Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202335937)

Background

1. The resident lived in this property from April 2010 until 24 March 2024, when she moved to another of the landlord’s property through a direct let. The ground floor bedroom had a previous history of damp and mould treated around 10 years earlier. In September 2023, the resident reported that damp and mould had returned, said it damaged her belongings, and raised concerns about the landlord’s response. The landlord was aware that the resident and her husband had health conditions which the resident said were affected by damp and mould.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlords handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord’s response delayed investigating the root cause of damp and mould, did not progress remedial works or rehousing in a timely and coordinated way. It failed to adequately address the prolonged loss of use of part of the home for a vulnerable household.
7. The landlord responded at each stage within its published timescales and addressed the issues raised.

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.

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.

8. The resident first reported damp and mould in the downstairs bedroom on 20 September 2023. Given the nature of the report and the resident’s household vulnerabilities, the landlord’s repairs policy required it to investigate promptly and assess any risks to health. The policy places particular emphasis on responding to damp and mould where health and wellbeing may be affected.
9. The landlord arranged for a painter to attend on 22 September 2023 who treated visible mould. This addressed the immediate presentation. However, it did not investigate the underlying cause of the damp and mould, which was particularly relevant given the reported recurrence of an historic issue.
10. The landlord told the resident it would arrange a surveyor inspection but did not do so within required timescales. The landlord later accepted that internal errors delayed booking an emergency surveyor visit. This did not align with its repairs policy commitment to prioritise repairs that may impact a resident’s health.
11. A surveyor attended on 19 October 2023 almost 4 weeks after the initial report. A further inspection followed on 22 November 2023. The delay between the initial report and full root‑cause investigation was significant.
12. We found that the landlord did not act within a reasonable timeframe to investigate the cause of the damp and mould at the outset. Although it took short‑term action to treat visible mould, it delayed escalation to a full inspection despite the recurrence of a known historic issue and the reported impact on a vulnerable household.
13. Although the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response, the issues remained unresolved at that point. The landlord stated it was awaiting internal sign‑off to progress identified works and would schedule these at the earliest opportunity. The resident continued to be unable to use the affected room. As the impact of the service failure remained ongoing until the resident moved in March 2024 we considered it appropriate to assess events beyond the stage 2 response.
14. The follow‑up inspection identified structural and environmental contributors to damp and mould, including issues relating to insulation, ventilation, and the bathroom. This supported the resident’s concern that the issue required more than surface‑level treatment.
15. The landlord stated that it was not aware of any ongoing damp and mould because the resident did not report further visible mould. This was not a reasonable position. The landlord was undertaking active investigations and had identified the need for significant remedial works. The resident had stopped using the room due to health concerns and was therefore not in a position to monitor its condition. In these circumstances, the absence of further reports did not mean the issue had been resolved.
16. Until this point, the resident remained unable to use the downstairs bedroom. During this period, the landlord did not give clear timescales for completing investigations or carrying out remedial works. This prolonged uncertainty about when, or if, the room could be safely used again.
17. The evidence shows that once the landlord recognised the scale of the works required, it raised the possibility of alternative accommodation. However, it did not formally assess the resident for a management move or clearly explain what support would be available. Given the landlord has no specific decant policy and assesses cases individually, clear communication and timely decision‑making were particularly important here.
18. Internal records show that rehousing options, temporary accommodation, and a direct let were discussed across different teams. These discussions were not clearly coordinated or communicated to the resident within a defined timeframe. This added to uncertainty during a period when part of the home remained unusable.
19. It was reasonable for the landlord to explore repair options before committing to permanent rehousing, given the scale and cost of the works. However, it should have taken a more structured and proactive approach to assessing and progressing a management move in parallel, particularly given the resident’s husband’s vulnerabilities and the extended loss of use of the home.
20. During this period, the landlord accepted that the resident remained unable to use the downstairs bedroom from October 2023 until she moved in March 2024. While the landlord considered financial mitigation, including a payment relating to the third bedroom, it did not clearly explain the basis for this payment or the period it covered. This was inconsistent with its compensation policy, which requires consideration of the length of disruption, the impact on vulnerable households, and clear communication about compensation offered.
21. The resident also asked the landlord to compensate her for personal belongings she said were damaged by damp and mould. The landlord’s compensation policy allows discretion where there has been service failure, loss of use of facilities, or disturbance, and also allows ex‑gratia payments where liability is unclear. It also requires that decisions about compensation and liability are clearly explained in writing.
22. The landlord declined to compensate the resident for damaged belongings, stating that it did not accept liability and did not refer the matter to its liability insurer. While the landlord was entitled to take a view on liability, the policy requires it to clearly explain decisions where liability is disputed. In this case, the landlord did not sufficiently explain its rationale or set out alternative routes for the resident to pursue redress.
23. The landlord referred the resident to her home contents insurer. The resident explained that the insurer required a report from the landlord confirming the cause of the damage. The landlord did not provide a factual report or a clear written summary to support a contents insurance claim. When considered together, the landlord’s delays, the lack of practical steps to reduce the impact on the resident once it became clear that the works would be prolonged, and the absence of a clear explanation of its compensation position created barriers to redress. This caused avoidable frustration and uncertainty for the resident.
24.  While we note the time that has passed and that the resident has since moved and no longer holds the damaged items, the landlord has already confirmed that it does not consider itself liable for the damage. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate for us to require a reassessment of the claim. Instead, our order requires the landlord to clearly explain the reasons for its decision, with reference to the relevant policy position and evidence relied upon. This will provide transparency and allow the resident to properly understand why the landlord considers it is not responsible. If the resident remains dissatisfied, she may wish to consider pursuing the matter through legal routes.
25. While the landlord offered £150 to reflect the delay in arranging a surveyor inspection, this did not take account of the prolonged loss of use of the downstairs bedroom, the ongoing uncertainty while works remained unresolved, or the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation. Having regard to the landlord’s compensation policy and the impact of these service failures, we consider that total compensation of £300, inclusive of the £150 already offered, would be proportionate.

26. The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints process. Under its policy, it aims to issue a stage 1 response within 5 working days and a stage 2 response within 10 working days. The policy allows for extensions in complex cases, provided the landlord explains the reason for the delay and confirms a revised response date, in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
27. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response within its published timescales.
28. While there was some dispute about when the complaint should have been escalated to stage 2, the landlord issued its stage 2 response within the timescales set out in its complaints policy. Although there was a minor shortcoming in the complaint handling process, this did not result in any material delay or cause a detrimental impact to the resident. In these circumstances, any effect of the issue was limited and short‑lived.

Learning

29. The case highlights the importance of timely escalation, clear decision‑making, and proactive action where damp and mould affect vulnerable households and result in prolonged loss of use of part of the home.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord’s records did not consistently capture escalation requests, key decisions, or the basis and duration, which limited transparency and made it more difficult to evidence how decisions were reached.

Communication

31. The landlord communicated regularly and responded within complaint timescales; however, communication was not always clear or joined‑up, particularly around progress of works, rehousing options, mitigation, and compensation, which contributed to ongoing uncertainty for the resident.