Golding Homes Limited (202317058)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317058

Golding Homes Limited

16 September 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 the resident’s reports of:
1. Extractor fans not working in the kitchen and bathroom.
2. A leak in the ceiling in the property.
3. Mould in the property.
4. Issues with electrics at the property.
5. Noise and nuisance from children playing in the communal garden.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat located on the ground floor of the building.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 5 May 2022. He was unhappy because of:
1. Parking issues on his estate.
2. Incidents of noise on his estate.
3. Outstanding repairs he wanted completed at the property.
4. Mould in his bathroom.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 May 2022. It said:
1. It would contact the resident about the outstanding repairs and the mould by 20 May 2022 to arrange for someone to come and inspect the resident’s property.
2. It would contact the resident about noise and parking by 26 May 2022.
On 3 July 2023 there was an incident at the resident’s property involving the resident and some of the landlord’s operatives. After this incident, the landlord acquired an injunction on 24 July 2023 that meant the resident could not be home when an operative of the landlord needed to attend the property.
The resident asked us for support in escalating his complaint to stage 2 on 9 August 2023. He said lots of things were not working at the property and children in the community garden were waking him up. We asked the landlord to provide its stage 2 complaint response by 30 November 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 29 November 2023. It said it had investigated the resident’s complaint and found that:
1. The repair to the bathroom fan was still outstanding. It apologised for this.
2. The kitchen fan had been looked at, and it was working.
3. It had completed damp and mould treatment works in May 2023. It said if damp and mould had returned, it would inspect the property to see what further works would be necessary.
4. The water leak had been fixed in 2022 and no further issues had been reported. It said if there are still issues it would arrange an inspection.
5. Issues with electrics had been raised in 2022. The landlord said its understanding was this was related to the water leak and as this had been resolved the electrics would have been tested. It said it would arrange for a safety check to be carried out.
6. It needed more information on the issues with noise and children playing.
The resident referred his complaint to us on 23 April 2024 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to the repairs and his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

After the complaints process ended, the resident continued to report repair issues to us. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues before our involvement. The resident can contact the landlord to discuss making a new complaint if he remains dissatisfied.

Policy and procedures

The landlord referred us to the repairs handbook (the handbook) on its website for its policy on repairs. The handbook says that emergency repairs will be attended to in 24 hours to ensure a resident is safe, but that follow up repairs might be necessary. It says urgent repairs, an issue that would cause damage to the property or affect a resident’s wellbeing, will be attended to within 7 calendar days and a routine repair will be attended to in 28 calendar days.
The landlord’s policy on damp and mould says the landlord will investigate and identify the causes of damp and mould and then deliver solutions. It says it will take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and that the landlord will communicate with a resident throughout a report of damp and mould. It says the landlord will initially arrange a mould wash or inspection. If the landlord believes a mould wash is the appropriate response, the mould wash will be completed within 10 working days of this decision. Though where the damp and mould could be more complex, an investigation will be carried out and actions agreed. The policy says there will be a 6 month follow up to see if the problem has returned.
The landlord’s community safety policy uses the same definition of antisocial behaviour (ASB) as the Antisocial behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. That definition is “Antisocial Behaviour is conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person; conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person”.
The policy says it will take quick action to respond to community safety concerns where it is reasonable to do so. The landlord’s ASB guide from 23 January 2022 says some activities cause annoyance but do not constitute ASB. It provides a list which includes children playing in the street or communal areas. The guide says if an issue is reported to the landlord, then it will contact a resident to discuss the problem. The landlord would advise a resident what action can be taken and an action plan agreed if appropriate.

