Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202325475)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325475

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

30 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 responses to the resident’s:
1. reports of damp, mould, and insect infestation.
2. associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has lived in the 2-bedroom, ground floor flat with her child since January 2023.
On 22 March 2023, the resident first reported that there were lots of different types of insects (including silverfish and woodlice) in her kitchen, bathroom, and bedrooms. Between April and June 2023, the landlord’s pest contractor attended several times to apply insecticide, fill potential entry points, and to check that the issue was resolved. A few months later, the landlord raised an instruction to inspect for damp and mould. This was because the resident had reported that she believed the presence of the insects was caused by an underlying damp problem. She also said the walls were wet and her wallpaper was peeling.
The resident complained on 26 October 2023 that:
1. when she moved into the property it was not clean because there were dead insects in the kitchen cupboard.
2. it took months for the landlord to respond to her reports of the infestation.
3. her walls were wet, there was mould growing on her taps, and she believed the reoccurring insect problem was caused by damp and mould.
4. the landlord failed to turn up for 2 scheduled inspections and she had not been able to rearrange these because she had no leave left.

She said her living situation was causing her stress, she was concerned it was making her child ill, and that it was impacting her mental health.

On 4 December 2023, the landlord sent a stage 1 response stating that:
1. its properties were always cleaned before a new tenant moves in and had this not been the case it would have been noted at the pre inspection.
2. its pest contractor applied treatment and the resident later confirmed she had not seen any insects.
3. a damp and mould inspection had found no evidence of mould on the taps.
4. it had arranged a further inspection as part of the stage 1 investigation but had not been able to complete this because the resident was not at home for the scheduled appointment.

The landlord encouraged the resident to rearrange the inspection. It did not address the resident’s complaint about missed appointments.

Following contact with our Service, we asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint on 5 January 2024 because she was unhappy with its response.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 15 February 2024. It said it had attempted to inspect the property together with its pest contractor but the resident had not responded to requests to schedule the appointment. The landlord reiterated its position that the infestation was treated. It also reconfirmed it had not found evidence of a damp and mould problem. It said it had taken appropriate action in advising the resident to air the property and had arranged for fans to be installed in the bathroom and kitchen. The landlord advised that the records showed that it did not miss any appointments. It concluded there was therefore no evidence of any failings.
In late September 2024, the resident complained a second time. She said she was still experiencing an infestation. She reported a worsening of the damp problem because mould was now affecting her belongings. The resident said the landlord had missed 3 appointments. She also said her child’s health had been affected, she was “anxious”, and that she no longer had annual leave to allow appointments. She asked to be transferred to a different property.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the second complaint on 10 October 2024. It said it had inspected again and found the moisture levels were as expected. It also said it raised some repairs, including replacing sealant around windows and installing a kitchen fan, and the resident was advised to open her windows to allow air to circulate. The landlord advised that it saw white marks inside some furniture but it was unable to determine if it was mould. The landlord apologised that 3 appointments had been missed and awarded £60 compensation (at £20 per incident). It said the resident did not meet its criteria for a move because the property was not overcrowded or under occupied.
On the same day, the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said the landlord had not inspected thoroughly, she did air the property, and that her neighbour was experiencing the same issues. She provided the landlord with photographs and said the reason no insects or mould were found at the time of the inspection was because she cleaned her home.
In its stage 2 response, from 19 November 2024, the landlord said it had attempted to arrange a further inspection with the resident but she had not engaged with it or its contractors. It said it had found that her complaints about the damp and mould investigation had been addressed appropriately. And that there was no evidence of an ongoing infestation. The landlord encouraged the resident to respond to its offers to reinspect.
The resident contacted us in late June 2025 because she said she had been living with an ongoing damp and mould problem for 3 years. She said she believed the landlord had not identified the underlying issue and was only concerned with “temporary fixes”. The resident told us she was concerned her living conditions were unsafe and she felt unable to live in the property. She asked us to help get her rehoused. The landlord advised us in August 2025 that it had reviewed the evidence and found it had delayed in installing the kitchen fan. It awarded the resident a further £375 (£435 in total) compensation, made up of:
1. £250 for the delay in installing the fan.
2. £100 for the inconvenience caused.
3. £25 for its first stage 1 response being delayed without updating her.

A further damp and mould inspection was undertaken in late July 2025 at which no insects or evidence of a damp problem was recorded as being found.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The remedies that the Ombudsman make are aimed at putting the resident back in the position they would have been, as reasonably possible, had the failing not occurred. These include, but are not limited to, ordering a landlord to pay compensation, undertake works, or review and/or update its policies. Where we determine a failing in this case, we may order the landlord takes a specific action, as outlined above, that is aimed at putting things right for the resident.

