Greenoak Housing Association Limited (202422658)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422658

Greenoak Housing Association Limited

29 July 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 reports of damp and mould in the property.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
The resident has informed the landlord she and other members of her household have disabilities.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 17 October 2024. She said that ongoing problems with damp and mould in her property caused by the installation of cavity wall insulation remained unresolved. That communication from the landlord had been poor and asked for improved levels of contact. She also requested reimbursement for the cost of running dehumidifiers to help with the damp.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 November 2024. It apologised for the distress caused to the resident. It acknowledged she had chased the issue for a long time and that she had raised health concerns as a result of the damp and mould. It said it was escalating the issue internally for review and that it would provide her with an update on the outcome of this review by 2 December 2024.
The resident escalated the issue to stage 2 of the complaints process on 29 November 2024. She remained unhappy with poor communication from the landlord and repeated that she wanted the damp and mould issue resolved and compensation for having to use dehumidifiers.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 January 2025. It gave an overview of its investigation and said it was awaiting a quote for the completion of works to remove the cavity wall insulation. It said this would allow it to begin resolving the damp and mould issue. It said it could not offer further compensation for dehumidifiers. It acknowledged poor communication since the stage 1 response. It offered £175 compensation, made up of £100 for inconvenience, time and trouble and £75 for service failures.
The resident brought her complaint to the Service on 8 May 2025. She said that works remained incomplete and her family’s health continued to be negatively impacted by the damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope

Although it is noted that there is a long history of damp and mould reports by the resident, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from October 2023 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould impacted her and her family’s health. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord. This includes any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property

In the landlord’s Responsive Repairs policy, it says that its objective is to complete major works within 42 days of being notified of the issue. It says it will maintain clear and continuous communication with residents so they know the status of the repair.
Evidence provided to this investigation showed that the landlord conducted 6 separate surveys of the property between November 2023 and October 2024. Each survey report made recommendations that works should be completed promptly to help address the damp and mould issues in the property. These included repairs to the cavity wall insulation amongst other things. While the landlord conducted works throughout this period, the repeated surveys showed that the works were not effective in addressing the ongoing damp and mould issue. It failed to address issues with the cavity wall insulation during this period despite knowing about the problem. It was unreasonable for the landlord to have known about the issue since October 2023 and the impact it was having on the resident yet not to have resolved the problem sooner. The resident was put to distress and inconvenience as the issue remained unresolved despite numerous works taking place in her property throughout this period.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 17 October 2024. She said:
1. There was a lack of communication or any meaningful repairs conducted since her report on 6 September 2024.
2. The landlord had agreed to visit the property and agree a course of action. She had heard nothing since.
3. There was a pattern of unmet targets for contact.
4. She was running dehumidifiers and wanted full reimbursement for the purchase and use of these.
5. She had been impacted financially and mentally and previous complaints had changed nothing.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 November 2024. It acknowledged that the damp and mould issue was longstanding and provided a timeline of works it had conducted since it was reported in October 2023. It said its complaint response was focused on issues that had arisen since May 2024. It said that while its level of communication had been consistent, it apologised for the distress the resident experienced by having to chase and discuss the issue for an extended period. It apologised for delays in issuing payments for the dehumidifiers, caused by a system error and noted that the payments had now been made. It apologised for the impact of the ongoing issue on the resident’s health and wellbeing.
The landlord’s Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy says that it will work collaboratively with residents affected by damp and mould, ensuring ongoing communication is maintained. In addition, the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould recommends that landlords should ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould. It says landlords should ensure that one department or individual has overall responsibility for ensuring that all reports or complaints are resolved.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the impact of the prolonged communication relating to the damp and mould in the property. It demonstrated that it understood the distress and inconvenience this caused to the resident. However, it failed to address the promise of a home visit that the resident raised in the complaint or to offer any plan for how it would communicate with the resident moving forwards. It could have taken the opportunity to set out a plan for providing clear and continuous communication on the issue as its policy says it will. It could have considered the offer of a single point of contact for the resident for all concerns related to damp and mould to reduce the need to chase for a response. It missed the opportunity to improve the landlord tenant relationship by considering its approach to communication with the resident at this stage. The resident was put to further uncertainty as she was not given the reassurance that future contact with the landlord would receive a response.
