Prima Housing Group Limited (202510220)

Background

1. The property is a ground floor flat within a 3-storey block. The resident and her 2 children have asthma, and one child has severe allergies. She reported issues involving damp and mould as early as 2023 and raised a complaint. She moved from the property in December 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould, and repairs.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and repairs.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord recognised some failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould during the complaints process, but failed to suitably recognise the length of time matters had been ongoing and its failure to investigate concerns raised by Environmental Health (EH) or signpost to financial assistance. Its offer of compensation was not proportionate to put right the impact of its failings on the resident.
5. The landlord acted in line with its policy and the Complaint Handling Code when responding to 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.

Recommendations

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.

What we have not considered

6. The resident raised several concerns that fall out of the scope of our investigation. We have explained that we will not consider:
   1. Her concerns that the lack of action had a direct impact on her and her children’s health. We cannot determine the extent to which a landlord’s actions may have contributed to any physical and/or mental health issues. These are better suited to an insurance claim or court.
   2. Her concerns about her housing priority banding as this is decided by the local authority, not the landlord. Complaints about local authority banding decisions are best directed to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
   3. Her concerns about the information provided as part of her Subject Access Request to the landlord fall under the remit of the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).
   4. Her claim for compensation for damage to her personal belongings. The landlord has explained that it offered £300 toward these costs. Liability for damaged belongings can be pursued via an insurance claim. We have however reviewed the landlord’s response to her request.
   5. Her concerns about its handling of her stay in temporary accommodation from October 2025. These did not form part of the complaint we are considering. She may wish to raise a separate complaint to the landlord if she remains unhappy.

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

7. In line with its repairs and maintenance policy, the landlord aims to complete routine repairs within 5 to 15 working days. Major repairs, including remedial work to cure damp problems, should be completed within 90 working days. Where a customer reports damp and mould, it would inspect and order required work. It would use data loggers to assess the humidity and temperature of the property and determine the cause of the damp.
8. The resident experienced damp in the property from at least as early as July 2023, and she has explained that the situation was not fully resolved when she moved out in December 2025. Although the landlord acknowledged some failings, such as delays between May 2024 and June 2025, and incorrect statements about refused access, we have found that there has been service failure. Its offer of £540 compensation is not proportionate to put right the impact on the resident.

Initial diagnosis and delays

9. Environmental Health (EH) notified the landlord of high moisture readings, blocked vents and an ineffective bathroom ventilation system as well as concerns about the children’s health in September 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord took action until February 2024, when it raised work to install a damp proof membrane, replaster and decorate in the lounge and hall. It also intended to install a PIV unit, but it is unclear how it determined these steps would resolve the issues.
10. Following further contact from EH, who indicated that they intended to serve an improvement notice, the landlord completed a damp survey around 25 April 2024, following an appointment that the resident needed to cancel on 25 March 2024. This was 7 months after EH’s initial communication. The landlord should have completed a full damp and mould survey much earlier as per its repairs policy timescales. Internal communication references no access but there is no record of such attempts, which we have commented on further below.
11. The survey found that high humidity was the main cause of damp. It recommended installing a PIV unit, replacing the “unsuitable” bathroom extractor and investigating whether there was adequate insulation. We have seen no evidence that the landlord investigated the insulation or considered EH’s previous comments about blocked air vents and the reasons for high moisture readings. It is also unclear whether it properly considered EH’s comments about the vertical ventilation route from the bathroom, which may have contributed to condensation.
12. The survey noted that the resident could not afford to heat the property, which likely contributed to condensation. The landlord’s repair policy states that a lack of heating may trigger support from its income team. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to financial assistance alongside any advice about reducing humidity.
13. The landlord acknowledged some delay due changing contractors between February and March 2024 but did not recognise wider failings in its handling of the damp and mould reports between September 2023 and May 2024.

