Citizen Housing Group Limited (202431377)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431377

Citizen Housing

29 July 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

1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Request for a discretionary move.
   2. Reports of issues with damp and mould.
   3. Reports of belongings being damaged due to the damp and mould.
   4. Reports of issues with antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. Paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
4. We understand the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s property offers following a request for a discretionary move. We considered this complaint under reference 202300589. A determination was issued on 13 March 2024 and found no maladministration. The Ombudsman will not, therefore, reinvestigate this element of the complaint.
5. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme, the complaint regarding the resident’s concerns about a discretionary move is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background

6. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The tenancy commenced on 29 March 2019.
7. The resident had had ongoing issues concerning damp and mould for several years. The landlord has attended to carry out several repairs over the years.
8. In October 2023 the resident made a report of damp and mould. The operative attended to assess the matter. No follow-up works were raised after this appointment.
9. The resident also reported ASB on 29 May 2024 relating to her neighbour’s conduct. She had stated in the early hours of the morning, the neighbour was “drunk, drugged up, and shouting”. The landlord’s neighbourhood officer contacted the resident on 4 June 2024; however, they stated the resident terminated the call. The officer also visited the block to speak with neighbours about the incident. At the time of visit, they stated no one raised any concerns and they could not smell any drugs.
10. The resident made a report of damp and mould during June 2024. She informed the landlord most of the rooms in the home were experiencing issues. She also explained her personal belongings had been damaged. The landlord raised a repair for its contractors to attend on 2 July 2024 to complete a mould treatment. The operative’s notes state the resident did not wish for them to complete a treatment as she had already done so herself. They also noted the presence of mould on the curtains. They recommended the extractor fan be repaired and the silicone replaced.
11. The resident was unhappy with the condition of her home and raised a formal complaint to the landlord. She explained she was seeking compensation of £7,500 to repurchase furniture and belongings. She also was seeking to be moved.
12. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 4 July 2024. It confirmed an appointment had been booked for 11 July 2024 to inspect and identify the cause of the damp and mould. The landlord apologised that the resident had continued to experience issues of damp and mould. It explained:
    1. Its surveyors had attempted to complete a survey in 2021; however, had no access. It also noted that 2 scheduled appointments in June 2023 had been cancelled by the resident.
    2. It was unable to compensate her £7,500 for damaged to personal belongings, as it had not identified any service failures. It recommended the resident claim under her own contents insurance.
13. On 5 July 2024 the landlord arranged for an operative to attend and carry out a repair to the existing ventilation.
14. A damp and mould survey was carried out on 11 July 2024. The purpose of the survey was to inspect the first-floor flat for evidence of dampness. The surveyor found the rainwater goods were leaking. They explained this could result in penetrative dampness. The surveyor also stated the property was suffering from condensation and mould. Recommendations were made to:
    1. Complete repairs to rainwater goods.
    2. Improve the quality of ventilation within the property by using air vents and extractor fans.
    3. Consider a ‘PIV’ system.
15. A work order to install extractor fans was logged on 16 August 2023. This was completed during September 2024.
16. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 September 2024. It reviewed the resident’s history of damp and mould from 2019 and acknowledged it had been ongoing, despite it attending to carry out treatments and works. The landlord identified service failure with regard to a lack of information following inspections in 2021 and November 2023, and a missed appointment in September 2024. In recognition of this, it offered the resident £100 compensation. Regarding the ASB, the landlord explained it had not received any further reports of ASB since 7 July 2024.
17. The landlord received a disrepair claim on 28 January 2025. The resident has continued to experience issues concerning damp and mould. The landlord has stated it is working with the resident’s solicitor to schedule in required appointments.
18. During June 2025 the landlord provided an update to the complaint. It explained its contractors had attended to complete a mould treatment in the areas identified by its survey; however, this was declined by the resident. She instead wanted its contractors to carry out a treatment to all walls in all the rooms. The landlord also attended to install the extractor fan; however, it is not evident this was completed. The job was subsequently passed to its contractors for completion on 4 July 2025. The landlord reiterated there were no further reports of ASB.
19. The landlord also informed us an appointment has been booked for 25 July 2025 regarding the rainwater goods.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

20. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable for a resident to raise a formal complaint about matters within a reasonable period of these occurring, usually considered to be 12 months. This is so the landlord has an opportunity to investigate the matters while they are still live and while relevant records are still readily available.
21. We understand there has been a history of damp and mould in the property, which the landlord attended to between 2019 and 2022. It is not evident that the resident raised a formal complaint about these earlier matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. As such, while these issues have been noted for context, this investigation has focused on the events following the resident’s reports of damp and mould from November 2023 onwards.

Reports of issues with damp and mould.

22. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the building. The resident’s tenancy agreement also stipulates this.
23. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy also refers to damp and mould. It states it will respond to reports within a timely way that takes a holistic approach to diagnosing and treating the cause of damp and mould. The landlord’s damp and mould process document further states that when a damp and mould report is raised, it will:
    1. Complete a mould treatment.
    2. Asses the severity:
       1. For ‘low severity’ it will do a post inspection.
       2. For ‘moderate severity’ it will carry out remedial works.
       3. For ‘severe severity’ it will do a survey inspection.
    3. All cases will have a post inspection before the case is closed.
24. Following the resident’s reports, the records show the landlord raised for an inspection to be carried out on 8 November 2023. However, it was unable to confirm the outcome of this inspection. While we recognise the landlord stated the appointment had been carried out with a former employee, we consider it is unreasonable that it did not have sufficient records. Landlords have a responsibility to maintain accurate and accessible records of all inspections, regardless of staffing changes. The inability to confirm what took place during the inspection represents a failing, as it limited the ability to track whether any issues were identified and addressed, or if there were any follow up works required.
25. It is evident that the issues concerning damp and mould were not resolved during the landlord’s visit. A further report of damp and mould was made to the landlord on 13 June 2024. We see it arranged for an operative to attend on 2 July 2024. The operative’s notes stated the resident did not want a treatment to be completed. However, it noted mould was present on the curtains. It further stated the silicon needed replacing and the extractor fan in the bathroom was broken. Despite the resident’s position to decline the works, the landlord still has an obligation to compete any repairs for which it is responsible. In this case, despite having identified further issues, it is not evident it followed this up with the resident or sought to escalate its attempts to complete repairs.
26. The landlord’s policy does not state timeframes for repairs. However, we would expect it attend to a report to assess within a reasonable period. Generally, we see landlord attended to reports within 20 working days. In this case, we see the landlord attended within 13 working days, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
27. The repair notes show the surveyor attended 5 July 2024 to carry out repairs to the existing ventilation. A new job was also raised to install an upgrade on 16 August 2024. Its contractors attended to install this on 10 September 2024; however, this was not completed due to no access. It had contacted the resident again on 20 September 2024; however, works were declined at that time.
28. The evidence shows a damp and mould survey was completed on 11 July 2024. The surveyor determined the cause to be related to the rainwater goods and condensation. We have reviewed the repair records and cannot see evidence to show the landlord raised any works relating to the rainwater goods at this time. We have asked the landlord for its position regarding this. A repair was raised for the rainwater goods on 17 September 2024. At the time of visit, its operative had no access to the property. The landlord stated that its procedure in cases of “no access” is for its residents to be left with a card with a note to contact it to rebook the appointment. It stated the resident had not rebooked this appointment. We have reviewed the landlord’s repair policy and cannot see where this is stated. We understand that an appointment has now been booked for 24 July 2025.
29. While we understand the landlord’s position, we do not find that this was reasonable given the longstanding issues the resident has experienced with damp and mould. In such cases, we would expect the landlord to take a more proactive approach and make reasonable efforts to ensure the matter is resolved, rather than placing the onus on the resident to re-arrange. This is especially important where there are ongoing concerns that may affect the resident’s health and wellbeing.
30. While we recognise the landlord states the missed appointment included works to the rainwater goods, the only missed appointment noted in its records in September 2024 was regarding the installation of the fans. It is imperative the landlord ensures its records clearly reflect the specification of work orders. In this instance, we cannot see this was done. We have not seen enough evidence to satisfy the missed appointment was for the rainwater goods. Therefore, we are not satisfied that the landlord responded appropriately.
31. The repair records show a work order to install extractor fans and thermal boarding was raised on 16 August 2024. The landlord stated it attended to carry out works on 10 September 2024; however, the resident was unavailable. It was later confirmed the resident had informed the landlord that she was not available on this date prior to the appointment.
32. It is important that landlords take account of its resident’s availability for appointments to ensure there are no avoidable delays. In this case, this was not done which resulted in inconvenience to the resident and demonstrated poor coordination and communication. As per the landlord’s repairs policy, it has a responsibility to ensure that appointments are scheduled.
33. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged this error and offered compensation to the resident. The compensation offer of £100 included other failings identified in its investigation. The landlord did not explain how it had proportioned the amount. We have therefore divided the amount between the 3 identified failings in the landlord’s response. Therefore apportioning £33 to each failing. This included:
    1. £33 for a failing identified from its repair response in 2021.
    2. £33 for no record to reflect the November 2023 appointment.
    3. £33 for its poor communication which resulted in the missed appointment.
34. The landlord’s compensation policy suggests the following amounts:
    1. Low impact awards between £0-£250. This is where residents have suffered no significant detriment.
    2. Medium impact it awards between £250-£699. This is where there has been some inconvenience or distress to the customer through services being below the expect standard. Also, where there has been a repeated failure to address the matter.
    3. High impact awards over £700. This is where there has been significant inconvenience or distress through poor service or persistent failure.
35. In this case, we find the level of compensation offered to the resident to be below what we would reasonably expect. The resident experienced ongoing issues with damp and mould, unrecorded appointments, and a lack of clear communication and follow-up from the landlord. These failings have resulted in inconvenience and distress to the resident. The landlord’s offer of £100 does not adequately reflect the impact or align with our own remedies guidance.
36. The repair records show that following a further report of damp and mould dated 14 November 2024, the landlord upgraded the fan on 27 November 2024 and 13 December 2024. At this point, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to mention the outstanding repair to the rainwater goods. We cannot see that this was done. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord, especially as it was aware of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould and that this was contributing to the issue.
37. Overall, we have found maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This is based on its poor communication and record keeping failures. This resulted in avoidable inconvenience and distress. We also find that the landlord’s offer of £100 does not adequately reflect the impact of the identified failings. Therefore, we will have ordered £400 compensation, made up of £200 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and £200 for her time and trouble chasing the repairs. This order replaces the landlord’s offer of £100.
38. We understand that during 2025, further appointments have been scheduled in an effort to resolve the damp and mould. The landlord has also stated it is in communication with the resident’s solicitor regarding repairs. We find this is appropriate, as it shows the landlord is taking steps to resolve the problem. However, we expect the landlord to continue taking action by ensuring it resolves the damp and mould issue. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to provide a written schedule of works explaining the actions it will take to ensure this matter is resolved.

