A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202434827)

REPORT

COMPLAINTS 202434827 and 202449216

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

30 June 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaints are about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould in her property.
2. Request for a property transfer.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord and occupies a 2-bedroom, first-floor flat with her 2 children, one an adult and the other aged 6 years. The landlord has confirmed that its records show the 6-year-old has a diagnosis of asthma and “significant allergies”.
The resident has regularly reported damp and mould in her property since 2019. She previously referred a complaint about this to the Ombudsman which was determined on 19 December 2023 (our reference 202102163). However, she continued to report issues with damp and mould.
Alongside this, the resident sought a property move. Her request for a management transfer was declined by the landlord on 21 December 2023. Thereafter, on 11 January 2024, the resident requested priority for re-housing on grounds of her child’s medical conditions. This was initially declined on 22 January 2024.
The resident complained to the landlord on 21 February 2024, saying:
1. The property had been affected by damp and mould for over 4 years and no work, other than mould washing and painting, had been done.
2. The landlord had said the property could “be rectified so it’s fit to live in”, but it had not been rectified for nearly 5 years. She felt this was a “poor and unfair” outcome.
3. She disagreed with the landlord’s assessment that there was “no current and relevant medical issue”, saying her child’s “severe medical issue” was a “life [or] death situation”. She had many doctors’ letters confirming damp and mould were part of the problem, which had been overlooked.
4. She insisted her child’s allergies were not minor and “medical priority is a must and should be taken seriously”. Children were “dying often” of damp and mould and she would hold the landlord responsible for anything that happened to her child in its property.
5. The property was also poorly insulated and overcrowded. She shared a room with her then 5-year-old child “who now questions private parts of your body”.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued on 4 March 2024. It said:
1. In line with the landlord’s allocations policy, an independent medical advisory service had considered the resident’s need for medical priority. The medical evidence did not state how a property move would alleviate her child’s health issues. Instead, this advised resolving “any disrepair, poor insulation, [and] problems to heating and ventilation”.
2. While there was no appeal process, it invited the resident to provide further, in-depth medical documentation if her child’s respiratory conditions deteriorated in order to request a re-assessment.
3. It acknowledged the presence of black mould in the property and the resident’s accompanying concerns. However, this was not a medical condition or need that could be resolved by giving medical priority.
4. The resident had been referred to its damp and mould team, which would need to inspect the property.
5. It advised on the resident’s re-housing options and improving her chances of securing suitable alternative accommodation. It also offered help and assistance from its tenant support and wellbeing services and its central lettings team.
The Ombudsman has not seen the resident’s request to escalate her complaint, but the landlord acknowledged this on 5 April 2024. The stage 2 response noted that she was dissatisfied because the works completed in her property had not combatted the issues with damp and mould. Also, she was unhappy with the priority banding she had been awarded for a move and felt her child’s medical condition had not been taken into account.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 2 May 2024. It stated:
1. The resident had reported concerns with damp and mould yearly since 2019, mainly in her child’s bedroom. In response, it had carried out mould washes and repainted affected areas. It sincerely apologised that the works undertaken had not stopped the issues recurring.
2. On 21 November 2023, there was a report of a leak when it rained, but not from the roof. This was investigated and remedial works were completed.
3. A damp and mould survey done on 13 February 2024 showed no building defects but recommended overhauling/replacing extractor fans to improve ventilation and reduce moisture. It had allocated a caseworker to oversee the works, which it hoped would alleviate these concerns.
4. As per its policy, a lettings panel reviewed the resident’s case on 24 April 2024. They considered her doctor’s evidence, the concerns raised regarding damp and mould and the independent medical advisory service’s reports, and her priority banding was increased from Band C to Band B.
5. Its central lettings team would contact the resident about her new banding and provide information on a housing scheme that might interest her adult child, which could help alleviate overcrowding in the property.
