Together Housing Association Limited (202506930)

Background

1. The resident has a number of physical disabilities and mental health issues which the landlord is aware of. She reported concerns to the landlord about a possible leak causing damp and mould and the solar panels not working.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
   1. A leak and lack of ventilation leading to damp and mould.
   2. Solar panels not functioning.
   3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response toa leak and lack of ventilation leading to damp and mould.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the solar panels not functioning.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

6. The landlord treated the mould in the property. However, it did not take action to identify the cause of the damp and mould, or carry out a repair that was required in the loft during the internal complaints procedure. It took too long to resolve the issues and failed to act in line with the timeframes set out in its policies.

Solar panels

7. The landlord failed to respond in line with its repairs policy in respect of the resident’s concern about the solar panels not working. It did not acknowledge this failure in its complaint responses or put things right following the failure.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord’s complaint responses took longer than the timeframes given in its complaints policy. However, the landlord kept the resident updated about the additional time it needed and the reasons for this. It offered compensation to acknowledge the inconvenience caused. The amount of compensation offered was proportionate to its complaint handling failures and was in line with our remedies guidance.

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.

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.

What we have not investigated

9. The resident told the landlord that there had been damp and mould for around 5 years and the PIV unit had not worked during this time. In her contact with us she said the issues had been ongoing since 2012. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. There is no evidence that the resident raised these issues with the landlord before December 2023. We have not seen evidence that she was prevented from raising the issues sooner. As such, in line with our scheme, we have not investigated events before December 2023.
10. The resident believes that the damp and mould affected her health and caused the death of her dog. We do not investigate complaints where it would be fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through a court. In this case, we cannot make a determination as to whether the damp and mould impacted the resident’s health or caused the death of her dog. These are matters only a court has the authority to decide upon. For these reasons, we have not investigated the resident’s concerns about damp and mould affecting her health or causing the death of her dog.

What we have investigated

11. The resident did not make a complaint to the landlord until February 2025. However, the landlord considered matters further back than 12 months from when the complaint was made. As such, we have used our discretion and have investigated the same timescales used by the landlord and our investigation covers relevant events from December 2023 onwards.
12. The resident reported a leak in the loft and mould within the property on 21 December 2023. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it will attend at a mutually convenient time following reports or damp and mould and any repairs will be done in line with its repairs policy.
13. Our investigation of the evidence shows the landlord was initially responsive to the resident’s concerns. It attended the property on at least 3 occasions to try to inspect and carry out mould washes between 3 and 31 January 2024. However, it could not gain access on any of these occasions, despite having left appointment cards advising of the rearranged appointment dates.
14. The landlord tried to inspect the roof to identify a possible cause of the leak in February and April 2024. However, due to adverse weather on both occasions, it was unable to do so. It subsequently inspected the roof on 13 May 2024. It found the tiles were in good condition. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the finding that there were no roof repairs needed when it decided the roof was not the source of the leak.
15. After having found no issue with the roof, in order to investigate further, the landlord arranged a damp and mould inspection for 1 June 2024. This did not go ahead as it was cancelled by the resident due to illness.
16. Following this cancelled inspection, we have not been provided with any evidence that the landlord tried to rearrange the appointment within a reasonable time. The evidence shows the landlord did not carry out a damp and mould inspection until 26 November 2024. This was around 11 months after the resident initially reported damp and mould and a leak.
17. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will compete routine repairs within 28 days and bespoke repairs within 63 days. As such, the time taken to carry out this inspection, despite some legitimate delays, was not reasonable.
18. The evidence shows that the landlord had experienced a number of difficulties with accessing the property. However, we have not been provided with evidence that it tried to discuss this with the resident to understand the reasons, or if there were ways it could support her to enable access. This was a missed opportunity to understand the possible barriers to gain access going ahead and to support the resident.
19. The inspection found mould in the bedroom and bathroom and that the loft was “very damp”. The landlord carried out mould treatment on 26 November and 4 December 2024. It also attended to assess the ventilation of the property on 17 December 2024, but could not gain access.
20. It carried out further mould treatment on 15 January 2025 and advised the resident how to manage condensation. Its actions to treat the mould and provide information on how to reduce condensation was in line with the steps it can take as set out in its damp and mould policy.
21. Although the landlord appropriately treated the mould and advised the resident how to manage it, it did not take steps to investigate the cause of the confirmed damp in the loft. This was not appropriate given the length of time since the resident’s initial report, the health concerns she had raised and her vulnerabilities. It was also not in line with the damp and mould policy, which says it will investigate the cause of damp.
22. The resident told the landlord within her complaint on 27 February 2025 that the PIV unit was not working. Despite this, within its stage 1 response, the landlord did not set out the action it would take. Instead it said the resident had not raised this repair issue before. Although this may have been the case, the landlord missed an opportunity to inspect and ascertain if this was a potential cause of the damp.
23. Within its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that it had not attended soon enough in respect of the damp and mould on 6 occasions. It offered £180 compensation for this failing. Although the landlord did not specify the occasions it was referring to, it was appropriate for it to acknowledge its failures. It noted that it had seen photographs which showed that the mould treatment had been effective. However, it again failed to address the outstanding issue of the damp in the loft.
24. Following the resident’s request to escalate the complaint, the landlord attended the property on 23 May 2025. It noted the PIV unit was not working and there was no bathroom extractor fan. It did not find any mould, however, it did identify a possible leak from the roof into the loft.
25. The landlord arranged for the roof to be inspected on 9 June 2025. This was around 7 months after the landlord had identified, in November 2024, that the loft was damp. The timeframe to arrange an inspection was not reasonable. We have not been provided with evidence of the outcome of this inspection from the landlord. However, the resident told us that the landlord had duct-taped over the roof vent.
26. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had arranged to for a contractor to attend on 11 June 2025. They would inspect the PIV unit and consider whether they could install a bathroom extractor fan. This was around 4 months after the resident had first reported that the PIV unit was not working.
27. This timeframe was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy which says it will complete routine repairs within 28 days. We note that after the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the landlord replaced the PIV unit. It told the resident it would not install a bathroom extractor fan as this could counteract the effectiveness of the PIV unit. The landlord’s explanation for its decision was reasonable in light of the advice of its contractor.
28. The landlord acknowledged it should have considered improving ventilation to reduce condensation sooner. The delay was amongst the key failings we identified which also included:
    1. It failed to respond in a reasonable timeframe to the confirmed damp in the loft and in respect of the PIV unit.
    2. It did not try to understand the reason for the difficulties in access.
    3. There is no evidence that the landlord considered a safeguarding referral following the resident saying she felt suicidal.
29. Our investigation has identified some of the landlord’s actions as part of its handling of the matter were appropriate. These are as follows:
    1. It carried out a series of mould treatments which it found were effective.
    2. The landlord signposted the resident to its insurer, legal advice and support services.
    3. It explained the changes it had made to the way it responded to damp and mould reports and the learning it had taken from the case.
    4. It offered a goodwill payment towards a new bed despite liability for this not being established.
30. When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
31. During its internal complaints procedure the landlord offered a total of £580 compensation for its handling of the damp, mould and ventilation issues. This included £200 towards a replacement bed. As such, the remaining £380 compensation was to acknowledge the effect of its failures on the resident .
32. Although the landlord’s offer of compensation went some way to put things right, we have identified additional failures as above. These were not acknowledged by the landlord. As such, its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings in the case, particularly in light of the delays and the added impact caused due to the resident’s vulnerabilities. The failures in this case amount to maladministration.
33. To acknowledge the effect on the resident of the landlord’s failures we have ordered an additional £300. This brings the total compensation for the substantive matter to £880. This is within a range recommended by our remedies guidance where there were failures which had a significant physical or emotional impact on a resident.

