Estuary Housing Association Limited (202442489)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202442489

Estuary Housing Association Limited

17 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould from 2024.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the investigation.

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property. The resident’s tenancy started in September 2019.
The property is a 2 bedroom maisonette.
The resident previously raised a complaint with us about the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould in the property (202216569). We investigated the complaint and issued a decision in December 2023. We found that there was maladministration by the landlord as it delayed in taking action in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. To put things right we ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation, apologise and provide her with details of its insurers so she could make an insurance claim for damage to her personal items.
On 27 March 2024 the resident made a further complaint to the landlord. The resident said that despite reporting damp and mould in the property the landlord had not addressed the problem. Within the complaint the resident noted that the damp and mould was impacting on her health conditions.
On 4 April 2024 the landlord responded to confirm that it had previously responded to a complaint regarding damp and mould. It set out that we had considered the complaint and it had complied with the orders on the case. The landlord asked the resident to confirm if the complaint was therefore about a new occurrence of damp and mould. The landlord told us that the resident did not reply.
As the resident said she did not receive a response to the complaint from the landlord she contacted us for assistance. On 20 May 2024 we requested that the landlord respond to the complaint if it had not done so.
On 24 May 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it had opened a complaint. It confirmed that it understood that the resident was complaining about its response to address damp and mould in her daughter’s bedroom (the right hand bedroom) which had been reported earlier in 2024.
On 4 June 2024 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It had inspected the property in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in October 2023 and February 2024. The inspections identified that in order to prevent high moisture levels in the property the mechanical fans in the bathroom and WC required cleaning and the positive air ventilation system must be switched on.
2. Following the inspections “repairs and mould washes were arranged” however the resident did “not always” provide access. No access was given on 20 November 2023, 2 February 2024 and 28 February 2024. As a result of the no access appointments the work order was cancelled.
3. It had received a report from the local authority’s environmental health team which recorded that the mechanical fans in the bathroom and WC were switched off during its inspection of the property. Environmental health recommended that the mechanical fans were replaced with humidistat controlled fans which automatically responded to rises in humidity.
4. In response to the complaint it would:
  1. Arrange an appointment to complete a mould wash in the right hand bedroom.
  2. Arrange an appointment to replace all mechanical fans in the property.
On 17 January 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it would escalate the complaint to stage 2. It explained that it was escalating the complaint due to the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction regarding its response to address damp and mould in the right hand bedroom.
On 12 February 2025 the landlord provided its stage 2, final, response to the complaint. In summary the landlord said:
1. It had arranged multiple appointments to undertake works to address the damp and mould in the right hand bedroom however the appointments did not go ahead as the resident was “not available” or “refused repair works”. No access occurred on 7 occasions between January 2024 and June 2024 and works were refused on 2 occasions (28 February 2024 and 27 June 2024). It understood the resident had refused appointments unless the attending contractors were female. It had explained to the resident that it was unable to accommodate the request as its contractors were employed by skill and not gender. It had offered a reasonable adjustment for a female member of staff to be present during the works.
2. On 22 August 2024 an appointment was terminated after the contractors reported verbal abuse by the resident.
3. On 9 September 2024 it became aware that the resident was away from the property and would not return until 15 October 2024.
4. The mechanical fans were replaced during repair appointments on 13 December 2024 and 21 January 2025. It confirmed that ventilation in the property should improve as a result.
5. It acknowledged that it delayed in replacing the mechanical fans after the resident returned to the property in mid-October 2024. It would therefore like to award the resident £50 compensation for the “inconvenience of the late appointment”.
6. It was due to complete a mould wash in the right hand bedroom on 13 December 2024 however on attending it found that the room had been decorated and no mould was present. As the resident had reported that the damp and mould in the right hand bedroom had returned it would arrange for a further mould treatment to be carried out.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident could refer her complaint to us if she was not happy with its response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This investigation will focus on the period after the Ombudsman’s decision dated December 2023. This is because the Ombudsman has already made a decision on the landlord’s handling of damp and mould up until this point.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould from 2024

