From 13 January 2026, we 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.

First Choice Homes Oldham Limited (202327125)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327125

First Choice Homes Oldham Limited

11 April 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 response to the resident’s complaints about damp and mould between 2022 and 2024.

Background

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has several other cases with us following complaints to her landlord. This investigation focuses on the landlord’s responses to her complaints about damp and mould within the property. Specifically, this is in relation to the complaints the landlord provided final complaint responses for in January 2023, December 2023 and March 2024.
  2. In her communication, the resident said she was seeking compensation for her damaged furniture due to mould growth. It is not our role to determine whether the landlord was liable for the damage caused to the resident’s items or to order it to pay damages. These matters are usually best suited to a home contents, or liability, insurance claim. As such, this investigation focuses on how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and will not order the landlord to reimburse or replace furniture items.
  3. The resident has said that the mould and damp conditions have negatively impacted her health. While we do not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused, and whether the landlord gave regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy began in 2016. The property is an end of terrace bungalow. The landlord has listed that the resident has mobility difficulties. The resident has also informed us that she has both mental and physical health needs and is disabled.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident historically reported damp and mould in the property at least as early as 2018. In 2019 and 2020, following inspections, the landlord informed the resident that there were no structural issues that could cause damp. The cause of mould growth was due to condensation, including behind a bed which was against the external facing wall. It provided advice about heating and adequate ventilation.
  3. We have considered each complaint individually below.

Complaint 1

  1. The landlord raised an inspection of the property on 12 September 2022 to check for damp and mould. This was prompted by a stock survey which rated the property as a high risk for possible problems. It attended on 6 October 2022 and recommended work to check a cold spot over the lounge window, inspect the loft insulation, repoint over the lounge window, realign the gutter and complete a mould treatment in the lounge.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 October 2022. She had heard nothing further about work to inspect the insulation, clean the fan in the bathroom and repoint under a window. She said an operative had told her that they would replace the gutter, but nothing had happened since. Her complaint related to the gutters and mould, and a lack of action or update.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response on 4 November 2022, the landlord confirmed that it raised work orders on 6 October 2022. It said roofers attended on 3 November 2022 and completed all external works. It raised a new work order for a mould treatment and to service the bathroom fan and said it would be in touch to arrange an appointment.
  4. The landlord’s records suggest that it completed work to repair a gully on 18 November 2022 and completed a mould treatment on 28 November 2022. The resident asked for another inspection on 14 December 2022. She said the landlord had not previously surveyed the “end” wall or identified the hole allowing water in below the gutter (which it resolved during gully works). She added that an operative said there was damp on the end wall and that it needed to complete more pointing. Following a visit on 20 December 2022, it said all works were complete but raised a further work order to repoint the porch.
  5. On 20 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said:
    1. Its surveying contractor had called that day and told her that the issues she experienced in the property were due to condensation and cold spots, but the walls and windows were dry and there was no damp. The company instructed to complete a mould treatment said the landlord needed to complete various jobs.
    2. The surveyor said that the expert who suggested that there was damp outside the property was wrong. She felt that the landlord had lied to her and blamed her for the issues. The surveyor also said they were not there to check for damp during an inspection that day despite this being the reason for the appointment.
    3. She was unhappy that the landlord had blamed tenants for condensation, which was not visible, when experts said the property would continue to have issues until it treated the matter correctly. She added that the mould wash a few weeks prior had failed, and the mould was coming back faster. She was unhappy that the issues had been ongoing for 6 years.
    4. She also reported that there was no humidity in the property as she was using a hygrometer to monitor this and wanted another inspection. The landlord asked for a further mould treatment to take place.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 2 on 11 January 2023. In its stage 2 complaint response on 23 January 2023, it said:
    1. Its surveyor visited on 5 January 2023 and confirmed that the issue was condensation related black mould and not damp. Another company would be completing treatment work that would prevent mould from returning for a period of time, but this would not prevent condensation. The surveyor had also explained how to control condensation.
    2. It also found that it needed to complete some work to the external pointing to a small area above a window as a preventative measure to avoid water ingress, and a treatment to the porch area to prevent mould regrowth. It said it had completed this work, and addressed all matters raised in the complaint.
    3. It identified an area in the kitchen that also required a mould treatment which it booked for 27 January 2023. It said it would complete a post inspection to identify if it needed to do any further work.
  7. It raised another work order to complete a mould treatment and decoration to a window wall and ceiling on 11 March 2023 but we have not seen any further reports.

