Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202408309)

Decision
Case ID	202408309
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Thirteen Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 March 2026

Background

1. The resident reported various concerns about her property when she moved in. These included an outhouse containing rubbish and a broken window, a leak with associated damp and mould in her kitchen and a rodent infestation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. A leak and associated damp and mould in the kitchen.
   2. A rodent infestation and associated floorboard repairs.
   3. A broken window and rubbish in the outhouse.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and associated damp and mould in the kitchen.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation and associated floorboard repairs.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a broken window and rubbish in the outhouse.
   4. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of a leak and associated damp and mould in the kitchen

5. The landlord failed to fully repair an ongoing leak and remove kitchen units in a timely manner, taking move than 12 months to resolve the issue.

Reports of a rodent infestation and associated floorboard repairs

6. The landlord failed to seal entry points behind the kitchen units in a timely manner. It also delayed in completing floorboard repairs.

Reports of a broken window and rubbish in the outhouse

7. The landlord delayed in clearing the outhouse and replacing the broken window.

Handling of the complaint

8. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy in terms of timescales, however it did not address all aspects raised by the resident in her escalation request.

 

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 28 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,050 made up as follows: £300 it offered at the end of the complaints process. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in handling of a leak and associated damp and mould in the kitchen. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in handling the rodent infestation and associated floorboard repairs. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in handling of a broken window and rubbish in the outhouse. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings handling the 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. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 28 April 2026
3	Take specific action The landlord must provide the resident with details of how she can make a claim for damage to her belongings in writing, in line with its compensation policy.	No later than 28 April 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider creating a damp and mould policy and pest control policy.
The landlord should consider delivering refresher training to relevant staff about how to handle escalation requests within its complaints process.

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 6 and 7 March 2024	The resident complained and said: There was mould under the kitchen cabinet. She had caught mice and there was a cavity behind the kitchen cupboards which needed sealing. Meaning she had stopped using the kitchen. The mice had damaged the floorboards and her belongings.  There was rubbish and a damaged window in the outhouse. The landing light was not working again.
14 March 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: It completed a damp and mould survey on 8 August 2023. It apologised for not removing the kitchen units to inspect for damp and entry points for the rodent issue. It said it was unsure which team was responsible for this. It agreed to do a new damp and mould survey. But it had repaired the leak on 22 August 2023. Its contractor dealt with the rodent issue in August 2023. It attempted to repair the floorboard in September 2023 but found it was done. In July 2023, its contractor was unable to access the outhouse to clear it. It accepted it delayed in completing this work and replacing the glass and offered £150 compensation.
18 March 2024	The resident escalated her complaint stating she had to chase the landlord for repairs and was unhappy it was taking so long. She said: The kitchen cupboards were damaged from mould and the leak was ongoing. The kitchen was unusable due to the mould and rodent issue. The evidence of rodents was clear as many external entry points were found. Her clothes were “ruined” by rodent damage. She said the floorboard repair was outstanding. The outhouse door needed removing which the clearance company refused to do. The landing light was still broken.
5 April 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said it had booked a surveyor’s inspection for 9 April 2024. It increased its compensation to £300 as it did not meet its policy timescales for dealing with the rodent issue and the outhouse. It said it had responded to the concerns about the leak at stage 1.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us. She said the rubbish had been removed but the window needed repairing. The outstanding issues included the rodent infestation and the mould. She also wanted compensation for loss of her belongings.

 

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 a leak, damp and mould in the kitchen
Finding	Maladministration

9. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the landlord to keep in repair the structure and installations of the property. The landlord’s repairs policy further confirms these requirements.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy says repairs will be given a priority based on urgency. It did not refer to timescales, but we would expect repairs to be completed in a timely manner based on nature and complexity. The landlord does not have a damp and mould policy. As good practice we would expect it to investigate the reports, diagnose the root cause and confirm the required work. It should complete any repairs within a reasonable timescale proportionate to the level of complexity.
11. The resident reported her kitchen cupboards were damp and had mould on 16 June 2023. The landlord reasonably attended within 12 working days but was not able to gain access. It is unclear why this was not rescheduled sooner or why it did not raise a damp and mould survey. On 25 July 2023 it raised a job to remove the kitchen units following advice from the pest contractor which was a reasonable response. On 28 July 2023, it attempted to fix the leak again but was unable to gain access.
12. A surveyor inspected the property on 8 August 2023 and confirmed the kitchen units needed removing to inspect for damp and mould, and the leak needed fixing. The landlord appropriately raised a job on 11 August 2023 and replaced some of the pipework on 22 August 2023. While this was a timely response and reasonable given earlier failed attempts, it did not adequately resolve the issue.
13. On 4 October 2023 the landlord raised, then cancelled, a job for a surveyor to inspect the walls behind the units. Internal notes indicate there was confusion about which team was responsible for doing the repair. By this point 4 months had passed. The landlord already had clear guidance from the pest contractor and the surveyor about what to do from July 2023. While we understand that different departments internally may be responsible for certain works, the landlord ought to have been aware who was responsible for which set of repairs. The delay shows a failing in its internal processes and coordination.
14. The landlord called the resident on 6 October 2023 to discuss the damp and mould issues and left a voicemail. However, the resident informed us that the leak was not fully repaired in August 2023, and she had told the landlord. She said she understood a new kitchen would be approved to resolve the issue, so she waited for this. This communication supporting its approach to the repair is not evidenced in the landlord’s contact notes which is concerning.This may explain why she did not continue to report the issue.
15. The resident’s complaint raised the leak and mould again, highlighting 9 months had passed since it was first reported. At this stage the landlord ought to have reasonably been aware of the outstanding repairs. It should have been able to rely on its repair records to identify and manage the work without the resident’s intervention. Had it checked its records it would have identified that it had not inspected the walls behind the kitchen units. It raised a further inspection on 15 March 2024, which was reasonable given the time that had passed, but we have not seen a copy of this report. As such we do not know what it found or planned to do to resolve the issues.
16. In the resident’s escalation she stated the leak was ongoing, but the landlord responded it had repaired it in 2023. It missed an opportunity to properly investigate this, and had it done so it would have realised some work was outstanding. The pest contractor’s report after the complaints process also found the tap was leaking and damaging the units. The landlord repaired this in May 2024, over 12 months after the initial report. It also delayed in removing the kitchen units to inspect the walls until May 2024. These delays were significant and unreasonable, and they contributed to the resident incurring time and trouble raising the issues again in her complaint.
17. The landlord did not identify any failings and missed an opportunity to put things right. Our remedies guidance sets out a payment range which is appropriate to put right failings where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. In ordering £350 compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.

Complaint	Reports of a rodent infestation and damaged floorboards
Finding	Maladministration

18. The landlord does not have a pest control policy. Its website says tenants are usually responsible for pests, but it will be responsible when pest issues are caused by a problem with the building. We expect landlords to ensure that if there is a structural cause, they take reasonable steps to remedy this. This includes assessing and blocking entry points into the property.
19. Following the resident’s report of rodents, the landlord appropriately informed its pest control contractor. It then attended in a timely manner within 7 working days to set traps and block up the entry points until 3 August 2023, when it was satisfied there was no further activity.
20. The pest contractor could not reach entry points behind the kitchen units on 18 July 2023. A surveyor attended on 8 August 2023 and confirmed this was outstanding. While the landlord raised a job to remove them on 25 July 2023, it did not complete this work until May 2024, representing a significant delay.
21. On 21 September 2023, the landlord attended to repair the floorboards but found the holes had been filled by the resident She said she was told the floorboard repair was larger than expected and the operative would need to return. However, this information is not reflected in the landlord’s records, highlighting a concern with its record keeping.
22. As with the leak issue, the resident said she understood from her housing officer a new kitchen would resolve the rodent issue. This meant she made no further reports between August 2023 and February 2024.
23. The pest contractor appropriately attended the property on 12 March 2024, it placed traps and identified external entry points. After the complaints process ended it returned several times to block up entry points and by July 2024 there was no further rodent activity. The landlord filled internal holes in the property between July to August 2024 and completed floorboard repairs on 14 September 2024, suggesting this repair was outstanding from the previous year.
24. The landlord’s initial response to the pest concerns was reasonable and showed it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. However, it took approximately one year to remove the kitchen units to seal the entry points identified by the pest contractor. While we appreciate this was a more complex job, the delay was significant. This appears to have also been frustrated by the residents understanding she would get a new kitchen, which the landlord later confirmed was not the case. This indicates its communication with her was not clear and it failed to manage her expectations at an earlier stage.
25. It is positive that the landlord recognised failings and offered £150 compensation to put things right. However, its offer was not proportionate to the delays and impact caused. This is because the resident told the landlord she could not the use the kitchen, had to store items away in boxes to prevent damage and used the bathtub as storage for protection from rodents. It is clear these failures caused distress and affected her use of the property. In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay an additional £250 compensation for failings which caused distress and inconvenience for the resident.

