Golding Homes Limited (202430186)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202430186

Golding Homes Limited

27 June 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:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The associated complaint and her request for compensation for damaged belongings.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives with her 3 children. At the time of her complaint her youngest child was 4 months old and her eldest 11 years old. The property is an end-terrace.
On 5 February 2024 the resident called the landlord to report damp and mould in the property. The landlord called the resident on 6 February 2024. On 8 March 2024 the resident emailed the landlord. She:
1. raised concerns about the length of time it was taking the landlord to attend
2. informed the landlord that she had a 4 month old baby, an 8 year old who was ‘constantly ill’, and an 11 year old child with an autoimmune disease
3. was concerned of the potential impact the mould was having on the family’s health
4. informed the landlord that ‘half of her belongings needed to be replaced’ because of the mould
The landlord attended to inspect the property on 12 March 2024. It observed mould throughout the property. It noted some potential causes and determined that further investigations and remedial works would be required. It booked a mould wash and a detailed survey to inform the works it would undertake.
On 13 March 2024 the resident emailed the landlord. She attached a video of some of the mould in the property, and asked the landlord to contact her to:
1. identify the mould, because she was worried it was dangerous to her children’s health
2. discuss paying compensation to replace her belongings that had been damaged by the mould
On 14 March 2024 the landlord sent the resident a formal complaint acknowledgement, in response to her previous 2 emails. It issued a stage 1 complaint response on 28 March 2024. It said that:
1. there was a delay in completing a mould wash due to concerns about asbestos
2. the landlord had requested an update from its Surveyor on whether a mould wash could go ahead. A mould wash was provisionally booked in for 12 April 2024
3. it would call the resident on 3 April 2024
4. it offered £100 compensation as a ‘goodwill gesture’
The resident responded to the landlord on 28 March 2024 to say that she was disappointed the original mould wash did not go ahead. She said there had previously been asbestos surveys carried out at the property which the landlord should have known about. She said that she had asked for compensation for her damaged belongings but the landlord had not responded to this.
On 18 April 2024 the landlord attended the resident’s property to complete a mould wash and a detailed survey. The survey noted that issues with the radiators, insulation, and the bathroom extractor fan were contributing to the damp and mould. The landlord’s notes imply that resolving issues with the bathroom extractor fan would require complex preliminary works.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 April 2024 asking for her complaint to be escalated. She was unhappy with the scope of the works as they had been described to her in person by the Surveyor. She said that there were no works scheduled to improve ventilation as she had been told to expect. She said that the landlord had not called her as promised on 3 April 2024.
The landlord emailed the resident on 25 April 2024 to outline the works that would be undertaken. It explained that works to the extractor fan in the bathroom would improve ventilation, but that there were other causes of the damp and mould (such as inadequate insulation) which the works would address. It apologised for the delay in completing the mould wash and for the miscommunication which had led to an additional asbestos survey being completed, before the mould wash, which might not have been necessary.
On 3 May 2024 the landlord emailed the resident with a detailed breakdown of the works. It told her that works would begin on 20 May 2024. The resident responded on 9 May 2024 expressing concern about the disruption the works would cause and advised that those dates would not be convenient.
On 23 May 2024 the resident called the landlord to ask for an update on her stage 2 complaint. She asked if the bathroom ceiling would be replaced due to the mould damage. The landlord confirmed that the works had been rescheduled for 17 to 20 June 2024. The landlord attended the property on these dates to complete the scheduled works. All works were completed, except for the works to resolve the issues with the ventilation extraction route for the bathroom extractor fan.
On 20 June 2024 the resident emailed the landlord again asking for her complaint to be escalated. She was unhappy with the landlord’s overall handling of her reports of damp and mould. She raised particular concerns that:
1. she had not received a response to her concerns about the potential danger caused by the mould in her property, explained in her email of 13 March 2024
2. that the scope of the works were different from what she had been told to expect, as she had been told instead by a staff member of the landlord that ventilation in the property was inadequate, and the works completed did not address this
3. there had been unreasonable delays in completing the initial mould wash
4. the landlord had not escalated her complaint despite multiple requests
5. the mould had caused extensive damage to her belongings, which the landlord had not responded to
6. that the £100 compensation offered at stage 1 was ‘an insult’
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 18 July 2024. It said:
1. that it was sorry for delays in completing the mould wash, which could have been avoided
2. that it would ‘not compensate for personal items but could consider a discretionary offer if it was at fault’
3. that it had booked for the works to the extractor fan to go ahead on 30 July 2024
4. apologised that the resident felt it had not escalated her complaint on time
5. it offered £250 compensation, made up of:
  1. £50 for delays in complaint handling
  2. £100 for delays in treating the mould
  3. £100 as a ‘goodwill gesture’ for the resident’s damaged belongings

