Golding Homes Limited (202329551)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329551

Golding Homes 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs needed following a leak in the loft.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident resides in a 1-bedroom bungalow under an assured tenancy which began on 5 February 2007.
The landlord has informed this Service that there are reported mental health vulnerabilities noted for the resident since May 2020.
The resident reported a leak from his loft on 18 January 2023. A plumber attended on the same day and carried out repairs to the mains pipe in the loft to stop the leak. As water had entered the light fittings and the smoke alarm, an electrician also attended on the same day to make them safe. The landlord delivered a dehumidifier on 19 January 2023 to help dry out the property and collected it on 26 January 2023 when the property was dry.
The resident completed an online form on 20 February 2023 to report damp and mould in his property. The landlord tried to contact the resident on the same day to arrange a survey but was unable to speak to him. The landlord arranged for a specialist damp survey company to carry out a survey of the property and the survey was carried out on 28 March 2023. The main findings were to replace the insulation in the loft, replace the ceilings in the living room and bedroom, carry out mould treatment and repaint walls and ceilings with anti-condensation paint.
The resident made a complaint on 2 May 2023 in which he said he had not heard anything about the works identified by the surveyor in March 2023. He said he had been continually ringing the landlord. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 22 May 2023 and outlined the action it had taken in January 2023 to repair the leak, make the electrics safe and supply a dehumidifier. The landlord also confirmed that it had replaced the extractor fan and light in the kitchen and the smoke alarm and light in the hallway on 23 February 2023. The landlord said it would ask its damp and mould team to contact the resident regarding the replacement of the loft insulation and the outstanding damp and mould works. The landlord offered the resident discretionary compensation of £75 for his time and trouble in pursuing the repairs and the electricity used for the dehumidifier.
The landlord’s records state that the resident requested the landlord to escalate his complaint on 16 August 2023 as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 reply. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 16 November 2023 in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord had raised a new damp and mould case on 20 February 2023. It had then tried to contact the resident on 20 February 2023 and 28 April 2023, however, there was no answer and no facility to leave a voicemail message.
2. The landlord had received a report setting out the scope of works from the specialist damp surveyor following his visit in March 2023.
3. The landlord had noted that an asbestos test was needed regarding the ceiling before work could proceed. The landlord requested the test on 6 April 2023 and the asbestos team tried to contact the resident 3 times with no response.
4. An appointment for the asbestos test was agreed for 27 April 2023, however, there was no access given. The test was therefore carried out on 12 May 2023 and the results were that there was no asbestos present.
5. The landlord stated that it took no further action following the asbestos test and accepted that it had failed to follow-up the repairs. It apologised for this and also apologised that the emails and discussions with its maintenance inspector had not been followed up.
6. The landlord said the resident had asked for his complaint to be escalated on 16 August 2023 and it had delayed sending the stage 2 reply. It said that one of its senior managers had left the organisation and the transition between this and the new manager starting had contributed to the delay.
7. The landlord said it had sent a stage 2 reply by post on 13 October 2023 but the resident said he had not received it.
8. The landlord offered compensation of £500, which was comprised of £300 for the delays in carrying out repairs, £150 for the lack of clear communications and £50 for the delay in replying to the stage 2 complaint.
9. The landlord set out an action plan, which included visiting the property on 28 November 2023 to ensure the works scoped in March 2023 captured all of the outstanding repairs. The plan also included agreeing a start date for the works by 15 December 2023 and completing all of the work by the end of February 2024.
10. The landlord said it had increased staffing in its damp and mould team and provided more support for its property services team.
The resident contacted us on 22 November 2023 to say he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response because:
1. The landlord had not yet carried out the mould wash it had agreed to in February 2023.
2. The landlord had previously agreed that a particular plumber would not be sent to the resident’s property but despite this, the landlord had sent this plumber to repair the stopcock in March 2023.
3. He said he had initially asked the landlord to escalate his complaint in May 2023, rather than in August 2023 as the landlord had said in its stage 2 reply.
4. He said he had lived without working kitchen and corridor lights for 1 month and 4 days.
5. The resident said a surveyor had visited on 19 January 2023 and agreed to send someone to check the loft insulation. He said mould was now present on the ceilings.