The resident’s reports of extractor fans not working in the kitchen and bathroom

The resident reported issues with the fans in his kitchen and bathroom on 13 January 2023. A report from the landlord’s contractor on 27 January 2023 said both fans were not working. The landlord attended the property on 6 February 2023 to check the fans and concluded that just the bathroom fan was not working. This was in 24 calendar days, so within its timeframes. However, it did not complete the repair then. It scheduled the repair for 14 February 2023. This would have been 32 calendar days from when the resident reported the issues to the landlord, so 4 calendar days over the landlord’s timeframes. This was a shortcoming from the landlord as it was not acting in line with its timescales.
The resident was not home for the appointment on 14 February 2023 so the repair did not go ahead. The evidence shows that the landlord did attempt to reschedule the appointment with the resident, but could not get in contact with him.
According to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the repair to the fan should have been included in a visit that occurred in May 2023. This was to conduct repairs to the bathroom in the resident’s property. However, the repair was missed from this appointment. There is no direct evidence of the visit in May 2023. It is reasonable to assume it did occur as the landlord’s communications over a large period of time reference this visit taking place and the resident has not disputed this.
On 3 July 2023 there was an incident at the resident’s property. The evidence supplied by the landlord suggests that the operatives that attended the resident’s property on this date were there to fix 2 extractor fans. The landlord was not at fault for the repair not being completed on this date. After the incident, the landlord got a court injunction that meant the resident could not be home when the landlord attended his property for a repair. This injunction was granted on 24 July 2023. This contributed to the delay in the repair.
The resident asked us to help escalate his complaint on 9 August 2023. Part of the complaint was that this repair had not been completed. The resident did communicate with the landlord in this period, but there is no evidence he mentioned the repair. However, the landlord still had a repair responsibility and there is no evidence that it followed up with the resident about the repair until its stage 2 complaint response on 29 November 2023. The court injunction was in place so that the landlord could still attend the resident’s property to meet its obligations in terms of repairs. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to follow up on the repair.
The landlord failed to complete the repairs to the fans within the timescales set out in its handbook. However, the resident’s actions were a factor. The landlord struggled to make contact with him, he was not home for an appointment and the incident on 3 July 2023 contributed to the delay. With this said, the landlord had not completed the repair by the time of its stage 2 complaint response. We find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the extractor fans in the resident’s bathroom and kitchen.
The resident did not contact the landlord about the repair until he asked us to help escalate the complaint. Taking this into account, and the nature of the repair, it is reasonable to say that the impact of the repair not being completed was minor. Considering our guidance on remedies and the impact to the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation.
We have not received evidence that the repairs have been completed. We have ordered the landlord to check the extractor fans and arrange any necessary repairs. Or, provide evidence that these works were completed as part of its stage 2 complaint response.

The resident’s reports of a leak in the ceiling in the property

The resident reported a leak that was coming from the light fittings in the ceiling on 18 March 2022. The landlord attended on the same day and made this safe. The landlord replaced the ceiling light fixture on 12 April 2022. This was 25 calendar days from the date the resident reported the leak. The landlord acted in line with its stated timescales here.
There is no evidence that the resident raised this issue with the landlord again until his stage 2 complaint escalation. The landlord explained its understanding was the leak was fixed and offered to inspect the resident’s property in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord acted reasonably here, its response was fair in the circumstances.
We find that there was no maladministration with the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a leak in the ceiling in the property.

