Raven Housing Trust Limited (202423079)

Background

1. The resident lives with his daughter in a ground‑floor flat owned by the landlord. He says that from the start of the tenancy he reported problems with damp and mould in the property, and that these issues affected the household’s health, particularly their respiratory conditions. The landlord carried out several investigations and remedial works and acknowledged delays in resolving the issues, for which it awarded compensation. However, the resident reports that the issues persist and he remains dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord delayed completing the damp and mould works. It also failed to consider the household’s health needs or vulnerabilities, or whether additional support—such as temporary rehousing—was required during the complaint period.
7. The landlord did not comply with the Complaint Handling Code at stage 2. Its delayed action caused the resident time and trouble in chasing the landlord for a response.

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.

8. The landlord is obliged to keep the property free from mould and damp and fit for human habitation as per the Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘the Homes Act 2018’). The landlord is obliged to respond to repairs within a reasonable timescale under the Homes Act 2018 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
9. Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 – Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) refers to 29 categories of housing hazard. One of these hazards refers to damp and mould. Local authorities have powers to act under the HHSRS and will typically work with landlords to address identified hazards in a property.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy aims to complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days. This is where repairs are not hazardous and do not cause serious inconvenience and do not pose an immediate risk to health and safety.
11. In December 2023, the landlord completed a self‑assessment using our Damp and Mould Spotlight report and agreed to implement the recommendations. In September 2025, after the complaint, it introduced a new Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy, committing to a proactive approach that supports residents’ safety and wellbeing.
12. The resident told us that the condition of the property affected his and his daughter’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any health issues. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any health issues and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
13. When investigating complaints involving damp and mould, we will consider whether the landlord has fully and fairly investigated the issue, engaged independent expertise where appropriate, and communicated effectively with the resident. The landlord’s response should reflect the resident’s individual circumstances, including any vulnerabilities or health concerns.
14. The landlord’s records show the resident first reported damp and mould in early December 2023. The resident says he raised the issue in October 2023, during a visit from the landlord’s housing officer. The landlord has no record of that visit and while it is not disputing that the visit took place, it chose to treat December 2023 as the starting point for its assessment because that is when its formal records on the issue began.
15. The landlord followed up in December 2023 and conducted a survey of the property. It then arranged remedial works to service/replace the positive input ventilation (PIV) system. It also arranged to install a bathroom fan. While these were all positive attempts to resolve the damp and mould, the evidence suggest the landlord knew about the resident’s reports of household health issues as early as December 2023.
16. It was important that the landlord risk assessed the individual circumstances of the household to determine an action plan for resolving the issues including whether there were any hazards or risk. It is noted that the landlord’s damp and mould policy was not implemented until after the complaint, however, the landlord had self-assessed against our Spotlight report on damp and mould – it’s not a lifestyle. It had committed to our recommendations for improvements. The landlord’s risk assessment duties are in line with the HHSRS requirements. The landlord’s lack of risk assessment was unreasonable.
17. The resident raised a complaint in early May 2024, explaining that he believed the issues posed a serious risk to his health. The landlord responded by outlining the actions it had already taken to address the issues. It acknowledged delays in completing a mould wash, apologised, and offered £50 compensation. The mould wash had been completed in March 2024. The landlord also arranged further actions, including a 2nd survey in April 2024, which found no evidence of damp or mould. It carried out precautionary work and advised the resident to report any further concerns so another survey could be arranged. The landlord also identified learning points around communication, record keeping, and contractor monitoring which were all positive steps forward.
18. In early June 2024, the resident declined the compensation offer. It is unclear why the landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 at that point. The resident contacted the landlord again in early August 2024, explaining that both he and his daughter had respiratory issues and that he believed the conditions in the property were hazardous. He continued to pursue the matter. The landlord issued its stage 2 response in mid‑September 2024, confirming that it had carried out further investigations and scheduled the installation of a damp‑proof membrane. It also planned to reboard, plaster, and decorate the bedroom. Externally, it arranged for a French drain to be fitted and for rainwater gulleys to be repaired.
19. The landlord upheld the complaint, apologised, and increased its compensation offer to £350, including £150 to reimburse the resident for additional heating costs. While the landlord took positive steps to identify and address the root cause of the problem, acknowledging the resident’s health issues, it is of concern that it did not consider the individual circumstances of the resident alongside the property condition to determine whether the household should be moved to temporary accommodation while the works were completed. The landlord’s inaction was inappropriate.
20. In September 2024, the landlord reviewed its position. It acknowledged that the damp and mould issues had not been resolved and that further remedial work was required. It sought to put things right by completing the additional works, offering an apology, and increasing its compensation to £782.96 based on 25% of the rent over a 2-month period. This totalled £432.96 plus the £350 already offered. However, by this stage the issues had been ongoing for around a year and therefore the amount of compensation offered fell short of what we would expect for delays in resolving the issues over a significant period.
21. In October 2024 after the resident’s ongoing contact, the landlord reviewed its position again and issued another stage 2 response. It confirmed it was satisfied that the agreed works had been completed. It increased the compensation to £2,002.44 based on 25% rent over a 37‑week period from the initial report in December 2023 to around August 2024. The landlord told the resident that it would also compensate him the £350 already offered at stage 2 in September 2024. This included its offer of £150 towards additional heating costs. The total amount of compensation was now £2,352.44.
22. In conclusion, the landlord took around 10 months to resolve the damp and mould issues, and despite its ongoing efforts, the resident continued to report problems at the property beyond the stage 2 responses.
23. While the landlord gave the resident appropriate medical advice to contact his GP, we have not seen evidenced that it risk assessed the property or household circumstances to determine hazards and risks and whether a temporary move was necessary while the root cause of the issue was being investigated. This approach is aligned to its responsibilities under the HHSRS.
24. The landlord acknowledged its failures and calculated compensation based on 25% of the rent for the period in which its shortcomings were evidenced. While we consider this to be appropriate and in line with our remedies guidance, we are not satisfied that it fully recognised the extent of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, with its £200 compensation offer for this aspect of the complaint.
25. We have therefore found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and ordered the landlord to pay a total of £500 for distress and inconvenience. This amount includes the £200 previously offered during its complaint process. In total the landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident £2502.44. While we have not assessed the £150 offered towards heating costs, it is recommended that if not already done so, the landlord pays the resident the additional £150 already offered to him during its complaints process.
26. The landlord must also investigate the resident’s report of ongoing issues, contact the resident, and provide him with its written plan of action including reasonable timescales for remedial works. The landlord must demonstrate it has considered the health vulnerabilities of the household and conduct a risk assessment in line with HHSRS. If appropriate, it must also consider an assessment of whether temporary accommodation is required until it is satisfied all issues are resolved.

