Citizen Housing Group Limited (202441660)

Decision
Case ID	202441660
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Citizen Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	22 January 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a maisonette with her child, who has additional needs. She reported persistent leaks from a neighbouring property leading to damp, mould, and decorative damage. Dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication, repair management, and complaints responses, she escalated the complaint to this Service.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s management of repairs concerning leaks and associated damp and mould.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaints management.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s management of repairs concerning leaks and associated damp and mould.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaints management.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord did not respond with appropriate urgency to reports of an active leak. It deleted and re‑raised initial orders, resulting in extended delays to inspections and intrusive works. It did not complete essential inspections, verify repairs, or identify the root cause in a timely manner. There is no evidence seen that the landlord considered temporary accommodation or alternative arrangements during disruptive kitchen works, despite being informed of the resident’s son’s additional needs. Communication was unclear and inconsistent, contributing to missed appointments and further delay. These collective failings caused the resident avoidable distress and significant time and trouble.
7. The landlord met its published timeframes but did not provide comprehensive or proportionate complaint responses. It did not address all issues raised, did not provide remedies that reflected the full impact of the situation and did not demonstrate that it had considered the resident’s individual circumstances. Although some evidence of learning was provided after the complaint process concluded, this was not reflected within the complaint responses themselves.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 19 February 2026
2b	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £800, made up as follows: £250 for poor communication. £450 for distress and inconvenience of ongoing damp and mould spreading to 4 of the 6 rooms in the property and the loss of kitchen facilities through December 2024 and January 2025, due to planned renewal works.  £100 for poor complaints management. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 19 February 2026
3	Case Review The landlord must carry out a case-specific review of this case, to include: The triage of the July 2024 leak. Delays in arranging inspections (including the access hatch delay). Communication failures that contributed to missed appointments. The closure of repairs without verifying effectiveness. Missed opportunities to mitigate disruption. The landlord must produce a report identifying lessons learnt and actions it can take to prevent a recurrence of the failings. The report should be shared with the member of the landlord’s senior management team responsible for the repairs service and this Service.	No later than   05 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord inspect and repair the property in response to the latest reports from the resident of a recurrence of damp and mould. If the damp and mould are found to be a hazard under Awaab’s law, then the landlord must act accordingly.
It is recommended that the landlord reassess whether the original £118.34 voucher was sufficient and consider an adjustment in line with the number of rooms affected and standard preparation/redecoration costs.
It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident £480 it had previously offered for the running costs of the dehumidifier (based on £5.00 per day from 17 October 2024 to 20 January 2025; 96 days at £5 per day), if it has not already done so.
It is recommended that the landlord consider and discuss with the resident what alternative or additional steps it may take to restore the resident’s property to a satisfactory condition.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
24  October 2024	The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint. She complained she had been experiencing leaks causing extensive damage which had not been resolved by the landlord. She asked the landlord for repairs to be completed and compensation for stress and for damaged items.
28  October 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 request.
11 November 2024	The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It said: It apologised for the leaks being unrectified. It offered £505 compensation for failure to communicate with the resident, distress and for dehumidifier usage. It could not offer compensation for damaged belongings. It offered decorating vouchers of £118.34. It had provided feedback to its Maintenance Operations Team about repair communications. It had provided feedback to its Customer Experience Centre about dehumidifier compensation.
13 November 2024	The resident submitted a stage 2 complaint. She complained: The landlord had promised updates, but communication remained poor. She would lose access to her kitchen for essential works, which would have implications for the welfare of her child, who had specific additional needs. Despite assurances the leaks had been resolved, she continued to experience worsening damp and mould. The decorating voucher was not sufficient to restore all 4 affected rooms to their previous condition. She felt unsupported, let down and that the property no longer felt like a home. The resident requested: a formal meeting to agree a structured plan for repairs to be carried out. Decorating vouchers to the value of £578.45.
15 November 2024	The landlord sent an acknowledgement to the stage 2 complaint.
13 December 2024	The landlord requested an extension for its stage 2 response.
15 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: It apologised for the delays in raising repairs and poor communication. It offered £930 compensation. This was broken down as: £250 for poor communication £200 for impact, distress, and inconvenience £480 for the running costs of the dehumidifier It agreed to the resident’s recent request for an additional kitchen cupboard. It re-offered decorating vouchers to the value of £118.34.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted this Service. She sought a resolution to the leak, and an agreed works plan with the landlord to carry out the repairs and compensation to return her property to the state it was in before the leak occurred.

