Town and Country Housing (202442752)

Background

1. The resident reported damp and mould in her kitchen following its replacement in 2023. The landlord was aware of vulnerabilities within the household, including a mobility disability and COPD.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks causing damp and mould in her kitchen.
3. We have also investigated the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of leaks causing damp and mould in her kitchen.
   2. The associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to carry out timely and effective repairs. It did not follow its damp and mould policy. It communicated poorly, and did not adequately consider the household’s vulnerabilities, temporary rehousing, or reported damage to belongings. This caused prolonged distress and inconvenience and its compensation offer was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.
6. The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint and initially passed responsibility for this to its contractor.

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’ve not investigated

7. The resident has told us that the stress and anxiety caused by this situation affected their medical conditions. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The best route to deal with this type of dispute is the courts as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. The resident has raised concerns about other leaks and repairs that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint’s policy. We will not investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. Those leaks and repairs were in relation to the roof and bathroom and are different to those which completed the landlord’s complaints process and therefore we will not investigate them here. The landlord has told us that it re-opened the separate complaint about the bathroom.

Assessment

9. Our investigation has considered events beyond the landlord’s final complaint response issued in September 2024, up to July 2025. This was when the landlord began works to the nextdoor property that it had identified as contributing to the damp and mould in the resident’s kitchen. We have not investigated matters beyond this date, as any concerns relating to the quality or workmanship of those works would need to go through the landlord’s complaints procedure.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend emergency repairs within 2 hours and complete them within 24 hours. It will attend out of hours emergencies within 4 hours and routine repairs within 28 days. Its condensation, damp and mould policy says it will take action to prevent damp and mould. It will carry out investigations to diagnose reports and action recommended works within 10 working days, including writing to the resident to confirm the works required.
11. In January 2024 the resident complained about ongoing snagging issues with her new kitchen fitted in June 2023. She said she chased the contractor repeatedly to resolve this. She advised that walls were bubbling, plasterwork was coming away due to damp and there was a leak due to the contractor not connecting a cold feed pipe correctly under the sink, which was now resolved. She said mould covered her flooring and cupboards. The contractor had told her the whole kitchen needed ripping out. She was concerned how long they would be without facilities as she had a disability and there were 6 people in the house.
12. The landlord has not provided any records it received such reports prior to the January 2024 complaint. It worked with the contractor to provide a stage 1 response later that month. It upheld the complaint and acknowledged the contractor attended reports of a leak promptly but did not identify the correct cause. It confirmed the leak was repaired, and it had removed flooring and ordered replacement components for the kitchen which would be done that month. The landlord reasonably relied on the records of the contractor and their recommended next steps.
13. The landlord also raised a works order to investigate the root cause of the damp and mould 9 working days after the complaint and completed this in early February 2024, after a failed appointment at the end of January 2024 due to the resident’s health. This was an unreasonable delay and outside of its target attendance time of 10 working days.
14. The investigation found nothing to treat due to the resident regularly wiping surfaces down. The landlord does not appear to have attempted a diagnosis at this point or written to the resident in line with its policy with the outcome or an action plan. This was unreasonable. It is unclear if it believed the damp had been caused by the previous leak on the cold feed. If so, it did not act in line with its policy and clarify this.
15. In April 2024 the landlord raised follow on works to an emergency report of a leak from the bathroom above. It found water behind the tiles and travelling down the boxing in into the kitchen. It reasonably carried out temporary measures, silicone sealing around areas that were allowing water penetration. We appreciate that separate leak may have been a contributing cause to the damp and mould in the kitchen. This likely caused an understandable delay in the landlord being able to remedy the damp and mould during this period.
16. In July 2024 the resident said she had been calling and emailing about the kitchen repair but had no response. The landlord has provided no records of this but notes she may have been calling the repairs team, and this caused a miscommunication. This evidences poor record keeping and communication as the resident should have been able to raise repairs and chase progress and been adequately signposted.
17. Later that month the landlord inspected the property and the resident showed it pictures of damp on the wall from the earlier kitchen pipework leak. It recognised the need to hack back the plaster by the door and remove the back of the base units and the plinths to dry out. It wrote to the resident and confirmed the outcome of the inspection and that it would monitor this. This was reasonable and an improvement in its communication and in line with its policy.
18. The landlord sent its stage 2 response in September 2024. It recognised the problems the resident had been dealing with, including the damp and mould and the effect on the household vulnerabilities. It confirmed the repairs identified by the surveyor in July 2024 and that it had booked in a further inspection. Though it was positive to confirm the work needed, it would have been appropriate to provide reasonable timescales for completion.
19. The landlord offered £250 compensation for the delays. This compensation offer was unreasonable given the length of time involved as the resident reported a leak and damp and mould in her kitchen from January 2024. This was unresolved 8 months later. During this period, the resident clearly explained the distress and inconvenience this caused.
20. The landlord also failed to show appropriate consideration of the damage she reported to her property in line with its compensation policy. This says it will thoroughly investigate to determine if its actions, or lack of actions, worsened any damage to personal belongings. It also failed to show consideration of its compensation policy in regards to her dehumidifier use, which allows for £2 per day to cover additional electricity where appropriate.
21. The landlord inspected again twice in September 2024 and fitted an inspection hatch to the back of the units in October 2024 to monitor if the damp behind the units had dried out. It scraped back the wall but did not hack off and replaster in line with the inspection recommendation. This was unreasonable and a failure to complete appropriate works.
22. The landlord visited again in December 2024 and confirmed it had not resolved the issue. This resulted in it carrying out another inspection in January 2025. This found damp was coming from the adjoining property. It recommended removing the units on the party wall and hacking off the damp plaster behind them before replastering and repainting. It also recommended checking the plumbing and flooring for damage. It was proactive in ordering a damp and mould treatment which the resident refused as she regularly treated this herself to prevent it spreading.
23. In February 2025 the landlord wrote the resident after she chased an update. It confirmed the surveyor’s recommended works, advising it would raise the works but ‘had no power over scheduling’. Though it was positive to confirm the work required, it was unreasonable that the landlord could not provide a timescale and communicate with its contractor to ensure they were completed within the routine repair target time.
24. In April 2025 the landlord raised a further damp and mould treatment, citing the household vulnerabilities. The job notes confirm the resident kept on top of the mould and there was nothing to treat. It was a mitigating step for the landlord to continue to schedule treatments to ensure it kept the mould under control during this period.
25. In May 2025 the landlord confirmed that works scheduled for both properties were extensive and it had referred this to their assessment management group to consider the best approach. They met in June 2025. The resident chased this up when she had no update. We have seen no evidence of any further communication to the resident, but she has confirmed works began at the neighbouring property in July 2025.
26. We understand that diagnosing damp and mould can be a complex process and that extensive works will require approval. Completing works at the neighbouring property to prevent further damp and mould would also be reasonable before carrying out the remedial works to the resident’s property. We also note the landlord ordered damp and mould treatments to mitigate the effect of the mould on the resident and her family.
27. However, it took the landlord several months to take reasonable diagnostic steps. By failing to action the work from its July 2024 inspection, it further delayed the final diagnosis until January 2025, a year after the issue was reported. It then continued to delay starting the identified works for a further 4 months. Its communication during this period was often poor.
28. The landlord’s temporary decant policy says it will consider a move to allow essential works to take place where it would be unreasonable to expect the resident to remain and it will provide additional support for vulnerable residents. The landlord did not evidence any consideration of a temporary move or discussion with the resident in line with its temporary decant policy. This was unreasonable, especially as the resident consistently told the landlord she would like to move from July 2024 onwards and given the impact she said the damp had on the multiple vulnerabilities in the house.
29. The resident has told us the landlord planned to carry out works whilst the family was on holiday. Although it did not complete this work, this shows the landlord had anticipated the home may not be liveable for the duration of the work so it is unclear why the landlord failed to consider the temporary move option.
30. We order the landlord to pay compensation of £600 in line with our compensation guidance for failings that had an adverse effect. We have also ordered the landlord to write to the resident with a schedule of outstanding works and timeframes, and to show consideration of its temporary decant policy.

