MHS Homes Ltd (202518324)

Background

1. The resident lives with her 3 children. She first raised a complaint regarding damp and mould in December 2024. A mould treatment was carried out prior to this, but the resident said the mould returned around bedroom windows and in parts of the living room.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord failed to evidence damp and mould inspections from May, September 2024 and January 2025. It did not promptly respond to the resident’s requests for Saturday appointments appropriately and there is limited evidence of the steps it took to address the resident’s damp and mould reports throughout the timeline.
   2. The landlord’s complaint responses were sent within an appropriate timescale and it used the complaints process to apply appropriate learning.

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.

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 did not investigate

7. The resident has described how the alleged damp and mould impacted her and her children’s health. While we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, had a detrimental impact on a person’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. While we cannot consider the effect on health, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced due to any landlord failings.
8. The resident alleged damage to personal belongings caused by the damp and mould. She is seeking compensation for these items. We do not make binding decisions on negligence or liability or assess the handling of insurance claims. We can however assess if the landlord acted reasonably in response to the resident’s concerns.

What we did investigate

9. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will acknowledge reports of damp and mould within 3 working days. It will then inspect within 5 working days.
10. As part of this investigation, we have requested on two occasions that the landlord provide relevant evidence in relation to the resident’s complaint. This request included copies of the damp and mould inspections completed. To date, we have received only partial information in the form of images and a repair job card.
11. Although we were still able to determine this case using the information that was available, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. The absence of evidence is indicative of poor record keeping in this case.
12. The landlord referred to an inspection and works done in May 2024 but no evidence has been provided to demonstrate this was a full inspection. We have only been provided with a series of photographs but there is no record of attempts made to diagnose the damp and mould or communicate the outcome with the resident. It is therefore unclear what the landlord diagnosed as the cause of damp and mould and whether it reasonably addressed this.
13. The landlord has not provided us with a copy of any inspection to allow us to assess any findings that were made or how it responded to these except for one completed by its contractor in August 2024. This covered the whole property and did not raise any concerns regarding damp and mould. The report highlights that areas of damp and mould noted by the resident were likely caused by condensation due to her not using the boiler system during the summer months. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the information provided by its specialist contractors to form any response and there was no failing by it in this regard.
14. In the resident’s initial December 2024 complaint, she stated she was unhappy that a previous damp and mould treatment (presumably from May 2024) had not worked. She advised the damp and mould had returned and worsened since the initial treatment.
15. The landlord’s January 2025 stage 1 response said there would be an inspection the following day. This was an appropriate response and shows it took the resident’s continued concerns seriously and was broadly in line with its damp and mould policy obligations.
16. The records are then silent until June 2025 when the resident escalated her complaint. She stated the landlord had not completed the January 2025 inspection. She alleged this was due to its poor communication regarding Saturday appointments.
17. The landlord’s stage 2 response expanded on the actions taken in relation to the resident’s reports. It stated that it previously completed 3 damp and mould inspections during 2024. It advised that, following its last inspection in September 2024, it attempted to complete mould washes on 3 occasions between 27 November 2024 and 14 May 2025. This would have been an appropriate response to initial reports of damp and mould.
18. However, on each of these occasions, the records show the resident was not available. There is no evidence that the landlord arranged these appointments with the resident or notified her in advance that she needed to be available. We acknowledge the resident has since advised the landlord she is only available on Saturdays. As such, the landlord said it arranged for remedial damp and mould works to be completed on 19 July 2025. However, it has provided no further evidence to show it completed these works. The resident has also advised us that, to date, works are still outstanding.
19. In regard to alleged damage, the landlord directed the resident to its insurer. It stated it did not offer compensation for items where the insurer should consider a claim. It also provided the contact information for its insurance team. This was an appropriate response and in line with its compensation policy.
20. Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Whilst complaint responses indicate that a number of surveys took place, with remedial work identified and appointed, the Ombudsman has been provided with limited evidence of these.
21. The landlord was aware of the resident’s challenges in granting access during weekdays but continued to attempt such appointments. Whilst the landlord did acknowledge communication issues, this was not until much later in the timeline. This caused the resident additional time and trouble in pursuit of her complaint. As such, the landlord should pay the resident £150 for the time and trouble caused by its failings and complete a damp and mould inspection.

22. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days. If a resident escalates their complaint to stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days. These timescales align with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
23. The resident raised a complaint on 18 December 2024. The landlord responded 11 working days later by issuing its stage 1 response. This response timescale was in line with its policy.
24. The resident requested an escalation on 17 June 2025. The landlord acknowledged this request the same day. It advised a response would be issued within 20 working days which is in line with its policy.
25. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 18 working days later on 11 July 2025. This was within the timescales stated in its policy. The landlord used the complaints process to appropriately identify learnings and provide information on improvements that it will take forward.

Learning

Record keeping

26. The landlord should ensure it has effective knowledge and information management processes to prevent repeat issues not being fully addressed. When other operational areas are required to fulfil actions as part of a service request, the landlord should ensure there is suitable oversight to ensure it has completed these actions. This approach will ensure the landlord can act on resident’s requests, reduce risk, and improve its service outcomes.

Communication

27. Clear and timely communication is critical when managing complaints. The landlord must provide regular updates so the resident does not need to chase for information. Consistent communication builds trust and prevents unnecessary inconvenience. In this case, the landlord acknowledged its communication failure within its complaint handling. It provided information on the learnings it had taken and improvements it made.