Events from May 2024

14. The resident and her children needed temporary accommodation due to health risks from dust during plastering works. The landlord did not have properties available in the local area, and she did not want to move to a different area, limiting options. There is no evidence to support that the landlord took any action to resolve this between May 2024 and the complaint in February 2025. It later explored alternatives but it is unreasonable that it failed to consider temporary accommodation outside of its own housing stock, such as short-term rentals, earlier in the timeline given the known household health conditions and potential risk. It acted appropriately by recognising the break in its communication from May 2024 and its failure to work to find a solution, which contributed to the overall delay.

Actions during the complaint and proposed resolution

15. Following the resident’s complaint in February 2025, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a further damp and mould survey given the time that had passed. It completed a survey on 13 March 2025 and installed data loggers between 13 and 26 March 2025. The data loggers evidenced high humidity and low temperatures as a main cause of damp. There were no reports of obvious leaks, and the areas checked with a moisture meter did not indicate problems with the damp proof course. On 15 April 2025, the landlord set out that it proposed to install ventilation bricks, renew damaged plaster, mould wash effected areas, install a PIV unit, and upgrade the bathroom fan.
16. The landlord addressed some of the resident’s specific concerns about the proposed actions within its stage 2 complaint response on 10 June 2025, including about her windows being open during the inspection, and why it only completed calcium carbide tests in some areas. It also included detailed information about the temporary accommodation it could move her to.
17. The resident had some reservations about the proposed works. Given her concerns about not being able to adequately ventilate the property by opening windows (as she was at work during the day, and did not feel safe doing so at night due to living on the ground floor), alongside the evidence of high humidity, it was appropriate for the landlord to focus on improving the passive ventilation in the property and offer a PIV unit at various stages. PIV units are recognised to be cost effective at reducing indoor humidity and was an appropriate step given the difficulties she faced in manually ventilating the property. It acted reasonably by providing additional clarity on this in its stage 2 response.
18. However, there were gaps in the landlord’s investigation and explanation of the works it proposed. It did not investigate concerns EH and the resident had raised about the vertical bathroom ventilation route, and it missed a further opportunity to offer financial support despite evidence of low temperatures during the survey. While the survey found no mould in the hallway, the proposed work also omitted previously planned hallway plastering, which was likely to cause concern.
19. Aside form these shortcomings, the landlord’s proposed actions were generally reasonable in an attempt to reduce the evidenced humidity and ventilation issues. It can take time to resolve damp and mould, and sometimes different repairs and monitoring is required before a problem is fully resolved. The landlord acted reasonably by committing to reinspect the property after 3 months and instructing an independent surveyor if there were ongoing damp and mould once it had improved the ventilation. Following the complaint, it continued to communicate with the resident to answer her questions, provide a more specific list of work it would undertake, showing a willingness to progress the repairs needed.

Dispute regarding refused access and delays

20. The landlord suggested that delays were caused by the resident repeatedly refusing access, but there is no evidence of attempted visits or appointment notifications between September 2023 and May 2024, or between May 2024 and her complaint in February 2025. The only recorded failed or cancelled appointments were for understandable reasons, including the resident being in hospital with her son, short notice, and health concerns about the chemicals used as part of the mould wash.
21. The landlord acted reasonably in its stage 2 complaint response by accepting it had no records to support claims of refused access but that it could not arrange work until it temporarily moved her. It appropriately apologised to the residentfor the inaccuracies, and for the wording around its new process to consider an injunction after 3 failed attempts.
22. There were some circumstances which partly contributed to the overall delay in progressing works. The resident experienced a bereavement and requested additional time to respond on 5 May 2025. As the resident disagreed with the works, it is also understandable that additional time was needed to respond to the complaint. Repairs did not progress following the complaint which was primarily due to a lack of agreement regarding the work, the resident’s requests for a break in communication due to her personal circumstances, and her request for time to prepare for a temporary move. These factors were somewhat outside of the landlord’s control.