On 20 March 2019 The Homes (Fitness of Human Habitation) Act 2018 came into force with the aim of ensuring that all rented accommodation is fit for human habitation. It required landlords to make sure that its properties were safe, healthy and free from things that could cause serious harm. The Government’s guidance for tenants sets out that “damp and mould growth” must be considered. As the resident’s complaint concerned damp and mould the landlord was obliged to investigate and make good any issues identified.
On 8 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to report that the mould in the property was “worse than ever”. Within her email the resident stated her health was deteriorating and she could “barely breathe”. The landlord responded on 9 February 2024 setting out that during January 2024 it had attempted to complete the repairs necessary to address the mould. However no access had been granted. It confirmed that appointments were scheduled for later that month to complete the mould wash on the bathroom ceiling, repair the external fan covers and renew seals to the windows. The landlord added that it would share the resident’s concerns that the mould was getting worse with its repairs team.
On 26 February 2024 and in response to the resident’s report of worsening mould the landlord inspected the property. This was appropriate in order to determine the condition of the property and what works were needed, if any. The record of the appointment noted that some work was required to address damp and mould. This included mould wash in the bedrooms and repositing of the positive ventilation unit. The record also noted that the extractor fan in the bathroom and kitchen were switched off and the resident had been “abusive” during the appointment.
On 28 February 2024 the landlord attended the property to complete the work identified by the inspection. The record of the appointment confirmed that works did not go ahead as they were refused by the resident. The landlord rearranged the appointment for 16 April 2024. The record of the appointment on 16 April 2024 recorded “no access”. Without access the landlord could not complete the required repairs. We note that under the terms of the property’s tenancy agreement the tenant must “allow access in order for [the landlord] to carry out repairs…”
On 31 May 2024 the local council’s environmental health team wrote to the landlord confirming that it had inspected the property. In relation to damp and mould environmental health said that it had identified a category 1 hazard. It confirmed that there was “a strong presence of mould in the hallway, bedrooms and in the living room around the windows and cills”. Environmental health therefore issued the landlord with an improvement notice.
On 19 June 2024 environmental health provided the landlord with a specification of works to be carried out to address the damp and mould. The work included overhaul and repair windows, tiling in bathroom, installation of humidistat controlled fans and mould wash.
The evidence shows that the landlord scheduled an appointment on 24 June 2024 to reposition the positive ventilation unit, complete mould wash and complete tiling in bathroom. This was appropriate as they were repairs that had been identified to address the damp and mould. The record of the appointment noted “no access”. Without access the landlord was unable to complete the required repairs.
On 11 July 2024 the landlord wrote to environmental health to appeal the extent of the works required to the property’s windows. In response environmental health agreed to vary the schedule of works so that work to the windows was “advisory”.
The evidence shows that on 13 August 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report that contractors had not attended the appointment to complete the mould wash. The landlord’s records do not dispute that the appointment was not attended. We have not identified a reason in the landlord’s records to explain why the appointment did not go ahead. This was a failure and will have resulted in inconvenience and uncertainty to the resident.
The landlord’s records document that a repair appointment on 22 August 2024, to undertake works to the windows and in the bathroom was abandoned due to inappropriate conduct by the tenant. We acknowledge that it is reasonable for a contractor to end an appointment where they feel the conduct of the tenant is inappropriate. This is because everyone has the right to feel safe in their working environment. We note an internal record by the landlord which sets out that the resident apologised for language which they used during the appointment.
In early September 2024 the landlord’s internal records document that the resident confirmed that she would only accept female contractors to carry out works in the property. In response the landlord offered to have a female housing officer present for the duration of the works. This was a reasonable offer as it explained that it could not meet her request for female contractors. The resident declined the landlord’s offer.
On 8 September 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord to confirm that she would be away from the property for an extended period of time. In response the landlord replied to request that the resident inform it when she returned so it could arrange appointments for the outstanding repairs to address the damp and mould to be completed. This was reasonable as the landlord would not have access to the property while she was away.
The landlord’s records document that on 23 October 2024 the resident contacted it to reiterate that she would not allow male operatives into the property even with a female member of staff present. In response the landlord wrote to the resident on 30 October 2024 and 1 November 2024 setting out 3 options to enable the works to go ahead. It confirmed that it could:
1. Arrange for a female representative to be onsite for the duration of the works.
2. Arrange temporary accommodation for the resident in a hotel.
3. Pay travel costs for the resident to stay with family in Liverpool.
It was appropriate that the landlord considered other options to progress the repairs taking into account the resident’s requirement for female only contractors, which it was unable to meet. In doing so the landlord demonstrated that it was taking a resolution focused approach and considering the resident’s personal circumstances.
An internal record by the landlord dated end of November 2024 (exact date not known) confirmed that the resident had agreed to allow access for the work to go ahead week commencing 2 December 2024 while she remained in the property.
The evidence shows that despite a start date for the works to begin on 2 December 2024 being agreed between the landlord and resident the contractors did not attend the appointment. The landlord has confirmed that this was due to “miscommunication with the proposed dates with the contractors”. This is poor and will have resulted in inconvenience and uncertainty to the resident. The evidence shows the landlord apologised to the resident for the omission and rebooked for the works to start on 13 December 2024. This was appropriate and done within a reasonable period of time.
The landlord’s record of the appointment on 13 December 2024 confirmed that “no mould issues” were identified in the bedrooms and “one of the rooms looked like someone had just painted it”. The record confirmed that no mould wash was therefore applied. During the appointment some tiling work was also completed in the bathroom and a fan was “installed to the WC”. The landlord’s records show that further works were undertaken on 17 and 19 December 2024 which included make good tiling in bathroom and application of mould wash and stain block.
We note that the landlord awarded the resident £50 compensation at stage 2 as it considered that it could have offered a repair appointment at an earlier date after receiving confirmation that she had returned to the property in October 2024. This was reasonable.

