London Borough of Wandsworth (202450375)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202450375

London Borough of Wandsworth

27 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
2. The resident’s reports of damage to personal belongings caused by mould.
3. Repairs to the damaged bath.
4. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant for a 2-bedroom flat owned by the landlord, she resides at the property with her son. The resident has told the landlord that her son is asthmatic.
On 5 July 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of damp and mould over the past 10 years she had lived at the property. She said the mould in the property was a hazard to her and her son and she wanted it to move them to a different property. She also complained that it referred her to an unsuitable claims process when she previously reported damage to her personal belongings.
The resident phrased her complaint as an escalation request to a complaint the landlord had previously responded to in April 2023. It logged her new complaint at stage 2 of its complaint process.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 September 2024. It outlined that it had previously given a stage 2 response to the resident on 26 June 2023. It said it had carried out the work it had agreed from its previous response to improve ventilation at the property and had carried out a further inspection since her latest complaint. It said it would arrange work to remove mould and get a second opinion from a specialist contractor if she agreed to this, but it did not accept that it needed to move her from the property. It did not uphold the complaint but offered her £100 as goodwill for inconvenience.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated it to this Service to investigate on 11 March 2025. She said she wanted it to provide her with compensation for the distress and damage to her personal belongings caused by its actions.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told us that the mould in the property and the landlord’s handling of this has affected her and her son’s health and caused her son’s asthma to worsen.
Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of independent medical reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This will be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation as the courts can make legally binding decisions. If the resident wishes to pursue the impact on her family’s health further, she should seek independent legal advice. Where there is evidence of a failing by the landlord, the Ombudsman will still consider distress and inconvenience caused from the landlord’s actions.
The resident also told us that she wants the landlord to move her and her son permanently as an outcome to her complaint as she does not consider the property is suitable for them.
This Service can understand the resident’s reasons for wanting to move. However, we would not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing, such as people facing homelessness or fleeing domestic violence. It is recommended that the landlord should continue to support the resident and discuss her options, if it has not done so already.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
We find that the landlord failed to maintain adequate records about its handling of the reports of damp and mould, which has impacted on our ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This omission contributed to the other failures identified in this report.
The landlord’s repairs procedure and tenancy conditions confirm it is responsible for repairing the structure, fittings and interior of a tenant’s property. It states tenants are responsible for keeping their home clean and in a good state of decoration. Its repair procedure also confirms that it is responsible for responding to a tenant’s report of damp and mould within their property.
In the resident’s complaint, she referred to historical issues of how the landlord had handled her reports of damp and mould for the previous 10 years she had lived at the property. The landlord stated in its stage 2 decision of 5 September 2024 it had responded to her about its handling of historical damp and mould issues in its previous stage 2 response on 26 June 2023. It said, in line with its complaint policy, it would not re-investigate its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould from before 23 June 2023 and would only consider its actions since then.
The landlord’s decision to exclude the events since 26 June 2023 is consistent with the Ombudsman’s Scheme. Its complaints policy provides that it would not revisit matters where these have previously been considered. Its position in this respect accords with our Scheme. This says that we may not consider a complaint where the events complained about had not occurred within a reasonable time. This is ordinarily no more than 12 months before the complaint is made. Thus, it was appropriate that the landlord decided that it would not consider the issues again. This investigation will only refer to events from before 26 June 2023 where these provide contextual background to the resident’s current complaint.
The landlord arranged for its ventilation contractor to inspect the resident’s property on 4 April 2023 and they recorded:
1. There was mould growth in the bathroom, kitchen, living room and first bedroom of the property.
2. A constantly running De-Centralised Mechanical Extract Ventilation (dMEV) was present in the kitchen. The switched spur had been turned-off and the extractor fan lacked a boost cord.
3. The extractor fans in the bathroom and the separate toilet were part of a communal system for the building. A Positive Input Ventilation unit was also present in the hallway.
4. The background ventilation, in terms of controllable trickle vents and passive vents, were suitable for the property. The resident was advised about keeping the trickle vents open at all times.
5. It recommended:
  1. A continuous dMEV alongside the communal ventilation for the property was the most appropriate method to keep the property well ventilated. The kitchen extractor fan should be altered to a fused spur to ensure its constant use.
