Settle Group (202440780)

Decision
Case ID	202440780
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Settle Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	12 December 2025

Background

1. The resident moved into the property in March 2024. During the same year she reported issues of damp and mould. She explained to the landlord this was impacting her health and she was seeking to be moved to an alternative property.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of damp, mould and damage to personal belongings.
   2. Repairs to the front door.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of damp, mould and damage to personal belongings.
   2. There was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door.
   3. There was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord appropriately inspected and addressed the resident’s damp and mould concerns, completed recommended works within policy timeframes, and offered proportionate compensation for delay. It also reasonably communicated its position on rehousing and personal damage claims.
6. There was a missed opportunity for the landlord to inform the resident of its position on repairs to the porch sooner.
7. The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy.

 

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident £150 compensation to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures identified in this report. This comprises: £50 for its handling of repairs to the front door. £100 for its complaint handling.	09 January 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The resident has reported the damp and mould has returned. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss these concerns further.
The landlord should confirm whether the radiator valve checks were completed, and if not, arrange for this work to be carried out.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 December 2024	The resident raised a complaint about: The landlord’s delays in addressing water getting in through the front door. Damp and mould in the bedroom. Her health being impacted by the condition of the property.
6 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response, in which it: Identified the leak as coming from the porch roof, arranged contractor inspections, and confirmed repairs would be completed by the end of January 2025. Confirmed there was damp and mould, and a mould wash would be completed by 17 January 2025. In recognition of the delays in contacting the resident following her damp and mould report it offered £50 compensation. Acknowledged the resident requested that it consider moving her to another property as she was unhappy with the damp and mould. It explained its damp and mould team would need to make a recommendation for any move following their inspection. This was not recommended following its visit on 31 December 2024.
12 March 2025	The resident escalated her complaint and explained: Her health was poor and the property was making her unwell. She wanted the landlord to move her to another property. She wanted compensation for damaged items. The landlord acknowledged this on 14 March 2025.
11 April 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response and explained: It has a zero‑tolerance approach to damp and mould, ensuring homes are dry, warm, and healthy by addressing issues at their root. Works recommended by its operative had been completed. Claims for damages are considered outside of the complaints procedure. It discussed this with its insurance officer who advised they were waiting for information previously requested from the resident to progress the claim. The threshold for supported moves was extremely high due to housing limitations. In line with its policy a supported move was not progressed by its damp and mould team. It offered to discuss other housing options for the resident.
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 24 July 2025 the resident explained to us: The mould had returned around the front door. She was seeking for the landlord to rehouse her.

 

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	Reports of damp, mould and damage to personal belongings
Finding	Reasonable redress

8. The resident reported damp and mould on the front door on 11 December 2024. In response, the landlord raised a request for a mould wash to be completed by 17 January 2025. On 17 December 2024 it also requested that its contractors contact the resident to offer an appointment for a further inspection. Its contractors scheduled an appointment with the resident for 17 January 2025.
9. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will aim to carry out an inspection of a home within 10 working days of a report. In this case, it was unable to complete the inspection within the specified timeframe. The landlord acknowledged the delay in responding to the resident’s concerns and offered £50 compensation. We find this amount proportionate and fair given the short delay, as it demonstrated the landlord’s recognition of the inconvenience caused.
10. Due to the delay in arranging an inspection, the landlord carried out an in-house inspection on 31 December 2024. This was appropriate, given the resident’s distress about the damp and mould. The operative inspected the affected area by the front door and recommended that specialist contractors carry out a further inspection to determine the underlying cause.
11. The landlord and operative completed a joint visit to inspect on 17 January 2025 and found that the damp and mould was a result of condensation. It identified mould around the threshold of the front door, on the base of the resident’s chest of drawers and carpet beneath it. The operative found the extractor fans needed to be turned on manually, but the resident did not use the extractor fans because they were too loud. The operative advised:
    1. The landlord to replace the manual extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom with automatic fans.
    2. The landlord to complete a mould wash and replace the base of the drawer.
    3. It would arrange for the radiators to be checked as there were some valves missing, which prevented the resident from controlling the temperature.
    4. The resident on ventilation and wiping the condensation of the windows.
12. The landlord has confirmed to us that all works had been completed by 27 January 2025. The landlord’s repair records confirm that it replaced the fans and carried out a mould wash. However there is no record to confirm if missing valves were checked.
13. While we note the landlord stated all works were completed, it is important that it makes sure this is accurately documented to prevent any uncertainty or gaps in its repair records. Clear and complete records are also essential to provide the resident with confidence that the issues identified have been addressed.
14. On 12 March 2025 the resident said she was seeking a replacement of the carpet and drawers. However there was no evidence that the landlord was required to replace these items. This is because we did not see evidence of it failing to address the reports of damp and mould within a reasonable period of time. Its offer to carry out a mould clean and replace the base of the drawer was therefore reasonable and in line with the actions identified in the inspection.
15. Overall, while we acknowledge the slight delay, the landlord took appropriate actions to inspect the damp and mould and it completed the recommended works in line with advice from a specialist and within the timeframes set out in its repairs policy. The landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable as it appropriately recognised the delay and inconvenience caused.
16. We note that the resident would like a move to another home. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about damp and mould and explained its position on the rehousing threshold, while also advising on alternative options to move. It further offered support and the option of referral to third‑party agencies, which the resident declined. Overall, we find the landlord’s response and actions to have been reasonable and clearly communicated.
17. The resident reported that her personal belongings had been damaged and asked the landlord to consider this. However it explained this would not be considered by its complaints department. The landlord informed the resident about the process for submitting a claim for damages. We find this was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy, as the issue required consideration of whether the landlord was liable for any reported damage.

