ForHousing Limited (202425263)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425263

ForHousing Limited

14 May 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs relating to damp and mould.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. She lives with her young daughter who has severe asthma.
The landlord raised an order for a damp survey on 18 November 2022 and completed it on 2 December 2022. The survey identified it needed to do the following:
1. Asbestos testing in the bathroom.
2. Mould wash in the bathroom and one bedroom.
3. Paint the bathroom ceiling with thermal paint.
4. Fit an extractor fan in the bathroom.
5. Relay the loft insulation.
6. Apply stain block to one bedroom wall.
7. Renew the skirting board in one bedroom.
8. Inspect the bathroom window.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 2 August 2023 about the works remaining incomplete. She said the damp was getting worse and had damaged her belongings. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 29 August 2023. It apologised for the delay, gave several appointment dates for the various works, and said its contractor would be in touch to arrange others. It offered the resident £250 compensation for the delay and asked her to send photos of damaged items for it to consider. The resident did so and the landlord offered an additional £250.
The landlord attended 8 times between August and November 2023. On 5 occasions it could not gain access to the property, including several occasions where the resident was at work and once where it attended the wrong address. It completed part of the recommended works on 18 September 2023 and on 28 September 2023 it raised further works to address damp and mould around the radiator in the second bedroom. On 31 October 2023 the landlord inspected the bathroom window. On 7 November the landlord attempted to attend and repair the bathroom fan but the resident was away, which she had informed the landlord of. On 8 November 2023 the resident raised concerns that her windows did not have trickle vents, which can contribute to damp and mould and was impacting her child’s health.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 10 November 2023. She said the landlord kept making repair appointments for times when it knew she was not available. On other occasions it had turned up late in the day when it did not have time to complete all the required work. The resident was seeking compensation for the inconvenience.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 28 November 2023. It said:
1. The landlord was sorry for not confirming appointments by telephone and had made its contractors aware of the need to do this in future.
2. It had agreed new appointments with the resident over the phone and the contractor would contact her to confirm them.
3. The resident had verbally raised an outstanding radiator leak which had damaged her laminate flooring. The landlord apologised for this.
4. It offered the resident £150 compensation to acknowledge the impact the situation had had on her. It later offered an additional £240 compensation after the resident provided evidence that the radiator leak had damaged her flooring.
The landlord attended on 4 December 2023 and carried out mould washes, applied stain block, and painted a wall. It was unable to address the radiator leak as the wrong type of operative had been booked to attend and it was unable to gain access when it returned twice that month. It begun work to install trickle vents on 11 December 2023 but did not have the right equipment. to finish the work. On 20 January the resident reported that bedroom windows had been leaking ever since the vents were fitted. The landlord attended on 23 January 2024 to address mould around the radiator.
The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 31 January 2024 which said:
1. The resident had emailed the landlord numerous times since December, and it had only replied once.
2. She had spent £3.50 per day for the last 8 weeks on electric heaters because the landlord had not repaired the radiator.
3. New mould had developed in her child’s bedroom, which had ruined a chest of drawers. Mould was also developing in the resident’s bedroom. Her daughter had had 9 chest infections and been hospitalised due to her asthma.
4. She had raised issues with the windows numerous times.
5. The landlord had attended to resolve a leak at a time when it knew she would not be home. She wanted the landlord to stop making appointments without speaking to her first.
6. The resident asked for £100 compensation to replace the chest of drawers and £60 to replace bedroom curtains which were covered in oils from the window.
The landlord replaced the radiator on 14 February 2024. It sent the stage 2 response on 28 February 2024, which said:
1. The landlord apologised for the delay completing the work and the impact it had had on the resident and her child.
2. A surveyor would attend on 11 March 2024 to assess the outstanding issues and ensure the relevant works were arranged.
3. The compensation offered at stage 1 was appropriate, but it did not account for damaged belongings and the electric heating costs. It offered the resident an additional £1,200 compensation, broken down as:
  1. £1,000 to replace a wardrobe, chest of drawers, bed frame, mattress, curtains, and clothes that mould had damaged.
  2. £200 to cover additional heating costs.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She confirmed the landlord had fully completed the damp and mould works in early 2025 and the windows were fully renewed in May 2025. However, she remains dissatisfied with the time it took the landlord to complete the works and the time she had to take off work for appointments which were not attended or where work was not completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident stated in her complaint that the damp and mould had affected her family’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond our expertise to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurance. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements, which is not within the Ombudsman’s remit.