6. The resident had made other complaints regarding the damp and mould over the last few years, most recently in June 2023, and some compensation had been paid at the time for failures that had occurred.
7. It appreciated the resident’s frustration at having to contact it multiple times for works to be completed in her home and apologised for any distress the situation had caused her and her family. It accepted its standards had fallen below the level it aimed to provide. It assured her it took such matters seriously and regretted that it failed to meet her expectations on several occasions.
8. In line with its policy, it offered compensation totalling £300, comprising:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience the damp and mould had caused the resident “time and again”.
  2. £100 for its poor communication.
The resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 2 September 2024. She said she was unhappy that, despite being awarded Band B due to her child’s “severe medical reasons”, this had not helped when bidding for properties – she did not know her position and was continuously refused or not shortlisted to view properties. She said she had asked to see someone many times for help with applying for properties outside the city, but had had no call back regarding this. She said both of her children had asthma and were suffering due to the damp and mould, which had reappeared in the bedroom. She reiterated that painting over the mould, as the landlord had done for years, did not work and “enough is enough”. She wanted “to be heard” and for her concerns to be “taken seriously”.
In a further stage 1 response, dated 18 September 2024, the landlord stated:
1. It was sorry that the resident’s housing situation and medical circumstances had been causing her distress and frustration.
2. In April 2024, a lettings panel considered all the circumstances of her case and decided she fell into 2 priority categories. Therefore, as per its allocations policy, she was awarded a Band B. It could not agree to increase this to Band A as this was only allocated in limited emergency cases where there was an immediate risk to life.
3. The resident could check her position on the bidding section of its website, but this would change as others bid due to different bandings and priority dates.
4. It needed to ensure it was allocating properties in a fair and transparent manner, so those with higher needs and who had waited the longest for a move were prioritised.
5. It acknowledged it must be disheartening not to have been shortlisted for an offer or property viewing, but encouraged the resident to regularly check and bid for suitable properties.
6. Its central lettings team was returning calls when requested, most recently on 12 August 2024, and providing the correct advice. Unfortunately, there was no further advice it could provide or recommend at this time.
7. It explained the difficulty in securing a move within social housing and set out the various options for finding alternative suitable accommodation. A central lettings manager would contact the resident in the next week to arrange a face-to-face meeting to discuss her circumstances and available options.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 4 October 2024. She said she felt the landlord had not considered that she needed a higher banding, as positioning “20-40 is ridiculous”. She said her 6-year-old had “severe allergies [and] has had major surgeries” due to recurring damp and mould, and this was being exacerbated by overcrowding as the child was sharing a bedroom with her. She insisted that mould washes and paint were “not the solution” and “emergency action” was required. She said the property was no longer suitable for her family’s needs. She told the landlord she was actively trying to find suitable accommodation but without success, and private renting was not an option for her.
The landlord’s further stage 2 response, issued on 5 November 2024, stated:
1. Although damp and mould were referenced in the resident’s stage 2 escalation email, this issue had been addressed as part of other stage 2 complaints, so it was not part of the scope of this complaint.
2. The resident was awarded a Band C when she first completed her housing scheme application on 6 May 2021. The lettings panel increased this to a composite Band B award on 24 April 2024. This was backdated to 6 May 2021 due to changes in the allocations policy regarding damp and mould.
3. The resident had declined its offer of a face-to-face meeting on 12 September 2024, saying she would make contact if she wished to take up this option.
4. Her circumstances, although recognised as an urgent need, did not meet the criteria for the highest priority Band A. However, as she had expressed concern over her banding, it would review her case and send her the outcome by 3 December 2024. It asker her to send any new information that could support a change to her banding by 22 November 2024.
5. The resident’s property size and household makeup did not appear to meet the criteria for statutory overcrowding. She could ask her local authority’s environmental services team for an assessment and a conclusive determination, which may permit a higher priority banding.
