We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Incommunities Limited (202407805)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202407805

Incommunities Limited

29 August 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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which began in July 2017. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a 2-storey building. The landlord has noted a medical condition for the resident’s daughter.
  2. The resident made an online complaint to the landlord on 1 October 2023. She said:
    1. She had ongoing issues with damp and mould, which the landlord had failed to diagnose the root cause of.
    2. Although the landlord had carried out some treatment to the property, the situation had got worse.
    3. There was a section of guttering on the roof, which was missing, allowing rainwater to fall directly onto the ground, which she felt had caused rising damp in the property. While she had reported the guttering previously, the landlord had failed to act.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 October 2023. It said it had made recent changes to how it dealt with damp and mould. It also confirmed it had instructed its contractor to replace the guttering and check the soffit board to see if it contained asbestos.
  4. The resident’s daughter contacted the landlord on 22 December 2023 to say no repairs had been arranged and the situation was causing her mother some health concerns.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 January 2024. It offered compensation of £150, which included £100 for the inconvenience suffered and £50 for its complaint handling failures. It said:
    1. The resident had reported mould in March 2023. This was related to a leak in the bathroom. It had made a request in April 2023 for a damp inspection to be carried out. It had also carried out stain block treatment to the hallway.
    2. It had been contacted again on 9 July 2023 by the resident to report further mould, including to the skirting boards in the bathroom. The damp inspection was carried out the next day and recommended works were passed to its specialist damp contractor.
    3. The resident had chased up on 6 November 2023 and again on 12 December 2023 regarding the progress of the repairs set out in the landlord’s stage 1 response. It accepted it had not escalated the complaint in November 2023, but only did so following a call from the resident’s daughter on 22 December 2023.
    4. It had passed the gutter work to a different contractor, which carried out the works on 9 January 2024.
    5. The internal works, including the mould wash and painting, were carried out by its damp contractor between 24 and 25 January 2024. 
  6. The resident subsequently referred the complaint to the Ombudsman. She said:
    1. While the landlord had replaced the guttering, it had not tested the soffit boards for asbestos.
    2. The landlord’s stage 2 response said its contractor completed the internal works on that day. However, the contractor was unable to complete the work as the internal walls were still wet. The resident was informed that the contractor would return to complete this, but it did not do so.
    3. She wanted the landlord to carry out a survey of the property and prepare a list of works which needed to be carried out.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has informed this Service that she has encountered ongoing issues with the damp and mould following the end of the landlord’s complaint process in January 2024. This included concerns about her kitchen worktop, the architrave and skirting, and replacing blown tiles in the bathroom. In the interests of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised within the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. The resident may refer any new complaints to us for separate investigation if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.
  2. The resident has mentioned that her health has been impacted by the damp and mould in the property. The Ombudsman does not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns regarding her health. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that repairs are split into 3 categories depending on the urgency of the work. These are:
    1. Emergency, where the issue will be made safe within 24 hours.
    2. Routine, where the landlord will complete the repair within 20 working days. These are non-emergency repairs which do not pose an immediate risk to health and safety, or to the property. The landlord says it may prioritise repairs dependent on the individual circumstances of the resident.
    3. Unplanned major works, which are complex larger-scale repairs. The landlord will aim to complete these within 40 working days.
  2. The repairs policy confirms that the landlord’s responsibilities include maintaining the structure and surrounding areas of the property, ensuring they are in good repair. This includes the gutters and outside walls and doors.
  3. Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
  4. The landlord’s repair records, which provide limited information on each of the works raised, show that the resident contacted it on 8 February 2023 to report a leak in her bathroom. She reported a further issue where the leak was coming into the kitchen sink and worktop a week later. The landlord attended on 6 March 2023 for the first issue. This was reasonable as it was in keeping with the timescales for a routine repair. The repair notes noted the shower tray required resealing. They also show that the landlord did not attend to the kitchen for an inspection until 21 March 2023. While this was outside the timescales for a routine repair, the appointment was rearranged as the resident was unavailable when the original appointment was scheduled.
