East End Homes Limited (202447180)

Decision
Case ID	202447180
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	East End Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	24 February 2026

Background

The resident lives with his wife and their 6 children in a 3-bedroom flat. Two of the children have asthma, and he and his wife have long-term health conditions which require careful management. He reported damp and mould in the property and said the household was overcrowded.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and overcrowding.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s responses to reports of the damp, mould, and overcrowding.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Responses to the damp, mould, and overcrowding

The landlord delayed completing damp and mould repairs and did not keep to its Repairs Policy timeframes. It missed opportunities to put things right sooner. It knew the household was vulnerable, but it did not show how it considered this in its repairs approach. It considered what, if anything, it could do in relation to the reports of overcrowding and explained the constraints it was under.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, there is no evidence this had a significant impact on the resident at that stage. Its following actions were timely and complied with both its policy and the Code.

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 24 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication and repair delays in its handling of the damp and mould. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 24 March 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: inspects the damp and mould in the property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards the most likely cause of the damp and mould whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the work whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works When the inspection is completed, the landlord must: agree a communication plan with the resident to ensure it provides updates on any changes in timeframes and details of any further necessary works if required provide a named point of contact for the resident for these repairs write to the resident to confirm the communication plan, point of contact, and a timeframe for when work will likely begin and finish	No later than 24 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 December 2024	The resident made a complaint. In summary, he said: there was damp and mould in the property that had not been resolved despite previous repairs he was concerned about the long-term health impact on his asthmatic children the property was overcrowded and unsafe because of the lack of space the situation was affecting the household’s wellbeing the landlord disregarded the household’s situation as it had previously sent multiple tradespeople to complete a repair the landlord did not move the household when it completed historic major repairs, despite him recovering from surgery To resolve his complaint, he asked the landlord to provide an alternative, safe, and suitable living arrangement for his family.
20 December 2024	The landlord gave its stage 1 response. In summary, it said: it had not received any reports of damp and mould since 2018 when it received the resident’s complaint it inspected the property and arranged a 3-stage mould treatment around the windows, which was booked for 20 December 2024 during the inspection it found extractor fans were turned off, blew cold air into the property and new extractor fans were needed temporary accommodation was not necessary it apologised for not telling the resident that multiple operatives were attending and would share this information in the future no major works had taken place since the resident moved in the resident had been registered for a ‘management move’ since 2013 and was in band 2A it recognised that the resident needed a 5-bedroom home, but due to the housing shortage it could not provide a timeframe for when a property would be available its Lettings Team would send the resident a medical assessment form to complete
Between 21 December 2024 and 14 January 2025	The resident escalated his complaint. He repeated his concerns raised in stage 1. He also said: there were major works after a leak and asked the landlord to correct its stage 1 response the landlord inspected the property 6 months ago, took photos of the mould, but did not update him the extractor fans blew cold air into the property, which worsened the property condition the landlord had historically installed thermal boarding which worsened the damp and mould the landlord had not considered the impact of the overcrowding or damp and mould on the household he wanted a structural survey and action plan on how the landlord would resolve the damp and mould
19 January 2025	The landlord gave its stage 2 response. It repeated its stage 1 findings and said: it inspected the property, arranged a mould wash and upgrades to the ventilation system the mould was minimal and temporary accommodation was not needed appointments are made in advance with residents so they can make appropriate arrangements ahead of the repair visit there was a shortage of properties that met the household’s needs, and it could not give a timeframe for when he would be offered one
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us. He said the landlord had not resolved the damp and mould and the property was cold. He said new fans had been installed that blew cold air into the flat, which made the mould worse. He said he was overcrowded, and the property condition was not suitable for his vulnerable household. To resolve his complaint, he wanted the landlord to: arrange an independent damp and mould survey carry out a lasting repair to resolve the damp and mould assess if the property was suitable for the household compensate him for the distress and inconvenience

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 responses to the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and overcrowding.
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

