Platform Housing Group Limited (202533020)

Background

1. The resident said she reported problems with damp and mould on multiple occasions but the work that was carried out by the landlord had not been successful. She also said the mould made her children ill and had damaged her possessions. She told the landlord she wanted to move.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord offered the resident an apology and compensation for the delay in identifying the cause of the mould growth and for the distress and inconvenience that was caused.
6. Whilst the landlord offered the resident compensation for its poor complaints handling, it did not offer an apology or acknowledge it failed to handle her complaint in line with its complaints 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.

Recommendations

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

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.

What we did not investigate

7. It is noted that the resident has reported issues with damp and mould for several years. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
8. Taking account of the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events leading up to when the resident made a complaint in March 2025, up to 21 October 2025 when the landlord issued its final complaint response.
9. The resident’s reports of damp and mould referred to a possible impact upon her family’s health. While these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a person’s health.
10. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for a court or insurer to consider a claim for any injury caused to the resident or her family. They 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. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to take her concerns further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for any distress or inconvenience caused.

What we did investigate

11. In the absence of a copy of the landlord’s damp and mould policy that was in place at the time the resident made her complaint, this Service has used its submission to the Regulator of Social Housing and the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (“It’s not lifestyle,” published in October 2021) to determine whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable and fair in the circumstances. This says landlords should take ‘’proactive interventions’’ in their approach to diagnosing and treating damp and mould.
12. The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 20 November 2024 that there was damp and mould in her property. The landlord was placed on notice at this point and had an obligation to meet its repairing responsibilities as set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement. This confirms it is responsible for the structure of the building including the internal walls and ceilings.
13. The landlord raised a job to treat the affected areas, with a target date of 4 December 2024. It also arranged to carry out a damp inspection by 11 December 2024. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances. Following reports of damp and mould, the landlord should undertake appropriate investigations to find out the cause of the damp and mould. If it is found the damp is caused by problems with the fabric of the property, it should take steps to resolve the issues in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement.
14. The landlord did not carry out the damp inspection by the deadline date. This meant it did not know the scale of the problem or the impact it was having on the resident or her household. This was a failure. This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould recommends landlord’s respond to reports of damp and mould in a timely manner which reflects the urgency of the issue. In this case, the landlord was aware there were young children in the property and that there had been problems with damp and mould in the flat in the past.
15. The landlord also failed to complete the mould wash by the deadline date. This meant it did not meet its repairing obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement.
16. The landlord did not carry out a damp inspection until 17 March 2025. This was some 4 months after the resident reported there was damp and mould in her property.
17. The landlord arranged for an independent contractor to carry out the damp inspection. This demonstrated transparency on the part of the landlord and would have helped reassure the resident that the findings of the inspection were impartial.
18. Damp and mould were found in the living room, kitchen, hallway, bathroom and bedrooms. The cause of the damp and mould was attributed to poor ventilation and restricted airflow. The landlord was entitled to rely on a suitably qualified contractor to determine the cause of the damp and mould. It raised a job on the same day to apply a mould wash to treat the affected areas. This was appropriate. There is no evidence the resident was offered any advice on how to manage condensation.
19. The resident noted on 21 March 2025 in her complaint that the mould was getting worse and making her children ill. She said she had reported the problem on multiple occasions but the work that had been carried out by the landlord had not been successful. She also said the landlord failed to keep her updated and she believed the mould was due to structural issues. In addition, she noted that her possessions had been damaged by the mould and she wanted to move.
20. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 11 April 2025.
21. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
22. In this case, the landlord said a damp inspection was raised on 20 November 2024,butitwas unable to contact her. No details on the attempts to contact the resident were shared with this Service. This demonstrated poor record keeping on the part of the landlord. The landlord acknowledged there was a delay in completing the mould wash. This demonstrated the landlord took learning from the complaint. It said it had arranged an appointment for 23 April 2025 to complete the work. This was appropriate. The landlord offered an apology and £440 compensation.
23. It has not been possible to establish what proportion of the compensation was attributed towards the resident’s complaint of damp and mould. A breakdown would have helped the resident to understand how the figure was reached and enabled them to reach a conclusion as to whether they believed the offer made was fair.
24. The housing records confirm the landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s propertyon23 April 2025 to treat the mould. This was appropriate.
25. The resident told the landlord on the same day that the work had been done to a poor standard and the contractor did not finish the work. She also said the contractor damaged her possessions and she questioned the merits of treating the mould again. She asked the landlord to carry out an inspection of the property.
26. An inspection was completed on 12 May 2025 and jobs raised to check the drains and the wall cavities. This demonstrated the landlord was resolution focused and wanted to identify the root cause of the damp and mould.
27. Whilst a mould wash was applied to the affected areas, there is no evidence the landlord put any monitoring arrangements in place following the completion of the work. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this given the history of damp and mould in the property. The landlord’s failure to do this meant it lacked certainty as to the efficacy of its action in providing an enduring remedy.
28. The resident asked the landlord for an update on 29 May 2025. She said the mould had grown since the inspection and the situation was dangerous to her children’s health. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns or her subsequent email sent on 16 June 2025. This demonstrated poor communication on the part of the landlord and was not consistent with this Service’s spotlight review on damp and mould. This says landlords should clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
29. The landlord’s failure to respond was likely to have caused the resident inconvenience and distress. It was clear she was concerned about the risk to her family’s health and the damage that had and continued to be caused to the property.
30. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 June 2025. She said she felt forgotten and ignored. She also said she did not feel safe and wanted to move.
31. The landlord’s contractor undertook a drain survey on 14 August 2025 and confirmed there were no issues with the drains or evidence of rising damp. The landlord provided the resident with an update on 22 August 2025 and noted the mould was caused by condensation. The resident disputed the conclusion that had been reached and noted the landlord had still not identified the root cause.
32. The landlord arranged for a further damp survey to be completed on 1 September 2025. Mould was found on the ceilings and walls in the bedrooms, kitchen, living room and hallway. All of the affected areas were treated on the same day.
33. A specialist contractor inspected the resident’s property on 12 September 2025. It noted the property was built at the bottom of a significant incline and was sited on extremely wet ground. Mould was found on the external brickwork and it was noted that it was likely water was sitting in the walls and rising through the ground. It said the cavity wall installation had blown and the cavities were wet, although it noted it would need to undertake a more detailed inspection to confirm the cause of the damp and mould. The contractor recommended the cavity wall installation was removed and commercial dehumidifiers used to dry out the inner walls.
34. The landlord carried out a joint inspection with the specialist contractor on 23 September 2025. No details about the inspection were shared with this Service and it is unclear what action, if any was taken by the landlord in relation to the specialist contractor’s findings.
35. The resident told the landlord on 27 September 2025 that her son had been hospitalised and the damp and mould was affecting his health. She asked the landlord to move her family. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns or considered whether it needed to undertake a risk assessment. It would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to have done this given the history of damp in the property and the resident’s concerns about her son’s health. This was a further failure.
36. The landlord arranged for the resident’s heating to be checked on 3 October 2025. It was confirmed on 17 October 2025 that there were no issues with the heating.
37. The landlord acknowledged on 21 October 2025 in its final complaint response that there was a delay in identifying the root cause of the mould growth and the situation had caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. This demonstrated the landlord took learning from the complaint. It said multiple inspections and treatments had been completed, but these had not resolved the underlying problem. It also said it arranged for the drains, pipework and heating to be checked. No issues were identified during these inspections. This provided clarity.
38. The landlord noted it arranged for a damp and mould specialist to inspect for rising damp on 14 August2025. This concluded that no remedial treatments were required as the problem was condensation related and maybe alleviated with better heating and ventilation.
39. The landlord said it carried out a joint inspection with the contractor on 23 September 2025, during which the walls and floors throughout the property were checked for signs of dampness. It noted the moisture level readings that were recorded were within the ‘‘normal range’’, although high humidity levels were identified throughout the property. The landlord said it believed the mould growth was primarily due to insufficient heating. This provided clarity. It noted it could support the resident if she had concerns about the cost of heating her home. It also said it would arrange for someone to visit her to discuss her request to move. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
40. The landlord offered the resident an apology and an additional £2000 compensation. This included £750 for the delay in identifying the root cause of the mould growth, £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused and £750 contribution towards the damage caused to the resident’s belongings by its contractors. The level of compensation offered by the landlord was higher than the recommended range of compensation set out in our remedies guidance where such failures have a significant impact on a resident.
41. Taking account of all the circumstances, a finding of reasonable redress has been made in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

