GreenSquareAccord Limited (202429481)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202429481

GreenSquareAccord Limited

14 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s
1. reports of water ingress and associated damp and mould.
2. complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom split level flat in a converted period house. He is an assured tenant and has occupied the property since October 2020. He has made the landlord aware that he has asthma. There are also young children living in the property.
The resident reported experiencing issues related to leaks since October 2022. The landlord completed repairs to the roof in February 2024. However, the resident experienced further water ingress. He sought a remedy through the courts in July 2024 where the issue of ongoing leaks, along with other disrepair matters were subject to court proceedings. The resident made a new disrepair claim, and his solicitor commissioned a survey. This took place on 25 July 2024 and recommended a number of works including repairs to external brickwork and a downpipe. It is understood these works have since been completed.
On 2 September 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report a leak above his staircase landing. He then raised a stage 1 complaint (Complaint A) on 9 September 2024. He stated that:
1. the same leak he had originally reported in October 2022 and July 2023 had returned only 2 months after the landlord had completed repairs.
2. the landlord had “promised” to call him back to book a repair appointment and told him the repair “could take up to 84 days”. However, it had not contacted him.
3. his vulnerable children were at risk of serious harm by being exposed to damp and mould on a “daily basis”.
4. the landlord had not arranged an electric safety check to determine if the lighting or sockets were affected by the leak.
5. the recurring leak had led to damp and mould formation in the living room, children’s bedroom and kitchen. It had also led to an “unpleasant musty…smell” in the property.
6. other families in the building had been moved out but it had not offered his family the same option.
7. as the landlord had been unable to permanently repair the leak, he wanted it to move his household “to a safe property”.
8. he wanted it to send him a record of all the reports he had made about the recurring leaks from when his tenancy started in October 2020.
The landlord acknowledged Complaint A on 11 September 2024 and carried out an inspection of the roof the following day. It concluded that, due to the presence of asbestos, further investigation required the services of a specialist contractor, and for scaffolding to be erected. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to Complaint A on 23 September 2024. It gave a summary of actions it had taken to address the resident’s previous reports of damp and mould, and the outcomes of the previous complaints he had raised. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint and stated that:
1. on 12 July 2024, it had conducted a damp and mould survey. It concluded that no decant was required and that the issue was caused by poor ventilation, with furniture “flush to” the walls.
2. the survey found that the property was “very clean” and “free of any damp”. The surveyor had spoken to the resident “at length about the importance of good ventilation” and keeping furniture away from walls to allow air to circulate.
3. it had arranged to repair a downpipe and repoint some external brick work on 5 December 2024. The surveyor stated there was no reason for the resident to be decanted.
4. It was unable to comment on why other residents had been moved. However, reports were showing that the property was safe and free from damp and mould.
5. it had scheduled a mould wash of the kitchen and living room for 2 October 2024.
6. while it appreciated the recurring leak was frustrating it was confident it was “acting promptly” to resolve the matter.
On 27 September 2024, the resident wrote to the landlord to ask it to escalate Complaint A. The resident raised a number of queries regarding the landlord’s handling of the ongoing leak and resulting damp and mould. These included:
1. why it had not acknowledged his request for records relating to reports of leaks in his property.
2. where in the landlord’s repairs policy it stated that roof repairs should be completed within 84 days and why the leak was not treated as an urgent repair.
3. Why the landlord had not sent an electrician to check for any “water penetration into the electrics”.
4. Whether it recognised that the delay in repairing the leak risked further damage to the property and the health of his family.
5. How many centimetres gap should be left between the walls and furniture to encourage airflow.
6. Whether it realised that a mould wash was not “a permanent solution”.
7. Why the surveyor who visited his property on 12 July 2024 did not use a damp meter.
On 1 and 2 October 2024 the landlord carried out a mould wash at the resident’s property, and completed repair works. It acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 3 October 2024 and issued a stage 2 response to Complaint A on 16 October 2024. It partially upheld the complaint and started by providing details of all the reports the resident had made of leaks into his property. It then stated that:
1. its contractor was scheduled to attend on 18 October 2024 to “carry out a full inspection of the roof”.