We have, however, considered the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to the concerns she raised about her health.
The issues complained about remained unresolved for some time after the stage 2 response. The Ombudsman is usually only able to consider events up until the landlord’s final response under its complaints procedure. This can include events related to any follow up actions the landlord has promised, and we will also consider if and when the issues complained about were eventually resolved. This is because the landlord should be given the opportunity to respond to any new issues that arise under its complaints procedure before the Ombudsman investigates them.

Repairs relating to damp and mould

The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will:
1. Arrange appointments at the first point of reporting for all non-emergency repairs.
2. Attempt to telephone a resident three times to arrange an appointment. On the third attempt it will send an appointment letter.
3. Endeavour to ensure responsive repairs are completed in one visit. When this is not possible it will arrange a further appointment with the resident before the operative leaves the property.
4. Respond to repairs in the following timeframes:
  1. 3 working days for urgent repairs.
  2. 30 working days for routine repairs.
  3. 40 working days for damp repairs.
The landlord’s service standards in relation to damp and mould state that it and its contractors will:
1. Send residents automated messages when a damp inspection is raised with an appointment, when works are raised with a target date, and at least 7 days prior to the works start date.
2. Carry out an inspection within 10 working days of a damp and mould report.
3. Complete a health and vulnerability assessment of the household at the inspection and prioritise any required work accordingly.
4. Schedule works within 24 hours and aim to complete the works within a further 40 working days.
5. Provide the resident with a schedule of works to ensure they are clear about what will take place, the timeframe, and the related disruption, if relevant.
6. Rearrange appointments whenever there is a ‘no access’ visit until the works are completed.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider paying compensation for service failures in line with the following:
1. £1 to £50 for failures which cause short term, mild inconvenience or distress.
2. £51 to £300 for failures which cause prolonged mild inconvenience or distress or short term moderate inconvenience, distress, or detriment.
3. £300+ for failures which cause serious or prolonged inconvenience, distress, or detriment.
4. The actual cost of quantifiable losses which must be supported by receipts or other evidence.
The Ombudsman expects landlords and their contractors to maintain comprehensive records of all contact with residents, repair requests and services provided. This should include details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. However, it is unclear from the landlord’s records what prompted the landlord to raise a damp survey on 18 November 2022. This means we cannot comment on whether it was completed within the appropriate timeframe.
There is no evidence to indicate the landlord completed a health and vulnerability assessment at the inspection, in accordance with its service standards. When asked, it told us it did not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or her child, despite the resident reporting her child’s asthma on numerous occasions. This is inappropriate. We have made an order for the landlord to update its records relating to vulnerabilities within the household.
The landlord should have aimed to complete all the required works by 1 February 2023, in line with its service standards. The resident made her first stage 1 complaint on 2 August 2023 when it had not done so. This prompted the landlord to attempt a visit on 18 August 2023, which was more than 6 months past the appropriate timeframe. This was the first of numerous visits at times when the resident was unavailable.
The Ombudsman’s October 2021 Spotlight report on damp and mould, ‘It’s not lifestyle’ sets out what we expect of landlords. It says that residents should be given a choice of appointment times and, wherever possible, reasonable notice. The resident told the landlord and this Service that the landlord made appointments without confirming her availability and that on some occasions it made appointments at times when she had told it she was not available. The available evidence supports this. There are no records to show when or how the resident was informed of appointments and nothing to indicate she was sent confirmation and reminder messages, as required by the landlord’s service standards.
This was inappropriate. Had the landlord contacted the resident to make mutually convenient appointments the work would have been completed at a much earlier stage. Sending out contractors without knowing the resident is available is also a waste of the landlord’s valuable resources.
The resident made the first stage 1 complaint on 2 August 2023. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that landlords must acknowledge complaints upon receipt. At stage 1 they should do this within 5 working days and give their response within 10 working days. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged any of the resident’s complaints.
The stage 1 response was almost 2 weeks overdue. The landlord did not inform the resident of the delay and did not apologise for it in the response. This was inappropriate. The response itself and the offer of £250 compensation was reasonable. The landlord later offered an additional £250 for damaged items, which was positive.
The bedroom mould wash and stain block and bathroom mould wash were completed on 18 September 2023. This was more than 7 months after the appropriate timeframe set out in the landlord’s damp and mould service standards.
