First Choice Homes Oldham Limited (202537431)

Background

1. In September 2025, the resident reported damp and mould throughout the property, which she said was affecting her health. She also reported damage to her belongings. Both parties subsequently agreed a financial settlement in January 2026 to resolve a disrepair claim, without court proceedings.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

5. The landlord responded promptly at first but did not manage the case effectively after that. It failed to keep the resident informed and delayed key actions. Conditions worsened during this time resulting in the resident experiencing a prolonged period of distress and inconvenience.

Handling of the complaint.

6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), including within required timescales. Its stage 2 response set out reasonable steps to complete the outstanding works.

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.

Our investigation

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 did not investigate and why

7. This Service does not usually consider complaints that have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. We have not seen evidence that events relating to damp and mould after 30 October 2025 completed that procedure. References to any other events beyond that date are included for context only.
8. In this case, the resident made a disrepair claim in November 2025. The resident has told us that the matter was not filed at court. Both parties confirmed that the claim was settled in January 2026 for £1,250, without court proceedings. This investigation, however, focuses on the complaint made in September 2025 about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property, and the landlord’s final response dated 30 October 2025, and not on the disrepair claim.
9. The resident told us that the mould in the property may have impacted her and her daughter’s physical health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we found

10. The landlord’s damp and mould policy 2025 commits to investigating all reports of damp and mould, identifying the cause, and carrying out remedial actions to minimise the risk of recurrence. It provides that reports should be assessed through an inspection within 10 working days to determine whether any immediate or significant hazards are present. Where no such hazards are identified, any required works should proceed in line with routine repair priorities. It also requires the landlord to keep residents appropriately informed throughout the inspection and repair process.
11. The landlord’s repairs policy (August 2025) states it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, priority repairs within 5 working days, routine repairs within 20 working days, and major works within 90 working days.
12. The resident reported damp and mould on 11 September 2025. The landlord attended the following day. This was appropriate and in line with its obligations.
13. During the visit on 12 September 2025, the operative found no internal leaks but noted damp and mould on the wall between the kitchen and lounge. Internal records also considered possible water ingress, including rising damp affecting the floor.
14. On 16 September 2025, the landlord completed a mould wash. This was appropriate as an interim measure to address the visible mould and help mitigate its impact on the resident, while the landlord took steps to address the underlying cause.
15. The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection on 24 September 2025, within its policy timescale, and appropriately referred the matter to its Major Works team, as it recognised that more complex works were required. However, there is no evidence it provided the resident with a clear explanation of its findings or a plan for the proposed works, contrary to its damp and mould policy to keep residents informed.
16. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 30 September 2025, the landlord explained that it was the resident’s responsibility to arrange contents insurance in line with the tenancy agreement. However, it failed to provide the resident with details of how to make a claim against its own insurance. The resident had indicated she wanted to make an insurance claim so the landlord should have provided these details.
17. In its stage 2 complaint response of 30 October 2025, the landlord set out a programme of major works, including ventilation, insulation, drainage, and structural repairs, with a target completion date of 4 November 2025. The landlord did not meet this timeframe. Works were completed on 4 December 2025, one month later. The timeframe for the major works may have been unavoidable for the landlord, depending on the extent of the work required. However, the landlord did not keep the resident updated on its progress or provide reasons for delays, which was not in line with its damp and mould policy and did not appropriately manage the resident’s expectations. While this delay was not significant in isolation, it occurred in the context of worsening conditions.
18. The landlord discussed a temporary decant with the resident on 18 November 2025. While this showed the landlord recognised the seriousness of the situation, the response was delayed, given the severity of the issues it had already identified in September 2025.
19. The landlord advised us that the resident’s disrepair claim, from November 2025, was settled in January 2026, with “£1250 paid for loss of enjoyment/amenity (No items or property damage claimed)”. We have not seen a copy of the settlement offer. We do not know what failings the landlord considered in its offer. The landlord has only confirmed that the settlement related to the use of the property. Therefore, we have seen no evidence to show that this settlement addressed the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failures identified in this investigation, including poor communication and the late consideration of a decant. As such, we consider the settlement to be separate from the failings identified in this investigation. We have not recommended that the landlord make the settlement payment, as the evidence indicates that the sum have already been paid.
20. Overall, while the landlord took some appropriate initial steps, it did not keep the resident adequately informed, and its communication was limited. To reflect the impact on the resident, including the distress and inconvenience this caused, we have ordered the landlord to pay £200, in addition to its settlement of the resident’s disrepair claim, in line with our compensation guidance.

21. The landlord’s complaint policy is in line with the Code. It responded to the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within the timescales set out in its policy. Based on the evidence, we are satisfied that the landlord acted in line with its complaint policy and the Code when handling this complaint.
22. The landlord’s stage 2 response committed to a programme of works to put matters right within a reasonable timeframe. We therefore find no maladministration in the complaint handling.

Learning

23. This case demonstrates the importance of the landlord taking timely action where conditions are worsening, including early consideration of temporary decant where appropriate.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. This case demonstrates the importance of the landlord providing residents with clear information it holds on how to pursue insurance claims where relevant.

Communication

25. The case also demonstrates the importance of the landlord clearly communicating inspection findings and providing the resident with a plan of works, in line with its damp and mould policy.