2. its repairs policy, which explained the different categories of repair and associated timescales was available on its website. It expected to attend to roof leaks within 7 days where it had not previously attended, or where asbestos was not present. Due to the history of leaks in the resident’s building, it would not have been possible for it to complete the repairs within 7 days.
3. As the resident had not reported that any electrics had been affected by the leak it had not arranged for an electrician to attend. Its operative who attended on 17 September 2024 to inspect the leak did not report any water penetration into the electrics.
4. It acknowledged the impact of the damp and mould the family, particularly “those most vulnerable”. It acknowledged that delays to the roof repairs being completed could lead to damp and mould “occurring or continuing”. Its disrepair team was addressing the damp and mould issues in the property.
5. there was not a specific number of centimetres that furniture needed to be away from a wall to allow airflow. However, it should be “far away enough from the wall” to allow a “hand” to fit “behind the furniture”.
6. it understood a mould wash was not “always a permanent solution” however, it alleviated the presence of damp and mould while trying to resolve the underlying problem.
7. the surveyor who attended the property did use a damp meter and confirmed there were readings of 162 and 164 along the walls.
8. although it had “patch repaired” the roof several times, there were other possible explanations for the continued leaks. These included condensation from a poorly insulated roof void. It was “evident that further investigation” was needed.
9. it appreciated the resident wanted to move. However, “internal transfers” were only agreed “under emergency circumstances”. Its surveyor, who attended on 12 July 2024, found no damp in the property. It provided a list of the options open to the resident if he remained “keen to move out”.
10. it wanted to offer its “sincere apologies” for the “distress, uncertainty and inconvenience” caused while waiting for repairs to be completed.
11. it had not identified “any occasions” within the previous 12 months where it had not attended to the roof repairs within the “given timeframe”. However, there had been “multiple repairs raised and cancelled” and the resident had spent significant time contacting it to arrange repairs when leaks reoccurred.
12. it wanted to offer him £125 compensation, broken down as:
  1. £25 for the failure to provide updates since its stage 1 response.
  2. £25 for its failure to acknowledge his disrepair claim in its stage 1 response.
  3. £25 for “poor wording” used in its stage 1 response.
  4. £50 for distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord carried out a damp and mould survey on 29 November 2024. It reported that there was “possible rising damp” and a “historic roof leak” that appeared to be fixed but that there were “a couple of parts that needed rectifying”. On 9 December 2024 the resident raised another complaint (Complaint B). He reiterated the concerns he had raised in his previous complaint regarding the ongoing leak. He stated that:
1. it had been 98 days since he reported the leak, and the landlord had taken no action.
2. it had not provided him with any updates on the repairs or reasons for delays.
3. there was a “constant musty smell” in the property and the health of his family members was being negatively affected by the damp and mould.
4. he wanted the landlord to “take immediate action” to repair the leak and prevent it from recurring”.
5. he wanted compensation for the “distress, anxiety” and “loss of enjoyment” of the property due to the landlord’s delays.
The landlord acknowledged Complaint B on 11 December 2024. It then wrote to him on 27 December 2024 to say that “due to the complexities” of the complaint it needed an additional 10 working days to respond. On 13 January 2025 it issued its stage 1 response to Complaint B. It stated that:
1. the survey its contractor had carried out on 14 May 2024 showed “no major issues regarding damp and mould” in the property. However, because he was unable to access every room, the surveyor did not complete a full inspection.
2. It was “actively working” with its contractor to arrange a second survey during the “colder months”.
3. It upheld the complaint because of its contractor’s delay in “providing the necessary information” following its survey.
4. It acknowledged the “considerable impact” of the damp and mould on the household and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused.
5. It had learnt from the resident’s complaint to ensure:
  1. It would clearly explain its complaints process, especially when it was unable to reinvestigate a matter that had already been addressed.
  2. residents were aware that surveyors needed full access to properties to avoid incomplete inspections.
  3. it “proactively managed relationships with its contractors” to prevent delays from affecting residents.
  4. its responses were more empathetic and considerate of the impacts on residents’ wellbeing.
  5. it provided regular updates to residents.
  6. it gave realistic timelines, with an emphasis on explaining what it was doing to address residents’ concerns.
6. It wanted to offer the resident £150 compensation (which took into consideration the household’s vulnerabilities) broken down as:
  1. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused.
  2. £25 for the delay in its contractor’s response.
  3. £25 for its delay in responding to the complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 January 2025 to escalate Complaint B. He stated that:
1. his initial complaint was about delays in repairing the roof leak he had reported on 2 September 2024. After 135 days the leak remained “unfixed”.
2. its stage 1 response did not address the delays in roof repairs but “diverted to irrelevant issues” such the damp and mould inspection carried out on 29 November 2024.
3. the leak had resulted in mould and damp reoccurring and worsening. He had not asked it to “reinvestigate” damp and mould.
4. since he had reported damp and mould on 5 January 2024, there had been 6 inspections. The roof remained “unrepaired” and the damp and mould continued to get worse.
5. the surveyor who attended on 29 November 2024 had access to all the rooms. The landlord was attempting to “blame” him for the “inadequacy” of its assessment.
6. there were “multiple causes” contributing to the damp and mould, and the leaks were just part of the problem.
7. by failing to address roof leaks and leaving damp and mould untreated, the landlord was putting his family’s health at risk.
8. to resolve the issues, he wanted:
  1. an “immediate repair” of the roof leak.
  2. treatment of the affected walls to prevent further damp and mould.
  3. copies of all inspection reports.
  4. a detailed explanation of why the leak had not been fixed.
  5. a revised offer of compensation that reflected distress, inconvenience and impact on health.
  6. a “clear and comprehensive” response to his complaint.
On 1 February 2025, the landlord carried out a damp and mould survey of the property. It found:
1. no evidence of damp or staining.
2. no elevated moisture readings.
3. “minor cold spotting of mould in the lounge”.
4. no mould in the children’s bedroom.
5. mould growth on items in the main bedroom, which were “stacked on top of each other”.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to Complaint B on 12 February 2025. It stated that:
1. on 18 October 2024 the resident had “refused to provide access” to its contractor and roofing team. The contractor noted that there were no visible signs of water ingress within the communal areas, and there “did not appear” to be any issues with the works it had previously carried out. However, it was not able to confirm the conditions within the property without gaining access.
2. it had not been able to find evidence of another leak, which was confirmed by the surveyor who the property on 29 November 2024.
3. during its inspection on 11 February 2025 the surveyor identified that the “leak may still be ongoing”. It had therefore arranged for a return visit so the matter could be “reinvestigated”.
4. it was apologetic that it had carried out “multiple inspections” and the frustration this would have caused. It had not been able to carry out “a full inspection” on 29 November 2024 because its surveyor “was unable to gain access to all rooms”. The requirement for repeat inspections was “due to variables outside of” its “control”.
5. it apologised that it did not give more detail about the roof leak itself in its stage 1 response.
6. It wanted to make an additional offer of £50 compensation broken down as:
  1. £25 for its failure to provide details of the events relating to the roof leak(s) that had taken place since 16 October 2024.
  2. £25 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Events following the complaints process

On 21 February 2025 the resident contacted the Ombudsman to say he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He stated that the landlord had failed to repair a leak within its 84-day timescale and that it had not carried out any repairs since he had reported the leak on 2 September 2024.
The landlord inspected the resident’s roof on 24 March 2025 and reported that it could not identify any leaks following the roof repairs it had completed in February 2024. It added that there were “some issues” on the roof that needed to be addressed, and it had “scoped up a plan” for the roofing works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident stated that he had been reporting a leak into his home from the roof since October 2022. However, the records show that historical reports of leaks were dealt with as part of a disrepair claim that was subject to court proceedings. As such, the events related to the previous leaks are outside of the scope of our investigation. The focus of this investigation will therefore relate to the landlord’s response to the report of a leak that occurred after the legal proceedings ended. Any references to events prior to this are made to provide context.
