Accent Housing Limited (202446571)

Decision
Case ID	202446571
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Accent Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	14 November 2025

Background

1. The property is a new build, 3-bedroom semi-detached house that the resident has occupied since June 2024. She has highlighted vulnerabilities within the household in relation to being immunocompromised. In November 2024, the resident reported mould in the bathroom, and that the lino flooring had started to lift.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the bathroom and a leaking shower.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the bathroom and a leaking shower.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Handling of damp and mould in the bathroom and a leaking shower

5. The landlord took appropriate action at the initial stage of the investigation, but later failed to follow up persistently, despite the mould issue continuing for over 4 months. It acknowledged this and offered reasonable compensation.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not promptly raise a complaint and delayed in providing its stage 1 response. It is unclear whether it offered any compensation for complaint handling failures, and if so, how much.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of 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.	No later than 12 December 2025

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord: Pays the resident the £300 compensation previously offered to her at stage 2, if it has not done so already. Provides both the resident and this Service with a written update regarding its review of its procedures for handling damp and mould, particularly in urgent cases that arise during the defect period.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 November 2024	The resident reported the presence of damp and pink-coloured mould in the bathroom, noting that the lino flooring near the bath was beginning to lift.
November 2024	The landlord completed a damp and mould survey. It explained it would contact the developer regarding the issues raised by the resident. The resident reported the mould was getting worse and highlighted her vulnerabilities. The landlord advised the resident it was chasing the developer for a response and would escalate matters if a response was not received.
10 December 2024	The resident contacted the landlord to express concern over not receiving any updates since 22 November 2024, or a visit to resolve the issue. The landlord replied the same day, confirming it had followed up with the developer again and emphasised the urgency due to the resident’s health concerns.
15 January 2025	The resident requested to raise a formal complaint due to her dissatisfaction that no one had attended to address the mould issue in the bathroom.
31 January 2025	The resident reported a leak from the electric shower, stating that water was spreading across the bathroom floor. The landlord contacted her the same day to request a video of the issue. This was later assessed and found to be a manageable leak and passed to the developer to address.
3 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, detailing the actions taken to address the issues. It apologised for the delays in completing the repairs, confirmed that feedback had been shared with relevant teams for training purposes, and offered the resident £125 as a goodwill gesture for the distress and inconvenience caused.
5 March 2025	The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 as she felt her complaint had not been fully addressed. She also said she wanted £400 compensation and indicated that a fair investigation had not been conducted.
14 February 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response, saying that: The complaint had been investigated by the complaints team and signed off by the aftercare manager to ensure accuracy, and not to compromise neutrality. It apologised for its poor communication regarding mould and the shower leak. Internal steps were being taken to improve empathy and responsiveness. Mould concerns were initially handled according to new-build protocols. However, the process had been reviewed to ensure quicker escalation when health risks were involved. It increased its offer of compensation to £300 in recognition of:  Delays in resolving the resident’s concerns Poor communication and missed appointments Distress and inconvenience.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In January 2025, the resident asked us to investigate her complaint, explaining that the prolonged delays and lack of a thorough investigation into the mould issue in the bathroom had significantly affected her household’s health and daily life. By November 2025, she confirmed that the bathroom works had been completed, but expressed that she felt her concerns had not been taken seriously by the landlord at the time of her complaint.

 

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	Handling of damp and mould in the bathroom and a leaking shower
Finding	Reasonable redress

7. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the situation had on her health and that of her family. Where we identify failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. Such matters are best suited to investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.
8. The landlord’s repair policy says that all emergency repairs must be attended to within 4 hours to make safe and resolved within 24 hours of being attended to. It allows 28 calendar days for routine repairs to be carried out. In relation to damp and mould, the repair policy says that issues will be diagnosed through discussion with residents and through photographs if available. If not, it will inspect the property to understand the repair required. The landlord’s repair timescales set out above will be applied, but it says it understands the importance of supporting residents with damp and mould issues.
9. As the property is a new build, the landlord’s defects management procedure is applicable. This procedure states that the landlord will ensure the contractor or developer is reminded of their contractual obligations and agreed response times for addressing defects. Non-emergency defects are followed up every 4 days. If a defect remains unresolved or there is a delayed response, the issue may be escalated as a formal complaint. In such cases, the aftercare team will initiate a complaint in accordance with the landlord’s complaints procedure. During this process, the senior or development manager may be involved to help resolve the defect.
10. On 1 November 2024, the resident reported mould in the bathroom and that the lino was lifting. The landlord attempted to contact the resident on 5 November 2024 to arrange a damp and mould survey. As there was no response, a voicemail was left, followed by an email requesting further information. These actions were appropriate and aligned with the landlord’s repair policy in relation to damp and mould. Later that same day, the resident responded with the requested details and highlighted health concerns affecting her and her family.
11. On 8 November 2024, the resident provided photographs of the affected areas, including the wooden door frame of the bathroom. The landlord confirmed it would pass the information to the developer for review. After assessing the photos, the landlord also advised the resident to wipe down the affected surfaces. This advice was consistent with the guidance on its website for minor risk mould, which refers to isolated patches or light condensation staining in kitchens or bathrooms, without signs of soft or crumbling plaster.
12. On 12 November 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to explain that the mould on the door frame was caused by condensation running down the tiles onto the wood. She requested that the issue be investigated, citing the disabilities within her household. That same day, the landlord responded by stating that there was no practical solution to the condensation issue and suggested placing a towel to absorb the water during showers. Nonetheless, it confirmed that it would still seek the developer’s view on the matter.
13. This was reasonable advice from the landlord, as it aligned with its published guidance for managing minor mould risks. The suggestion to wipe down affected areas and use a towel to absorb condensation is consistent with standard preventative measures for light condensation and isolated mould patches, particularly in high-moisture areas like bathrooms. Given the nature of the issue and the absence of structural damage, the advice was proportionate and appropriate at that stage of the investigation.
14. The landlord provided updates to the resident regarding its contact with the developer on 18 and 22 November 2024, which was in line with its defects management procedure. On 10 December 2024, the resident followed up for an update, and the landlord responded the same day, confirming it had chased the developer again and had emphasised the urgency of the matter due to the resident’s health concerns. The resident contacted the landlord again on 9 January 2025.
15. While the landlord did respond to the resident’s enquiries, its communication during this period did not fully align with its defects management policy, which states that non-emergency defects should be chased every 4 days. In this instance, there were gaps of 20 and 19 working days between contacts, and these were only initiated following the resident’s own follow-ups. This delay was unfair to the resident, particularly given her repeated expressions of concern about the impact on her family’s health.
16. During contact with the resident on 27 January 2025, the landlord informed her that it had received a response from the developer, who confirmed they would attend to the reported issues. The landlord also stated that it would continue to actively pursue the developer for action. While it is noted that the property was still within the defect liability period—meaning the responsibility for completing the necessary works lay with the developer—the landlord did not fully adhere to its own repair policy regarding damp and mould. That policy states that the landlord should support residents wherever possible. In this case, the landlord should have taken a more proactive approach to assess the severity of the issue and determine the appropriate risk category. This would have helped it to reassure the resident and demonstrate a commitment to resolving the matter, particularly as the issue had been ongoing for nearly 3 months, without a response from the developer, and the resident had raised concerns about its impact on her household’s health.
17. On 31 January 2025, the resident reported that water was leaking across the bathroom floor and appeared to be coming through the shower unit itself. In response, the landlord asked the resident to send a video of the leak to help assess its severity. Based on its initial assessment, the landlord advised that the leak was considered containable and, in line with its process, the developer would attend within 7 days. The resident was also advised to inform the landlord if the situation worsened.
18. However, on 3 February 2025, the resident contacted the landlord and expressed dissatisfaction with this advice. She said she contacted the developer directly, stressing the urgency of the issue. The developer attended the same day. The resident was particularly concerned that the landlord had not recognised the seriousness of the situation, especially as she had explained that water was entering the electric shower unit. While we are unable to assess the specific health and safety risks associated with the electrical components, we acknowledge the resident’s concerns and agree that the issue should have been treated as urgent. Given the potential safety implications and the resident’s clear communication about the severity of the leak, the landlord should have taken a more precautionary and responsive approach.
