Yorkshire Housing Limited (202427355)

Background

1. The resident complained about damp and mould shortly after she moved into the property on 4 March 2024. The property is a new build flat which the landlord acquired from the developer in January 2024. The developer was responsible for structural defects up to January 2025. The resident shared with the landlord that she has blepharitis, an eye condition, which can worsen in damp conditions.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the residents:
   1. Reports about damp and mould including its offer of compensation.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to damp and mould

5. The landlord liaised with the developer to address the damp and mould and kept the resident updated. It completed investigations to gain an understanding of the issues despite this being the responsibility of the developer.
6. However, it was slow to progress solutions at times. Specifically, it delayed providing a dehumidifier and did not complete a sufficient and prompt inspection of the heating system.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord complied with its policy and this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in its handling of the complaint.

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.

Recommendations

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

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 resident notified the landlord about the damp and mould on 3 April 2024. The landlord alerted the developer which was appropriate as the property was within the defect’s liability period. It was the developer’s responsibility to repair any structural issues under warranty.
9. That said, the landlord had overall responsibility for external repairs under the terms of the tenancy. Therefore, it had a duty to monitor repair progress and ensure it kept the resident informed. The evidence shows it did. It emailed the resident on 1 May 2024 to check the developer had attended a scheduled appointment. It chased the developer for an update throughout May 2024. It asked when it would complete thermal imaging and asked it to provide a dehumidifier. In the absence of information from the developer, it sent its own contractor to inspect the wall cavity.
10. The landlord continued to chase the developer and communicated updates to the resident prior to its final response. It attended a joint inspection with the developer on 27 June 2024. And updated the resident about the developer’s plan for repairs on 13 August 2024. It facilitated access for the developer by collecting the resident’s keys, it inspected the works and updated the resident on the status of the repairs. The landlord took a proactive role in doing so, and its actions were fair and reasonable.
11. As part of its complaint response the landlord agreed to complete a mould wash and provide the resident with a dehumidifier. This was while she was waiting for the developer to investigate. It did not deliver the dehumidifier until 2 months later, on 27 July 2024. While it was fair of the landlord to offer this, and cover the running costs, it was slow to follow through on its promise. This resulted in time and trouble to the resident who chased it.
12. There is no evidence the landlord completed the mould treatment it offered. However, its developer did so during works between mid-August and 4 September 2024. In its stage 2 response the landlord admitted it failed to complete a mould wash within 14 days. It had no formal damp and mould policy at this time, but its compensation policy required payment for this specific failure. It confirmed its offer of compensation included £100 for this which was appropriate.
13. The resident reported ongoing concerns following works undertaken by the developer in August 2024. In response, the landlord’s surveyor attended on 27 September 2024 and identified potential issues of high humidity and low temperatures. It took appropriate action by requesting that its heat technician attend and assess. They did so on 17 October 2024. However, they did not assess temperatures in the hall, which was the main area of concern.
14. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not thoroughly inspect on its initial visit, and it did not re-attend until January 2025, which was 3 months later. This delayed its understanding, and ultimately its progress in resolving the issues, to the detriment of the resident.
15. The landlord also installed monitoring equipment to collect data on the humidity and temperatures. This was proposed by its damp and mould team in October 2024. Again, there were delays setting this up, and technical issues obtaining readings which meant it did not have clear data until December 2024. The records suggest this was a new technology which it had to source and learn, and it was dependent on third party expertise. Because the issues were outside of the landlord’s control, we have found no fault.
16. Based on its inspection of the heating system, and the data it acquired which showed high humidity and low temperatures, the landlord asked the developer to provide an additional heating source. It advocated strongly for this throughout January to March 2025, including warning the developer it would raise the issue with the National House Building Council. Despite initial reluctance, the developer agreed to fund the cost of an electric panel heater in the hall. The landlord installed this in April 2024. It also upgraded the bedroom radiator at its own cost. The landlord acted reasonably in pursuing the developer for a resolution and taking additional responsibility for upgrading the heating system.
17. The resident reports the property remains cold and damp. She must heat the home throughout summer and has mould forming around her front door and in her bedroom. She suspects the insulation is inadequate, in either, or both, the walls and loft.
18. The landlord instructed a specialist to inspect the wall insulation, and they concluded it was present. It said it did not consider an inspection of the loft insulation to be necessary based on the thermal imaging it completed in September 2024. We understand it has since inspected the loft in May 2025 and considers it to be sufficient. The landlord should share its survey reports confirming its investigations and findings with the resident.
19. Overall, the landlord took responsibility and was proactive in its handling of the resident’s concerns. It went above its remit by carrying out its own inspections and investigations. It provided regular updates and was responsive to the resident’s communications. However, it was slow to provide the dehumidifier, and it was inefficient in coordinating and completing a survey of the heating system. The resident had to chase the landlord and facilitate additional visits from operatives which caused her time and trouble, and inconvenience. We also recognise that the issue remains unresolved. On balance we have found service failure.
20. Further action is required by the landlord to put things right. The landlord has identified that humidity remains high, particularly in the hall. It has arranged for a contractor to assess options for installing a PIV system in this area, but this remains outstanding.
21. The landlord explained that while humidity is high in the bedroom, it is within the “normal” range. However, the resident said it remains cold, and she must leave her cupboard doors and drawers open otherwise her items become damp and mouldy.
22. We have made an order that the landlord progress the ventilation survey as a priority. It should assess ventilation throughout the property, including the bedroom. It should outline proposed actions, along with timescales, following this. It should also review the data and establish whether the additional heating sources are providing sufficient warmth.
23. Altogether the landlord compensated the resident £2,070 in March 2025. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can offer up to £450 for time, trouble, and inconvenience where its failings have caused “substantial disruption”. It can also offer additional amounts for specific failings or reimbursements, including the cost of running a dehumidifier. The landlord provided a breakdown of the compensation it offered in its complaint response. Its total offer of compensation was above the amounts outlined in its policy and it has since provided additional compensation. As such, its offer is considered reasonable.
24. However, the resident reports that the damp and mould continue to damage her items and she has had to purchase a dehumidifier and mould filters. The landlord should provide details of its public liability insurer so she can progress a claim for these items. Alternatively, it should provide a position on whether it can consider a reimbursement as compensation.