42. The resident made a complaint on 21 March 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 28 March 2025. This was consistent with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. This says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
43. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 11 April 2025. This was consistent with the 10-day target timescale set out in its complaints policy.
44. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 June 2025. The complaint escalation request was acknowledged by the landlord on 30 June 2025 in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. It said it would provide a response by 28 July 2025.
45. The landlord did not issue its final complaint response by the deadline date or tell the resident there would be a delay in responding until the deadline date. It said it would provide a response by 25 August 2025.This was not consistent with the Ombudsman’s complaints handling code (the Code). This says extensions of time must not exceed more than 10 working days, without good reason. The landlord did not agree the revised deadline date with the resident. This was not consistent with its complaints policy.
46. The landlord did not issue its final complaint response by the revised deadline date. The deadline date was extended again on 22 August 2025 and 23 September 2025. This was a further failure and caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble pursuing her complaint. The landlord said it would provide a response by 21 October 2025.
47.  The landlord issued its final complaint response on 21 October 2025. This was 4 months after the resident escalated her complaint. It did not offer an apology for the delay in responding, but instead said it handled the complaint in accordance with its complaints policy. This demonstrated the landlord did not take learning from the complaint. It did, however, offer the resident £350 for extending the complaint deadline. The landlords offer of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances.
48. Taking account of all the circumstances, a finding of maladministration has been made in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. No additional compensation has been awarded.

Learning

General learning

49. The landlord ensures effective monitoring arrangements are put in place to track complaints through to a satisfactory conclusion.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

50. The housing records provided by the landlord were limited in areas and made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord should ensure it keeps accurate and clear records so it is able to meet its obligations.

Communication

51. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times and it failed to respond to many of her requests for updates.