From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Connexus Homes Limited (202411289)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411289

Connexus Homes Limited

30 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 handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a bungalow. The resident’s son acts as her representative. Throughout this report ‘the resident’ may also be used to describe actions taken on her behalf by her representative.
  2. On 16 October 2023 the resident reported black mould in the property to the landlord. On 31 October 2023 the landlord emailed to resident to explain its contractor would get in touch ‘today’.
  3. On 22 November 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She said she had received no contact about the mould she had reported. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 24 November 2023.
  4. On 1 December 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended the property. It identified that mould was present in the hallway and in the living room. It identified that a mould wash was required. It also said that the gutters and downpipe needed to be inspected to find the cause of the damp and mould.
  5. On 4 December 2023 the resident requested a copy of the survey that had been produced. The landlord’s contractor attended and inspected the gutters on 6 December 2023. The evidence suggests that no issues were found.
  6. On 12 December 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for not making contact with the resident in a timely manner.
  7. On 21 April 2024 the resident emailed the landlord. She was unhappy with the landlord’s contractor, and said it had not yet taken action to resolve the damp and mould, or made further contact with her. The resident requested that the landlord carry out a survey.
  8. The resident and landlord corresponded about the outstanding issues and the resident escalated her complaint on 30 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 1 May 2024.
  9. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 17 May 2024 to complete a survey. The landlord identified several contributing factors toward the mould growth in the property. To rectify the issues, it raised the need for the following:
    1. a mould wash of the affected areas
    2. the installation of a ‘felt roof vent’
    3. the installation of a ‘tiled roof vent’ which would then be connected to ‘extractors’
    4. an upgrade to the kitchen extractor and the clearance of plant growth from the attached external vent
    5. repointing of brickwork to the outside of the property
    6. the front door to be resealed
    7. the removal of silicone from an ‘air brick’
  10. On 7 June 2024 the landlord asked the resident for an extension (until 21 June 2024) to complete its stage 2 complaint response. It issued its stage 2 response on 21 June 2024. It:
    1. acknowledged that its contractor had provided a poor service by missing 2 appointments and not making further contact
    2. identified poor communication with the resident by it and its contractors
    3. outlined the works it had arranged as a result of the survey. It noted that the first round of works (a mould wash and the installation of loft insulation) had been completed on 10 June 2024
    4. said it had failed to complete a survey following the resident’s first report in October 2023 for 6 months
    5. offered £650 compensation, made up of:
      1. £550 for the delays in completing a survey, cleaning the guttering and downpipe, and in completing works that were promised
      2. £50 for a failing it had identified in its stage 1 complaint response
      3. £50 for not responding to 2 requests by the resident for copies of the inspection report taken in December 2023
  11. Further works were carried out on 25 and 26 June 2024 and completed on 16 July 2024. The landlord completed a post-works inspection the same day and confirmed that all works had been completed.

Events after the conclusion of the internal complaints process

  1. On 17 September 2024 the landlord made a further offer of compensation of an additional £2,350. This was in respect of historic failings it had identified, which are not reasonable for us to investigate. The landlord said that this was done at its discretion after it had updated its compensation policy after the time of the stage 2 complaint response. The evidence shows that this offer was accepted by the resident and later paid by the landlord. This took the total compensation offered in respect of the resident’s complaint to £3,000, including the £650 offered in respect of the period assessed in this report.
  2. The resident later raised concerns about the quality of the workmanship completed by the landlord. While this relates to the issues complained about, this forms the basis for a separate complaint. This is because the landlord completed the actions required of it, as set out in its stage 2 complaint response. For us to investigate this element of the resident’s complaint, the resident should request a new final complaint response from the landlord to ensure it has had an opportunity to consider its response to the resident’s concerns about the quality of the repairs completed.
  3. On 12 December 2024 the resident asked us to investigate. The resident said that after issues with the landlord’s workmanship had been identified, some works had been rescheduled but remained incomplete. The resident asked us to investigate the landlord’s historic handling of damp and mould reports and consider ordering the landlord to pay further compensation for alleged failings after its stage 2 complaint response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident asked us to investigate events which took place up to 7 years before they first approached this Service. The evidence shows that there is no evidence of reports of damp or mould at the property for approximately 3 years prior to October 2023. As a result, it would not be reasonable for us to investigate these historic concerns. Our investigation begins from the October 2023 reports.
  2. The resident raised concerns with us about the quality of some of the works which took place after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating, as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.

Handling of reports of damp and mould

  1. The evidence shows that the landlord’s descriptions of its failings contained within its stage 2 complaint response was accurate. This was because:
    1. we published our Spotlight Report on Complaints About Repairs in March 2019. It highlighted the importance of clear communication and of keeping residents updated about the progress of repairs. The landlord was correct to acknowledge its poor communication with the resident
    2. the landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy states that ‘routine repairs’ should be completed within 20 working days. It should therefore have carried out an initial inspection of the resident’s reports of damp and mould within 20 working days of 18 October 2023. There was a delay of 12 working days until the first inspection on 1 December 2023 and a further 6 month delay in completing the required survey
    3. it should have completed the routine repairs (inspection and cleaning of the guttering and downpipe) within 20 working days, but the landlord acknowledged that it did not do this. The guttering works were completed on 6 December 2023, but it is unclear when the downpipe was inspected. If there were any issues with the downpipe, they were likely resolved by 17 May 2024, as they were not noted in the survey taken on that date
    4. the landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy states that it will complete ‘Planned Maintenance Repairs’ within 12 weeks. It should have completed any ‘larger types of repairs’ within 12 weeks, as described in its policy. There was a delay of 8 months and 7 days between the resident’s first report and the landlord attending all of the required repairs, which were categorised as ‘planned’
    5. the landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy says that it will ‘share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections (with residents) to help them understand the findings’. It failed to respond to the resident’s request for copies of the inspections done on 2 occasions.
  2. The failings acknowledged by the landlord caused adverse effect to the resident. The evidence shows that this included frustration, disappointment, distress and inconvenience. The resident suffered additional distress because she was particularly concerned that the damp and mould may affect her health. This was exacerbated by lengthy and avoidable delays.
  3. The landlord’s Compensation Procedure and the associated Policy does not give a suggested amount that should be paid to residents for the types of service failings highlighted in this report. The amount paid was calculated at staff members’ discretion, in line with its procedure.
  4. Our Remedies Guidance states that where there have been failings which have adversely affected the resident which would amount to ‘maladministration’, compensation of up to £600 should be considered. In this case, within the landlord’s final complaint response it offered a total of £550 compensation for failings relating to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It offered a further £50 for not following its policy by providing copies of the inspection report to the resident, which she had requested on 2 occasions. The landlord therefore made an offer of reasonable redress.
  5. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it also explained how it had learned from the resident’s complaint. This included changes to its practices, in that it:
    1. no longer engaged the contractor which had been responsible for several failings
    2. set up its own ‘in-house damp and mould team’ and made changes to its infrastructure to help manage its subcontractors. The evidence supports that these steps may have been appropriate
    3. would proactively manage communication on behalf of its subcontractors
  6. The evidence shows that these were appropriate actions that were relevant to the failings seen in this case. In addition, the landlord submitted evidence of further learning it did in August 2024 to improve its service with regard to the handling of damp and mould reports. The landlord has therefore demonstrated that it learned from outcomes.
  7. In assessing whether there has been maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted the complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised its failures and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress, and learn from the complaint, can be as relevant as the original failures. In this case, the landlord acted appropriately by organising the necessary works and paying an appropriate amount of compensation to put things right. It also demonstrated that it took appropriate steps to learn from outcomes.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made on offer of reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.