He was unhappy that it had not addressed the damp and mould at his property, which had gone on for months. He said the issue was impacting on him financially, due to increased costs in heating and ventilating his property, and the mould had caused damage to his clothing. He believed this was having a detrimental impact on his mental health and felt he was being pulled back into a “dark place.”
  7. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 26 September 2023. It recorded:
    1. There was damp throughout his flat.
    2. There was a historic leak from the flat above his property, that it needed to check.
    3. The bathroom soil pipe may be the source of the damp.
    4. There was some pointing work it needed to complete to the outside of the bathroom, and it needed to check the extractor fan.
    5. A positive air unit in the hallway may be pushing cold air into his property.
    6. It needed to replace trickle vents in his bedroom window.
  8. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 6 October 2023. It apologised for the delays in it resolving the damp and mould in his property and the effect this had on his health. To resolve the issue, it said it would be completing the repairs it identified at its inspection of his property on 26 September 2023.
  9. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 follow-up letter on 14 November 2023. It said that:
    1. It had told him to keep the property warm to prevent damp and mould forming.
    2. It was due to visit his property again on 31 October 2023 to reassess the scope of its repointing work.
    3. It had raised a job to inspect behind the boarding in his bathroom and was awaiting an asbestos report before this work could begin.
    4. It had arranged an appointment for the 26 October 2023 to overhaul the extractor fan.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 November and 30 November 2023. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s staff involved in the repairs to his property and that it had assigned them to investigate his case, despite previous involvement. He was also concerned that it had not raised the correct repair jobs after its visit to his property in September 2023.
  11. The landlord discussed the issues internally on 6 December 2023. It agreed that it needed to arrange for an independent damp survey of the resident’s property. It raised a job for this survey on 4 January 2024.
  12. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response on 27 December 2023. It said this was its formal stage 2 response and that:
    1. It had arranged an independent damp survey of his property. Once it received the survey report it would review its compensation guidance before sending a complaint response.
    2. It proposed to continue to progress his complaint until it fully resolved the outstanding issues and it was able to provide its full and final stage 2 response. However, he could close the complaint and escalate it to this Service.
    3. He had agreed with its decision to keep his complaint open, while it tried to put things right.
  13. On the 18 January 2024 a contractor completed the independent damp survey of the resident’s property. It said:
    1. A positive air unit was working, which was of good detail.
    2. The property was extremely warm as the central heating was on.
    3. Black spot mould growth was visible in the bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen and living room.
    4. There was no sign of water ingress, but it could not get a moisture reading as the walls in the property were dry lined.
    5. The external wall behind the soil vent pipe was wet. However, it was unable to conclude if this was due to moisture or an escape of water and recommended the landlord investigate this further.
    6. Condensation was the major contributing factor of dampness to the property. It suspected the property was not being adequately heated or ventilated.
    7. It suggested the landlord carried out the following works to resolve the issue:
      1. Remove mould using mild fungicidal wash.
      2. Repaint the walls using an anti-fungicidal paint.
      3. Extractor fans are cleaned, tested and upgraded.
      4. Replace any defective brickwork and repoint walls as necessary.
      5. A further investigation of the damp in the bathroom.
      6. It should tell the resident:

(1)  To keep his windows and trickle vents open to help ventilation.

(2)  His central heating should be kept at a constant but moderate temperature.

(3)  Instruct him on how to use extractor fans correctly.

