Curo Places Limited (202309540)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309540

Curo Places Limited

10 February 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

The compliant is about the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of damp and mould in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord until 8 November 2024. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 2 bedroom house. The resident and her family have recorded vulnerabilities including autism and asthma.
On 4 October 2022, the resident reported that she was having an issue with the mechanical ventilation heat recovery (MVHR) system in her property which was causing an issue with damp and mould. The resident had a previous complaint about this issue which she said had led her believe the filters in the vent needed replacing or servicing annually.
Internal communications show the landlord was unsure whose responsibility the servicing lay with but reached out to the contractor who fitted the unit to arrange for it to complete a service. The contractor arranged an appointment for 8 November 2022 but not did attend.
The resident raised concerns about the contractor on 15 November 2022, which the landlord logged as a formal complaint. The resident explained she had spent a lot of time on the phone chasing contractors and was annoyed at the lack of communication. As a resolution the resident requested the contractor to attend the property and for the landlord to resolve the ongoing damp and mould issues.
On 29 November 2022, the contractor confirmed it was awaiting a part prior to attending the appointment. The contractor attended on 31 January 2023, made adjustments to the ventilation unit, and confirmed it worked correctly and recommended some further works.
The resident wrote to the executive director at the landlord on 31 January 2023. She requested the landlord send a surveyor to the property and said she remained dissatisfied as the issue was still not resolved despite it going on for several years.
The landlord arranged for a different contractor to attend and service the unit. That contractor attended on 15 February 2023 and confirmed the unit was set up wrong and therefore made adjustments to the airflow.
The resident advised the landlord on 17 February 2023 that she believed the work by second contractor had made things worse.
The landlord gave no stage 1 complaint response to the resident but confirmed escalation to stage 2 on 20 March 2023 and following an agreed extension, confirmed it would respond by 4 April 2023.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 23 March 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. It found no mould in the property.
2. It tested the relative humidity levels and while high, they were within the required range.
3. It tested the MVHR unit and ensured the resident knew how to use the mobile booster switch properly.
4. It would raise a job for the bathroom door to be trimmed.
5. The surveyor agreed to speak to the neighbours to see the make and model of their ventilations units as the neighbours had no issues.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 27 March 2023. They key points were as follows:
1. It defined the complaint to be about:
  1. Ongoing issues with condensation causing damp and mould in the property which, despite several visits from surveyors and contractors, had not resolved.
  2. The lack of communication leaving the resident to chase.
  3. The landlord not making contractors aware of the family medical issues.
2. It confirmed following the surveyor visit on 23 March 2023, it would raise the follow-on works.
3. It apologised for the lack of communication but confirmed the relevant team would monitor any planned works and communicate issues to the resident.
4. It had listened to the resident’s concerns and provided training to its staff.
5. It confirmed the resident had attended its disability action group and provided feedback to the landlord on how improve its service.
6. It confirmed it would consider compensation when it completed the outstanding works but offered £10 for the delay in providing the stage 2 response.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 March 223 to ask if there was nothing more it could do to resolve the condensation issues. The resident said she could not live with the issue reoccurring yearly and said she would want to move home if the landlord could not resolve the issue.
On 31 March 2023, the resident wrote a letter to her neighbours asking if they suffered with the same issue.
The landlord confirmed in writing on 3 April 2023 that, according to its surveyor, it had resolved the damp and mould issue, and the only outstanding job was to trim the bathroom door. The surveyor reiterated this conclusion on 2 May 2023.
On 9 May 2023, the resident said the water and mould drops had reappeared.
Internal emails provided by the landlord show it discussed if it could consider further works but it was satisfied the ventilation unit was working as it should and the level of mould so minor that it would expect a resident to manage it.
On 2 June 2023, the landlord commissioned a further independent contractor to attend to review the ventilation system.
The independent contractor visited on 19 June 2023, it recommended the unit be cleaned, for the 90 degree bends in the pipework to be removed and that the unit would benefit from an automatic boost module.
The landlord contacted the original contractor, who had inspected the unit on 31 January 2023, to ask it about the 90 degree bends in the pipe and if this would affect the extraction of moisture. The contractor responded to say the unit airflow was doing more than needed and confirmed that 90 degree bends were common on that type of ventilation unit.
