NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited (202502434)

Decision
Case ID	202502434
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	27 April 2026

Background

1. In early 2024 the resident reported a leak and subsequent damp and mould. She later complained the landlord had not dealt with the damp and mould and that this had damaged her belongings. She told us she has health conditions which she attributed to the property condition.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
   1. Resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. We found there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp and mould

5. The landlord acted reasonably by completing repairs and several surveys. The final survey in April 2025 found no defects or damp, confirming the property was safe and in good condition.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not issue its responses within its policy timescales and failed to address all aspects of the complaint. It did not acknowledge these errors nor offer any remedies.

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.

Order

Landlords must comply with our order in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our order by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £75 for the inconvenience caused by its handling of her complaint.   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 25 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 October 2024	The resident complained that damp and mould had affected the property for a number of years. She said she had lost belongings and that her health was being affected.
6 November 2024	She contacted the landlord again reiterating her complaint and that she believed the damp and mould was caused by leaks and poor building design. She said she had made repeated complaints, but despite the landlord’s surveys, it failed to provide updates or a resolution. She added there was increased utility costs for heating and dehumidifier use.
19 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said a September 2024 survey identified the cause of the leak and damp and mould, and it raised repair orders. In November 2024, it completed PVC boarding and arranged further works.
7 March 2025	The resident escalated the complaint. She said the damp and mould was still present and had not been addressed despite multiple inspections and remedial work. She disputed the landlord’s survey findings and felt her own independent survey said there was damp, possibly from a leaking pipe.
2 May 2025	The landlord issued its final stage 2 response. It explained it carried out an inspection on 24 April 2025 which found no evidence of rising or penetrating damp, and all walls, floors, and cavity insulation were dry and in good condition. Its survey found a leaking washing machine pipe, which was the resident’s responsibility. The landlord considered that no further action was required and the property was assessed to be in good condition.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us she has since left the property. She said that since moving in during 2021, there were persistent water ingress, damp, and mould. She said this caused damage to her belongings, had an impact on her health, and resulted in periods when the property was uninhabitable. She felt the landlord mishandled repairs, inspections, and the complaints process, and failed to give due regard to her evidence. She wanted an apology, compensation, and service improvements.

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	Reports of damp and mould
Finding	No maladministration

What we’ve not considered

7. The resident told us the household’s health was affected by the damp and mould. 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’ve not investigated this further. We can however decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we’ve considered

8. The resident complained about widespread damp and mould in her home, which she believed was caused by an underground leak. She said the conditions damaged her belongings and increased her utility costs due to using a dehumidifier and additional heating. In response, the landlord stated it had investigated all reported leaks and damp and completed repairs where required. It concluded there was no structural cause and no ongoing damp or mould requiring further works.
9. The landlord’s mould and damp policy required timely inspections by suitably qualified staff to identify the cause, including condensation, structural defects, or disrepair. Where the landlord was responsible, it committed to completing remedial works and taking urgent action in high risk cases. Its repairs policy required it to assess responsibility, prioritise works by risk, and complete emergency, urgent, and routine repairs within set timescales while keeping residents informed.
10. The evidence shows that, although multiple reports of damp and mould were made over the period, the landlord responded to each within its published timescales and took action proportionate to the issues identified. Inspections and surveys were carried out promptly, repairs and mould treatments were completed in line with repair policy timescales, and risks were reasonably assessed, with no evidence of unreasonable delay or failure to act.
11. After the resident complained in October 2024 and continued to report ongoing damp, mould, and further leaks, the landlord raised additional work orders and confirmed it had already completed recommended works. In February 2025, the resident commissioned her own survey, which identified condensation and recommended extensive external works. She escalated her complaint after highlighting differences between the surveys.
12. After receiving the resident’s survey, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging another inspection to ensure nothing had been missed. It identified inaccuracies in the resident’s survey and carried out a further inspection on 24 April 2025. This inspection found the property dry and in good condition, with adequate insulation, modern windows, and heating. The only issue identified was a leak from the washing machine waste pipe, which was the resident’s responsibility.
13. In its May 2025 final response, the landlord clearly explained that no damp, mould, or structural defects were present and no further works were required. Despite this, it continued to engage with the resident, completed a further mould wash, agreed additional visits and arranged to install environmental monitoring sensors to provide reassurance. Its inspection reports and repair records support its explanations and conclusions. Overall, the landlord’s actions were reasonable, proportionate, and in line with its repairs policies.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

14. At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy aligned with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in both definition and response timescales.
15. The resident complained on 3 October 2024, but the landlord did not treat this as a formal complaint. Instead, it only recognised her correspondence of 6 November 2024 as her complaint. This caused an avoidable delay and unnecessary time and trouble for the resident.
16. During a telephone call on 26 February 2025, she said delays continued and her own surveyors findings differed from the landlord’s. She repeated these concerns again on 7 March 2025. These were clearly expressions of dissatisfaction which the landlord should have treated as an escalation request.
17. Instead, it treated a later telephone call on 21 March 2025 as the escalation. Although it extended the stage 2 response timeframe on 16 April 2025, this occurred more than 20 working days after the escalation should reasonably have been identified.
18. The landlord then issued its stage 2 response on 2 May 2025 – well outside the 20-day timescale in its policy and the Code. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay. In the meantime the resident was caused time and trouble as she approached us for assistance on 17 April 2025.
19. As part of her complaint and escalation, the resident said that the condition of the property led to mould damage to her personal belongings. Although the landlord acknowledged these concerns at stage 1, it failed to address them in either complaint response. The landlord said in its complaint response that it had clarified with the resident at stage 2 the outstanding complaint issues, and it may be that the matter of the damaged items was not raised as part of that clarification.
20. Also, a landlord would usually only be expected to consider compensation if its actions or inaction had at least partly caused the damage. As has been explained above, this investigation has not found any specific failings by the landlord, and so it would not have been expected to offer compensation.
21. Nonetheless, to be in alignment with the Code’s requirement that landlords should address all elements of a complaint, it should have responded to this point – either explaining at stage 1 why it did not believe it was responsible for any damage, or potentially referring the resident to make a claim on its insurers. Not doing so was unreasonable.
22. Taken together, these issues constitute failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made a compensation order for the landlord in line with our compensation guidance for failings of this scale and nature.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. In this case, the landlord’s record keeping was satisfactory.

Communication

24. The landlord should identify the earliest complaint and escalation request to meet complaint response timescales. It should also review our Spotlight report on complaint handling, which highlights how delays, poor communication, and lack of ownership can escalate issues and recommends clear accountability, timely responses, and proactive engagement.