Your Housing Group Limited (202529711)

Decision
Case ID	202529711
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Your Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	16 March 2026

Background

The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about an ongoing damp and mould problem in the downstairs toilet and bedroom, a loft issue, blocked gutters, a rotted lintel, and water entering through the door frame. She said she had repeatedly reported the issues but the landlord had not completed any work. The resident and her son both have severe respiratory issues and the resident’s son has a rare form of allergic asthma, which the landlord was aware of. The resident said the ongoing damp had caused a decline in both their health.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and outstanding repairs.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and outstanding repairs.
2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and outstanding repairs

The landlord acknowledged its failings in relation to delays in repairs and follow-on works and it completed further repairs in line with the commitments it made in the stage 2 response. However, it did not recogniseits communication failures, or that it had not properly considered its obligations to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010, or its own policies. There was no meaningful resolution to the complaint as there were still issues with mould within the bedroom.

Complaint handling

There were delays in both the stage 1 acknowledgement and response. The landlord delayed escalating the complaint to stage 2 and it did not act in line with the Code when it extended the date of the stage 2 response. It did not recognise or acknowledge its failings within its complaint responses.

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 senior manager. 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 13 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident: £1,200 (the landlord may deduct from this amount the £900 compensation it previously offered if this has already been paid) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and outstanding repairs. £125 to recognise the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. 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 13 April 2026
3	Order The landlord must complete an assessment of the resident and her son’s needs and consider any reasonable adjustments. The landlord must confirm the outcome of the assessment in writing no later than the due date and ensure its records reflect any agreed adjustments.	No later than 13 April 2026
4	Completing the works The landlord must provide the resident with an update, in writing, on its further investigations into the roof, chimney stack, loft space, and loft insulation following the survey carried out on 22 December 2025. The landlord must also take all steps to ensure the work identified is completed promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: • Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or • Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 11 May 2026
5	Order The landlord must provide the resident with details of how she can make a claim on its liability insurance for damage caused to personal possessions no later than the due date.	No later than 30 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
17 May 2024	The resident raised a formal complaint about an ongoing damp problem in the downstairs toilet and bedroom, a loft issue, blocked gutters, a rotted lintel, and water entering through the door frame. She said she had reported the issues 3 times but the landlord had not completed any work as it kept changing the appointment dates. She said she had taken 3 days off work, only for the landlord to inform her on each occasion that it had rearranged the appointment. The resident told the landlord that there was a vulnerable adult within the property with respiratory issues.
16 July 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response. It said it had raised a repair for the gutters and a mould wash for the bedroom and downstairs toilet on 1 March 2024. It said it would complete the work to the gutters on 22 July 2024. It said it attended on 29 April 2024 to complete the mould wash but found that it needed to inspect the loft space for possible water ingress. It said, due to the resident’s health, it agreed to complete the inspection and mould wash at the same time on 6 August 2024. It said the resident had only brought the issue with water entry through the door frame to its attention when it first made contact. It said it had raised a repair and it would complete the work on 17 July 2024. It offered the resident compensation of £300. This was made up of £100 for lack of communication, £100 for service failure, and £100 for time and trouble.
18 November 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she had not had a response from the landlord since 19 September 2024. She said there was damp and mould in the bedroom and downstairs toilet and it was spreading. She said her son had asthma and she had breathing issues.
6 March 2025	The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response. It said, following the stage 1 response, it arranged an appointment for the gutters on 22 July 2024 but it did not complete the work. It said its contractors inspected the gutters on 13 August 2024 but they did not arrange the follow-on works, which resulted in a significant and unreasonable delay. It said it completed the work on 19 December 2024. It apologised for the delay and the impact caused. It said it had booked in further work to install 2 gulleys at the bottom of the down pipes and an additional downpipe on 20 March 2025. It said it completed the mould wash on 6 August 2024. However, the surveyor noted on 10 February 2025 that it needed to raise follow–on works to stain block and paint, which it had arranged for 24 March 2025. It said the resident reported that there was mould in her son’s bedroom on 3 March 2025, so it had agreed to complete a further mould wash during the same appointment. It said it had also raised a job to upgrade 2 extractor fans to prevent any further damp and mould. The landlord apologised for the delays in completing the repairs. It said it would monitor the outstanding jobs and keep the resident up to date. It offered increased compensation of £900. This was made up of £400 for delays in the repairs, £300 for time and trouble, and £200 for distress and inconvenience.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as she said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She said she wanted the landlord to complete a further inspection of her property, to acknowledge the impact of the ongoing issues, and to pay her compensation for personal belongings damaged by the damp and mould.

