Connexus Homes Limited (202519857)

Decision
Case ID	202519857
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Connexus Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	10 February 2026

Background

The resident occupies the property, a 3-bedroom bungalow, with her children. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould, a missed inspection, and the landlord’s response to her requests for a managed move. The resident has told us her children are considered vulnerable due to several medical conditions. We understand that at the time the resident brought her complaint 1 of her children was receiving palliative care. The resident has recently informed us that 1 of her children has passed away and another is receiving treatment for cancer.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for a managed move to suitable alternative accommodation, including the extension of the property.
The landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the property.
A missed inspection by the landlord.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a managed move to suitable alternative accommodation.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of damp and mould at the property.
The landlord made an offer of reasonable redress for the missed inspection.
There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord was not responsible for the construction of the extension or the decision to decline this. However, it was responsible for ensuring the property was habitable, and the resident likely met the criteria for a move under its Direct Let Policy. We found the landlord had not demonstrated it had sufficiently considered this before the resident raised her complaint. We therefore made a finding of service failure.
The landlord apologised for delays in its handling of the damp and mould. We found this was not proportionate for the overall delay and impact on the resident. We therefore made a finding of maladministration.
The landlord recognised it missed the inspection and promptly resolved this. It offered fair and reasonable redress for this in its stage 2 complaint response. We therefore made a finding of reasonable redress.
The landlord delayed answering the complaint. It did not recognise this in its complaint responses. We therefore made a finding of service failure.

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 member of the landlord’s management team. 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 10 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £550 compensation, made up as follows: £500 for the failures in its handling of the damp and mould and the distress and inconvenience this caused the resident. £50 for the failures in its handling of the complaint and the distress and inconvenience this caused the resident. 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 10 March 2026
3	Works order The landlord must write to the resident, by the due date, and provide: A schedule of planned works for the extension pod, and all other required repairs. A timeline, including the landlord’s anticipated completion date. The planned start date of any outstanding work, if applicable. The landlord must confirm a schedule it will keep to make sure the resident is kept updated on the progress of the works. If the plan to build the extension pod has changed, the landlord must confirm what resolution has been decided, with timescales for completion. If the landlord is unable to provide the above, it must explain why it cannot.	No later than 10 March 2026
4	Inspection order The landlord must inspect the property. The landlord must consider if the circumstances in the resident’s home amount to a potential emergency or a potential significant hazard. If the circumstances could be, it must carry out an investigation in line with the provisions of the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the inspection is completed by the due date or within the relevant prescribed requirement if it believes Awaab’s law applies. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified surveyor. 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: Inspects the entire property for any concerns and produce a written report with photographs. The survey must set out: Whether there is an emergency or significant hazard – based on the conditions in the property and the household’s health and circumstances. Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property, or during the works. The landlord must ensure it provides the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of its report by the due date (or within 3 working days of the date its investigations concluded, if it finds Awaab’s law applies).	