Onward Homes Limited (202446682)

Decision
Case ID	202446682
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Onward Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	13 March 2026

Background

The resident reported leaks to her windows and front door. While the landlord completed some repairs, she was unhappy with its response. She raised her complaint as there was damp and mould in her property which she felt was due to it not completing the repairs. The landlord had vulnerabilities for the resident’s household recorded on its systems, due to her being pregnant and her child having asthma.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s complaint responses recognised its poor communication, the inconvenience caused and it had not considered the resident’s vulnerabilities. However, it failed to acknowledge it had not followed its damp and mould policy. There is also no evidence it took proactive steps to resolve access issues at the property which it said it would do, after it said this had hindered its repairs.
The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint at an earlier stage. Its records do not show it followed through the remedies it offered to completion. Its stage 2 response did not consider additional issues the resident raised or raise a separate complaint about these.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 08 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £750 made up as follows: £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failure in its response to her reports of damp and mould. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. £550 its stage 2 response offered the resident, if it has not already done so.	No later than 08 April 2026
3	Contact order The landlord must contact the resident to discuss the boiler issue which she raised when she escalated her complaint. It must confirm its position as to whether it will use its discretion to raise a new complaint about this matter.	No later than 08 April 2026
4	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection should be done by a suitably qualified person. 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 the surveyor: Completes a damp and mould inspection of the property and inspects the front door. It must produce a written report with photographs. 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 any damp and mould identified. The most likely cause of the leak to the front door which the resident reported. 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 issues, 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.	No later than 08 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 November 2024	The resident raised her complaint with the landlord. She said: There was damp and mould in her property, as it had not done any repairs. Her front door was letting water in, and she had to keep the central heating on all the time. All the windows in her property had “blown.” Her daughter could not sleep in her bedroom due to damp and mould on the windows. She had also been admitted to hospital.
11 December 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It apologised as she was not happy with its service and said: She had made it aware of her special circumstances which it had considered. She had reported damp and mould problems for several months, which it had not yet resolved. It was unable to access her property to inspect the issues on 9 December 2024. It had rearranged its visit for 16 December 2024. It would then raise the required repairs following this. It identified it needed to be more proactive when dealing with damp and mould issues, to prevent the problems becoming worse. It upheld her complaint due to the time, trouble, inconvenience and delays she had experienced. It offered her £100 compensation.
21 January 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: It was not taking her seriously as it had not resolved the issues after months of complaints Her daughter had been admitted to hospital due to asthma caused by the damp and mould. She had no hot water over the Christmas period and had to go to a hotel due to this. This was the fifth time she had asked it to escalate her complaint.
5 February 2025	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It included a table of repairs it had done to her property and said: She had contacted it via its portal on 30 May 2024. She reported she was unable to accommodate its window repair that was booked for 31 May 2024. However, its portal did not guarantee a response, so it did not pick up this message. It could have been more proactive in rearranging its window repair. It applied a mould treatment on 2 October 2024, which resolved the issue. It provided a summary of its repairs visits where it was unable to access her property. It would only replace all the windows and doors in her property if they were unrepairable or had reached the end of their lifespan. It was sorry if she felt it had misled her on this issue. Following its inspection on 22 January 2025 it would be installing new extractor fans in her property, as well as applying mould wash to her lounge wall. While it responded to repairs subject to access to the property, it did not treat repairs as urgently as would be expected due to her son’s vulnerability. It would update his vulnerability on its records. It thanked her for sharing evidence with it where she had to chase it for a response. It did not uphold her complaint as the access issues hindered its progress to complete its repairs. It would try and work with her for mutually convenient dates and times of future repairs. It would contact her on 7 February 2025 to discuss all its outstanding repair appointments. It was working to address her concerns, but these did not warrant offering her another property. It offered her £550 compensation. This was made up of: a) £100 for the inconvenience and delays. b) £50 for its poor communication. c) £300 for it not acknowledging her household’s vulnerabilities. d) £100 for its communication during its complaints process.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us. She said: Damp and mould was still present in her property. This was affecting her children’s health. Her eldest child had been admitted to hospital several times due to breathing difficulties. There was condensation on her doors and windows. This was causing damage to her flooring, windowsills and skirting boards. The landlord still had not done repairs to make the property liveable. The landlord had done “2 damp courses” to her property but the problem comes back worse every time. She wanted the landlord to rehouse her or be able to bid for other properties on its housing list.

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.

What we did not consider

The resident said she wanted the landlord to offer her another property, as an outcome to the complaint. The landlord allocates its social housing through its allocation policy. We are unable to make orders that could negatively impact on other individuals who may have a higher housing priority than the resident for the landlord’s properties.