  1. The landlord contacted the resident on 15 February 2024 to tell him it had received the independent damp survey report. It then contacted him on 29 February 2024 to say it was still waiting for appointment dates for repairs to his property.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 March 2024 to ask it to provide him with a list of the repair jobs it needed to do. It contacted him the next day to give him details of the repair jobs and dates it had booked these for.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 March, 3 April, 9 April and 10 April 2024. He wanted it to update him on the progress of repairs and said he was angry it was taking it so long to resolve the issue. He also reported that its decorator had painted over the mould, without removing it first.
  4. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 follow-up letter on 20 April 2024. It said:
    1. It had completed a mould treatment job on 15 September 2023. However, the anti-fungal paint it used had caused a reaction which had turned the ceiling paint pink. It had failed to return to resolve this, despite it saying it would.
    2. It had overhauled the positive air unit in his property on 6 November 2023.
    3. There had been significant delays in it escalating his complaint due to staff sickness.
    4. There had been a significant delay in it arranging the independent damp survey of his property.
    5. It had visited his property on 18 April 2024 and identified small areas of mould in his bathroom that were due to be boxed in. While no mould was visible in other areas of the property, there was some pointing works it needed to complete, along with replacing the toilet seat and bathroom window handle.
    6. It did not find the need for further mould treatment or decoration of his property. However, its customer services had booked a further job for this on 23 April 2024.
    7. It had appointed a single point of contact for him, for the remainder of its damp and mould repair works.
    8. It was unable to investigate damages to his belongings. It gave him details on how he could submit an insurance claim to it for this.
    9. It apologised for the delays and inconvenience it had caused him.
    10. It offered him £990 compensation:
      1. £355 for delays in raising repair works.
      2. £300 due to it having to re-raise multiple repair jobs.
      3. £150 for the distress the issue caused him.
      4. £75 for the time he had to spend chasing it for answers.
      5. £55 for its poor communication with him.
      6. £55 for the delay in it escalating his complaint.

Post internal complaint

  1. The resident contacted this Service on 6 August 2024. He said the damp and mould was still an issue and the landlord had painted over mould without treating the damp. He was unhappy that the landlord had visited his property unannounced, his clothes smelt of damp every morning and it had failed to complete work it promised in its complaint responses. He wanted the landlord to redecorate his property and provide him with assistance with his bills, which it promised it would do.
  2. On 12 September 2025 the resident told this Service that the landlord had completed repointing repairs to his property in June 2025. However, mould had returned since then. He also said that the only advice he had been given about damp and mould was from the landlord’s surveyor, who told him to keep his extractor fan on.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord has provided evidence that the resident is pursuing a legal disrepair claim due to the damp and mould issues at his property. Its records show an independent damp survey report was completed on 18 October 2024, in relation to this. However, the landlord has said that a particular of claim has not been filed at court and there are no live proceedings in relation to the claim. Therefore, the complaint falls within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
  2. The resident has said how the situation has impacted on his health. However, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused, and whether the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerability and health conditions.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould in his property

