Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

ForHousing Limited (202323664)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323664

ForHousing 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:
    1. Reports of leaks into the living room.
    2. Reports of damage to the resident’s property.
    3. Repairs to the kitchen floor.
    4. Reports of damp and mould.
    5. The associated complaints.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 3 bed house. She has lived at the property with her partner and adult son since 1998. She has vulnerabilities related to her breathing that the landlord was aware of.
  2. Between February and April 2023, the resident told the landlord that some floor tiles in the kitchen were lifting and there was damp and mould in the property. The landlord replied to the reports and scheduled the associated repairs.
  3. On 12 April 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. She said that she had been waiting for 4 months for the landlord to replace the kitchen tiles. She was concerned that she may trip while in the kitchen. She complained again on 31 May 2023. She reiterated her concerns and said she had tripped on the uneven surface.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 June 2023. It apologised for an error that meant it was not aware of her complaint from 12 April 2023. It planned an inspection for the flooring on 16 June 2023. It said that it would pass works to its contractor to repair the kitchen floor following the inspection. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and offered £25 compensation.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 July 2023 to her complaint about its complaint handling and delays to repair the kitchen floor. It acknowledged that it had made multiple unsuccessful attempts to repair the kitchen floor. It surveyed the floor on 11 July 2023 and planned to replace the kitchen floor on 14 and 15 August 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered £350 compensation. It offered an additional £75 compensation for its complaint handling failures.
  6. The resident made a further complaint about the time taken to repair the gutter, pointing, damp, mould, and kitchen on 14 July 2023. She said she was unable to use the living room because of mould on the wall. She said that the damp and mould damaged her furniture.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response for the gutter repairs, pointing, damp, mould, and kitchen repairs on 31 July 2023. It apologised for the time taken to complete the works. It provided a timeline of the associated repairs. It explained the reasons for its delay in beginning the damp works. It provided dates and an action plan to resolve the outstanding repairs between 31 July and 12 September 2023. It offered her £175 compensation for the repair delays.
  8. The resident sought to escalate her complaint about the guttering, damp, and leaks on 3 August 2023. She said that she was unable to use the living room because of a leak that affected the electrics.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response for damp, pointing, leaks, and guttering works on 1 September 2023. It summarised the actions taken to resolve the repairs. It explained that it was conducting investigations into the cause of the leak and that these were ongoing. It offered to attend the property with an inspector to discuss the full outstanding works and provide an action plan to resolve them. It apologised for the time taken to resolve the repairs. It offered to provide a decorating pack for the resident to decorate the rooms affected by damp and mould. It agreed to review its offer of compensation on completion of the works. It would include an assessment of any damage to the furniture in the revised compensation offer.
  10. The landlord replaced the front gutter in July 2023 and cleared the gutters again in October 2023. It replaced a condensation pipe under the upstairs landing in August 2023. It conducted a further damp inspection on 27 November 2023. It raised orders to clean mould and replace the extractor fan in the bathroom and inspect the roof.
  11. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman in November 2023. She confirmed that most of the works were complete on 14 December 2023.
  12. The landlord confirmed that all related repairs were complete by July 2024. It revised its compensation and offered £350, which was £50 per month for each of the delays. It offered £75 for a complaint response delay. It did not award any additional compensation for damaged belongings as there was no evidence of damage provided.

Assessment and findings

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repair service standards set out timescales in which it will attend repairs depending on severity. It will attend urgent repairs within 3 working days and routine repairs within 30 working days. It will conduct an inspection for all reported cases of damp within 10 working days and aims to complete all related repairs within 40 working days.

