Golding Homes Limited (202434945)

Decision
Case ID	202434945
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Golding Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	22 December 2025

Background

The resident lives in a first-floor property. They complained about the landlord’s response to their reports of water on the internal walls of the property, condensation, damp and mould. They asked us to investigate as they were not satisfied with the landlord’s response.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of cold spots, condensation, damp and mould in the property.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of cold spots, condensation, damp and mould in the property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of cold spots, condensation, damp and mould in the property

The landlord inspected the property and agreed to carry out some repairs in line with the terms of the lease, agreed to additional actions it would take in attempt to remedy the issue and provided advice to the resident. However, it delayed actions it agreed to do and had not clearly communicated with the resident about this and the responsibility to repair some of the issues under the terms of the lease. The landlord recognised this and offered compensation of £200, which it increased to £300 after the complaint response. It said it completed the works it agreed to do.

Complaint

The landlord had not treated the resident’s initial contact as a complaint and acknowledged it 4 months later, after we asked it to respond. While it handled the stage 2 escalation appropriately, it did not recognise its failings or offer redress.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 19 January 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £450 made up as follows: £300 it offered in its complaint response for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the report of cold spots, condensation, damp and mould in their property £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. It must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. It may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 19 January 2026
3	Specific action The landlord must write to the resident and provide evidence that it had completed the actions it agreed to do in its complaint response. It must provide a copy of this to us.	No later than 19 January 2026
4	Learning order The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.	No later than 19 January 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord responds to the resident’s enquiries about: whether they will be charged for work it has completed at the property to remedy the reports of condensation, damp, and mould that the windows have not been fitted properly and there are holes in the property walls whether it would complete a mould wash in the property and apply antimould paint provide evidence to the resident if it had installed insulation in between their walls

Our recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord responds to the resident’s enquiries about:

whether they will be charged for work it has completed at the property to remedy the reports of condensation, damp, and mould
that the windows have not been fitted properly and there are holes in the property walls
whether it would complete a mould wash in the property and apply antimould paint
provide evidence to the resident if it had installed insulation in between their walls

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 21 November 2024 to 7 January 2025	The resident said they had complained to the landlord for 5 years about water that had run down their kitchen and bedroom wall during cold and wet weather, which caused damp and mould. After raising their concerns in November 2024, the landlord explained it had not taken their contact as a complaint, as it had no prior report of the issue and said the resident could complain after it had inspected it. The resident reported they felt ignored and left with a leak that they said affected their health and covered their belongings in black mould.
26 March 2025	The resident referred the complaint to us. We notified the landlord of the complaint about condensation, damp and mould in the property.
15 April 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said it had no record of the issue until it was reported in November 2024 and that an inspection had not found a leak but an issue with “cold bridging”. It set out recommendations for the resident in an attempt to remedy the issue and said it removed blockages in the guttering and topped up the roof insulation. It apologised for its poor communication, and response to the report of damp and mould. It said it had learnt from this.
19 May 2025	The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2, which the landlord acknowledged on the same day.
16 June 2025	The landlord provided the stage 2 response. It said it had found insulation in part of the resident’s wall cavity and that it would replace expansion joists. It provided a contact for an insurance claim to be considered by the insurer for damage to the property. It offered £200 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delay to carry out actions it said it would do. It said it would: complete a further inspection of the first-floor walls of the property complete thermal imaging of the home during colder months upgrade the loft insulation replace the expansion joists replace the extractor fan offer advice about damp, mould and condensation
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said they wanted assurance that the loft and walls had been insulated properly and that the landlord would remove the mould from the walls and treat it with antibacterial paint. They wanted compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to them as well as the damage caused to their mattress, carpet, clothes and décor. They also wanted their windows refitted and not to be charged for any works completed to the property.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Reports of cold spots, condensation, damp and mould in the property
Finding	Service failure

What we have not investigated

The resident referred to reports made to the landlord about water, damp and mould in the property for the last 5 years. It is not possible for us to conduct a thorough investigation of events dating back that far. We will only consider complaints which have been raised within a reasonable time of the events occurring. Therefore, this investigation will only consider events dating back 12 months before the resident’s complaint.
The resident raised concern about the property windows not being fitted properly. However, this has not had the opportunity to exhaust the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. This investigation will only consider matters that have been through the landlord’s internal complaint procedure and brought to us for investigation as detailed above. The resident may wish to raise a separate complaint about this issue with the landlord if they wish.