The resident has brought a separate complaint to us about the landlord’s handling of a Subject Access Request (SAR), an unarranged visit, and the effective date of his rehousing application (ref 202538302). That complaint will be investigated separately. This investigation therefore focuses on the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and overcrowding.
After the landlord completed the repairs set out in this report, the resident made new reports of damp, mould, and a leaking radiator. As these are new concerns, the landlord has not yet had a fair opportunity to investigate or respond. We may only consider issues the landlord has had a reasonable chance to address through its complaints process. For this reason, these concerns fall outside the scope of this investigation. If the resident is unhappy with how the landlord has handled the new concerns, we recommend that he raises a new complaint so the landlord can respond in line with its Complaints Policy.

What we have investigated

There were some events that happened after the landlord issued its stage 2 response. We have considered these events as they related to the issues raised in the complaint. For this reason, our investigation focuses on events between December 2024 and September 2025.

Response to damp and mould

On 9 December 2024 the resident made a complaint about overcrowding and damp and mould in the property. The landlord inspected the property on 11 December 2024, 2 days later. It recorded mould around the windows throughout the property and an old fan near the front door that drew in cold air. It decided a temporary move was not needed and said it would consider a ventilation survey and a future window renewal programme. It booked a 3‑stage mould wash for 20 December 2024.
The landlord inspected the property and arranged the repairs in a reasonable timeframe. This showed it took the resident’s concerns seriously. However, it did not clearly communicate the next steps to the resident, who contacted it on 17 December 2024 for an update. This was not consistent with its Repairs Policy to provide a customer-focused service.
On 18 December 2024 the landlord appropriately apologised for the lack of communication. It confirmed the mould wash booking and said it had raised an order for a ventilation survey.
On 20 December 2024 the landlord gave its stage 1 response. It confirmed it had not received any damp and mould reports since 2018, and it had not carried out any major works. The landlord explained the actions it had taken since the resident’s complaint and said it did not need to provide temporary accommodation.
The landlord’s response was appropriate. It checked the property’s repair history and clarified that the resident did not need temporary accommodation. This addressed the resident’s concern that the property was unsuitable and allowed the landlord to satisfy itself about the property condition.
The landlord also committed to replacing the extractor fans to improve ventilation. It apologised for not telling the resident that several tradespeople would attend. It explained that it works on an appointment basis to give residents time to make plans to accommodate the repair.
The resident’s concerns were understandable. However, landlords sometimes cannot limit how many tradespeople are needed for a repair. It was reasonable that the landlord explained that it would improve its communication in the future.
On 21 December 2024 and 14 January 2025, the resident escalated his complaint. He repeated that the landlord had carried out major works and said it had installed thermal boarding historically. He said the landlord did not consider the impact of the property conditions on his family.
During this period, the landlord rearranged the mould wash on at least 3 occasions, although the reasons remain unclear. It later recorded that the resident refused the mould wash on 16 January 2025 as he wanted the landlord to investigate the damp wall. The landlord appropriately explained why the treatment was necessary. The landlord completed the mould wash on 26 February 2025, 77 days after the first inspection. This did not meet the 28-day timeframe set out in the landlord’s Repairs Policy, prolonging the resident’s distress.
The landlord also completed the ventilation survey during this time, which recommended replacing the extractor fans. The landlord’s records show it replaced the fans on or before 17 March 2025. The landlord needed to replace a windowpane containing a vent, which may have contributed to the delay. Even so, the repairs overall took much longer than the policy allowed. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated the delays with the resident, adding to his loss of confidence in the landlord’s handling of his concerns.
On 19 January 2054 the landlord gave its stage 2 response. It reviewed its stage 1 response and repeated that it had not received any damp and mould reports since 2018. When it received the resident’s complaint, it arranged an inspection, ventilation survey, and mould wash. The landlord missed the opportunity to identify its lack of communication following the initial property inspection.
The landlord discussed the thermal board issue with the resident when it spoke to him after he refused the mould wash. During that conversation it confirmed it held no records showing it had installed thermal boards. However, the landlord did not include these findings in its stage 2 response. It missed the opportunity to give the resident a clear written response. This likely caused him frustration and that his concerns had been overlooked.
The resident had also told the landlord that the property was cold, which affected the household. Cold and damp conditions are recognised in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) as potential risks to health, especially for vulnerable people. The landlord knew about the household’s vulnerabilities, but there is no evidence it considered the impact of the cold or what practical steps it could take to improve the property’s warmth. It missed the opportunity to review whether further action was needed to reduce the risk to the household.
The resident contacted Environmental Health team as he was concerned that the damp, mould and overcrowding in the property were a health hazard. Environmental Health shared its inspection report with the landlord on 6 February 2025. It noted mould in most rooms, recommended mould treatment, replacement of extractor fans, window checks, and new thermostatic radiator valves (TRV’s) on radiators. It gave the landlord 1 month to complete the works.
It is unclear from the evidence when the landlord completed the repairs. Records show it checked the windows on or before 21 June 2025 and installed the TRV’s on or around 10 September 2025. Considering the resident reported damp and mould in December 2024, these works took significantly longer than the landlord’s policy timeframes.
Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair, including walls, windows, and ventilation system. Given this duty and Environmental Health findings, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have reinspected the property once it completed the works. This would have allowed it to satisfy itself about the property and show that it honoured its complaint commitment to monitor the damp and mould.
The landlord initially responded to the resident’s concerns within a reasonable timeframe. However, its overall oversight of the damp and mould concerns was poor. Repairs took significantly longer than its policy timeframes, prolonging the vulnerable household’s distress. The household had a respiratory condition, yet there is no evidence this information informed the landlord’s decisions or approach.
These failures caused the resident distress, inconvenience, and a loss of trust in the landlord’s ability to resolve his concerns. Our order of £400 compensation is in line with the landlord’s policy. It is also in accordance with our remedies guidance which sets out that payments of £100 to £600 are appropriate to put right failings where the landlord has made some attempts to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident. In ordering £400 in compensation, we have considered the landlord’s poor communication, repair delays, and overall distress and inconvenience it caused the resident.
Response to overcrowding