It is not clear exactly when the resident first raised the radiator leak. At a visit on 28 September 2023 the landlord noted the wall had blown in parts around and behind the radiator and that mould was present. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord was aware of the leak from at least this date. We would expect a leak to be treated as an urgent repair, meaning the landlord should have responded within 3 working days.
On 25 October 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm 3 appointments, including one on 7 November 2023 to fit the extractor fan. The resident emailed the landlord and said it had not discussed these appointments with her and she was not available.
The landlord inspected the bathroom window on 31 October 2023, which was at least 9 months past the appropriate timeframe. The landlord offered to install trickle vents and window seals at the inspection but the resident asked to rearrange for another day as she had to do the school run. She had told the landlord to avoid the school run times when it arranged the appointment but it failed to do this. It then attempted to attend on 7 November 2023, when the resident had told it she was going to be away. This added to the resident’s frustration and loss of trust in the landlord.
On 8 November 2023 the resident chased the landlord and expressed dissatisfaction about the time and trouble she had spent calling to rearrange appointments. She also said the damp had worsened her child’s health and she had had to take time off work as a result. The landlord apologised and said it would arrange new appointments. It did not address the resident’s comments about her child’s health. We would expect the landlord to address her comments and advise her that she had the right to make a personal injury claim, if she wished to do so.
The resident also said that 11 of her windows had no trickle vents or seals. She commented that since 2022, building regulations have stated that windows must have trickle vents. It is important to note that while this is true for new or replacement windows, landlords are not obligated to replace or install vents to existing windows solely for this reason.
The resident made another complaint on 10 November 2023 about the landlord failing to properly communicate with her when booking appointments. She later raised the radiator leak, and the landlord added it to the complaint. It offered the resident £150 for the impact of the situation on her. We consider this to be an offer of £75 for each issue, which was an appropriate amount in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. It later offered an additional £240 for flooring damaged by the leak, which was positive.
The landlord attended on 4 December 2023 and carried out mould washes, applied stain block, and painted a wall. This was 9 months after it should have been completed in line with its damp and mould service standards. The landlord also removed the radiator but was unable to resolve the leak as the correct operative had not been booked. It returned twice more that month but was unable to gain access. There are no records to show whether the landlord agreed these appointments with the resident or whether the contractor had called to confirm them, as the landlord said they would in the stage 1 response. These were further instances of poor communication relating to the appointment booking process.
The landlord attended on 11 December 2023 and begun work to install trickle vents. It did not bring the correct equipment for working at height so was unable to finish. It attended again on 12 December 2023 to fit the fan, relay insulation, treat mould, renew the skirting board, and replace the radiator but could not gain access. Again, there is no evidence that it agreed this appointment with the resident, and she later complained that she had said she was unavailable at that time.
The landlord had very recently paid the resident compensation for poor communication over appointments. However, it continued to communicate poorly, or not at all, and wasted time and resources attending when the resident was unavailable. This gave the impression that the landlord had not learned anything from the complaint and delayed the works further.
The landlord returned on 18 December 2023 to continue with the trickle vents. It started work but did not have time to complete it. It returned again on 8 January 2024 but it was not convenient for the resident and then was unable to gain access the following week. Again, there is no evidence that the landlord agreed any of these appointments with the resident.
The landlord attended on 23 January 2024 to address mould around the radiator. On 30 January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to say the bedroom windows had been leaking ever since the vents were fitted, that condensation was visible between the glass in the bathroom window, and there was new mould and damaged furniture in the bedrooms. She raised concerns again about her child’s health.
The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 31 January 2024. The landlord resolved the radiator leak on 14 February 2024. This was more than 4 months past the timeframe for an urgent repair, an inappropriate delay.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 28 February 2024. It apologised for the delays but still did not address the resident’s comments about her child’s health.
The landlord offered the resident £200 to cover the additional £3.50 per day heating costs for the time since it had removed the radiator. However, by the time of the response the radiator had been absent for 72 days. Therefore, the compensation should have amounted to £252.
The landlord also offered £1,000 compensation to replace damaged items. Landlords are generally not obligated to compensate resident’s for damaged items, and it is usually reasonable for them to advise the resident to make a claim against contents or the landlord’s liability insurance. Compensating the resident directly was a positive move by the landlord and saved the resident the hassle of having to go through insurers. However, it would have been reasonable to offer an amount in recognition of the delays, especially as work remained outstanding.
