Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Citizen Housing (202321963)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321963

Citizen Housing

17 April 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of a leak causing damp and mould at the property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of a 1-bedroom third-floor flat. The tenancy started in April 2023. The landlord is a housing association and freeholder of the property. The landlord is aware of the resident’s health vulnerabilities, which includes breathing difficulties.
  2. On 26 June 2023 the resident reported a water leak entering her bathroom from above. The landlord attended as an emergency. It identified 3 affected properties due to a leak from a fourth address.
  3. On 8 August 2023 the resident complained. She described damage in 3 of her newly decorated rooms due to the leak. She sought compensation from the landlord as she had not had chance to obtain home contents insurance. She also said due to her health, she should not be breathing in contaminated water.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 21 August 2023. It understood that she sought compensation for her damaged possessions and decoration due to the leak from the property above. It summarised its actions to resolve the leak within its policy timescales. It also said it was satisfied there had been no fault on its behalf. It said it could not have predicted or prevented the leak and reminded the resident of the importance of home contents insurance. Its response included information of an insurance scheme available to social housing resident’s endorsed by the National Housing Federation.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint the same day. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to compensate her. She also considered its response inaccurate as she thought the leak did not come from the property directly above her.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 11 September 2023. It understood the resident wanted the damp and mould rectified. And for it to compensate her for the damage caused by the leak. The landlord said it:
    1. Remained satisfied that it had not failed or been negligent in any way.
    2. Was sorry she had experienced damage to her home and reminded her that her tenancy agreement encouraged her to have home contents insurance.
    3. Had arranged further work on 26 September 2023 and plastering to her living room on 26 March 2024.
  7. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. She said the landlord should pay to fix her decoration and replace damaged possessions.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. A key part of the resident’s complaint concerned damage to her possessions and the decoration of her property.
  2. Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability, nor award damages for personal injury or monetary loss. These matters require a decision by a court or an insurance claim. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages.
  3. Our decisions consider whether the landlord kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. If we find failure by a landlord, we can consider any distress and inconvenience caused.

Response to reports of a leak causing damp and mould at the property

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) requires landlords to make repairs to installations such as boilers, pipes, and electrics. The landlord recognises these obligations in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
  2. 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. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard. The landlord must consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require a remedy. It is therefore appropriate that the landlord acknowledges this obligation in its repairs and maintenance policy and damp and mould procedures.
  3. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, the landlord will attend and complete emergency repairs within 24 hours or make safe the problem until a permanent repair is possible. It will aim to complete follow on work between 12 to 28 working days. However, its damp and mould procedure is silent on the timeframe for resolving repairs of this nature.
  4. The resident reported the leak into her bathroom on 26 June 2023. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord attended the same day to make safe the identified leak. This was consistent with the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy response times.
  5. The landlord does not dispute that the resident experienced a second leak originating from the same address 3 floors above on 10 July 2023. It was therefore appropriate that it responded the same day.
  6. However, it acknowledges it experienced delays accessing the other property and had to return another day. While the actions of the other tenant may have caused further water ingress into the resident’s flat, the landlord’s records show its repairs team required the support of its housing team to remedy the situation. For confidentiality reasons, it is appropriate that we do not go into detail. However, we are satisfied the landlord inspected damage to multiple properties, including the resident’s, and returned to remedy the cause of the leak.
  7. We are satisfied the landlord’s records demonstrate it inspected the damage caused to the resident’s home. It also shows it took steps between 21 August to 26 September 2023 to raise work for temporary damp treatments and supplied a dehumidifier. While we note the landlord could not complete the initial damp treatment on 23 August 2023 this was due to the remaining moisture in the walls. It was reasonable in the circumstances to reschedule this work.
  8. It would understandably be upsetting to see water damage to the property’s decoration and the development of mould. It was however reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to ensure it had resolved the leak and allowed time for the moisture to fully dry. It was therefore reasonable that it scheduled plastering work in advance to allow for this outcome.
  9. The terms and conditions of the resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord does not insure the contents of her home. It explains how it is her responsibility to have an appropriate policy. Its response declining her request for compensation was therefore appropriate and in line with the terms of her tenancy.
  10. While it is understandable the resident was upset with the events, the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its policies. Furthermore, it demonstrated meeting its obligations under LTA 1985 and HHSRS.
  11. The resident’s tenancy agreement encouraged her to appropriately insure her home contents. And it is reasonable that the landlord could not predict such an event. Therefore, we do not consider the landlord had any obligation to offer her compensation in the absence of her own insurance policy.
  12. In contact with us in April 2025 the resident explained the landlord had resolved all matters to her satisfaction. She said she initially complained due to the upset the damage had caused to her home and concerns for her health. However, she said the landlord communicated with her, explained the cause of the delays, and provided her with help to resolve the repairs and decoration. This was reassuring to hear and supports our determination that the landlord was not negligent in its handling of this matter.
  13. Based on our findings we find no maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of a leak causing damp and mould at the property. Although there is evidence access issues delayed it resolving the cause of the leak, the landlord was not negligent and resolved all matters to the resident’s satisfaction.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage internal complaints procedure. It will acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days. At stage 1, a resident can expect a response within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. This is appropriate and in line with the relevant Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), published on 1 April 2022.
  2. The resident complained on 8 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged her complaint the same day and sent its stage 1 response on 21 August 2023. Both actions were appropriate and within the landlord’s complaint policy response times.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged her escalation the same day and sent its stage 2 response on 11 September 2023. Again, both actions were appropriate and within the landlord’s complaint policy response times.
  4. We note the resident’s escalation request considered the landlord’s stage 1 response inaccurate. While the landlord referred to the leak coming from above her property, rather than from 3-floors above, we do not consider any detriment caused by this. The landlord acknowledged the incident, explained its actions and remedies, and provided the resident with home contents insurance to consider. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. Based on our findings, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. It acted in line with its complaint’s policy and the expectations of the Code.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of a leak causing damp and mould at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.