In response to the resident’s overcrowding concerns, the landlord confirmed he was on its internal management move register. It explained it could not provide a timeframe on when a 5-bedroom property would become available as there was a shortage of them. This was a reasonable response, as the landlord provided a clear explanation of its position and the constraints affecting its ability to offer a suitable property.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint dated 9 December 2024 within 1 working day. This met the Code, which requires landlords to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
On 20 December 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. This met the 10-working days timeframe set out in the Code and its policy. The landlord’s complaint definition also complied with the Code.
On 21 December 2024 the resident escalated his complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge this within 5 working days, prompting the resident to contact it again on 14 January 2025. While this likely caused the resident inconvenience, there would have been no lasting impact.
On 19 January 2025 the landlord gave its stage 2 response. This was within 17 working days and was in line with the Code and its policy.

Learning

The landlord’s approach to completing the repairs issues has been slow. It could consider whether it has adequate systems in place to identify issues that have been outstanding for prolonged periods of time. It missed multiple opportunities to progress the repairs and did not demonstrate urgency, even after acknowledging the impact on the resident’s family. The landlord has since introduced a Damp and Mould Policy which should strengthen its oversight.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

There were gaps in the landlord’s records, including the lack of clarity around why the mould wash was rescheduled on multiple occasions. The landlord should maintain accurate and clear records of the outcome of all repairs to avoid future delays and confusion. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate, accessible records that provide a clear audit trail and support oversight of committed actions. The landlord may wish to review its record-keeping practices based on the recommendations made in our spotlight report.

Communication

The landlord acknowledged the importance of informing residents in advance when several tradespeople may need to attend a repair. Clear communication helps residents plan appropriately and supports efficient repair delivery.
Acknowledging complaints on time is essential for compliance. Even minor delays can sometimes create uncertainty and undermine residents’ confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling.