Citizen Housing Group Limited (202449164)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202449164

Citizen Housing

1 August 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 handling of the resident’s:

  1. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
  2. Request to be rehoused due to overcrowding.

Background

2.     The resident is an assured tenant of a 3-bedroom property. She lives with her adult son and 2 daughters. The landlord, a housing association, is the owner of the property. The resident has reported to the landlord she has mental health issues and anxiety.

3.     The resident had reported damp and mould in the property and made a previous complaint on the matter early in 2024. Following a damp and mould survey by the landlord in December 2024, she made a complaint to the landlord on 13 January 2025. She said there was damp and mould in the property which was impacting on her and her family’s health. She said the bedrooms are too small.

4.     The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 24 January 2025. It said it had carried out damp and mould work on 16 January 2025. It made an appointment for the Technical Support Surveyor to attend on 28 January 2025 to inspect. It referred the resident to its previous complaint response of March 2024 which also included her request to move to a larger property.

5.     The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 4 February 2025. She was unhappy with the response to her stage 1 complaint. She also stated she felt unsafe at the property.

6.     On 4 March 2025, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said it had responded to the complaint within timescales. It set out the damp and mould work completed and the further works following the inspection on 28 January 2025. It said that the resident did not qualify for a discretionary move.

7.     The resident escalated her complaint to this Service as she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her complaints of damp and mould and wanted the landlord to provide a larger property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

8.     The resident told us that the damp and mould affected her and her children’s health including respiratory issues and conjunctivitis. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an illness, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court.

9.     The resident previously complained to the landlord in 2024 about damp and mould and requested a move to larger accommodation. This assessment has focused on events following the previous stage 2 complaint response dated 21 March 2024.

Reports of damp and mould

10. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it aims to undertake repairs within 24 hours up to 24 working days, depending on the categorisation of the repair. It states complex repairs may take longer but that it will keep the resident updated.

11. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, it states it will comply with all legal and statutory requirements for the identification and treatment of damp and mould. It commits to a timely response to reports of damp and mould and taking a holistic approach to diagnosing and treating the causes.

12. The landlord carried out an emergency damp and mould inspection to the property on 5 December 2024. As stated above, the resident had previously complained about damp and mould and the matter completed the landlord’s complaints process. The report indicates the surveyor had been asked to undertake the survey as “part of the resolution to a complaint.” However, the documents provided to this Service have not shown why this inspection was arranged several months later or why it was an emergency. This may be an indication of poor record keeping by the landlord.

13. The report said there was no evidence of any leaks or penetrating damp which could be contributing to the damp and mould. It said the bedrooms all had visible signs of damp and mould growth and the rear bedroom walls were wet to touch. The damp and mould was treated with stain block the same day, in accordance with the landlord’s repair policy.

14. At the inspection, the resident stated her health and her children’s was suffering as a result of the damp and mould. The surveyor advised her to send any evidence of this to the landlord. They recommended regular servicing of the ventilation unit in the property due to the reported respiratory issues in the family.

15. The surveyor also stated they advised the resident to keep the furniture away from the external walls as they had noted these were a lot and contributing to moisture being trapped in the property. This was reasonable and appropriate advice to reduce the damp and mould especially where no structural causes had been found.

16. As part of its stage 1 response on 24 January 2025 the landlord stated the following:

  1. On 13 January 2025 landlord arranged for works to be carried out to treat the damp and mould at the property. On 16 January 2025, a contractor attended the property to carry out works. These included washing down and treating the external wall in a bedroom by applying damp and mould treatment and repainting.
  2. At this appointment the contractor could only treat the areas they had access to due the furniture in the way.
  3. There was a patch of damp in the corner of the lounge which may be caused by an external tree stump, and they considered it may be best to kill the tree as its roots may be penetrating the damp proof course of the property. The drainage in the garden may be allowing water to pool at the affected wall. The guttering did not appear to be connected properly.
  4. A technical support surveyor was booked to inspect on 28 January 2025 to identify works required.

17. Within its response the landlord provided information on how to manage damp and mould in the property. It was reasonable and appropriate that it signposted the resident to where she can find further guidance on dealing with damp and mould considering that the report mostly indicated that the living situation in the property was a cause of the issues.

18. The landlord’s response clarified the key issues identified by the survey, clarified the actions to be taken and provided reasonable timescales for these. The damp and mould works were carried out within 3 days of being reported which was within the landlord’s own repair timescales of 25 working days. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for an inspection by a technical surveyor to identify any further works required as this would be key to ensuring that all issues were dealt with in a timely manner.

19. Although the report had identified possible causes of damp with respect to a corner of the lounge, this was a newly identified issue. The landlord was timely in deciding on the action it would take to resolve it by arranging and communicating with the resident that an inspection was arranged for 28 January 2025.

20. As it had agreed to do in its decision, on 28 January 2025 the landlord’s technical surveyor attended and provided a further survey report. The report stated the following:

  1. The humidity readings in the bedroom showed no issues for concern.
  2. The loft has an older mechanical ventilation system in place, but this looked dry and showed no signs of excessive condensation.
  3. There was some black mould on the internal window frames and within the seals from former condensation in each of the bedrooms.
  4. There was a new issue in the dining room/lounge with flaking plaster in the corner.

21. The surveyor also stated in the report that the landlord had done all it could do from a repairs perspective to combat the mould in the property. They concluded that the property was no longer suitable for the family as they believed the damp and mould was as a result of the family outgrowing the property.

22. To address the issues found at the inspection the landlord arranged the recommended works. These included:

  1. Cleaning the window frames in each of the bedrooms with a chemical wash and renewing the silicone.
  2. Servicing the ventilation system in the loftandinstalling4 lap vents to ensure adequate ventilation.
  3. repairing the gutter, removal of the tree stump and installation of a soakaway.

23. These proposed works by the landlord were appropriate following the inspection. They showed its commitment to resolving the damp and mould issues within the property.

24. In the resident’s escalation request she reiterated the same issues and also queried the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 4 March 2025 confirmed its agreement with the findings of the stage 1 response. The landlord set out the following:

  1. The resident had been given a schedule for damp and mould treatment.
  2. An inspection had taken place on 28 January 2025 and works were booked for 4 March 2025.
  3. The landlord set out the timeline of the complaint handling and confirmed it had responded in accordance with their timeline.

25. The landlord’s stage 2 response appropriately addressed the issues raised by the resident in her escalation request. It confirmed the actions it had committed to undertake and had completed. Its records indicate that the works indicated on 28 January 2025 were completed on 4 March 2025. This was the same day of the stage 2 decision and indicates that it kept to its commitment in the decision. It was also within the timescales required by its repairs policy. We have no evidence of outstanding works to be completed at this time. There have been no further reports of damp and mould and the resident has confirmed to us that there are no current issues with damp and mould.

26. We find that the landlord responded to the reports of damp and mould in accordance with its policy and procedure. Although it remains unclear why the emergency survey was requested, the evidence indicates that the landlord was proactive and responsive in dealing with the issue. It commissioned a second survey of the property within 3 months of the emergency one which raised queries about likely issues. It also acted promptly on the findings from both surveys and completed the works within its policy timescales. It offered appropriate support and guidance to the resident and the works it undertook appear to have resolved the issue.

Request to be rehoused to a larger property

27. The resident’s need to be rehoused to a larger property is noted. A permanent move to another home is usually not an outcome which could be obtained through our process. This is because there may be other applicants who have a higher priority need, and any such order would be unfair to those applicants. We also have no control of the housing stock of landlords. As such, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused, and if its response was reasonable in the circumstances.

28. For the landlord to consider a discretionary move, their lettings policy states there must be circumstances that seriously impact on the health and wellbeing of the customer, or household members, if they were to remain in the property. The example given is when a household member needs to move due to a medical condition which will cause permanent damage or disability if they do not move. The policy states that any offer would be for the same size and type as their current home.

29. The policy confirms the landlord does not operate its own housing transfer policy. They will direct customers who wish to move to the local authority’s choice-based lettings allocation system.

30. Within the stage 1 response the landlord enclosed a copy of the resident’s previous complaint to be rehoused. This complaint response signposted the resident to the local authority, other housing providers and the option of a mutual exchange. It must be noted that the local authority has a duty to consider housing needs on the basis of overcrowding. The landlord’s response was reasonable and appropriate overall as it had already considered this complaint within the past year. The evidence does not indicate any change in the household circumstances so as to warrant a fresh consideration of the matter.

31. As part of the stage 2 complaint sent on 4 March 2025, the landlord confirmed it had considered information sent in by the resident concerning medical issues in support of her discretionary move. It said the neighbourhood officer had reviewed the information and visited the resident that day. It confirmed she was not eligible for a discretionary or emergency transfer. It explained that even if it did accept her for a transfer, this would be to the same size property.

32. Although we recognise the resident’s disappointment with this decision, we find that the landlord acted in line with its allocations policy. Its stage 2 response explained that it does not take direct applications for a transfer and the circumstances it considers for a priority move which would be a threat to life or seriously affect the safety of the resident or family. It also appropriately signposted the resident to the local authority, alternative housing providers and options to seek a mutual exchange. It further advised her to obtain an occupational health referral.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:

  1. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
  2. Request to be rehoused due to overcrowding.