The resident has stated that the condition of his property and how the landlord has responded to his reports has had a detrimental effect on the health of his family. We note the resident’s concerns about this matter. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health are not part of the complaints process. They are more appropriately addressed through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one), as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Legal and policy frameworks

Section 11 of the Landlord of Tenant Act, and the resident’s tenancy agreement state that the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the roof, external and internal walls and ceilings. The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Repairs should be lasting and effective. Various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure the property is “fit for human habitation” and properly ventilated.
The landlord has a damp, mould and condensation policy which sets out several objectives. These include:
1. ensuring it provides and maintains dry, healthy homes for its residents.
2. undertaking effective inspections and implementing all reasonable remedial repair solutions and improvements to eradicate damp.
3. ensuring its residents have access to and/or are provided with advice and guidance on managing and controlling condensation and mould.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out the following 4 responsive repair categories and response times:
1. Emergency – attend within 4 hours and “make safe” within 24 hours.
2. Urgent – within 7 days.
3. Routine – within 28 days.
4. Planned routine – 84 days (these are works that fall outside the usual scope of responsive repairs and need time to plan).
The landlord’s discretionary compensation policy makes payments of between £50 and £1,000 in recognition of distress caused by failings, depending on the level of impact on the resident. It considers payments of over £1,000 on a case by case basis, where there has been a significant impact on the resident, where its actions has made the situation worse and it has failed to acknowledge its failures. It also makes payments of between £100 and £300 for time and trouble caused.
The landlord’s complaints policy effective at the time of the complaint states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It sets out the following 2 stages and response times:
1. stage 1 –within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
2. stage 2 – within 20 working days of acknowledgement
For stage 1 and 2 complaints the policy states that it should not extend these timescales over 10 and 20 working days respectively. However, if it is necessary to do so, it must let the resident know and give the reason for the delay. This is broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Reports of a leak and associated damp and mould

We note the resident’s comments in relation to the conditions within the property caused by a recurring leak. It is not our role to reach a decision about the extent of the leak, or the associated damp and mould itself. Instead, we will consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This report will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action, and followed good practice.
Our spotlight report ‘Damp and mould. It’s not lifestyle’, published in October 2021, states that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. They should take a zero-tolerance approach, be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about actions. Where inspections result in recommended works to tackle condensation, damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner. Any deviations from the recommendations should be clearly documented and explained to the resident.
On 2 September 2024 the resident reported a leak from the roof onto his staircase landing. He stated that this was the same leak he had been reporting since October 2022. The records suggest that water ingress only occurred when the rain was “extremely heavy”.
The landlord attended the property 16 days later, on 17 September 2024, to inspect the roof. It reported that it was unable to trace the leak and that it needed its specialist contractor to investigate further due to the presence of asbestos.
Our spotlight report recommends that landlords should implement a risk-based approach with respect to damp and mould. It states that this will help landlords identify hidden issues before a complaint or disrepair claim is made.
The only evidence the landlord provided to show it had assessed the severity of the damp or the impact of the conditions on the resident was when it inspected the property on 11 February 2025. This inspection report showed that a risk assessment had been completed. However, this was over 5 months after the resident had first reported the leak.
Given the previous reports of leaks, it would have been reasonable for it to have assessed any possible risks shortly after receiving the resident’s report. Furthermore, it is unclear why the landlord had not considered whether this should have been raised as an urgent repair. The landlord has not demonstrated it had acted in a timely enough manner to assess the impact of the conditions on the resident to inform its repair approach. This was a missed opportunity to consider what it could do to mitigate the distress and inconvenience of this on the resident while it sought to make a lasting and effective repair.
