Magna Housing Limited (202433807)

Decision
Case ID	202433807
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Magna Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 February 2026

Background

The resident lives in a one-bedroom flat owned by the landlord. He has told it and us he has physical and mental health conditions and had received open-heart surgery prior to his complaint. He complained it had delayed completing repairs related to damp and mould in the property and the windows as well as about the conduct of its staff.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
2. Requests for repairs to the windows.
3. Concerns about staff conduct.
4. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The repairs to the windows.
2. The associated complaint.
The complaint about the resident’s concerns about staff conduct is outside of our jurisdiction.

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

Summary of reasons

We have found that:

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould

The landlord has not effectively investigated or repaired the underlying cause of the damp and mould for around 2 years since it was reported in February 2024. It took 4 months to arrange an inspection. It then did not complete the repairs it recommended from the inspection until March 2025, over a year after the initial report, and did not keep clear records of the work completed. Furthermore, after it identified that damp and mould had returned around the time of its stage 2 response of 29 July 2025 it has not arranged a further inspection or repairs in the approximately 6 and a half months since.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows

The landlord took approximately 8 and half months to complete these repairs after the resident raised these. It did not keep adequate records of the work it carried out and the reasons for delays. It also did not communicate effectively with him about the repair.

The landlord’s handling of concerns about staff conduct

The event the resident complained about occurred in 2021 and he was aware of his reason to complain at the time. There is no evidence he brought this complaint to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable period.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s stage 1 response did not address all parts of the complaint definition it agreed. Neither of its complaint responses provided clear explanations for why the delays occurred or clear reasons for its decisions.

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
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 17 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,500 made up as follows: £1,000 (inclusive of the £300 it previously offered) for the resident’s distress, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of his home caused by its handling of his reports of damp and mould. £400 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs to the windows of the property. £100 in recognition of the time and trouble of pursuing a complaint and the frustration caused by the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 17 March 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the damp and mould in the property. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Whether damp and mould is still present in the property and produces a written report with photographs. If there is evidence of continuing problems with damp and mould the survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of the ongoing damp and mould. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works. The landlord must also agree a communication plan with the resident to inform him of any scope of work, the likely timescales and to keep him updated on the progression of the repairs.	No later than 17 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend, that within 3 months following the completion of any scope of work from the inspection order above, the landlord re-inspect the property to confirm whether the damp and mould has reoccurred. If so, it should raise further repairs as required and inform the resident of the likely timescales to commence and complete this work.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 December 2024	The resident contacted this Service reporting that he was experiencing issues with damp and mould and window repairs at the property. He also said he had experienced threatening behaviour from a member of its staff. We contacted the landlord on the same day outlining the issues he raised. We asked it to log and respond to his complaint in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code)
8 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident: it outlined the findings of its damp and mould inspection in June 2024 and reminded him he should keep the extractor fans on it said it had attempted to carry out a mould wash on 3 January 2025 but he refused the work it gave him details of the appointments scheduled for January and February 2025 for the work recommended from its inspection it acknowledged there had been delays in its repairs following the inspection and offered him £150 as compensation
26 June 2025	The resident contacted this Service again reporting that the landlord had not resolved the issues with damp and mould and the windows. He said it had also left the repairs and redecorating work from this unfinished. We contacted the landlord on the same day outlining the issues he raised. We asked it to log and respond to this as a stage 2 complaint in line with the Code.
29 July 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident: it outlined the work that had been recommended from its damp and mould inspection and the dates this had been completed since its stage 1 response it accepted there were 2 outstanding items in terms of completing redecoration at the property and glazing the windows. It apologised for these and said it would prioritise these repairs. it offered £300 for the delays in completing the repairs and said it would carry out another damp and mould inspection once these were complete to confirm this has been resolved
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said the landlord had still not resolved the damp and mould at the property and he wanted it to provide additional compensation for the impact of its actions.

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	The landlord’s handling of damp and mould and the associated repairs
Finding	Severe maladministration

What we have not investigated

Our scheme states we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, normally 12 months. The resident stated he had been reporting damp and mould since he moved in in 2015, but he did not raise a complaint until 3 December 2024. Our investigation has, therefore, focussed on the events following 3 December 2023 which was 12 months prior to his complaint. Any events prior to this are referred to for contextual purposes only.