After chasing the landlord for updates following the independent inspection, the landlord contacted the resident on 5 July 2023 to say it could only reiterate advice previously given to alleviate the condensation in the bathroom. It did confirm that it would service the resident’s unit 6 monthly instead of annually to see if that helped to reduce the mould.
The resident agreed to the 6 monthly servicing on the same date but also reported that following the contractors visit, the boost function was not working. The contractor inspected the unit again on 2 August 2023 and confirmed the unit worked correctly with the correct extraction rates.
The resident contacted the CEO of the landlord on 17 August 2023 to express concerns about the ongoing condensation, damp, and mould in the bathroom. Following which the landlord undertook a further visit to the property as part of this the landlord considered the suitability of the property for the resident.
During the visit, the tenancy manager noted that the property seemed humid and therefore the landlord decided it would check the humidity levels in the property to satisfy itself that the levels were as they should be.
The resident provided a letter from her doctor on 22 August 2023 which highlighted that affect the housing situation had on the resident’s mental and physical health.
The surveyor attended the property on 26 September 2023. It noted that the data readings with regards to humidity were all within the required range. The surveyor further noted that it found no evidence of damp or mould to the extent the resident claimed in the property. The landlord confirmed this in writing to the resident the following day.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 27 November 2023 to report that the damp and mould had returned for a fourth year and said she was staying at family members houses to use the bathroom.
The landlord visited the property on 23 January 2024 following which it raised an order for its contractor to install a vericon monitoring system to gather data around the humidity of the home, for a mould wash in the bathroom and a further service of the ventilation system. It completed the further works on 20 February 2024 and installed the vericon dots on the 21 February 2024. The only outstanding work at that stage was for the ceiling in the bathroom to be replastered and painted.
The landlord wrote the resident on 13 March 2024 to confirm its initial findings from the monitoring system. The key points were as follows:
1. The devices showed that the resident’s home was not warm enough and indicated that the heating was not being used effectively to maintain correct temperatures.
2. It confirmed a home temperature should be between 20 and 22 degrees and the results show the low temperature in the house had caused high humidity in the home.
3. If the resident had financial pressures, it could refer her to its customer accounts department for support.
4. Its advice stayed the same that the resident should wipe excess moisture off the walls, use a squeegee and ensure the MVHR unit was used.
5. It confirmed it had reviewed all possible causes of damp and mould and therefore concluded that the issues were because of the resident not heating the home properly.
The resident responded on 14 March 2024 to advice that she did not let the heating get below 16 degrees and kept the property between 16 and 20 degrees.
On 3 April 2024, the landlord confirmed the vericon date had continued to show that the temperature in the house was not at a suitable level to ensure damp and mould did not form and reoffered the resident help with the cost of heating.
On 28 May 2024, the landlord confirmed it would undertake a further visit with the surveyor and inspect the cavity wall insulation. Internal communications show it considered this to be the last investigation it would do before closing the complaint.
On 11 June 2024, the surveyor confirmed that there was no damp and mould in the property or damage to the cavity wall insulation, but the issue was a result of the management of condensation in the bathroom.
On 21 June 2024, the landlord received contact from environmental health to say it would attend the resident’s property to undertake a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) inspection. Following the inspection, it confirmed it had found no hazard in the resident’s property.
The resident moved out of the property on 8 November 2024. The landlord provided its final stage 2 response on 28 November 2024. The key points were as follows:
1. It gave an overview of the steps it had taken to address the resident’s concerns, including multiple visits with surveyors and its director.
2. The visits concluded that the issue was condensation, and it gave the resident relevant guidance to manage the situation.
3. It had carried out plastering work and anti-mould paint and had installed aqua panels in the bathroom but said it had emphasised the most reliable way to manage condensation was by regularly wiping down the affected areas after showering.
4. It had offered the resident cladding to the bathroom and use of a squeegee, but the resident declined this offer.
5. It believed its combination of improvements and practical advice were sufficient to address the underlying issues.
6. It offered compensation of £650, made up of the following:
  1. £350.00 time and impact payment in recognition of the delays experienced.
  2. £50.00 for missed appointments.
  3. £25.00 for the delay in escalation of the Stage 2 investigation
  4. £25.00 for recognised complaint handling errors
  5. £200.00 contribution to the cost of running the dehumidifier.