Complaint 2

  1. The landlord raised a work order on 16 October 2023 for a mould treatment and inspection to assess the cause of damp and mould in the bedroom following a phone call. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 October 2023 and asked it to raise another complaint about damp and mould. She said she had tried to report that the damp and mould had returned for 3 weeks. She had no response and no call back from a contractor as promised. She wanted it to treat the mould and replace her damaged carpet, drawers and bed. She also reported that the bathroom fan was not working, and the landlord said it would be 2 weeks before someone would repair this.
  2. In its stage 1 complaint response on 31 October 2023, the landlord wrote as follows:
    1. It summarised the history of the resident’s reports and historic works from 2022. Following a post inspection on 24 February 2023, it confirmed that it had previously completed all work needed.
    2. It said she reported that the damp and mould had come back in the bedroom on 16 October 2023. It raised a job to attend on 14 November 2023. It apologised for a lack of communication and that it did not schedule the appointment as soon as she would have liked. This was the earliest appointment available at the time.
    3. It advised that, on 16 October 2023, she said that the damp and mould had only returned in the bedroom. It had asked its contractors to assess all rooms in case it needed to treat other areas. She had reported a faulty extractor fan on 23 October 2023, and it booked works for this on 8 November 2023. The priority for the job was 20 working days which was within the correct timescale.
    4. It asked the resident to send photos of any damage caused to her furniture. Once it had assessed the cause of the damp, it would consider whether it would compensate her.
  3. The resident responded on the same day. She was unhappy that the issues had been ongoing for 7 years and the mould returned in partially treated areas. She provided photos and said she had cleaned the areas since the time of her report on 16 October 2023. She said that communicating with the landlord was causing significant stress and exasperating her depression and PTSD symptoms. She was unhappy that it was difficult to report her concerns and she felt it sent her in circles. She asked that it gave her a single point of contact to reduce her symptoms.
  4. The landlord’s records from 23 November 2023 indicated that it post-inspected the work. The job note at the time shows that the surveyor reported that due to the extent of household items, the mould would return. Its records from 30 November 2023 show that the resident was unhappy with the advice to clean the mould and that there were no issues. It escalated the complaint at the time.
  5. It completed a further inspection on 8 December 2023, reporting that all historical works were complete. There was no mould visible in any of the previously affected areas and no obvious condensation. The surveyor explained that condensation related black mould was impossible to prevent completely. They explained that this was due to the moisture in the air condensing on cool surfaces. They said that it was likely the mould would return but gave advice on heating, ventilating, and wiping down surfaces. They noted that the resident had a hygrometer (to measure humidity).
  6. The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 14 December 2023 which it has said was incorrect. It said it had not received photos of the damaged furniture and asked the resident to resend these. On 15 December 2023, the landlord’s repair records show it raised a work order to complete a mould treatment in the living room and hall.
  7. In its further stage 2 complaint response on 19 December 2023, the landlord:
    1. Confirmed that following an appointment on 14 November 2023, it completed mould works. It said it would not compensate the resident for damaged furniture as it had diagnosed the issues to be related to condensation and did not need to complete repairs.
    2. Its inspector had reviewed the decision on 23 November 2023 and confirmed the matter related to condensation. They suggested that the resident treated the mould as soon as it appeared. It recognised that the inspector had reported that the property had a lot of items on the visit which it later found to be incorrect. It appreciated that this may have caused distress and offered £50 compensation.
    3. It visited on 8 December 2023 with its surveying manager. They confirmed it had completed all historical work. At the time of the visit, there was no sign of condensation. As a gesture of goodwill, it arranged a further mould wash (to the hall and lounge) on 18 December 2023. The contractor confirmed that there was very little mould, and they only needed to slightly touch up some areas.
  8. The resident initially referred her complaint to us in November 2023 as she wanted the landlord to resolve the damp and mould and compensate her or replace her damaged carpet and drawers. She also said that she was seeking compensation for the impact of the damp and mould on her health. She felt the landlord was blaming her for the mould and condensation despite the property being dry and that it had ignored her vulnerabilities. She said she had asked the landlord to replace 2 radiators as she was told they were not right size for the rooms she had mould in, but that each time a contractor suggested work, the landlord’s surveyor overrode them.