The resident’s reports of mould in the property

The resident reported mould in the property on 5 May 2022. The landlord arranged to attend the resident’s property on 27 May 2022. This was 16 working days from when the resident reported the mould. This would have been a reasonable timeframe to inspect the property, however the resident cancelled the appointment and so it did not go ahead.
There is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident about the issue until January 2023. Though there is also no evidence that the resident chased the landlord about the issue either. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident in this period between May 2022 and January 2023. While the resident cancelled the initial appointment, the landlord did not follow its commitment to take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and communicate with a resident throughout any such report.
The landlord next contacted the resident to check about the mould on 12 January 2023. The resident confirmed on the same day that it was still a problem, so the landlord arranged for a contractor to conduct an inspection on 27 January 2023. The landlord treated this as a new report of mould and arranging an inspection in this time was within a range of reasonable responses available to it and so in line with its policy.
The contractor’s report from 27 January 2023 recommended a mould wash in 14 days. The mould wash was completed in the property on 20 April 2023, 58 working days from the inspection. The landlord did not follow the recommendations in the report or the 10 working day timescale set out in its policy here.
The landlord also references a visit taking place in May 2023 where various works were completed. As stated in the above, there is no direct evidence of this visit taking place however the landlord’s stage 2 response indicates that this was in relation to tackling damp and mould at the property. Given the evidence supplied by the landlord, it is reasonable to say a mould wash was only completed once at the resident’s property. However there is a discrepancy in the landlord’s records and the evidence supplied as to whether that occurred in April or May 2023.
After the mould wash took place, the landlord followed up with the resident on 19 May 2023 and 5 June 2023 via text message to see if all the works had been completed and to check the resident was happy with the works done. The landlord was following up with the resident, in line with what is set out in its policy on checking to see if the issue with mould had returned, which was appropriate.
The resident did not respond to the landlord’s messages, or report issues with mould, until he asked us to help escalate his complaint to stage 2. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it offered to inspect the property and arrange further works. This is a further follow up from the landlord and it acted appropriately here.
The landlord has not provided evidence that it completed the works it offered to complete in its stage 2 complaint response. However, it has provided evidence that it spoke to the resident on 15 July 2024. In this call the resident confirmed that the only outstanding issues were the repairs to the kitchen and bathroom fans.
In conclusion, the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of mould was mixed. It arranged an initial appointment, which was cancelled by the resident, but did not follow up on this for over 6 months. While it appropriately arranged for an inspection after confirming mould was still an issue, it did not complete the recommended mould wash within its timescales. This does not demonstrate a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. However, the resident did not follow up with the landlord about the issue. The landlord did also appropriately follow up with the resident once the mould wash had been completed. Taking all of this into consideration, we find service failure with the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of mould in his property.
The landlord’s actions caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The mould continued in the property until the landlord took action to correct it, this was almost a year from when the resident first reported it. Considering our guidance on remedies, we find that an appropriate level of compensation would be £100. The landlord should also apologise to the resident for its handling of this matter.

The resident’s reports of issues with electrics at the property

The resident reported that all electric sockets in the property were damaged and that he believed they looked old and dangerous on 13 January 2023. This was part of his report of the issues with the kitchen and bathroom fans. While the landlord attended to look at the fans, there is no evidence it looked at the electric sockets as requested by the resident. This was a failure of the landlord to follow its policy on repairs.
There is no evidence that the landlord followed up with the resident, or the resident followed up with the landlord, until the resident asked us to help escalate his complaint to stage 2. In its stage 2 response on 29 November 2023, the landlord said it would arrange for a check of the electrics. This was an appropriate response from the landlord given what the resident was reporting.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that it believed the resident had last reported this issue in 2022 as part of the response to the leak in the ceiling in the property. The evidence provided by the landlord shows the resident raised this on 13 January 2023. This meant that the landlord did not recognise its failings in this instance. It suggests a record keeping failure by the landlord.
The landlord said it understood a check of the electrics would have been carried out as part of its response to the leak coming from the light fixture in the ceiling on 18 March 2022. There is evidence the lights were made safe, but no evidence the electrics were checked. If the electrics were checked, the landlord still should have responded to the resident in a timely fashion to explain this. Regardless of this, the landlord should also have arranged for the electric sockets to be checked if the resident was reporting them as damaged and potentially dangerous. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer this action as part of its stage 2 response, but this should have been done sooner.
The resident did not report the issue to the landlord again until his stage 2 escalation request. This does suggest that the impact on the resident was minor. However, even if the landlord believed the electrics were safe it still should have explained that to the resident and arranged for a check given his concerns. The landlord did not recognise its failings in its stage 2 response. We therefore find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the electrics within the property.
The landlord should apologise to the resident for its failings here. Considering our guidance on remedies, an appropriate level of compensation is £100. This recognises the failure of the landlord to investigate the issue reported by the resident and takes into consideration that the impact on the resident was minor.
We have not been provided evidence that the landlord checked the electrics after its stage 2 complaint response. We have ordered the landlord to arrange a check of the electrics at the property, or provide evidence that this action was completed as part of its stage 2 complaint response.