In referring to this Service, the resident said she felt forced to leave the property due to it not being suitable because of their health needs and that she wanted compensation for the significant amount of time the issue had gone on for.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman is aware that the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about communication and that she felt discriminated against due to her disability as part of the landlord’s investigation into the damp and mould and her management transfer application. The resident did not bring that complaint to this Service for investigation. The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction sets out that it can only investigate complaints that have been through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and that have been brought to the attention of this Service. Therefore, any mention of the issues raised as part of that other complaint are for context only.
Throughout the duration of the resident’s complaint to the landlord she raised the impact the damp and mould had on her and her families mental and physical health. The Ombudsman does not dispute this; however, we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the delays and the residents mental health. However, we will take into account the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s mental health is more appropriate for the courts, and the resident has the option to seek legal advice if he the wishes to pursue this.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s customer commitment document sets out that it will respond to repairs within the following timescales:
1. It will attend an emergency repair within the same day.
2. It will attend to a priority repair before the end of the next working day.
3. It will respond to routine repairs at a mutually convenient appointment agreed with a resident.
The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the resident is responsible for keeping the home ventilated to reduce condensation.
The landlord’s customer promise with regards to dealing with damp and mould states that it would open a case for every diagnosed occurrence of damp and mould. It will prioritise cases where there are people living with a home who have health concerns or other vulnerabilities that could be made worse by the mould. It states that it will provide customers with practical information about how to minimise condensation where it is contributing to mould forming.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days at stage 1 and provide a response within 10 working days. At stage 2 it will provide a response within 20 working days. Any extension at stage 2 would not exceed 20 working days without good reason which must be explained to the resident.

The landlords handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property.

Following the resident reporting an issue with MVHR unit and damp, and mould, the landlord arranged for an inspection. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
However, in her first report about the unit not functioning properly, the resident raised that she had previously been informed by the contractor that the units need servicing, and its filters changed annually. This is an assertion that the resident raised numerous times and that which was confirmed by the contractor during its inspection in January 2023. The evidence provided by the landlord suggests they were aware of this too and therefore it is not appropriate that it does not have an effective system in place to ensure the units are serviced on a regular basis to ensure correct functioning.
Internal communications reveal that the landlord spent a significant amount of time determining which contractor was responsible for the inspection. Meanwhile, the resident continued to live with damp and mould. When residents report damp and mould, landlords need to act swiftly to assess the severity, understand any risks, and consider temporary solutions while arranging further inspections. This is especially important when residents have health concerns affected by damp and mould. The landlord’s lack of prompt action left the resident chasing updates and living in a worsening situation.
The contractor and landlord rescheduled the inspection twice and did not attend until 31 January 2023, which is unsatisfactory. If the contractor could not attend until January, it would have been appropriate for the landlord’s own operative to assess the situation and determine if there was any risk to the resident during the interim period. This delay was unreasonable and given that the landlord had arranged the inspection twice, it was outside the expectations set out in its repairs policy.
Following the contractor’s visit on 31 January 2023, the landlord arranged for the recommended works to be carried out on 16 February 2023, in line with its policy. However, the contractor did not remove 10mm off the internal doors, as they did not think it was necessary. Given that the contractor who recommended the works was a ventilation specialist, the landlord should have ensured that this element of the work was completed. This oversight led to the landlord having to raise the works again, causing further disruption for the resident.
Following the further inspection in March 2023, the surveyor said it would speak to the resident’s neighbours to understand if they had issues and if not, ascertain the make of their ventilation units. The landlord has provided no evidence that it did this. Landlord’s need to ensure where it promises to undertake action it does so or provides an explanation as to why it may have decided not to. Not doing so caused the resident to write to the neighbours herself.
Before providing its Stage 2 response, the landlord spoke with the resident on 20 March 2023, to discuss the complaint. During this conversation, the resident mentioned that when the contractor came to perform the mould wash in February, the landlord had not informed the contractor about her asthma diagnosis and the need to be cautious with fumes. Since the landlord was aware of this medical issue and confirmed that the information was in its system, it must ensure an effective system is in place to communicate known medical issues to contractors when necessary. This would allow for appropriate decisions regarding the products used and enable the resident to make any necessary arrangements. Failing to do so caused the resident to unexpectedly leave her property.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 27 March 2023. The next day, it informed the resident that the surveyor’s findings indicated the issue was not damp and mould, and therefore, it was her responsibility. While the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified contractors, given the length of time the issue had persisted, it would have been helpful for the landlord to offer further advice and guidance on managing the issue. Additionally, explaining why it did not believe the issue was its responsibility would have helped manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord contacted the resident following the works on 3 April 2023 to say, in its opinion, the issues were resolved, and its surveyor reiterated this point on 25 April 2023. However, given that the resident still had the condensation issue, this would have been a further opportunity for it to have provided guidance on the steps the resident could take to help alleviate the condensation in the property. Not doing so would have left the resident feeling helpless in a situation that she believed was worsening.