Complaint 3

  1. The resident continued to pursue a resolution with the landlord into 2024. On 2 January 2024, the landlord confirmed that it would check all work and complete a post inspection. It would also check to see whether it needed to complete any painting following previous works. It would also review the images of damaged belongings in response to her request for compensation.
  2. It arranged a post inspection for 2 February 2024. The work notes indicate that all mould was gone, and it would raise a repair to check extractor fans. On 15 February 2024, the resident contacted the landlord as she had not had a response to email enquiries, and she had not heard anything following the post inspection. She said she wanted to raise a complaint about how the landlord had managed the complaint. The landlord responded and asked that she direct all queries to its contact centre. It confirmed that it had raised works to remove any mould within the property, strip the wallpaper in the bedroom and decorate, and service the fans in the bathroom and kitchen.
  3. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 28 February 2024. It outlined previous actions and confirmed that it had booked the remaining work to remove mould, decorate, and service the fans for 21 March 2024. It said it would complete a post inspection after 6 to 8 weeks. It maintained that it would not compensate her for damaged furniture as it believed it had acted appropriately in its handling of her reports by completing work where needed.
  4. The resident responded on the same day and referenced that a staff member said they would review the photos and consider compensation on 2 January 2024. She explained the impact the lack of communication, inconsistency and contradictions were having on her mental health.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 19 March 2024. It said:
    1. It spoke to the resident on 5 March 2024 and clarified that there was no written communication confirming that it would replace the carpet or drawers. It agreed to professionally clean the carpet as a gesture of goodwill once it completed decoration work.
    2. It apologised for any inconvenience or frustration she experienced due to poor communication. It recognised a lack of communication and compassion in its handling of the case. It understood that this had an impact on the resident, particularly in view of her vulnerabilities. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience, it offered £200 compensation.
  6. The landlord’s records from 25 March 2024 indicate that it had completed all works. It completed a further post inspection on 25 April 2024 and confirmed that the resident was happy with the works. The resident has informed us that she currently continues to experience mould in the property.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it would make safe emergency repairs within 3 hours. It attends priority repairs within 5 working days. It completes routine repairs, such as repairs to fans, gutters and minor leaks within 20 working days. It would complete major repairs, such as larger more complex repairs, within 90 working days.
  2. The landlord’s Damp and Mould Policy (adopted around September 2023) lists that the main causes of damp are rising damp, penetrating damp, and condensing damp. The policy confirms that the landlord would provide clear information and advice to residents and use a range of devices to monitor moisture levels. It would arrange to inspect the property within 10 days of a report of damp and mould. It would then make a plan to tackle the issue and complete a follow-up inspection within 8 weeks.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould (2021) recommends that landlords:
    1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions.
    2. Avoid taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident. They should evaluate what mitigations they can put in place to support residents in cases where structural interventions are not appropriate and satisfy themselves that they are taking all reasonable steps.
    3. Should ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken, or otherwise, to resolve reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould

  1. In line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS), the landlord has an obligation to address hazards and risks within its properties, including the presence of damp and mould. When assessing reports of damp and mould, we expect to see evidence that the landlord completed a damp assessment, using professional tools, to establish the underlying cause of the issues, and the location of defects that could contribute to damp and mould. It should assess all possible causes of damp, including leaks, rising damp, penetrating damp, and condensation. This is to have a clear understanding of the problem to provide a resolution within a reasonable timescale.
  2. It is reasonable for the landlord to take reactive measures to remove mould spores due to the potential risk to a tenant’s health, but it should also seek to understand the cause and review the repair history for a property to identify patterns and practical solutions for recurring issues. It should consider all possible options to provide a long-term resolution for residents, especially in cases involving vulnerable residents.
  3. As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord to provide records related to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord provided records; however, these were incomplete. It did not provide surveyors’ reports detailing its investigations, and its repair records were not comprehensive as to when it completed works, what it did, or the location of the work.
  4. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
  5. It is evident that the resident has reported damp and mould affecting the property for several years. Historically, the landlord diagnosed the mould issues to be the result of condensation in both 2019 and 2020. We have considered the landlord’s handling of the reports between 2022 and 2024 below.