6. It appreciated that its response would be disappointing but, based on the information provided and its findings, it could not uphold the complaint.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she continued to experience recurring damp and mould in her property and was concerned about the impact this was having on her child’s health and her family’s wellbeing. She told us she wanted the landlord to take her child’s severe allergies seriously and award her Band A priority for re-housing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

While the historical reports relating to damp and mould give context to the complaint, this investigation does not include events considered as part of our previous determination. Therefore, in relation to the damp and mould complaint, we have considered events from 19 December 2023 onwards, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that she believes the longstanding exposure to damp and mould in the property has impacted on her child’s health. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability, and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts.

Damp and mould

Damp and mould are potential hazards under the government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). This places an obligation on the landlord to identify, monitor and minimise risks arising from such hazards. A proactive approach is consistent with the HHSRS.
The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy, dated February 2023, includes its commitment to:
1. Undertake effective investigations to diagnose the cause of damp correctly and deliver effective solutions to deal with the cause “to eradicate damp”, not only the symptoms.
2. Inform residents of the findings of its investigations, including the possible causes of damp, recommending effective solutions, all necessary remedial works, and the estimated timescales to complete the works.
3. Respond to a report of damp and condensation and complete any remedial works/measures within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy, dated September 2023, provides the following timescales for completing repairs:
1. Emergency repairs – make safe within 4 hours and complete the repair within 24 hours of first report.
2. Standard repairs – complete repair within 20 working days.
3. Planned and packaged works – complete within 90 days.
Our previous investigation found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. It is of concern to the Ombudsman that these issues remain unresolved. For context, the resident has regularly reported issues with recurring damp and mould in her property since 2019. While this investigation is limited to events from 19 December 2023 onwards, the longstanding nature of this matter reflects an overarching failure by the landlord to take timely and effective action, in line with its policy and good practice, to diagnose and address the cause of the problem.
The resident’s concerns surrounding damp and mould in the property were amplified following confirmation that her child had an allergy to fungal spores. Matters were compounded when she was refused medical priority on grounds of her child’s health conditions because the independent medical advisory service concluded that “disrepair and mould are not primarily medical matters as they can be rectified”.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for the landlord to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. It should have appropriate systems in place to keep records of repairs and monitor the outcome of contractor appointments so that it can demonstrate its actions and interventions. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision-making at the time. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
In this case, the landlord has not provided any evidence of damp surveys, advising that none were carried out. This is inconsistent with the available evidence. For instance, the landlord’s internal email dated 26 January 2024 noted it did not hold much information regarding 3 surveyor visits that were carried out following reports by the resident, and it would be worthwhile to consolidate all the information it had rather than sending another surveyor to effectively start from scratch. The stage 2 response of 2 May 2024 also indicated a survey was done on 13 February 2024. In all the circumstances, the landlord’s failure to adequately document and/or provide the outcome of surveys amounts to a key record keeping failure.
On 26 January 2024, the resident refused to engage with the landlord’s attempt to arrange an appointment that week “as she really wants the cause resolved rather than the symptoms treated”. While the landlord noted its concern that it may have “exhausted all repair access attempts”, it recognised that her concerns regarding recurring mould were valid and it asked its damp and mould project team for the findings from a survey carried out in July 2023. This appears to have prompted a repair raised on 19 February 2024, although it is unclear from the available evidence if the delay was due to continued access issues. The list of works suggested widespread damp and mould affecting all rooms in the property. Of note, anti-mould wash and paint were instructed in the lounge, but this had previously been done on 22 December 2023.
Records show that the landlord “attended and scoped works” and sent these over to the contractor on 21 February 2024. The stage 1 response accepted the presence of black mould in the property and said the resident had been referred to its damp and mould team, which would need to inspect the property. It is unclear from the available evidence if a separate inspection or any other investigation was carried out by the damp and mould team. The importance of effective record keeping is again highlighted.
