South Lakes Housing (202407661)

Decision
Case ID	202407661
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	South Lakes Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 January 2026

Background

The resident lives alone in sheltered accommodation. A surveyor investigated reports of the property being damp and cold. Despite this inspection, the resident raised a complaint stating the problems with damp and cold remained.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. Reports of the property being damp and cold.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of the property being damp and cold.
2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of the property being damp and cold

The landlord acted fairly and reasonably in response to the resident’s concerns. It took the appropriate action in line with its policies.

Complaint handling

The landlord handled the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 April 2024	The resident made a complaint about the property being cold and damp. She said she had to have the heating on constantly and had thrown away clothing as she found mould on them. The resident said that her carpets and sofa felt damp too. She thought this could have been due to the neighbouring property being left vacant for a while which she felt had caused the walls to become damp. The resident told the landlord about her health conditions which she said were made worse by living in the property. The resident said she wanted to move.
1 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said a surveyor had visited the property on 29 February 2024 and identified the property was not being adequately heated or ventilated. The landlord identified that the radiators did not heat up properly and offered to raise a job for them to be bled. It said the resident declined this offer. The landlord said it had offered the resident a heating assessment but that this was declined. It suggested an appointment was arranged with its financial inclusion officer to discuss the resident’s affordability concerns.
1 July 2024	The resident’s representative from an advice agency escalated the complaint. The representative said there was damp and mould in the property. They said this had caused the resident to throw out a mattress and a pair of shoes. The representative said the resident had shown the surveyor the mattress but that had not referred to this in his report. They said the resident had woodlice in her wardrobe and bathroom which implied there was still damp in the property. The representative said the bathroom extractor fan was not working and the kitchen extractor fan was not adequate. They said the resident’s dehumidifier no longer worked and she could not afford to replace it. The representative said one of the radiators had been bled which had improved the heating. They said the rest of the radiators needed looking at. The representative said the resident was agreeable to a visit from the financial inclusion officer.
25 July 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said the surveyor remembered the visit to the property and did not notice any mould on the mattress or shoes. The landlord advised the resident to use insect repellent or hot soapy water to clean where the woodlice were. It said a work order had been raised to inspect the bathroom and kitchen extractor fans. This was due to be carried out by 9 August 2024. It said a gutter clean was due to occur by 13 August 2024. The landlord said as it was now the summer and the resident’s heating system was not on; it recommended the remaining radiators be bled when the heating was switched back on in a few months. The landlord said the resident’s brother had bled the previous radiator but if he could not do the rest, it would be happy to attend. The landlord said its financial inclusion officer and income officer had tried to contact the resident on 24 June, 25 June and 8 July 2024 but without success. The landlord requested the resident make contact.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us that the property remained cold and that her bedroom smelt of mould. She wanted to move to a different property.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
It is recommended the landlord carry out another inspection of the property because the resident told us the property is still cold and the bedroom smells of 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	Reports of the property being damp and cold
Finding	No maladministration

On 27 February 2024 the resident reported that her property was constantly cold and had damp and mould. A work order was raised for a surveyor to attend. The surveyor attended on 29 February 2024.
This was an appropriate response time that reflected the potential urgency of the matter as excess cold, and damp and mould are recognised as hazards under the Housing Health & Safety Rating System (HHSRS). This response time was also in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy which states it “will ensure a rapid response to reports of damp and mould”.
The inspection identified that the property was not adequately heated or ventilated. The surveyor’s report stated that at the visit, the heating and a dehumidifier were off and the windows were closed. The surveyor said the carpet did not have any moisture on it and the damp readings, which were photographed, were satisfactory. The landlord’s stage 1 response said the only mould that was found was a “slight film” behind the back of a picture frame.
At the visit on 29 February 2024 the landlord offered the resident a heating assessment to confirm if the heating was adequate and to bleed the radiators. The landlord’s stage 1 response said the resident declined these offers.
On 12 April 2024 the landlord offered to revisit the property to carry out a further inspection of any concerns the resident had. The resident declined this offer and said she was looking for alternative accommodation. It was reasonable for the landlord to have offered to carry out another inspection given the reports the resident had made.
In the escalation request the resident said a mattress and some shoes had needed to be thrown away due to mould. The landlord’s stage 2 response stated that the surveyor did not find mould present on these items and remembered being shown the mattress and shoes. We have not seen evidence of the condition of the items reported by the resident to have been affected by mould. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have photographed any items the resident had expressed concerns about, to evidence their condition. This was a missed opportunity.
The escalation request said the extractor fan in the bathroom was not working and the extractor fan in the kitchen was not adequate. The landlord raising a work order for these issues was timely and was an appropriate action to take. It was not clear what the outcome of this work order was, but it was listed as completed on 22 July 2024.
The resident told the landlord about her vulnerabilities in her complaint. We are satisfied the landlord took these into consideration. The resident was offered repeated visits, a heating assessment, help to bleed the radiators and support from a financial inclusion officer and an income officer. The landlord also supported the resident with a housing application for the local choice-based lettings scheme in response to her request to be moved.
After the landlord issued its stage 2 response, it continued to monitor the resident’s case. When winter was approaching and the resident had not responded to its offers of support, on 10 October 2024 it contacted the advice agency that had escalated the complaint on the resident’s behalf.
The landlord said the colder months were starting and it had not been able to access the resident’s property to reassess it. The landlord asked if the advice agency was still in touch with the resident and whether it was aware of any issues. It said it had checked the repairs history for the resident’s property and there had been no repairs regarding damp and mould. This was a proactive approach that was resolution and customer focused.
Records showed the landlord continued to monitor the property with visits and any work identified was carried out. Despite this, the resident told us on 19 January 2026 that the property remained cold and her bedroom smelt of mould. We have made a recommendation regarding this.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

There were no failings identified in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint. All timescales in the landlord’s policy and the Code were followed.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Our Spotlight Report on repairs and maintenance explains the importance of the landlord keeping accurate records. We encourage the landlord to consider the recommendations and best practice in our Spotlight Report. This will help ensure it keeps accurate and complete records as the outcome of some work orders were not clear.

Communication

The communication by the landlord was reasonable and appropriate. It took a proactive approach by offering repeated visits and reached out to the advice agency that had represented the resident previously when it could not contact the resident.