Platform Housing Group Limited (202503102)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202503102

Platform Housing Group Limited

26 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 handling of
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. The complaint.

Background

2. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She lived in a 2-bedroom ground floor flat in a new build with her two young children. She moved out in August 2025, and her tenancy ended in September 2025.
3. In November 2024, she reported damp and mould in the bedroom. The landlord’s contractor attended on 27 November 2024 where they undertook mould treatment. On 27 November 2024, the resident complained about ongoing damp and mould across the home, which she said damaged belongings. She wanted the matter resolved, compensation, and a move to another property.
4. On 9 January 2025, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. After the 7 January visit, it arranged for a surveyor inspection to assess what work was needed. The landlord said the resident was not eligible for a managed move and provided her rehousing options and information on making an insurance claim for damaged items. It partially upheld the complaint as the cause of mould was not identified during the first two visits. It offered £325 compensation.
5. The resident escalated the complaint the same day. She rejected the compensation, saying it did not cover the costs for the damaged items and disputed the landlord’s explanations. A landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 21 January 2025 and installed data loggers to monitor level of condensation.
6. On 20 February 2025, the landlord issued its final stage 2 response. It summarised the actions taken in response to her reports. The landlord accepted there were failings, including poor record keeping and delays in inspections and explained the next steps it would take to resolve the issue. The landlord increased its offer to £700.
7. In her complaint to us, the resident said the mould problem remained unresolved and had spread to her furniture. She disputed the landlord’s explanations. As an outcome, the resident wanted further compensation.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

8. The resident was concerned that damp and mould could affect the household’s health. We are unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. Because this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts, it will not be considered in this report.

Handling of reports of damp and mould

9. The landlord accepted there were failings in this case. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess if it acted reasonably and took appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we will assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
10. The landlord’s damp and condensation mould process says it will seek to ensure that reports of damp and mould are investigated by a competent surveyor. It also sets out the actions it will take where condensation mould exists, including mould cleans, using environmental sensors and the provision of appropriate extractor fans.
11. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance policy says tenants are responsible for managing condensation and cleaning small areas of mould. Where mould spreads, the landlord must inspect, treat, and advise on condensation control. Non-urgent repairs should be completed at an agreed time, ideally in one visit.
12. The resident complained of ongoing mould, slow action, and ineffective treatments. She was worried about health risks, said compensation did not cover damage to belongings and felt the landlord avoided responsibility for this.
13. The landlord said it had inspected, painted, and fitted fans. It accepted there was poor record keeping and delays. It offered compensation, arranged a follow-up inspection, asked its contractor to book outstanding works to small bedroom and living room, and gave insurance details for damaged belongings.
14. The landlord responded quickly at first, attending within 10 working days and undertook a mould clean. However, when reports resumed in November 2024, it relied on repainting instead of investigating the root cause.
15. After the complaint, a new inspection took place on 7 January 2025. As the same contractor returned and only repeated previous treatments, it was understandable why the resident felt dissatisfied as she considered mould painting treated the symptoms rather than the root cause.
16. The evidence shows that during this visit, the resident asked for the children’s bedroom to be prioritised. Work in other rooms was postponed due to her availability. It was also during this visit that the resident said the operative believed that the cause of the issue was a structural problem with the external wall. No record or evidence supported this, and the landlord appropriately explained that its contractor had not confirmed this. The resident said she would obtain a private survey, but no report was shared.
17. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to carry out a further inspection itself in response to the resident’s concerns. Its final response acknowledged the surveyor should have been involved earlier after her second report of 27 November 2024.
18. The surveyor promptly attended on 21 January 2025, within 10 working days of these concerns. Although the resident disputed their findings, the landlord was entitled to rely on the surveyor’s view that the issue was condensation. They suspected a lack of ventilation and lack of heating use, and possible water ingress from windows were factors.
19. Data loggers were also installed during this visit. The resident felt when the surveyor attended the cause had been predetermined attributing the damp to her lifestyle. The landlord appropriately apologised if the resident felt this way and confirmed it was committed to treating her concerns seriously and its conclusions had been based on the facts of the situation.
20. Following the 21 January 2025 inspection, the landlord acted reasonably by fitting 2 new extractor fans in February 2025. This was a proportionate response to her earlier reports of ineffective fans.
21. Regarding personal belongings damaged by mould, the landlord’s formal responses addressed this point and signposted her to its insurer. This was reasonable and in line with its remedies and compensation policy.
22. Our October 2021 Spotlight report on Damp and Mould highlights the serious health risks posed by damp and mould, and states that landlords should ensure their responses are timely, reflecting the urgency of the issue. In this case, the landlord recognised its poor coordination and delay extended the period the household lived with damp and mould. Although there were some delays and dispute about the root cause, the evidence shows that the landlord took the resident’s reports seriously, generally attended in reasonable times, provided her rehousing options, and installed measures to reduce condensation in line with its policy.
23. Additionally, the contractor prioritised the children’s bedroom at her request demonstrating a customer-focussed approach. While other rooms were delayed, the landlord apologised and arranged for its contractor to carry out this work which was completed on 4 April 2025. A surveyor inspection on 16 June 2025 confirmed no mould or condensation, with heating, insulation, and fans all working effectively.
24. In its final response, the landlord offered compensation of £650 in recognition of its poor handling of her reports. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of up to £600 should be considered where the landlord’s failings caused an adverse effect to the resident. The landlord’s offer of redress was therefore fair and in line with our guidance.
25. The resident’s situation and the landlord’s service failures were understandably distressing and frustrating. However, the landlord apologised, arranged for outstanding works to be completed and a surveyor’s inspection, and identified learning to improve its damp and mould service. Together with the compensation offered in line with our guidance, these steps reasonably addressed the complaint.

Complaint handling

26. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. A stage 1 response will be provided within 10 working days of the complaint being received, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of an escalation. If these timescales cannot be met, then the landlord will contact the resident and agree an extension of time.
27. The resident complained on 27 November 2024. The landlord acknowledged this in good time and set 18 December 2024 as the target date for a response. Although it missed this deadline, it requested an extension on 16 December 2024 and advised the resident it would respond by 9 January 2025. The landlord then issued the stage 1 response within the revised timescale.
28. The resident escalated the complaint on 9 January 2025. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 February 2025, outside the 20-day target. However, it again agreed an extension with the resident in line with its policy. While both responses were delayed, the landlord apologised and awarded £50 compensation.
29. This was fair and proportionate to the detriment caused by the delays. The offer was also consistent with our remedies guidance which suggests compensation from £50 where there are minor delays that did not affect the overall outcome. The landlord therefore made a reasonable remedy for its complaint handling delays.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. The complaint.

Recommendation

31. If it has not done so already the landlord should now pay the resident £700 as offered in its final stage 2 response. The findings in this report are made on the basis of this being paid.