What we have investigated

The landlord’s damp and mould policy sets out what actions it may take in response to reports of condensation, damp and mould. The policy confirms that its application is dependent on the terms of the lease for the property. The lease sets out that the resident is responsible for the internal parts of the property, whilst the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord responded to the resident’s report of water running down their walls and damp in the property. It inspected this, found there was no leak and that it was likely condensation. It arranged a further inspection. This found there was a “cold bridging” issue between the external and internal walls. It was appropriate and in line with the damp and mould policy for the landlord to inspect the issue so it could determine what it may be responsible for under the terms of the lease.
The landlord set out that it would unblock the gutters and inspect the communal vent to ensure it worked. This was appropriate and in line with the terms of the lease. It also said it would top-up the roof insulation, inspect in between the exterior and interior walls to see if there was insulation present, and recommended the resident install thermal boards in the property. These were reasonable steps to take, as it was not obligated to install insulation under the terms of the lease.
The landlord said it cleared the gutters in January 2025, which was an appropriate attempt to remedy the issue for the parts of the property it was responsible for. It also said it topped up the roof insulation in February 2025 which was reasonable to complete actions it said it would do. However, there is a lack of supporting evidence to show when this happened and whether it was in line with the timeframes set out in its repair policy. This has made it difficult to assess and is a failure of its record keeping.
The resident raised concern that the contractor damaged their ceiling whilst in the roof replacing the insulation. The landlord set out who the resident could contact about an insurance claim. There is no evidence an insurance claim had been made. It was appropriate to signpost the resident to where insurance claim enquiries could be raised.
It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to complete inspections and repairs. However, there is no evidence it had managed expectations and clearly set out who had responsibility for parts of the property to remedy the condensation, damp and mould under the terms of the lease. This was unreasonable.
The resident contacted us about the lack of action from the landlord, and we notified it of the issue. It recognised that it had not checked in between the external and internal wall for insulation and had not checked the communal vent. The 3-month delay to follow-up on the actions it said it would do was unreasonable. The resident said the delay caused them distress and inconvenience and the damp and mould damaged their belongings.
The landlord completed an inspection between the internal and external walls. It found insulation part-way up the resident’s property. The lease does not set out that it was responsible for the insulation in between the property walls and it was therefore not required to replace it. However, it was reasonable that it eventually followed-up on the actions it said it would do to understand what may be contributing to the condensation, damp and mould in the property.
In its complaint response, the landlord said that following its inspections it had an action plan to replace the property expansion joists and the extractor fan. This was appropriate under the lease as it was responsible for the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord also set out that it would upgrade the roof insulation and inspect the first‑floor wall cavity again as it only checked part way into the resident’s wall. It said it would also carry out thermal imaging and provide advice to the resident. These steps were reasonable considering it was not responsible for these actions. It said that the resident would be responsible to upgrade and move heaters against the internal parts of the property that adjoin to the external wall as well as install thermal boarding. It was appropriate to provide advice to the resident and eventually set out what parts of the property the resident was responsible for under the terms of the lease.
In the complaint response, the landlord recognised delays in communication, follow-up actions it agreed to do, and set out learnings to act sooner and share inspection reports. However, the compensation it offered at that time did not recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for its delays and lack of clarity around responsibilities, which was not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles of be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
Since the complaint response, the landlord provided advice to the resident about the issue, repaired the expansion joists, replaced the extractor fan, recommended mould treatments, and said it would replace the loft insulation. It also found the insulation in the walls had dropped to the ground floor. It said that as a result of the work to reduce heat loss in the property, it would no longer carry out thermal imaging. It also recognised it missed the timescales set out in its complaint response, and increased its compensation offer to £300 for the distress, inconvenience, and delay caused to the resident.
The landlord’s recent comments and actions can be said to have put some things right for the resident and the compensation is in line with what we would have recommended considering our remedies guidance. However, it had not addressed the substantive issue of the complaint or increased its offer of compensation until several months after it issued its final response and the case was accepted by us for investigation. Our outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made under such circumstances.
The resident said it was unclear if the landlord had completed the actions it said it would do. This included whether it had insulated the roof, and they were unsure if it had insulated in between the walls since it found insulation had dropped.
Considering its overall response, as well as our outcome and remedies guidance, we have made orders for the landlord to pay the compensation it offered to the resident in its complaint response and provide evidence to us and the resident that it had completed the actions it agreed to do.
The resident told us that after the complaint response the landlord agreed to remove the mould and apply antimould paint. They also said their windows were not fitted properly, there were holes in their walls, they wanted to know if they would be charged for the repairs the landlord completed, if insulation between the calls had been completed, and whether it would pay compensation for damage to their belongings and property. It is recommended the landlord provides a response to the resident about this.

Complaint	The complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days, and the resident should receive a stage 1 response within 10 working days. At stage 2, the resident should receive a formal response within 20 working days.
After the resident emailed the landlord’s complaint team on 21 November 2024, it replied that it did not consider their contact as a complaint as it was the first report of water ingress and damp in the property. They said they needed to consider it as a service request. However, the resident had expressed dissatisfaction about the issue to the complaint team and their complaint set out that they were under the impression they had raised the issue to the landlord before that it had not actioned.
Considering the circumstances, the landlord should have responded to the resident’s complaint from the time they contacted it on 21 November 2024 as they had set out they were under the impression it was raised before. The fact it did not do so was inappropriate and not in line with the Code and its complaint policy which says that a complaint is defined as expression of dissatisfaction about a standard of service or lack thereof.
The resident contacted us about their complaint and raised further dissatisfaction with the landlord that they felt ignored. It was not until we contacted the landlord about the issue that it acknowledged the resident’s complaint 4 months later. The delay to acknowledge the complaint was inappropriate, not in line with its complaint policy and the Code and delayed the stage 1 response.
After the resident received the landlord’s stage 1 response, they requested to escalate the complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and provided the stage 2 response within 20 working days. This was appropriate, in line with its complaint policy and the Code.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it had not recognised any failings in how it handled the complaint and did not offer redress for the distress and inconvenience caused. This was not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
We have made orders to put things right. This includes compensation in line with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy for the distress and inconvenience caused for its complaint handling failures, an apology and its learnings to prevent it happening again in the future.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) Spotlight report recommends that landlords keep clear records. Landlords who keep accurate records can meet their obligations and provide us with information for a thorough investigation. The landlord had not provided evidence of all records about the issue, such as when it had completed repairs. This, at times, impacted our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

The landlord had not proactively communicated with the resident about the repairs it said it would do and was not clear from the outset of its responsibilities under the lease, which likely contributed to their distress when expecting responses to their reports.