Following the surveyor’s results, the resident questioned the surveyor’s ability to understand the damp and mould, as well as the accuracy of the devices used. A landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion and expertise of its qualified surveyors to make informed decisions. The surveyor provided further clarification on the equipment used and explained why they were confident in the accuracy of the results. While the Ombudsman understands that residents may question a professional’s ability when living in a difficult situation, the landlord is entitled to trust its qualified staff. The surveyor’s response was reasonable and useful in this context.
Given the residents ongoing reported issues, the landlord appropriately arranged for a third party independent contractor to attend to inspect the unit. Given that it had been inspected previously by 2 contractors and the resident was still reporting the issue, it was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to arrange for an independent review of the ventilation system. This highlighted its commitment to resolve the issue for the resident and for it to satisfy itself that its previous contractor’s opinion had been correct.
Following the recommendations of the independent contractor, the landlord consulted the original contractor to discuss the findings. The original contractor confirmed that the unit was functioning correctly during their visit in January 2023 and explained that the bends in the pipe did not affect the unit’s ability to ventilate the property. It was appropriate for the landlord to discuss the findings with the contractor and rely on their opinion, as they were best placed to understand the functioning of their own unit.
Furthermore, the resident advised the landlord that when the third party contractor attended it said it had not seen a unit like the one installed in the resident’s property and that they usually work with different ventilation systems. It would have been useful for the landlord to have clarified the contractor’s ability prior to sending it to inspect or to have provided reassurances to the resident that it was satisfied with the ability of that contractor to consider if the unit functioned correctly. However, as noted above, the landlord appropriately clarified the findings with the original contractor.
However, following that inspection, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it communicated the findings to the resident until the resident chased the landlord for an update. Given the distress and frustration, the issue was causing the resident, it would have been useful for the landlord to have contacted the resident at the earliest opportunity to reiterate its position that the machine was working as it should. This also would have been a further opportunity for it to have given advice to the resident on managing condensation in the home. Not doing so would have frustrated the resident further.
The landlord at that stage agreed to enter the resident’s unit into a cycle of 6 monthly servicing as opposed to annually. Given the reported ongoing issue and that its investigations so far had led it to conclude there was no fault, it was appropriate of the landlord to consider this as a possible resolution to the issue.
The resident reported an issue with the boost functionality on 5 July 2023. The landlord raised a repair request on 13 July 2023, in accordance with its repairs policy. The contractor attended on 2 August 2023 to inspect the unit and make any necessary repairs. This response was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy and was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
Following the resident’s contact with the CEO of the landlord on 17 August 2023, it arranged a further visit to the property. Internal emails show that the landlord was satisfied that it had done all it could to resolve the issue for the resident and that the resident should manage the condensation. While it was appropriate of the CEO to respond and arrange a visit, by doing so it may have raised the resident’s expectations that it could do more to rectify the issue.
This would have been a further opportunity for it to communicate to the resident that it believed there was no damp and mould issue and that it was her responsibility to deal with the condensation and to highlight the relevant part in her tenancy agreement or its policy. Not doing so raised the resident’s expectations that it may have completed further works in her property.
Additionally, the internal emails provided by the landlord show that it believed it was due to close the complaint as it was satisfied it had done all it could to resolve the issue. While the landlord was satisfied that it had done all it could, it was also arranging another inspection of the property. This response was at times confusing, and the mixed messages likely frustrated the resident. Landlord’s need to ensure they have clear, effective communication with residents to manage their expectations.
Internal communication from 6 September 2023 shows the complaints team questioning why the tenancy manager had offered a further visit to the resident, stating that it only found out when they called the resident to close the complaint. Landlords need to ensure they have effective and robust case files so that all staff are aware of the status of repairs. It is unhelpful and frustrating for residents when the landlord lacks effective internal communication.
