Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202502875)

Background

1. The resident began her tenancy on 5 December 2024. She reported problems with the condition of the property shortly after receiving the keys. This included damp and mould, rotten floorboards, a broken boiler, and rotten beading around a window. She asked us to investigate because she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response. The landlord ended the tenancy by eviction on 24 June 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The condition of the property when let.
   2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   3. The resident’s charges for gas and electricity during repairs.
3. We also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found no maladministration by the landlord.

Summary of reasons

5. We found that:
   1. There is no evidence to show the property failed to meet the landlord’s empty property standard.
   2. The landlord took reasonable steps to resolve the issues identified by the resident in December 2024. It followed up the agreed repairs in January 2025. Although there was some delay, there is sufficient evidence to show the landlord attempted the repairs on the agreed dates.
   3. The resident was responsible for the rent and utility charges once she signed for the tenancy in December 2024.
   4. The landlord maintained regular contact with the resident throughout the timeline. It responded to her complaints in accordance with its complaint handling policy.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The landlord’s empty homes standard states that it will complete all essential repairs while the property is empty. This includes flooring, door frames, windows, and bathrooms.
7. The landlord’s records show the resident first raised concerns about the condition of the property during a home visit on 13 December 2024. The landlord raised an inspection which it conducted on 23 December 2024. This was within 6 working days of the home visit and was a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns.
8. During its inspection on 23 December 2024, the landlord identified some necessary repairs. These were mostly minor works not complete while the property was void. There was no issue raised that would not pass the landlord’s empty property standard. The landlord took appropriate action and scheduled repairs, which included:
   1. Adjusting the kitchen layout.
   2. Replacing 2 misted glazing units.
   3. Re-fixing the front door and seal.
   4. Re-fitting the bathroom flooring where it had bubbled.
   5. Passing works to its gas contractor for a leak on the boiler.
9. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident said she spent hours by the phone awaiting call backs. The landlord’s records show that it was clear with the resident regarding the timescales involved for the repairs. It had agreed appointment times to attend repairs and kept reasonable notes of the conversations it had with the resident in December 2024 and January 2025. There is no evidence to show the landlord took more than 5 working days to respond to any of the resident’s calls.
10. The landlord appropriately addressed each of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property in its stage 1 response in January 2025. Its response was detailed, resolution focused and provided a clear plan to resolve the repairs as reported.
11. The landlord was fair in its assessment of her concerns and the condition of the property in its stage 2 response in February 2025. It provided a detailed summary of the actions it had taken to resolve the repairs. It fairly acknowledged delay in completing some repairs and explained where it had attempted to complete them within a reasonable timeframe. Its approach remained proactive and it offered further appointments to conduct the remaining repairs.

12. The landlord’s empty property standard states that it will treat damp before a resident moves in. It will visually check all walls for signs of damp and mould during the void inspection.
13. The records show that the landlord inspected the property before the resident moved in. There was no evidence of damp or mould recorded on the void inspection report. It was reasonable to sign the property as ready to let based on its inspection at the time.
14. The landlord promptly inspected the property again following the resident’s concerns that there was damp and mould present in December 2024. It followed up the inspection with a survey on 10 January 2025 which also found no evidence of damp in the property. It did record some surface level mould which it attributed to a lack of heating and appropriately scheduled a mould wash. This is a reasonable approach to a first report of damp and mould and complied with the landlord’s repair responsibilities.
15. The landlord appropriately summarised its actions in its stage 1 response in January 2025. Its assessment was fair and it showed that it had taken reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and take action to prevent risks to her. It was reasonable to ask the resident to monitor for any future evidence of damp and mould once she moved into the property.
16. The resident disputed each of the landlord’s findings in her request to escalate her complaint on 21 January 2025. She said there was damp and mould behind the toilet, along the skirting boards, and to the bathroom ceiling. The resident asked the landlord to conduct a further specialist survey. She highlighted her asthma and was concerned that damp or mould may have a serious impact on her health.
17. Although the landlord did not conduct a further survey of the property, it did show that it was taking her reports seriously. It fairly reflected on the advice and guidance given to it by specialist operatives in its stage 2 response in February 2025. It said that its surveyors had inspected the property and found no evidence of damp or mould caused by any structural defect. It had acted on her reports, treated the mould and used moisture resistant paint on the affected areas.

18. The resident was responsible for the use of gas and electricity once she took possession of the property in December 2024. There was no term within the tenancy agreement that required the landlord to be responsible for the use of utilities inside the property. Outside of any excessive use by the landlord or its contractors, it is reasonable to expect the resident to pay those costs.
19. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said its contractors would not use her plug sockets and instead relied on battery operated tools. It noted that any additional energy used while it tested the boiler would be minimal. It was reasonable not to provide compensation for any use of the utilities during these tests. The landlord offered to review the resident’s energy costs if she had some evidence that it had used a large amount of gas or electricity. This was a fair offer in the circumstances.

20. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaints within the timescales set out in its complaint handling policy. Its response at stage 1 was issued within 5 working days of her complaint and its stage 2 was issued within 13 working days of escalation.
21. Its responses were compliant with our Complaint Handling Code. It was fair and sought to resolve the substantive issues for the resident.