  1. The landlord’s repair policy states it has a “right first-time approach.” It will offer vulnerable customers a choice of repair appointments and it will clearly explain the repair process. It aims to complete repairs within defined timescales, from the date that a repair is first reported. We have been unable to verify from the available evidence, the landlord’s expected timescales for completing repairs. However, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord was expected to complete identified repairs within a reasonable timescale of being notified of the disrepair.
  2. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation (DMC) policy compliance notes says having damp and mould issues can cause detriment to a customer’s mental health as well as their physical health, especially if they feel they are not being listened to. It sets out that it will:
    1. Provide residents with information on how it can help minimise condensation and spot signs of damp and mould developing.
    2. Consider the resident’s individual needs and preferences when deciding on the right response to reports of damp and mould.
    3. Regularly engage and communicate with residents.
    4. Ensure processes support a risk-based approach so responses are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
    5. Act on surveyor recommendations in a timely manner
    6. Use triage tools to assess risk. For high-risk cases (residents with health conditions or vulnerabilities) it has a service level agreement (SLA) that states it will carry out an inspection within 24 hours.
  3. The landlord raised a damp and mould repair to the resident’s property on 1 June 2023. Its repair jobs notes recorded that the resident was vulnerable due to health issues. Therefore, it logged the repair as needing a response within 24 hours. This shows that it was following the obligations of its DMC policy, which was reasonable. However, there is no record that it told the resident of this or that it inspected the property within 24 hours. Its records show it completed the repair on 20 June 2023. It is unclear why this was but meant that it failed to meet the timeframe set out in its DMC policy.
  4. The landlord’s evidence does not show that it obtained further details of the resident’s health issues. It would have been reasonable for it to have done so to understand the impact the issue was having on him. Its failure to record his vulnerability negatively impacted on him when it raised a repair for damp and mould treatment on 11 August 2023. This noted that it had no vulnerabilities for the resident recorded, which meant he did not benefit from the SLA within the landlord’s DMC policy.
  5. The landlord’s records show that it had internal discussions on 18 April 2024, about moving the resident to temporary housing until it completed repairs to his property. It noted that the resident had said the situation was getting worse and impacting on his mental health. It concluded that his property was in a reasonable condition, and it did not need to move him to temporary housing. However, there is no record that it told him of this or offered him support for the impact he said the issue was having on his health. Its failure to engage and communicate with him at this point shows it did not follow the obligations of its DMC policy.
  6. The resident told us that he was unhappy that the landlord had visited his property unannounced to complete its repair work. The landlord’s records do not show that it told the resident of the dates and times for all the repairs it had raised. Where there is evidence to show it did this, it has appointment times between 8am and 4.30pm. In one instance on 19 July 2023the landlord refused the resident’s request for it to confirm the time its repair operative would attend. It is reasonable to conclude this was a consequence of it not recording his vulnerabilities on its systems. Had it done so, it should have provided him with a choice of appointment time. This was a failure to follow its repairs policy which is likely to have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  7. The landlord’s records show it raised 4 separate repairs to repoint brickwork at the resident’s property, on 16 June, 27 September, 25 October and 6 November 2023. Its stage 2 follow-up response said it completed further repointing works on 1 March 2024. However, after it then visited his property on 11 April 2024, it found it still needed to complete a substantial amount of repointing. It also raised 4 separate mould treatment repairs on 16 June, 11 August 2023, 7 March and 18 April 2024. It is unclear why the landlord was unable to resolve the issues within a single repair job or that it told the resident of the reasons for this. However, 10 months had passed since it first became aware of the issues, without it fully resolving the matter. This demonstrates there was a lack of ownership by the landlord to resolve the issues. This was unreasonable and a failure by it to follow its repair policy’s obligations and those of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  8. After the resident had raised his complaint with the landlord it arranged for an independent damp survey of his property. This was a positive step to fully diagnose the problem and shows it was taking his concerns seriously. The survey was completed on 18 January 2024 and recommended repairs it needed to complete. There is no record contained within the landlord’s evidence of when it received the report from its contractor or if it chased them for a response. Its records show it did not raise any further repairs until 13 February 2024.It is unclear what the reason for this was. However, this delayed it resolving the damp and mould issue the resident had experienced, which was unreasonable.
  9. The landlord’s records show that it completed a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) inspection of the resident’s property on 7 February 2024. However, its evidence does not show what this inspection covered or its findings. This was a record keeping failure by the landlord.
  10. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor:
    1. It raised a repair on 30 August 2023 to inspect a leak, but it aborted the job. There is no record that it told the resident of this or the reasons why. It would have been reasonable for it to have updated him on the progress of the repair.
    2. It told the resident on 7 December 2023 that it would arrange an independent damp survey of his property. However, it did not do this until 4 January 2024. There is no record that it kept him updated on this. Its failure to arrange the survey sooner added to the delays in resolving the issue for the resident.
    3. He had to chase it for answers on 15 September, 27 September, 30 November 2023, 7 March, 13 March, 25 March, 9 April, 10 April 2024. This inconvenienced the resident and is likely to have caused him confusion and distress.
    4. There is no record that it clearly explained the repairs process to him at any point, or the reasons why it did not complete repairs at the first attempt. This was a failure to follow the obligations of its repairs policy.
    5. The independent damp survey recommended that it provide the resident with advice on preventing damp and mould. However, there is no record that it did this. Outside of its complaint responses and the advice the resident said its surveyor gave him, there is no record that it provided him with any advice on how to manage the issue.
