Home Group Limited (202503967)

Background

1. The resident lives in a house. A partition wall separates his bathroom and toilet. He reported damp and mould in his bathroom to the landlord. The resident was unhappy with the actions the landlord had taken to treat the damp and mould, including its decision not to consider the partition wall as part of the ongoing issue.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to damp and mould

5. The landlord’s approach to responding to the damp and mould has been reactive instead of proactive. It has treated the issues but failed to identify the cause. It has not responded to the resident’s concerns that the partition wall is contributing to the damp and mould.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord provided incorrect information to the resident that he needed to raise a new stage 1 complaint when issues raised could have been considered at stage 2. This prolonged 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.

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.

7. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report of damp and mould on 5 December 2023 was in line with its damp and mould policy. It contacted him within 24 hours to arrange an inspection. It completed the inspection on 8 December 2023. It then completed a mould wash within the 28 calendar days allowed by its repairs policy. It also identified that his bathroom extractor fan was faulty. It marked that repair as complete but did not record what actions it had taken. It did not arrange a post inspection following those repairs. This was not in line with its damp and mould policy.
8. The resident contacted the landlord on 29 February 2024. He said the landlord had told him it would order parts to repair his extractor fan, but he had not heard anything since. The landlord completed a mould wash on 8 March 2024 and a follow-on damp and mould inspection on 20 March 2024. Following that inspection it raised jobs to repair the extractor fan, top up the insulation above the bathroom and reskim the plaster on the bathroom ceiling. It did not complete these repairs by the 1 May 2024 target date it set itself. It completed the works between 12 May and 14 June 2024. It did not show it was in regular contact with the resident to keep him updated during the delay. The landlord’s actions did not show the resident that it was taking the matter seriously.
9. The resident reported damp and mould had returned on 6 August 2024. The landlord checked its system and found that although it had completed a repair to the bathroom fan there was still a job outstanding. It completed that repair to the external brickwork to improve the effectiveness of the extractor fan on 5 September 2024. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 September 2024 to chase up a mould wash he said it had assured him it would complete. The landlord did not respond to that email. Again, its lack of communication did not show it was taking the damp and mould seriously.
10. When the resident chased up the mould wash on 24 September 2024 the landlord acted promptly to complete that action 6 days later. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 November 2024 and reported that mould had returned. He said he was unhappy that the landlord had only ever cleaned the mould and covered it up. The landlord attended on 22 November 2024 and completed another mould wash. It rearranged the loft insulation because it had found it was pushed back from the edges of the loft. It noted it did not need to top it up.
11. The landlord’s approach at stage 1 was reasonable. As it had recently completed damp and mould related works it was appropriate that it explained that to the resident. The amount of compensation it awarded was proportionate to the failings at that time. It treated his request to remove the partition wall as cosmetic and refused to complete the work. As the landlord has not provided details of the conversation the resident had with its operative about that issue we cannot say whether it was correct that it treated the request as cosmetic at that stage. As the resident still had use of his bathroom it was reasonable that the landlord did not agree to his request for rent-based compensation at stage 2.
12. Meanwhile, the resident reported further issues with damp and mould on 17 January 2025. The landlord completed an inspection on 22 January 2025. It was satisfied that the previous works had improved matters, but decided to further top up the loft insulation. It also scraped and sanded the ceiling as part of a mould wash because it was concerned the cracks in the existing paint may have been protecting the mould growth. These repairs were completed within timescales.
13. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the partition wall’s effect on the damp and mould in its second stage 1 response. It inspected the bathroom as part of that response but again treated the request as cosmetic. This was not appropriate as the resident had explained in February 2025 that he blamed the wall for the damp and mould. Given the regular recurrence of damp and mould in his bathroom the landlord should have been open to further investigation of other potential causes.
14. As part of its stage 2 response, the landlord completed further works to the bathroom fan, insulation, and plastering. On this occasion, it installed a new extractor fan, added additional insulation, and reskimmed the ceiling. These actions were variations of repairs it had previously undertaken, indicating that the landlord was continuing to rely on similar measures rather than introducing any new or alternative solutions. Given its damp and mould policy states that it will escalate damp and mould cases where it identifies repeat issues it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have escalated the case.
15. The landlord completed a damp and mould survey in August 2025, shortly after it had completed works to the bathroom ceiling. It concluded that environmental factors were the cause of the damp and mould. Given it had recently completed works to remove the mould growth the timing of that survey may have influenced its findings. The outcome was that it told the resident to report if the mould returned. The resident also provided us with an audio recording from the survey and the landlord agreed that the partition wall may be a contributing factor to the damp and mould. The survey report does not include mention of that. This did not provide the resident with reassurance.
16. The landlord has been responsive to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. There were initially issues with its communication, but it put things right in the initial stage 1 complaint response and improved thereafter. Overall, the landlord’s response has been reactive when its damp and mould policy says it aims to be proactive. It has not addressed the resident’s concerns about whether the partition wall could be a contributing factor to the damp and mould. While it has completed some repairs to the bathroom fan and loft insulation it has not extended its investigations past those measures. The landlord’s approach has resulted in a cycle of mould washes without establishing the root cause of the issue. For those reasons, there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
17. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to him. This amount is in line with the maladministration banding of our remedies guidance. The landlord should also arrange for a damp and mould survey of his bathroom and toilet. To provide reassurance to the resident this should be completed by an external surveyor.

18. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant code in this case was the 2024 edition. Our findings are:
    1. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord had a published complaints policy that was compliant with the Code.
    2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s first stage 1 complaint after 9 working days on 6 December 2024. This was more than the 5 working days allowed by the Code. It provided its stage 1 response within 2 working days. This was in line with the Code which allows landlords 10 working days after the acknowledgement.
    3. The landlord also sent its acknowledgment of the first stage 2 complaint outside the 5 working days allowed. It took over 20 working days for the landlord to send its acknowledgement on 17 January 2025. The Code allows landlord’s 20 working days from the acknowledgement to send their final responses. The landlord took 40 working days to provide its stage 2 response on 14 March 2025. There is no evidence it notified the resident that it needed an extension during that time.
    4. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s second stage 1 complaint. This was not in line with the Code. It provided its stage 1 response after 11 working days. One day later than allowed by the Code.
    5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s second stage 2 complaint after 3 working days. It provided its response after 12 working days. Both of these were sent within the times allowed by the Code.
19. The £300 compensation the landlord awarded the resident for its delays at stage 2 of his first complaint was reasonable. There was no significant impact to the resident from the landlord’s failure to acknowledge his second stage 1 complaint and the short delay in providing its response. It would not be proportionate to award further compensation for this given the minimal impact.
20. However, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it provided the resident with incorrect information when he escalated his first complaint to stage 2. It told him he would need to raise a new stage 1 complaint for it to consider removing the partition wall. As the landlord had already addressed that issue in its stage 1 response it could have included this in its stage 2 investigation. This caused the resident inconvenience and prolonged his complaint.
21. The landlord identified its failing as part of its evidence submission to us. It said that training had since been given to those involved. As the landlord did not put things right at the time we have ordered it to pay the resident a further £100 compensation. That amount is in line with the service failure banding of our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord’s record-keeping practices affected its ability to respond effectively to issues of damp and mould. Inadequate records meant there were times where it could not confirm which repairs had been completed, nor did it retain details of conversations between its operatives and the resident. The landlord should review and strengthen its information-gathering processes to ensure accurate records are maintained. This will improve the efficiency and quality of its future responses.