On 5 and 6 March 2024, the resident reported that she had not heard from the contractor. The contractor then called her on 18 March 2024 – a month after works were identified – to arrange attendance on 20 March 2024. The landlord’s internal email of 15 April 2024 noted that the resident advised works to fit trickle vents to windows and vents in the hallway were outstanding, and the contractor had not returned to finish painting the door. Thereafter, the contractor tried, without success, to contact the resident by telephone on 16, 19 and 26 April 2024 and 2 May 2024. They asked the landlord to assist in arranging access to complete works.
An internal email by the landlord, dated 2 May 2024, noted that the resident advised some works were still outstanding, and damp and mould were still affecting the hallway and bathroom “indicating the root of the problem was not dealt properly”. The email went on to state, “The resident was very angry and rudely shut the phone on me during our conversation.” This points to a breakdown in communication between the resident and landlord. It serves as evidence of the resident’s frustration with the lack of progress made in identifying and treating the cause of the recurrent damp and mould issues.
The contractor’s note dated 8 May 2024 stated, “We have not had access to install the window trickle vents and the hallway cupboard vents, but these were not on the original scope, these were additions requested by [the landlord].” These items were included in the list of works identified in the landlord’s repair record dated 19 February 2024. In the absence of any objection from the landlord at the time, the Ombudsman accepts this as an omission on its part. These works were aimed at addressing the recurring damp and mould issues and their omission clearly caused the resident avoidable frustration, time and trouble in chasing the matter.
The landlord has told the Ombudsman that works to fit vents to cupboards and trickle vents to windows have not been completed to date due to no contact from the resident and no reports of damp and mould since May 2024, when all other works were completed. However, records show that, on 14 May 2024, an appointment was booked for 8 June 2024 to address re-emerging damp and mould in all rooms in the property. Among other things, the works included fitting trickle vents and vents in the hallway cupboard, as well as investigating a possible leak as there was evidence of water coming through the ceiling in the main bedroom.
There is no evidence to show the steps taken by the landlord to address the leak or damp and mould in the resident’s property after May 2024. Although the damp and mould issue was scoped out of the further complaint investigation by the landlord, the resident’s correspondence clearly indicated this was an ongoing problem. In the circumstances, the lack of evidence further demonstrates its serious failings in terms of taking timely and effective action and/or poor record keeping.
It is unacceptable that the landlord has failed to undertake any demonstrable investigation into the cause of damp and mould in the resident’s property, despite the long-term nature of the issue and particularly given the resident’s concerns about the potential health impact on her child. Consequently, it failed to identify and implement appropriate remedial works. This has resulted in a significant amount of concern and distress to the resident over a prolonged period of time, compounding the impact of her previous complaints.
The resident has submitted a small number of photographs to the Ombudsman to show the damp and mould in her property, although it is not clear when these were taken. These photographs show severe and widespread damp and (in places, heavy) black mould affecting a number of rooms in the property. This is broadly consistent with the landlord’s records. The severity of the damp and mould clearly had a significant impact on the resident’s and her family’s enjoyment of the property.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 2 May 2024 accepted shortcomings in its handling of matters and offered compensation totalling £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience repeatedly caused by the damp and mould (£200) and its poor communication (£100). It is unclear from the compensation policy in place at the time the level of impact these amounts represented. However, a revised compensation policy dated June 2024 suggests moderate disruption and/or customer effort. In the Ombudsman’s view, the compensation awarded did not fairly and proportionately reflect the compounding effect of multiple failures over a prolonged period of time, causing significant concern, distress and frustration to the resident.
The resident asked for this compensation to be paid directly to her rather than credited to her rent account, which was in arrears, because she needed to replace items damaged by damp and mould. To the landlord’s credit, it agreed to do this. That said, it appears that its insurance team failed to respond to the resident’s claim relating to damaged items. An internal email dated 12 April 2024 from its insurance claims team to its damp and mould team indicated that it was “looking to settle” the claim. However, the resident’s email to the landlord on 14 May 2024 stated she had not received a response to this claim. This was apparently not followed up by the landlord, which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s communications with the resident were strained from the outset of the period covered by this investigation. For example, its internal emails from 26 January to 6 February 2024 show a reluctance to speak to the resident. Following the apparent breakdown in the relationship in May 2024, there is no evidence of any meaningful communications relating to the ongoing damp and mould issues the resident continued to experience. This was unreasonable.