No later than 10 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord pay the resident the £50 it offered for the missed inspection, if it has not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 September 2024	The resident raised her complaint, stating that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the damp, mould and ventilation problems in the property. She said the landlord completed 2 inspections but had not taken appropriate action to resolve the issue. She said the mould was unsightly and posed a risk to her children’s health because of their medical conditions. The resident said that new guidance stated landlords should not blame residents for damp and mould issues or attribute it to lifestyle choices. She said Awaab’s Law required the landlord to investigate and fix reported health hazards within specified timeframes. The resident also complained that the landlord had not repaired a number of broken windows at the property. She said this negatively impacted her family’s comfort and safety. The resident also asked for an urgent update on the development of an extension to add a fourth bedroom to the property. She said the local council had approved funding for this.
15 November 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. The landlord apologised for delays between its inspections and communication from its damp and mould team. Regarding the damp, mould and windows, the landlord said that following the resident’s complaint in September it had carried out work to install extraction fans and windows. It said all work had been completed, except for 1 extraction fan which had been scheduled to be installed. Regarding the extension, the landlord said it had reached out to the local council who had confirmed that an extension would not be possible due to the layout of the property. The landlord said the local council had advised it was aware of the resident’s housing concerns and was trying to find a new home for her. It noted this could take some time due to the size of the property required. The landlord said its Housing Officer would be in touch to discuss the resident’s circumstances to see if anything further could be done.
9 April 2025	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. The resident said the landlord had installed the new ventilation fans and windows. However, this had not resolved the mould and the landlord had not taken any other action. The resident complained that the landlord had not attended an inspection scheduled for 9 April 2025. She said her daughter had begun chemotherapy, her immune system was severely compromised, and the damp and mould put her health at risk. She also complained that the landlord had not found suitable alternative accommodation. To resolve matters, the resident asked the landlord to: Provide a permanent resolution to the damp and mould issue. Provide urgent support in moving the resident to a more suitable property. Explain why the decision was made to cancel the extension. Recognise the impact the issues complained about had on her family. Reschedule the appointment and explain why it was missed.
19 May 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. Regarding the damp and mould, the landlord said it was not possible to provide a permanent solution to the excess moisture levels due to the overcrowding and configuration of the property. However, following works carried out in the previous year, and surveys in April 2025, measures had been put in place to improve the situation while it worked on a long-term solution. Regarding the move to suitable alternative accommodation, the landlord said it had worked with the local council to resolve this. However, it was difficult to find a property which met the resident’s needs. It said following a multi-agency meeting on 2 May 2025 it agreed to add an extension pod to the back of the resident’s home. This pod would include 2 bedrooms and a level access shower. The landlord reiterated the explanation given in its stage 1 response for why the local council had declined the extension. The landlord acknowledged the impact the situation had on the resident. However, it said it could not draw conclusions on the causation of or liability for impacts on health and wellbeing. The landlord said the inspection had been missed due to an administrative error. It apologised for this and offered the resident £50 compensation. It said the error was promptly identified and resolved and the inspection had now been completed. The landlord said going forward it would provide monthly updates to keep the resident informed of any progress, decisions, or agreed works.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to our Service as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould. She said: The landlord had failed to provide a permanent resolution to the damp/mould and her home was unsafe. The landlord had not paid the £50 compensation it had offered her. The landlord had only provided 1 update since sending the stage 2 response. The landlord had not provided a timeframe for when it would resolve the damp/mould or install the bedroom and shower pod.

