Citizen Housing Group Limited (202503624)

Decision
Case ID	202503624 and 202538587
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Citizen Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	16 December 2025

Background

1. The resident raised 2 complaints to the landlord. The first related to her belief that its handling of asbestos removal led to her cancer diagnosis. She also reported damp and mould. The second related to her request to be moved to more suitable accommodation due to her medical vulnerabilities. We have considered both complaints within this investigation.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about asbestos.
   2. Reports of damp and mould.
   3. Request for rehousing.
   4. Associated complaints.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about asbestos.
   2. Reports of damp and mould.
   3. Request for rehousing.
   4. Associated complaints.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos

4. The landlord told the resident to raise her health and asbestos concerns to its liability insurer. This was an appropriate response as liability for health would require an assessment by its insurer. This is a process separate from its internal complaint procedure.

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

5. The landlord arranged inspections and proposed access dates to address the resident’s concerns. She refused access, which prevented investigations and repairs. She did not provide an opportunity for it to put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request

6. The landlord considered the resident’s request for rehousing in line with its policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaints

7. The landlord responded the resident’s complaints in line with its policy and the Code.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord considers completing a risk assessment in relation to the resident’s health and what actions it could take to gain access to establish property condition. It could seek legal advice about enforcement of the tenancy agreement. Or consider how it could engage a third-party support agency who may be able to facilitate negotiating access.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 July 2024	Complaint 1 The resident informed the landlord that she had cancer and believed it was linked to the asbestos removal. She requested records about the works. She also said there were damp and mould issues within the property. The landlord agreed to discuss the issues with a manager to decide how to proceed.
30 July 2024	The landlord raised a formal complaint on the resident’s behalf.
6 August 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 1.
20 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response, providing asbestos contractor documents. It advised the resident to claim through its insurance for alleged asbestos-related effects and supplied details. It noted her agreement for a surveyor to inspect the property regarding damp and mould.
26 April 2025	The resident made a further complaint about the landlord’s failure to act on her reports of asbestos contamination, mould-related issues, and her request to move. She felt the landlord had not provided original copies of asbestos related documents.
2 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, stating the issues were a legal liability matter for its insurer to handle. It said it provided copies of asbestos-related works with engineer names and signatures redacted. It reiterated its request for access to complete a damp and mould survey and any necessary repairs.
13 June 2025	Complaint 2 The resident’s MP asked the landlord to raise a complaint about its handling of her request to move.
16 June 2025	The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 1.
27 June 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said it did not open a discretionary move case in September 2024 after receiving a letter from the resident’s consultant. It explained that despite several attempts, it was unable to inspect the property. It asked her to contact it to arrange an inspection should she want to be considered for a discretionary move.
24 July 2025	The resident told the landlord that she was not requesting a discretionary move. She said she required a management transfer based on her urgent medical needs.
25 July 2025	The landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation.
13 August 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response, confirming it would only address the points raised in the stage 1 complaint. It said it had responded to the other issues via correspondence with the resident’s MP. It clarified the local authority managed housing waiting lists, outlined its emergency transfer and discretionary move processes, and reiterated the need to inspect the property before considering a rehousing request.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint responses. She referred her complaints to us because she was unhappy with how the landlord used her personal information and the lack of action. To resolve matters, she wants the landlord to move her to another property.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not considered

8. The resident was concerned about how the landlord removed asbestos from her home in 2019. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlord when problems happen or within a reasonable time, usually within 12 months. Therefore, we have focused our investigation on the period leading up to the complaint in August 2024 and the related responses. Any reference to previous events is for context only.
9. The resident believes the landlord’s handling of asbestos removal in her property caused cancer. We are unable to determine liability or whether the landlord’s actions or inaction caused any illness. This is a matter for insurers or the courts.
10. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling and disclosure of information would be a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office. We have not considered this further.
11. The resident has complained about the actions of the landlord’s insurer. Complaints about insurers are for the Financial Ombudsman Service. Therefore, we have not investigated this.

What we have considered

12. The resident informed us she had not made a personal injury claim and never asked the landlord for compensation. However, she said she had discussed her condition with the disease manager of the landlord’s insurer.
13. We have reviewed the landlord’s records from telephone contact with the resident, in addition to correspondence between the parties. Given the gravity of the resident’s allegation and its potential legal implications, the landlord referred her to its liability insurer to handle the matter outside of its complaints process.
14. This approach gave an opportunity for a specialist body with the appropriate expertise to assess the matter and investigate complex issues. In doing this, the landlord treated the resident’s allegation seriously and managed it through the correct channels. It also arranged for a stock condition survey to establish the condition of the property. We find that this demonstrates a fair and responsible response to her concerns.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not considered