6. The resident said the light fitting in the hallway was incorrect as the original fixture had been flush to the ceiling.
The landlord inspected the property on 12 March 2024 and, as a result, revised the scope of works that the specialist damp company had produced in March 2023. The landlord’s records show that it wrote to the resident on 31 May 2024 to confirm the provisional dates of 24 June to 12 July 2024 to carry out the works. The landlord said that the specialist damp company had been trying to contact the resident since 31 May 2024 to confirm the dates but had been unable to make contact. The landlord said it would try cold calls from 10 June 2024 to confirm the dates.
In July 2024, the landlord offered additional compensation of £625 and the resident accepted the offer. The resident advised us on 10 April 2025 that the works had been completed in late December 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident advised us of the following issues on 22 November 2023:
1. He said he was unhappy with the light fitting in the hallway.
2. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s choice of plumber it had sent in March 2023 to repair the stopcock in his property.
The evidence shows that these matters were not considered by the landlord as part of the stage 1 or stage 2 complaints process. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all of the information being investigated by us as part of its complaint response. Therefore, we have not investigated these matters as we do not consider it fair and reasonable to do so.
Similarly, we have been made aware of events that took place in relation to the property after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 16 November 2023. For example, the resident advised us that the internal works were completed in December 2024. As the landlord did not have the opportunity to consider these events and respond formally as part of the complaint process, we consider it fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs needed following a leak in the loft

The landlord’s repairs handbook states that it uses the following 3 categories to prioritise repairs:
1. Emergency (24-hour repairs) – these are for a problem that is causing immediate damage to the home or is a health and safety issue.
2. Urgent (5-day repairs) – these are for issues that will cause damage to the property or affect the resident’s wellbeing if left for a prolonged period.
3. Routine (28-day repairs) – this category is used for any other day-to-day repair to the property.
The handbook says that leaks from pipes inside the home are dealt with as an emergency.
In 2021, the Ombudsman’s produced a Spotlight report on Damp & Mould, which had various recommendations for landlords, including:
1. Landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions.
2. Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
3. Landlords should ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
Following reports of a leak by the resident on 18 January 2023, an operative attended on the same day and stopped the leak from one of the water pipes in the loft. As the leak was an emergency, it was appropriate that an operative had attended on the same day and carried out repairs. The landlord’s records show that an electrician also attended on the same day to make the lighting and the smoke alarm safe as they had been affected by the water leak. It was also appropriate that an electrician had attended on the same day to ensure that any electrical fittings affected by the leak were safe, because water entering electrical fittings can be a health and safety hazard.
The landlord delivered a dehumidifier to the property on 19 January 2023 to help dry out the water that had affected the property. This was reasonable to help dry the dampness caused by the water leak. The dehumidifier was collected from the property by the landlord on 26 January 2023.
The resident completed an online form on 20 February 2023 to report damp and mould in the property following the leak. The landlord’s records state that it phoned the resident on the same day and on 28 February 2023 but did not get an answer and there was no facility to leave a voicemail message. It was reasonable that the landlord had tried to ring the resident on the same day and then later during the month regarding his report of damp and mould. However, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord immediately followed up its phone calls in writing to the resident. This was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part as the resident had reported the presence of damp and mould.
The landlord’s records show that it ordered new parts for the lighting in the kitchen and hallway on 7 February 2023 as they had been affected by the leak. The landlord attended on 23 February 2023 to replace the lights and the smoke alarm in the hall. The job was booked as a routine job, with the service level agreement at that time being 28 calendar days. The landlord’s repairs handbook confirms that electrical jobs are booked as routine jobs unless they involve a total loss of power or total loss of lighting circuits, in which case they are booked as emergencies. As the job did not involve the complete loss of power or lighting circuits, it was reasonable for the landlord to book the job as a routine repair. The job was completed 16 days after it was ordered which was reasonable. However, it was a shortcoming that the landlord had taken until 7 February 2023 to raise the order for the parts needed to replace the lighting. The resident advised us on 22 April 2025 that during the period the kitchen and hall were without lighting, he had to use candles at night in these rooms. The loss of lighting had therefore caused him inconvenience.