Events after the landlord’s complaints process

On 24 July 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say she remained unhappy with its response. She added that it would not be able to complete the works to resolve the issues with the ventilation extractor route for the bathroom extractor fan on 30 July 2024, because the necessary preliminary jobs had not been completed. The landlord attended on 30 July 2024 and could not complete any work.
The landlord raised a further round of jobs in August 2024. These included largescale additional works to improve the overall ventilation at the property. It also renewed the insulation in the loft. The issues with the extractor fan in the bathroom and the necessary prerequisite jobs were also included.
On 6 November 2024 the resident asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of her concerns about damp and mould and its handling of her formal complaint. She wanted the landlord to pay more compensation, including compensation for her damaged belongings. She wanted any outstanding works to be completed and for the landlord to apologise.
The resident confirmed that all outstanding works were completed at the property in February and March 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident also asked this service to investigate the landlord’s handling of damp and mould repairs which were arranged after its stage 2 complaint response. This included delays, disruption, and the condition of the property following the works carried out in March 2025. The resident also raised concerns that the landlord had not adequately resolved problems with the loft insulation, or identified the more extensive ventilation work raised in August 2024, while her complaint was ongoing.
A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint. This means that it is important the landlord has had an opportunity to respond before we investigate. It is fair and reasonable therefore that we only investigate matters up to the date of the landlord’s final response in July 2024. This will include an assessment of whether the landlord’s actions taken at the time of the resident’s reports were reasonable and if they were appropriate in line with their policies and procedures.
The landlord told this Service that later works to improve ventilation were distinctly separate from the responsive damp and mould repairs, and constituted an ‘upgrade’ to the property’s ventilation, which was otherwise ‘reasonable’. The evidence supports this. The loft insulation works referred to exceeded the scope of the original loft insulation jobs set out in the landlord’s schedule of works considered by this investigation, which was to ‘check insulation and top up where necessary’. These works were arranged after the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process. If the resident has concerns about events which took place after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, she should raise a new formal complaint with the landlord.
The resident reported throughout the period of assessment that the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould may have caused or contributed to illnesses or health conditions. We cannot draw any conclusions as to the likely cause of any adverse health impacts experienced by the resident or her family. This is better suited to the courts, where cross examinations of medical evidence can be conducted by appropriate medico-legal expert witnesses. We have instead assessed the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns at the time they were raised.

