Hightown Housing Association Limited (202509436)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2–bedroom top floor flat with her 2 children. She first reported damp and mould in 2018. She said that the second bedroom was too cold for her children to sleep in during the winter.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould and thermal efficiency concerns.
   2. The associated complaints.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and thermal efficiency concerns.
4. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord did not appropriately carry out works to mitigate the effects of damp and mould or complete related repairs in time. It offered poor communication and there were significant delays even after acknowledging these issues. The landlord offered reasonable compensation across the 2 complaints and has completed the necessary works to resolve both issues.
6. The landlord did not respond within the timeframes of its complaints policy. It did not follow up on the outcomes of the complaint. Its offer of compensation was not sufficient considering the time and trouble the resident took in chasing outcomes and raising a second complaint.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not investigated

7. During her communication, the resident referred to how the living conditions impacted her family’s health and well-being. The Ombudsman does not doubt this. However, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, personal injury. We have considered the distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident and whether the landlord adequately considered this.
8. The resident has also advised she is seeking compensation for the damage caused to her personal belongings due to the property condition and the mould. We do not determine liability for damaged possessions, and the resident may wish to make an insurance claim, if she has not already done so.

Damp and mould

9. The landlord’s damp and mould self-assessment from 2022 says it will investigate all reports of damp and mould within 20 working days. Its damp and mould policy from March 2025 says that, once it is aware of mould, it will ask the resident for pictures to conduct an assessment. It will inspect within 20 working days if it is not urgent. It says it will consider installing a positive input ventilation (PIV) system if there is excessive humidity. It will consider a mould treatment when it finds general condensation. The repairs handbook states it will carry out day to day repairs in 20 working days.
10. In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised the resident reported damp and mould since 2018. However, it focused on its response from 2022 onwards as her reports between 2018 and 2022 were sporadic. This was a reasonable approach and allowed the landlord to address the more recent specific matters that led to her complaint in early 2024. We have also considered the landlord’s response from 2022 onwards.
11. When the resident reported damp and mould in February 2022, the landlord attended and found no mould and the extractor fan in working order. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the report from its contractor. The resident raised the issue of a leak, damp, and mould again in February 2023. The time between reports indicates it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude there was no further repair obligation at that point.
12. The landlord attended and noted an issue with the bathroom fan ducting. Although the landlord identified the fault, it did not complete the repair until August 2023. It then finished the related living room stain block in September 2023. Overall, there was a delay of around 7 months in completing these repairs. This was an unreasonable delay outside of the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
13. Despite the delays in 2023, the repairs were apparently successful for a time as the resident did not raise new concerns until January 2024. At that point, she reported damp and mould and leaks in the bedroom and bathroom. The landlord inspected and re–routed the bathroom extractor ducting on 22 and 23 February 2024. These repairs exceeded its target times with no explanation for the delay albeit the delays were only for a few days and likely had limited impact.
14. The damp and mould inspection report from February 2024 noted high humidity throughout and condensation on the window reveals. It showed there was no mould, but the surveyor advised that the resident had shown him pictures of the mould before she had cleaned it. It found the extractor fans needed replacing. It was reasonable for the landlord act on this report and implement the surveyor’s recommendation.
15. On 19 March 2024, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said it did not uphold the complaint as it had acted on all reports of damp and mould. Although it was fair to say it had acted on the resident’s reports, it did not address that there were delays in doing so. It had delayed raising the replacement extractor fan for 11 days. This may have worsened the mould growth as it left the family using an internal bathroom with limited ventilation for an unnecessary amount of time. It also failed to consider the resident’s time and trouble chasing updates on the extractor fan repairs.
16. The landlord’s records state it completed the fan replacement on 19 March 2024. However, the resident had chased an appointment to complete this on 20 March 2024. It is unclear when this work was done. This shows poor record keeping. As this was outside of its repairs deadline, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to comment on this in its stage 1 response.
17. In June 2024, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said it had replaced the fan, and it appropriately acknowledged a delay in diagnosing the cause of damp, mould, and condensation. The landlord offered £1,000 total compensation for its delays. We have assessed the total level of compensation awarded by the landlord below.
18. In November 2024, the resident asked for a dehumidifier which the landlord appropriately provided. Although it was reasonable to provide the dehumidifier, the landlord did not use its initiative. It did not evidence that it conducted any further inspection or investigation before doing so. Its records show that it did not inspect the property until 25 March 2025, which was 4 months later. Also, the landlord failed to provide a copy of the inspection report or communicate any findings from that inspection. This caused the resident additional time and trouble as she sought further updates and raised a second complaint in May 2025 due to the lack of communication.
19. In the landlord’s May 2025 stage 1 response, it confirmed it had replaced the extractor fans in 2024. It said it had tried to assess the roof but, due to a misunderstanding, the resident had turned the contractor away. It advised it would reschedule the roof inspection and had booked a damp and mould inspection for 6 June 2025, after which it would assess what further works and what redecoration it needed to do.
20. Whilst this was a reasonable response, the landlord did not update the resident with an outcome from the follow up inspection and she had to chase this. The landlord has not provided information from this inspection and has no evidence it considered fitting a PIV unit despite the previous high humidity readings and consistent reports from the resident. This reflects poor record keeping and communication as well as a failing under its damp and mould policy.
21. In July 2025, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said it had found a dormer roof leak, and it would repair this within the subsequent 4 weeks which it did. It advised that moisture on the window reveals could be cleaned with mould remover and wiped down. It later offered a goodwill gesture of £100 to help the resident cover the excess of making an insurance claim for items damaged by mould. It is of concern that the landlord suggested the resident take action to deal with the mould and offered compensation to help with mould damaged items but did not consider a mould treatment in line with its policy.
22. In November 2025, the resident continued to chase the landlord for an update, and it said she had not requested a damp and mould inspection. It would book one for 17 November 2025 if she wanted one as it noted the pictures she had sent in did not show a hazard. Though this was a reasonable response time, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to be more proactive with its approach. It was aware it had not resolved the causes of damp, mould and condensation but was not proactive in reviewing ways it could mitigate this internally for the resident.