25. The Code outlines standards for landlords’ complaint handling. The landlord must acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. Where necessary, it can request an extension of up to 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2, with the agreement of the resident. The landlord’s complaints policy is consistent with the Code.
26. The resident complained on 1 May 2024, and the landlord acknowledged the complaint within the appropriate timescale on 8 May 2024. On 20 May 2024 it said it needed more time and asked for her agreement to extend the complaint by 10 days. She reluctantly agreed. Later that day it sent her a formal letter saying it had paused the complaint and would be in touch when it was ready to “restart” it. The resident noted it had previously told her it would respond in 10 days and made it clear she expected it to comply with this timescale. It responded on 31 May 2024, after 9 working days or 12 calendar days.
27. The landlord did not communicate clearly with the resident around the extension and new deadline, which caused unnecessary frustration and confusion. Because it responded within its policy timescales, this is a shortcoming rather than a failure of the landlord.
28. The resident asked the landlord for a stage 2 letter setting out her complaint on 15 July 2024. The landlord noted she would need to escalate her complaint. She confirmed she would like to do so on 17 July 2024. She noted she had sent multiple emails saying she was unhappy with the stage 1 response and requesting more compensation. She felt it should have logged this sooner.
29. We have not seen clear communication from the resident that she was unhappy with the landlord’s initial response. The records suggest the landlord was working with her to resolve the issues and had agreed to additional compensation. It was reasonable that the landlord logged the escalation following her request on 17 July 2024.
30. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 23 July 2024 and responded on 19 August 2024. It therefore acknowledged and responded to the stage 2 complaint within the appropriate timescales under its policy.
31. While we identified shortcomings in its communication around the extension of the complaint, the landlord complied with its policy and the Code. For this reason, we have found no maladministration.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

32. We did not identify any concerns with the landlord’s record keeping or communication in this case.
33. Its Aftercare Manager was the resident’s main point of contact in the landlord. They were responsive and proactive in their communication with the resident and various internal teams. We highlight this as an example of good practice for the landlord.