In January 2025 the landlord reviewed the complaint and compensation awards to ensure they had been appropriate, in light of the additional delays since the stage 2 response. As a result, the landlord offered the resident an additional £500 compensation as an apology for the delays, inconvenience, and confusion there had been in relation to a surveyor’s report in the time after the stage 2 response.
The landlord told us the damp and mould works were completed in February 2025 while the resident said it was in early May 2025. The landlord did not inspect the windows again until October 2024 when it confirmed the trickle vents were ineffective. The landlord agreed to bring forward the window renewal that was planned for 2026 and all windows were renewed in March 2025. This was a positive step to bring a resolution to the issues experienced by the resident.
In summary, there were numerous failures in the landlord’s handling of the various repairs which have led us to make a finding of maladministration. The landlord failed to:
1. Arrange appointments at the first point of reporting.
2. Make reasonable attempts to contact the resident to arrange convenient appointments, even after she complained about the issue.
3. Communicate with contractors about the resident’s availability.
4. Rearrange appointments before leaving the property when works were not completed in a single visit.
5. Complete a health and vulnerability assessment at the damp inspection, in line with its policy, or to record the resident’s child’s vulnerability.
6. Provide the resident with a schedule of works at any time, in line with its repairs policy.
7. Address the resident’s comments about her child’s health.
8. Book appointments effectively, leading to the wrong operatives attending, attending without the correct equipment, and attending without enough time to complete the work.
In addition, there were inappropriate delays completing all the works:
1. It took 9 months to inspect the bathroom window.
2. Damp and mould work that should have been completed in 40 working days took 2 years and 3 months to be completely resolved. While some jobs completed earlier, the earliest was still 7 months overdue.
3. The radiator leak was more than 4 months overdue.
4. It is unclear if and when the landlord carried out an asbestos test in the bathroom, renewed skirting boards, or relayed loft insulation as recommended in the initial inspection. We have made an order relating to this.
The delays caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. She has also spent much time and trouble chasing the landlord and progressing her complaint. While the landlord compensated her for damaged items, she has had the inconvenience of having to replace belongings, many of which would likely not have been damaged had the works been completed in the appropriate timeframe.
The landlord accepted there had been failings in each complaint response. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord puts things right and resolves the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so, the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the dispute resolution principles of ‘be fair’, put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’. Any redress offered after the complaints process is not considered for this decision, although we will consider the compensation offered when calculating whether any additional compensation is due.
Considering the length of the delays, which continued for a significant period after the complaints process, we do not deem the redress offered during the complaints process to be sufficient. We consider appropriate amounts to be:
1. An additional £52 for additional heating costs while the radiator was absent.
2. An additional £500 to acknowledge the lengthy delay completing the damp and mould works, providing windows with effective trickle vents, and resolving the radiator leak. This includes the distress and inconvenience the resident and her child experienced and the time and trouble spent rearranging appointments and progressing the complaint. This is in addition to the £500 that the landlord offered in January 2025. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which recommends this amount for maladministration which has a significant impact.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs relating to damp and mould.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the identified failures. The apology should come from a senior member of staff and be in line with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay the resident an additional £552 compensation broken down as:
  1. £500 to acknowledge the lengthy delay completing the damp and mould works, providing windows with effective trickle vents, and resolving the radiator leak.
  2. £52 for additional heating costs.
3. Carry out asbestos testing in the bathroom, as recommended in the December 2022 damp inspection, if it has not already done so. If it has, it should provide a report to evidence this.
4. Renew the skirting board in the bedroom, as recommended in the December 2022 damp inspection, if it has not already done so. If it has, it should provide a report to evidence this.
5. Relay loft insulation, as recommended in the December 2022 damp inspection, if it has not already done so. If it has, it should provide a report to evidence this.
6. Contact the resident to obtain details of any vulnerabilities within the household. This information must be clearly recorded on its systems so it is considered when prioritising future repairs. This information should also be visible to the landlord’s contractors or shared with them when raising repairs.
7. Provide the resident with details of its liability insurance so she can make a personal injury claim, if she wishes to do so.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to:
1. Pay the resident the compensation offered during the complaints process and its stage 2 review letter if it has not already done so.
2. Review its staff training and procedures in relation to booking repair appointments. This is to ensure staff and contractors follow the repairs policy in regard to communicating with residents about appointments.
3. Review its staff training and procedures in relation to damp and mould, including ensuring staff are familiar with the Spotlight report. This is to ensure that staff take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and prioritise repairs with the appropriate urgency.