Magenta Living (202347508)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347508

Magenta Living

3 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Issues with his boiler.
2. Damp and mould.
3. Issues with his toilet radiator and associated damage.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The tenancy began on 18 December 2014.
This investigation has considered the landlord’s response to 2 separate complaints made by the resident. The landlord’s reference numbers for these complaints were F1890425 and F1935613. The landlord issued its final responses to these complaints on 9 January and 1 March 2024, respectively.
On 20 November 2023, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord, F1890425. The resident said:
1. they had not had any communication with the landlord about follow on works since the latest damp and mould survey
2. they had not had use of their living room for 9 years due to the ongoing damp
3. their couches had been ruined because they were covered in mould and they were always having to redecorate. They also had to replace carpets and other furniture, and clothes left in their wardrobes ended up covered in mould
4. their windows had mould on them that they constantly had to wipe off
5. the air bricks the landlord installed had resulted in higher heating bills
The landlord issued its stage 1 response, F1890425, on 1 December 2023 in which it said:
1. whilst it acknowledged the moisture problems in the resident’s bathroom and living room, it had ‘diligently followed up on every report’ the resident made. The landlord said it had done this through property inspections and remedial works in the living room and bathroom which had been arranged for 11 December 2023 until 13 December 2023
2. it had opened an ‘after care’ case which would remain open until the repairs had been completed
The resident escalated his complaint on 5 December 2023, saying the landlord’s response only considered current issues and not the previous 9 years, during which time he had been unable to use his living room.
The landlord issued its final response, F1890425, on 9 January 2024, in which it said:
1. the earliest report of damp and mould was recorded in June 2016. In response to the report, its property surveyor arranged the installation of a mechanical ventilation unit to alleviate the condensation. The next report of damp and mould was made in April 2021. As it had received no reports between these 2 dates, it did not consider this to have been a continuous issue
2. it was yet to find any substantial evidence supporting the resident’s claim that his living room was at any point uninhabitable
3. it understood the resident had experienced problems with mould caused by condensation in the past. However, its property surveyors who visited their home in December 2022 and October 2023 concluded, in their professional opinion, the living room was unaffected by this issue
4. the resident’s claim for damage could be considered when evidence was provided to prove the potential financial loss incurred by him
On 6 February 2024, the resident raised a new complaint with the landlord about its response to issues raised with his boiler and toilet radiator. The resident said:
1. the landlord’s surveyor had asked him to keep an eye on the water level on the boiler to see if there had been a leak. The resident said the boiler needed to be topped up once a month or it would stop working. The resident said he had topped it up the previous day and it worked again
2. his toilet radiator was stuck on full. He had reported this ‘months ago’ and the landlord had changed the radiator. The radiator then leaked causing damage to the wallpaper
On 20 February 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s new complaint, which it gave the reference F1935613. In its response the landlord said:
1. its gas contractor last attended the resident’s home on 6 December 2023, to repair a valve to his toilet radiator which was broken and was causing a leak
2. following this, it could see no record of either the resident or another member of their household contacting it, to make it aware that there were any issues with the radiator or boiler pressure
3. it could also find no record of the resident reporting damage to his wallpaper as a result of the leak
4. it was only made aware that the radiator would not turn off and that the resident was experiencing issues with boiler pressure when he made his complaint on 6 February 2024
5. it could only raise and complete repairs it was aware of
6. it would attend the resident’s home on 21 February 2024 to complete the required repairs to the radiator and boiler
7. it recommended that the resident claim on his home contents insurance for the damage caused to the wallpaper. The landlord said this was because it could not have foreseen the leak
The resident escalated his complaint on 23 February 2024. The resident said the engineer had installed the radiator valve incorrectly and had not tightened it up properly, which caused the leak. The resident said as the leak was the fault of the landlord’s engineer the landlord should repair the damage. The resident also said the valve was still stuck on full.
The landlord issued its final response on 1 March 2024, ref F1935613, in which it said:
1. as a social landlord, it had a responsibility to carry out repairs, once it was informed
2. the resident had said the leak to his toilet radiator was present for more than a month, however this was not reported during that time. This delay allowed further damage to occur which may have been avoided had the resident reported it sooner
3. it had responded to the resident’s calls in a timely manner and instructed its gas and heating contractor to undertake a repair, which they did within the agreed timescales
4. it had asked its property surveyor to attend the resident’s home to inspect the toilet. The landlord said it would then raise any required work, such as plastering. However, this would not include any further decoration
5. it agreed with the advice given in its stage 1 response for the resident to claim for wallpaper through his home contents insurance
6. it did not uphold the complaint and said it did not feel compensation was called for in this instance