27. The resident raised a complaint on 6 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 May 2024 and responded at stage 1 on 20 May 2024.
28. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states complaints must be acknowledged within 5 working days of being received and responded to within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. The landlord appropriately complied with the Code’s timeframes.
29. The resident raised dissatisfaction with the landlord on 2 June 2024. The landlord did not escalate his complaint to stage 2 until the resident contacted the landlord on 2 more occasions in August 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 August 2024. It responded at stage 2 on 11 September 2024.
30. The Code states that stage 2 requests must be acknowledged, defined, and logged at stage 2 within 5 working days of the escalation request being received. Landlords must issue a final response to the stage 2 within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. The landlord delayed significantly by 2 months in acknowledging the complaint and therefore delayed in responding to the complaint. The landlord’s delayed failures were inappropriate.
31. Further communication took place between the resident and landlord which led the landlord to review its position again shortly after the complaint process had concluded. Although the landlord showed a willingness to reach a mutually agreed resolution, the landlord missed an earlier opportunity to fully review and put things right for resident during its initial stage 2 response. This was inappropriate and resulted in additional delay and frustration for the resident.
32. There was no indication that the landlord recognised its complaint‑handling failures within its complaint response and therefore we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. For these reasons, we order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £100 in recognition of the time, effort, and frustration he experienced in repeatedly chasing a response. This level of compensation is consistent with our remedies guidance.

Learning

33. It is noted the landlord’s positive steps to improve its damp, mould, and condensation service. While it is accepted that the landlord does not have the medical expertise to reach conclusions on medical issues, the landlord must demonstrate its risk assessment approach to the individual resident’s circumstances and potential hazards within the property.