Response to damp reports in 2023

The landlord raised an instruction to inspect the resident’s property for damp on 25 September 2023. It is unclear which report in particular this was in response to. However, according to the landlord’s damp and mould policy, when a tenant reports a problem it will:
1. triage the case based on the level of risk and respond within:
  1. 20 working days for those rated as category 1 and 2 cases where there is a small amount of mould and it affects a kitchen or bathroom.
  2. 10 working days for category 3 cases where the problem is “severe”, there are vulnerable tenants, and where a bedroom or living room are affected.
2. complete an inspection using specialist equipment to identify damp.
3. explain why any works are required and/or provide information about changes that can be made to reduce damp or treat mould.
4. monitor open cases through to completion.
The first inspection took place on 1 November 2023. This was a few days after the resident had complained that the insect problem was caused by an underlying damp issue. It is not documented what category the landlord considered the resident’s case fell under, which is a deviation from the policy. The landlord though, in any event, exceeded both timescales because it took 26 working days to inspect. This was partly because it failed to attend a scheduled appointment on 3 October 2023. The records also show that the resident asked to reschedule an appointment that had been booked for 10 October 2023. The landlord then had difficulty rearranging the appointment. As such, some of the delay was outside of its control.
The damp and mould policy states the landlord will look to “comprehensively” diagnose the cause. It will also “take responsibility” and not “blame” tenants for how they live. The records confirm that the inspector recorded finding no reading for damp on the walls or visual signs of mould but noted that the wallpaper was peeling. As confirmed in the landlord’s initial response from early December 2023, it raised works to improve ventilation and advised the resident about ways she could help reduce moisture. We are satisfied the evidence shows the landlord reasonably followed its policy to diagnose the cause the most likely cause of the problem. It then took appropriate actions in identifying repairs. It was also reasonable to advise the resident about practical changes she could make to reduce condensation.
In her initial complaint, the resident said she had a woodlice problem which had not been resolved by the trap put down by the landlord’s pest contractor. It is undisputed that the resident had previously advised its contractor that the insect problem was resolved. The landlord’s repair policy states that tenants are responsible for pest problems. It is only usually responsible for pest control in communal areas. As such, the landlord’s decision to appoint its pest contractor was discretionary. It was also reasonable in this case given the extent of the reported problem, particularly in the resident’s report, made via this Service in January 2024, that she was seeing insects in every room. The landlord was responsible for repairing any defects or faults that caused a pest problem. It was appropriate then for it to investigate the resident’s reports further.
We are satisfied the evidence shows the landlord made reasonable attempts to investigate this issue. The records support the landlord’s account that it tried to arrange a joint inspection with the pest contractor before issuing the stage 2 response in February 2024. It also advised in its response that it could offer an out of hours appointment. This was reasonable given the resident had informed the landlord that she was unable to take annual leave. The repair logs also show that this joint inspection did not go ahead because the resident did not respond to it after the first complaint process ended.
The landlord took some appropriate actions in response to the resident’s initial reports of a damp problem. It inspected the property and identified that increased ventilation could resolve the concerns reported by the resident. To resolve this, it replaced the bathroom fan and did so within the 15 working day repair timescale it allocated. However, it failed to attend a scheduled appointment which contributed to the inspection being delayed. It also failed to raise an instruction to install the kitchen fan.

Response to damp reports in 2024

In August 2024, the resident contacted the landlord because she said the insect problem had reoccurred. She also said some of her belongings in her bedroom were mouldy. She asked if she could be moved to another property because she believed her child’s health was being affected. This should have been dealt with under the landlord’s category 3 timescale of 10 working days because of the vulnerabilities in the household and as the bedroom was affected.
The landlord inspected the property on 27 September 2024. This was 14 working days over the category 3 timescale, which was a failing. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to attend a scheduled appointment on 11 September 2024. This would have contributed to the delay in the inspection. It also acknowledged its earlier failing to attend an appointment on 3 October 2023. It awarded compensation in line with its policy at the time at £20 per failed appointment. The landlord did though mistakenly take accountability for the appointment the resident rescheduled in 2023. It has then paid more compensation of £60 for the 2 missed appointments (the one in 2023 in September 2024) than its policy states it was required to.
The resident complained in late September 2024 that she believed there was an underlying damp problem causing an infestation and mould in several rooms. As the resident was not present at the damp and mould inspection, the landlord’s initial response was an opportunity to confirm and explain its findings to her.
We find that the landlord did explain some of the findings in its October 2024 response, such as the walls being dry and there being no signs of insects. It confirmed that repairs to sealant around 2 windows were needed. It also explained to a reasonable extent that the property needed more or better ventilation, both from installing a kitchen fan and the resident opening windows. However, it again missed an opportunity to recognise its earlier failure to install a kitchen fan. The landlord should also have considered what more it could do to establish if the resident’s belongings were affected by mould. Its response was not in line with its damp and mould policy to “comprehensively” diagnose issues.
In her escalation the resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response because she had photographic evidence of the mould and insect problems. She said she believed there was potentially a leak from under the floor because her carpets smelled musty. The landlord advised in its final response from mid-November 2024 that it was satisfied it had investigated and responded appropriately to her concerns. It said it would though carry out a further inspection, including of the carpets, when the resident was home. While the landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of its inspector, it was reasonable for it to reinspect because the resident had, according to the available records, reported a new issue with her carpets. The landlord therefore responded to the resident’s complaint, in part, appropriately. However, it missed an opportunity to identify its earlier failure to replace the kitchen fan and to then take steps to put things right.