Complaint 1

  1. The landlord’s records indicate that the inspection on 6 October 2022 was prompted by a stock HHSRS survey which identified the resident’s property as a “red rated” property for possible damp and mould related issues. It is unclear what factors it considered in this rating. We have not seen documentary evidence to show that the resident reported damp and mould immediately prior to the inspection on 6 October 2022, although we have seen evidence to show that she reported a repair related to a blocked gutter in September 2022.
  2. We have not seen a copy of the inspection report from 6 October 2022 but note that it recommended work to check a cold spot over the lounge window, inspect the loft insulation, repoint over the lounge window, realign the gutter and complete a mould treatment in the lounge. The resident’s complaint on 24 October 2022 primarily related to a lack of communication around work to inspect the insulation, clean the fan in the bathroom, repoint near a window, and replace her gutter.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 4 November 2022 lacked detail. It stated that roofers completed external works on 3 November 2022 but did not specify what work this involved or why. It has also referred to completing these works on 7 November 2022 in its later communication. Its repair records reference that it completed work raised on 6 October 2022 on 2 December 2022. This indicates that the work was not complete at the time of its response.
  4. We have not seen clear evidence regarding the recommended work or the outcome of inspections of a cold spot or the insulation. In addition, we have not seen that it communicated the outcome to the resident or explained how, or whether, the external pointing or guttering works contributed to the mould.
  5. Within its stage 1 complaint response, it also said it had raised work for the mould treatment and fan and would be in touch to arrange appointments. Its repair records indicate that while it did raise work for the fan on 4 November 2022, it did not raise a job for a mould treatment until 14 November 2022. It is unclear why there was a delay in it arranging this.
  6. The landlord recognised that the resident wanted dates for appointments as a resolution to her complaint. It did not seek to provide these which was likely to cause inconvenience. It failed to explain the actions it had taken and failed to comment on her concerns about the gutter replacement. The lack of clarity in this response was likely to cause inconvenience to the resident.
  7. The landlord completed work to the fan, and additional work to treat mould and re-cement a gully in November 2022The resident continued to pursue her concerns on 14 and 20 December 2022. She noted that it had not previously surveyed the “end” wall or identified the hole allowing water in below the gutter. She added that an operative said there was damp on the end wall and that it needed to complete more pointing.
  8. It is evident that the resident was frustrated with the different accounts of what was causing the mould from both the landlord’s surveyor, and the company completing the mould treatments. Specifically, that the landlord’s surveyor had blamed the issues on condensation and cold spots, but contractors had suggested works and said the issues related to rising damp.
  9. In its stage 2 complaint response on 23 January 2023, the landlord said that its surveyor visited on 5 January 2023 and confirmed that there was condensation related black mould, not damp. While the issues may have related only to condensation as described, we have not seen clear evidence of the investigations it completed on this visit, or the visit on 20 December 2022.
  10. We would have expected to see evidence to show that the landlord had investigated the concerns related to damp caused by water ingress through a filled hole below the gutter, or damp affecting the “end” wall, using appropriate tools to rule out water ingress at the time. While the matter appears to have been resolved following additional work to pointing, the landlord has not shown that it investigated these concerns fully or offered reassurance.