Following the visit in August 2023, the landlord arranged for an inspection of the humidity levels in the property to be done. This was reasonable in the circumstances and showed that the landlord was considering all options to find a solution for the resident.
Furthermore, internal emails from around the time of visit show that the landlord was considering whether the property was suitable for the resident and if a management transfer was necessary. Given the ongoing nature of the issue and the resident’s consistent reports of its impact on her and her family’s health, it was appropriate for the landlord to escalate its response and consider a move as a necessary option in this case.
However, evidence provided by the landlord shows that in November 2023 it was satisfied that the damp and mould issue was not serious enough to make the resident eligible for a management transfer for that reasoning. The landlord has provided no evidence to show that it communicated this to the resident at that time. Given that it had raised the resident’s expectations that she may be eligible for a transfer, it would have been appropriate for it to communicate its decision to the resident to manage her expectations and to have provided advice on how she could facilitate her own move.
Following a letter from the residents GP and further communication from her in September 2023 in which the resident expressed suicidal thoughts. The evidence shows the landlord made a safeguarding referral for the resident and communicated this to the resident. Landlords have a duty of care towards its residents, and it was therefore appropriate that it made the referral for the resident.
The landlord appropriately undertook a visit to the property to check the humidity levels in the property. Given that its own staff had noted the humidity levels, it was appropriate of the landlord to satisfy itself that the levels were within the required range.
However, while the surveyor conveyed the results to the resident the day after its visit, this would have been a further opportunity for it to provide further advice and guidance on how the resident could alleviate the issues herself and to link its reasoning for not taking further action to the responsibilities as set out in the tenancy agreement.
On 27 November 2023 when the resident reported that the issue had returned for a fourth winter and that she was staying at other properties to use the bathroom, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it responded to the resident. While the Ombudsman understands that the landlord was satisfied it had done all it could to address the issue, the landlord still has a duty of care towards the resident and to act on her reports that she was not staying at the property. While internal communications show it was taking action, it would have been appropriate for it to communicate that to the resident to reassure her that it was taking her concerns seriously or to have set out why it would not take any further action. Not doing caused the resident to reach out again to the landlord’s CEO.
The landlord’s housing team communicated to the resident on 1 December 2023 that the damp and mould were not serious enough to make her eligible for a management transfer based on a medical and welfare concern. The landlord is entitled to rely on its qualified professionals to decide the level and seriousness of damp and mould in a property and given that its investigations so far had shown no issue at the property, it was reasonable that it came to this decision.
Given the residents ongoing reports of damp and mould, the landlord arranged a further visit to the resident’s property. As it was winter and the landlord had not inspected the property during a winter period, it was reasonable of it to undertake a further inspection to satisfy itself that its previous assertions had been correct; that the issue was a condensation issue that was a resident’s responsibility.
Following the visit, on 23 January 2024, the landlord agreed to install a vericon monitoring system so that it could study the temperatures and humidity in the resident’s property. While it was reasonable of it to do this so that it could fully understand the reasoning behind the issues the resident was facing, given that for the previous months the landlord had been satisfied it could do no more for the resident, it is unclear why the landlord had not considered this option sooner. Not doing so caused a significant delay in the resident and landlord understanding if there was a further solution for the issue and may have meant the resident could have lived with the issue for a shorter period.
The landlord also agreed to complete a mould wash which it completed on 21 February 2024. It also installed the vericon monitoring system on this date too. This was just 4 weeks after the landlord had raised the works and therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
Following the mould wash, the resident was due to have her ceiling replastered and painted. The evidence shows that the contractor raised this with the landlord after its visit on 20 February 2024. However, the landlord did not arrange these further works, causing the resident to chase the landlord in April and May 2024. The landlord did not arrange to attend until 12 June 2024. Landlords need to have effective and robust systems in place to track and monitor repairs. Failing to do so caused the resident to spend time chasing the landlord for updates.
Furthermore, as the redecorating works were not completed promptly, the resident reported that mould had started to grow in the affected areas on 20 May 2024. Landlord’s need to ensure that they attend repair jobs within reasonable timescales to ensure the issues are rectified within appropriate timescales and to prevent the reoccurrence of issues.
Additionally, the resident reported that she was trying to apply for a home swap and the delay in completing the works and the return of the mould were affecting her ability to move. This is unfortunate given the resident’s situation and the landlord’s lack of action highlighted its lack of empathy at that stage for the situation the resident found herself in.
