Ocean Housing Limited (202511609)

Background

1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since 7 June 2021. Her property is a 1-bed bungalow. The landlord is aware that the resident is an older person and has breathing difficulties and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated repair.
   2. The resident’s reports of damage to personal belongings.
   3. The resident’s decant move.
   4. The resident’s request for a management transfer.
   5. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated repairs.
   2. Service Failure in its handling of the resident’s reports of damage to personal belongings.
   3. Service Failure in its handling of the resident’s decant move.
   4. Service Failure in its handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.
   5. No maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated repair

4. The landlord delayed in completing damp and mould works. The landlord also did not help the resident use her heating system efficiently or provide financial advice at the earliest opportunity. While it offered compensation it was not fully proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

The resident’s reports of damage to personal belongings

5. In the stage 2 response, the landlord failed to offer its intended amount and failed to explain how it reached its award. Moreover, the landlord did not consider the costs the resident said she incurred at the visit of 5 August 2025, or the fact she needed to replace her wardrobe. It has also not provided evidence that it asked the resident to provide receipts as required by the Compensation Policy.

The resident’s decant move.

6. The landlord did not ensure the resident’s property was ready and safe to move back into after she returned from temporary accommodation. After the resident reported loss of electricity and exposed wires on return to her property, the landlord failed to raise an emergency repair.

The resident’s request for a management let move

7. The landlord did not explain the process for a management move and raised the resident’s expectations of being transferred to a neighbouring property unreasonably.

The resident’s complaint

8. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within the timeframes allowed by the complaints procedure. It investigated the issues raised by the resident.

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.

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.

9. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
10. The landlord’s Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy states, “When we receive a request to investigate damp, mould and condensation, a supervisor will carry out a full property condition survey with photographs, which will be recorded for future reference, using an inspection template.”  It should also review the existing data and previous reports within 10 working days.
11. On 27 November 2024, the resident reported the thermal wallpaper in her bedroom was peeling. The landlord raised a damp, mould and condensation case, and inspected the property on 29 November 2024. In doing this, it followed its Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy. This states, “When we receive a request to investigate damp, mould and condensation, a supervisor will carry out a full property condition survey with photographs, which will be recorded for future reference, using an inspection template.”
12. Following the inspection, the landlord advised the resident of its findings. It said it had identified mould due to condensation because the Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) unit in the loft was not working properly and also because of low wall surface temperatures. It said it needed to further investigate mould in the bedroom. The landlord also noted that the resident was sleeping in the lounge and was not using the storage heaters due to the cost.
13. On 4 December 2024, the landlord washed the mould and changed the filter in the PIV unit. On 6 December 2024, it stopped a possible leak from the roof to the bedroom by installing felt. These initial actions were prompt, within a week of the inspection. The landlord advised it would install a soakaway outside the property walls. The landlord also provided the resident with a dehumidifier which was appropriate as this was to mitigate the impact of the damp and mould pending works.
14. The landlord attended to install the soakaway on 16 January 2025. However, the contractor noted the wall was wet and assessed it would need to drill a hole in the wall to inspect the insulation. Therefore, it did not install the soakaway. The landlord’s records show that it renewed the render on the external bedroom wall on 28 February 2025 and installed a soakaway on 3 March 2025. It completed internal works, to the resident’s bedroom between 5 and 8 March 2025, during which time it decanted the resident.
15. However, on 1 April 2025, the resident reported damp was coming back in the bedroom, and also around the back door and hallway. On 12 May 2025, the landlord carried out an inspection of the property. It noted thermal wallpaper was peeling away due to the poor condition of the render and repair holes made to install cavity wall insulation. It decided it needed to return to inspect with a borescope. On 27 May 2025, using a borescope it saw that the insulation was wet in all outside walls. It advised the resident it needed to obtain a quote for removal. The landlord has not provided evidence that it provided the resident with an update prior to her complaint of 18 June 2025.
16. The works carried out by the landlord demonstrated its intention to resolve the damp and mould in the resident’s property. However, it did not act with sufficient urgency. After the resident reported damp again on 1 April 2025, it took 8 weeks to complete its inspections. This was particular unreasonable given the failed appointment of 16 January 2025 had originally identified the need to inspect inside the walls. Moreover, the landlord was aware that the resident was vulnerable due to age and health issues. In fact, the landlord was aware that the resident did not think that the bedroom was safe to sleep in.
17. Compounding the impact of the delays was the lack of updates and timeframes given to the resident. The landlord did not dispute that it did not respond to the resident’s messages. In her complaint, the resident noted that she first reported damp and mould 7 months prior. The lack of updates evidently exacerbated her frustration and uncertainty.
18. In the stage 1 response of July 2025, the landlord advised it would now install vents so the walls would dry quicker, and carry out further works to external walls. When escalating her complaint, the resident again said she was not receiving updates on when the further works would be completed. The landlord’s records show that it received quotes from contractors for works for the render and drainage works. It also questioned the methodology of a contractor that wanted to powerwash off loose render. However, the landlord has not provided evidence that it informed the resident of this or of any anticipated timeframes to approve quotes and commence works.
19. According to the landlord’s records on 8 September 2025, the landlord extracted the wall insulation. On or around 1 October 2025, it rendered an external wall. On 10 November 2025, it installed a soakaway and installed air vents in the cavity walls. It was appropriate that the landlord carry out these works as it had identified them following the resident’s further reports of damp and mould. However, the first set of works had been unsuccessful, and it had been a year since the resident first reported damp and mould. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not consider expediting the further works, or at the very least provide updates to the resident with anticipated timeframes.
20. Additionally, as confirmed in the stage 2 response, the landlord was monitoring the drying period. While this was likely to take time, the landlord has not provided evidence that it periodically informed the resident of the progress..
21. On 14 November 2025, the resident reported that she had difficulty heating her home. On 28 November 2025, the landlord paid her £100 for the short-term cost of running a heater. It said it was also seeking longer term support with meeting energy costs. On or around 3 December 2025, the landlord provided the resident with the storage heater manual, so she knew how to use them correctly and efficiently. The landlord has since established that 3 night storage heaters were faulty and replaced them on 5 January 2026.
22. The Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy states that, “We will promote and provide support and general advice and guidance on how to manage damp and condensation. This will include recommendations on how to use heating and hot water system effectively etc… Where appropriate we will refer tenant to our Financial Inclusion Advisors or other specialist advice/support.”. The landlord actions were in line with its policy requirements. However, it had noted that the resident was not using the heaters due to concerns about the cost when she first reported damp and mould in 2024. It should therefore have advised her how to best use the heaters and considered her concerns about the cost of heating her property at that point. By not responding to the resident’s concerns about heating at the earliest opportunity, it failed to possibly mitigate the extent and impact of recurring damp and mould.
23. In summary, the landlord has investigated the resident’s reports of damp and mould and completed works. However, it has not completed inspections and works with sufficient urgency, especially given the resident’s vulnerabilities. It has also not consistently and proactively provided updates on the outcomes of inspections and the progress of works in order to manage the resident’s expectations. This includes no clarity about timeframes. The landlord also did not meet its responsibility to address the resident’s concerns about using her storage heaters when it was first aware of this.
24. The landlord awarded £200 for distress and inconvenience in the stage 2 response. However, the landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that it intended to offer the resident £500 for delays in completing damp and mould works (and £400 for damaged items). The landlord has confirmed to us this was its intention. Nonetheless, the error in the amount awarded in the complaint response indicated to the resident  it did not fully appreciate the prolonged impacts on her. Moreover, the landlord also did not acknowledge its failures to help the resident use her heating system efficiently or provide financial advice. As such, the intended offer was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case. We therefore find that there was maladministration.
25. We order that the landlord pay the resident £600 compensation. In making this award we have considered the guidance in our Remedies Guidance for cases of maladministration. In particular, we have considered the guidance for cases where “The landlord has acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and/or the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.”
26. At an inspection on 1 December 2025, the landlord saw no mould. However, it noted a damp patch on the front window wall in the lounge. It attributed this to a lack of airflow and the heater not being used. An inspection the following day noted that the cavity had dried enough so the landlord could refill the insulation. It saw no damp and mould at further visits on 5 and 7 January 2026, although it raised an order to overhaul the extractor fans. So that there is full clarity for the resident, we have ordered the landlord to confirm what further works and monitoring it intends to do in respect of damp and mould. It must also provide a timeframe for the reinstallation of insulation.

27. In her stage 2 complaint, the resident stated that her bed and wardrobe had been against the wall and damaged by mould. She therefore bought a single bed, placed in the centre of the room. An internal email dated 4 August 2025 suggested that the landlord should offer £250 for the damaged mattress and £150 for damaged bed linen.
28. At a visit on 5 August 2025, the resident advised the landlord she had spent £700 on the new bed, mattress, and bedding. She also said that she needed to replace the wardrobe. Taken together with her stress and health issues, she requested £1,500.
29. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states it “will, at its discretion, consider compensation for customers when there has been loss that is clear and measurable. Compensation will not be awarded as standard practice, and such claimants may be required to provide Ocean or our insurers with evidence and receipts”.
30. Although the landlord offered £800 for damaged items in the stage 2 response, it has advised us its intention was to offer £250 for the mattress and £150 for the damaged items. The landlord exercised the discretion under the policy by making an award for damaged items. However, the error in the stage 2 response meant the landlord both failed to offer its intended amount and explain how it reached its award.
31. Moreover, the landlord did not consider the costs the resident said she incurred at the visit of 5 August 2025, or the fact she needed to replace her wardrobe. It has not provided evidence that it asked the resident to provide receipts as required by the Compensation Policy. Therefore, its compensation award had no clear basis and was arbitrary. For this reason, we find that there was service failure by the landlord.
32. We order that the landlord pay the resident £50 compensation. In making this award, we have considered the guidance in our Remedies Guidance for cases of service failure. We also order the landlord to reconsider the resident’s request for damaged possessions. It should seek supporting evidence from the resident, then make a revised offer with an explanation or refer the request to its insurers.