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are:
1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes
Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the above principles.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, says the Ombudsman can only consider complaints that have exhausted a member’s complaint procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
It is not disputed the resident included issues with his boiler in his initial complaint to the landlord of 6 February 2024. The landlord provided a timely response to this issue in its stage 1 response of 20 February 2024.
The resident made no further reference to issues with his boiler in his escalation request of 23 February 2024. As such it was reasonable for the landlord to also make no reference to this matter in its stage 2 response.
We are therefore satisfied the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to his reports of issues with his boiler did not exhaust the landlord’s formal complaints process. There is also no evidence of a complaint-handling failure or of the landlord not taking action within a reasonable timescale. As such, this element of the resident’s complaint is not within our jurisdiction under Paragraph 42(a).

Scope

The resident has told us issues with damp and mould have been ongoing for around 10 years.
We would usually expect a resident to raise a complaint within 12 months of an issue occurring. This is so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still “live,” and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred.
In its final response of 9 January 2024, the landlord acknowledged its earliest report of damp and mould was recorded in June 2016. The landlord said its property surveyor arranged the installation of a mechanical ventilation unit to alleviate the condensation. The landlord said the next report of damp and mould was submitted in April 2021. As it had received no reports between these 2 dates, the landlord said it would not consider this to have been a continuous issue. Given it had received no reports between 2016 and April 2021, this was a reasonable position for the landlord to take.
Given the above, this investigation will consider matters back to 30 March 2021. This being the date the inspection took place which led to the job, referred to in its complaint responses, being raised by the landlord in April 2021. This is some 32 months before the resident’s initial complaint of 20 November 2023.
It is acknowledged the resident has raised concerns about the impact of the repairs on their physical and mental health. Whilst we empathise with the resident, we do not have the expertise to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or inaction had a detrimental impact on their health. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s actions or inaction.
Although we can consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damage to his belongings, we cannot determine liability in relation to claims or awards for damages. These are legal aspects better suited to an insurance claim or court.

Damp and mould

Once a landlord is informed of some damage or deterioration in a property, it is ‘on notice’ to carry out a reasonable inquiry to find the cause and complete a repair. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the circumstances of a case.
Damp and mould are health hazards, as confirmed by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, and the landlord has an obligation to identify and mitigate any such hazard. The landlord would be expected to inspect the property and carry out any repairs it was responsible for within a reasonable period of time. It would also be expected to provide measures to prevent the development of further damp and mould.
Following the reports made by the resident, during the period covered by this report, the landlord carried out inspections in April 2021, December 2022, and October 2023 in accordance with its damp and mould policy.

April 2021

We have not seen the initial report that led to the landlord’s property surveyor’s inspection in April 2021. However, following this, the landlord raised jobs on 22 April 2021 to:
1. wash down and stain block the bathroom ceiling
2. inspect the flat roof above the toilet, reported as leaking
3. install ‘air bricks low level’ to window walls
Given the nature of these repairs, and in accordance with the timescales set out in its repairs policy, the landlord would have been expected to complete these within 21 working days.
However, the washing down and stain blocking of the bathroom ceiling, raised on 22 April 2021, was not completed until 28 June 2021, 47 working days later. This was not a reasonable amount of time for the resident to wait for this relatively straightforward work to be done given the potential health and safety implications of damp and mould in a property. The mould wash and staining was also evidently unsuccessful as the landlord had to carry out the same wash down and stain blocking of the bathroom ceiling on 20 October 2021, 3 months later.
It is unclear whether the job raised with regards to the flat roof above the toilet, which the repair records note was leaking, was related to the removal of the skylight. Nor is it clear exactly when this was completed. However, on 26 July 2021, the resident called the landlord to report he had been left without a vent or window in his toilet and so it would be reasonable to assume the skylight had been removed at that point. The toilet ceiling had also not been repaired at this point.
The landlord did not raise a job to address the repair to the toilet ceiling until 31 March 2022. Its repair records indicate this job was also not completed until July 2022. If the skylight had been removed in July 2021, as seems reasonable, this would mean the landlord did not make good the resident’s toilet ceiling for a year. This was an excessive amount of time for the resident to have to wait for this work to be done and would have understandably caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to him.
Further, on 11 October 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to say when the skylight in his toilet was removed and the ceiling sealed, the landlord was supposed to install a new skylight or install an extractor fan but did not. The resident asked if this could be arranged. As we no evidence that it responded to this, and if it has not done so already the landlord has been ordered to confirm what the current position is with regards to this.
We have also seen no records of when the air bricks were installed. Again, it is not disputed this was done, the resident saying in his complaint of November 2023 this had resulted in him having higher heating bills. However, due to the lack of evidence as to when the air bricks were installed, it is not clear whether this work was done within a reasonable period of time.