The landlord said it understood the frustration that the prolonged damp and mould issue had caused and that it was reviewing her concerns through its Customer Promise Group. It said the purpose of the group was to decide on solutions for longstanding unresolved issues and the resident could expect a response from them on 2 December 2024. It was appropriate to demonstrate an escalation of the issue as it had acknowledged the problem had been going on for a prolonged period. However, its awareness of the length of time that the problem had existed and remained unresolved meant that it missed previous opportunities to escalate the issue to the Customer Promise Group, which was not appropriate. The resident was put to time and trouble as a result of a failure by the landlord to act sooner.
The landlord held a meeting with its Customer Promise Group to discuss the ongoing damp and mould issue on 28 November 2024. It acknowledged the considerable length of time the issue had remained a problem and the steps taken to try and address this since October 2023. It also identified ongoing risks of damp and mould returning if additional repairs were not conducted. It made recommendations for provision of support to the resident, including practical and financial support with heating her home while the insulation was being worked on. It relayed the outcome of the meeting to the resident on 29 November 2024. The landlord demonstrated a commitment to actions it had promised in its complaint response and updated the resident as its policy says it will. However, it was unreasonable that it had taken over a year to discuss how it would set out plans for resolving the long-standing issue.
The resident requested an escalation of the complaint on 29 November 2024. She said works remained outstanding and that she wanted compensation for the dehumidifiers she had needed to purchase and use at the property.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 January 2025. It acknowledged that the resident wanted a reviewed offer of compensation for the dehumidifiers and for the repair work to be completed. It said that its Damp and Mould Team was awaiting a contractor’s quote for the removal of the cavity wall insulation which was a step required to address the damp and mould. It said its communication with the resident had remained consistent. It acknowledged there had been a breakdown in communication from its Customer Relations Team following the stage 1 response and said this was a service failure. It said it would communicate in a timely manner moving forwards. It was appropriate for the landlord to identify areas where it had failed and showed that it had considered the resident’s whole experience. It demonstrated learning by setting an objective to improve communication around the damp and mould issue moving forwards.
In the landlord’s Compensation Policy it identifies examples of quantifiable losses a resident may experience. These include increased bills due to repair issues, amongst other things. It says evidence of losses must be provided and that it will usually only make a payment if it has failed to arrange temporary accommodation where it has agreed it is needed. Our spotlight report on damp and mould recommends that landlords ensure they can accurately calculate the costs of running dehumidifiers where they are likely to have a marked impact on a resident’s electricity bill.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord gave evidence of previous payments being made to the resident as reimbursement for the running costs of a dehumidifier that it had supplied to her. It referenced an email exchange from 4 June 2024 which detailed compensation payments for a previous complaint, along with reimbursement for the use of dehumidifiers over a prolonged period. The amount paid towards the dehumidifiers was £529.99 at that stage. It also said the resident had refused the offer of a management move. It said it was unable to reimburse the resident for the purchase and use of an additional dehumidifier and said that this was in line with its policies. While we acknowledge that payments had been made, it was unreasonable for the landlord to refuse additional reimbursement. It was aware of the ongoing impact of damp in the property and knew that the use of dehumidifiers was required to manage moisture levels. The resident gave evidence of continued use of the units throughout the complaint process and the issue with damp and mould still remained a problem. The landlord should have considered the extended amount of time the matter had remained unresolved and taken steps to support the resident with the use of her home as its policies say it will.
Evidence provided by the landlord shows that it paid additional reimbursement in recognition of costs incurred, after the internal complaints procedure was completed. This demonstrated the landlord’s learning as it considered the ongoing impact that the issue was having on the resident.
In the landlord’s Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy it says residents who engage with the landlord on issues related to damp and mould will be supported to maintain the use of their home. It says it will immediately discuss the option of a temporary transfer to another property if the damp and mould poses any risk to the health and wellbeing of the resident. Our spotlight report also recommends that landlords should consider the individual circumstances of the household, including any vulnerabilities, when extensive works are required. The report says landlords should consider whether it is appropriate to move a resident out of their property at an early stage.
The landlord provided evidence that confirm the resident was offered alternative accommodation on 11 September 2024 but she did not want to move. It was appropriate to offer this and showed that it considered different options for improving the situation.
In the stage 2 response on 6 January 2025, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had said there was an impact on her health and wellbeing. It apologised that the issues had affected her health and made clear that it could not assess or give compensation for health issues. It said the resident could make a personal injury claim through the courts, which was appropriate advice to offer.