  2. Add an alternate flow heat recovery unit to the first bedroom.
  3. The existing mould should be cleaned off, sterilised and the areas treated with mould inhibiting emulsion paint.
In the ventilation contractor’s covering letter to the landlord on 10 April 2023 they also noted the grilles for the bathroom and toilet extractor fans were completely blocked, which was a repeated issue from 2021. It said the grilles and ductwork needed to be cleaned and recommissioned. It stated, from comparison to another property in the building, the communal ventilation system worked effectively when the grilles and ducts were clear.
The landlord also arranged a damp and mould inspection on 1 June 2023. This report:
1. Observed clear black mould growth in the bathroom, living room and around the kitchen window. There were no signs of water ingress and the resident told it she rarely used the heating or opened the windows.
2. Stated the mould growth was due to the lack of adequate heating and window ventilation. It found no structural issue with the building or property, though suggested it upgrade the extractor fan in the bathroom.
3. Recommended:
  1. It considers the previous ventilation survey to identify improvements.
  2. Its heating department should complete a heating check for the property.
  3. Raising a work order for mould washes to all the affected areas.
  4. Providing advice to the resident about heating and ventilation.
In the landlord’s previous stage 2 response of 26 June 2023 it agreed the following actions with the resident:
1. Its heating team had previously carried out a check on 1 June 2023 that all the heaters and transistor radiator valves in the property were working correctly. It said it was still waiting on the report to confirm this.
2. It had arranged a mould wash for 28 June 2023.
3. As she had not provided access when it attempted to visit on 12 June 2023, she would contact its ventilation contractor to arrange another appointment so they could carry out the recommendations they had made.
4. It would consider her request for a transfer from the property on medical grounds, if she provided it with relevant medical evidence to support this.
The landlord’s heating team found no faults with the boiler or radiators in the property from its survey on 1 June 2023. There is no evidence it informed the resident when this information became available. Considering this was not known at the time of its response it would have been better if it had updated her about this. That said, as it provided this information in its later response of 5 September 2024 and she did not specifically raise concerns about this in her later complaint we do not consider the impact was significant enough to constitute a failing.
The landlord’s repair logs show it carried out mould washes on 28 June 2023, as it said it would in its stage 2 response. Thus, its action here was reasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 June 2023. She confirmed she had contacted its ventilation contractors and agreed an appointment for 18 August 2023. She also provided a letter dated from 18 April 2023 from her son’s GP practice outlining the impact that mould may have on his health conditions. She said she would provide additional medical evidence.
We have not seen that the resident provided the landlord with further medical evidence. We also have not seen that it responded to the evidence she provided. If it did not consider this was sufficient to show a transfer from the property on medical grounds was necessary, it should have informed her of the reasons for this.
From the available records the time taken to complete the actions recommended by the ventilation contractor is unclear. The landlord said in its stage 2 it completed this work on 26 August 2023. We have not seen any contemporaneous report from the attendance to confirm this. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure says any repairs agreed following an inspection should be completed within 21 days. As it took a minimum of 57 calendar days for it to complete the repairs after the resident rearranged the appointment its actions were not in accordance with this.
Though we have not seen contemporaneous report from the ventilation contractor’s attendance the landlord’s stage 2 response of 5 September 2024 described that its contractor completed the work they had recommended from their inspection on 4 April 2023 (as set out in paragraph 16.e. of this report). Its later repair records in 2024 confirm this work was complete. Thus, we are satisfied these recommendations had been addressed prior to the resident’s later complaint of 5 July 2024.
The landlord also made another repair order following its damp and mould inspection on 1 June 2023 which it did not refer to in its response, to renew the dry-lining in the living room of the property. Its damp and mould procedure says it will consider dry-lining as a solution if damp and mould is persistent and severe. As the resident had been reporting the issue for several years by 1 June 2023 this was appropriate.
However, the landlord did not complete the renewal of the dry-lining until 4 June 2024, over a year later, greatly exceeding the 21-day timescale of its procedure. That said it recorded it attempted to visit the property to carry out the repairs on 22 June, 18 July and 2 August 2023 but the resident did not grant access. It contacted her again and agreed an appointment for 17 October 2023 but she also did not grant access at the agreed time. It said it was only able to get access to the property to renew the dry-lining in April 2024 and completed the redecoration work on 28 May 2024. As such, though there was a significant delay in completing this work, the resident’s actions contributed to this.