Complaint	Damp and mould
Finding	Service failure

The evidence shows the damp and mould was linked to leaks from the resident’s windows and front door. She first reported a leak to her windows on 7 May 2024. The landlord arranged a repairs inspection for 31 May 2024. The resident made efforts to rearrange this repair on 30 May 2024 through the landlord’s online portal. However, it did not see her request due to it taking 5 days to respond to portal messages. It could not gain access to the resident’s property and cancelled this repair on 3 June 2024.
The landlord asked the resident to provide it with dates she was available so it could rearrange its repair visit. There is no evidence that she did this. From then, the landlord failed to take proactive ownership of the problem or resolve the issue promptly. It would have been reasonable to have offered her possible dates for its visit, rather than putting the onus back on the resident. She had put it on notice about the repair, and it was not reasonable that it cancelled the repair without visiting the resident’s property or contacting her. This was a failure to follow the terms of the tenancy agreement, which says it is responsible for keeping windows in good repair.
The landlord’s records show it took steps to resolve the issues for the resident. It:
1. Inspected her property on 25 September 2024.
2. Applied a mould treatment to her staircase wall on 30 September 2024. This was in line with its damp and mould policy that says it will ensure that a mould wash down is carried out in the first instance.
3. Replaced 2 windows and glass in the front door on 8 November 2024.
4. It gave her advice following its damp survey on 23 January 2025, to keep window vents open to help airflow. This was in line with its damp and mould policy which says it will offer advice on increasing ventilation.
The landlord’s records show instances where it could not access the resident’s property to complete its repairs. Its complaint response said this had hindered it resolving the issue. The resident said she did not know about 2 of the landlord’s repair appointments. While the evidence does not confirm this either way, it does show several instances where the landlord did not follow its damp and mould policy. For example:
1. It identified mould on an external wall on 25 September 2024, which it needed to investigate further. It was 53 working days before it returned to complete a mould inspection. This does not demonstrate it carried out an early and accurate diagnosis at point of enquiry, in line with its policy.
2. There is no record that it agreed an action plan with the resident to tackle the damp and mould, which its policy says it would do.
3. There is no record that it agreed a timeframe with the resident to complete its repair work, which its policy says it would do.
4. There is no record it provided the resident with advice on financial inclusion or offered her further support, in line with its policy. This was despite the resident saying she had to keep her central heating on, when she raised her complaint.
5. There is no record that it considered the health of the resident’s household, which its policy says it will do. This was despite it knowing she had young children, one of which she told it had been admitted to hospital on occasions.
The landlord’s records show it could not access the resident’s property for repair visits on 31 May, 10 October and 9 December 2024. Its stage 1 response said it needed to be more proactive when dealing with damp and mould repairs. The landlord’s records show further no access to the resident’s property on 16 December 2024 and 22 January 2025. We acknowledge that the no access issues delayed it completing repairs. However, there is no evidence that the landlord was proactive in resolving the issues. For example, by confirming its repair appointments in writing or appointing a single point of contact for the resident.
The landlord’s inspection of the resident’s property on 23 January 2025 identified draughts letting cold air in, with slightly elevated condensation levels. Its evidence shows it needed to complete repairs to a bathroom fan, install an extractor fan and apply a mould wash. It completed these repairs within a month of its survey which was reasonable. However, there is no record that it completed the repairs it identified to the resident’s living room window or front door. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow its repairs policy that says it will provide an effective and responsive repairs service.
The landlord’s complaint responses recognised the inconvenience it caused the resident, along with its poor communication and failure to consider the household’s vulnerabilities. It offered her £450 compensation for its failures. This was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance. However, it did not identify its failure to follow its damp and mould policy. While it has taken steps to put things right, its records do not show it completed all the identified repairs. The resident also told us that damp and mould is still present in her property, and the landlord has not repaired her front door.
The landlord’s compensation offer went someway to addressing the distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, we do not consider this was proportionate to all the failures we have identified. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay a further £100 compensation.
We have also ordered the landlord to inspect the resident’s property in line with its new damp and mould policy that it introduced in May 2025, after it completed a self-assessment. Its inspection should confirm its position on the damp and mould issue the resident says is still present and the repair to her front door.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says landlords must acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days and respond 10 working days after this at stage 1. There is no record that the landlord sent the resident acknowledgement once she raised her complaint. This was a record keeping and complaint handling failure. However, the detriment to the resident was minimal. The landlord sent its stage 1 response within 15 working days of the resident raising her complaint. This was within the Code’s timeframe to acknowledge and respond at stage 1.
The landlord sent acknowledgement at stage 2 on the same day the resident escalated her complaint. This was reasonable and in line with the Code. However, the resident told the landlord on 21 January 2025 she had tried to escalate her complaint on 4 previous occasions. The landlord’s records show she asked it to escalate her complaint on 14 and 19 January 2025. This supports her position, which caused her distress and frustration as she said on 14 January 2025, she was “furious” it had not done anything with her complaint. This was a complaint handling failure, which delayed her accessing this Service.
When the resident escalated her complaint, she raised concerns about her boiler breaking on 27 December 2024. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response and the costs she had due to having to stay in a hotel due to a lack of heating. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not consider this issue. There is no evidence that it raised a separate complaint. This was a failure to follow the Code which says where the stage 1 response has been issued, the new issues are unrelated to the issues already being investigated or it would unreasonably delay the response, the new issues must be logged as a new complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was within the 20 working days outlined by the Code. This was reasonable. It offered the resident £100 compensation for its communication failure during its complaints process. However, it did not adequately explain its reasons for this. The only communication failure we have identified was its failure to escalate the resident’s complaint. It is reasonable to conclude its compensation related to this.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 response the evidence shows the resident contacted it about the repairs it committed to doing in its final response to her property on 17 February 2025. She continued to chase it about this multiple times, before raising a further complaint on 21 May 2025. This was not reasonable and caused her further inconvenience. She has told us it completed the window repair, but the front door repair is outstanding, and the evidence shows she chased it about this on 6 October 2025. This indicates a lack of oversight by the landlord. This was also a failure to follow the Code which says any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.
There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is due to it not considering the further issue the resident raised and it not following its remedies through to completion. We have ordered the landlord pay a further £100 compensation to the resident and use the discretion outlined in its complaints policy to raise a new complaint regarding the failure of the resident’s boiler.

Learning

The complaint was raised before the landlord introduced its new damp and mould policy. However, there is learning for the landlord to take from this case around how it manages damp and mould cases in line with best practice.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

There were record keeping failures by the landlord. Maintaining accurate, detailed records of its decisions will help to improve transparency and accountability.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. Its complaint responses acknowledged this. This was a positive step by the landlord, and it should take learning from the case to improve its future service offer.