Due to the resident’s report of mould, the landlord agreed to undertake a mould wash prior to any redecorating works beginning. The landlord attended on 3 June 2024 to complete these works which highlighted it took swift action to complete the wash. Given the resident’s known health conditions, it was appropriate that it attended to complete the wash in such a reasonable timeframe.
Following the vericon monitoring system being place for a month, the landlord provided its findings to the resident; that the evidence showed she was not heating her home correctly. Given this finding, it was appropriate of the landlord to give the resident advice on the ideal temperature to keep the home at and to offer a referral to the relevant team for financial support if the resident needed it. The Ombudsman understands that it can be difficult where a landlord is satisfied that it has done all can and a resident disagrees. In this situation, the landlord had evidence which directly supported its previous findings that the issue was not one that further works would resolve and therefore, it was appropriate that it offered the resident a referral to its financial support team with regards to heating support.
On the same date, it also reiterated its advice to the resident and gave information on how best to manage the heating to help alleviate the humidity and therefore the condensation in the property. It also offered the resident the use of a squeegee to help her in wiping down any excess moisture following the use of the bathroom. It also provided the resident with the data from the vericon monitors so that she could see herself the data it had shown. It was reasonable of the landlord to rely on the data the system had given it to reach the conclusion that it did and therefore reasonable of it to reiterate its advice to the resident on how to manage the condensation in her home.
The landlord continued to monitor the data the monitoring system provided for a further 2 months. Given the length that the issue had been ongoing for, it was appropriate of the landlord to monitor the resident’s property for a prolonged period to ensure it received an accurate and wide picture of the humidity and temperatures in the property.
On 11 June 2024, the landlord undertook a further survey of the resident’s property to inspect the cavity wall insulation. While it was reasonable of the landlord to investigate the cavity wall insulation, it would have been useful for it to have undertaken this inspection at an earlier opportunity given that the issue had been ongoing for some years at this stage.
Furthermore, while the Ombudsman can understand that the landlord may have felt a further visit might have been useful for the resident, it may not have been the most effective solution and raised the resident’s expectations that it might take further action. It may have been more appropriate for the landlord to have a provided a formal response to the resident setting out the evidence from the qualified professionals that had led to its conclusion that the issue was a condensation issue which it was satisfied the resident could manage and to confirm that it would be taking no further action, linking that reasoning to a policy. These repeated inspections continued to raise the resident’s expectations that it would do more, when the internal communication provided shows that the landlord had been satisfied for some time that it could do no more.
On 26 June 2024, when the landlord sent further information from the vericon monitoring it communicated to the resident that as it was particularly hot weather at the time, the resident needed to ensure she ventilated the property. The resident responded to say the messages given by the landlord were at times mixed and differed depending on which person or contractor she spoke to. The evidence provided does highlight that at times the resident was given mixed messages about when to have windows open and closed. While the Ombudsman understands that professionals can have different opinions, it would have been useful in this case for it to ensure the information and advice it was giving the resident was clear. Not doing so caused frustration and confusion for the resident.
In June 2024, the resident approached the local authority due to the ongoing issues with damp and mould. The local authority attended and completed a HHSRS inspection and confirmed it found no hazard in the property. Given the findings of the inspection, this would have been a further opportunity for the landlord to set out to the resident its position based on the professional opinion of both the inspector and its own qualified surveyors. Yet it has provided no evidence to show that provided a further clarification to the resident which it would have been useful to do so.
As a final attempt to help alleviate the issues for the resident, the landlord installed aqua panels in the property which are designed to resist moisture. The landlord did this as the resident said due to her health conditions, she struggled to be able to wipe down the moisture. Given that the resident had raised concerns about her ability to wipe down the moisture herself, the landlords offer to install the panels was appropriate.
To conclude, the landlord initially delayed investigating the issue for the resident. Although it did reach out and commission various inspections of the resident’s property and ventilation, and attempted to implement solutions, its response was reactionary and not pro-active. The landlord offered mixed messages to the resident and raised her expectations by undertaking further investigations, even when internal communication suggested it was satisfied with its efforts. Furthermore, while the landlord did take action to help the resident, these actions were delayed, causing the issue to persist for a long time. Landlords need to manage residents’ expectations effectively. The landlord’s communication was poor, and the resident often had to chase for responses or escalate her complaint to senior staff.