Thermal efficiency

23. When the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection in February 2024, it confirmed that the loft and wall insulation needed checking. Its March 2024 stage 1 response said it had arranged for a further inspection of the insulation to confirm there were no additional issues. It completed this inspection on 29 March 2024. There is no report from this or outcome noted. This shows insufficient record keeping from the landlord and may have resulted in the further delays and need for further inspections. It also carried out a further inspection in April 2024 and confirmed there were no issues. The failure to maintain accurate records to conduct an adequate inspection let to further delays and distress and inconvenience for the resident.
24. The landlord conducted 2 further insulation inspections in June 2024. This was an unreasonable delay given the extent of the resident’s reports. It then sent its stage 2 response and said it had now identified issues with the dormer insulation and would resolve these. It offered £1,000 compensation but did not take the opportunity to appropriately acknowledge its communication failings and evidence learning from this. This was unreasonable and continued to have an adverse effect on the resident.
25. The landlord did some insulation work to the dormers in October 2024. It did not complete the full extent of the work as it needed specialist advice. It appropriately provided the resident with a portable heater, at her request, in November 2024. The resident raised a second complaint in May 2025 as she had been chasing for an update on the insulation work since November 2024. Although the landlord was working to identify a specialist contractor to carry out the works, it was unreasonable for this to cause such a lengthy delay. It also failed to keep the resident properly updated.
26. The landlord’s May 2025 stage 1 response apologised for its poor communication and delays. This was a positive step. It recognised the significant timeline and that it had repeatedly failed to update the resident, causing distress and inconvenience. It stated it was waiting for a further investigation. This was an unreasonable response. Given the delays and poor communications to date, it would have been resolution focused to offer a regular contact plan and likely timeframe to the resident.
27. The landlord wrote to the resident in July 2025 in response to her request for copies of the inspection reports. It said there were no reports from the insulation inspections as the issue was immediately recognised. Although it had noted the need for expert advice and a specialised contractor, it did not communicate this to the resident. This likely caused further uncertainty to her as to whether the landlord had correctly diagnosed her concerns about the warmth of the property.
28. The landlord’s July 2025 stage 2 response advised it would replace the loft insulation before winter. It noted her request to move the bedroom radiator under the dormer window to reduce condensation. It did not believe this was possible so said it would install a double radiator instead and review further action if necessary. This was an unreasonable response as its damp and mould policy states radiators on internal walls create colder external walls and are a common cause of damp and mould. It would have been reasonable to identify this as a contributing cause and take steps to resolve it sooner. It failed to obtain advice on this from a heating engineer for a further 4 months. This caused the resident further distress and inconvenience chasing a confirmed outcome.
29. The landlord offered £500 to cover the increased cost of energy use due to the poor insulation and running of the heater and dehumidifier. The calculation for this offer was clearly explained in a follow up letter and the landlord showed due consideration for the resident’s quantifiable loss. It also offered £200 compensation for the impact on enjoyment of her home. We have assessed the total level of compensation below.
30. In October 2025, the landlord partly completed the insulation works with final completion in November 2025. It carried out multiple repairs with contractors co-ordinated to minimise disruption to the resident. This was reasonable and broadly in line with its proposal to complete the works before winter. It moved the bedroom radiator under the dormer in line with its policy.
31. The landlord is also awaiting proof to consider further compensation to cover the resident’s additional heating costs since its July 2025 offer. This is a reasonable offer and a positive step from the landlord in putting right its failings around extended delays.