  5. The repair records from 10 March 2023 show that the resident reported the leak in the bathroom was ongoing and spreading to the connecting wall. Given this was 4 days after the landlord attended originally for the leak, this was an opportunity for it to reattend to ensure that the repairs it made were still holding. Despite this, there is no indication that the landlord arranged a visit at that time. It did, however, request in April 2023 that a damp survey was undertaken. This was appropriate for it to determine the cause of the leak as well as identifying the areas affected by it.
  6. The resident reported a further leak on 24 April 2023, which she said was affecting multiple different areas. The landlord’s repair records show that it attended on the next day, in line with the timescales for an emergency repair. This was appropriate, especially as the resident was concerned that the issue was affecting the health of her daughter. A schedule of works was drawn up which included the re-tiling the bathroom and also assessing the damage to the wall of the hall. The landlord’s records show the tiler carried out the work on 11 May 2023 and that a contractor was scheduled to attend on 15 May 2023 for the stain block, but the contractor was unable to access the property, so the job was cancelled. The job was rescheduled on the next day and the contractor attended on 16 June 2023, 22 working days later. This was slightly outside the timescales for a routine repair.
  7. The landlord’s records show that the contractor needed to carry out follow–up work following the appointment on 16 June 2023, and this took place on 19 June 2023, which was the next working day. This was appropriate to minimise the inconvenience caused to the resident. 
  8. The landlord has confirmed that the damp survey which it recommended in April 2023 did not take place until 10 July 2023. It has said that the delay was down to a backlog due to an increase in reporting to it. It added that, to combat this, it amended the way it dealt with damp (in February 2023) and a dedicated damp team dealt with day-to-day repairs. The landlord has provided an email from the individual who carried out the damp survey. This email, from 11 July 2023, included 8 photos and a brief schedule of works. The damp survey did not provide any breakdown of what the surveyor found when they attended the property. This is not as comprehensive as the reports the Ombudsman has observed in other cases. We have made a recommendation at the end of this report in this regard.
  9. While the surveyor set out proposed works, which the landlord passed this on to its damp contractor, it did not do this until 14 August 2023. This was more than a month after the damp inspection took place. The landlord has not been able to provide any explanation for this delay in passing the works to its contractor. The scheduled works were not carried out by the damp contractor until 24 January 2024, 5 months after the works were passed to it. Again, the landlord has provided no explanation for this. While the resident did request that the internal works were put on hold until after the guttering had been replaced, she did not say this until 7 January 2024, almost 4 months after the damp contractor was instructed to carry out the works. We therefore consider the delay unreasonable.
  10. The landlord has said that as there was a lack of communication from its damp contractor (to whom both the guttering and internal works were referred), it decided for the guttering to be passed to another contractor to carry out. Its internal correspondence shows that this request was made by it on 2 January 2024, following the complaint being escalated to stage 2. It noted in its stage 2 response that the guttering was replaced on 9 January 2024 by the new contractor. While the landlord has informed the Ombudsman that the contractor also tested the soffit for asbestos, this is not clear from the contractor’s notes once it completed the job. Given the issue of asbestos was a concern for both the resident and the landlord, the contractor should have ensured that it provided the details of any tests it carried out for the presence of asbestos.
  11. There was evidence of poor communication from the landlord about the steps it was taking to resolve the damp and mould. It failed to contact the resident after it had raised the damp survey in April 2023 to update her on when the inspection would be taking place. Following the inspection, the landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with evidence that it regularly updated the resident on the matter. The lack of communication would have caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience, and it led her to raise a complaint in October 2023. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to communicate effectively with the resident and manage her expectations.
  12. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the root cause of the damp and mould. It also did not set out in either of the formal responses details of the works it would be carrying out following the damp survey, which it had undertaken by this time. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to ensure it understood the cause of the damp and mould to provide appropriate advice and support to the resident, especially given the length of time that the issue had been occurring. This was not resolution focused.
