Halton Housing (202431709)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431709

Halton Housing

24 September 2025

Amended 7 January 2026

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord, a housing association. She lives in a house with her 3 young children.
3. The resident made a complaint to her landlord via her Member of Parliament (MP) on 9 October 2024. She said:
   1. Her baby daughter had been hospitalised due to the damp conditions in her property.
   2. The landlord had not thoroughly inspected her property for damp and mould.
   3. Her flooring and wallpaper were damaged due to damp.
4. The landlord issued the resident’s MP with its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 17 October 2024. It said:
   1. It had completed a number of repairs including the guttering being cleared, sealed, and refixed, replacement of a bathroom fan and plastering work to the wall of the chimney breast.
   2. It had scheduled additional works including repointing the chimney stack, fitting an air vent to the boiler cupboard, plastering the hallway and kitchen areas, fitting an extra skirting board, and painting all newly plastered areas.
   3. Its surveyor inspected the floor in the lounge but did not find it was damaged and so it would not provide the resident with compensation for this.
   4. There was a small, dried patch to the kitchen floor near the washing machine, and it had raised a job for a plumber to investigate for any potential leaks.
   5. It would offer the resident £100 in decorating vouchers to help her redecorate.
5. The resident told the landlord she remained dissatisfied with its response to her complaint and handling of her reports of damp and mould on 21 and 22 October 2022. She said it would cost her £880 to replace the flooring and £200 to make good the wallpaper which were damaged by damp. She also told it she had needed to take time off work to accommodate repair appointments and there had been occasions when the landlord had not turned up to scheduled visits.
6. On 23 October 2024, the resident told the landlord she believed the damp in the property was due to a burst pipe which had caused damage to the floors and walls of her home at the time. She later told it this leak had occurred in 2022.
7. On 31 October 2024, the resident raised concern to the landlord that it had not decanted (temporarily re-housed) her and her family whilst works to remedy the damp were carried out. She also sent it a letter from her GP stating that her young daughter had needed to visit them several times and was admitted to hospital due to chest symptoms.
8. The landlord issued the resident with its stage 2 response to her complaint on 14 November 2024. It said:
   1. It had reviewed the letter from the resident’s GP but was confident it had thoroughly investigated all reports of damp and mould. It said it had taken moisture readings as part of its damp inspection and found low to minimal readings indicating there was no “cause for concern.”
   2. It was not obliged to investigate its handling of the leak in the resident’s home in 2022 and any subsequent damage caused to the kitchen floor as it happened over 12 months ago.
   3. It had attempted to check for any further leaks around the washing machine in the kitchen more recently even though its surveyor had not identified any damp or mould concerns in that room. It said it would not compensate for the replacement of the kitchen floor which was laid after the leak in 2022.
   4. It had found no evidence that the living room and hallway floor were damaged, and it was not responsible for compensating the resident for the replacement.
   5. It would only provide a decant for works that would cause major disruption which was not the case with the repairs carried out to the resident’s home.
9. The resident has told the Ombudsman she would like the landlord to increase its offer of compensation, complete outstanding repairs which include repainting a wall that it plastered and replacing a damp skirting board, and to replace the kitchen, living room and hallway floor due to damp underneath.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident has raised concerns about the impact of damp and mould on her family’s health. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. The Ombudsman can consider the general impact and distress which any identified failings by the landlord may have caused, but it is outside our role to determine the effect of the landlord’s action or inaction on the specific health conditions of the resident and her family. Any such claim would be more appropriately progressed through liability insurance or as a civil action through the courts. If the resident wishes to pursue a personal injury claim, she can seek independent legal advice.
11. The resident has said that damp in the property and damage caused to her kitchen floor was due to the landlord’s handling of a burst pipe in November 2022. However, we will not investigate complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matter arising. On this basis, we will not investigate the landlord’s handling of the leak that occurred in the resident’s home in 2022 including any damage to the kitchen floor. We will consider events from the resident’s report of damp and mould from October 2023, which is 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord, up to the landlord’s final response in November 2024 and any actions it committed to as part of its final response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould

12. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will inspect a property when a resident reports damp and mould. In August 2024, the resident reported crumbling plaster on her chimney breast, which the landlord attended to the same day and raised follow on works.
13. The landlord’s repair policy states it will attend to make safe emergency repairs within 4 hours and non-emergency repairs within 20 working days. It was positive therefore that the landlord attended the day of the resident’s reports that the plaster was crumbling on the wall of the chimney breast despite it not being obliged to, as this would not be classed as an emergency repair.
14. It completed the follow-on work to check for plaster bridging and to make good the plastering 45 working days later. While the evidence confirms the repair was raised as planned works, therefore the landlord met its published timescales, the reasoning for this categorisation is not clear. Plasterwork would ordinarily fall under non-emergency repairs, which should be completed within 20 working days.
15. The resident has said that the landlord’s operative, who had attended her home to complete a mould wash on 17 September 2024, told her it had failed to fully inspect the property for damp and mould. She also said the operative who attended on 8 October 2024 for the plaster work said the chimney was in a “severe condition”. Whilst we cannot verify that these comments were made as we do not have evidence to substantiate this, it is reasonable to conclude that the surveyor only inspected the plaster to the chimney breast at the time of their visit on 23 August 2024. This is because there is no evidence of a damp and mould inspection elsewhere in the property, rather only comments made in relation to the plaster work and moisture readings taken from that specific area.
16. It was appropriate for the landlord to return to the property when its operative raised concerns that it needed to carry out another inspection when they visited on 17 September 2024 to complete a mould wash and also when the resident raised further concerns for damp in other areas. It was positive that the landlord then completed another inspection 9 working days later on 30 September 2024 and again on 16 October 2024 which was a prompt response.
17. Whilst we understand that the landlord inspected the property on a number of occasions, it is important to note that when trying to resolve issues of damp and mould it can sometimes take time to find the right solution and different repairs may need to be attempted before the problem is fully resolved. This does not necessarily mean there was negligence by the landlord. It is encouraging that the landlord was responsive to the resident’s reports of damp after August 2024 and continued to visit and raise repairs in efforts to resolve the issue.
18. The resident has said that the landlord failed to attend to several repair appointments. Whilst the Ombudsman has not disregarded the resident’s comments on this issue, we have not seen evidence to confirm this was the case. With the exception of the plasterwork to the wall of the chimney breast, the landlord actioned all remedial repairs raised following its inspections of the resident’s property for damp and mould on 30 September and 16 October 2024 within its published timescale of 20 working days for non-emergency repairs. Therefore, we have concluded that the landlord acted appropriately in its scheduling of the repairs raised to address the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
19. It was encouraging that the landlord inspected the property for damp again on 16 October 2024 once it was made aware the resident’s child had been hospitalised on 9 October 2024. This is despite it having already completed a damp inspection not long before this on 30 September 2023. This showed it took the resident’s reports of damp and her concerns regarding her child’s health seriously even though it ultimately concluded there was no cause for concern in relation to the overall condition of the property and the potential impact to the resident and her family from the damp.
20. The landlord was not obliged to decant the resident and her family during the repair works as its surveyor had determined that the level of damp and mould in the property was minimal and that the repairs were not considered major. Whilst we acknowledge the distress caused to the resident by her experience of damp in her home, the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its appropriately qualified surveyor when deciding whether the resident and her family needed decanting during the repair work. We have seen no evidence to confirm the surveyor’s opinion was incorrect and so we have found the landlord position on this matter was appropriate.
21. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident £100 in decorating vouchers for the damage caused to her wallpaper from the damp in support of putting the resident back in the position she was in before she reported the issue. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £100 decorating vouchers it offered to her in October 2024.
22. The landlord committed to painting the newly plastered walls and replacing the skirting board of the wall of the chimney breast following the plaster work however the resident has said it did not fully complete these works as it put back the same wet skirting board and did not paint a wall. We have not seen any evidence to show this work was completed. Since the landlord did not keep to its commitment to complete these works, this was a failure on its part which has caused the resident distress as she has been waiting for these repairs to be completed for an unreasonable amount of time. As such, we will order the landlord to return to the resident’s property and complete these outstanding repairs. We have also considered this when looking at compensation, as detailed further below.

Damage to the resident’s flooring

23. The landlord said it was not obliged to reimburse the resident the cost of replacing the living room and hallway floor as its surveyor had found no sign of damage caused to it by damp. Despite the Ombudsman asking for evidence of its surveyor reports from this time and evidence to support its position in regard to the flooring, the landlord has not provided this. As the resident is disputing the landlord’s position and given there has been damp reported in this room, the landlord should have done more to explain its position and be able to evidence this. This was a failure by the landlord that has caused the resident distress as it has not properly addressed this issue.
24. We will order the landlord to inspect the living room and hallway flooring to determine whether it has been damaged due to damp. It must then clearly set out its position in response to the resident’s request that it reimburse her for the cost of replacing it and provide evidence in support of this to the resident and the Ombudsman.
25. The landlord was entitled to assess the resident’s compensation request internally and outside its public insurance process, it should have provided the relevant insurance details. This would have enabled the resident to make an informed decision about whether to pursue the matter further.
26. It was appropriate for the landlord to make an appointment to check for any current leaks in the kitchen than might have caused damage to the kitchen floor. The landlord made reasonable attempts to complete this repair, but it could not gain access as the resident said there was no current leak. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to set out its position in regard to it not replacing the kitchen floor and it not addressing its handling of the leak as it had occurred more than 12 months prior to the resident raising a formal complaint. This was in line with its complaints policy which states it will not accept a complaint when the issue is more than 12 months old. As set out above, the Ombudsman has not investigated the kitchen leak for the same reason.

Conclusion

27. Overall, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould because:
    1. It did not complete all repairs it committed to.
    2. While it addressed the resident’s request for it to reimburse her for damage caused to the living room and hallway floor by damp in the property, it did not provide her with its public liability insurance details.
28. Considering the above, the landlord should pay the resident £100 to reflect the level of distress and inconvenience caused by its failings which have adversely affected the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, published on our website and which sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where there have been errors by the landlord which caused distress and/or inconvenience for the resident but there may be no permanent impact from the errors.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

30. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings highlighted by this investigation in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. Complete an inspection of the property to ensure all outstanding repairs to the property including the skirting board to the wall of the chimney breast and the outstanding painting of the wall have been completed.
    3. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Recommendations

31. It was recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident the £100 decorating vouchers it offered in October 2024 if it has not already done so.
    2. Provide the resident with its public liability insurance details in reference to the damaged living room flooring.
    3. Review it’s the inspection reports it produces to ensure they are comprehensive and thorough. It may be beneficial to look to produce a formal template for completion.

     Ensure repairs are raised with the right priority, so that resident’s are not unnecessarily impacted by longer timescales.