Complaints 2 and 3

  1. We have not seen evidence to show that the resident reported any ongoing mould between 11 March 2023 (when the landlord raised a job for a mould treatment and decoration to an unspecified window wall and ceiling) and 16 October 2023, when the resident reported that mould had returned in her bedroom.
  2. At the time of the resident’s contact, the landlord had implemented a damp and mould policy which stated that it would inspect a property for signs of damp within 10 days of a resident report. It would determine whether it needed to complete repairs. While the landlord arranged an appointment to assess and treat the mould within its routine timescale of 20 working days, on 14 November 2023, this was not in line with its updated policy timescales for damp inspections. It apologised that the resident felt the appointment should be sooner within its October 2023 stage 1 complaint response, but did not identify errors in its approach to her reports.
  3. The resident sent photos to the landlord on 31 October 2023. The images primarily show mould on the bedroom ceiling, and at a low level on the walls, skirting board, and carpet. We note that the room has 2 external facing walls with windows. The job raised on 16 October 2023 asked operatives to assess and report back the cause of the mould. It is of concern that we have not seen any evidence of reports to show that the landlord documented where the mould was, or used appropriate tools to rule out water ingress, before completing treatment to remove the mould on 14 November 2023.
  4. The landlord’s records indicate that it raised a work order to inspect the property for possible damp and mould on 8 November 2023. Its records from the visit (on 23 November 2023) state that it post-inspected the work which it had completed. The record states that due to the number of household items, it advised the resident that the mould would return, and to treat the affected area when they first noticed mould. The landlord later acknowledged that the inspectors claim about multiple household items was incorrect. It acted reasonably by apologising for the distress caused and offered £50 compensation. This is considered proportionate to put right any distress caused by the false claim.
  5. The landlord’s records from the visit on 8 December 2023 indicate that there was no mould present in previously affected areas. It also noted that the heating was on, the property was warm, and there was no visible condensation. The surveyor provided a further explanation of condensation and said that if the resident did not follow advice around heating, ventilating, and wiping down surfaces, the mould would likely come back.
  6. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to give advice on how to prevent condensation related mould. However, we would have expected to see evidence to show that the landlord completed adequate tests of the ceilings, walls, skirting boards and flooring using a damp meter to rule out possible penetrating or rising damp in the first instance. Given that the resident’s carpet was also affected, with the images provided showing mould and some water staining, it would have also been appropriate for the landlord to ensure that there were no defects in the flooring below.
  7. Mould growth behind furniture and in the upper edges of a room are usually the result of condensation or poor ventilation where there are no other causes like penetrating or rising damp. While we have not seen evidence to show the landlord ruled out other possible causes, or identified high humidity levels, this does not necessarily mean that its diagnosis of condensation is incorrect.
  8. Within its internal communication, the landlord recognised that the resident and her household had vulnerabilities which may limit their ability to clean off visible mould. Given the history of mould issues, the frequency of visits needed to treat mould, the resident’s vulnerabilities, and the 2 external facing walls in the bedroom, the landlord could have done more to consider steps it could take to prevent the mould returning and reduce the need for future visits. While it may not be able to stop the mould coming back completely, it has not demonstrated that it considered other measures it could take, such as installing insulated wall boards, trickle vents, air bricks or a PIV unit.
  9. In her communication to us, the resident also mentioned that she had asked the landlord to replace 2 radiators in rooms where she experienced mould as an operative had said they were not the correct size. She has mentioned that this work was recommended to the landlord, but it did not do anything further. While we have not seen evidence that she raised this concern directly, undersized radiators are a factor that can contribute to condensation related problems, and it would be appropriate for the landlord to assess the radiators, if it has not already done so.
  10. The resident has mentioned that she felt the landlord ignored her vulnerabilities. We note that she specifically referenced the impact that communicating with the landlord had on her mental health on 31 October 2023 and she asked for a single point of contact to reduce the impact on her. We have not seen evidence to show that the landlord acknowledged this or responded to her request which was likely to cause frustration.
  11. While the landlord acknowledged its poor communication and the impact on the resident in view of her vulnerabilities in its subsequent response on 19 March 2024, it is of concern that the resident needed to pursue a separate, additional complaint, and the landlord did not identify communication errors in its handling of the matter sooner than it did. This resulted in additional time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing a resolution.
  12. In summary, we have found service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports. It took reasonable steps to treat and remove apparent mould and acted reasonably by acknowledging the impact of its poor communication on the resident within its final response. While the issues in the property may be the result of condensation, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it fully investigated her concerns or sought to provide a longer-term solution given the history and frequency of her reports, and her vulnerabilities.
  13. We have not seen evidence of any significant delay in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaints. However, these did not always address her concerns in full or provide clarity which was likely to cause additional frustration. She also needed to raise a separate complaint in 2024 regarding its handling and communication about the complaint, before the landlord acknowledged poor communication. Its overall offer of £250 within its complaint responses went some way to acknowledge the impact of its poor communication and false claim of excessive household items but is not considered proportionate given the failings identified.
  14. We have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation in line with our remedies guidance (available on our website), and to survey the property in view of the resident’s reports of further mould.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s complaints about damp and mould between 2022 and 2024.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, we order the landlord to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the identified failings.
    2. Pay the resident £500 compensation in recognition of the impact of the failures identified. This is inclusive of its offers of £200 and £50 made through its complaint process.
    3. Contact the resident to discuss household vulnerabilities to ensure its records are up to date. It should consider whether it needs to adopt any reasonable adjustments in its communication with her.
    4. Arrange a damp and mould survey of the property to provide a clear diagnosis of any ongoing issues. The survey should:
      1. Consider the history of the resident’s reports and assess whether there are other factors aside from condensation that may be contributing to the mould growth. This should include the use of professional tools to rule out any penetrating or rising damp.
      2. Include a heat assessment to determine whether the radiators in the property are adequately sized for the rooms they are in and functioning appropriately.
      3. Consider whether any remedial works may provide a longer-term solution to the recurring issues related to poor ventilation or condensation.
  2. Within 6 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to:
    1. Provide the outcome of the survey (including a surveyor’s report) detailing its findings.
    2. Confirm any required repairs or other steps it can take to provide a more long-term solution where appropriate. It should also set out the timescales in which it intends to complete any work.
  3. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance within the specified timescales.