What we have investigated

The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation (DMC) policy says following a report of damp and mould it will carry out an inspection in 10 working days, or 2 working days if there is a priority health risk. Following an inspection it will carry out a mould wash within 28 working days, or within 2 working days if severe. It says it will complete non-structural repairs for damp and mould within 28 working days, or within 3 months for structural repairs.
The landlord told us on 6 February 2024 it was informed that damp and mould had returned on the walls and ceiling of the kitchen following previous treatment it completed in 2021. We have not seen any contemporaneous records from February 2024 or any evidence that it told the resident what it would do to resolve the damp and mould.
The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection on 6 June 2024. This was 4 months after it became aware there was damp and mould in the property, which significantly exceeded the timescales of its DMC policy. We have seen no explanation for this delay or that it had any communication with the resident during this time.
In the landlord’s damp and mould inspection it recorded that “extensive” mould was present in the kitchen and there was also mould on the external walls of the bedroom. It recorded all the areas were dry except for an area by the bedroom window. It also noted the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans were switched off and it spoke to the resident about this. The landlord ordered for repairs to mould wash, stain block and redecorate the areas affected by mould and to remove bricks by the bedroom window to investigate if the damp insulation was defective. The landlord acknowledged in a recent review the inspection it completed in June 2024 was not thorough.
There is no evidence that the landlord progressed the repairs it ordered from its inspection on 6 June 2024 until after the resident’s complaint on 23 December 2024. Though it said in its stage 1 response that this was from increased demand on its repairs service we have seen no evidence it was in any communication with him to explain the reason for any delays, or any action it would take to mitigate this, for the approximately 7 months between its inspection and stage 1 response.
The landlord recorded it attempted to carry out the mould washes on 3 January 2025 which the resident declined. It attended again on 17 January 2025 and completed the mould washes during that attendance. As such it took approximately 7 months to complete this work which significantly exceeds the timescales of its DMC policy. Considering it described the mould in the kitchen was “extensive” there is also no evidence that it assessed if it needed to prioritise this work as it should have in line with this policy.
On 12 March 2025 the landlord attended to investigate the damp insulation. This was approximately 9 months after this repair was ordered from its damp and mould inspection, which significantly exceeded the timescales for structural repairs from its DMC policy. Furthermore, though the landlord recorded removing bricks to investigate if the damp insulation was defective there is no further detail of its findings or whether any repairs to the damp insulation were carried out. This is a records management failing.
In terms of redecoration the landlord attended to carry out stain blocking and redecorating on 20 February 2025 but recorded the resident said he wanted to wait until the other works were complete until the rooms were redecorated. As part of its attendance on 12 March 2025 it stated that follow-up work for redecoration was necessary. However, there is no evidence it acted on this until after he escalated his complaint on 26 June 2025. The redecoration work did not take place until 31 July 2025, over a year after the damp and mould inspection, which significantly exceeded the timescales of its DMC policy.
The landlord also said in its stage 2 response that it would arrange a further damp and mould inspection. In its attendance on 31 July 2025 it recorded that the damp and mould had returned in the kitchen and bedroom following previous repairs and a further inspection was necessary as there was a possible issue with the cavity wall. It attempted to inspect on 2 December 2025 but could not gain access. However, we have not seen any evidence of how it informed the resident of the planned inspection or why it did not schedule this until around 4 months after it identified the damp and mould.
Therefore, as of the date of this report, we have seen no evidence the landlord has completed a further damp and mould inspection approximately 6 months after it said it would do so and had identified the damp and mould had returned in July 2025. This is not in line with its DMC policy or the Code which states that landlords must follow through any remedy it proposes as part of a complaint response to completion.
The resident told us that because of the damp and mould in his bedroom he has been unable to sleep there and has been sleeping in the lounge of the property instead. Though we have not seen evidence to show the bedroom was unusable as a result of the damp and mould we recognise the landlord’s actions will have likely caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience as well as the loss of enjoyment of his home.
The landlord also recorded the resident disclosed that he has physical and mental health conditions, including having undergone open heart surgery prior to the events complained about. There is no evidence it has assessed whether his health conditions meant that it should have prioritised inspecting and treating the damp and mould throughout its handling of this, as it should have in line with its DMC policy. We consider this is an aggravating factor in this case in line with our guidance on remedies.
Overall, the landlord has not resolved the damp and mould in the property over 2 years after this was reported. Though it took some action to remove mould there were significant delays in it doing so compared to its DMC policy and there is a lack of evidence to show that it effectively investigated or repaired the underlying cause of the damp and mould. There were significant gaps where it did not progress the repairs or communicate with the resident about these. These were significant failings which likely had a detrimental impact on him. While it offered £300 compensation for its handling of this, in line with our guidance on remedies this is not proportionate to put right the failings we have seen.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s current repair policy sets out its response times based on the category of the repair. For routine repairs it says it aims to respond within 28 calendar days. For major repairs, which it defines as larger day-to-day repairs which may take several days to complete, it says it aims to respond within 3 months depending on priority. It updated its repair policy in April 2025. The version before this did not include timescales and said all repairs which did not pose a risk to a resident’s health and safety or the security of their home would be made at a “mutually convenient and reasonable appointment” agreed with the resident.