33. The landlord placed the resident in a hotel between 5 and 8 March 2025. This was in agreement with the resident as it carried out works within her property in this period. On returning to the property the resident rang the landlord’s out of hours service. She said the electricity was not connected, wires were hanging from the bedroom wall, the wet room storage heater was dismantled on the floor.
34. The landlord does not have a policy on temporary accommodation or decants. Regardless, its obligation to keep the resident’s property in good repair and to remedy hazards remained. Therefore, it should have ensured the resident’s property was ready and safe to move back into after the resident returned from the hotel. It failed to do this.
35. The landlord advised the resident to call the repairs service on Monday, 10 March 2025. The landlord’s Repairs Policy in effect at the time stated emergency repairs can include “those needed to avoid serious health or safety risks”. This includes “total loss of electrical power or water supply where these are in the control of us”. The landlord should respond to an emergency repair request within 24 hours. Given the lack of electricity and risk from exposed wires, the landlord should have responded on an emergency basis over the weekend. In her correspondence the resident advised she had to ask a neighbour to restore the electrics.
36. The landlord accepted that it should have raised an emergency repair in the stage 2 response. However, it did not acknowledge the impact on the resident or offer redress. We therefore find that there was service failure by the landlord in respect of this complaint.
37. We order that the landlord pay the resident £50 compensation. In making this award we have considered the guidance in our Remedies Guidance for cases of service failure.

38. The landlord’s Allocations and Lettings Policy states, “Existing … tenants have the right to apply for a transfer via Cornwall Homechoice and will be subject to the conditions laid out within the scheme.” A management transfer may be agreed where a tenant, or a member of their household:
    1. “has been subjected to actual violence and that is likely to reoccur.
    2. has received severe threats of violence and there is evidence those threats will be acted on.”
39. The landlord’s internal correspondence show that member of staff enquired on 1 May 2025 whether the resident could be permanently decanted to a neighbouring property that would soon be vacant.
40. The resident later complained that a member of staff offered her a management transfer to a neighbouring bungalow; however, the landlord let the property to someone else. The landlord’s records do not say what advice it gave to the resident; however, it did not dispute they discussed a management transfer to the neighbouring property. The landlord has also not disputed that it did not confirm to the resident whether or not it would transfer her. The resident stated that she found out herself later that another tenant had moved into the neighbouring property.
41. Under the Allocations and Lettings Policy, tenants, such as the resident, should apply to the local choice-based lettings scheme for a transfer. While landlord may offer a management transfer, the circumstances did not apply to the resident’s case. This was because the resident was not at risk of violence. Also, the works at the resident’s property were intended to allow her to remain living there. Therefore, it was reasonable and consistent with the policy that the landlord did not offer a management transfer.
42. Nonetheless, the landlord accepted that it did not explain the process for a management move. It also accepted in the stage 2 response that its internal communication between departments was unclear. As such, it raised the resident’s expectations unreasonably about a move. This exacerbated the distress and inconvenience from the condition of her property. The landlord upheld this complaint but did not offer redress. We therefore find that there was service failure by the landlord in respect of this complaint.
43. We order that the landlord pay the resident £50 compensation. In making this award we have considered the guidance in our Remedies Guidance for cases of service failure.

44. The landlord’s complaints procedure states it should acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days, then send the stage 1 response within 10 working days. Any extension should not exceed 10 working days without good reason. The landlord should acknowledge an escalated complaint within 5 working days, then send the stage 2 response within 20 working days. Any extension should not exceed 20 working days without good reason. This is consistent with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
45. In this case, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint of 18 June 2025 on 8 July 2025. The response was sent within the extended timeframe for responding to stage 1 complaints. The landlord’s stage 2 response was sent 1 week later than the 20 working days target. However, the response was sent within the extended timeframe for responding to stage 2 complaints. As such, at both stages the delays in the responses were not significant and the landlord acted within its complaint procedure.
46. Aside from the timeliness of its responses, the landlord adequately investigated the issues raised by the resident, as required by the Code. It made clear whether it upheld the aspects of the resident’s complaint, even if it did not offer redress in all instances. For these reasons, we find that there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Learning

Communication and Record Keeping

47. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:
    1. let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.
    2. gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory.
48. In this case, the records do not show if the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of repairs. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord’s repairs and maintenance team followed our spotlight report recommendations.