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	The landlord’s management of repairs concerning leaks and associated damp and mould.
Finding	Maladministration

8. The landlord is responsible under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 and the Housing Act 2004 for ensuring that homes are maintained in a safe condition and free from hazards such as damp and mould. Its Repairs Policy requires emergency repairs to be attended within 24 hours and routine repairs to be completed within published timescales. The landlord’s Damp and Mould Self‑Assessment states that temporary accommodation may be considered when major works are required.
9. The evidence shows that on 12 July 2024; the resident reported an active leak affecting the kitchen and bathroom ceilings and floors. Although a works order was raised, it was subsequently deleted and replaced with a new order that categorised the repair as routine, rather than an emergency repair. This was not an appropriate triage of a potentially urgent issue and contributed to the early delays in the case.
10. On 26 July 2024 the resident advised the landlord the leak was continuing, she was concerned it may start to affect her electrics, and it had damaged her carpet. Records show the contractor had requested an access hatch be created to permit inspection of the soil stack. However, the landlord did not act on this request until 27 September 2024, a delay of 44 working days. This was an unreasonable delay that left the resident in conditions that were deteriorating.
11. Between 29 July and 17 October 2024, the resident reported a new uncontainable leak from the neighbouring flat, and worsening damp that continued in the kitchen and bathroom and had spread further to the hallway and the living room. On 13 September 2024 she reported mould had spread behind kitchen cupboards and expressed concerns about the impact on her son’s breathing. Although the landlord carried out a mould wash treatment, it did not investigate or address the underlying causes of the damp. The resident was put to substantial time and trouble in trying to resolve the issue. In her stage 1 complaint, she described experiencing significant emotional distress. She also reported anxiety about the damp and mouldy conditions worsening. She felt embarrassed about the state of the home. She expressed fear for her child’s health and breathing. She additionally reported a loss of earnings due to repeated absences for appointments.
12. The landlord recorded the works as completed on 17 October 2024 and provided a dehumidifier to help dry out the property. This was appropriate. However, the resident reported on 24 October that the leak was still active, which indicated the issue had not been fully resolved. The landlord raised a new works order on 7 November stating that works should be carried out “as per quote”, but there is no evidence of the quotation or details of the works instructed. The lack of documentation makes it difficult to understand how the landlord oversaw and progressed the repairs.
13. Between 18 November 2024 and 19 December 2024, the landlord recorded 3 occasions where it could not gain access to the resident’s property. During a telephone call on 13 December the resident told the landlord she had not been informed of any appointments. This is supported by the landlord’s records, which indicate an appointment was rearranged due to contractor availability but that no voicemail was left to notify the resident. The missed appointments therefore were partly caused by communication failures and were a key factor in the continuance of the disrepair.
14. As part of her stage 2 complaint of 13 November 2024, the resident raised concerns about intrusive kitchen renewal works planned for December 2024. She said that the landlord told her that the whole kitchen would be stripped back to brick, dried out, and replaced, before work continued in the 3 other rooms affected. She was concerned that she had to empty the kitchen and would lose cooking and laundry facilities for several weeks. She expressed that she was very worried because of her child’s additional nutrition needs and required reliable access to cooked meals. As there was no storage space, all kitchen items would have to be put in the bedrooms and living room, which were already small. The resident was concerned about overcrowding, disruption and stress.
15. She was also anxious that the repairs might run into the Christmas period. She asked the landlord if she would need to arrange somewhere else for their son to stay. There is no evidence that the landlord considered temporary accommodation or other support options, despite being aware of the family’s needs and the intrusive nature of the works. This was a missed opportunity to mitigate the impact on the household.
16. The resident told this Service that she had emptied the kitchen in preparation for the works that were due to start at the beginning of December. In its stage 2 response on 15 January 2025, the landlord said that the kitchen works were progressing. This meant the resident was without adequate cooking facilities for an extended period over Christmas, which she had previously raised concerns about.
17. As of January 2026, the resident reports further damp and mould affecting the dividing wall between the kitchen and living room, which she has now raised with the landlord, who has arranged an inspection.
18. Across the period, the landlord did not respond to the initial leak with appropriate urgency, delayed essential inspections, closed repairs without verifying that the leak had been resolved, and did not maintain complete or clear repair records. Poor communication contributed to missed appointments, and the landlord did not evidence that it considered temporary accommodation or other support despite intrusive works and known additional needs. The underlying cause of the leak remained unresolved for more than 8 months, during which damp and mould spread to 4 of the 6 rooms in the property. These failures caused the resident significant distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble. Consequently, there was maladministration in the landlord’s management of repairs concerning leaks and associated damp and mould.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

