Citizen Housing Group Limited (202431874)

Background

1. The resident has complained about damp and mould and repairs at the property since 2022. The landlord recently confirmed the resident needs to move out while it completes the repairs. The resident requested a permanent move. The landlord has agreed to this, but the resident has not yet moved.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of multiple repairs at the property, including damp and mould.
   2. Associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for severe maladministration in its handling of reports of multiple repairs at the property, including damp and mould.
4. We found the landlord responsible for maladministration in its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of repairs

5. The landlord has been aware of damp and mould at the property since 2022. It did not complete the repairs or address the issues reported by the resident, and it failed to act on its contractors’ recommendations. The problem remains unresolved. During the complaints process, the landlord acknowledged some errors and offered compensation but this was not enough to fully address the impact on the resident.

Associated complaint

6. The landlord did not address all the issues raised in the resident’s complaints and failed to complete the actions it committed to. It did not resolve the outstanding repairs. Between June 2024 and October 2025, the resident contacted the landlord on 5 occasions about the same matters. These failures caused the resident considerable time and inconvenience.

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.

Boiler

7. The resident reported issues with the heating and the boiler on 15 May 2024. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day and returned on 20 May 2024 to assess the boiler and heating system. This was a proactive response which was in line with its repairs policy timescales, which states it aims to complete routine repairs within 25 working days.
8. The landlord’s contractor agreed with the resident that it would attend the property on 23 May 2024 to install a new boiler but the resident was not in. It asked the resident to contact it to arrange the installation. This was reasonable. In its stage 2 response to complaint A, the landlord confirmed the boiler was replaced on 8 July 2024 and the issue was resolved.

Pest infestations

9. On 21 June 2024, the resident complained about “slugs and cockroach type bugs” in the toilet and kitchen at his property. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not refer to pest infestations and at the time of the complaint the landlord did not have a pest control policy. We note it has since updated its estate management policy to include pests. The landlord has not disputed its responsibility regarding an infestation of slugs at the property.
10. The landlord’s decision to arrange a surveyor visit was appropriate given the range of issues raised by the resident. It would have been reasonable to expect that concerns about slugs and cockroaches would be considered during a property inspection. However, the inspection did not take place. Instead, a damp and mould inspection was carried out on 2 October 2024. The reason for this change was unclear. This represented a failing, as the landlord did not follow through on the commitment made in its stage 1 complaint response to complaint A.
11. We have not seen evidence that the resident reported slugs or other pests at the property between September 2024 and June 2025. The landlord should have recognised that the issue remained unresolved after the complaints process ended in September 2024, which was a failing. However, it was also the resident’s responsibility to report any ongoing problems, and there is no evidence that he did so.
12. The resident raised concerns about slugs and woodlice in his complaint on 5 June 2025 (complaint B). In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord stated that a pest control contractor would visit the property the following week to investigate and arrange “suitable” treatment. There is no evidence that this visit took place. This was another instance where the landlord did not carry out an action it had committed to, which was a failing and likely affected trust in the landlord–tenant relationship.
13. On 4 December 2025, the resident told us that a pest control contractor has not visited the property and the issues regarding slugs at the property remain.
14. The resident has lived with slugs at the property for in excess of 18 months, which is not reasonable. We order the landlord to arrange for its pest control contractor to visit the property and treat the infestation in line with it said it would do in its stage 1 complaint response to complaint B on 18 June 2025.

Repairs

15. The landlord’s repair logs did not clearly record the communication between the landlord and the resident regarding the bathroom and related repairs. The records lacked sufficient detail, which made it difficult to fully assess certain aspects of the case.
16. It is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If the information the landlord provides is not clear, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its repairs policy.
17. On 21 June 2024, the resident complained to the landlord about outstanding bathroom repairs. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a surveyor visit to assess the situation; however, this did not take place. The landlord cannot be held responsible for the delay, as the evidence showed it made reasonable attempts to arrange the inspection, including contacting the resident by phone and email.
18. We have seen no evidence the landlord was proactive in rebooking the survey with the resident, which was a failing. The landlord was aware that the resident had raised multiple issues at the property over a significant period and should have prioritised investigating these concerns.
19. In its stage 2 complaint response to complaint A, the landlord stated that there were “no outstanding repairs” at the property. This was incorrect, as the repairs raised in the resident’s original complaint had not been assessed. The landlord could not have confirmed this without carrying out an inspection. This was a failing and may have led the resident to feel that the landlord was not listening to his concerns.
20. As mentioned above, the survey which took place on 2 October 2024, was a damp and mould survey. This meant the bathroom repairs were not addressed. This was a failing which would have caused inconvenience to the resident and may have damaged the landlord-tenant relationship.  
21. The current position regarding the bathroom repairs is unclear. We requested a copy of the most recent property survey from the landlord on 8 October 2025, but did not receive a response. As a result, we cannot confirm whether the bathroom repairs have been completed. Therefore, we order the landlord to arrange for a contractor to inspect the bathroom and carry out any recommended repairs, unless this has been done already.