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 response to the resident’s requests for a managed move to suitable alternative accommodation, including the extension of the property.
Finding	Service failure

The resident has complained that the landlord has not offered sufficient support in helping her move to suitable alternative accommodation. She has also complained about the local council’s decision to not extend the property.
We can only investigate the landlord’s actions or omissions. We have no power to investigate the actions of independent third parties, such as local councils, which the landlord has no control over. It is evidenced that the decision to not approve the extension was made by the local council, rather than the landlord. So, this falls outside of the scope of this investigation. Any reference to the local council’s actions in respect of the extension is for context only. However, we have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for a managed move to alternative accommodation.
Under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 (the Homes Act) the landlord has a statutory obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation and free of hazards. The Housing Act 2004 introduced the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which details potential hazards. This includes damp and mould, and overcrowding. Additionally, the landlord’s Direct Let policy sets out the circumstances in which it may consider moving a resident to alternative accommodation. This includes where a property cannot be adapted to suit a resident’s needs.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that the property is overcrowded. All parties agree that without additional bedrooms and washing facilities the property does not meet the resident’s needs. The question we must consider is whether the landlord took appropriate steps to attempt to remedy the overcrowding, in line with its statutory and policy obligations.
The resident moved into the property in 2020. At the time the landlord noted in the transfer application that it may be possible to add an extension to the property. This extension was agreed in principle by the local council. However, at some stage the local council decided this was not practical due to the nature of the property. It is not clear from the evidence provided when the council made that decision. This was, evidently, frustrating for the resident.
The landlord completed a survey into the cause of the damp and mould on 21 December 2023. This identified issues with the ventilation. While it did not state the property was overcrowded, it highlighted the landlord’s obligations under the Homes Act and it noted that mould is a hazard under the HHSRS.
As mould growth is a potential hazard that can leave a property unsafe and given what the landlord knew about the resident’s household’s circumstances. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider a temporary or permanent move to alternative accommodation. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider this within a reasonable time of receiving the damp and mould report in December 2023.
The evidence indicates the landlord considered the overcrowding after receiving the resident’s stage 1 complaint in September 2024. However, the landlord has not demonstrated it sufficiently considered whether it would be appropriate to rehouse the resident prior to this point. This was a failure by the landlord.
The resident’s circumstances likely met the criteria for a managed move under the landlord’s Direct Let policy. However, the landlord has confirmed it does not have a suitable property to move the resident into. This is unsurprising given the size of the property required. From November 2024 onwards the landlord liaised with the local council to try to resolve the overcrowding situation. This was fair and reasonable, and demonstrated that at this stage the landlord understood the difficult situation the resident was in.
In November 2024 the local council confirmed it was unable to build the extension. It stated that while it was aware of the resident’s circumstances, it did not currently have a suitable alternative property. On 13 April 2025 the landlord contacted the local council and asked to reopen discussions about extending the property. This demonstrated that the landlord was committed to resolving the overcrowding issue.
Following a multi-agency meeting on 2 May 2025 it was agreed the best solution was for an extension pod to be added to the property. The local council asked for the landlord’s agreement in principle to investigate the option of installing the extension pod on 8 May 2025. The landlord promptly agreed on 9 May 2025. The landlord agreed to the local council’s plan to add the extension pod after it received it on 27 June 2025. This was fair and reasonable, and resolution focused.
In its stage 2 response the landlord committed to providing the resident monthly updates on the works. The landlord’s contact notes indicate it updated the resident on 4 June 2025 to confirm the local council had approved funding for the extension pod. It is then unclear whether it gave further updates in relation to the extension pod.
Overall, we recognise the landlord was unable to rehouse the resident due to the nature of the property needed. From September 2024 onwards the landlord took reasonable steps to attempt to remedy the overcrowding. However, despite knowing about the inadequate ventilation in December 2023 the landlord has not demonstrated it considered the overcrowding until the resident raised her complaint in September 2024. The landlord should be able to satisfy itself, its residents and independent organisations, such as the Ombudsman, that it has met its policy and statutory obligations within reasonable time. As it has not demonstrated this, we have made a finding of service failure.
This finding recognises that the landlord’s failure is unlikely to have changed the overall outcome of the substantive issue. This is because there is no indication that the landlord would have been able to offer an appropriately sized property in December 2023. Though it remains it should have considered what options were available for rehousing the resident.
The landlord has told us that it wrote to the resident in November 2025 for her agreement to start work on the extension pod. It is unclear how much progress has since been made. The resident has told us the damp and mould issues continue, and she has not heard from the landlord.
In the interest of resolving the resident’s complaint, we have ordered the landlord to write to the resident and this service, confirming the schedule of works, including next steps and anticipated completion date for the extension pod and all other required repairs. We have also ordered the landlord to confirm a schedule for keeping the resident up to date on the progress of the required works.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the damp and mould at the property.
Finding	Maladministration