  11. It was positive that the landlord made a referral to its financial inclusion team after the resident raised concerns about the issue impacting on him financially. It was also reasonable that its complaint responses provided him with details on how he could submit a claim to its insurance team for any damage the mould had caused to his belongings.
  12. The landlord’s stage 2 follow-up response acknowledged its poor communication, delays in resolving the issue and the distress it had caused the resident. Its overall offer of compensation to the resident included £710 because of these failures. This was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance for the failures it acknowledged which had a significant impact on the resident. However, the compensation it offered does not reflect the detriment to the resident and is not proportionate to the failings we have identified in this investigation.
  13. The landlord has not demonstrated that it considered the potential risk of damp and mould or acted with urgency to resolve these issues. It is still unclear from the evidence provided if the matter has been resolved, which is a concern given the length of time that has passed and the seriousness of the issue. Its records do not show it provided the resident with adequate information about damp and mould, as outlined in its DMC policy. It has also not demonstrated it appropriately considered the resident’s vulnerability in its response to the issue, despite knowing of these when it logged its first damp and mould repair job. These were all record keeping failures that negatively impacted on the resident, which its complaint responses did not acknowledge.
  14. The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould in his property. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. The landlord sending follow-up responses to the resident, after it had issued its stage 1 and stage 2 response, has caused confusion in this investigation. It said its stage 2 letter was its formal response, but it would then send him its full and final stage 2 response once it had fully resolved his issues. Although its stage 2 response said he had agreed to this, there is no record in its evidence that confirms this. Regardless of this, its approach was unreasonable and is likely to have caused the resident confusion, along with a further delay and inconvenience as he had to chase it for answers.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 follow-up said it had progressed pointing repair works following its stage 1 response but had yet to appoint a contractor to complete the works. It also referred to repair appointments that had already happened as future events. This has caused this investigation confusion and it likely to have the resident similar confusion.
  4. The landlord acknowledged that it had escalated the resident’s complaint 25 working days after he had asked it to do so, on 24 October 2023. This was 20 working days over the timeframe of its complaints policy. Its stage 2 follow-up response apologised to the resident, explained the reason for this and offered him £55 compensation, which was reasonable.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 follow-up response said the resident had raised concerns about the attitude of one of its repair operatives who visited his property. He asked it not to send the operative to his property again as a result. The landlord’s evidence shows that it had concerns about its staff arguing while at the resident’s property on 5 December 2023. However, its response did not address this issue, apologise to the resident for this or tell him what it had done to prevent it happening again. This was a complaint handling failure.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 response said the resident had also asked it to move him to temporary housing, while it completed repairs to his property. However, it did not provide him with a response to this and tell him of its position relating to his request. This was a complaint handling failure.
  7. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to use clear, plain language in its responses. The landlord’s stage 2 follow-up response was lengthy and detailed. This has details of its stage 1 investigation and its outcome, alongside the detail of its further investigations and the actions taken at stage 2. While this shows a thorough review of the facts of the case, the level of detail contained within the letter and its format make the letter difficult to read. This is likely to have caused the resident confusion and was a complaint handling failure.
  8. It was positive that the landlord visited the resident’s property as part of its stage 1 investigation. Its response set out the actions it would be taking to resolve the damp and mould issue, which was reasonable. Its stage 2 follow-up response recognised its failure to escalate his complaint within its policy timeframe. It also recognised the distress and inconvenience it had caused him. It was positive that it also arranged for a single point of contact for the resident. Its overall offer of compensation to the resident included £260 because of these failures which was reasonable.
  9. While the £260 compensation it offered him was in line with our remedies guidance, it did not identify all the failures we have found, so a finding of reasonable redress is not appropriate. Given this, the Ombudsman finds there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and an apology to the resident ordered which acknowledges the failings identified in this investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould in his property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, we order the landlord to:
    1. Provide an apology letter to the resident acknowledging the failures identified in this report. In drafting this letter, the landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance available on our website.
    2. Pay £1240 compensation directly to the resident, comprised of:
      1. £250 for the failures identified in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould in his property.
      2. £990 it offered in its stage 2 follow-up response if it has not already paid this.
    3. Arrange a single point of contact for the resident to discuss the repair issues if this is not still in place.
    4. Contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the property to assess the issues of damp and mould throughout the property.
    5. Record the resident’s vulnerabilities on its management system if it has not already done so.
    6. Consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and if it needs to make any reasonable adjustments in the services it provides him. Provide him and this Service with written confirmation if any are needed and what they are.
  2. Within 6 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. provide the resident and this Service with written confirmation of the works required to address any ongoing damp and mould issues at the resident’s property, along with a clear timeline for the works.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended the landlord arranges complaints handling training to include a review of its complaint handling in this case. It should also consider the length and detail of its written responses in this case and consider how it may provide clear and concise responses in the future.