Complaint	Repairs to the front door
Finding	Service failure

18. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property. Therefore when the resident reported issues with water getting through the front door on 18 November 2024, it was appropriate that the landlord did an inspection on 11 December 2024.
19. During this inspection, the operative found a join in the porch roof was allowing water to get through and raised a further inspection for contractors to check the front door porch to see if it was defective. It confirmed there was mould present around the front door and raised works for a mould wash.
20. The landlord’s records do not demonstrate when contractors carried out a visit. However correspondence notes that quotes were provided by the contractors on 6 January 2025 to repair the guttering and porch roof.
21. On 6 January 2025 the landlord told the resident it would complete repairs to the porch by the end of January 2025. The landlord carried out a further visit on 17 January 2025. This found the porch was not defective and identified the issue of damp and mould was a result of condensation. Following this the landlord cancelled the work order to repair the porch as it did not deem the work to be necessary.
22. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the professional advice regarding the condition of the front door porch. Its decision to cancel the repair order was appropriate based on the information provided at the time.
23. We would have expected the landlord to update the resident about the change of plans. However we have not seen a record to demonstrate it informed the resident the porch repairs had been cancelled. On 7 February 2025 the landlord asked that the resident be updated about the cancellation, however there is no record to reflect this was done. This resulted in the resident chasing further in March 2025.
24. The landlord’s communication regarding the cancellation of the roof was unreasonable and not in line with its repairs policy. There was a missed opportunity for the landlord to update the resident, which resulted in avoidable distress and the resident chasing repairs.
25. An internal email dated 3 April 2025 recorded that the resident insisted on repairs to the porch roof. The landlord stated it had confirmed during a visit that the works would not be carried out, though it did not specify which visit. To avoid confusion, the landlord should clearly document its position and conversations with the resident.
26. Overall, we have found that there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door porch. This is because the landlord did not clearly communicate the cancellation of the works, causing avoidable distress for the resident. We have considered the landlord’s compensation policy and made an order in line with this.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

27. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to:
    1. Acknowledge complaints in 5 working days.
    2. Respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
    3. Respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
    4. Update the resident if more time is needed to investigate the complaint. For stage 1 this should not exceed 10 working days. For stage 2 this should not exceed 20 working days.
28. On 11 December 2024 the resident raised a complaint, which the landlord acknowledged on 18 December 2024. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 6 January 2025. This was in line with the expected timeframes, taking into consideration the public holidays.
29. On 18 January 2025 the resident emailed the landlord about the ongoing issues she was experiencing in the property and that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould. While she did not explicitly say she would like to escalate her complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to escalate her complaint at this point. Our complaint handling code requires escalation when a resident expresses continued dissatisfaction with how their concerns have been addressed.
30. The resident further wrote to the landlord on 12 March 2025, which the landlord acknowledged within 2 days and escalated her complaint. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 11 April 2025. This was provided within the expected 20 working days of acknowledging the stage 2 complaint.
31. Overall we find there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Its delays resulted in the resolution process being prolonged for the resident, causing avoidable distress and inconvenience. Therefore we have made an order for the landlord to compensate the resident in line with its policy.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication.

32. The landlord responded appropriately to reports of damp and mould by inspecting and completing works.  However in this investigation we have highlighted occasions where its record keeping and communication could have been improved. The landlord is encouraged to consider the learning it can take from this case. This is to ensure accurate record keeping and timely updates to residents to avoid distress and inconvenience.