Town and Country Housing (202538379)

Background

1. The resident reported damp and mould throughout her home. The resident’s son has neurological fluid on the brain.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to reports of damp and mould.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s:
   1. Response to reports of damp and mould.
   2. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to reports of damp and mould

4. The landlord failed to manage the damp and mould reports in line with its policies. This led to unreasonable delays, poor communication, inadequate consideration of the household’s vulnerability and accommodation needs, and incomplete redress for the impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord failed to monitor promised actions and did not communicate effectively with the resident. It delayed issuing the stage 2 response.

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 did not consider

6. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident has stated she was aware of the damp and mould issues from around 2010. She advised that she reported the issue to the landlord, and it had carried out repairs that seemed to resolve the problem on each occasion. She raised a formal complaint on 21 November 2024, as she had not received any contact from the landlord since an inspection carried out 3 months earlier. The resident had no reason to raise a complaint before and did not do so. For these reasons, we havelimited our investigation tothe 12 months leading up to the stage 1 complaint.

What we did consider

Response to reports of damp and mould

7. The resident reported widespread damp and mould on 7 May 2024. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it should investigate reports of damp and mould, diagnose the cause and take initial action on inspection recommendations within 10 working days. It should complete damp and mould works, such as mould treatment, within 20 working days. It will consider improvement works on a case-by-case basis. There is no timescale for these in the damp and mould or repairs policy. It will prioritise urgent cases based on risk and will monitor these through to completion. The landlord recorded the resident’s report as a priority.
8. The landlord contacted the resident on 8 May 2024 and left a voicemail confirming an appointment for 11 June 2024, 25 working days after the report. This was beyond the timescale of 10 working days for investigation of the report. The appointment was for mould treatment rather than an inspection, which did not follow the policy requirement to investigate before acting. Operative illness delayed the appointment by a further 5 working days. When operatives attended on 17 June 2024, they removed and treated mould in a bedroom and bathroom and identified follow-on works. The landlord did not raise those works, missing an opportunity to resolve the issue earlier.
9. On 7 July 2024, the landlord arranged a surveyor inspection. This took place on 12 August 2024, 68 days after the resident reported damp and mould. The inspection identified multiple issues requiring complex works. Under the landlord’s policy, it should take initial action on inspection recommendations within 10 working days. Despite the resident chasing progress, the surveyor did not pass the works to the complex works team until 20 September 2024, 30 working days after the inspection.
10. The complex works team then failed to act, causing further delay. As the mould worsened and the resident’s son was due to have surgery, the resident complained on 21 November 2024. In its response the landlord said the complex works manager would contact the resident with a plan, but this did not happen.
11. The resident continued to chase repairs and updates. Although the landlord completed some remedial repairs, these did not resolve the damp and mould and other repairs remained outstanding. On 9 July 2025, after the resident mentioned escalating the complaint, the landlord raised another mould wash and inspection. A surveyor inspected the property on 18 July 2025 and made recommendations, but the landlord again failed to act. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 20 October 2025 after receiving no update. The landlord then raised further works, which it completed on 12 February 2026. This was 452 working days after the landlord recorded the resident’s reports of damp and mould as a priority. Although these were complex improvement works, this was an unreasonable delay.

Decant

12. The property is a 2-bedroom house occupied by the resident, her partner and 3 children, making it overcrowded. The resident made the landlord aware at stage 1 that her son was disabled. In August 2024, the surveyor notedthat the overcrowdingworsened the damp and mould issue and made inspections and repairs more difficult.The need to move belongings from room to room also prolonged the works.
13. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will address the causes of damp and mould, including overcrowding. It also says it will offer temporary accommodation where extensive works are needed, particularly if a household member is vulnerable. Its temporary decant policy states that it may decant residents where health and safety risks exist or where it would be unreasonable for them to remain during works. It may offer a permanent decant if there are major repairs that need the property to be vacant. Despite identifying overcrowding as a contributing factor and knowing the household included a vulnerable child, the landlord did not consider or offer temporary or permanent alternative accommodation. This was a failure to follow its own policies and to consider the resident’s circumstances. This caused her avoidable distress and inconvenience.

Summary

14. The landlordsignificantly delayed inspections and failed to act on inspection recommendationswithin policy timescales. It did not monitor the case through to completionand did not communicate effectively with the resident. It also failed to consider the impact of overcrowding and the option of alternative accommodation while extensive works were needed.
15. There are gaps in the evidence provided, particularly around the landlord’s internal tracking and progression of follow‑on works after inspections.The lack of clear records showing how recommendations were monitored, actioned, or reviewed indicates record‑keeping failures.
16. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, repairs and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
17. At stage 1 the landlord upheld the complaint and apologised for poor communication and delays, acknowledging the need to better manage complex works and updates. However, these issues continued. At stage 2, it again upheld the complaint, apologised and explained that it had changed how it managed damp and mould cases, including monitoring agreed actions and improving communication. It offered compensation of £1,200 for failing to progress repairs. However, the landlord did not acknowledge or remedy its failure to consider alternative accommodation in line with its policies. As a result, the landlord did not fully address the failings in its handling of damp and mould reports. This amounts to maladministration. We have ordered compensation of £2,000 to reflect the failings in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould and the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble this caused for the resident.

18. The landlord’s definition of a complaint is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Its complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days. For complex cases, it may extend this by 10 days. It will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. For complex cases, it may extend this by 20 days.
19. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and responded at stage 1 within its timescales. It issued the stage 2 response 23 working days after acknowledgement, 3 days beyond the timescale. There is no evidence that it requested an extension or apologised for the delay.
20. The complaint procedure requires the complaint handler to ensure agreed actions are completed and to stay in contact with the resident until the work is completed. The landlord did not monitor or complete the actions it promised at stage 1. Over an 8-week period, the resident repeatedly asked to speak with the complaint handler but received no response. The complaint handler only contacted the resident after she asked for the complaint to be reopened.
21. The landlord’s failure to monitor agreed actions, its lack of communication after the stage 1 response, and its delay in issuing the stage 2 response amounts to maladministration. We have ordered compensation in line with our compensation guidance.
22. The landlord’s complaint policy has a 10-working-day deadline to escalate stage 1 complaints to stage 2. Whilst this deadline was not applied in this case, we believe it is too restrictive. It has the potential for a lot of cases not to make it to stage 2 and therefore not be referred to us for investigation. This restrictive deadline is not supported by the Code. This has been reported to the duty to monitor team for further consideration.

Learning

23. The landlord did not monitor agreed actions after issuing its stage 1 response. It is important to actively track complaint actions to completion.
24. The landlord did not apply its policies to the household’s circumstances, including overcrowding and the needs of a disabled child, when managing the case or considering alternative accommodation. This highlights the need to consider individual circumstances, particularly where vulnerabilities are present.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’s records did not clearly show how inspection recommendations and follow‑on works were tracked or progressed. Clear record keeping supports oversight and accountability.
26. A lack of robust case management meant staff did not act on inspection findings promptly once the case became complex and involved multiple teams. This shows the need for clear case ownership and coordination to prevent delays.

Communication

27. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s repeated requests for updates. Regular and proactive communication is essential to effective complaint handling, as poor communication increases frustration and undermines trust.