Damp and Mould

22. The issues with the damp and mould at the property were ongoing from 2022. The resident raised a disrepair claim in 2022. However, this did not progress beyond a surveyor’s report and an associated Scott Schedule. It was unclear why the disrepair claim did not progress or why the recommendations from the Scott Schedule were not completed by the landlord.
23. However, we have seen no evidence the matter exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure at that time. Therefore, we have not assessed the landlord’s handling of the repairs or damp and mould dating back to 2022. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. We have assessed the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould from June 2023, this was 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint in June 2024. Reference to earlier events provides context but has not been included in our decision on the complaint.
24. The landlord’s repair logs provided limited detail. On 18 April 2024, the landlord’s contractor attended the property and carried out a damp and mould clean in the bathroom, kitchen, hall, and bedroom. The notes described the job as a “repeat report” of damp and mould and confirmed there was damp and mould in the bathroom. These records show the landlord was aware the issues were ongoing. However, the job was marked as “no further work required,” which was an error. Our damp and mould spotlight report states that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and treat it as a serious health and safety issue. There is no evidence the landlord did this, which was a significant failing.
25. In the resident’s original complaint (complaint A), and throughout the case, the resident said he wanted to move and referred to the property as “uninhabitable”. He said the issues at the property were affecting his physical and mental health. We acknowledge this has been a difficult time for him. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
26. In its stage 1 complaint response to complaint A, the landlord stated there was “no evidence the property was uninhabitable” and advised the resident to email any evidence to support this. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires rented properties to be fit for human habitation at the start of the tenancy and throughout its duration. This means they must be safe, healthy, and free from defects that could cause harm. It was not the resident’s responsibility to provide evidence of this, it was the landlord’s responsibility to check that the property was safe and free from hazards. We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s concerns about the property being uninhabitable. This was a failing and may have led the resident to feel the landlord was dismissing his concerns.
27. The landlord also told the resident that it “required evidence” if the property was affecting his health. While it is reasonable for the landlord to request such evidence, its response lacked empathy. There is no evidence that the landlord signposted the resident to relevant organisations for support or guidance with his health concerns. This was a missed opportunity to provide assistance.
28. However, we note that on 8 August 2024, the landlord contacted the resident regarding the vulnerabilities he had mentioned, which was positive. The landlord advised that it had not received a response and therefore does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for him in its system. We recommend that the landlord confirms with the resident whether he wishes its records to be updated to include any vulnerabilities.
29. Following complaint A, the landlord’s contractor completed a damp and mould survey on 2 October 2024. This was outside the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy, although we note there were access issues in August 2024. The survey report stated that the entire property was “suffering from a condensation and mould problem” and that it was “imperative” the listed defects were “rectified as soon as possible.”
30. In October 2024, the resident contacted the landlord twice for an update following the damp and mould inspection. He stated that the situation had reached an “unacceptable point of crisis.” There is no evidence that the landlord responded or took any action after the survey. This was not in line with its damp and mould policy, which requires landlords to respond to mould issues in a timely manner. This was a significant failing that contributed to the severity of the case. The landlord should have acted on the contractor’s advice promptly. By failing to do so, it missed an opportunity to resolve the damp and mould at the property and left the resident to live with a potential hazard for a long time.
31. On 5 June 2025, the resident complained again and stated that no action had been taken following the damp and mould survey on 2 October 2024. In its stage 1 complaint response to complaint B, the landlord said it would review the report and “assess any work necessary.” This response lacked the urgency we would expect, particularly as the recommendations had been issued 8 months earlier. This was a failing and may have led the resident to feel the landlord was not committed to resolving the issues
32. There was no evidence the landlord took any action following its stage 1 complaint response to complaint B on 18 June 2025. This was a further failing which contributed to the severity of the case.
33. On 28 July 2025, the resident submitted another complaint, and the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to complaint C on 11 August 2025. It stated that it was unable to review matters that occurred more than 12 months ago, in line with its complaints policy. While this was accurate, the response showed no awareness of the resident’s ongoing situation, the number of complaints he had made, or the unresolved issues. The communication lacked empathy, which was a failing. Furthermore, the landlord stated it had “not found any failings.” It is unclear how this conclusion was reached given the failings identified in this report which should have been apparent to the landlord at the time of this response.
34. In its stage 1 complaint response to complaint C on 11 August 2025, the landlord referred to issues of “no access” for a survey at the property. The evidence showed the resident explained he was not willing to take time off work for a “post-works survey” when no works had been completed, which was reasonable. The landlord should have provided clearer communication about the purpose of the survey and its reasons for requesting access.
35. The landlord’s internal communications referred to a number of instances of “no access” at the property. However, it did not provide any evidence to support this. If the landlord was having difficulties accessing the property to complete works, it should have followed its tenancy and licence management policy which includes a section on its right to access the property.
36. The resident escalated complaint C on 13 August 2025. He said he felt he had been discriminated against by the landlord. Under the Equality Act 2010, landlords must consider residents’ protected characteristics, such as age, gender, and race.  We can assess whether the landlord showed it considered this. However, the resident did not specify in his complaint which protected characteristic he believed was overlooked. This means the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to that specific concern and we cannot consider this in our investigation.
37. However, the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s concerns and requested further details so it could respond to this part of the complaint. There is no evidence that it did so, which was a further failing in its communication with the resident.
38. In its stage 2 complaint response on 8 October 2025 to complaint C, the landlord said it had identified “failure of service” and awarded the resident £250 compensation. This was in recognition of its failure to act upon the recommendations set out in the damp and mould survey completed on 2 October 2024.
39. Our Remedies Guidance (published on our website), sets out our approach to compensation. It states that in cases where extremely serious failures by the landlord have been identified which had a serious impact on the resident, we may award compensation of over £1000.
40. The landlord’s compensation policy states that awards of awards of £700 or above are appropriate where there has been significant inconvenience or distress caused through poor service or by a persistent failure leading to significant delay
41. Therefore, the £250 awarded to the resident at the end of the complaints process was not an appropriate or fair amount. It did not proportionately reflect the distress, time and trouble caused to the resident up until the end of the complaints process and was not in line with the landlord’s own compensation policy. We order the landlord to pay the resident £1000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its handling of repairs and damp and mould at the property. This is inclusive of the £250 it previously offered, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.
42. On 10 October 2025, the landlord confirmed it had awarded the resident a permanent discretionary move. On 28 November 2025, it told us it had “not yet identified a property that the resident had agreed to” and it would “continue to engage” with the resident regarding repairs. This is understandable as the landlord does not have full control over when a suitable property becomes available within its stock for the resident to move to.
43. The repairs can only be completed once the resident has moved out of the property. The resident has previously indicated that he does not want to move temporarily as he wants a permanent move. Therefore, we order the landlord to obtain legal advice on enforcing a temporary move to ensure the issues are resolved promptly. The landlord should continue working with the resident on its commitment to permanently rehouse him, and we recommend that it contacts the resident to discuss his options. The landlord may want to consider whether it could temporarily move the resident while offering a permanent move once a suitable property becomes available.
44. Overall, there were a series of significant failings by the landlord which accumulated over a prolonged period. These failings have had a serious impact on the resident. The landlord showed a lack of ownership of the resident’s case and a lack of urgency to resolve his complaints through to completion. Poor communication and record keeping also added to the unreasonable delays that the resident experienced.

45. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days. The landlord will issue a full response within 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and within 20 working days for complaints at stage 2. These timescales align with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices.
46. The landlord generally responded to the resident’s complaints within its complaint policy timescales. This was positive. We note it requested an extension from the resident on 7 August 2024 for its stage 2 response to complaint A, this was reasonable as it was in line with its complaints policy.
47. However, there were other failings. The Code states that landlords must address all key points raised in the complaint. Throughout the case the landlord failed to do this. It did not respond to the resident’s concerns about the property being uninhabitable or the impact the issues at the property were having on his health. These were complaint handling failings which may have led the resident to feel the landlord was not listening to him
48. Additionally, there were examples of the landlord not doing what it had committed to within its complaint response. This was a particular failing of its stage 1 complaint response to complaint B on 18 June 2025. There was no evidence the landlord took any action following this and this was a significant failing which contributed to the severity of the case.
49. When the resident submitted complaint B to the landlord, on 5 June 2025, the landlord should have recognised this as a continuation of a previous complaint. Its decision to open a new complaint was reasonable because it had been 9 months since the previous stage 2 complaint response so a new investigation was needed into recent events. However, the landlord did not take a holistic view of the issue and consider the previous events. This was a failing as it missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident.
50. The resident complained to the landlord again on 28 July 2025. This should have been treated as an escalation from the previous complaint on 5 June 2025. However, the landlord issued a third stage 1 complaint response on 11 August 2025. This was a further failing which contributed to the complaint handling delays and caused inconvenience to the resident.
51. We acknowledge the landlord’s attempt to put things right in its final stage 2 complaint response on 8 October 2025. However, it did not award redress for the complaint-handling failings that caused significant delays and inconvenience to the resident. The resident repeatedly chased the landlord and submitted 3 complaints within a 14-month period, and some elements of his complaints remain unresolved.

52. We order the landlord to pay the resident £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by complaint handling failings identified within this report. This is in line with our remedies guidance as referenced above which suggests awards in this range where there have been errors by the landlord which affected the resident but there may be no permanent impact from the errors.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

53. The landlord referred to instances of “no access” at the property but acknowledged it was unable to provide evidence for these. The landlord may want to review its record-keeping systems to ensure it has a procedure in place to document and evidence when it has been unable to gain access for an agreed inspection or repair.

Communication

54. Failings, particularly complaint handling failings, could have been avoided if the landlord had communicated effectively across its staff teams. This would have ensured the case was considered holistically and avoided repetition within the complaints process.
55. The landlord may want to consider how it communicates with residents during its complaints process. Our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights highlights the importance of empathy and use of tone to support positive communication with its residents. The landlord may wish to review this report if it has not done so recently.