Plus Dane Housing Limited (202516207)

Decision
Case ID	202516207
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Plus Dane Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	10 April 2026

Background

The resident lives in a ground floor flat of a low-rise building. He reported condensation, damp and mould in the property. He said this affected his asthma and emphysema. The landlord was aware of the resident’s medical conditions.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of condensation, damp and mould in the property.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of condensation, damp and mould in the property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of condensation, damp and mould in the property

There were delays in the landlord’s attempts to remedy the condensation and mould in the property. It was unclear of the cause of these issues and what steps it, or the resident, could take to remedy this in line with its online guidance about condensation, damp and mould. There were times it had not kept the resident updated about what action it was taking, and when.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord delayed its response to the resident’s escalation which was not in line with its complaint 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.

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 May 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £400 made up as follows: £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of his reports of condensation, damp and mould in the property £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of his complaint The landlord must pay the compensation direct to the resident by the due date. It must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. It may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 08 May 2026
3	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 must be completed by a suitably qualified person. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete this, 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 ventilation of the property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: the most likely cause of the condensation 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 of the issue (if the landlord is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the work	No later than 08 May 2026
4	Learning order The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report. This must include its complaint handling. It should set out what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.	No later than 08 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 June 2023 to 5 July 2024	The resident reported mould in the property, which the landlord inspected and attempted to remedy.
19 July 2024	The resident complained to the landlord that the damp and mould affected his health.
23 August 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said it inspected the property and found no damp and mould. It said it found issues that could possibly cause condensation, damp and mould. It arranged to repair the silicone around the bedroom window and the cladding of the lounge window.
28 August 2024	The resident escalated the complaint as he said the property had mould.
27 September 2024 to 27 June 2025	The resident reported mould in the property, which the landlord inspected and tried to remedy.
22 July 2025 and 10 October 2025	The resident contacted us about his complaint of damp and mould. We asked the landlord to send its final complaint response.
21 November 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident. It said there were minor delays in its handling of his reports of damp and mould, that it felt had no material impact on him.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the landlord had taken months to resolve his reports of condensation, damp and mould in the property. He said he wanted it to replace his fish tank that he said was damaged by the damp and mould. He said that condensation still happens in the property.

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 handling of the resident’s reports of condensation, damp and mould in the property
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

The resident told us the damp and mould affected his fish tank. There is no evidence the issues about the fish tank exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure, so we have not considered it further. The resident may wish to contact the landlord to progress his complaint about his fish tanks.