The resident did not contact the landlord regarding damp and mould following her letter on 30 June 2023, until her current complaint on 5 July 2024. She complained the ongoing damp and mould was a hazard which was affecting her and her child’s health and she wanted it to move them. She did not specify which rooms were affected but attached several photographs, mostly relating to the bathroom. She also told it several of its contractors had said there was a structural issue with the property which would not be resolved by carrying out mould washes and adding ventilation.
The landlord inspected the property on 15 July 2024, 10 calendar days after the resident reported ongoing issues with mould. Its damp and mould procedure requires it to attend the property within 48 hours to photograph the affected areas and complete a mould wash. It should then arrange an inspection within 14 days to assess the cause of the damp and mould and arrange any repairs. Though the inspection was carried out in accordance with its procedure there is no evidence a mould wash took place before this.
As part of an internal email the following day the landlord recorded from its inspection on 15 July 2024 that:
1. Mould was visible on the bathroom walls and ceilings and there were high moisture readings in the bathroom and toilet.
2. Its ventilation contractors had previously installed extractor fans in other rooms of the property but the bathroom and toilet were ventilated by a communal extraction system. It would raise a work order to have the extractor fans in these rooms serviced and cleaned.
3. There were active work orders to carry out a mould wash and redecoration which needed to be completed.
The landlord’s damp and mould procedure says it should raise any repairs identified from the inspection immediately and complete these within 21 days. From the available evidence it did not raise a work order to carry out a mould wash until 30 July 2024 and we have seen no reason for this delay. There is also no evidence it raised a work order to service and clean the extractor fans as it said it would do. This was not in accordance with its procedure.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 5 September 2024 it stated:
1. It would not be reiterating the events in its previous stage 2 response of 23 June 2023. It outlined the actions it had taken following that response, stating that it had found no fault with the heating of the property on 1 June 2023 and its ventilation contractor had completed the recommended work on 28 August 2023.
2. Its inspection on 15 July 2024 had found mould in the bathroom. It recommended checking the communal ventilation system. It checked the ventilation system on 24 July 2024 and this was working correctly.
3. To resolve the issue it intended to carry out a mould wash and to obtain a second opinion from a specialist ventilation contractor, but the resident had refused the work. It hoped the further information provided was sufficient for her to accept the proposed work and it would contact her to arrange this.
4. It did not consider the property was uninhabitable and would not be moving her to alternative accommodation. It signposted her to its website if she wanted further information on her options for moving to a different property.
5. Though it was not upholding her complaint, it would offer her £100 as a goodwill gesture for her inconvenience.
We have not seen any evidence that the landlord’s ventilation contractor or its own inspection had found any structural issue with the property which was causing the damp and mould. As such the actions it said it would take to resolve the issue were reasonable. That said, we have not seen any evidence it examined the ventilation system on 24 July 2024 as it described in its stage 2 response.
The landlord’s records state it completed the mould wash on 23 August 2024 This information contradicts its later stage 2 response that the resident had refused the work. From its internal emails it noted on 18 September 2024 she was disputing that the completion signature on the work order was hers and had reported there was still mould on the bathroom ceiling. It asked its repair team to book another appointment. It later issued follow-up requests on 22 October 2024 and 5 November 2024 for its repair team to attend and carry out the mould wash. There is no evidence that a mould wash took place at this time or that its repair team responded to these requests. This was unreasonable and delayed the removal of the mould.
With the landlord’s decision to get a second opinion from a specialist ventilation contractor, we have seen no evidence this happened. Though it created a work order for this on 13 August 2024 no completion date is given. It told this Service, though it had requested this to go ahead following its stage 2 response, it acknowledged it had no records of proceeding with the referral. This was not appropriate, in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) it should have followed through any remedy it proposed to completion.
Following the emails in September 2024 there was a long period where we have seen no record of the resident reporting further concerns of damp and mould. However, on 3 July 2025 the landlord agreed to arrange another ventilation survey to inspect the property due to her raising concerns about ongoing damp and mould in the bathroom and toilet. There is no evidence the landlord completed a mould wash within 48 hours of her report, as it should have in line with its procedure.
The landlord attended on 8 July 2025 to inspect the communal ventilation system that served the bathroom and toilet of the property. It found the communal ventilation system was working correctly despite a build-up of dust in the ventilation grilles, it told the resident it was her responsibility to clean these. In our view the landlord’s response to this was not reasonable. There isa general duty for a resident to act in ‘a tenant-like manner’ by keeping the property reasonably clean and carrying out minor works and maintenance. However, from its records its ventilation contractor had previously advised (as set out in paragraph 17 of this report) the issue with the communal ventilation was more significant than cleaning the external grilles of the vents in the bathroom. It had also identified from its inspection on 15 July 2024 it needed to service and clean the extractor fans and had not taken action to address this.
The landlord’s ventilation contractor attended for the survey on 16 July 2025, 13 days after the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This was in accordance with its procedure. As part of the survey it recorded:
1. Mould was present in the bathroom and toilet. The humidity was raised in these areas of the property.
2. In terms of existing ventilation it noted a continuous running dMEV was present in the kitchen, a Positive Input Ventilation unit in the hallway, a heat retention fan in the first bedroom and a communal ventilation system that served the bathroom and toilet. The background ventilation was suitable for the property and it advised the resident about keeping the trickle vents open at all times.
3. The continuous running dMEV was the most appropriate method to ventilate the property. It quoted the landlord for the cost of servicing the existing ventilation systems, replacing the existing grilles for the communal ventilation system and cleaning the ductwork. It also recommended the existing mould needed to be removed and the affected areas sterilised and treated with mould inhibiting emulsion.
We note the damp and mould reported from the landlord’s contractor’s inspection on 16 July 2025 was in the same rooms identified from its own inspection on 15 July 2024 and this made similar recommendations for the communal ventilation system to be serviced and cleaned. In our view, considering the lack of records showing a mould wash or other repairs took place following her complaint on 5 July 2024, it did not take effective action to resolve the damp and mould the resident reported for the year between these inspections. This was a significant failing.
As of the date of this report, we have not seen evidence the landlord has addressed the recommendations of the most recent ventilation survey. This is this is not in accordance with its procedure as it is already in excess of 21 days since the survey, and we have not seen any explanation for the delay.
In terms of the impact on the resident there were delays in the landlord completing the actions it had agreed following its previous stage 2 response of 26 June 2023. Though there were mitigating factors in the resident not granting access to complete the work, this will have delayed resolving the issues that were causing damp and mould to develop. From the records the damp and mould in the resident reported in the bathroom and toilet in July 2024 are ongoing over the approximately 13 months up until the date of this report. The records show she continued to express concerns it had not removed the mould in the bathroom following its later stage 2 response of 5 September 2024.
In line with our guidance on remedies we also consider there was an aggravating factor in this case. The resident had informed the landlord her son had asthma and she was concerned the damp and mould disproportionately affected his health. We have seen no evidence it took this into account when handling the repairs, assessed whether the time needed to complete repairs could exacerbate his health problems (in line with its damp and mould procedure) or considered if it could mitigate the impact on him. Whilst we cannot comment on whether its handling of the damp and mould made the resident’s or her child’s health conditions worse our view is that the impact on her in terms of distress and inconvenience was likely to be significant.
As set out previously the landlord’s stage 2 response on 5 September 2024 did not uphold the resident’s complaint and only offered £100 as a goodwill gesture. It has not acknowledged the lack of action it took following this response to complete the actions it said it would take or offered any remedy for this. Though as of July 2025 it is taking further action to address her reports of damp and mould, in our view, this occurred outside of a satisfactory timescale for it to be considered a genuine attempt to put things right.
We consider the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the extent of the failings in this case. There were a series of failures over an extended period of time in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Our view is that, cumulatively, these failures caused a significant impact to the resident. As such, we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional financial remedy and to take further action to resolve the damp and mould in the property:
In summary there were failures by the landlord in its handling of the damp and mould in that it:
1. Did not keep adequate records of the action it had taken to respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Did not respond to the medical evidence the resident provided on 30 June 2023 about whether it considered this was sufficient to support her request for a transfer from the property on medical grounds.
3. Did not complete the repairs its ventilation contractor had recommended in April 2023 for at least 57 days, after she rescheduled this work on 30 June 2023, and did not inform her of the reason for any delays.
4. Did not complete the repairs it agreed on 1 June 2023 to renew the dry-lining of the living room for over a year. As set out previously we recognise there were mitigating factors in the resident repeatedly not granting access.
5. Did not take action after the resident’s complaint on 5 July 2024 to remove the mould in the bathroom of the property for over a year. It has not addressed this as of the date of this report.
6. Did not take action to service the extraction fans for the bathroom and toilet, as it said it would following its inspection on 15 July 2024, for over a year. It later unreasonably told the resident this would be her responsibility and has not addressed this as of the date of this report.
7. Did not arrange for a ventilation survey to be carried out, as it agreed in its stage 2 response of 5 September 2024, for approximately 10 months.
8. Did not take account of the impact the resident said the damp and mould was having on her son’s health throughout its handling of the repairs.

Reports of damage to personal belongings

The landlord addressed the resident’s request for it to compensate her for the damage to her personal belongings because of the damp and mould in a previous stage 1 response of 11 April 2023. It advised her she could make a liability claim against it and signposted her to its website for making this claim.
In our view the landlord’s handling of this request was reasonable. In relation to damage caused by damp and mould it should be noted contents insurance will only usually cover sudden and unexpected damage. There is often a standard exclusion called the ‘gradually operating cause’ exclusion. The Financial Ombudsman Service’s website states: “Policy exclusions will explain under which circumstances you won’t provide cover – these often include damage that’s been caused gradually. Gradual damage is also called a ‘gradually operating cause’ exclusion in policies. Some damage to a home or its contents happens gradually over time. For example, mould isn’t usually something that suddenly appears.” Thus, even if she had a contents insurance policy, the claim for her damaged personal belongings may not have been covered. Our view in these situations is, typically, that a landlord should consider making an offer for the damaged items under its compensation policy or referring the matter to its liability insurer. As it referred her to its process for making a liability claim it acted appropriately.
As part of the resident’s email to the landlord on 30 June 2023 she said the link to its website it had previously sent did not allow for a damage to property to be claimed as an expense. She asked if there was an alternative method to make a claim for the damage to her personal belongings. There is no evidence it responded to her.
From the information about liability claims on the landlord’s website we have seen no indication this was an inappropriate route to signpost her to. It specifies that a person who has incurred “any injury, damage or loss” they allege is the result of its negligence may be able to pursue a liability claim. Though it goes on to say loss or damage to someone’s property or contents “may be quicker and easier to claim on your own contents insurance policy” it does not prevent a claim being made on this basis. Notwithstanding this, it would have been better if it had responded to confirm she could make a liability claim on this basis.
From the available records there is no evidence the resident re-raised issues about the damage to her personal belongings until her current complaint on 5 July 2024. In this she reiterated the procedure it advised her to follow did not allow for her to claim for damaged property. Her complaint included photographs of her personal belongings which had been damaged by mould, though she did not specify if this was damage that had happened since its previous response in June 2023.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 5 September 2024 it included the resident’s view it had given her the incorrect process as part of its understanding of her complaint. However, it did not then go on to address this point. It is not clear if it did this because it considered it addressed the issue of damage to her personal belongings in its previous responses.
In our view, the landlord’s decision not to respond to the resident’s complaint about its handling of her reports of damage to her personal belongings was unreasonable. She had not raised her query about whether it had signposted her to the correct process before its previous stage 2 response on 23 June 2023 and had indicated further damage to her personal belongings in her later complaint. Though the landlord’s response may have been the same as before, that she needed to make a liability claim, it should have confirmed this.
As the impact of the landlord’s communication failure is limited, we have not ordered it to provide a financial remedy for this part of the resident’s complaint. However, as it did not appropriately acknowledge this, we have ordered it to apologise and confirm the process she should follow for her claim for damaged personal belongings.

Repairs to the damaged bath

The landlord’s repair procedure confirms it is responsible to keep installations in the property for water supplies and hot water in good repair and working order.
In the resident’s email to the landlord on 30 June 2023 following its previous stage 2 response she said she wanted it to carry out some further repairs to the bathroom, beyond removing the mould. She also wanted it to replace the bathtub as it was “chipped”. She did not provide any further information about why she considered it was unsuitable.
As set out previously there is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s email of 30 June 2023. From the available records there is also no indication it raised a work order for the bath at the time. This was not a reasonable response. If it did not consider it was necessary to replace the bath it should have explained why and whether it would arrange any repairs.
There is no evidence the resident made a further request for the landlord to replace the bath between her complaints. In her current complaint of 5 July 2024 she did not directly refer to any repairs in the bathroom, or her dissatisfaction with its handling of these, but as part of the photographs she provided she included one she said showed “erosion of the bathtub”.