We acknowledge that it reiterated its offer of financial support for the resident, which was appropriate and proactive. However, given that the landlord knew there were vulnerable people in the property, it should have considered whether there was any additional support it could have offered to the resident following its apology. It showed it had considered moving the resident out of the property early in the process which was appropriate and showed a proactive approach in line with its policies. However, once it had established the resident wished to remain in the property, it could have considered different ways to support the resident to maintain the use of her home as its policy says it will. Given what it knew about the resident’s vulnerabilities, it could have considered conducting a risk assessment and speaking with the resident to identify ways in which she and her family could be supported. This would have shown it took the individual circumstances of the resident into account when planning the works and that it understood the severity of the health concerns she had raised about her family.
The landlord was aware that there were significant delays in resolving the issues with damp and mould in the property. While it explained how it was escalating the issue internally, it could have done more to offer reassurance to the resident at this stage. Even if it only considered the issues identified since May 2024 as it said in the stage 1 response, it was substantially beyond the 42 day window for completion of major works that it identifies in its policy. The delay in bringing about a resolution did not demonstrate the sense of urgency that it should have applied to the issue. It should have provided the resident with an explanation for the substantial delays she had faced and acknowledged a significant service failure resulting in distress and inconvenience.
The landlord offered compensation of £175 to the resident, made up of £100 for inconvenience, time and trouble and £75 for service failures. It was appropriate to offer compensation but the amount was not sufficient for the level of distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident at that point in the process.
Following the complaints process, the landlord attended the property on at least 3 occasions following further reports from its staff and the resident. It completed works including a mould wash, an inspection of heaters and inspection of potential sources of damp from leaks. It responded proactively to reports made during this period.
However, the landlord was slow to progress the removal of the cavity wall insulation. Evidence provided showed that contractors commissioned an additional camera survey on 22 January 2025 due to discrepancies in earlier surveys so they could give a quote for the work. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 February 2025 and 18 February 2025 chasing updates on its plans to progress but the landlord was unable to confirm when the work would be starting. The local council also contacted the landlord on 21 February 2025 asking why there had been such a long delay in addressing the issue when it had known about the problem for a long time. The landlord informed the resident on 25 February 2025 that quotes for the work were still being considered and work would not begin until April 2025. In fact, the landlord did not commission the works with its chosen contractor until 1 April 2025. As a result, the actual start date for the works was given as 19 May 2025. However, due to administrative delays by the contractor, works were started on 2 June 2025 with a target completion date of 20 June 2025. The Service confirmed with the resident that the works were completed by this date and that a post-works inspection would take place at the end of July 2025. It was not appropriate for there to have been persistent delays to this work despite the landlord having acknowledged its failings in the complaints process. It failed to demonstrate that it had sufficient oversight to progress the matter as it had committed to in its complaint responses.
The landlord took the decision to commission a survey of the property with its solicitor on 16 April 2025 as part of its offer of an alternative dispute resolution process. The survey took place on 1 May 2025 to assess the impact of the damp and mould problem on the property and resident. The inspection report concluded that liability could arise in response to a claim made about defects at the property. It suggested offering the resident a settlement payment of £4,500 in response to the ongoing repair issue and the associated damages it caused. The offer was accepted by the resident on 22 May 2025.
In summary, while it demonstrated a self-reflective approach to the issue and acknowledged the severity of the impact on the resident, the landlord failed to provide an appropriate response in the circumstances. The landlord had been aware of the damp and mould issues at the property for an extended period as detailed in its complaint responses. It should not have taken the resident’s pursuit of the complaint to prompt the landlord to schedule a date for the completion of the repairs. The resident was put to distress and inconvenience as a result of the ongoing impact of the damp and mould on her enjoyment of her home. She was put to time and trouble as a result of her ongoing pursuit of the landlord for a response to her concerns. The landlord failed to show that it had sufficiently considered how to offer continued support to the resident with the impact of the issue on her family’s vulnerabilities over a prolonged period. Though it is acknowledged the landlord did some things well, a finding of maladministration has been made as a result of the significant failings outlined above.
When considering an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered, alongside what the landlord has already offered as well as the circumstances of the case. The settlement amount of £4,500, in addition to compensation payments made throughout the process, falls within the severe maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance and has been considered as appropriate in the circumstances. It is understood that the resident has accepted and been paid this amount. As the compensation offered exceeds the amount we would usually order for maladministration it would not be proportionate to make further compensation orders. However, it does not prevent the maladministration determination because the landlord’s offer was only made after escalation to this Service.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a manager to apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified within this report. It should provide a copy of its apology to this Service.
2. Complete the post works inspection and provide a written report of the outcome of the inspection to the resident and this Service.
3. Provide a list of remedial works required following the post works inspection to the resident and this Service, if they are required.