Reports of leaks

  1. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported water staining from a leak into her living room on 5 April 2023. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to conduct an inspection within 10 working days of the report. However, the landlord did not attend and the resident raised the issue in her complaint on 12 April 2023. Its records show that the landlord conducted its first inspection of the leak on 12 May 2023. This was around 24 working days later and demonstrates a failure by the landlord to attend within its published timescales.
  2. Despite the landlord’s attendance in May 2023, the resident continued to chase for updates on 5 July, 14 July, and 23 August 2023. This demonstrates that the resident took considerable time and trouble pursuing these repairs.
  3. The landlord conducted several inspections of the property between May and July 2023 before being able to locate the cause of the leak. It eventually located the cause on 8 August 2023 when it removed the upstairs floorboards to find a leaking condensation pipe, which it replaced on 16 August 2023. Overall, it took around 4 months to find the cause of the leak and repair it. This was a considerable delay and would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the time taken by the resident to chase her repairs in its complaint responses. In its stage 2 response on 21 July 2023, it appropriately apologised for the inconvenience and offered £350 compensation for the delay (for the kitchen floor). In its stage 2 response on 8 September 2023, it said that repairs were complete in July 2023, but it would continue investigations into leaks. It showed that it had acted on her reports and was seeking to resolve the substantive issues.
  5. However, in her complaint to the landlord in August 2023, the resident said the leak was above electrical sockets. It was clear from her correspondence that she was concerned about the impact this may have on her home. The landlord did not address any leaks into the electric sockets in its complaint responses. It does not have any record related to an inspection of the electric sockets until 8 November 2023. The landlord should consider issues related to water penetrating electric outlets as an urgent repair and attend within 3 working days. This was a further failure by the landlord to comply with the commitments set out in its policy and procedures.
  6. The landlord’s repair records are unclear about the impact the leak had on the electric socket in the living room. It suggests that it assessed the electric socket on 8 November 2023, but there were no notes about the outcome of the assessment. Additionally, it raised a further job on 19 January 2024 to repair a sparking socket in the living room. Those notes indicate the socket was water damaged by the leak and it had not checked them previously.
  7. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is essential to evidence the action the landlord has taken which then aids in its service delivery, enabling it to respond professionally when something goes wrong. In this case, it would have ensured that there were clear reasons for its decision making that it could have shared with the resident.
  8. It is reasonable to determine that the leak affected the electric socket in the living room from August 2023. The landlord should have assessed the damage sooner in the timeline. Instead, it took around 5 months to complete the repair, and only after the resident reported sparks coming from it.
  9. The Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of leaks into the living room. The leak was behind a wall in the living room and therefore it was understandably difficult to trace the cause. During the investigation into the leak, the landlord was also assessing problems with the gutters and brickwork.
  10. However, the landlord failed to conduct inspections and repairs within a reasonable period throughout the timeline. It failed to meet the commitments set out in its repairs policy. It overlooked reports made by the resident in April 2023 and did not address the damage to the electric socket in August 2023. It missed the opportunity to address these concerns in its complaint response in September 2023. It did not repair the socket until January 2024, which was around 5 months later.
  11. The delays throughout caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing repairs and making her complaints. The landlord did not fully address the impact these had on the resident in relation to the leaks and the impact on the electric sockets. It should pay the resident £200 compensation. This is reflective of the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies where the landlord acknowledged failings but failed to fully address the detriment to the resident.

Reports of damage to the resident’s property

  1. The Ombudsman does not investigate or make findings on matters involving liability for damage. We can, however, look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s request for compensation for damaged personal belongings. The tenancy agreement and compensation policy say the landlord is not responsible for the resident’s personal possessions and recommends they arrange their own contents insurance.
  2. As part of her complaint on 14 July 2023, the resident informed the landlord that some of the furniture in her living room was mouldy. The resident wanted the landlord to pay compensation to the value of replacing the items. In response to this request, the landlord:
    1. Asked for photographs showing the damage, which she provided ahead of its stage 2 response on 8 September 2023. It was unable to see the damage on the photographs.
    2. Visited the resident on 11 September 2023 to inspect the damage as agreed in its stage 2 response on 8 September 2023. The landlord confirmed to the resident that no damage was evident.
  3. It is unclear from the landlord’s records if it directed her to its liability insurer to consider a claim. Although not required as it found no evidence of damage, it would have been reasonable to provide her with these details at the time – this was a shortcoming.
  4. Overall, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of damage to the resident’s property. The landlord’s actions were broadly reasonable and in accordance with its policy and procedures. It responded to the resident’s concerns and conducted further investigation when it was unable to see the damage reported by the resident in her photographs. It informed the resident of its decision and was fair in its approach. It followed through with the offers set out in its stage 2 response on 8 September 2023.

