Connexus Homes Limited (202428799)

Background

1. The property is a bungalow. On 29 September 2023 the resident reported damp in the kitchen and bathroom, which share a wall. The landlord completed several repairs to resolve the damp. On 30 April 2024 the resident reported that he had returned from his holiday to find that some damp problems remained in both rooms.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was reasonable redress in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of damp

6. There were excessive and unreasonable delays in responding to the resident’s reports of damp. Its communication with the resident during this period was inadequate. The landlord acknowledged its failings, took appropriate steps to put things right, and conducted relevant learning.

The landlord’s complaint handling

7. There were avoidable and unexplained delays. The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s stage 2 complaint in good time. It acknowledged some of its failings, but did not adequately consider its delays or take reasonable steps to put things right.

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.

8. The resident reported damp on 29 September 2023 which the landlord first inspected on 20 October 2023. This was 22 working days after the resident’s first report, which exceeded the timescale set out in the landlord’s damp, condensation and mould policy which was in place at the time.
9. Over the following months, the landlord identified and resolved some causes. These included isolated leaks, defects to the bathroom flooring, and drainage issues. The landlord provided limited records from this period, likely because its handling of the damp during this period was not central to the resident’s complaint. The landlord acknowledged that it took too long to resolve these issues, though the reasons for the delays is unclear.
10. On 30 April 2024 the resident reported that one patch on the kitchen floor remained damp and that a strong smell of damp remained. The landlord attended promptly on 3 May 2024 and found that the kitchen wall was damp due to water penetrating from the shower. It raised a job for hygiene boards to be installed in the shower to keep water from escaping. More detailed inspections of the kitchen floor were seen to be needed.
11. The landlord’s policy states that further works or surveys should have been done within 20 working days of the first inspection. The landlord carried out a more detailed damp survey on 10 June 2024, followed by a ventilation survey on 2 July 2024. It took 24 working days to complete the damp survey and 40 working days to complete the ventilation survey. The hygiene boards were installed on 14 June 2024, 28 working days later. These delays were failings.
12. The surveys stated that there was no damp ‘above permissible levels’ on the kitchen floor and that the damp walls would be resolved by the hygiene boards being installed. The ventilation survey stated that extractor fans should be fitted in the kitchen and bathroom.
13. The landlord categorised the fan installations as ‘planned repairs’. This was reasonable because its experts had said that the damp issues would be resolved by installing the boards. There is no set timescale set out in the landlord’s repairs policy for planned repairs. However it took the landlord 88 working days until 1 November 2024 to complete the installation of the fans. This timescale was unreasonable, which the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response.
14. The resident reported that the boards installed in the bathroom were coming away from the wall on 3 January 2025. The landlord inspected on 3 February 2025 and its contractor attended to refit the boards on 24 February 2025. This was a routine repair which should been completed within 20 working days, but instead took 36 working days.
15. In a conversation with us, the resident explained that he was told by the landlord’s contractors that the repairs were temporary and he was concerned with the quality of the work. While we understand that this would be worrying for the resident, after carefully reviewing the evidence provided by all parties, we have found no indication that the landlord arranged for temporary repairs.
16. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout this period was poor. The resident called the landlord frequently to request updates. It often told the resident it would find out the answers to his questions and call him back. However, very few callbacks were ever completed.
17. The landlord’s damp, condensation and mould policy states that it will share the outcome of surveys with residents. However it did not share with the resident the outcome of its 10 June 2024 survey until its stage 1 complaint response. This response was lost in the post and never reached the resident. It took the landlord until 20 January 2025 to learn this, despite the resident calling for updates before that time. The landlord’s communication with the resident added to his distress and frustration.
18. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it acknowledged all of the failings identified in this report. It also acknowledged the resident’s concerns that damp persisted and agreed to carry out further inspections. It carried out a stock condition survey, ordered a new energy performance certificate, and completed a further damp survey to the kitchen and bathroom. This was appropriate in view of the resident’s continued reports of damp. The surveys found that the damp issues had been resolved.
19. As a result of the failings highlighted in this report, the resident went to unnecessary time and trouble. He also experienced distress and inconvenience for a prolonged period. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this in its stage 2 complaint response. It offered £800 compensation overall. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings which have impacted a resident over a significant period of time.
20. In July 2024 we ordered the landlord to conduct a detailed review relating to its handling of reports of damp and mould. It completed this work in August 2024 and began making changes to its service from September 2024. The learning it completed was relevant to the majority of failings identified in this case, including its communication failings. It referenced this learning in its complaint responses to the resident. This demonstrates that the landlord has taken steps to learn from its failings.
21. On 10 December 2025 the resident told us that the smell of damp persists at his property. Our investigation has focussed on events up until the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, at which time the landlord had completed the repairs its experts advised were necessary to resolve the damp. Although the evidence shows that the landlord has relied upon the opinion of its experts, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to consider investigating the persisting smell of damp.

22. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20. The landlord took 111 working days to issue its stage 1 complaint response, which was a significant and unexplained failing.
23. The landlord’s policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction. The resident expressed dissatisfaction on several occasions, but notably in a phone call to the landlord on 20 January 2025. The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint at the time, which was a failing. Upon reviewing its correspondence with the resident on 13 February 2025, it made the decision that it should have treated this as a formal complaint escalation. However this was only after intervention from this service. It was positive that the landlord took steps to put things right once it became aware of its error.
24. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of realising its error. The landlord later apologised for failing to escalate the resident’s complaint sooner. It offered £50 compensation for its failings in complaint handling. However it did not consider the delays in its earlier complaint handling. In view of the time and trouble caused to the resident during the complaints process, this was a failing. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £50 compensation, in line with our remedies guidance for service failure.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’s record keeping was generally sufficient. Some of the repair records provided by the landlord were vague. Internal emails show that the landlord was able to get more information about these repairs quickly when required, suggesting that it held more detailed records. The landlord kept good records of the resident’s telephone contact with adequate levels of detail.

Communication

26. The landlord consistently failed to call the resident back to provide more information when he asked it to. The reason for this is unclear. There may be an opportunity for the landlord to conduct some learning from the way it handled its communication with the resident in this case.