The survey carried out in November 2024 found no evidence of a leak. There are contemporaneous records that indicate the surveyor was unable to access all the rooms in the property. However, it is noted that the resident had disputed this. Although the surveyor reported “possible rising damp”, there is no indication the landlord had followed these issues up until it carried out a further survey on 11 February 2025, 10 weeks later. Given the landlord was unable to complete a full inspection in November 2024 and that it had raised concerns about possible rising damp, it would have been reasonable for it to have prioritised a further inspection. That it failed to do so would have caused the resident unnecessary uncertainty about the cause of the issues he had been reporting.
We acknowledge that it can take more than one attempt to resolve damp. It may be difficult to identify the cause of the problem at the outset. However, a landlord should assess all possible causes of damp as quickly as possible, including leaks, rising damp, penetrating damp, and condensation, to gain a clear understanding of the problem and offer an effective remedy. The landlord carried out a damp and mould survey of the property on 29 November 2024. This was over 2 months after it had inspected the resident’s roof. However, we note that the specialist contractor had attempted to inspect the property on 18 October 2024 but was unable to gain access
The evidence shows that during this visit the specialist contractor carried out a visual inspection of the roof and communal area. It could not find any evidence of water ingress. However, there is an internal record from the inspection stating that the “only option” was to “renew the rear section of the roof”. There is no indication the landlord followed up this until it carried out a further inspection on 24 March 2025, which found “some issues on the roof” that needed to be addressed. An internal record following this inspection shows that the landlord had agreed to replace the rear section of the roof.
That it took the landlord over 5 months to take any further action following the specialist contractor’s recommendation represents an excessive delay. This was a significant departure from its 84 day timescale set out in its repairs policy. The delay caused the resident ongoing distress and inconvenience while having to wait for a permanent and lasting repair to be arranged. This would have resulted in his family experiencing the impacts from outstanding roof repair for longer than necessary.
The survey completed on 11 February 2025 found no evidence of significant damp and mould. Furthermore, it mentioned findings from a previous survey completed on 14 May 2024. This stated there were “no apparent signs of rising dampness” and that “the main dampness issue” appeared to be “due to condensation”. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on inspections by suitably qualified professionals. However, the report also stated that the roof had “not been repaired”. The surveyor told the landlord that the “leak may still be ongoing” and that further investigations were needed. This contradicted conclusions from previous inspections in September and November 2024 that the roof had been “fixed” and that there was no evidence of a leak.
The evidence shows there was a lack of clarity about the repair, which suggests poor repairs management by the landlord. Its mixed messaging around whether or not a leak was present would have caused the resident unnecessary confusion. He would have felt it was being dismissive of his reports. It would have also made him lose confidence that the landlord was taking adequate steps to identify the cause of the water ingress he was reporting.
The records show there was ongoing differences of opinion between the landlord and resident as to whether the leak had been resolved. The evidence shows that the landlord’s conclusion that there was no evidence of an ongoing leak was based on 3 inspections. These were on:
1. 17 September 2024 – the landlord attended but could not properly investigate due to the presence of asbestos in the roof.
2. 18 October 2024 – the specialist asbestos contractor was unable to gain access to the property but based its assertion on a visual inspection of the roof and internal communal area,
3. 29 November 2024 – the surveyor stated he could find no evidence of a leak but was unable to gain access to some of the rooms.
The resident had said the leak occurred after heavy rainfall. The landlord could have considered attending the property following a period of wet weather to assess the leak. This would have demonstrated it was being customer-focused and provided the resident some reassurance it was taking all reasonable steps to respond to the resident’s reports. We note that a further roof inspection on 24 March 2025, following conclusion of the complaints process, could not find evidence of leaks but raised roof replacement works.
The Ombudsman appreciates that resolving a leak is not always straightforward. It is acknowledged there can be physical challenges, or it can be a matter of ruling out causes until the source is identified. However, where obstacles are identified or a process of elimination is required, we would expect to see an action plan developed by the landlord. This should be overseen and closely monitored to ensure the source of a leak is identified at the earliest opportunity, and a prompt remedy is then implemented.