The landlord arranged for a specialist damp contractor to inspect the property on 28 March 2023. As the resident had reported the presence of damp and mould, it was reasonable that the landlord had arranged for a specialist damp company to inspect the property. The company identified various works that were needed in the property, including replacing the wet loft insulation, replacing the ceilings in the living room and bedroom, carrying out mould treatment, installing a passive vent in the living room and repainting various areas with anti-condensation paint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 May 2023 to complain that the works identified by the specialist company had not been carried out. The landlord’s records state that it had raised an order on 6 April 2023 for an asbestos test at the property following the inspection on 28 March 2023. This was reasonable as the surveyor’s report had identified Artex on the ceilings, which is known to sometimes contain asbestos. Therefore, as the work involved taking down the ceilings in 2 rooms, it was important for the ceilings to be tested to identify any asbestos content. It was, however, unreasonable that the landlord had not kept the resident updated about the action it was taking following the inspection on 28 March 2023. The lack of communication had led to the resident submitting a complaint on 2 May 2023.
The landlord’s records state that the asbestos company advised the landlord that it had booked the asbestos test for 27 April 2023 but there was no answer when they attended the property. Therefore, the landlord had arranged for the asbestos test to be carried out within a month of the damp inspection on 28 March 2023, which was reasonable.
A new appointment was booked and the asbestos test was carried out on 12 May 2023. The test found that there was no asbestos present. The asbestos test was carried out within a reasonable timescale following the abortive visit on 27 April 2023.
The landlord’s records state that it tried to ring the resident several times on 31 May 2023 to discuss queries he had raised regarding the repairs. It then wrote to him on the same day and asked him to contact the landlord so it could respond to the queries raised. The landlord phoned the resident on 15 August 2023 to discuss his complaint and it logged the stage 2 complaint on 16 August 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 16 November 2023 and accepted in the reply that it had not taken any further action in relation to damp and mould after receiving the asbestos test results.
It was unreasonable that the landlord had not taken action to address the damp and mould issues following the receipt of the asbestos test results. The specialist damp surveyor had identified the need for mould treatment and various other works, which indicated that mould was present in the property.
As set out in our October 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould, landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The potential health problems caused by mould are known, and therefore the landlord should have acted with greater urgency to treat the mould and carry out the other repairs identified by the specialist damp company. At the very least, we would have expected the landlord to arrange a mould wash as soon as possible to help mitigate the health risks associated with mould.
The landlord apologised that it had not completed the damp and mould repairs resulting from the leak in January 2023 and that its maintenance surveyor had not followed up the resident’s emails and discussions. The landlord offered compensation of £500, which was made up of £300 for delays to repairs, £150 for the lack of clear communications while the resident was chasing the repairs and £50 for the delay in replying to the stage 2 complaint. The landlord had also previously offered compensation of £75 in its stage 1 reply (£25 for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the repairs and £50 towards the additional electricity used by the resident in running the dehumidifier).
Therefore, taking the stage 1 and 2 offers of compensation together, the landlord had offered £475 in relation to its handling of the repairs. The £50 offered for the delay in replying to the stage 2 complaint is considered below in our assessment of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
We have found that the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings in relation to the damp and mould works in its stage 2 reply. It also acted fairly by using its stage 2 reply to request further details about why the resident was dissatisfied with the actions of one of its maintenance inspectors so it could deal with any issues through its internal employment conduct procedure. Finally, it acted fairly by offering £50 to reimburse the resident for the additional electricity used to run the dehumidifier.
The landlord demonstrated that it was seeking to learn from the outcomes of the complaints by confirming it would share the resident’s feedback with the relevant service managers.
In terms of our dispute resolution principle of putting things right, the landlord sought to do this by apologising for its failings, offering compensation and setting out clearly the next steps it would take to ensure the works were completed. These next steps were that it would :
1. Arrange for a damp and mould surveyor and the Property Services Manager to visit the property on 28 November 2023 to ensure the schedule of works from the March 2023 inspection captured all of the required works.
2. Confirm that the Property Services Manager would be the point of contact until the works had been completed.
3. Agree to call the resident every 2 weeks after 28 November 2023.
4. Agree a start date for the works by 15 December 2023.
5. Confirm the timescale for the works and complete them by the end of February 2024.
We have considered the landlord’s compensation offer of £475 for its handling of the repairs. Our view is that the sum was proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation at the point the landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 16 November 2023. However, we do not consider it appropriate to make a finding of ‘reasonable redress’ as the repairs were still outstanding at the time the landlord sent its stage 2 response and it had not yet agreed a firm start date for the repairs. We have therefore made a finding of service failure, which recognises that the landlord made a proportionate offer of compensation at the time of its stage 2 reply, apologised to the resident, set out clear next steps and demonstrated some learning.
The resident has advised us that he did not accept the compensation offered in the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 replies. We have therefore ordered the landlord to reoffer these sums.
We have noted that the landlord made a further compensation offer of £625 in July 2024. However, as previously stated, we have not investigated matters that occurred after the landlord’s stage 2 reply on 16 November 2023 and have therefore not commented on the amount offered.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord’s complaints policy in operation at the time of the resident’s complaints stated that the process consisted of 2 stages. The policy stated that it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days of receipt. It would then reply to stage 1 complaints within 8 working days of the acknowledgement and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the decision to escalate the complaint.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 2 May 2023 and the landlord acknowledged it on 8 May 2023. The landlord therefore acknowledged the complaint within its 5-working day timescale stated in its complaints policy, which was appropriate.
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 22 May 2023, which was 9 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. Although the landlord took slightly longer to respond than its 8-working day target timescale, it responded within the 10-working day timescale stipulated in our complaint handling code. The landlord therefore replied within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord’s stage 2 reply stated that the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 16 August 2023. This is consistent with the landlord’s complaints log which shows that it phoned the landlord on 15 August 2023 to discuss the stage 2 escalation. However, the resident wrote to us on 22 November 2023 and disputed the landlord’s information. He said that he had first asked the landlord to escalate his complaint in May 2023.
The landlord’s records show that it raised a service request on 31 May 2023 and closed it after it had tried phoning the resident’s number 6 times (at 3.39pm, 3.39pm, 3.40pm, 3.40pm, 4.25pm and 4.26pm). The notes stated that there had been no facility to leave a voicemail message. The landlord said it had therefore sent a letter by first class post to the resident asking him to provide an alternative contact number so it could respond to the queries he had raised. The landlord’s records state that it also tried to ring the resident several times during June and July 2023 but was unable to speak to him except on 27 June 2023 when he explained he had been staying away from his home and had not taken his mobile phone.
The information seen by us indicates that the resident had raised further concerns regarding the repairs after receiving the landlord’s stage 1 reply and the landlord was seeking to discuss these concerns with him at the end of May 2023. However, there is conflicting information from the landlord and the resident about whether the resident requested the landlord to escalate his complaint in May 2023 or was raising queries regarding the repairs. On the basis of the evidence seen, we have concluded that we are unable to confirm either way whether the landlord should have escalated the complaint in May 2023. We have therefore based our assessment on the landlord logging the stage 2 complaint on 16 August 2023.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that it had sent a stage 2 reply by first class post to the resident on 13 October 2023 and said the resident had reported not receiving this reply. We have not seen a copy of the response the landlord said was sent on 13 October 2023. Therefore, we have based our assessment on the stage 2 reply dated 16 November 2023 as a copy of this was sent to us by the landlord. Based on the reply dated 16 November 2023, the landlord took 66 working days to respond to the complaint. This was inappropriate as the landlord did not keep to its 20-working day timescale for responding to stage 2 complaints.
The landlord explained in its stage 2 reply that the delay in responding to the complaint had been caused by the transition period between one of its managers leaving the organisation and a new one starting. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint and offered £50 compensation. The landlord outlined learning it had taken from the complaint by explaining it had ensured there was more support in its property services team for managing complaints.
As the landlord had apologised for the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint and had shown some learning from its failings, we consider the amount of compensation offered was reasonable. The amount is in line with our remedies guidance for service failures that have caused inconvenience, distress, time and trouble. Our finding is therefore that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs needed following a leak in the loft.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to provide evidence that it has paid the resident the £575 compensation offered in its stages 1 and 2 replies.