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 reports of damp, mould, and outstanding repairs
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

The resident told us that the ongoing issues with damp and mould have significantly affected her health and her son’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury 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. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

The resident contacted the landlord on 1 March 2024 to report damp and mould in her property. She said it was affecting the living room, bedroom, and downstairs toilet. She said the toilet smelt musty and she thought it could be related to a previous repair to a leaking pipe under the tiles. She said there was black mould on the wall, in the corners of the ceiling, and on the windows in her son’s bedroom. She told the landlord that there were severe vulnerabilities in the household such as asthma and pneumococcal deficiency.
In response, the landlord raised a job for a mould wash and a job for a roofer to clear the gutters. Although the landlord appropriately raised some repairs, there is no evidence to show that it considered the household vulnerabilities. There is no evidence to show that it asked the resident for further information, or that it considered whether it needed to adjust its response times or increase its service offering in line with its repairs policy.
The landlord contacted the resident on 11 March 2024 and said it could not complete the mould wash until 19 April 2024 due to the bank holidays. The resident responded on the same day and told the landlord that there was an extremely vulnerable person in the bedroom who had a severe respiratory issue and severe allergic asthma. She asked the landlord to attend as soon as possible, not in April. This should have prompted the landlord to seek further information about the vulnerabilities within the household and consider any reasonable adjustments in line with its repairs policy and its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Yet there is no evidence to show that it responded to the resident’s email.
The landlord did attend the resident’s property on 29 April 2024 to complete the mould wash. During the visit it found it needed to inspect the loft space for possible water ingress, so it agreed to do all the work on the same day to save disruption. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord raised any follow on works or agreed a new date for the mould wash. This was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy which says it will book in and complete damp and mould repairs within 21 calendar days.
The landlord sent the resident an email on 31 May 2024 following her formal complaint. It said it had raised the follow on work for the loft inspection, removal of wet timber, and mould wash. It said it had chased a date to clear the gutters, and it had raised an inspection for the rotted lintel and door frame. However, it did not provide the resident with any appointments for the works to take place even though she had reported the damp, mould, and blocked gutters on 1 March 2024.
The landlord missed further opportunities to consider the resident and her son’s needs in line with the Equality Act 2010, its repairs policy, and its vulnerability and reasonable adjustments policy. It did not adequately respond when the resident asked it to consider the extreme vulnerabilities at the property during a call on 2 June 2024. It also did not appropriately act on 12 June 2024 when the resident sent an email and asked it to address the outstanding issues quickly as her son had a rare form of asthma. In response, it booked the mould wash and loft inspection in for 2 August 2024, which was over 7 weeks later.
The landlord did say it would try to move the damp works forward due to the resident’s vulnerabilities on 4 July 2024, after she told it the damp was debilitating due to her condition. However, there is no evidence to show that it did, as it did not complete the mould wash until 6 August 2024. Overall, this was 5 months from the date the resident reported the mould. This was significantly outside of the 21 calendar days for damp and mould repairs set within the repairs policy. It did, however, complete the work to the resident’s doorframe on 17 July 2024. Although it was outside of the 28 calendar days for routine repairs set within the repairs policy.
The resident sent the landlord a letter from her physiotherapist dated 7 August 2024. The letter provided details of her significant health issues. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord contacted the resident following receipt of the letter. This was unreasonable. The landlord missed a further opportunity to discuss the resident’s vulnerabilities with her, to seek understanding, and to provide a suitable response in relation to any required reasonable adjustments.
The landlord completed repairs to the roof and flashing on 2 October 2024 following a considerable delay. It accessed the loft, renewed rotten timber, painted, and sealed. It also booked an appointment with the resident to clear the gutters on 24 October 2024. However, it cancelled the appointment on the day, without giving the resident any notice. It re-arranged the appointment to 19 December 2024, which was almost 2 months later. This was inappropriate in the circumstances. The repair had been outstanding since 1 March 2024, the resident had taken time off work, and the landlord was fully aware of the resident and her son’s significant vulnerabilities due to health.
The landlord’s damp and mould team sent the resident an email on 10 December 2024 which said, as it had completed the damp and mould works and resolved the issues, it would close the case. It is unclear from the evidence provided how it had come to this conclusion considering the works to the gutters were still outstanding. This raises concerns with the information available on the landlord’s systems and its communication across teams.
The landlord cleared the gutters on 19 December 2024. During the works it found that it needed to raise follow-on works to install 2 gulleys at the bottom of the downpipes to stop them blocking. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord booked the appointment to carry out the works within the 28 calendar days set within the repairs policy.