The resident has said she reported damp and mould since moving into the property in 2022. We do not normally consider historical issues. Instead, we consider events within a reasonable period, normally one year, prior to a formal complaint being made. The resident raised a formal complaint on 30 September 2024. Therefore, we will consider events from 30 September 2023 to 19 May 2025. We cannot investigate new events or occurrences after the date of the landlord’s stage 2 response letter. We may consider whether the landlord has acted in line with any commitments made in its complaint responses.
The resident has told us the damp and mould has caused harm to her children because of their medical conditions. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any potential harm caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. Therefore, we’ve not investigated the personal injury element of the resident’s complaint. We can decide if the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The resident has told us the damp and mould damaged her personal belongings. The resident did not bring this complaint point to the landlord during either stage of her complaint. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the opportunity to put right through its internal complaint procedure. Therefore, we have not considered this complaint point in this investigation. It is also not the role of this Service to make determinations on liability or negligence. So, in any event we would be limited in what we would be able to consider regarding this.
In her complaint to the landlord, the resident has suggested it has not acted in line with Awaab’s Law. Awaab’s Law came into effect on 27 October 2025, after the stage 2 response. Therefore, the landlord was not obliged to respond in accordance with Awaab’s Law at the time of the complaint. The resident has notified us of a potential material change in circumstances following 27 October 2025. We have brought this to the landlord’s attention and asked it to consider whether Awaab’s Law applies and what action it should take.
The landlord is obliged to keep the property free of damp and mould and fit for human habitation in line with the Homes Act. The landlord is obliged to respond to repairs within a reasonable timescale under the Homes Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
When investigating complaints involving damp and mould, we will consider whether the landlord has fully and fairly investigated the issue, engaged independent experts, where appropriate, and communicated effectively with the resident. We have considered whether the landlord responded appropriately against its statutory obligations and the terms and conditions of the damp and mould policy it has provided. The policy, in part, says the landlord will:
1. Deal with repairs-related causes of damp, mould and condensation, and treat residual mould issues through ventilation and mould-wash treatments.
2. Provide additional ventilation and mould treatment in cases of condensation related mould growth.
The policy also says the landlord will act with urgency when responding to reports of damp, mould and condensation.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that following reports of mould on 13 November 2023, it arranged for a mould specialist to investigate. The mould specialist completed its report on 21 December 2023. It found the mould growth was due to condensation resulting from inadequate ventilation in the property. The mould specialist recommended existing ventilation fans in the kitchen and bathroom were upgraded to resolve the inadequate airflow within the property. While this did not comment on whether the property was habitable, the surveyor highlighted the landlord’s obligations under the Homes Act and the HHSRS.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will act on the recommendations of specialists. It is not clear, from the evidence provided, that the landlord acted on the recommendations in the December 2023 report in good time. A further survey dated 6 September 2024 indicates the property still had inadequate ventilation, with works recommended to the extractor fans. This suggests appropriate action to resolve the ventilation issues identified in December 2023 was not taken. This does not align with the landlord’s commitment to respond with urgency to reports of damp and mould.
The September 2024 damp and mould survey also highlighted that several windows in the property were unable to open and/or close and were in poor condition. It also noted some doors required undercutting. Following the September 2024 survey the landlord arranged for the doors to be undercut and the windows to be replaced. Correspondence from the landlord indicates the doors were undercut on 6 November 2024. Therefore, it took the landlord 62 days to complete the work to the doors. We are not satisfied this is in line with its commitment to respond urgently to reports of damp and mould.
The exact date the landlord repaired the windows is unclear. But neither party dispute this work was completed in November 2024. The landlord’s repair records indicate that the resident had reported issues with the windows dating back to around December 2023. It took the landlord around 11 months to resolve the issues with the windows. We note the landlord has said the initial repair job for the windows was lost due to a security incident. However, it remains that the landlord had been made aware of the issues with the windows, so it ought to have responded to this in reasonable time.
Correspondence from the landlord indicates the bathroom fan was upgraded on or before 15 November 2024. However, the kitchen fan was not upgraded at this time. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had scheduled the work for the kitchen fan. But its email dated 11 April 2025 indicates that the landlord had not yet upgraded the kitchen fan at this time. The landlord’s repair records indicate works to the kitchen fan were completed on or around 26 June 2025, after its stage 2 response. The landlord received a recommendation to upgrade the kitchen and bathroom fans in December 2023. The evidence indicates it took the landlord around 1 year and 6 months to complete work to the ventilation fans. This is a significant amount of time. This delay is concerning given the vulnerabilities of the resident’s household and the landlord’s statutory obligation to complete repairs in reasonable time.
We recognise that the landlord did carry out a number of mould washes during the period under investigation. This was in line with its damp and mould policy. However, mould washes are a temporary solution. It remains that the landlord was required to resolve the underlying issues in reasonable time.
Overall, the landlord engaged with specialists and carried out mould washes in line with its policy. It is also positive that it consented to the extension pod being installed. However, it did not complete repairs to the windows and all the ventilation fans in reasonable time. Although the landlord has apologised for a delay, an apology alone falls below what we would expect in cases involving significant delays which negatively impact the resident. Therefore, we have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
We have ordered the landlord to compensate the resident £500. This amount recognises the negative impact the delay and poor communication had on the resident, and any distress and inconvenience caused. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for failures over a prolonged period which have negatively impacted the resident.
In November 2025 the resident told us that her daughter had, sadly, passed away. In December 2025 the resident told us that the mould had spread to the living room. We wrote to the landlord on 20 November 2025 and 29 January 2026 giving it notice that this could be a hazard (or material change) under the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. It was required to consider and assess if this could be a potential significant or emergency hazard. The landlord wrote to us on 29 January 2026 and did not indicate whether it had considered this. The Ombudsman is concerned that the landlord may not have recognised its obligations under Awaab’s Law as it has not indicated whether the circumstances in the resident’s home could be a potential emergency or significant hazard.
Following our contact with the landlord, there is no evidence it considered if the circumstances in the resident’s home amounted to a significant or emergency hazard under Awaab’s Law. The landlord needs to have processes in place to recognise these reports at every stage of the customer journey.
Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to consider if the circumstances in the resident’s home amount to a potential emergency or a potential significant hazard. If the circumstances could be, it must carry out an investigation in line with the provisions of the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025.