The resident’s reports of noise and nuisance from children playing in the communal garden

The resident first reported issues with the noise of neighbourhood children on 22 March 2022. He then followed this up with a complaint to the landlord on 6 April 2022. The resident’s issues could have fit the description of ASB in the landlord’s community safety policy as the noise was causing him annoyance. The landlord should have made an assessment on whether it believed the noise fit its definition of ASB. There is no evidence it did this or took action in relation to what the resident was raising. The landlord did not follow its policy on taking quick action to respond to these concerns.
The resident mentioned this issue in his stage 1 complaint on 5 May 2022. The landlord organised to call the resident on 20 May 2022 to discuss the issue. While repairs were discussed, there is no evidence the noise complaint was discussed. The landlord’s records of the call state that the resident was abusive to the member of staff making the call. This could be a mitigating factor in why this was not discussed. Though it would have been reasonable for the landlord to follow up with the resident on this point.
Given what is set out in the ASB guide, it seems reasonable to say that the landlord would not have classed what the resident was complaining about as ASB. This is because children playing is mentioned by the guide as something that is not ASB. However, the landlord should still have made that assessment and explained it to the resident.
There is no evidence that the landlord followed up with the resident on the issue until its stage 2 complaint response on 29 November 2023. However, there is also no evidence that the resident reported any issues with noise either until he asked us to help escalate his complaint to stage 2. While this could mean that there were no issues in this period, the landlord still should have explained its position to the resident at the time and as part of its stage 1 response. The landlord had committed to contacting the resident about these concerns and it did not do that. The landlord did not act reasonably here.
In summary, while the issue caused frustration to the resident the impact of the landlord not contacting the resident was minor. It was unlikely to have classed the noise as ASB so would have been limited in the actions it could take. The landlord should have explained this to the resident, but we acknowledge that the actions of the resident could have had an impact on this. Though it was still a failing of the landlord that it did not carry out the action it committed to in its stage 1 response. We find service failure in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of issues with noise and nuisance from children.
The landlord should write to the resident to apologise for not responding to his concerns. Considering our guidance on remedies, an appropriate level of compensation is £80. This recognises the lack of communication from the landlord, but also the minor impact on the resident that the failures in handling this issue caused.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint resolution Policy says a stage 1 complaint will be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. If a complaint is not resolved to a resident’s satisfaction, it will be escalated to stage 2 of the complaints process.
Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) from March 2022, the one current for the time of the complaint, says that if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 then it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on the same day it was submitted, on 5 May 2022. It sent its stage 1 complaint response on 19 May 2022, within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord followed its own policy and the Code here.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 January 2023 to ask whether it could close his stage 1 complaint. The resident wrote back on 16 January 2023 to say he didn’t want it closed and the issues had not been resolved. The landlord should have escalated the complaint to stage 2 at this time as the complaint had not been resolved to the resident’s satisfaction. The resident had to ask for our assistance in escalating his complaint on 5 October 2023. The landlord failed to follow its own policy and the Code.
The landlord failed to recognise the resident’s stage 2 escalation request. Consequently, it did not follow its own policy and the Code. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident as it meant there was a lengthy delay for the resident getting an answer to his complaint. This was not recognised in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. We find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord should write to the resident to apologise for not recognising and escalating his complaint. Considering our guidance on remedies, an appropriate level of compensation for the inconvenience caused is £50.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of extractor fans not working in the kitchen and bathroom.
2. The resident’s reports of mould in the property.
3. The resident’s reports of issues with electrics at the property.
4. The resident’s reports of issues with noise and nuisance from children playing in the communal garden.
5. The resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the ceiling in the property.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the below orders. This includes paying the resident £460 compensation. The landlord must:
1. Pay the resident £100 for its handling of the resident’s reports of extractor fan’s not working in the kitchen and bathroom.
2. Pay the resident £90 for its handling of the resident’s reports of mould in the property.
3. Pay the resident £100 for its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with electrics at the property.
4. Pay the resident £80 for its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with noise and nuisance from children playing in the communal garden.
5. Pay the resident £80 for its handling of the resident’s complaint.
6. The payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed.
7. Write to apologise to the resident for its handling of the resident’s reports of the extractor fans not working, the electrics at the property, noise and nuisance from children and for its complaint handling.
8. Check the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom and arrange any necessary repairs. Or, provide evidence that these works were completed as part of its stage 2 complaint response.
9. Arrange to check the electrics at the property, or provide evidence that it has already done this as part of its response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint.