From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Homes Plus Limited (202447589)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202447589

Homes Plus Limited

29 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint has also been considered.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in the property with her husband and 2 children.
  2. The resident initially reported damp and mould in the living room and upstairs bathroom on 1 November 2023. She chased the matter several times before raising a complaint on 19 December 2023 as the landlord had not contacted her. She said she wanted it to resolve the damp and mould.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 9 January 2024. It said it completed an inspection on 3 January 2024 and identified works to be completed. It would commence the external work on 22 January 2024, and the plastering works on 25 January 2024. It would complete a mould treatment on 21 February 2024. It had fitted an extractor fan in the bathroom. It apologised for its failings in handling the case which resulted in the resident having to continuously chase the matter. It offered £150 compensation as an apology.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint on 23 May 2024 as the damp and mould was ongoing. She said the last contractor that attended was unable to complete the mould wash as he advised new kitchen cupboards were required before he could proceed with works. She had chased the works but not received a response. She said she had to keep cleaning the mould and her son had developed a cough.
  5. In its stage 2 complaint response on 18 July 2024, the landlord acknowledged that there were outstanding works that it needed to address. It re-inspected the property when the resident escalated the complaint and raised works on 28 May 2024. It said it would attend on an agreed date after 24 July 2024 to complete the outstanding works. It offered £600 compensation comprised of £100 for the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint, £200 for the failure to acknowledge the resident’s chasers, £200 for the delays in the repairs at stage 1, and £100 for the delays in the repairs at stage 2.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the compensation as she said it would not cover the costs she would incur redecorating the property. She also said that the damp and mould had damaged her son’s bed and clothes. The landlord completed further works to address the damp and mould between July 2024 and November 2024. The resident confirmed on 2 January 2025 that all the damp and mould treatment had been completed and asked for an update regarding her complaint and compensation to allow her to redecorate the property.
  7. The landlord issued its final response on 28 January 2025. It said it had now completed all the outstanding works, including the loft insulation, repointing, and damp and mould treatment in the bathroom. It offered additional compensation, bringing the total offer to £1930. It also covered the redecoration costs for the failure to match the upstands.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman as she said although the landlord had completed damp and mould treatment, mould had reappeared in several areas. She reported that additional works to the guttering, drainage, ventilation, and decoration are outstanding. She wanted sufficient compensation to complete decoration works to “get my house back to a home”, the landlord to apologise, and to review its damp and mould policies and procedures. She said the issues had caused her stress, impacted her family’s health, and prevented her from enjoying the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident reported that the damp and mould impacted her family’s mental and physical health, including frequent chest infections which have resulted in hospital treatments. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of the Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s family’s health. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are better equipped to access and assess all the relevant evidence that can provide an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.
  2. In her correspondence with the Service in August 2025, the resident said the damp and mould issues had reappeared in all the previously affected rooms. The resident advised that she has since raised a new complaint about the issue, which has not yet completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Service. If she remains dissatisfied after receiving the landlord’s final response, she can refer the matter to the Service as a new complaint.
  3. Similarly, the resident also raised concerns to the Service about the landlord’s handling of a leak. As this was not part of the complaint, it has not been considered in the investigation. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new complaint if required.

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

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property and items it has installed. Tenants are responsible for keeping the interior of the property in good order and well decorated. The policy states it will offer an inspection appointment, where required, within 10 working days of the repair request. It will raise work orders following the inspection. The landlord’s website states it will complete routine repairs within 17 calendar days and major repairs within 60 calendar days.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. It will use suitably qualified surveyors to inspect the property and act upon any recommendations in a timely manner. Following the inspection, it will form an action plan and regularly communicate with the resident about the actions taken to address the damp and mould.
  3. The resident initially reported damp and mould in the living room and upstairs bathroom on 1 November 2023. The resident chased the landlord 4 times before raising a complaint on 19 December 2023. The landlord logged the resident’s reports on 4 December 2023 and referred it for an inspection. It also attempted to call the resident on 6 December 2023 but was unable to reach her. It then provided an incorrect contact detail to the resident, so she was unable to respond. Although the landlord made some attempts to address the issue, if it was unable to reach her, it would have been appropriate to try an alternative contact method to promptly arrange the inspection. It was reasonable that the landlord recognised in its complaint response that its service failure resulted in the resident continuously chasing the issue.
  4. The landlord inspected on 3 January 2024. It found the likely cause of the damp and mould was condensation attracting to the steel parts of the window, the living room ground level was above the damp proof course, and there was no extractor fan in the bathroom. Repairs were recommended including plastering works to the hallway following a previous leak, installing plastic trim to all windows, bricking up the vent to the rear elevation, clipping the waste pipes to the front elevation, reducing the ground level to the rear elevation, and mould washing the affected rooms.
  5. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would commence the external work on 22 January 2024, plastering work on 25 January 2024, and the mould treatment on 21 February 2024. The landlord said it completed works on 22 January 2024, but it is unclear what this included. It then completed a mould treatment on 22 February 2024. However, the resident subsequently chased the works a further 5 times between 27 February 2024 and 28 May 2024, as she said some works remained outstanding. It is unclear from the records provided what works the landlord completed and what remained outstanding. The landlord should have taken steps to effectively monitor the works to completion. As it failed to do so, the repairs remained outstanding for a prolonged period. It was also unreasonable that the landlord did not promptly address the resident’s concerns, particularly as it gave her reassurances as part of the complaint resolution that it would take steps to improve its communication.
  6. The landlord completed a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) assessment on 28 May 2024. It identified additional works including removing boxing to the soil stack and checking for leaks, refitting the kitchen sink, fitting new worktops, increasing the loft insulation, repointing the damp proof course to the rear elevation, cleaning out the guttering, and checking the downpipes for leaks. The landlord’s records show that it completed all works on 27 June 2024. The resident subsequently chased the works on 28 June 2024 and said on 16 July 2024 that there were outstanding works to the loft insulation, bathroom extractor fan, kitchen work surfaces, damp proofing, and bathroom paint. Again, the landlord failed to accurately record, monitor, and manage the works to completion. This caused additional delays in providing a full and lasting resolution.
  7. The landlord then said a further inspection was required, which the resident was dissatisfied with. It is understood that repeated appointments without providing a full resolution would lead the resident to be frustrated due to the additional inconvenience. It completed the inspection on 24 July 2024 and raised a few additional repairs, including to the bathroom ceiling.
  8. The landlord attended to repair the extractor fan on 9 August 2023. In its complaint response, the landlord said it attempted to schedule works on 14 August 2024 but delayed them until after the school holidays at the resident’s request. It was reasonable that the landlord adhered to the request, and it would not be responsible for this aspect of the delay. It subsequently completed the works on 2 September 2024.
  9. The resident emailed the landlord on 3 September 2024 about additional repair issues, including redecoration due to mould damage. A contractor attended on 17 September 2024 and identified additional works. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it completed repairs to the bathroom and storeroom on 4 October 2024, and the damp and mould works on 9 November 2024, including a mould wash of the walls and windows. The landlord completed a post-inspection and the resident confirmed on 2 January 2025 that all the repairs had been completed.
  10. It therefore took over a year for the landlord to complete all the repairs. There can be damp and mould cases that are more difficult to diagnose and resolve. In this case, extensive works were required to address the damp and mould, so it may not have been possible to complete the works within the landlord’s 17-calendar day response timeframe. It is important that such cases are handled with particular care to ensure they are resolved effectively and maintain the relationship between the resident and the landlord. Landlords should ensure they have strategies in place to manage these types of cases with an emphasis on ensuring that the resident is kept informed, feels that the landlord is taking the issue seriously, and that the matter is progressing. The landlord failed to take such actions, which was a failing.
  11. In its complaint response, the landlord said it had provided feedback to the relevant team to improve communication. This was appropriate as it demonstrated it learned from the complaint and took steps to improve. However, it is of concern that the resident has advised the Service that the landlord’s communication is still poor.
  12. The landlord recognised delays in its final response and offered £1830 for its failings in its handling of the damp and mould repairs. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  13. The compensation offered was comprised of £200 for the failure to acknowledge the resident’s chasers, £200 for the delays in the repairs at stage 1, £100 for the delays in repairs at stage 2, £260 for the failing to resolve the damp and mould issues, £520 for failing to complete the loft insulation over 12 months, £50 for the missed electrical appointment, £250 for failing to communicate effectively, and £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused by multiple visits and delays in resolving the issues. It also said it had covered redecoration costs for the failure to match the upstands.
  14. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £1,000 and above should be considered when there has been a serious failing by the landlord, including when it repeatedly fails to provide a service which has a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. The landlord’s handling of the damp and mould repairs had a detrimental impact on the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property. She also incurred significant time and trouble chasing the repairs. In this case, the landlord has provided an appropriate level of compensation, which is in line with the remedies guidance and proportionate to the identified failings. The landlord has therefore offered a reasonable level of redress.
  15. Following the completion of the complaint, the resident reported a recurrence of damp and mould in multiple rooms. As referenced above, this is subject to a new complaint which has not yet completed the landlord’s complaint process. Nevertheless, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to address any outstanding damp and mould works in line with its repairs policy and respond to the complaint in line with its response timeframes. It should also provide the resident with a schedule of works for any outstanding repairs, to manage her expectations.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 19 December 2023. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 9 January 2024. This was 2 days outside of the landlord’s 10 working day response timeframe, but the delay was not excessive.
  3. The resident escalated the complaint on 23 May 2024, and the landlord responded on 18 July 2024. This exceeded the response timeframe by 19 working days. The landlord offered £100 compensation for the delay. This was in line with the Service’s remedies guidance which states awards of £50-£100 are appropriate in cases where the service failure was minimal and for a short duration. It has therefore reasonably redressed the failing.
  4. The landlord sent a third, final response, in which it addressed the additional failings and offered additional compensation. The Service’s complaint handling code states that the landlord’s complaint process should not have more than 2 stages, so it is not unduly long. However, in this case, it was reasonable for the landlord to provide a follow-on response to address all outstanding issues. It also signposted the resident to the Housing Ombudsman Service at stage 2, so the third stage did not delay the resident in being able to approach us.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. The complaint.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident £1,930 compensation as offered in its final response.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord completes any outstanding damp and mould repairs and responds to the resident’s new complaint in line with its relevant policies. It should also provide the resident with a schedule of works for any outstanding repairs.