The landlord was unable to demonstrate it had taken appropriate and timely action to rule out that there was an ongoing leak. Furthermore, it could not demonstrate it took prompt action to complete any additional roofing repairs. Furthermore, by carrying out repeated inspections without reaching any definitive outcome, it failed to demonstrate it had taken reasonable steps to minimise disruption to the household.
Landlords should reasonably give details and timescales for any actions they plan to take. They should also keep residents regularly updated and informed. Such action is recommended in our guidance to landlords for repairs complaints, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord provided very limited records of contemporaneous contacts with the resident. It has therefore failed to demonstrate that it kept the resident updated on the progress of its investigations. There is no indication it had tried to reassure him it was addressing the issue. Furthermore, there is evidence of repeated appointment cancellations without any reasons being given. Understandably, the delays between inspections combined with poor communication would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. There are records to show the resident had spent unnecessary time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates, which should not have been necessary given its repair obligations.
There is evidence of occasions when the landlord and its contractors were unable to gain access to the property, or to certain rooms to carry out full inspections. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, one of his responsibilities as a tenant is to provide the landlord and its contractors with reasonable access to the property. This is to enable it to meet its repairs obligations.
The Ombudsman accepts there can be many reasons why it may not be convenient for the resident to allow operatives into his home. However, we cannot consider delays to leaks being resolved because of issues with gaining access to the property to be within the landlord’s control. Unless the landlord could gain reasonable access to the property, it would have been unable to carry out the required investigations in a timely manner.
However, there is evidence the landlord had attended on 18 October 2024 without first arranging an appointment with the resident. That the landlord gave the resident no advance notice of its visit was a failing. Given the history of leaks and disrepair in the property, the landlord should have made all reasonable efforts to carry out an effective assessment of the issue, as promptly as possible. This would have included ensuring the resident was aware its specialist contractor was attending the property so it could help resolve any ongoing leaks. This would have caused inconvenience to the resident.
Furthermore, when the landlord was unable to gain access to all the rooms in the property on 29 November 2025, it should not have waited a further 10 weeks in order to complete a full inspection. It should have explained to the resident that it required access to the whole property to make a proper assessment and arranged a return visit within a reasonable amount of time. The ongoing delays in carrying out any effective investigations would have caused the resident ongoing uncertainty as to the cause of the water ingress in his property.
Our spotlight report states that landlords should ensure that, “where significant works are required, smaller remedial works such as mould washes/anti-mould paint that will improve the resident’s living environment are still completed”. The evidence shows that the landlord carried out a mould wash and other damp related works on 1 and 2 October 2024. This was appropriate.
The records show that an inspection of the property on 12 July 2024 found that the property was “free of any damp”. It noted that any issues with damp and mould were caused by poor ventilation and furniture being “flush” to the walls. The evidence shows that during the inspection, the surveyor spoke to the resident “at length” about the importance of good ventilation and keeping furniture a certain distance from walls to improve airflow.
The importance of providing residents with advice on how to deal with condensation is highlighted in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. Landlords should ensure they have measures in place to provide residents with information about dealing with damp, mould and condensation when such reports are received. Furthermore, the landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy says it must ensure residents are provided with advice and guidance on managing and controlling condensation and mould. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately by giving the resident advice about how to control condensation, mould growth, and how to improve ventilation during its inspection.

Conclusion

The evidence shows that it took the landlord:
1. 32 days for its specialist contractor to attend the building following its initial visit. The contractor was unable to gain access to the property as it had not made an appointment with the resident. However, it recommended replacing the rear section of the roof.
2. 43 days after the above mentioned specialist attendance to carry out an inspection of the property. The surveyor was unable to access all the rooms.
3. a further 75 days to carry out a full inspection of the property. The surveyor could not establish whether or not there was an ongoing leak.
4. 5 months following the recommendation to replace the rear section of the roof before carrying out a further inspection and then raising roof replacement works.
The above mentioned delays contributed to the significant time taken to investigate the cause of ongoing water ingress and the resulting impacts on the resident and his family.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: “Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
In its stage 2 response to Complaint A, the landlord failed to fully acknowledge the delays in trying to find the cause of the leak. It stated that it had not identified “any occasions” within the previous 12 months where it had not attended to the roof repairs within the “given timeframe”. However, it did acknowledge the time and trouble the resident had taken to report ongoing leaks.
In its stage 1 response to Complaint A, the landlord offered its “sincere apologies” for the “distress, uncertainty and inconvenience” caused and the increased impact on the household due to its vulnerabilities. Furthermore, it acknowledged that its communication was poor and that it had failed to provide the resident with adequate updates. In its responses to Complaints A and B it offered him a total of £325, of which £175 was in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused and £50 for its poor communication.
The landlord also provided extensive details of how it had learnt from the failings it had identified, and explained the changes it would make to its service as a result. This included its need to improve timeliness and coordination with contractors, ensuring it proactively managed its relationships to prevent delays from affecting residents.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s poor experience and to try and put things right for the failings it had identified, including it poor communication. However, the landlord did not go far enough to acknowledge the repeated delays in responding to the resident’s reports. This led to avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident and his family, and unnecessary time and trouble prompting the landlord to take the appropriate actions. For this reason, we have made a finding of maladministration and will order that the landlord pays the resident a revised offer of redress in recognition of the impact caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays. This figure will be in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Complaint

The Code states that Landlords must issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. Landlords must decide whether an extension to this timescale is needed when considering the complexity of the complaint and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. The reason for needing the extension must be clearly explained to the resident. The landlord must also provide the resident with the contact details of the Ombudsman.
We note that the landlord acknowledged Complaint B on 11 December 2024. This was within 5 working days, which was in line with its complaints policy. It then wrote to the resident 10 working days later, on 27 December 2024, to explain that, due to the “complexities” of his complaint, it needed an additional 10 working days in which to respond. It provided the expected response date of 13 January 2025 and explained that it required the extension in order to “gather the required information” to fully investigate the complaint. It subsequently sent its response on 13 January 2025, as it had advised. Overall, its actions were appropriate and in line with its policy and the Code.
However, in its email of 27 December 2024, the landlord should have provided the Ombudsman’s contact details. That it did not do so was a shortcoming. It should ensure it reminds complaint handling staff that any extensions must always give details on how resident can contact us, so they are made aware they have the option to do so.
It is unclear why the landlord opened a new stage 1 complaint on 9 December 2024 to investigate concerns that it had already addressed in the resident’s previous complaint. The landlord should have reminded the resident that he had exhausted its complaints procedure and that it could not reinvestigate matters that had already been covered in previous complaints. It should have reminded the resident instead that he had the option to approach the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
Although its actions were well intentioned, this caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble pursuing his complaint. This was a departure from both from its own policy and the Code.
In its complaint responses, the landlord offered a total of £100 compensation for poor complaint handling. This was part of its overall offer of £325. It acknowledged that it should not have reinvestigated the resident’s complaint and provided details of how it had learnt the importance of “clearly explaining” its complaint process to residents. This was appropriate and demonstrates the landlord made reasonable efforts to put things right. For the reasons stated, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in our opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress and associated damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses its response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in line with our guidance on making apologies. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
2. Pay the resident £450 compensation calculated as:
  1. £200 in recognition of the distress caused by the landlord’s delays in taking appropriate action in response to his reports.
  2. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays in taking appropriate action in response to his reports.
  3. £100 in recognition of the time and trouble the resident took to pursue his concerns and the landlord’s poor communication.
3. This replaces the offer £225 it had made in its stage 2 responses. The landlord can offset any sums already paid from our figure.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should pay the resident £100 it had offered in its stage 2 responses for failings it had identified in its complaint handling.