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

The landlord’s Repairs Handbook (the handbook) sets out the timescales in which is should respond to repairs. It bases these timescales on factors such as risk to the resident or their property. It states that ‘any issue that will cause damage to your home or will affect your wellbeing if it’s left for a prolonged period’ should be attended within 5 days.
The handbook states that ‘routine repairs’ should be attended within 28 days. It acknowledges that it is not always possible to complete all repairs within 28 days, in which case it will contact the resident to provide a timescale to complete the repairs.
The landlord’s Damp and Mould Policy (the policy) commits the landlord to carrying out an initial mould wash on each reported area of a property. It says that it will carry out a property inspection wherever a damp and mould report has been received and commit to carrying out any works identified in the property report
The resident’s first report of damp and mould on 5 February 2024 has not been seen by this investigation. However the evidence of later correspondence suggests that the landlord returned her call the following day and that:
1. the resident informed the landlord that the mould was causing damage to belongings in her property
2. the landlord informed the resident of high waiting times due to increased demand on its damp and mould team
It was positive that the landlord likely informed the resident of the delays at its earliest opportunity. However, there is no evidence that the landlord took steps to mitigate the delays caused by the demand on its service. On 8 March 2024, 30 days later, no action had been taken. This exceeded the timescale of the landlord’s routine repairs. There is no evidence it had given the resident a date of when it would attend. On this day the resident informed the landlord of illnesses at the property which she suspected may have been caused by damp and mould, including health conditions suffered by her children. She also told the landlord a 4 month old baby resided at the property.
It may have been appropriate at this stage for the landlord to consider any potential risk to the resident or her family caused by the damp and mould. In doing so, it could have ensured its next steps were timely and reasonable. Taking the time to consider any potential risk would also have allowed it to address the resident’s concerns about the mould which she raised with the landlord on 13 March 2024. There is no evidence it ever responded to this concern. This was a shortcoming.
On 12 March 2024 the landlord inspected. It explained in its stage 1 complaint response that it also attempted to complete a mould wash on this day, but did not after the resident advised that some of the surfaces concerned contained asbestos. It is understandable that this would lead to delays while the landlord took steps to identify any potential risk.
The mould wash took place on 18 April 2024, 72 days after the resident’s first report. It is unclear why it took a further 37 days from the inspection on 12 March 2024, to inspect the asbestos and complete the mould wash. In October 2021, we published our “Spotlight report on Damp and Mould”. It notes that damp and mould can be prejudicial to health. It notes that it is good practice to inspect and take appropriate actions, such as performing mould washes, promptly. The landlord should have attended more promptly than it did, particularly in view of the risk factors it was informed of on 8 March 2024.
The evidence shows that the landlord possessed a previously completed asbestos survey at the property, which would have mitigated delays in assessing any risk posed by completing a mould wash. It later apologised for this miscommunication, stating that a mould wash could have taken place on its first attendance.
The landlord failed to closely consider its own records, which contributed to this failing. Our Spotlight report on Complaints about Repairs was published in March 2019. It states that it is ‘vital landlord’s keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records’. If the landlord’s record keeping practices had followed these recommendations, it may have prevented this failure.
There were also 37 days between the landlord’s initial inspection on 12 March 2024 and its later survey on 18 April 2024, to identify the remedial works needed to resolve the damp and mould. The landlord acknowledged these delays in its complaint responses and apologised, which was appropriate. The landlord arranged to begin work on 20 May 2024, 32 days later. While this exceeded the 28 day timescale set out in the handbook by 4 days, the impact of this was not significant, because the immediate risk had been mitigated by the landlord’s mould wash. The resident was unable to accommodate these works, which was largely outside the landlord’s control.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the landlord advised that all of the works raised as part of its survey had been completed, except for the works to the bathroom extractor fan. The evidence supports that the landlord’s assessment was reasonable at the time.
Internal notes from 25 July 2024 however show that the landlord believed the work to rectify the extraction route of the extractor fan had been completed. It queried this with its contractors on the same date, but only after it had been raised by the resident. The contractor explained that, as it had informed the landlord previously, the issue with the extractor fan was complex and it repeated its description of the preliminary works required to complete the job. This again raises concerns about the landlord’s ability to closely consider its own records.
The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that it would attend on 30 July 2024 to complete the work required to resolve the issues with the extractor fan. The resident was frustrated and raised concerns (as she had done previously) that this would not be possible without the landlord first completing preliminary works. The landlord realised on 25 July 2024 that it would only be able to carry out an inspection on 30 July 2024.
The evidence suggests that the preliminary works to resolve the issues with the extractor fan were to replace either the windows or the ceiling, but it is unclear. In any event, the survey of 18 April 2024 clearly acknowledged that works were needed before the extractor fan issues could be resolved. The resident also expressed concern to the landlord that these works were absent from the schedule of works produced on 9 May 2024. The landlord therefore should have known about this and arranged these works sooner than it did.
As expected, the ventilation extraction issue could not be resolved on 30 July 2024. If a further inspection was needed after the investigations which had already taken place, it should have been done sooner. This resulted in an unnecessary appointment and further frustration to the resident. The landlord should have known that the resolution it offered at stage 2 of its complaints process could not be delivered upon on 30 July 2024. Overall, issues with the bathroom extractor fan were first noted on 12 March 2024 and remained outstanding 140 days later, on 30 July 2024. This was a failing which could have been avoided, had the landlord more closely considered its own records.
The landlord later described this repair, alongside further works which were raised after the stage 2 complaint response, as an ‘upgrade’. The landlord’s notes however state that the extractor fan was ‘not fit to manufacturers specifications due to issues with where it vented to’. It was not reasonable therefore to describe this fan repair as an upgrade.
The landlord acknowledged a number of its failings in its stage 2 complaint response, such as delays and miscommunication (both internally and with the resident). Aside from the failings highlighted in this report, the landlord otherwise met its obligations and communicated effectively with the resident.
In conclusion, the evidence shows that the landlord did not adequately consider the potential risk to the resident and her family. It failed to follow its policy with regard to its response times. Works it had identified in its initial surveys remained outstanding at the time of the stage 2 complaint response. Record keeping failings meant that the landlord could not have completed these works on the date promised in its stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response offered £100 compensation for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Added to this, the landlord’s £100 ‘goodwill gesture’ totalled £200 compensation. In view of the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble gone to by the resident between the time of her first report on 5 February 2024 and the earliest possible date the landlord provided for the remedial works on 20 May 2024, this amount is in line with our Remedies Guidance. For the unreasonable delay in resolving the issues with the bathroom extractor fan, we have ordered that the landlord pay a further £100 compensation to reflect the resident’s time, trouble, distress and inconvenience.
The evidence shows that although the landlord acknowledged many of these failings in its stage 2 complaint response, it did not identify all of them. As such, it was unable to demonstrate that it had considered appropriate learning from this complaint. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
This report highlights concerns with the landlord’s ability to closely consider its own records. The landlord is ordered to complete a senior management review of the failings highlighted in this report. It should outline any actions it has taken, or will take, to prevent these failings from reoccurring.