Request for compensation for damage to belongings

23. In her escalation request on 12 May 2025, the resident said she had to dispose of belongings due to the mould which caused financial strain, and that her leather sofa was also damaged. She was seeking compensation for her damaged belongings. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it would consider compensating residents for financial loss, including damaged belongings, if this was due to a direct service failure. It would not compensate for items that were thrown away before it inspected them.
24. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain that it could not compensate for items the resident had already disposed of. It was resolution focused for the landlord to agree to professionally clean the sofa in the first instance.
25. The resident asked the landlord to consider the remaining damaged items and said the sofa could not be cleaned. The landlord asked for more information about the damaged items so that it could arrange an inspection following the complaint. This was appropriate and in line with its policy. It was reasonable that it could not commit to compensating the resident without evidence. It also agreed to review its position on the sofa if cleaning was unsuccessful, which was a fair approach.
26. The landlord has said that it separately offered the resident £300 toward the cost of damaged belongings following the complaint but did not receive a response. We recommend that the landlord upholds this offer. We also recommend that if the resident is able to provide evidence to show that the damage exceeds £300, the landlord considers reviewing this offer, or referring the resident to its liability insurer.

Request for rehousing

27. As part of her complaint, the resident asked that the landlord rehouse her and explained that the property was no longer suitable for her or her children’s needs. While the landlord’s allocation policy indicates that it does have an internal waiting list, the resident’s communication suggests that she wanted to remain in the local area. The landlord acted reasonably by explaining its limitations in that it did not have any suitable available properties in the local area, offering to support her in applying to the local authority’s rehousing scheme, and explaining that it was not responsible for setting banding. These were all appropriate attempts to support a move. We note that the landlord confirmed that a property on the first floor of the same block was becoming available following the complaint around September 2025, indicating that it had considered the resident’s request to move locally in ongoing discussions.

Summary

28. We recognise that the work required to the property was complex, particularly given the need to move the resident and her children from the property due to their medical conditions. However, there was a significant delay in diagnosing the cause of the damp or progressing any remedial action from September 2023 onward. The landlord’s offer of £540 went some way to recognise the impact on the resident. However, it did not fully consider the length of time the situation had been ongoing, or its failure to address specific concerns, such as the vertical ventilation outlet.
29. Our remedies guidance states that amounts between £600 and £1,000 are proportionate in instances of maladministration where there has been a significant impact on the resident. Given the lengthy delay in resolving the damp and mould and the likely distress and uncertainty caused to the resident as a result, we are of the view that the landlord’s failings had a significant impact. In line with this, we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £260 compensation, bringing the total to £800.

30. 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 is the 2024 edition (April 2024). The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
31. The landlord has 10 working days to respond to complaints at stage 1. If it needed to extend the response timeframe, it should contact the resident, and the extension should not be more than a further 10 working days.
32. The landlord took 20 working days to respond at stage 1 (from 18 February to 17 March 2025), but acted reasonably by writing to the resident on 28 February 2025 to explain the need for an extension.The extension did not exceed a further 10 working days which was reasonable in line with the Code.
33. Following the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 12 May 2025, the landlord responded on 10 June 2025. This was in line with the timescales set out in the Code.
34. The resident raised several concerns in her escalation request on 14 May 2025 that did not form part of her original complaint. This included concerns about staff member comments regarding the severity of the damp, and that her reports were prompted by a desire to move, and previous repair handling.
35. The landlord acted reasonably by explaining that the historic repair issues did not form part of its investigation. We note that the resident raised concerns about the comments form a staff member on 29 May 2025. This was 2 days after the landlord’s panel considered the complaint, which the resident was aware of. As such, the landlord’s panel did not have the opportunity to investigate these concerns.
36. In its communication with us, the landlord has recognised that it could have taken steps to investigate these concerns separately, but that the staff member had left the organisation at the time. We have not found service failure in the landlord’s handling of these specific concerns as it recognised that it did not have a record of refused access, and was taking steps to progress repairs and communicate with the resident. It is unlikely that this would have changed the overall outcome of the complaint.
37. Overall, we have not found failing in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

38. Overall, the landlord was able to provide adequate records of what happened during the complaint. There was a lack of evidence to support that there was refused access or failed access attempts. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging this in its complaint responses. The landlord should ensure that any access attempts are recorded accurately so that staff and complaint handlers are able to make informed decisions.

Communication

39. The landlord has recognised that it failed to communicate with the resident between May 2024 and her complaint in February 2025. During, and following, the complaint it showed that it maintained communication, indicating that it had learnt from previous failings.