19. The landlord’s Complaints Policy (2025) is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code, requiring an acknowledgement within 5 working days and a response within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
20. The Complaints Policy states that compensation may be offered where there is evidence of financial loss, inconvenience, or unreasonable impact, and that any compensation awarded will follow the landlord’s Compensation Framework.
21. The landlord’s Compensation Framework allows for discretionary compensation where service failures result in avoidable distress, inconvenience, or financial loss. Awards are grouped into three impact levels (£0–£250, £250–£699 and £700+) and may include reimbursement for damaged belongings or loss of essential facilities. The framework specifies payments may be made towards energy costs for dehumidifiers at £5 per day.
22. The landlord issued both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses within its published timeframes. This demonstrates compliance with the policy in relation to response deadlines. However, this Service has not seen a copy of the stage 2 acknowledgement. The landlord’s system notes state that the acknowledgement was issued on 15 November 2024, but without documentary evidence, full compliance cannot be confirmed.
23. At stage 1, the landlord acknowledged communication failings and provided a chronology. However, it did not address all parts of the complaint. It did not explain the extended delay in resolving the leak, did not respond to safety concerns, and did not consider the cumulative impact of ongoing damp and mould. The compensation offered did not reflect the scale of disruption or damage, falling short of the Code’s requirement for fair and proportionate remedies.
24. At stage 2, the landlord increased its compensation offer, agreed to an additional kitchen cupboard, and stated it had provided internal feedback to teams. While these steps were constructive, the stage 2 response still did not fully engage with the resident’s main concerns. It did not address the disruption caused by intrusive works, the persistence of damp and mould, or the impact of the situation on the resident and her son. As a result, the stage 2 response did not provide a full evaluation of the adverse impacts of the issues raised.
25. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 compensation awards did not reflect the scale or duration of the disruption. At stage 1 it awarded compensation for communication issues and distress, but it did not consider the extent of the damage or the prolonged period the resident lived with worsening damp and mould. Although the landlord increased the award at stage 2, it still did not assess whether further redress was required given the 4 affected rooms, the lack of adequate kitchen facilities throughout December and January, the continuing leak reports, and the resident’s concerns about the impact on her son’s health. Overall, the remedies offered did not meet the Code’s requirement for fairness and proportionality.
26. The landlord also did not show that it considered the resident’s individual circumstances. It did not fully explore the impact of the intrusive kitchen works, the need to relocate household contents, or the additional needs of the resident’s child. The complaint responses did not demonstrate that the landlord assessed whether further support or mitigation was necessary. This was a missed opportunity to provide a tailored and person‑centred response.
27. The landlord informed this Service that it had made improvements to its “no access” processes and revised its complaint outcome letters. These are positive steps and show that some learning has taken place. However, the landlord did not clearly identify service improvements within the complaint responses themselves, nor did it demonstrate that it had analysed the underlying causes of the delays or communication issues. The responses therefore did not fully evidence meaningful learning at the point of complaint.
28. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord took some constructive steps to progress matters. It moved forward with planned repair and kitchen replacement works and recorded further follow‑up actions in its internal timeline. These actions, along with the increased offer of compensation and agreement to instate an additional kitchen cupboard demonstrate the landlord’s willingness to learn and attempts to put things right.
29. Overall, although complaint responses were issued within policy timescales, the landlord did not provide comprehensive, proportionate or evidence‑based responses, nor did it demonstrate appropriate consideration of the resident’s circumstances or the cumulative impact of the issues reported. The shortcomings in investigation, remedy, communication, and learning amount to service failure in complaint handling.

Learning

30. In its evidence to this Service, the landlord has demonstrated that it has reflected on its performance in this case and identified areas where improvement is needed. It has also informed this Service of changes made to its “no access” processes and its complaint outcome letters. This Service welcomes these steps as a positive indication of learning and commitment to improving practice.
31. The landlord should strengthen repairs triage, oversight, and follow‑up to ensure timely action and effective resolution of leaks and damp and mould issues.
32. Complaint handling should more fully address all issues raised, with proportionate remedies and clearer identification of service improvements.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

33. Communication and record‑keeping processes should be improved to provide clear updates, reliable appointment management, and comprehensive documentation.