Action after the complaint

The landlord’s damp and mould policy require that all actions be monitored through to completion. The evidence shows that it carried out a further inspection on 22 January 2025, which was scheduled around the resident’s availability. According to the findings, the floors, walls, and belongings were tested and were found to be dry. The inspector recorded that the resident had not mentioned any recent problems with insects.
The repair logs also show that the ventilation specialist completed a survey on 27 January 2025. This stated that there was no mould witnessed but there was condensation visible on the windows. It is apparent from the records that the landlord came to the same conclusion that condensation was causing some of the issues the resident had reported. We recognise the resident disagrees with this finding, but we are satisfied the evidence shows the landlord has robustly investigated the resident’s reports.
The windows were repaired on 30 January 2025. While this was outside the landlord’s routine repair timescale of 15 working days, the repair logs show this was for reasons outside of its control. We therefore do not consider there had been a failing here.
The kitchen fan was installed on 27 June 2025, around 5 months after the ventilation survey. The records show some of the time this took was reasonable because the fan needed to be installed in a windowpane. Therefore, the landlord had to then measure to replace the kitchen window and coordinate the work to be completed at the same time. It is not, however, evident that the landlord was doing everything it reasonably could to progress the work. For example, there was 3 months between the survey and it raising an order to measure for the window. This is a failing that contributed to the overall delay in installing the kitchen fan.

Conclusion

We are satisfied the evidence shows the landlord investigated the resident’s reports of a damp problem. It also took some appropriate actions outlined in its damp and mould policy when responding to the resident’s concerns. It took accountability for missed appointments and awarded compensation in line with its policy. However, the landlord failed to raise an order to install the fan in 2023. That it took 18 months to complete this repair was clearly a failing that the landlord missed an opportunity to put right through the complaints process. In view of this, we have made a finding of maladministration.
Installing the fan may have helped improve the living situation for the resident, alongside the other repairs and advice to air the property. The landlord wrote to the resident apologising for its oversight on 1 August 2025. It also awarded £250 compensation for the delay and £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused. This amount was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for failings that have caused “a moderate degree of inconvenience. The total compensation of £410 is, in our view, proportionate to the cumulative impacts of the failings on the resident. It is both in line with the levels its compensation policy and our guidance on remedies. As such we have not ordered that it pays further compensation. However, this compensation could and should reasonably have been offered sooner. That it was not was a failing and a missed opportunity by the landlord, which we have assessed further below.

Associated complaint

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time the resident complained adhered to the timescales and principles of the Code. As such it was required to acknowledge and summarise the aspects of a complaint within 5 working days at both stages. It must then respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. However, both the complaints policy allowed for extensions to timescales at each stage where needed of up to 10 working days.
In this case, the landlord exceeded all the standard timescales at every stage other than its second stage 1 response. We have seen that it followed the right process in advising the resident that it needed more time for its initial response in 2023 and for its second stage 2 response in 2024. It then responded within the extended timescales. However, it updated the resident after the 10-working day timescale had passed, which was inappropriate. There is also no evidence, that we have seen, that it advised her of the extension at stage 2 of the same complaint. This was a further failing that the landlord did not recognise in the complaints process. While true, the records show that the landlord was contacting the resident either about its need to clarify issues with her and/or its offer to reinspect. So, she was being updated about what was happening, which would have reduced the impact on her of it not always following its process.
The Code requires a landlord at each stage to “consider all relevant information and evidence carefully.” It also must address all aspects of a complaint. The complaint responses largely met these standards. They show the landlord did consider some relevant records and addressed most of the issues the resident raised. Where it fell short was that the first stage 1 response overlooked her complaint about missed appointments. While the landlord did then cover this issue, it did not take accountability for it not attending in October 2023. It also incorrectly said in this same response that the kitchen fan had been installed. The landlord then missed opportunities to identify its failure when investigating the second complaint. Therefore, the quality of the landlord’s investigation and its responses did not meet the appropriate standards.
We acknowledge the landlord apologised and awarded £25 compensation for the failing in its initial response. However, this was after the complaints process ended and only in response to our request for evidence. We have also found further failings that it has not. Therefore, we have found maladministration and have ordered it to take actions to put the impact right and take learning.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a damp, mould, and insect infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord must provide evidence to this Service showing it has:
1. apologised for the complaint handling failings identified in this report.
2. paid compensation of £510, made up of:
  1. £410 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its response to the reports of a damp, mould, and insect problem.
  2. £100 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.

The landlord should deduct any compensation it paid prior to this investigation.

given training to complaint handling staff on the requirements of the Code, particularly in considering relevant evidence, unless it can show it has already done so within the last 6 months.