Legal and General Affordable Homes Limited (202442332)

Decision
Case ID	202442332
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Legal and General Affordable Homes Limited
Landlord type	For profit
Occupancy	Assured Shortlhold Tenancy
Date	26 February 2026

1. The resident complained to the landlord about how it handled her reports of damp and mould in the property. She said contractors had let her down and the issue remained. She said she was experiencing stress, anxiety and other health problems from the issue and wanted it repaired.

 

What the complaint is about

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

 

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

 

Summary of reasons

Response to reports of damp and mould

5. The landlord apologised for the delay in addressing the issue and took steps to resolve it. It offered the resident compensation to recognise the impact on her and said it would monitor the situation. These were reasonable actions in response to the complaint.

Complaint handling

6. There were delays in the landlord acknowledging and responding to the resident’s complaint. It was not aware that she had previously tried to raise the complaint, and it did not explain the cause of the delays.

 

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 to recognise the delay in acknowledging and responding to the resident’s complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 26 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident any part of the £400 it has previously offered. The finding of reasonable redress is based on the assumption this will be paid.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 March 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about how it managed her reports of damp and mould.
07 May 2024	In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged issues with the previous property management company, which had since been replaced. It said the front door repair had been scheduled and that it was working with the developer to resolve the damp and mould. It offered the resident £300 compensation.
17 June 2024	The landlord updated the resident on its investigations, which had not identified any ongoing damp or mould issues. It increased its compensation offer to £400.
22 July 2024	The resident escalated her complaint, as she believed damp and mould was still present in the property. She said the worst affected room was the kitchen.
13 September 2024	In its response, the landlord said its investigations and repairs had been thorough and that there were no longer visible signs of damp or mould. It said it would continue to monitor the situation and carry out regular damp readings at the property. It also advised the resident to contact her doctor if she was experiencing any physical symptoms.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us because she said the damp and mould had reoccurred and she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions to resolve it. She said the issue was affecting her and her family’s health.

 

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 reports of damp and mould
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

7. The resident has raised issues which have occurred in January 2025 since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. This investigation has focussed on matters up to the landlord’s final complaint response in September 2024 and the immediate actions it said it would take in its response. If the resident has concerns about the landlord’s latest response to damp and mould or any new matters, she can make a new complaint to the landlord and may be able to bring her complaint to us in the future.
8. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. Because this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts it will not be considered in this report.

What we have investigated

9. The landlord uses a property management company to manage the resident’s property on its behalf. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord remains responsible for internal and external repairs.
10. The resident’s complaints of March and July 2024 focused on the landlord’s response to damp and mould, which she first reported in December 2023. She was unhappy with the service provided by the property management company and believed damp was entering through an external wall. She said damp and mould were present in several rooms, with the kitchen most affected. She explained that the issue was causing her stress and anxiety and asked the landlord to investigate and carry out repairs.
11. In response to the complaints the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the poor service provided by the previous property management company, which had since been replaced. It said it had worked with contractors and the property developer to carry out a range of investigations and repairs. In its final complaint response in September 2024, it said recent inspections had identified no visible signs of damp or mould and that an Environmental Health Specialist was satisfied with the outcome of the investigations. It committed to carrying out damp meter readings for 6 weeks to reassure the resident and offered her £300 compensation for the delay and impact, later increasing this to £400 to recognise further delays.
12. The landlord’s records show that it took several actions to resolve the issue from December 2023, including mould washes, damp surveys and a camera inspection of the cavity wall. It followed the advice of an Environmental Health Specialist and provided the resident with an air purifier, reimbursing the running costs. The actions the landlord took were in line with its damp and mould policy at the time, which has since been updated to reflect changes to how similar issues should be investigated and resolved. The records support that, at the time of the final complaint response, there were no visible signs of damp or mould, but the landlord said it would continue to visit the property to complete damp meter readings and would act if any adverse readings were found.
13. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that the service delivered by the previous property management company had not met the expected standard and that there were delays resolving the issue. However, its record keeping is incomplete, and the nature of those delays, or what service the previous property management company provided is unclear.
14. The evidence shows the landlord completed the actions it committed to in its final complaint response. Its records confirm it carried out damp meter readings, which were within acceptable levels. When the resident raised further concerns following an independent inspection she arranged after the complaint process concluded, the landlord obtained an additional damp inspection in November 2024 to review the issue again.
15. Damp and mould can be challenging to diagnose and resolve, and the repeated issues were understandably frustrating for the resident. However, the evidence does not indicate that the recurrence after the landlord’s final complaint response was due to a lack of action by the landlord. The evidence shows the landlord recognised the impact on the resident and took steps consistent with its damp and mould policy.
16. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint was fair and reasonable. It acknowledged failings in how it had initially handled the issue and took steps to investigate and resolve the issue it. It committed to ongoing inspections of the property to reassure the resident when it was apparent that damp and mould was no longer visible and offered her remedies to the complaint which aligned with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes, as well as our guidance on remedies.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

17. The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It says a resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement, unless an extension is required. The landlord’s policy complies with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
18. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint 2 days later than required and issued its response 25 days outside its published timescales. It acknowledged and responded to the stage 2 complaint within the correct timeframes after requesting an extension while it completed further enquiries.
19. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in providing the stage 1 acknowledgement or response. It also told us it had been unaware that the resident had initially tried to raise a complaint through the property management company before it was formally logged. However, the lack of records meant it could not confirm when this occurred.
20. The landlord should have acknowledged and responded to the stage 1 complaint sooner to comply with the Code. However, the delays were limited and there is no evidence of them causing a severe adverse impact to the resident.

 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord was unable to provide full records from when the resident first raised concerns with the previous property management company or what delays occurred when the issue was first reported, as a member of staff had since left the organisation. The landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management for guidance on the importance of effective record keeping.

Communication

22. The landlord’s overall communication with the resident was good. It provided regular, detailed updates while it investigated the issue and committed to monitoring the situation to reassure her.