31. Landlords must handle complaints in line with their own policies and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The 2022 and 2024 versions of the Code say landlords should have a 2-stage complaint process and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s policies mirror these timescales.
32. The stage 1 response was issued within the required timeframe and the landlord had appropriate oversight of the complaint about its contractors in line with its policy.
33. In May 2024 the resident asked to escalate her complaint and said she wanted compensation for damages to her appliances and the damp and mould resolved. The landlord told her the contractor would manage this. This was unreasonable and showed a lack of oversight and support for the resident which was not in line with its complaints policy. The landlord should have recognised that it was obliged to oversee its contractor’s actions and used its complaints process to put things right.
34. The resident escalated her complaint again in July 2024 and the landlord sent its stage 2 response 79 days after her original request. This significant delay was unreasonable.
35. We have ordered the landlord to pay £75 compensation to the resident. This is in line with our compensation guidance for complaint handling failures which adversely affected the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. The landlord’s records were poor with limited evidence of contact with relevant internal teams, and it relied heavily on contractors to manage and retain repair information rather than keeping its own comprehensive records. This meant the landlord did not have a clear overview of the issues the resident reported, or the actions taken. Although it held information for different repairs, it did not utilise this to inform a joined‑up diagnostic approach. This demonstrates the need for stronger record keeping, clearer internal communication, and better use of existing information to support timely and effective repairs management.

Communication

37. This case highlights poor overall communication with the resident. While the landlord took some steps to provide updates, these were inconsistent and lacked proper oversight. The landlord did not fully recognise or address the impact of these communication failures, which contributed to frustration for the resident and undermined effective case management.