Repairs to the kitchen floor

  1. In her complaint to the landlord on 12 April 2023, the resident said she had reported a problem with the tiles lifting in October or November 2022. She said that the landlord attended on 23 December 2022 and agreed to replace the tiles and screed the floor. There was no record of this appointment in the landlord’s records and the landlord did not fully address this delay in its stage 1 response of 9 June 2023. It should have addressed the resident’s concerns and reflected on its timeline. It did not and this was a failure by the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s records show that it raised an inspection for the floor on 27 February 2023. It then conducted the inspection on 13 April 2023, which was 32 working days later. This was narrowly outside the 30 working days timescale set out in its service standards for routine repairs. The landlord completed a temporary repair but the resident said she tripped on the uneven surface in her complaint on 31 May 2023.
  3. The landlord should consider risks of falling on level surfaces as potential hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Where there are hazards associated with HHSRS, the landlord should conduct additional monitoring. In this case, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to schedule further repairs following the inspection in April 2023. It did not, and this was a failing by the landlord. This contributed to the resident’s additional time and trouble pursuing her complaints in May and June 2023.
  4. The landlord went some way to addressing its failures in its stage 1 response on 9 June 2023. It appropriately apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused. It was also reasonable to provide dates for its contractor to return and complete the repairs following a further inspection on 16 June 2023.
  5. It is important that the landlord maintains the commitments set out in its complaint responses. In this case, the failure to conduct the inspection on 16 June 2023 caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing her complaint. The landlord appropriately apologised for this failure in its stage 1 response on 19 July 2023. Its offer of £25 compensation for the missed appointment and service failure was reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. The landlord further acknowledged its failures to complete the repairs in a reasonable period in its stage 2 response on 21 July 2023. It appropriately apologised for the unsuccessful attempts to repair the floor. It was fair to schedule the replacement of the kitchen floor and provide the dates for the work to take place. Its offer of £350 compensation for the distress and inconvenience was a reasonable offer and reflected the detriment caused over several months.
  7. Despite the landlord’s offers and attempts to repair the flooring, the resident reported further issues with the flooring on 7 September 2023. The landlord inspected the floor the same day and agreed that it needed repairs. It provided a further stage 1 response on 21 September 2023, confirming that it had adjusted the flooring and resolved the issues on 11 September 2023. It promptly acknowledged the resident’s reports and resolved them within 4 working days. Its response was reasonable and no further order for redress was necessary.
  8. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress that resolved the complaint about its handling of repairs to the kitchen floor. Altogether it took the landlord around 9 months to repair the kitchen flooring. This was an unreasonable period to complete the repair and left the resident at risk of trips and falls, as highlighted in her complaints. The landlord did not fully address the reasons for the delays or the risk to the resident. However, it acknowledged its failures and sought to put things right for the resident. It appropriately arranged inspections of the floor and its decision to contract the work and replace the flooring was reasonable. Its offer of £350 compensation calculated as £50 per month reflected the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Reports of damp and mould