December 2022

On 23 November 2022, the landlord raised a new job noting the resident needed a ‘full inspection’ of his bathroom. The landlord noted the resident had reported ‘bad mould issues’ and ‘mushrooms growing, even on the floor.’
The landlord’s property surveyor carried out an inspection on 2 December 2022. Following this they raised a job to ‘cut out and replace all mouldy silicone including around the window, renew bath panel, make sure ‘it’ has not gone under bath and renew flooring.’ The repair record noted ‘mushrooms growing out of the corner of the bath.’ The repair order included an extensive list of glazing, joinery, plastering and flooring repairs. Given the extent of the works required, and the mix of trades, the landlord would have been expected, in accordance with the timescales in its repairs policy, to complete these works within 60 working days.
However, the landlord’s repair records note the required works were not completed until 24 April 2023, 101 working days after the repair was raised. This was not a reasonable amount of time for the resident to wait, exceeding the timescales set out in its repairs policy by 41 working days.

October 2023

On 28 September 2023, the resident reported the black mould had returned to his bathroom and was around the windows. The landlord arranged for its property surveyor to carry out another survey on 11 October 2023.
The job raised on 11 October 2023, following the landlord’s property surveyor’s damp and mould survey, was to ‘hack off’ defective plaster in the living room, supply and fit a wall mounted humidistat fan to kitchen, as the existing fan was noted as being ‘insufficient’, and renewing sealant around bath. From the statement made in a later independent damp and mould survey, it would appear these were damp proofing works, although this is not clear from the landlord’s repair records at that time.
Given the extent of the works required, the landlord would have been expected, in accordance with the timescales in its repairs policy, to complete these repairs within 60 working days, which it did. The repair being completed on 13 December 2023, 45 working days later.
However, in its complaint response the landlord said its property surveyor’s inspection in October 2023 concluded the living room was unaffected by problems with mould. Given the works raised following that inspection this was evidently not the case. For the landlord to have said this would have understandably caused further unnecessary upset and frustration for the resident.

16 May 2024 – Specialist damp and mould inspection

Following its final response, and having been unable to fully resolve the damp and mould issues in the resident’s property, the landlord arranged for a specialist damp and mould survey to be carried out on 16 May 2024. This noted:
1. The bathroom had new wall finishes, new silicone sealant and an upgraded extractor fan which appeared to have resolved the issues of condensation in that room. There was no mould seen, and no leaks evident in either the bathroom or separate toilet
2. Damp proofing works had been undertaken about 1 year previously in the living room, the new plaster board was in good condition and the walls were dry
3. ‘North facing elevations’ in the living room were cooler and so more vulnerable to condensation. The damp and mould specialist noted the resident had been given advice to help restrict the movement of water vapour from the kitchen and bathroom areas. He had also been advised to dry clothes in a room with mechanical ventilation, i.e. kitchen or bathroom rather than the living room
4. As the property had 2 extractor fans, a Positive Input Ventilation System (PIV) installed in the loft space and as all windows had trickle vents, the wall vents could be sealed as there was sufficient mechanical and background ventilation
5. No mould or current issues were found in the bedroom. If the advice given with regards to restricting the movement of water vapour from the kitchen and bathroom was followed, this should reduce the chance of condensation in the bedroom
6. No air movement could be felt from the PIV system on the landing. It was recommended that an engineer attend to ensure this was in working order.
7. Other recommendations included:
  1. flushing a blocked rainwater downpipe on the bathroom extension and ensuring rainwater gulleys are free flowing
  2. while no evidence of water ingress, consider installing cowls to the top of chimney pots