19. During this contact, the resident also reported that the mould had continued to grow and spread. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord took steps to investigate these further reports, which is inconsistent with its repair policy on damp and mould. This lack of follow-up with the developer was unreasonable given the length of time the issue had been ongoing.
20. The landlord’s repair policy states that it adopts a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and commits to ensuring that all reports are acted upon promptly. While the developer retained responsibility for carrying out the necessary works during the defect liability period, the landlord still had a duty to support the resident and manage the issue effectively. At this stage, the problem had persisted for 94 days, and the landlord should have taken a more active role in assessing the situation and ensuring appropriate action was taken. Its failure to do so contributed to the resident’s ongoing distress and undermined its stated commitment to tackling damp and mould issues.
21. In February 2025, the resident continued to raise concerns about the persistent mould and the condition of the flooring, as well as the lack of investigation into the underlying cause. The evidence indicates that the landlord liaised with the developer, who confirmed they would attend the property alongside the flooring contractor to assess the situation before any replacement works were carried out. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the developer’s assessment at the point when the flooring was due to be removed, as this would allow for a more accurate evaluation of the issue. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not take a more proactive approach in consistently following up with the developer and ensuring that the mould issue was addressed in a timely manner. Given the ongoing nature of the problem and the resident’s repeated concerns, the landlord should have taken robust steps to compel the developer to meet its obligations and prioritise the resolution of the mould issue.
22. On 3 March 2025, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, outlining the actions it had taken in relation to the resident’s concerns. It acknowledged the delays in addressing and resolving the issues and offered an apology to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord recognised the impact the delays had on the resident and her household and offered £125 in compensation.
23. The response was constructive in that it acknowledged the resident’s experience and the emotional toll the situation had taken. It also outlined the learning the landlord intended to take from the complaint, which was a positive step. However, the level of compensation offered was not proportionate to the extent of the inconvenience and the prolonged nature of the unresolved mould issue, which had persisted for several months. Given the seriousness of the resident’s concerns and the length of time the issue remained unaddressed, a higher amount would have been more appropriate to reflect the impact and to support a fair resolution.
24. On 5 March 2025, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2, expressing dissatisfaction with the delays and poor communication she had experienced. She also requested £400 in compensation to reflect the impact of the unresolved issues. The evidence shows that the outstanding works were completed by 6 March 2025. It was noted at that time that “no mould was ever found in the bathroom”. While this may have been the developer’s assessment, the landlord’s records do not clearly reflect this conclusion, nor does it appear that this information was adequately communicated to the resident.
25. Given the resident’s repeated concerns about mould and its impact on her household’s health, it was important for the landlord to provide clear and transparent updates, particularly regarding the outcome of any inspections or assessments. The lack of communication around this point likely contributed to the resident’s continued frustration and perception that her concerns were not being taken seriously.
26. On 1 April 2025, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, summarising the events that had taken place and the actions it had taken in response. It acknowledged the delays and the resident’s dissatisfaction and stated that it was reviewing its internal processes for managing damp and mould cases to ensure that future reports are escalated and investigated more promptly. The landlord also addressed the resident’s request for increased compensation. It explained that the initial offer of £125 was intended to reflect the service failures identified, but it recognised that the level of inconvenience and distress experienced by the resident warranted further consideration. As a result, it increased its compensation offer to £300.
27. This response was positive in that it demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to learn from the complaint and take steps to prevent similar issues from occurring in the future. It also showed a degree of responsiveness in reviewing the compensation amount. The increased offer was a constructive gesture, and although it did not meet the £400 requested by the resident, it was close, and we consider it to represent reasonable redress. This assessment is based on the landlord’s repair policy, which allows 28 calendar days for routine repairs—meaning the works should have been completed by 9 December 2024. As they were not completed until 6 March 2025, there was a delay of approximately 3 months, albeit due to the developer’s responsibility. The compensation offered, equating to £100 per month for the delay, is broadly in line with our remedies guidance, where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.
28. In summary, the landlord initially responded appropriately by carrying out a damp and mould survey via phone and providing advice consistent with its published guidance. It also made early contact with the developer. While it failed to follow up persistently, despite the mould issue continuing for over 4 months, it did follow our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