On 28 November 2024 the landlord created a repair order that the windows in the lounge of the resident’s flat were letting draughts in. It recorded the repair as low priority and booked the repair for 20 March 2025, around 4 months later. Considering the nature and priority of the work this may have been a reasonable timescale for the appointment. However, there is no evidence it communicated or agreed this with him as it should have in line with its repair policy.
The landlord attended on 20 March 2025 as agreed. However, it recorded that further works were necessary as it needed to order parts. Due to a lack of adequate records it is not clear whether any repairs to the windows took place as part of the appointment. It is also not clear why the landlord had not assessed what parts it required when it created the repair order.
Following the landlord’s attendance on 20 March 2025 there is no evidence it took action to progress the repair or communicated with the resident until after he escalated his complaint. In its stage 2 response it acknowledged the glazing of the windows had not been done and said it would prioritise the work. It attended on 31 July 2025, 2 days after its response and fitted 2 double glazed units to the property. As the resident needed to leave before the repairs could be finished it arranged follow-up work for 15 August 2025, it attended on that date and completed the repairs then.
Overall, the landlord took a total of around 8 and a half months to complete the window repairs after it first raised these. This significantly exceeded the target timescales from its repairs policy and there was a lack of communication with the resident outside of its formal complaint responses. The landlord acknowledged its delays and took action to prioritise the work following its stage 2 response, which went some way to put things right. However, compared to our guidance on remedies we do not consider this was proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of concerns about staff conduct
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The resident told us that his complaint about staff conduct related to an incident in 2021. He said during previous repair work a member of the landlord’s staff “barged into” his flat and behaved aggressively towards him.
Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident was aware of this issue in 2021, at the time it happened. However, there is no evidence he raised a complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of when he became aware of the issue. We have not seen evidence he was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we will not investigate the complaint about staff conduct.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with the Code.
From the available evidence we have not seen the resident informed the landlord of his complaint before he contacted this Service on 3 December 2024. We asked the landlord to acknowledge his complaint and to provide its response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement, and no later than 24 December 2024. Though it acknowledged his complaint the following day it said it would respond by 9 January 2025. The landlord later told this Service that it was closed on 26, 27 and 30 December 2024 so these were not working days for it but there is no indication it advised us or the resident at the time. It issued its response on 8 January 2025, 19 working days after its acknowledgement. This was not consistent with the timescales of its policy and the Code. It told him in general terms the delay was because “multiple colleagues across the organisation” were required to respond and the Code specifies the landlord can extend its stage 1 response by up to 10 working days.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not address the resident’s complaint about the behaviour of its operative or about the repairs to the windows, despite these being included within the defined complaint on its acknowledgement. In relation to its handling of the damp and mould it accepted it there had been delays but did not explain why these happened. This was not consistent with the requirements of the Code to address all parts of the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for its decisions.
The landlord explained to us it would not have investigated the complaint about the behaviour of its operative in 2021, due to the time that had elapsed, but accepted it should have clearly explained this to the resident. The Code says it is acceptable for landlords to exclude complaints where the issue occurred over 12 months before the complaint was made. As such this mitigates the impact of it not addressing this part of the complaint definition.
The resident escalated his complaint by contacting this Service about it on 26 June 2025. We told the landlord on the same day that it should acknowledge his stage 2 complaint and respond no later than 31 July 2025. We have seen no evidence that it acknowledged his complaint as it should have in line with its policy and the Code. It issued its stage 2 response on 29 July 2025, 23 working days after we informed it of the escalation request, which somewhat exceeded the timescales of its policy and the Code.
The landlord’s stage 2 response primarily reiterated the inspection from June 2024 and what work had been carried out in between January to March 2025. Though it accepted there had been delays and that work was outstanding it did not explain why these delays happened or what it would do to prevent a reoccurrence these issues in the action it would take to resolve the situation. This was not consistent with the requirements of the Code to provide clear reasons for its decision.
The landlord did not acknowledge any failings in its complaint handling in its responses to the resident or offer him any remedy to put these right. In line with our guidance on remedies we have made a finding of maladministration to reflect this.

Learning

In light of the introduction of Awaab’s Law the landlord should ensure its DMC policy contains suitable guidance for its staff to meet the key requirements of this legislation, as highlighted in the Ombudsman’s ‘Learning from severe maladministration’ report from October 2025. Its damp and mould policies should set out how it will assess risk and resolve access issues.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s repair records did not always clearly set out what work it completed as part of its attendances at the property. The landlord should ensure that it creates clear records to show what actions or repairs it completes. This will allow it to demonstrate a clear rationale for its actions to put things right and any relevant decisions.

Communication

There is a lack of evidence the landlord contacted or updated the resident about the repair issues outside of its formal responses to his complaint. It should ensure that where there are delays in completing work it communicates the cause of these to the resident(s) as well as discussing any action it may be able to take to mitigate the impact of these.