Midland Heart Limited (202502748)

Background

1. The property is a mid-terraced house. The resident initially reported damp in January 2022. She initiated the pre-action protocol for housing condition claims via a solicitor in January 2023, and reported further problems in June 2024 before raising a complaint in July 2024. She said that the damp and mould was impacting her children’s health.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. There has been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. We found:
   1. The landlord failed to diagnose the damp from the outset and did not complete recommended repairs within a reasonable timescale following the complaint, or explain why it would not do so. Its offer of compensation for this aspect of the complaint was not sufficient.
   2. The landlord offered compensation that was proportionate to put right the impact of complaint handling delays, but did not explain the reason for this offer, and failed to address each aspect of the resident’s complaint.

 Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

What we are not looking at

6. The resident told us that the damp and mould in the property affected her children’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. The landlord has not disputed that the resident began to report damp from 2022. She initiated the pre-action protocol for housing disrepair claims via a solicitor in January 2023. However, we have not seen evidence that she pursued this following several no access appointments in July 2023 or that she reported the matter in the year prior to June 2024. Our investigation focuses on events from this point. We have referenced events prior to this for context only.

What we found and why

8. It was resolution focused for the landlord to recognise through its complaint responses that the resident reported damp and mould from 2022 and that it had not previously diagnosed the root cause, or offered a permanent solution.
9. The landlord’s records from 20 June 2024 indicate that the resident reported mould growth on the rear door and around the kitchen windows. We have not seen evidence to show that she raised concerns about the bedroom at the time. Nevertheless, it was reasonable for the landlord to apologise in its complaint response that the bedroom was missed during the initial treatment on 1 July 2024. It subsequently completed the bedroom treatment on 16 July 2024 which was within an appropriate timeframe of a further report on 8 July 2024. This was in line with its damp and mould policy which says that it aims to complete treatments within 28 days of a report.
10. While it was reasonable for the landlord to treat the mould to remove potentially harmful mould spores, its damp and mould policy specifies that it should do a property condition report and assess the damp. We would expect a landlord to diagnose the cause of the problem alongside any treatment so that it can take steps to stop the mould from returning. There is no evidence to show it did so, which was a failing.
11. While the landlord did not dispute that it had not found the root cause of the damp and mould or offered a permanent solution, it has not demonstrated that it sought to resolve this at the time of the stage 1 complaint on 29 July 2024. It said it completed a survey on 26 July 2024 where it found no building defects, and that the property was safe and habitable. It has not been able to provide us with evidence of this survey, and has since explained to us that this did not take place. Its repair logs show that it arranged another appointment for returning damp and mould in the bedrooms on this date, but it has not provided evidence to show the outcome. This indicates that its stage 1 complaint response was incorrect. It is unclear, given the lack of survey, how the landlord established that the property was free from defects or safe for the resident and her family to live in at the time.
12. The landlord also raised a repair to investigate the gutter. The resident reported this was leaking into the bedroom and staining the ceiling on 29 July 2024. However, it cancelled this and it remains unclear why. It did not comment on this further within its complaint responses which meant it did not fully address her concerns.
13. The landlord has not provided evidence to support that it attempted to diagnose the cause of the damp or mould until 23 September 2024, when it completed a survey following the resident’s escalation request on 2 August 2024. She needed to spend additional time and trouble asking the landlord to investigate the extractor fans, walls, air vents, and windows. The landlord had the opportunity to avoid additional inconvenience caused to the resident by doing this from the outset.
14. The survey on 23 September 2024 found:
    1. The property did not have any visible mould but had higher moisture levels than expected.
    2. The gutter over a bay window was leaking, and the gutters to the roof were out of line and spilling over.
    3. The living room window was letting water in through the windowsill which was causing damp at a low level.
    4. The chimneys were not capped. The chimney breast was damp at a low level and did not have a vent. A vent to the other chimney breast was blocked.
    5. The ducting to the kitchen extractor fan was non-compliant, and the fan was ineffective. The extractor fan in the bathroom was also ineffective.
    6. The resident was drying clothes on a clothes rack in one room and the surveyor recommended moving these to another room and opening a window for ventilation.
15. The landlord raised works on 23 September 2024. It aims to complete routine repairs within 28 days and major repairs, including structural work, within 90 days. At the time of its complaint response on 30 October 2024, it had been aware of the repairs needed for over a month. While the gutter and chimney repairs may have needed additional planning, it was unreasonable that it did not schedule these in by that point.
16. The resident raised concern that the property was not suitable for her family to live in due to the damp and mould. We note that the landlord said the property had always been safe and habitable, and surveyors did not report any concerns about whether the property was suitable for her family. While it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to reassure the resident, it had not completed a survey at the time of its stage 1 complaint response on 29 July 2024 and there is no evidence to show that it had assessed the risk to the resident or her family.
17. It acted appropriately by removing potentially harmful mould spores on 1 and 16 July 2024, and did not find any visible mould at the time of the inspection on 23 September 2024. The survey did not identify any other factors that would suggest the property was not habitable. However, given the resident’s concerns about the impact of the damp on her and her young children’s health, we would have expected to see more urgency in the landlord’s attempt to resolve potential causes of damp.
18. In its information submissions to us, the landlord explained that there was a breakdown between it and its contractors following the complaint. It reported completing non-electrical work on 24 January 2025, checking the fans on 19 February 2025 (with no issues found) and replacing a vent on 14 March 2025. While the landlord may not have been able to foresee the breakdown between it and its contractor, the delay in progressing work was likely to cause inconvenience to the resident. We have not seen evidence to support that it communicated effectively with her.
19. Despite the above reports that it had completed repairs, a post inspection on 22 April 2025 found the landlord had not completed the work in full, or to a reasonable standard. The report specified that it had not fitted chimney cowls, realigned or repaired the gutter, sealed the external parts of a window changed a vent in the front living room, and checked the ducting to the extractor fans was compliant. It noted that it had changed the vent in the other living room, but the aperture was not the correct size. Despite this evidence that works were incomplete, the landlord has advised that it did not complete any further repairs. This demonstrates that it failed to suitably monitor the works through to completion.
20. The landlord has provided us with an independent surveyor’s report completed on 3 September 2025 (following an inspection on 28 August 2025). This found that there was no visible mould growth, signs of damp, or deterioration to the decorations. However, the chimneys did not have cowls, there were elevated damp readings to the walls around the rear door in the kitchen, a chimney breast in the rear living room required further investigation, there were several gutter defects and the kitchen extractor fan discharged through an airbrick rather than a ducted terminal.
21. The survey recommended that the bathroom extractor fans grille was changed, but found that both fans had suitable airflow.  Thermal imaging also found possible issues around the chimney breast in the rear living room and risks of thermal bridging or routes for water ingress around the front and rear door, and where the porch connected in the front living room.
22. We have not seen evidence to show that the resident was significantly impacted by the delay in the landlord completing the required work to the property, as the more recent independent survey noted that there was no visible mould growth or signs of damp. However, the landlord failed to progress works it committed to despite the resident’s concerns about the impact of damp on her children’s health and that the damp would return. In view of the comments made in the recent survey regarding issues that could contribute to the spread of damp over time, we have included an order for the landlord to confirm what action it intends to take moving forward.
23. The landlord’s offer of £495 compensation within its October 2024 stage 2 complaint response went some way to put right the impact of its failures at the time. However, it committed to completing repairs, and did not do so within a reasonable timeframe after the complaint. Despite being aware of repairs that could contribute to damp and mould from 23 September 2024, it has not demonstrated that it acted in line with survey reports and recommendations. Some actions were still outstanding a year later. The additional delays following its stage 2 complaint response warrant further financial compensation given the likely adverse impact on the resident over this period and we have made orders for the landlord to put things right. We have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £105 compensation, bringing the total for this aspect of the complaint to £600, which is in line with our remedies guidance.