Summary

32. There were significant delays and communication failings by the landlord in responding to damp and mould reports and resolving the thermal efficiency concerns between early 2024 and late 2025. This likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident – she had to clear condensation herself and was left uncertain on whether, or how, the landlord would be able to improve the thermal efficiency of the property and resolve potential causes of damp and mould.
33. Nevertheless, the landlord ultimately completed all outstanding works and addressed the resident’s energy and insurance claim costs. It offered compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for cases where there have been serious failings by a landlord that had a detrimental impact on a resident. The combined offer of £1,800 across both complaints therefore represented a proportionate award.
34. The landlord also demonstrated learning by reviewing the complaints in November 2025, identifying causes of delay, and taking steps to prevent recurrence. We have made a recommendation that it implements this learning, if it has not already done so, and includes communications improvements as part of this. Overall, the landlord acknowledged its failings, took corrective action, and offered suitable compensation. Without the full offer of compensation across both complaints, we would have found maladministration and ordered a similar amount be paid. On this basis, we find reasonable redress.

35. Under the Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with this.
36. The landlord took 18 days from the resident’s first complaint in March 2024 to issue its stage 1 response. It failed to acknowledge this delay and did not uphold her complaint. It would have ben reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the delay. However, it failed to do so.
37. Despite the resident’s immediate complaint escalation, the landlord did not provide a stage 2 response until June 2024, 58 working days after her escalation request. It was resolution focused that the landlord recognised its delay and offered compensation of £100. It also recognised its failings within the complaint and made some effort to explain its delays. This was a reasonable offer to take into account the impact on the resident at this time.
38. In May 2025, the resident raised a second complaint because the landlord failed to follow through on the outcomes of the first complaint. This caused the resident additional time and trouble in pursuing repairs and chasing updates. Although the landlord acknowledged its poor communication during the first complaint, this did not significantly improve during the second complaint, resulting in further delays and inadequate responses. These failings caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
39. The landlord also missed an opportunity to review the first complaint promptly and apply its learning before the second complaint arose. Acting sooner could have prevented further issues and reduced the impact on the resident.
40. The landlord’s offer of £100 compensation at stage 2 in June 2024 was proportionate at that time. However, the resident had to spend extra time and trouble chasing unresolved issues and raising a second complaint. The landlord’s failure to address this and put things right has resulted in our finding of service failure. We have therefore ordered an additional £100 compensation in line with our published remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

41. The landlord did not maintain adequate records of inspection reports and provided contradictory information in its complaint responses. The resident made multiple reports of cold, damp, and mould. Despite this, it did not effectively collate this information or use it to develop a joined-up, informed approach to resolving the issues sooner. Poor record-keeping undermined the landlord’s ability to respond consistently and proactively. Landlords should ensure robust systems are in place to capture, store, and share relevant information across teams. This enables a co–ordinated response that addresses underlying problems rather than treating issues in isolation.

Communication

42. The landlord consistently failed to keep the resident informed about the progress of repairs. While there were occasions where the landlord was actively taking steps to resolve issues, it did not always communicate this to the resident. The absence of timely and transparent updates meant it left the resident uncertain about what was happening, which caused unnecessary frustration and distress. Effective communication is a fundamental part of complaint handling and repair management. The landlord should ensure it regularly updates residents, even when there is no significant change, to maintain trust and reduce avoidable distress.