In its final review of this complaint, the landlord offered compensation to the resident for this element of the complaint of £350 as well as £200 for the use of a dehumidifier. While it was appropriate of the landlord to accept its failings in this case and accept that it had given the resident mixed messages, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that this amount is reflective of the failings identified in this case.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property.
A compensation order has been made for £750. This is made up of the following and should be paid less any amount previously paid in this case:
1. £300 distress and inconvenience caused.
2. £250 for time taken by the resident.
3. £200 previously offered for the use of a dehumidifier.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 15 November 2022, which it acknowledged, in line with its complaints policy, on 17 November 2022.
However, following this, the landlord failed to provide the resident with any formal stage 1 complaint. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the landlord must provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. The landlord’s complete failure to provide the resident with any response showed a complete disregard to her complaint and the issues she had complained about.
Furthermore, when it decided to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 23 February 2023, there is no evidence to show that it realised that it had not at that stage provided a stage 1 complaint. Not only did this deny the resident the opportunity of pursuing her complaint through a 2 stage complaints process, but its lack of complaint response also delayed the resident in receiving a resolution to her complaint and the opportunity to refer her complaint to this Service at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 20 March 2023 to request a 10 day extension to the complaint response. The Code sets out that where a landlord cannot provide a response within the 20 working daytime period, it should communicate with the resident and set out when it would give the response. Therefore, while it is not preferable for a landlord to delay in giving a response, it did communicate the delay to the resident and provide her with a date of when to expect a response; this was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response, in line with its communicated timeframe, on 27 March 2023.
In its response, the landlord stated it would consider compensation once the outstanding works were completed. The only outstanding work mentioned in the stage 2 response was trimming the bathroom door, which was completed on 27 April 2023. Despite this, the landlord kept the complaint open for an additional 19 months. During this period, the resident continued to raise complaints on numerous occasions. By keeping the complaint open, the landlord denied the resident the opportunity to pursue her issues through a formal complaint process and receive a formal response.
The Code specifies that a complaint response must be provided when the answer to the complaint is known, not when all outstanding actions are completed. Therefore, the landlord should have considered compensation at the earliest opportunity, closed the complaint, and logged new ones if necessary. Its response was not in line with the Code, and it was inappropriate to keep the same complaint open for 19 months.
During a live chat with the landlord on 7 May 2024, the resident requested to raise a complaint about the time taken for the landlord to complete the repairs to her ceiling. In response, the landlord said it advised against a complaint as the process was quite long.
Furthermore, when the resident said while she understood she had an open complaint about the damp and mould she wanted to raise one about the lack of communication, the landlord responded to say she could not open a new complaint as she already had one ongoing. This information is completely incorrect and inappropriate. The Code sets out acceptable exclusions for not accepting a complaint and having a complaint already open is not a reason. The complaint the resident wished to raise was about a different issue and therefore, the landlord should have ensured it opened a new complaint. Not doing so denied her the opportunity of pursuing her further issues through a complaints process and denied her the opportunity for her issues to be investigated thoroughly.
The landlord gave its final response to the complaint on 28 November 2024, only doing so after the resident had ended her tenancy. This was 19 months after the initial stage 2 response and around 17 months after it had completed the actions suggested in its complaint response. This is unsatisfactory and was not in line with the dispute resolution principles.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling fell well below the standard expected by the Ombudsman. It failed to give a stage 1 response, gave a stage 2 response but then kept the same complaint open for a significant period during which time the resident raised other complaint which it would have been appropriate to log as new complaint and provide formal responses for. Instead, the landlord kept the original complaint open. Furthermore, it tried to dissuade the resident from logging a further formal complaint.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
A compensation order has been made for £400, made up of the following:
1. £100 for failing to provide a response at stage 1.
2. £200 for failing to log new complaints.
3. £100 for the time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £1,150. This is to be paid less any amount previously paid in this case and is made up of the following:
1. £750 for the failings identified in its handling of the damp and mould.
2. £400 for its complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination a senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
As part of its 2 complaint responses, the landlord detailed that it had undertaken process changes and learning with regards to its handling of damp and mould. Therefore, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must set out to this Service any learning it found and how it has embedded that learning into its policies and practises.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.