 

Complaint	Reports of a broken window and rubbish in the outhouse
Finding	Service failure

26. It is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for maintaining the outhouse. The landlord’s repairs policy states that when a property is ‘void’, or empty, it identifies the work needed to ensure it meets its minimum void standard.
27. The landlord raised work between November 2022 and January 2023 for the void team to clear out the garden and shed. It did not complete this before the resident moved in. This caused her time and trouble in June 2023 as she reported the outhouse had the previous tenant’s belongings in it and the window was missing.
28. The landlord raised a job on 13 July 2023 to clear the outhouse and replace the glass for the broken window. Its records said both tasks were completed that month. However, a surveyor inspected in August 2023 and found both were outstanding. This should have alerted the landlord that this was not resolved, but it took no action. It should have reraised the work. It was a failing that it did not do so and indicated an issue with its record keeping.
29. In December 2023, the landlord attempted to clear the outhouse but could not access it because of the items inside blocking the door. Its records confirm it completed this work on 15 March 2024. After the complaints process ended the landlord raised a job to renew the glass and replaced it on 19 August 2024.
30. The landlord took 9 months to clear the outhouse and 14 months to replace the glass. We understand there were some challenges as the contractors who attended failed to pass on information about access. It is positive that the landlord has fed this back to its contractor. However, there is no evidence to show the resident was regularly updated about the delays and beyond the contractor issue there is little evidence to justify the delay.
31. The landlord appropriately acknowledged these delays at stage 1 and 2 and offered £150 compensation to put things right due to not clearing the rubbish. There were further delays after the complaints process ended and the landlord missed an opportunity to put right its failings relating to the window. In ordering £100 compensation, we have considered the additional distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s further delays.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

32. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant version of the Code at the time of the stage 1 complaint was April 2022 and for stage 2 it was the April 2024 edition. The landlord’s previous complaints policy timescales for responding to complaints was less than prescribed in the Code. The landlord has since updated its complaints policy to align with the current Code.
33. The landlord’s responses and acknowledgements at both stages was in accordance with the Code and its policy in respect of timescales.
34. The resident raised concerns about the landing light not working and said her belongings had been damaged. As stated in the Code, landlords must set out their understanding of the complaint and seek clarification if needed and respond to all issues raised with clear reasons. In its stage 2 response, the landlord focussed on reviewing its position at stage 1 response, rather than fully considering all the points raised in the resident’s escalation email. By limiting its review, it failed to answer all elements of her complaint about the light and damage to her belongings.
35. The landlord also failed to follow its compensation policy in not advising the resident to make a claim under her own contents insurance policy or to refer her to its liability insurer. This was a missed opportunity to provide the resident with a way to potentially recoup her losses.
36. For the distress and inconvenience caused, and in line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation to the resident.

Learning

37. The landlord’s handling of the repairs was impacted by its own confusion as to which departments were responsible for certain repairs. The landlord should consider whether it needs to improve its internal processes to clarify this for its staff.
38. It should also ensure when complaints are escalated to stage 2, it has sufficiently clarified with the resident all the issues that should be determined.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. The landlord’s record keeping was lacking in places. Some appointments were raised for jobs completed and others were incorrectly marked as complete. It also failed to adequately monitor the progress of some repairs which led to delays in completing them. This suggests that its staff may not be recording data with sufficient detail and accuracy.

Communication

40. The landlord’s communication with the resident was lacking at times and we have not seen evidence of her contact with her housing officer, indicating these have not been sufficiently logged. We acknowledge at times it struggled to establish contact with her. It should consider making improvements to better support its residents.