Beyond Housing Limited (202526668)

Background

1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since November 2023. Her property is a ground floor bedsit in a one storey building. The resident has an auto-immune condition and has to attend health related appointments. The landlord has needed to visit the resident and inspect her property around these appointments.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. The resident’s reports of roof and window repairs.
   3. The resident’s reports of pests in her property.
   4. The resident’s complaint about the above issues.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that there was:
   1. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of window and roofing repairs
   3. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of pests in her property.
   4. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and Mould

4. The landlord has delayed in carrying out works identified. In particular, it delayed in laying loft insulation, installing the bathroom extractor fan and replacing a temporary window panel. It did not mitigate the delay in the replacement of the living room window and the installation of a kitchen fan. It has not provided evidence that it has fully completed the works to lower the ground level too. It has also accepted that there have been missed appointments.

Roof and window repairs

5. The landlord delayed in both investigating the resident’s report of a leak from the roof and carrying out repairs to the bedroom window.

Reports of pest

6. The landlord has met its responsibility to investigate and prevent the possible presence of rats. It has also taken action to prevent the entry of creatures by sealing holes and pointing.

Complaint Handling

7. The landlord did not fully address all aspects of the resident’s complaint.

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.

8. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. The landlord introduced its Mould, Damp and Condensation procedure in May 2024.
9. In her complaint, the resident stated she first reported damp and mould to her housing officer verbally in March 2024. She states the landlord told her it could not immediately respond as it was in the process of setting up a damp and mould team. She states she pursued her report of damp and mould by phone over the next few months. As she received no responses, she asked the landlord to log a damp and mould case on 9 October 2024. The landlord in its complaint responses said it did not hold any earlier record of a damp and mould report. It stated a staff member in the damp and mould team first had direct contact with the resident on 24 November 2024. This investigation has seen no corroborative evidence to confirm when the resident made her first report(s) of damp and mould. We have assessed the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint that she made reports from March 2024 onwards in the section on complaint handling.
10. The Mould, Damp and Condensation procedure states that the landlord should respond to severe damp and mould within 5 working days with escalation to 24 hours where it identifies a situation as urgent. It should respond to “Moderate” levels of mould within 15 working days, and “Slight” levels of mould within 60 working days. Following the report of 9 October 2024, the landlord inspected the resident’s property on 13 November 2024. Its repair record show that it raised an order to remove and identify the cause of “Slight” damp mould with a target date of 8 December 2024. This prioritisation was allowed for by the policy, and its response was within the required timeframe.
11. At the visit of 13 November 2024, the landlord identified “Slight category 3” mould in the living room. It attributed this to the ground level outside being too high and a possible cold spot from the panel under window. It identified the following works:
    1. Bricklayer to reduce ground level and remove bushes.
    2. Install new living room windowsill and check insulation behind the panel under the window.
    3. Top up the insulation in the loft.
    4. Install extractor fan in bathroom with a vent and check PIV unit.
    5. Clean gutters at front of property.
12. The landlord raised orders for the works with a target date of 12 February 2025. This was allowed for by its Repairs Policy. This states it should complete planned works within 90 days. The policy states it raises planned works “usually because the job can be completed more efficiently if it is included in a future programme of work, or where specialist materials or plant is required to complete the work.” In the interim, the resident advised the landlord on 2 December 2024 she was not staying in her property due to damp and mould.
13. Information from the parties indicate the landlord carried out some works subsequently. It measured for a new window and panel on 18 December 2024. It installed a temporary wooden panel under the window. On 23 January 2025, it attended to lower gravel outside the property below the damp proof course. It fitted new skirting inside and renewed silicon behind and around the window frame. It also cleaned the gutters.
14. On 23 January 2025, the resident reported the works completed had not prevented damp and that there was damp on the other side of the living room. On 20 February 2025, the landlord viewed photographs sent by the resident. It accepted there was “Slight, category 3” damp in the living room from photographs provided by resident. It noted that the resident said the foundations had sunk and the landlord had agreed to lower the ground and install a soakaway; however, it only completed one metre across. The landlord agreed a further inspection and also for a joiner to inspect the bedroom window which the resident said leaked.
15. The landlord conducted a further inspection on 6 March 2025. It noted damp in the corner of living room window and assessed the mould risk as “Typical”. This assessment was not clear as it did not accord with the categories within the Mould, Damp, and Condensation policy. It agreed to trim the damp proof course under the living room window and rake back the soil point under the window and corner of the building. This involved clearing plants and roots from the side wall. The need to revisit and to raise a new order to fully reduce the ground caused a delay in the works. As noted, the works should have been completed by 12 February 2025.
16. A further visit on 14 July 2025 again assessed the damp and mould as “Slight”. It noted it had not yet altered the ground outside the property and that it needed to devise a plan. Indeed, the landlord’s records do not show that it returned to reduce further the ground level. It also noted it needed to install the bathroom extractor fan. These works were outstanding from the inspection in November 2024, conducted 8 months previously and also outside the target date in February 2025 which was an unreasonable delay. The landlord further identified it needed to replace the wooden panel under the living room window, which was meant to be temporary, with a waterproof one. This job was outstanding since December 2024, which again was an unreasonable delay.
17. The landlord’s records show that it cancelled the repair order to install insulation in the loft. The resident in her complaint stated the works were completed in March 2025; however, this was after the landlord first assigned the works to a private contractor, then brought in back in-house and only after she had chased up the works. Ultimately, the landlord delayed in completing the loft insulation works given the target timeframe of February 2025. Furthermore, it did not keep an audit trail of the action and decisions taken regarding the loft insulation, therefore its handing of the insulation works is not clear.
18. The landlord installed a new bathroom extractor fan on 26 August 2025 which ultimately was 6 months outside the target date. However, it did not keep evidence that it checked or replaced the PIV unit as promised. The landlord replaced the living room window and panel on 29 August 2025, after a missed appointment on 4 August 2025. While it stated that there were delays on the part of the window manufacturer and contractor, it has not provided evidence that it pursued the works or provided timeframes to the resident. As such, it did not take steps to mitigate the inconvenience to the resident from the delay to the living room window works.
19. The landlord’s inspection reports identified elevated humidity levels in the kitchen which required it to install an extractor fan. The landlord’s repair records do not contain an order to install a kitchen extractor fan; however, the stage 2 response accepted it made an appointment to install a new kitchen fan which it cancelled without giving notice to the resident. The landlord has advised us that the kitchen fan installation is currently awaiting completion under a planned works programme, with a scheduled date of 26 January 2026. Again, the landlord did not keep an audit trail of the action and decisions taken regarding the kitchen extractor fan, therefore its handing of this job is not clear. Moreover, it raised the resident’s expectations it would complete the works sooner, which has added to the inconvenience and disappointment she has experienced.
20. In summary, while the landlord has carried out inspections of the damp and mould, it has delayed in carrying out works identified. In particular, it delayed in installing loft insulation, the bathroom extractor fan, and the replacement of a temporary window panel. It did not mitigate the delay in the replacement of the living room window and the installation of a kitchen fan. It has not provided evidence that it has fully completed the works to lower the ground level or checked the PIV unit too. The landlord has advised us that it will inspect the condition of the resident’s property on 26 January 2026.
21. The landlord offered £300 for the delays to works. We have considered the number of delayed works and the length of the delays. The landlord accepted that there were several missed and cancelled appointments without notice which exacerbated the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. It was also aware of the elevated impact of the resident due to health issues. Taken altogether, the landlord’s offer, although well intentioned, was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case. We therefore find that there was maladministration by the landlord.
22. We award the resident £500. In making this award we have considered the range of compensation in our Remedies Guidance for cases of maladministration. In particular, we have considered the guidance for cases where “The landlord has acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and/or the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.”

23. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s obligation to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in good repair. On 11 September 2024, the resident reported a leak from the loft and roof into the bathroom. The landlord’s repair records show that a visit on 13 September 2024 identified that a roofer and bricklayer needed to carry out a site visit. Another visit on 25 September 2024 identified the need for a roofer to inspect the brickworks and lintels. However, the landlord did not arrange the follow up inspection.
24. It was only after the resident complained that the landlord, on 4 August 2025, raised another order for a roof inspection. This indicates that the landlord lost oversight of the resident’s concern about a roof leak. Its record show that it could not gain access on 13 August 2025 but saw no issues from the outside. At the rearranged appointment on 18 September 2025, it could not see any holes in the roof or holes in the loft. While the landlord has now reached an informed position on the possibility of a roof leak, a year had passed since the resident’s original report. This was an unreasonable delay.
25. The landlord’s record show that following its inspection the day before, it raised an order to investigate water ingress through the bedroom window on 21 February 2025. The resident cancelled an appointment made for 12 March 2025. The landlord raised another appointment for 1 July 2025. This date took the repair outside the 90-day timeframe for planned repairs. In the absence of mitigating evidence, this was an unreasonable delay. The resident cancelled this appointment too.
26. The landlord inspected on 14 July 2025. It noted a bricklayer needed to inspect the brickwork on the head of windows as there was water ingress. The landlord’s records show that a bricklayer attended on 18 August 2025. This was over 6 months after the initial report. Notwithstanding the cancelled appointments, there was an unreasonable delay in carrying out repairs.
27. Furthermore, it is not clear what action was carried out which is a shortcoming in its record keeping. The resident has advised us that a joiner attended in August 2025 but that another tradesperson had to come in September 2025 to complete the repair, which was to seal the window.
28. In summary, the landlord has investigated the resident’s report of a leak from the roof and repaired the leak from the bedroom window. However, in both instances, it delayed in taking the necessary action. We therefore find that there was maladministration by the landlord.
29. We award the resident £150. In making this award, we have considered the detriment to the resident. We have also considered the range of compensation in our Remedies Guidance for cases of maladministration. In particular, we considered guidance for cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and/or the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