15. The resident was concerned about the health impact of damp and mould. She also said the conditions within the property prevented her ability to safely receive radiotherapy. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
16. The resident raised concerns about the local council’s actions. We can only investigate councils where they act as a landlord under a licence, lease, or social housing tenancy. In this case, the council acted under its statutory powers under the Housing Act 2004. Therefore, we cannot investigate its attempts to inspect the property. The resident may wish to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

What we have considered

17. In response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in 2024, the landlord acted promptly and made reasonable efforts to investigate the matter. This included arranging a survey and inspection to identify the cause of the reported issues and to decide appropriate remedial works.
18. The landlord provided the resident with proposed dates for access and attempted to confirm appointments. It also explained that she did not need to be present and could arrange for another person to provide access.
19. Despite these efforts, the landlord was unable to gain access to the property. The resident declined entry on several occasions and did not engage with the landlord’s attempts to reschedule. As a result, it was prevented from carrying out the necessary investigations and any required repairs. The inability to access the property has directly impacted its capacity to fulfil its obligations under the tenancy agreement.
20. The tenancy agreement says the resident must allow staff and contractors entry to the property to inspect or carry out repairs. The landlord has not evidenced if it sought legal advice to see what options were available to it to enforce the terms of the tenancy agreement. We have made a recommendation in relation to this.
21. The resident reported the condition of the property to the local authority. In response, they arranged an inspection to see if there were any actionable hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The local council asked the landlord to attend an inspection on 4 June 2025, which it agreed to. However, the resident refused entry to both organisations.
22. We acknowledge the situation would be distressing, particularly given the resident’s vulnerabilities. However, the landlord took reasonable steps to address her concerns. It is limited in the action it can take due to her reluctance to allow access to complete a survey or any required work.

. Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing
Finding	No maladministration

23. The resident’s second complaint related to her request for the landlord to move her to an alternative property. Due to her health condition, medical professionals also raised concerns that the “fungus” in the flat was a risk to her health. She sought an urgent move from the landlord.
24. The landlord attempted to inspect the property to verify her reports about the damp and mould to decide if an emergency transfer was needed. It attempted to gain access on multiple occasions. It also discussed rehousing during a tenancy management visit on 11 February 2025 but there is no evidence it inspected the property at the time.
25. The landlord opened a discretionary move case on 5 June 2025 after it received further medical evidence. For an emergency transfer, its policy requires circumstances that threaten life or safety, and typically corroboration from external agencies. For a discretionary move, serious impact on health or wellbeing must be established. Without an inspection, it lacked evidence of the property condition to meet either of these thresholds.
26. The landlord provided the outcome on 27 July 2025. Its outcome was in line with its policy. Within its response, it signposted the resident to the council for other rehousing options. It also offered to reconsider its decision if she provided new information. This was fair.
27. There were delays in formally recording the resident’s rehousing request. Although the landlord received the consultant’s letter in September 2024, it did not open a discretionary case until June 2025 following receipt of additional medical evidence. This represents a shortcoming. However, it did not materially affect the overall outcome, and therefore we have not made a failure finding.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints
Finding	No maladministration

28. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint, with a possible 10-day extension. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days, extendable by another 20 working days. A landlord should not exceed these timeframes without valid justification.
29. The landlord’s complaint policy aligned with the Code’s definition of a complaint. The timescales set out in the landlord’s complaint procedure also complied with the Code.

Complaint 1

30. The landlord issued its stage 1 response within 10 working days. Following further communication from the resident, it escalated the complaint on 26 April 2025. The stage 2 response was issued within the Code’s timescales.
31. In her escalation request, the resident raised concerns about rehousing which were not part of her original complaint. The landlord complied with the Code’s timeframes and requirements. However, it missed an opportunity to explain why it did not address rehousing at stage 2.
32. This lack of explanation may have contributed to confusion and dissatisfaction. Proactive clarification may have helped to manage the resident’s expectations and reduced the risk of further escalation. We have not made a failure finding here as its actions complied with the Code. However, it ought to take this as a learning point.

Complaint 2

33. The landlord handled this complaint in accordance with the Code’s timescales at both stage 1 and stage 2. It managed the resident’s expectations by explaining the scope of its considerations at each stage. Additionally, it provided updates on other matters being addressed through the resident’s MP and offered support from its tenancy sustainment team.
34. The landlord’s approach here reflects good practice. It not only complied with the Code but also demonstrated effective communication and a willingness to provide additional support. By involving its tenancy sustainment team and keeping the resident informed about related issues, it showed a proactive and holistic approach to complaint resolution.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord’s overall knowledge and information management was satisfactory in this case.

Communication

36. The overall communication was satisfactory in this case. We identified learning point one within the complaint handling section of this report.