The evidence shows that the landlord attended the property on 14 January 2025 to inspect the work completed in December 2024. This was appropriate in order for the landlord to check that the work undertaken had been completed to a satisfactory standard and had resolved the damp and mould. The record of the inspection noted that:
1. Humidistat controlled fans had not been installed in the bathroom and kitchen.
2. The window seals in the lounge and left hand bedroom had not been repaired or replaced.
3. Little mould was observed throughout the property however a clean was required to the bathroom, rear of entrance cupboard door and in the left hand bedroom below the window .
4. The mould wash and repainting undertaken by the resident in the right hand bedroom had been completed to a poor standard.
5. The tiling in the bathroom had not been completed to a satisfactory standard.
The outcome of the inspection demonstrated that the damp and mould repair work had not been completed or completed to an acceptable standard. This is unsatisfactory. As the landlord was aware of the repair work needed from June 2024, the date environmental health issued the schedule of works, it had sufficient time to ensure that arrangements were in place to allow for all repair work to be undertaken once access was granted by the resident.
The evidence shows that an appointment was scheduled with the resident for 22 January 2025 to complete the outstanding work. This was appropriate. The record of the appointment documented that the following repairs were completed – mould wash, window repairs, tiling in bathroom and installation of fan in kitchen and bathroom.
As part of its final response the landlord confirmed that it would arrange a mould wash to the right hand bedroom as the resident stated that the mould had returned despite the works which she had arranged independently of it. This was reasonable. The appointment was scheduled for 28 February 2025 however was postponed at the request of the resident as she did not believe that sufficient notice had been given.
The appointment to complete the mould wash in the right hand bedroom was rescheduled for 17 March 2025. The records show that the appointment did not go ahead as the resident requested to be decanted from the property while the mould wash was applied due to her health. The evidence shows that the landlord denied the request as the health and safety information it had obtained on the use and application of mould washes confirmed that “as long as [a] room [was]well-ventilated and the area enclosed by closing of doors there [was] no risk to residents”. While the landlord denied the resident’s request it did request that she provide medical evidence to show why she could not remain in the property. This was reasonable so that the landlord could reevaluate its initial decision and make an informed decision on the resident’s individual circumstances.
The evidence shows that following the landlord’s final response in February 2025 environmental health wrote to the landlord on 4 April 2025 to revoke the improvement notice and replace it with an “awareness notice”. Environmental health explained the “level of compliance” by the landlord had resulted in “the reduction of the hazard”- the damp and mould. It set out that the remaining issue of damp and mould was “within the landlord’s control and others in control of the occupier”.
Within its correspondence environmental health noted that in respect of the schedule of works there had been some deviation in relation to the installation of humidistat controlled fans and application of mould washes. It also added that the landlord’s response to “the requirement for mould washes and to sterilise and repeat until there [was] no further requirement [was] concerning”. This indicates that while the level of hazard had been reduced, some further intervention was required by the landlord to address the damp and mould issue in the property as it was not fully remedied.
The evidence shows that in June 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident to request access to inspect the property. It is appropriate that the landlord requested to inspect the property, in order to see if any additional works were required to address the remaining damp and mould issue. However this action should have been undertaken promptly following receipt of the letter from environmental health.
We understand that the landlord has not been granted access by the resident to complete the inspection, as she would like the inspection undertaken by an independent surveyor. The evidence shows that the landlord has offered to pay half the cost for an independent surveyor to undertake the inspection. We consider this offer was fair, taking into account that it employs its own operatives who would be skilled to undertake this task.
Overall there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould from 2024. After the landlord gained access to the property in December 2024 the evidence does not demonstrate that the repairs it completed during December 2024 and January 2025 have been sufficient in providing a permanent solution to eliminate the damp and mould in the property.
During the period under investigation the evidence also shows that there were several occasions where the landlord’s contractors did not turn up for scheduled appointments. While we acknowledge that the landlord’s handling of the case was impacted by the actions of the resident, including several no access appointments, the repairs it did complete on gaining access have not been proven to be effective in eliminating the damp and mould issue.