24. The landlord’s complaints procedure is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 29 July 2024, which was appropriately within 10 working days of her complaint.
25. The resident initially said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response on 2 August 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request until 23 August 2024 (15 working days later). It then asked for an extension to its timeframes on 29 August 2024 and said it aimed to respond by 27 September 2024. It did not meet this deadline, and we have not seen evidence that it communicated with the resident about when it would provide its response. It responded at stage 2 on 30 October 2024, which was 63 working days later. This was significantly outside of its complaint handling timescales.
26. The landlord offered £75 compensation within its stage 2 complaint response for poor communication from its Customer Experience team. We understand that the Customer Experience team is responsible for handling complaints. The level of compensation is proportionate to put right the adverse impact of the delay in responding at stage 2. However, the landlord could have done more in its response to explain what its failings were and the reason for this offer.
27. In her complaint and escalation, the resident also asked the landlord to install a shower and mixer tap in the bathroom, replace the windows, replace the rear door and move her to a different property. She also referenced mice in the property. While the landlord said it would not move the resident, and encouraged her to look at her options, it could have done more to explain the available housing options and offer more support. In addition, it would have been appropriate for it to respond to her other requests, and asked for more information about the pest report. The landlord’s failure to address each aspect of the complaint, or explain why it had offered compensation amounts to a service failure. We have ordered it to pay an additional £5-0 compensation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord was not able to provide evidence to support the comments made in its complaint responses. It should ensure it keeps adequate records and is able to support any findings with relevant evidence. This is to make sure its complaint responses are accurate, and that it is able to provide this to the Ombudsman as part of our investigations.

Communication and complaint handling

29. The landlord recognised communication failings but could have done more to recognise specific failings in its responses to the complaint, and address each aspect of the complaint. It should consider actions it can take to ensure that residents are given clear information about the status of their complaint and how it monitors agreed actions through to completion.