34. The resident reported on 21 December 2023 that the solar panels were not working. We have not been provided with any evidence of any action the landlord took at the time.
35. From the evidence we have been provided, the resident did not raise an issue with the solar panels again until she escalated her complaint on 4 April 2025. Although the landlord attended the property following her complaint this, its contractor was not suitably qualified to inspect the solar panels. It told the resident it had referred this matter to its specialist team.
36. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge in its complaint response that there had been issues with the solar panels since 2023. Given the length of time the issue had been ongoing, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to have acknowledged the impact of having no functioning panels for a prolonged period and that it would demonstrate a sense of urgency to fix the problem going forward.
37. Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, a specialist team tried to attend on a number of occasions but could not gain access. The landlord told us that despite the issue being outstanding, it would not seek enforcement action against the tenancy in order to gain access to carry out the works. This was because the solar panels, whilst beneficial to the resident, were not required for her safe occupation of the property. This approach was reasonable in the circumstances.
38. Our review of the evidence has found that the landlord did not identify any failures in how it responded to the resident’s concern about the solar panels. The evidence shows it did not follow its repairs policy when it responded to the resident’s initial concern. This failure amounts to maladministration.
39. To acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure we have ordered £200 compensation. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance in cases where a landlord did not acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.

40. The landlord’s complaints policy says at stage 1, it aims to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It then aims to respond at stage 1 in 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to respond in 20 working days. If more time is needed it will keep the resident informed.
41. The landlord took longer than its stated timeframes to respond at both stages of its complaints procedure. However, it kept the resident informed and explained why it needed more time. It provided both of its complaint responses in line with the extended timeframes.
42. To acknowledge the complaint handing delays it offered £50 compensation. This amount was within a range recommended by our remedies guidance where there was distress and inconvenience caused by delays. As such, the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to the failings identified and put things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

43. We have not identified any issues with the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord demonstrated it maintained detailed records which included the dates and times it could not gain access to the property. We recommend the landlord considers our Spotlight Report: Repairing Trust 2023 with a view to learning and improving its service offer around gaining access to conduct repairs.

Communication

44. We have not identified any issues with the landlord’s communication. The landlord has outlined improvements and leaning taken from this case in respect of its response and communication with resident’s following reports of damp and mould.