Croydon Churches Housing Association Limited (202339342)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat with her children. She was concerned the landlord was not progressing repairs related to damp and mould it identified in a survey conducted in February 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp and mould in the property.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
4. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe and did not communicate effectively with the resident, resulting in unmet expectations. Although the landlord acknowledged its failings and offered compensation, this did not adequately reflect the cumulative impact of its shortcomings, particularly as delays continued following the final complaint response.
6. We found the landlord’s complaint handling to be satisfactory.

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.

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.

What we have not considered

7. The resident initially reported damp and mould to the landlord in 2019. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlord when problems happen or within a reasonable time, usually within 12 months. Based on this and the evidence available, we have focused our investigation on the period leading up to the formal complaint in October 2023 and the related responses. Any reference to previous events is for context.
8. The resident evidenced that she made another complaint to the landlord about damp and mould in her bathroom in February 2025. We have seen no evidence that this complaint has completed the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. As such, we have not considered it.
9. The resident was concerned about the impact on her children’s health. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have considered

10. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
11. Once on notice of a repair, the landlord must conduct the works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and housing law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is. This depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
12. The landlord has not provided a copy of its repairs policy that was applicable at the time. Its website currently states it aims to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 days and routine repairs within 28 days.
13. The resident reported damp and mould to the landlord on several occasions between March 2019 and January 2023. We have seen little evidence that the landlord took her reports seriously early on, proactively managed the investigations, or completed a comprehensive survey at the earliest opportunity.
14. A survey completed by the landlord in February 2023 confirmed mould around the windows. It recommended cleaning the affected areas, window overhauls, servicing extractor fans and the ventilation unit, and obtaining a gutter maintenance quote. The landlord failed to take these actions within a reasonable timeframe.
15. It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps us to understand its actions and decision making at the time. Due to the limited information contained within the landlord’s repair records, we are unable to conclude that it acted fully in line with its repairing obligations.
16. The landlord did not maintain effective communication with the resident throughout this case. It failed to provide regular updates, resulting in her having to chase for information and progress on repairs. This lack of communication likely exacerbated the situation, increased the impact on the resident, and further damaged the landlord-resident relationship.
17. It is concerning that, following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it did not progress the identified repairs in a timely manner. At stage 2, the landlord awarded £515 compensation, listed the outstanding works, and provided attendance dates. It also committed to arranging a heat loss calculation to explore potential improvements and to inspect the completed works. While these steps were appropriate, the delay in action following stage 1 reflects a failure to deliver timely and effective service.
18. Following stage 2, contractors missed scheduled appointments without notifying the resident. The landlord also failed to provide evidence of a completion inspection or its findings, highlighting poor communication and shortcomings in its oversight of repairs.
19. The resident told us that the repairs raised as part of this complaint were completed by the end of January 2024. The landlord’s records also reflect this.
20. The resident repeatedly raised concerns about damage to her belongings. The landlord has not demonstrated that it advised her to claim on contents insurance, provided liability insurer details, or responded to her concerns. This was unreasonable.
21. When there are failings by a landlord, we consider whether the compensation offered put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In assessing this, we consider whether its offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
22. The landlord acknowledged its failings and offered £515. However, considering there were further delays after its final response, missed appointments, poor communication, and failure to address damage to personal possessions, we consider £615 to be a more appropriate award. This reflects the cumulative impact on the resident and its failure to learn from outcomes.

23. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint, with a possible 10-day extension. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days, extendable by another 20 working days. These timeframes should not be exceeded without valid justification.
24. The landlord contacted the resident for an extension at stage 1. It issued its stage 1 response 3 days late. It did not apologise for this within its response to the resident. This was a minor shortcoming which did not cause a serious detriment. While this does not warrant a failure finding, we have raised this as a learning point.
25. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on time.

Learning

26. The landlord can improve its service by:
    1. Communicating more clearly and consistently with residents, especially when repair timeframes change.
    2. Capturing more information within its repair records.
    3. Responding to complaints within expected timeframes.