29. Our statutory Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case came into effect in April 2024. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales. The landlord’s policy also allows for an extension of up to an additional 20 days, if more time is needed to reach a decision, which should be communicated to complainants.
30. On 15 January 2025, the resident requested that a formal complaint be raised. However, records show that this was not officially logged until 27 January 2025 and subsequently acknowledged on 3 February 2025. While the acknowledgement was made within the required 5 working days from the date of logging, the 8-working-day delay in recording the complaint was unreasonable and fell short of expected standards.
31. On 18 February 2025, the landlord notified the resident that additional time would be required to issue the stage 1 complaint response. This extension was reasonable and aligned with the landlord’s complaints policy, which allows for more time when necessary to provide a thorough and informed reply. However, this should have been communicated to the resident before the response was due.
32. On 3 March 2025, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, meeting the extended deadline it had previously communicated to the resident, which was appropriate. As part of the response, the landlord offered compensation to acknowledge the service failures. However, the amount was presented as a single figure without a breakdown. This lack of clarity makes it difficult to determine if any of the compensation specifically related to the delay in complaint handling, versus other aspects of the resident’s experience. Providing a detailed breakdown would have improved transparency and helped the resident understand how the landlord assessed the impact of each issue.
33. On 5 March 2025, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged this escalation within the timeframe outlined in its complaints policy. In her escalation request, the resident raised concerns about a conflict of interest since the stage 1 response was signed by the aftercare manager rather than the complaint handler.
34. The stage 2 response was issued on 1 April 2025, which was 19 working days after the escalation request. This falls within the expected timescale set out in the landlord’s policy and reflects a timely and appropriate handling of the escalation. In addressing the resident’s concerns, the landlord stated that all formal complaints were investigated by its dedicated complaints team. Its complaints policy also outlines that staff will act impartially, assess complaints based on their individual circumstances, consider all relevant information, and keep the resident informed throughout the process.
35. The evidence provided shows that the complaints team contacted the aftercare team to request relevant information, which was subsequently obtained. The complaint coordinator was included in all correspondence and was therefore aware of the communications and requests being made. The Code requires complaint handlers to assess complaints on their own merits and act independently. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord failed to meet these standards or acted inappropriately during its investigation.
36. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident £300 in compensation. However, the breakdown of this amount was not specified, and it is unclear if any of it was intended to address complaint handling failures (and if so, how much). The £300 is considered sufficient for the substantive issue; therefore, we order the landlord to pay an additional £50 for its poor complaint handling and find there was a service failure in this regard.

Learning

37. Our investigation found the following points of learning for the landlord:

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

38. It should improve its record keeping practices by ensuring that clear and accurate documentation is maintained, particularly regarding monitoring outstanding repairs and contact with developers or contractors. Our spotlight reports on complaints about repairs and knowledge, and information management can assist with this.

Communication

39. The landlord did not promptly raise a complaint for the resident; however, its subsequent responses and acknowledgments were in line with the timescales outlined in its policy.
40. It should improve follow-ups to ensure timely communication with the resident to foster transparency and trust.