  13. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The landlord’s record keeping was poor in respect of what work it had completed, and also when the work was completed. These failures in knowledge and information management caused delays in the works being carried out, and avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  14. Once the landlord completed repairs, it ought to have taken appropriate action to monitor the effectiveness of those repairs. Having an aftercare programme in place can help landlords to quickly identify when matters have not been resolved without residents having to report the problem again. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it reviewed the works it completed or confirmed whether it resolved the damp and mould issues in the property. The resident told the Ombudsman that the damp and mould had got worse and that the damp contractor did not complete the works as set out in the stage 2 response.
  15. In summary, there were delays in the landlord completing the recommended works from the damp and mould survey. There was also evidence of poor record keeping and communication. The landlord failed to discuss the root cause of the damp and mould with the resident, and it did not provide relevant support or guidance. There was evidence of a lack of sufficient learning by the landlord, and it failed to put things right.
  16. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the multiple failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Although it offered compensation of £100 in its stage 2 response, the offer was not proportionate to its failings. Instead, the Ombudsman considers an award of £400 to be appropriate. This award is in keeping with our remedies guidance for circumstances where the landlord acknowledged failings and made some attempts to put things right, but failed to fully address the detriment to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint process consists of 2 formal stages. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), its policy says it aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 in 10 working days and at stage 2 in 20 working days. The policy sets out that following receipt of a complaint it will send an acknowledgement within 2 working days. Following the stage 1 response, if the complainant remains dissatisfied, they can set out “the reasons why, what remains unresolved and what they are hoping for as an outcome”.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 1 response 2 days after the resident raised her complaint. While this was well within the timescales contained in its complaints policy, the landlord’s response did not fully address the resident’s concerns. The resident requested that the guttering was replaced, and noted that it had been broken for over a year. However, she also explained her concerns were about the ongoing issues with damp and mould, and that while damp seal treatment had been completed, the issue had got worse. The landlord’s response only dealt with the guttering and the soffit which were to be tested for asbestos. This was a failing by it not to address the internal issues the resident was facing with the damp and mould.
  3. Following the landlord’s stage 1 response on 3 October 2023, the resident contacted it on 5 November 2023 to chase up the works set out in the formal response. As the landlord did not respond, the resident contacted it again on 12 December 2023 for an update. Both contacts by the resident were an indication that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and should have been enough for it to escalate the complaint onto the next stage. Instead, the landlord did not raise a complaint until 22 December 2023, 34 days after the resident had originally contacted it for an update. Although the landlord realised shortly after setting up a new complaint that it should escalate the resident’s existing complaint to stage 2 instead, this was something it should have realised earlier. Clear record keeping is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlords’ services, including in relation to complaint handling. This has not always been the case here. These recording failures amount to a failing on the part of the landlord.
  4. The landlord has informed this Service it escalated the resident’s complaint on 28 December 2023 and that it informed the resident of this. It has not provided this Service with a copy of the acknowledgement. It did, however, provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days from that date. This would be in keeping with its complaints policy. While it did adhere to these timescales, the stage 2 response set out that the landlord had completed the internal decoration works on the same day, having already replaced the guttering. However, this is something the resident has disputed. She said that the landlord’s contractor did not carry out work on 25 January 2024 as the walls were still wet. Instead, she said that she was told the contractor would return to complete the work, but this did not happen. The landlord therefore did not use its complaints process as an effective tool to ensure resolution of the issues reported by the resident.
  5. The landlord offered £50 in its stage 2 response for its failure in not escalating the complaint sooner. Although the Ombudsman has noted this award, we consider it was not proportionate to the number and extent of its complaint handling failings. A finding of service failure has therefore been made. Instead, the Ombudsman considers an award of £100 to be appropriate. This award is in keeping with our remedies guidance for circumstances where the landlord acknowledged and made some attempts to put things right but failed to fully address the detriment to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within the next 4 weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its failings identified in this report.
    1. Pay the resident £500 compensation, from which it should deduct any compensation it may have already paid as part of its formal responses. The £500 comprises:
      1. £400 for its handling of her reports of damp and mould.
      2. £100 for its handling of her complaint.
    2. Carry out a survey of the property. Following this survey the landlord should provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of the survey report and a timebound schedule of any works identified.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should ensure that, when it carries out damp surveys, it provides a comprehensive report setting out details of issues found, with evidence, in the event it needs to be shared to third parties.