The landlord’s complaint handling

On receipt of the complaint the evidence shows that the landlord made enquiries with the resident regarding the complaint she wished to make. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out “if any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification”. The landlord has confirmed that as it did not receive a response to its enquiry it did not progress the complaint. It would have been best practice for the landlord to have followed up its enquiry with the resident when it did not receive a response. We cannot see that it did so. Following contact from us the landlord provided its stage 1 response promptly. This was appropriate.
The landlord’s decision to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 without a formal request from the resident was reasonable. This is because it recognised that the resident was unhappy with its response to the complaint at stage 1 and therefore set out its position. It was also reasonable as it provided the resident with the option to refer her complaint to us if she was not happy with its position.
As part of the complaint the resident said that the damp and mould was impacting on her health. The landlord did not address this aspect as part of its complaint response. This is unsatisfactory including as the Code sets out that a landlord must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decision. While the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns regarding the impact of the property on her health, the evidence shows that the landlord was engaging with the resident regarding this matter outside of the complaint procedure. This included in relation to her application to the Complex Case Panel for rehousing. It would however been best practice for the landlord to have demonstrated within its complaint responses how it was supporting her in response to the health issues she was reporting to it. However this omission does not amount to a service failure.
There was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould from 2024.
2. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord should, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, provide a written apology to the resident in respect of the failings identified by this investigation.
The landlord should, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, pay the resident a total of £550 compensation. This figure comprises the £50 compensation it awarded itself, if it has not already been paid, in addition to an extra £500. This is in recognition of the repairs service it provided in relation to the damp and mould and therefore the inconvenience and distress she would have experienced as a result.
We are aware that the landlord has requested access to inspect the property to assess for any outstanding repair issues in relation to the damp and mould. We note that the resident has declined the landlord’s request. We consider that a further inspection is necessary to identify what further works or actions are needed to resolve the damp and mould and to prevent future occurrences. The landlord should therefore write to the resident, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, to offer a new date for a damp and mould inspection.
Following the inspection the landlord should write to the resident, within 2 weeks, to confirm the outcome of the inspection, providing a schedule for any works identified. A copy of the letter should be provided to this Service.