  1. The HHSRS considers damp and mould as potential category 1 hazards. Landlords should conduct additional monitoring where these risks are present. Damp and mould have the potential to impact on a resident’s health, especially for individuals considered vulnerable.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure say that it should complete works related to damp and mould within 40 working days. Its repairs and maintenance policy says it may escalate repairs to a higher priority where appropriate.
  3. There is no evidence that the landlord assessed the risk to the resident in this case. In its email to the Ombudsman on 11 July 2024, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had a respiratory illness. This, along with her age, placed her at a higher risk of harm. Had the landlord considered these factors, it may have prioritised the works sooner. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord should have conducted these repairs in less than 40 working days.
  4. In the same email on 11 July 2024, the landlord also highlighted problems it experienced with sourcing damp and mould contractors. Given the increased awareness and reporting at the time, the Ombudsman recognises that this may have been a contributing factor to the delays.
  5. Considering the above, the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reports from 5 April 2023 was reasonable. It inspected the property within 10 working days, on 12 April 2023, and identified problems with the gutters. It unblocked the gutters and repaired some external brickwork on 24 May 2023. This was around 32 working days later, and within the 40 working days set out in its policy and procedures.
  6. However, the records show that the landlord conducted repeat repairs to the gutters in 2023. It attended in May, July, August, and September 2023. The resident told the landlord in her complaints that she was frustrated by the number of repeat appointments.
  7. The landlord sought to address these failures in its complaint responses. In its stage 1 response on 31 July 2023, it appropriately apologised for the time taken to complete repairs and its repeat appointments. It showed intention to put things right by providing the dates to complete the remaining works. Its offer of £175 for the delay to complete the damp repairs and the number of visits to repair the gutters was reasonable.
  8. In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 8 September 2023, it accurately summarised the actions it took to resolve the repairs. The landlord’s approach was resolution focused. Its decision to return to the property and discuss the outstanding works and provide an action plan was reasonable. It appropriately apologised for the time taken to resolve the repairs. Its decision to reconsider compensation for her time and trouble on conclusion of the works was fair. Although its offer to provide a decoration pack was not unreasonable, it could have shown more empathy for the resident. It could have considered her circumstances and offered to complete the decoration on completion of the works.
  9. The landlord’s records from 11 September 2023 show that it inspected the property and found the plaster was in a poor condition. There was no record of a follow up inspection, or any works done to repair the plaster.
  10. In her reports to the Ombudsman on 15 November 2023, the resident said that the smell of damp and the damage this did to her belongings prevented her from using her living room from April 2023. She wanted the landlord to pay for the redecoration of the living room. She confirmed that the landlord resolved all repairs on 14 December 2023, but she was unhappy with the time she had taken chasing repairs.
  11. In its report to the Ombudsman on 11 July 2024, the landlord said that it offered the resident £350 compensation, calculated as £50 per month for the delays. However, it is unclear if this relates to the offer it made regarding the repairs to the kitchen floor. The Ombudsman has considered that the resident first reported issues related to damp and mould on 5 April 2023 and the landlord completed its repairs on 14 December 2023. The landlord’s offer £350 reflects £50 per month over 6 months and is the equivalent of 12.5% of the rent each month. This is a reasonable offer for the loss of the living space and reflective of compensation for the loss of a room in the sector.
  12. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of reports of damp and mould. The landlord recognised that there were repairs delays, and that these caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It appropriately scheduled repairs and provided clear action plans to the resident in its correspondence. Its offer of £350 compensation was reasonable and reflects the overall detriment caused. However, the landlord should confirm that it resolved all works and there are none outstanding for the plaster. It should also confirm that it made its offer of £350 separate to the delays related to the repairs of the kitchen floor.

The associated complaints

  1. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy. Its stage 1 response on 9 June 2023 was issued considerably outside those timeframes. The stage 2 response on 8 September 2023 was also issued outside of those timeframes.
  2. The landlord acknowledged its failure to respond to the resident’s complaint from 12 April 2023 in its stage 1 response on 9 June 2023. It appropriately apologised for the failure and addressed the problems in its internal system which caused it. Its offer of £25 compensation was reasonable.
  3. The landlord reconsidered the failures again in its stage 2 response on 21 July 2023. It offered an additional £75 compensation for its complaint handling failures. Overall, there was a combined offer of £100 compensation for its complaint handling. This was a reasonable offer and in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
  4. The resident escalated her second complaint on 3 August 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 1 September 2023. This was around 21 working days later and around 1 working day above the 20 working days target in its policy and procedures. The landlord acknowledged this failure to issue its response in its timescales and offered £75 compensation for its complaint handling failures. This was also a reasonable offer and in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
  5. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of the associated complaints. Although there were some delays in acknowledging and responding to complaints, the landlord appropriately addressed these failures in its complaint responses. The landlord’s combined offer of £175 compensation for complaint handling failures was reasonable and put things right in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of leaks into the living room.
    2. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of damage to the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. A reasonable offer of redress made by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the kitchen flooring.
    2. A reasonable offer of redress made by the landlord in its handling of reports of damp and mould.
    3. A reasonable offer of redress made by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failures identified in its handling of reports of leaks into the living room.
    3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, it should pay the resident £525 compensation offered in its complaint responses. We have calculated this as £175 for its complaint handling failures and £350 for its handling of repairs to the kitchen flooring. The Ombudsman made findings of reasonable redress on this basis.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it paid the resident its revised offer of £350 from £175. This was for its handling of damp and mould repairs. The Ombudsman made a finding of reasonable redress on this basis.