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.

Incommunities Limited (202347575)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347575

Incommunities Limited

11 September 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:
    1. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. She lives at the property with her partner. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow. The resident has Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder (COPD) and her partner has Parkinson’s disease. The resident and her partner will be referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.
  2. For additional context, the resident moved to the property in July 2019. She said damp and mould issues have been reported to the landlord since around September 2019. The landlord has previously:
    1. Replaced the glass and trickle vents in the windows.
    2. Treated and painted the walls with damp proof paint.
  3. The landlord said it raised a damp inspection on 30 January 2023 after contact from the resident. Its surveyor visited on 16 February 2023 to complete a damp survey.
  4. The landlord then visited the property on 1 March 2023. During the visit, the resident said the surveyor did not inspect the interior of the property, and she showed the landlord how much moisture collected in the property. The surveyor visited again the next day, but found no issues.
  5. The resident’s local MP wrote to the landlord on 12 October 2023 after contact from the resident. He said:
    1. The resident had said:
      1. There had been a damp and mould problem at the property for the past 4 years.
      2. She had bought a dehumidifier but it did not reduce moisture below 80%.
      3. Her belongings had been damaged by damp and mould .
    2. Due to the poor health of the resident, he had reported the matter to the local authority’s Housing Standards team.

The evidence showed another surveyor visited the property the same day. The surveyor said:

  1. There was no damp in the property, but there was high humidity which caused mould spores.
  2. A Positive Inpit Ventilation (PIV) system should be fitted.
  1. The landlord replied to the MP on 17 October 2023 with its plan of action. However, the same day, the landlord noted the resident said she did not want the PIV unit installed as it would be “too expensive to run.” The next day the MP wrote to the landlord again. He said the resident “understood the benefit of the PIV installation”. But was concerned about the running costs, particularly given the cause of the damp had not been established.
  2. The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 20 October 2023, in which it said:
    1. Its surveyor had recommended a PIV be installed and it had arranged for the work to be completed by a contractor.
    2. After the resident raised concerns about the running cost, a follow-up survey was done to identify an alternative course of action. The survey said:
      1. The damp and mould appeared to be mainly at floor level.
      2. Insulation could be installed beneath the floor space to eradicate cold spots. Once this was done, it would monitor the situation to see if the damp issue was resolved. If it did not address the damp, it would install the PIV unit.
    3. It would consider what financial support it could provide if the PIV was installed.
    4. It would contact the resident in relation to damaged personal property.
  3. The landlord’s contractor completed the floor insulation work on 30 and 31 October 2023.
  4. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 24 January 2024 after further contact from the resident. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 the following day.
  5. The landlord’s surveyor visited on 8 March 2024 and noted:
    1. There was no sign of damp and mould in the property.
    2. The resident said “the insulation had cured the problem.” But she wanted compensation for the previous 4 years as the issue had not been found previously.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 14 March 2024, in which it did not uphold the complaint. It said:
    1. It had created a dedicated damp and mould team in June 2023. This case was received before its new damp processes were fully embedded, which is why the PIV unit was not recommended sooner.
    2. It usually allowed “around 3 months” before it returned to undertake a follow-up survey unless it heard from residents.
    3. It had enclosed a guide for the resident to claim for damaged items through its insurance.
    4. It would have been beneficial to consider how the property was being ventilated in February 2023. However, without a dedicated damp and mould team, it would not have installed underfloor insulation at that time.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The resident referred the complaint to us on 20 March 2024. She said:
    1. The mould had caused her stress and chest infections.
    2. She was told the mould would be monitored after the floor insulation was installed. But the surveyor did not attend until 8 March 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told us about the impact the condition of the property had on her health. We empathise with her situation. But we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. Similarly, it is beyond our remit to determine liability for damaged belongings. These matters are usually best suited to be dealt with via an insurance claim or through the courts. It is our role to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
  2. The events of September 2019 onwards are noted above for context, but there is no evidence of a formal complaint being made until October 2023. We encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of issues arising. This is so the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate. Therefore, we will consider events from 30 January 2023 onwards, when the landlord raised a damp inspection. The end date is 15 March 2024 when the resident received the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response via her MP.

Landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says:
    1. It will proactively manage reports of damp and condensation.
    2. It may complete reactive repairs, or in some cases to provide information and guidance to customers where there is evidence of condensation.
  2. The surveyor attended promptly in February 2023 after the landlord raised a damp inspection of the property. After the resident raised concerns the surveyor did not inspect the property interior, it was reasonable for the landlord to promptly arrange for the surveyor to re-attend on 2 March 2023. A copy of the survey was not provided to us, so it was unclear whether the surveyor assessed the floor. However, the evidence shows that the surveyor did not note any issues. The landlord is entitled to act on the expert advice of suitably qualified persons. In the absence of expert evidence to contradict the surveyor’s report, we cannot conclude he was incorrect at this point.
  3. There was no evidence of any further action for 7 months when the resident contacted her MP. Following MP contact, the landlord acted promptly again and sent a surveyor the same day, which was reasonable. The surveyor said there was no damp, but recommended a PIV be installed to address moisture issues. After the resident raised concerns about the PIV running cost, the landlord’s surveyor attended promptly again, this time recommending insulation be installed under the bedroom floor. This was reasonable given the resident’s concerns around the cost. The work was completed 19 days after the first MP contact, which was reasonable given the resident’s health and concerns.
  4. There was no evidence of any further contact for almost another 3 months when the MP wrote to the landlord again at the end of January 2024. The surveyor visited again on 8 March 2024, 6 weeks after the MP contact. In line with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, the resident would have expected the follow-up survey to have been around this time. We acknowledge there was around a month’s delay with the surveyor attending. But there was no evidence of damp and mould anyway, so no detriment was caused to the resident. Overall, from February 2023 onwards, the landlord has not acted unfairly or unreasonably. There was therefore no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days. And it will provide a written response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It says it will provide a written stage 2 response within 20 working days of the escalation acknowledgement.
  2. Overall, the landlord used its complaint process to try and put things right for the resident, which was positive. The insulation was installed 11 days after the stage 1 complaint response, which was prompt. We note the landlord said it  would monitor the situation. It was unclear whether the landlord would have contacted the resident to arrange a follow-up survey if the MP had not chased the issue. And while it was a reasonable approach for the landlord to say it would contact the resident in relation to her damaged property, there was no evidence it did so, which was a failing.
  3. The stage 2 complaint response was sent 34 working days after the acknowledgement of the escalation. This was over the timescale set out in its policy, but we acknowledge the landlord explained the delay to the MP. It also contacted the resident to explain the delay, however this was on 6 March 2024, 28 working days after the escalation, which was late.
  4. Given the minor complaint delays, and failure to proactively follow up on promises made, There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order of £100 has been made to acknowledge any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to pay directly to the resident, and not offset against any monies owed, £100 compensation.