Belongings are damaged due to the damp and mould.

39. The resident stated that the damp and mould had caused damage to her furniture, flooring, clothes, and toys within the property. She explained she wanted the landlord to compensate her for this damage.
40. In this report, we have not made a determination regarding liability for the damages to the personal belongings, as this is better suited to an insurance claim. What we have considered is the landlord’s action when she reported her damaged belongings.
41. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that it is the resident’s responsibility to insure their own personal belongings. This includes decoration. It also states the landlord will not insure residents’ home contents.
42. In circumstances where there is evidence the landlord’s delay or inaction to a repair report contributed towards a resident’s personal belongings, it is reasonable for the landlord to provide information to the resident about the process to make a claim with its insurers.
43. In this instance, we see the landlord stated that as it had found no failings on its part in regard to the damp and mould, the resident would need to submit a claim under her own content’s insurance provider. However, given the resident’s position, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to make the resident aware of the process to make a claim under its own insurance policy should she wish to. This was a missed opportunity to ensure she had all the relevant information to pursue a claim and may have helped restore the landlord/tenant relationship.
44. Overall, we find service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damage to personal belongings. While its advice to make an insurance claim was reasonable, it failed to provide all the relevant details for its own liability insurer. An order for £50 has been made to reflect the impact this failing caused to the resident.

ASB.

45. We have considered if the landlord adequately investigated the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its policies and procedures.
46. The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy states that on receipt of a report, it will contact the reporter promptly and agree an action plan. It expects residents to:
    1. Report all issues.
    2. Respond to any requests for information.
    3. Report all crimes to the police.
    4. Report noise nuisance to the appropriate statutory body and to take responsibility for minor personal disputes with neighbours.
47. If the self-help resolution does not work or is inappropriate, and the behaviour complained of is likely to be a breach of tenancy, it will look to intervene. This may include mediation, warning letters, and acceptable behaviour contracts. If appropriate, it will consider and use more formal legal actions.
48. Following the resident’s reports of ASB on 28 May 2024 about the neighbour being on drugs, drinking, and noise nuisance, the records show this was followed up by the neighbourhood officer. It attempted to speak with the resident; however, the records state that the call was terminated by the resident.
49. The ASB records show that the landlord then visited the block on 4 June 2024 to assess the situation. At the time, there were no incidence logged, and the officer said it could not smell any drugs.
50. We find the landlord’s actions were proportionate. It correctly contacted the resident within a reasonable period and attempted to get a better understanding of the matter. While this call was ended before an action plan was agreed and formalised, it was nevertheless appropriate for the landlord to visit the property and assess the situation, especially given the lack of evidence. In the absence of any further reports, we find the landlord acted reasonably by taking proactive steps to investigate the resident’s initial report.
51. The ASB records show that a further incident took place on 26 November 2024. The resident stated that her children were being kept awake through the night because of noise disturbance. She also stated she felt “threatened” every time she left the property. When this was reported to the landlord, we see it contacted the resident and asked her to complete diary sheets so it could review reports. The record shows this was declined by the resident. The records also show that the resident did not want to speak with the landlord further.
52. While we understand the resident did not wish to complete diary sheets and terminated the call, we find the landlord’s action to request this information was reasonable and an appropriate step to address claims of ASB.  Following the resident declining to complete the diary sheets, we see it wrote to the resident to explain it position and discussed options about relocation.
53. In summary, we find the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances. It took appropriate and proportionate steps to address the ASB, including requesting evidence, conducting a visit, and engaging with neighbours. It also offered to discuss alternative accommodation options which demonstrated a willingness to support the resident and find a resolution. We therefore have found no maladministration for this element of the complaint.

Determination

54. As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme, the complaint regarding the resident’s request for a discretionary move is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
55. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
56. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of belongings damaged due to damp and mould.
57. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

58. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £450, comprising:
    1. £400 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings relating to the damp and mould issues.
    2. £50 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings relating to the resident’s concerns about damage to personal belongings.
59. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £100. The ordered amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
60. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must also write to the resident to inform her of the process to make a claim against its insurance providers.

Recommendations.

61. Regarding ongoing damp and mould works, the landlord should provide a written schedule of works explaining the actions it will take to ensure this matter is resolved.