30. The landlord’s Pest Control policy states that it is responsible for “the management of pest infestations and remedial works in customers’ properties to treat and prevent infestations relating to rats, mice and wasps”. On 17 September 2024, the resident reported there may be rats in the loft. Under the policy, the landlord attended on 23 September 2024. It did not see evidence of rats but laid baits in the loft to be safe. It raised a follow up visit on 30 September 2024 and closed the job on 7 October 2024 as there was no evidence of rats after the baiting. By laying bait and investigating the presence of rats, the landlord met its responsibility under its Pest Control policy. There is no evidence the resident made further reports of rats.
31. At the inspection of 23 September 2024, the landlord noted there were holes in the brickwork where slugs could enter. It raised a job to seal the holes and completed the works on 13 November 2024. On 24 February 2025, the resident reported slugs in her property. On the same day, the landlord inspected. It found holes sealed up but raised a job for pointing, which it completed on 13 November 2024. It advised the resident to use beer traps. The landlord did not have a specific responsibility to deal with slugs under the Pest Control policy; however, our guidance to landlords is that all reports of pest infestations should be taken seriously and not be dismissed. By completing works to prevent slugs entering and providing guidance to residents on capturing then, the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve this report.
32. Following a MP enquiry on 25 June 2025, the landlord visited the next day. It found no holes in the external brickwork, although it was unable to inspect inside as the resident was unavailable. The resident asked the landlord to inspect again before the extractor fan was installed. The landlord attended an appointment for 15 August 2025 and saw no signs of rats under units or in the loft. It saw slug trails under the units but nothing on top. The inspection of 18 September 2024 noted there were no signs of rats in the loft.
33. In summary, the landlord has met its responsibility to investigate and prevent the possible presence of rats. It has also taken action to prevent the entry of creatures by sealing holes and pointing. For these reasons, we find that there was no maladministration in respect of this complaint. However, given that it saw slug trails on the floor, we recommend that it confirms to the resident if it will take any further action to investigate and prevent any presence of slugs beyond the advice it has provided.

34. The landlord’s complaints procedure states it will acknowledge stage 1 complaint within 2 working days, then contact the customer to discuss the complaint. It will then send the complaint response within 10 working days. Any extension must not be more than 10 working days without good reason. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 2 working days, then contact the customer to discuss the complaint. It will then send the complaint response within 20 working days. Any extension must not be more than 20 working days without good reason. The complaints procedure complies with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
35. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 22 July 2025 and the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 13 August 2025. At both stage 1 and stage 2, the landlord did not meet its 2-day timeframe for acknowledging complaints. However, the delays were not significant, and the acknowledgments were still sent within the 5 working day timeframe allowed by the Code. Having sent the acknowledgements, the landlord then sent both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses within the required timeframe.
36. With regards to the content of the responses, the Code states “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate”. In this case, the landlord accepted that there were missed appointments and delayed repairs, scheduling errors, and communication issues. In the stage 2 complaint, it addressed further issues since the stage 1 complaint. This including a missed appointment on 4 August 2025 and not calling on 6 August 2025 to rearrange as advised. It also acknowledged that it cancelled an appointment for the kitchen fan.
37. However, as noted, the resident was adamant and specific that she had first reported damp and mould in March 2024, and then pursued a response by the landlord by phone. She asked the landlord to review its phone records and communication regarding the handling of damp and mould. The landlord has not provided evidence that it took all possible steps to investigate the resident’s version of events, for instance checking phone records or seeking information from the housing officer. A significant aspect of the resident’s complaint was an initial delay of 8 months by the landlord in responding to her reports. It was unreasonable and not consistent with the Code that the landlord did not investigate this aspect.
38. The resident also said in her initial complaint she had lost items due to damp and pests. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that a resident may make an insurance claim “where they have suffered excessive material loss, damage or personal injury and they believe that [the landlord] are at fault for the incident.”  The policy further states that “A decision regarding awarding compensation under ‘quantifiable loss’ will be made between the Complaints Manager and the Insurance team”. The landlord should therefore have advised the resident of whether it could accept an insurance claim for the losses she cited.
39. As the landlord did not fully address all aspects of the resident’s complaint, we find that there was service failure in its complaint handling. We award the resident £50 compensation. We have considered the range of compensation in our Remedies Guidance for cases of service failure.

Learning

Communication and knowledge information management (record keeping)

40. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management notes that “Good records assist housing providers to offer efficient and effective services by ensuring that decisions and actions are taken based on good quality information. Clear information is readily available to any member of staff who becomes responsible for a particular matter, easing handovers between staff. Communication with residents is improved when staff are able to access all of the relevant up to date information and get a good understanding of the issue, and what action has been taken (or not taken) and why. If a housing provider is asked to explain what happened, and why, good records will enable it to do so. Poor quality or absent records result in the landlord being unable to answer questions, or being unable to provide evidence to support its explanation – this impacts negatively on its credibility and relationships with the requestor.”
41. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:
    1. let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.
    2. gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory.
42. In this case, the parties did not dispute that appointments were missed, cancelled without notice. On occasions, the landlord did not arrange follow-on appointments. It is not clear from the landlord’s records what works were completed at certain visits. The landlord has also not provided records that can confirm whether the resident made reports of damp between March 2024 and October 2024, as she stated. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord had better followed the advice and recommendations in our spotlight reports.
43. For clarity, the landlord should also consider ensuring comments in damp and mould inspections are consistent with policy gradings.