Platform Housing Group Limited (202428674)

Background

1. The resident has lived at the property for some years. She first reported damp and mould in September 2023. The landlord inspected the property in November 2023 but she said it did not carry out all recommended works. She continued to report damp and mould throughout 2024 and considered that it failed to address her concerns.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decisions (determinations)

3. We have found that:
   1. The landlord has provided reasonable redress for its failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp and mould

5. The landlord made numerous failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. But its apologies, offers of further investigation and system improvements was sufficient to remedy its failings.

Complaint

6. There was a delay at stage2, but the landlord offered reasonable redress.

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 has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have 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. The resident previously complained about damp and mould issues to her landlord in late 2023 and had a complaint upheld on 28 September 2023. Events prior to 28 September 2023 have, therefore, been remedied so we have not investigated any events during that period. We have, though, considered it as background to this investigation.
8. The resident says that problems at the property have continued beyond the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process. However, as these concerns have not yet been through the landlord’s complaints process, we cannot make a fair decision about whether it has done all it could and should have done to address her concerns.

What we have investigated

9. The landlord accepted in its stage 1 complaint response that the resident made several reports of damp and mould at the property since October 2023 and it could not show that it had responded adequately and could not say why any failures had occurred. This was clearly caused by a record keeping failure.
10. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that will make repairs in a “reliable, timely and flexible” way. It will attend after receiving a report of a routine repair within 10 days. It will then complete repairs either on the first appointment or within 20 working days where possible. It failed to do so in this case.
11. The first damp and mould report came on 21 September 2023. In it, the resident said that there was black mould in the bedroom and she could not sleep there. The records show that the landlord carried out a survey of the property on 6 November 2023, more than 6 weeks later. This was not in line with its policy commitment to attend within 10 days.
12. After the survey, the landlord recommended mould treatment, a loft insulation top up and further, detailed surveys of the PIV units and the cavity wall insulation. It completed much of this work. The only outstanding work was the cavity wall survey.
13. The landlord accepts that it failed to progress the cavity wall survey as it should have. It asked a contractor to carry it out but, due to a communication failure, this did not happen.
14. The resident sent a further damp and mould report in August 2024. This concerned damp and mould in the porch. The landlord sent operatives to carry out works on exterior brickwork. The resident said the property was still damp.
15. The resident reports that workers came to repair and replace airbricks in September 2024 but left without doing so. She also reports that, in early October 2024, workers came to inspect floor joists but could not lift the carpet so left.
16. We advised the resident in November 2024 to complain formally to the landlord so that we could investigate. She did so on 12 December 2024. At this point, the landlord began an investigation. It realised in early January 2025 that it had not yet carried out the cavity wall survey recommended in late 2023.
17. The landlord accepted that it had failed the resident in its stage 1 complaint response of 10 January 2025. It offered her £500 for failure to take reasonable care and the distress and inconvenience this had caused. The resident refused this offer. She said she feared that this was “hush money” designed to make her drop her complaint. She said she wanted the problems resolved.
18. In the stage 2 complaint response of 21 March 2025, the landlord said that its operatives had now completed the cavity wall work. It accepted that it had let the resident down. It said it would arrange for a further, independent, survey of the property, it would re-open its damp and mould case and leave “data loggers” at the property to gather information about damp and mould.
19. The landlord also invited the resident to claim on its insurance for damage to any of her possessions. It increased its offer of compensation from £500 to £750 (£50 of which was for complaint handling failures which are discussed below).
20. The landlord also stated that it had learned lessons from the resident’s case. It said it would review its processes from end to end, review its communications and issue training to ensure that all appointments were properly recorded in its systems.
21. The combination of increased compensation, further investigation and system improvements was, in our view, sufficient to fully address the resident’s concerns up until the final complaint response. We have therefore found that the landlord made an offer that provided reasonable redress for its failings and their impact. We make this finding on the understanding that it will pay the compensation it offered if it has not already done so.
22. The resident feels that the landlord has not resolved the damp and mould. She continued to report problems throughout 2025. However, in our view, as stated above, these are fresh matters which she can raise by way of a further complaint.

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:

23. Our Complaint Handling Code states that complaint responses should be issued within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. These timescales run from the date of acknowledgement.
24. In this case, the complaint was received on 12 December 2024 and acknowledged on 19 December 2025, so the timescale started on that date. Taking into account the landlord’s closure period, the stage 1 response should have been issued by 14 January 2025. The landlord issued its response on 10 January 2025, which was within the expected timescale.
25. In relation to the stage 2 complaint, the escalation was received on 13 January 2025 and acknowledged within 5 working days. This was in line with the Complaint Handling Code. The Code allows an extension of up to 20 working days at stage 2, where required.
26. Taking this into account, the landlord should have provided its response by 17 March 2025. However, it issued its response on 21 March 2025, which was 4 working days outside the maximum permitted timescale. This represented a service failure. The landlord acknowledged this and offered £50 compensation.
27. Based on this, the landlord complied with the Code’s obligations at Stage 1. At stage 2 there was a failure, however the landlord offered a reasonable amount of compensation.

Learning

28. The landlord has informed the resident of the lessons it learnt from her case and told her how it will incorporate them into its systems. This was a sound use of the complaints process in line with the Code.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord accepted that its records were inadequate as they did not contain details of its responses to the resident’s reports of problems at the property. If it has not done so already, it should complete a self-assessment against our knowledge and information management spotlight report.

Communication

30. The resident reports that she felt that most of the landlord’s staff had no knowledge of her case which led to repeated miscommunications. he landlord should take learning from this case and consider how it can improve its internal communications.