The landlord’s complaint handling and response to the resident’s concerns about damage caused to her belongings

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the expectations the landlord must meet in its complaint handling. The Code defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made. Landlords should respond to all elements of a complaint. Landlords must acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days of being received. Stage 2 responses should be issued within a further 20.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 28 March 2024. The landlord should have treated this as an escalation request. The resident made further requests to formally escalate her complaint on 18 April 2024, 3 May 2024, 23 May 2024, 12 June 2024. The landlord escalated her complaint following a final escalation request on 20 June 2024.
It is unclear why the landlord missed all of these opportunities to escalate her complaint, but these were all failings. The evidence shows that the landlord had responded to all of the residents emails, but despite implying on some occasions that it had escalated her complaint, the evidence shows that it did not. The resident told this Service that on the telephone a landlord staff member told her that they would ‘have to ask a senior manager’ if it would be okay to escalate the resident’s complaint. We have seen no evidence of this, but this account suggests an inappropriate approach to escalation requests, which should be actionable quickly and by all staff members, to ensure compliance with the Code.
The landlord should ensure it commits to the outcomes offered in its complaint responses. For example, in its stage 1 complaint response it promised to call the resident on 3 April 2024, but there is no evidence it did so. The landlord’s communication with the resident was otherwise adequate, which mitigates the impact of this failing somewhat.
The landlord explained in its stage 2 complaint response that it would learn from this complaint by referring to several documents produced by this Service. This may have been appropriate, though it is unclear if this learning took place or resulted in any further actions by the landlord.
We have determined previous cases that had raised concerns around the landlord’s approach to escalation requests. On 30 April 2024 we determined case 202229689, where we ordered the landlord to review its handling of the case and to ‘reiterate the escalation process to its staff to prevent delays for future complaints’. This related to complaint handling failings from July 2023.
We made this order on 16 October 2024, after the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in this case. We know that relevant learning has therefore been completed and have made no recommendations to steer the landlord’s learning from outcomes with regard to this aspect of its complaint handling.
The landlord offered £50 compensation for its complaint handling. This was in line with our Remedies Guidance, which states that where there has been service failure of a short duration, compensation of £50 should be considered. No further compensation has been awarded for this element of the complaint.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that it will not pay compensation if the resident ‘is requesting compensation for damage to goods, fixtures or fittings’. It stated that in such an instance the landlord will advise the resident ‘to make a claim through their own household insurance policy, unless damage is found to be as a direct result of the landlord’s service failure’.
The landlord failed to follow its policy in its stage 2 complaint response because:
1. it did not advise the resident to contact her own insurer
2. although it had acknowledged some failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, it did not consider whether it was it at fault for any of the damage caused
3. in failing to consider if it was at fault, it failed to consider if it was appropriate to compensate the resident or consider claiming on its own insurance, which may have been appropriate if fault was found
We cannot say whether or not the landlord’s actions or inaction caused or contributed to the damage described by the resident. In failing to follow its policy, the landlord did not communicate to the resident of routes in which she could seek redress for the damage. The landlord offered £100 as a goodwill gesture, but the resident advised this was not reflective of the damage caused.
The landlord is ordered to request from the resident a detailed breakdown of her belongings that she claims were damaged by damp and mould. It should then provide a formal written response to the resident’s request for compensation for damaged items, explaining the reasons for its decision. In addition, as part of the senior management review of this case, the landlord is also ordered to consider its failure to follow its compensation policy.
In failing to follow its compensation policy, the resident felt frustrated and went to avoidable time and trouble. Our remedies guidance suggests that were there has been a service failure of this description, compensation of £50 should be considered. We have ordered the landlord to pay a further £50 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of its complaint handling and response to the resident’s concerns about damage caused to her belongings.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this investigation, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
1. Paid the resident £400 compensation, made up of:
  1. £300 for its handling of damp and mould. It may deduct the £200 already offered, if it has been paid already.
  2. £100 for its complaint handling and failure to follow its compensation policy in responding to the resident’s request for compensation for damaged items. The £50 already offered may be deducted from this amount, if it has been paid already.
2. requested from the resident a detailed breakdown of her belongings that she claims were damaged by damp and mould prior to 18 July 2024. It must clearly ask for any information it needs to make a decision on the resident’s request for compensation.
Within a further 4 weeks of the resident’s response, the landlord must provide evidence that it has provided the resident with a written response to her request for compensation for damaged items, clearly explaining the reasons for its decision.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this investigation, the landlord must provide evidence to this Service that it has completed a senior management review of the failings highlighted in this report. It should consider as a minimum:
1. failings in inspecting and scrutinizing its own records
2. failings in following its Compensation Policy with regard to requests for compensation for damaged items
3. any actions it has taken, or will take, to prevent these failings from reoccurring.