As part of its evidence submission, the landlord has provided its self-assessment, dated June 2023, against the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. Many of the commitments set out therein – such as assessing damp and mould reports, monitoring repairs, customer engagement and support, and aftercare – were not reflected in this case.
Overall, it is appropriate to make a finding of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the resident’s property because:
1. It failed to keep and/or provide to the Ombudsman records relating to the outcomes of surveys and the steps it took to address damp and mould in the resident’s property.
2. It failed to identify and remedy the cause of damp and mould in the property over a significant period of time, albeit this investigation is limited to the period from 19 December 2023 onwards.
3. Despite multiple attendances by the landlord and its contractors between December 2023 and May 2024, damp and mould kept recurring in the resident’s property. It failed to take effective and timely action to investigate and resolve damp and mould for the resident.
4. Works to fit trickle vents to windows and vents to the hallway cupboard were not included in the original instructions to the contractor in February 2024 and the resident chased these outstanding works in April 2024. To date, it is understood that these works have not been completed.
5. The landlord did not adequately monitor the outcome of contractor visits or follow up on recommendations.
6. It has not demonstrated the steps it took to address the resident’s ongoing concerns about recurring damp and mould from May 2024 onwards.
7. It failed to respond to the resident’s claim to its insurance team about items damaged due to the damp and mould.
8. It failed to have regard to its obligations to minimise potential hazards under the HHSRS.
9. Its communications with the resident, and those of its contractors, were poor and she repeatedly chased it for progress and updates.
10. It did not utilise its complaints procedure as an effective tool for resolving the resident’s concerns.
11. The level of compensation offered in its stage 2 response did not fairly and proportionately reflect the significant and long-term impact of its multiple failings over a prolonged period of time.
The recurrent nature of damp and mould in the resident’s property over an extensive period of time meant she and her family did not have full enjoyment of their home. Therefore, in accordance with its compensation policy dated June 2024, we consider the landlord should pay compensation for loss of enjoyment. It is our view that 20% of the weekly rent is proportionate having regard to the severity of the damp and mould issues. This has been calculated from 20 December 2023 to the present day (80 weeks) based on the weekly rent of £140.53:
1. (£140.53 x 20%) x 80 = £2,248.48
In addition to this, we find the landlord should pay compensation for the significant concern, distress and frustration caused to the resident. In line with its compensation policy, it is appropriate to consider an award at the higher end for extensive disruption and/or customer effort.
On 20 June 2025, the resident advised the Ombudsman that she had accepted an offer of suitable alternative accommodation from the landlord, which is positive. Therefore, no orders have been made for the investigation and remediation of damp and mould in the property as it is expected these will be addressed through the landlord’s voids process.

Property transfer

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the resident’s request for a property move ought to have been dealt with as a management transfer and/or given priority by the landlord. Rather, we have considered the landlord’s handling of matters against its policies and procedures and wider good practice.
The landlord’s allocations policy dated March 2023 sets out its approach to allocating properties through its choice-based lettings scheme:
1. Allocations are based on the priority banding awarded to applicants:
  1. Band A (emergency/top priority) – for example, immediate danger to life in their current home, property severely affected by damp and mould and deemed uninhabitable by its surveyor, emergency medical need seriously affected by their current housing, or statutory overcrowding.
  2. Band B (urgent need to move) – for example, severe overcrowding or urgent medical need seriously affected by their current housing,
  3. Band C (identified need to move) – identified medical need affected by their current housing or overcrowding.
  4. Band D (no housing need) – applicant does not fit into any of the categories in Band A, B or C.
2. It uses an independent medical advisory service to ascertain an applicant’s housing need based on medical factors.
3. Residents and applicants have the right to appeal any decision made about their case if they believe the landlord has not acted in accordance with its policies.