Complaint	A missed inspection by the landlord.
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord does not dispute that it missed an appointment on 9 April 2025. It apologised and offered the resident £50 compensation for this oversight in its stage 2 response. It also noted that the issue had been promptly resolved. The landlord has explained the missed appointment was due to an administrative error. Its records indicate an inspection was completed the following day, on 10 April 2025.
The £50 compensation is in line with what our Service would have ordered had the landlord not already offered this. This is because the amount aligns with our remedies guidance for failures over a short period of time that are quickly remedied and do not impact the overall outcome for the resident.
We are therefore satisfied that the landlord’s offer of redress was reasonable. We have made a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to the missed inspection.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Finding	Service failure

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process, which aligns with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This sets timeframes for when the landlord must acknowledge and answer complaints, and what steps it should take if deadlines cannot be met.
The landlord should acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5-working days. The landlord should respond to complaints in 10-working days of the acknowledgment at stage 1 and 20-working days at stage 2. Where an extension is needed, the landlord should explain the reason why and agree this with the resident.
The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 30 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 22 October 2024. This was 17 working days after it was received. The landlord requested a 1-week extension on 4 November and 8 November 2024. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 15 November 2024. Overall, it took the landlord 35 working days to answer the complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 9 April 2025. The landlord acknowledged this on 16 April 2025. This was 6 working days. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 19 May 2025. This was 21-working days after the acknowledgment.
Overall, there were delays at both stages of the landlord’s complaint procedure, although the delays at stage 2 were minor and do not appear to have negatively impacted the resident. Nevertheless, it would have been reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to recognise and apologise for the overall delays in its complaint responses.
We have therefore made a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £50 for the overall delays in answering the complaint and any distress or inconvenience this may have caused. £50 compensation is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a minor failure by the landlord and it has not appropriately acknowledged this or fully put it right.

Learning

The landlord’s handling of the damp and mould was poor. While it carried out damp and mould treatments and engaged with relevant experts, it did not complete works required to the property in reasonable time. The landlord should ensure that it complies with its policy obligations by addressing damp and mould within the required timeframes.
The landlord should be able to satisfy itself, its residents, and independent organisations such as the Ombudsman that it has considered the risk damp and mould may pose to residents. The landlord could improve matters by completing a risk assessment when damp and mould concerns are raised and as circumstances change throughout its handling of the matter.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns about the windows in 2023. This was because a security incident caused the landlord to lose the repair job. The landlord should ensure it has systems in place to record, monitor and manage repairs effectively.

Communication

The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint in the required timescales. The landlord should ensure it can record, manage and respond to complaints effectively in line with its policy and statutory requirements.