Onward Homes Limited (202538622)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bed house with a cellar.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp, mould and associated repairs.
   2. The associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord mostly followed its repairs and damp and mould policies in responding to the resident. The landlord identified failures and took steps to put things right during its internal complaints process.
5. The landlord identified and apologised for the complaint handling failures during its internal complaints process.

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 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.

6. The resident reported issues with her kitchen units and mouldy walls on 7 February 2025. The landlord’s damp and mould and repairs policies do not specify a timeframe for repairs. However, the landlord assessed the priority over the phone and booked an inspection for 26 days later. This was reasonable. The resident rearranged this appointment, and a contractor visited on 6 May 2025.
7. The resident reported rising damp in the cellar and worries about associated mould in April 2025. The landlord arranged an appointment 26 working days later. This was rescheduled to 19 May 2025 due to the resident’s request.
8. During the cellar inspection, the surveyor told the resident there was damp and mould in the cellar and suggested full tanking may be required to resolve the issue. They did not survey the kitchen which was a missed opportunity to identify outstanding issues. The resident requested updates a month later and the landlord arranged a second survey to cover the kitchen.
9. The landlord’s survey recommended a partial update to some of the kitchen units and cooker. The resident declined this as she felt a full kitchen replacement was needed. It was reasonable for the landlord to follow the advice of its surveyor and its repair policies when assessing work needed in the kitchen.
10. The resident declined some kitchen works and access to the cellar for a second inspection. However, evidence from summer 2025 shows she did repeatedly ask for updates. Although the landlord responded to the resident’s contacts, internally it acknowledged there was some communication confusion.
11. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated it would not complete “tanking” to the cellar because it was not considered a “habitable” room. It acknowledged there was damp in the cellar and said it would inspect the cellar every 6 months to ensure damp was not affecting her home. This was a reasonable approach considering its damp and mould survey and the result of the cellar survey. The landlord apologised for not clarifying this sooner which was reasonable.
12. In the stage 1 response, the landlord also restated its position on partially replacing the kitchen units and worktops in line with its repairs policy.
13. Following the resident’s stage 2 escalation, the landlord contracted an independent damp survey in November 2025. This was a positive step towards a resolution. The survey found the damp in the kitchen was likely related to condensation, rather than rising damp from the cellar. It confirmed “tanking” would be disproportionate for the non-habitable cellar. The survey recommended a heat recovery unit be fitted in the kitchen and mould growth cleaned in the cellar.
14. The resident was unclear when these works would be completed and asked the landlord for updates. It would have been beneficial for the landlord to provide the resident with an expected timeline and to explain how it had classified the repairs in line with its repairs policy.
15. The heat recovery unit was fitted and mould in the cellar treated on 20 January 2026. There was a gap of 11 months between the resident first reporting the issue and the landlord completing works, although some of the delay was due to the resident requesting suitable appointment times and the need for a second opinion survey. The landlord recognised and apologised for delays in its stage 1 and 2 responses. It offered compensation in line with our compensation guidance. The landlord’s £225 offer was in the range we would recommend where failings had an adverse effect on a resident. This was sufficient given there were points over these 11 months where the resident had to chase progress.
16. The landlord offered a partial kitchen replacement in line with its policy. The resident has chosen to decline this.
17. The landlord identified and apologised for its failures in its complaints process. It offered appropriate compensation and took actions to put things right.

18. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition. Our findings are that the landlord:
    1. Had a published complaints policy in line with the Code.
    2. Acknowledged the stage 1 complaint 1 day outside of its policy timeframe.
    3. Delayed responding to the stage 1 complaint by 10 working days.
    4. Delayed acknowledging the stage 2 response, which caused the resident time and trouble as she had to chase the complaint.
    5. Responded to the stage 2 complaint within its policy timeframe.
    6. Apologised for the delays at both complaint stages. It offered a total of £175 for complaint delays. We have found reasonable redress as this is in line with our compensation guidance for complaint handling failures that had a significant impact on the resident.

Learning

19. The landlord showed a positive willingness to review and learn throughout its internal complaints process.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord kept good records in this case.

Communication

21. There were some communication failures. However, the landlord identified these during its internal complaints process and took steps to put things right.