The resident sent the landlord an email on 8 January 2025. She asked it to call her as it had not responded to her emails. She said it had completed a mould wash to her son’s bedroom but it had not completed any works to the downstairs toilet. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to her email or that it arranged a call. The resident sent a further email on 27 January 2025. She attached her medical information, a letter detailing her son’s medical conditions, and a photograph of her downstairs toilet ceiling. She asked the landlord for help and said she could not continue to live in poor conditions for much longer. The landlord spoke to the resident on 28 January 2025. However, it has not provided us with the call notes, or any details of the conversation other than it agreed to escalate the resident’s complaint during the call. This raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping practices.
The landlord carried out a damp and mould survey on 10 February 2025. The surveyor found that it needed to install an additional downpipe to service the guttering to prevent further blockages. It said it would complete the work on 20 March 2025 at the same time as the gulley repairs. The surveyor also issued jobs to upgrade the extractor fans and stain block the downstairs toilet ceiling. It completed the work to the fans on 3 March 2025 within the required timeframe for routine repairs.
In the stage 2 response the landlord appropriately apologised and acknowledged its failure to arrange follow-on work, which resulted in significant delays in completing repairs. It made acommitment to install the additional gulleys and downpipes on 20 March 2025. It also made a commitment to complete a further mould wash, stain block, and painting works in the bedroom on 24 March 2025. However, it did not recognise that it had failed to properly consider its obligations to makereasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010, in line with its repairs policy, and in line with its vulnerability and reasonable adjustments policy. It did not recognise its communication failures with both the resident and across internal teams, and it did not recognise that it had missed appointments without giving the resident adequate notice. There was also no meaningful resolution to the complaint as there was still mould in the bedroom and there was no evidence to show that the landlord had identified the root cause.
The landlord did complete the works it committed to within the stage 2 response. However, the issues persisted in the bedroom. The landlord completed further works to repoint areas of the chimney and to remove a tree growing from the chimney stack on 24 June 2025. The resident continued to report damp, issues with the gutters, and internal damage. She asked a private building company to complete a survey of the property on 14 November 2025. They found excessive moisture levels on the ceiling in the bedroom next to the chimney breast. They also said there was no vent in the chimney to ensure it would remain dry.
The landlord completed a further survey on 22 December 2025. It concluded that it needed to further investigate the roof, chimney stack, loft space, and insulation. It arranged to assess the roof on 3 February 2026. The landlord has not told us the outcome of the assessment. However, the resident has told us that the landlord has since replaced part of the bedroom ceiling, but it has not finished the work to the loft. She also said the gutter was still leaking, and the chimney was still unvented.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
Given the observations above, we consider the landlord’s offer of £900 compensation insufficient given the delays and the significant impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident and her son due to their health issues. We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £1,200 compensation (inclusive of the landlord’s original offer) to be appropriate. This is in line with our remedies guidance where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s customer feedback policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure complies with the Code.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 17 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 30 May 2024. It sent the resident a stage 1 response on 16 July 2024. Both the acknowledgement and the response were outside of the timeframes set within the landlord’s customer feedback policy. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 18 November 2024. However, it did not escalate the complaint until it spoke to the resident on 28 January 2025. This was an unreasonable delay.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 acknowledgement letter on 30 January 2025, within the required timeframe. It sent the resident a stage 2 extension letter on 27 February 2025 to extend the date of response to 4 March 2025. However, the letter did not provide the resident with our details as required within paragraph 6.16 of the Code. It sent the stage 2 response on 6 March 2025, which was later than the date given, although this was still within the 20 working days allowed for extensions in both the landlord’s policy and the Code. The landlord did not acknowledge or recognise the delays, or its failure to act in line with the Code, within its complaint responses.
In light of the identified failings, we consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £125 compensation to be appropriate. This is in line with our remedies guidance where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.

Learning

The landlord has told us that it has made changes to its complaints process to ensure it acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It also said it was undertaking a repairs improvement programme to integrate several systems into one, which would improve its management of repairs.
However, the landlord should have adequate processes in place to ensure it recognises and records resident vulnerabilities. It should also ensure that it takes known vulnerabilities into account when making decisions or providing a service. We recommend that the landlord considers our spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights. We also recommend the landlord’s staff engage with our related e-learning modules.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The evidence provided by the landlord was sufficient to conduct the investigation. However, the information was confusing at times and there were gaps in its records.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor throughout the case. There were several occasions where the resident contacted the landlord asking for updates and help, yet there is no evidence the landlord responded. There was also some evidence of communication issues between internal teams.