What we did investigate

The resident reported mould in the property that he said affected his asthma and emphysema. Within 12 days the landlord inspected the property and stripped the “infected wallpaper” and applied bio-fogging and mould treatment in the lounge and hallway. It returned to complete a further inspection and treated the mould again. This was in line with the tenancy agreement to keep the walls in good repair.
The resident reported mould in the property at least 4 times between 17 August 2023 and 1 September 2023. During this time, the landlord said that due to heightened tensions from the resident to staff, it felt it necessary to send 2 staff members to the property going forward. It explained this to him and that this may delay future repairs.
The landlord inspected the property, completed mould treatments 3 times between 1 September 2023 and 15 September 2023. It determined the issue was poor ventilation and condensation in the property. It applied mould treatment to the wall and bathroom door. This was in line with the tenancy agreement to keep the walls in good repair.
The landlord had attended the property in response to the resident’s reports. However, given the frequency of the resident’s reports and his vulnerabilities, it would have been reasonable for it to have considered what more it could do to prevent the mould from recurring. This might have included giving the resident advice about the ventilation, looking at the cause of the damp and mould and if it needed to complete any associated repairs. This would have been in line with its repair policy to complete remedial work to prevent damp problems.
The resident reported further mould in the property on 6 December 2023 and 24 May 2024. In response to both reports the landlord inspected the property and found no condensation or damp and mould, and no concern of water ingress. It recommended he opened the vents to improve ventilation in the property. This was consistent with its online guidance at the time about condensation, damp and mould. This said it would recommend the use of vents. However, it could have advised the resident of this sooner and when it found there was poor ventilation in the property in September 2023.
On 5 January 2024 and 16 January 2024 the landlord inspected the property. It foundit needed to repairthe resident’s bedroom window, the external cladding of the lounge window, and it foundthe bathroom had no ventilation. However, it found no water ingress, or condensation, damp or mould.
On 23 January 2024 the resident said he had begun a disrepair claim for the windows and refused the landlord access to carry out the repairs. The tenancy agreement required the resident to allow access for repairs. The landlord completed the repairs within 206 days for the window cladding, and within 271 days for the bedroom window. This was after the resident allowed access and confirmed he was no longer pursuing a disrepair claim. The time taken to complete the repairs was outside of the timescales set out in its repair policy. However, as the resident refused access to complete these repairs, the delay cannot be entirely attributed to it.
In that time the landlord did not set out what it may do about the lack of ventilation in the bathroom, if anything. Considering it previously found poor ventilation in the property and mould, it would have been reasonable for it to consider if it needed to remedy this. This would have been in line with its online guidance that said it could consider installing ventilation as a measure to tackle the problem.
On 27 September 2024 and 26 November 2024, the resident reported that mould in the property affected his health and he provided a photograph of the mould. The landlord said that thisshowed condensation in the property. It asked if the resident would buy a dehumidifier to remedy the issue. This was not in line with its online measures which said it may consider installing ventilation or providing a dehumidifier to remedy the issue.
On 20 January 2025 the landlord inspected the property and found “small areas of mould”, caused by poor ventilation. Within 31 days of its inspection, it applied anti-fungicidal sealant to the window and a mould treatment to the bedroom and lounge. This was in line with its online measures. However, there is no evidence it considered how to improve ventilation in the property in line with the same measures.
During this time, the landlord did not keep the resident updated as to when it would treat the mould. He chased the landlord about this and contacted his MP. The lack of communication with the resident likely caused him inconvenience.
Between 20 February 2025 and 25 March 2025 the landlord recommended checking the window cladding to ensure there was no leak. It sealed alongside the cladding to prevent possible water ingress and applied antifungal sealant to the internal window. This was in line with its repair timescales of 28 days. It inspected the issue again and replaced the window cladding within 90 days. In line with its repair policy timescales for major work.
On 28 May 2025 the resident reported damp and mould in the property. He said he believed the landlord should have handled the issue within 5 working days. The landlord responded, but it did not manage his expectation about the timeframes to inspect and remedy the damp and mould.
On 27 June 2025 the resident reported condensation in the property when he bathed or showered. The landlord inspected the property 18 days later and said it had not found damp and mould. However, it had not responded to his concern of condensation. This was not in line with its suggested online measures to explain ways he could prevent condensation, or steps it could take to prevent it.
The landlord’s repair policy and its online measures did not include a timeframe for when it would respond to a resident’s report of condensation, damp and mould. A reasonable response time would depend on the urgency of the issue and any vulnerabilities. In this case, the resident made frequent reports to the landlord of condensation, damp and mould that he felt affected his health. It therefore would have been reasonable to have responded to him sooner, provided advice, and set out a clear action plan, in line with its online guidance on preventing mould and condensation.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it acknowledged and apologised to the resident for the delays to respond to his reports of condensation, damp and mould. However, it did not offer compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This was not in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
Considering this we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £250 in line with our compensation guidance. This is because the landlord acknowledged some failings but did not address the detriment caused to the resident. This includes that he said he felt the issues affected his health and he felt he had to start a disrepair claim, chase the landlord and contact his MP to get his reports addressed. We have ordered it to inspect the property and set out any measures to take to improve ventilation.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days. It had written to the resident that it needed an extension to provide its stage 1 response and sent this to the resident in time. It followed its complaint policy to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and advise when more time was needed to respond.
The resident escalated the complaint on 28 August 2024 and continued to chase the landlord about his reports of mould in the property. He chased the landlord for its stage 2 response and referred the complaint to us.
After we contacted the landlord, it acknowledged the escalation, but this was 296 working days late and it therefore sent its stage 2 response late. This was not in line with its complaint policy. This said it would acknowledge an escalation within 5 working days and send its final response within 20 working days. This would have likely caused inconvenience to the resident and would have prevented him from progressing the complaint to us.
The landlord did not acknowledge its delay in handling the resident’s complaint or set out any learning to prevent this happening again in the future. This was not in line with our dispute resolution principles. We have therefore made orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident and write to him with its learning. We have ordered £150 compensation, in line with our guidance for cases where long delays affected the timely resolution of the complaint.

Learning

The landlord set out learning to improve its communication with residents following inspections by providing an overview of its findings. This was positive. However, it had not identified and set out what it had learnt from its handling of the complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) Spotlight report recommends that landlords keep clear records. The landlord’s records were sometimes unclear. This could have affected its ability to meet its obligations.

Communication

Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that proactive and tailored communication can reduce distress and minimise the impact of failures. The landlord had, at times, not updated the resident about the action it was taking.