The landlord created a work order to install a new bath in the property on 8 August 2024. In its stage 2 response on 5 September 2024 it confirmed it would replace the bath, and it would contact her to arrange an appointment for this.
The landlord’s repair procedure does not specify timescales in which repairs should be completed. However, the work order was categorised as ‘Priority F’, and damp and mould procedure says this it should complete repairs of this priority within 21 days.
The landlord completed the work order on 4 November 2024, 88 days after the work order was created. This significantly exceeded the timescale set out above. We have not seen any reason for the delay in replacing the bath or evidence that it had any communication with the resident during this time to explain any delay. This would have likely caused inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord has not acknowledged it did not respond to the resident’s original request or its delay in replacing the bath, nor offered any remedy for this. Thus, we have ordered it to pay a financial remedy for this aspect of her complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says that it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of logging the complaint. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the resident escalating the complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, at stage 2, on 9 July 2024. It issued its stage 2 response on 5 September 2024, 42 working days later. This was not in accordance with the timescales of its policy or the Code. We have seen no evidence it gave her any explanation about why it needed an extension to provide the response.
As outlined previously when the resident made her complaint on 5 July 2024 she said that she was sending it as a “follow up to [her] initial complaint” which the landlord had responded to on 11 April 2023. She did not acknowledge the previous stage 2 response to her complaint which it issued on 23 June 2023.
In line with the Code landlords are allowed to apply discretion on whether to accept a complaint which is not referred to them within 12 months of the issue occurring. It had been more than 12 months between the resident’s email of 5 July 2024 and the complaint she said she wanted to escalate. In accordance with the Code it could have excluded her escalation request and instead opened a new complaint to review its handling of the damp and mould for the previous 12 months. It did not do this and logged her complaint at stage 2 of its complaint procedure. It told this Service it did this in error and confirmed there was not a separate stage 1 response for her later complaint.
The Code requires landlords to have a 2-stage complaint process. The purpose of this is so a resident has an opportunity to have their landlord provide a further consideration of their complaint, if they are not satisfied with its initial response, before approaching this Service.
The landlord’s decision to proceed directly to stage 2 prevented the resident from exercising the opportunity to have it review its response from 5 September 2024. This response confirmed she had exhausted its complaints procedure and should approach this Service if she remained dissatisfied. In our view the landlord may have identified sooner that the remedies it proposed to resolve the damp and mould in its response of 5 September 2024 were outstanding had it operated a 2-stage process in line with its policy and the Code. This would have adversely affected her.
The landlord acknowledged the delay in providing the stage 2 response to the resident and apologised to her for this. It did not acknowledge its failing in not to following a 2-stage complaints process or provide any remedy for this. Its apology was not proportionate to the failings we have identified. As such we have ordered it to provide a financial remedy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of damage to the resident’s personal belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bath.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must within 4 weeks of this determination:
1. Issue the resident with a written apology. The landlord must recognise its failings as identified in this report and the impact these had on the resident.
2. Pay the resident a total of £800 in compensation comprising:
  1. £650 (inclusive of the £100 it previously offered) for distress, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of her home caused by its handling of her reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
  2. £50 for the inconvenience from its handling of the replacement of the damaged bath.
  3. £100 in recognition of the time and trouble of pursuing a complaint and the frustration caused by the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Provide details to the resident of its liability insurer for the purpose of her claim for damaged personal belongings.
4. Complete an inspection of the resident’s property which must assess and set out in writing:
  1. Whether the recommendations from its ventilation contractor’s inspection from 16 July 2025 have been completed.
  2. If there is any other damp and mould in present in the property and, if so, what further repairs are needed to resolve this.
  3. Any potential health implications of the damp and mould and how it will mitigate that risk.
  4. When any repairs identified will be completed.
5. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any monies she may owe the landlord.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Conduct a review of this case to identify learning and improve working practices. This should include consideration of:
  1. How the delays in responding to the reports of damp and mould and repair requests occurred and how it will make improvements to reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again.
  2. How the complaint handling failings occurred and how the landlord will make improvements to reduce the likelihood of a reoccurrence.
  3. Any staff training that may improve its future response to similar cases.
2. Contacts the resident to discuss her options for moving from the property permanently and assess if there is any further support or advice it can provide her with. If she wishes to move from the property on medical grounds, it should inform her what evidence it would need to consider this request.