Ongo Homes Limited (202514838)

Decision
Case ID	202514838
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Ongo Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	23 February 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a one-bedroom flat. He has physical and mental health conditions, which the landlord is aware of. He complained that after he reported damp and mould, the landlord failed to carry out the bedroom repairs it had promised.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord offered reasonable redress in its handling of repairs to the bedroom following the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

Handling of bedroom repairs

6. The landlord’s offer of compensation for the delayed bedroom repairs was fair and proportionate.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident £350 compensation as offered in its stage 1 response. We have found reasonable redress based on it paying this to the resident.
The landlord should keep to its commitment to replace the bedroom carpet.
The landlord should inspect the watermarks on the bedroom wall and decide whether any repairs are needed. It should also consider what help it can offer the resident with redecorating the bedroom.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 March 2025	The resident made a formal complaint. He said the landlord had not completed the promised repairs to his bedroom, and this was affecting his physical and mental health because he had to sleep on his sofa. He was frustrated that the repairs kept being delayed and wanted the landlord to complete the work as soon as possible.
3 April 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said that during its visit on 11 March 2025 it identified more repairs, including removing the ceiling above the wardrobe and reboarding and plastering the area. It explained that although mould washes had been carried out, it had not addressed the root cause, which had led to unreasonable delays in resolving the problem. The landlord said it would assess the loft insulation on 23 April 2025, and that its contractor would contact the resident to arrange the other repairs. It offered £350 in compensation, £150 for the delays and £200 for the stress and inconvenience caused.
15 April 2025	The resident escalated the complaint. He was unhappy with the compensation offered and felt that the landlord should have completed the plastering work during the previous repair appointment.
21 May 2025	The landlord issued its final stage 2 response. It said the only outstanding repairs were to fit vents in the cupboard and to paint the wall and cupboard with thermal paint, which was scheduled for 9 June 2025. It said the resident had told it that he could not use the bedroom because the carpet smelled damp. It noted that the carpet had been cleaned during a previous stage 2 complaint the year before, but it offered to replace the carpet to help him start using the room again.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident wanted further compensation, a written apology and for the landlord to improve its services.

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	Repairs to the bedroom following reports of damp and mould
Finding	Reasonable redress

8. The landlord accepts that there were failings in how it handled the resident’s reports. When this happens, we assess if the complaint was resolved fairly and if the landlord offered suitable redress. We also look at whether the landlord followed our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
9. After the resident reported damp and mould, the landlord instructed a disrepair expert to inspect the property in December 2024. The expert identified several repairs needed in the bedroom, including treating the mould, installing vents in the cupboard door, and applying thermal paint. They also recommended that the landlord check whether the loft had enough insulation.
10. The landlord visited the property on 11 March 2025 following a previously rearranged appointment. During the visit, it carried out a mould wash and inspected the loft insulation, finding that it had gathered in the middle of the loft. The landlord also found that further work was needed to the ceiling of the bedroom cupboard, which would then need to be boarded and plastered.
11. The landlord acknowledged that it did not properly manage the resident’s expectations about the work needed before it could replaster. This caused the resident distress, as he believed the work would be completed during that appointment and was concerned about how the situation was affecting his health.
12. The landlord redistributed the loft insulation on 23 April 2025, which was outside its 28-day routine repair timescale. Its records also showed that it did not complete the other bedroom repairs until 24 June 2025, more than 3 months after the landlord’s March 2025 inspection. This was again outside its policy timescales. The landlord’s policy states that repairs should be prioritised where a resident has vulnerabilities or medical needs that may be affected by the issue. This did not happen, despite the landlord being aware of the resident’s circumstances and how the situation was affecting him.
13. Nevertheless, the landlord’s stage 1 response appropriately acknowledged the impact of the delays on the resident and recognised that he felt unable to use his bedroom. It also showed a good understanding of his circumstances. It offered £350 in compensation, which was fair and in line with our remedies guidance, which suggests awards from £100 where failures have had an adverse effect on a resident. It also identified learning around managing residents’ expectations and completing repairs within policy timescales.
14. Overall, the landlord followed our dispute resolution principles, and its offer of compensation was reasonable in addressing the lack of clear information about the works and the repair delays.
15. In its final response, the landlord offered to replace the resident’s bedroom carpet, even though it had already cleaned it during a previous complaint. This showed a willingness to be flexible in resolving his concerns and to help ensure he felt comfortable using his bedroom. We understand that the resident has not yet taken up this offer, which is why we have made a recommendation for the landlord.
16. The resident also explained that due to a recurrent leak he has watermarks on his bedroom wall. Although this issue is not being assessed as part of this complaint, we have made another recommendation for the landlord to investigate this matter. The resident told us that the room would need to be cleared so that he can redecorate before the carpet is laid.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

17. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It also commits to providing a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. In this case, the landlord met these commitments and issued formal responses at both stages within the timescales set out in its policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord’s record-keeping was satisfactory.

Communication

19. Our Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.
20. In this case, the landlord did not appropriately manage the resident’s expectations about what work would be carried out at repair appointments. Distress may have been avoided if the landlord followed our Spotlight report recommendations.