4. If an applicant appeals a banding decision, it will only seek a review of the decision upon receipt of new, relevant supporting evidence.
5. Appeals will be considered by a lettings panel.
6. It will action all appeals within 20 working days.
The relevant sections of the landlord’s management transfer procedure in place at the time provides that:
1. Management transfers are restricted to “urgent or extreme cases that arise in exceptional circumstances” and result in “imminent personal risk to any members of the household” if they remain in their property. For example, extreme cases of harassment or quantifiable threat of immediate violence.
2. It will liaise with residents to complete the management transfer application, gather information and assess whether there is enough supporting evidence to meet the criteria for a management transfer.
3. If residents do not meet the criteria for a management transfer, they will be advised of the reasons in writing.
The request for a management transfer was first made on the resident’s behalf by her domestic abuse support worker on 6 July 2023. They explained that their service had been supporting the resident since 25 October 2022 with historical verbal, emotional, financial, and physical abuse from her ex-partner, and she had “started to experience emotional and threatening behaviour from her ex-partner again” since December 2021. They said the resident “does not feel safe in her current home as … the address is known to the alleged perpetrator” and she feared for her and her children’s lives. They referenced a further, recent incident of emotional abuse, which the resident had reported to the police, who were currently supporting her. Therefore, they believed she was “not safe in her home” and they requested that the landlord “support this family in fleeing to accommodation that is safe”.
The resident’s support worker wrote to the landlord again 11 weeks later, on 21 September 2023, chasing a response. There is no evidence of any action taken by the landlord at the time to address the management transfer request, which was inappropriate. The support worker then emailed the landlord on 6 October 2023, attaching their previous correspondence and requesting an urgent management transfer.
No evidence has been provided to the Ombudsman to show the steps taken by the landlord as part of its consideration of the management transfer request. For instance, it is unclear if it liaised with the resident, requested additional supporting information, and/or contacted third party agencies (such as the domestic abuse support service or the police) for further evidence. This was not consistent with its procedure, and was unsatisfactory.
There was a significant delay in the landlord’s handling of the management transfer request. Its letter dated 21 December 2023 noted that it had considered the resident’s application and supporting documentation on 9 November 2023, which was 4 months after the initial request was made in July 2023. No explanation has been provided for why it then took a further 6 weeks to send the outcome to the resident. While no timescales were provided in the landlord’s management transfer procedure, the Ombudsman considers the time taken to have been excessive and unreasonable.
The landlord’s decision letter explained that the resident’s application did not meet its criteria for a management transfer. Specifically, it said there was no evidence of any quantifiable violence to her or her household. This was consistent with the landlord’s management transfer procedure.
In line with its allocations policy, the landlord promptly forwarded the resident’s request for medical priority on grounds of her child’s health conditions, which it received on 11 January 2024, to the independent medical advisory service on 17 January 2024.
The medical advisory service’s decision, dated 22 January 2024, acknowledged that tests had confirmed the child had an allergy to fungal spores. However, they refused medical priority because “disrepair and mould are not primarily medical matters as they can be rectified”. The resident chased for an outcome on 26 January 2024 and the landlord sent her the decision by post on 30 January 2024. The slight delay in forwarding this decision was of limited impact.
The resident requested reconsideration of this decision on 16 February 2024. Under the provisions of the landlord’s allocations policy, this ought to have been treated as an appeal to be determined by a lettings panel. Instead, its stage 1 response invited the resident to provide further, in-depth medical documentation if her child’s respiratory conditions continued to deteriorate in order to request a re-assessment of medical priority, which it advised could take 7-10 days. Although an internal email on 16 April 2024 noted that the case had not been sent to a lettings panel, it incorrectly stated that “with no priority, this would not be applicable”. This was 41 working days after the resident’s request, which was excessive against the 20-working-day timeframe provided in the allocations policy to action an appeal.
It is unclear what brought it about – which is another example of the landlord’s deficient record keeping – but the resident’s case was subsequently put before a lettings panel on 25 April 2024. As a result, she was awarded Band B priority “on grounds of medical and overcrowding”.
The Ombudsman notes that, despite its allocations policy specifically providing for Band A priority in exceptional cases of severe damp and mould, the landlord has failed to demonstrate it considered this or sought the opinion of a surveyor. This was inappropriate given the long-term, recurrent and apparently widespread issues experienced by the resident, her child’s confirmed vulnerabilities, and the medical advisory service’s reliance on the issues being capable of rectification. That is not necessarily to say the resident qualified for Band A priority. Rather, the landlord failed to utilise its policy to ensure a fair outcome. It was also a missed opportunity to address the damp and mould.
There is no evidence that the landlord called the resident in response to her request to discuss her housing options on 23 August 2024. This appears to be an isolated incident, as records show all other call back requests were actioned promptly and appropriately. While this is likely to have caused annoyance to the resident, any impact from this oversight alone would have been relatively minor.
The resident’s further complaint was precipitated by her frustration that she had not been able to secure alternative housing, despite the increased priority banding. To the landlord’s credit, its complaint responses of 18 September and 5 November 2024 provided a thorough explanation of its actions in relation to medical priority. However, it failed to recognise any shortcomings on its part, offer reasonable redress or demonstrate learning from its failings, which was inconsistent with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles – be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
In all the circumstances, we have found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move property because:
1. There was a delay of over 5 months in the landlord responding to the resident’s request for a management transfer.
2. It took at least 41 working days, instead of the 20-working-day timeframe provided in its allocations policy, for it to pass the resident’s request for reconsideration of the medical priority decision to its lettings panel.
3. No consideration was given to the provisions of its allocations policy relating specifically to Band A priority in cases of severe damp and mould where a surveyor deemed the property uninhabitable.
4. It missed a call back request from the resident on 23 August 2024.
The Ombudsman recognises that much of the frustration and distress experienced by the resident in relation to her property transfer request resulted from the inherent difficulty in securing alternative accommodation due to the social housing shortage, which is beyond the landlord’s control. Taking the impact of the landlord’s failings in isolation, we consider this to have been moderate. Therefore, in line with the compensation policy dated June 2024, we find an award that sits towards the higher end for moderate disruption and/or customer effort is appropriate in all the circumstances.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for its failings in this case, in accordance with this Service’s apologies guidance. The apology should be made in writing by the landlord’s chief executive officer.
2. Respond to the resident’s claim for items damaged due to the damp and mould in her property.
3. Pay the resident compensation totalling £3,298.48, which comprises:
  1. £2,248.48 for the loss of enjoyment of her home due to the severe, recurrent damp and mould issues.
  2. £750 for the concern, frustration and distress caused as a result of its multiple failings in the handling of her reports of damp and mould in the property.
  3. £300 for its failings in the handling of her property transfer requests.
  4. These sums should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.
  5. If already paid to the resident, the landlord should deduct from the total compensation payable under this order the £300 offered on 2 May 2024.
The Ombudsman orders that, within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must carry out a review of its handling of matters in this case. The landlord should consider its previous review under paragraph 54.f of the Scheme to consider any additional issues which it needs to address. A report detailing the outcome of the review should be shared with its governing body and the Ombudsman, and should identify:
1. What went wrong, what it has learned from the resident’s experience, and what it will do differently to avoid the same happening again.
2. Any changes (or planned changes) to its processes and practices to ensure it deals with damp and mould effectively and without delay. This should include, but is not limited to, consideration of its communications with residents and the contractor, appropriate oversight and monitoring of issues.
3. Any staff training needs to ensure policies and procedures are embedded in everyday practice.