Conclusion

There will always be some damp and mould cases that are more difficult to diagnose and/or repair and, therefore, take longer to rectify. It is important that these types of cases are handled with particular care to ensure they are resolved effectively.
Whilst it is not disputed that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, carried out inspections and undertook works to remedy this, these repeatedly failed to fully resolve the issue as the damp and mould kept returning. There were also a number of unreasonable delays in the works being completed.
Further, whilst the landlord did eventually arrange for a damp and mould specialist to inspect the property in May 2024, that it did not do so at a much earlier point, given its repeated failed attempts to find a permanent solution over a number of years, was a further failure on its part.
It has been noted that the independent damp and mould specialist did not identify any major damp and mould issues at the property during their inspection of 16 May 2024. However, this would not detract from the fact that the landlord should have considered engaging a damp and mould specialist at a much earlier point. Further, the resident has told us the condition of his living room and bedroom had got ‘considerably better’ since the landlord completed the works to the chimney pots recommended by the independent damp and mould specialist.
In its complaint responses the landlord apologised for any inconvenience, noting the frustration the resident may have experienced. However, it did not acknowledge or offer redress to the resident for the failures identified above.
For this reason, and taking into account all the circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that, overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. To put this right the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident a total of £800 compensation.
This figure takes into account the understandable distress and inconvenience to the resident as a result of the failures identified in this report. It also takes into account that whilst there were failures by the landlord, as set out above, it did respond to the reports made and took steps to resolve the matters reported, even if its attempts did not permanently resolve the issue.
With regards to the resident’s request for a 25% rent rebate, the landlord would not be expected to consider this unless there was evidence that part of the property was unusable. Whilst there were evidently repairs needed, we have seen no evidence that any rooms within the resident’s home were unusable during the period covered by this report. As such it was reasonable for the landlord to refuse the resident’s request to be compensated for this.
With regards to the resident’s report of damage to his property. The resident said his couches had been ruined because they were covered in mould, he had had to replace carpets and other furniture, and was always having to redecorate. The resident also said he had put special mould resistant and thermal insulation paper up in his living room, half of which the landlord removed to do the damp and mould works. The resident said he should be reimbursed for the costs of this.
The landlord’s compensation policy states:
1. residents are responsible for arranging insurance for their home contents
2. this is their recourse in seeking to address damage to items such as furniture, belongings, and decorations due for example to, fire, theft, vandalism or burst pipes
3. in such circumstances, residents will be expected to claim from their insurance provider and thus keep any damaged property for inspection purposes
In response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for the damaged furniture, the landlord appropriately informed him of the above. It also explained there needed to be sufficient evidence to support the claim and demonstrate the potential financial cost involved before this could be considered.
The landlord reviewed the photos provided by the resident and said as it was unable to substantiate the claim on the basis of the evidence provided, it was unable to consider the claim further at that time. This was a reasonable position for the landlord to take. The landlord also reasonably offered to consider the claim further if the resident was able to provide clear evidence to demonstrate the potential financial loss incurred.
The landlord made no specific reference to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the cost of redecorating a wall within his living room, half of which had been replastered following the damp works. However, where a landlord has an obligation to repair, there is also an obligation to make good to any decoration damaged as a result of the repair works. As such, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have either offered to redecorate the wall on behalf of the resident or to have made a contribution towards the cost to the resident of doing so themselves, which it did not do. To put this failure right, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an additional £100 compensation.
This brings the total compensation for this element of the resident’s complaint to £800.

Response to resident’s report of issues with his toilet radiator and damage to wallpaper as the result of a leak.

On 28 September 2023, the landlord raised a repair for the radiator in the resident’s toilet. The landlord’s gas contractor promptly attended on 29 September 2023 and noted the radiator had ‘major rust’ and a broken valve. At this point there is no evidence of a leak being either reported by the resident or noted by the operative.
Following the advice from its contractor the landlord promptly raised a further repair, on 3 October 2023, noting that parts were needed. The landlord gave a target completion date for these works of 14 December 2023.
It is unclear why the landlord set such a long target date for the works to the radiator to be completed, given the timescale set out in its responsive repairs policy for routine works was 21 working days.
On 5 December 2023, the landlord raised another job for the toilet radiator. At this point, the resident reported the radiator was leaking and the leak was being contained by a towel. Following this report, the landlord promptly replaced the radiator valve the following day, on 6 December 2023.
On 6 February 2024, 2 months later, the resident complained to the landlord that the leak from the radiator, which he had reported on 5 December 2023,had damaged the wallpaper in his toilet. The resident also reported the radiator was stuck on full, would not turn off and ‘was on full all the time.’
Given the resident’s report that the valve was stuck on full, the landlord acted appropriately by raising a new job for its gas contractor to attend ‘asap’ to inspect the radiator. The contractor attended on 21 February 2024, within the 21-day timeframe for a routine repair and confirmed the radiator valve was not working, which was why it would not turn off. The contractor said they had replaced the valve head.
Prior to attending on 21 February 2024, the gas contractor also confirmed no further works had been raised for the radiator since they replaced the valve on 6 December 2023.
In its complaint responses, the landlord said it had responded to the resident’s reports in a timely manner and within agreed timescales, which was evidently not the case with regards to the job raised on 3 October 2023.
Whilst parts were needed, there is no evidence this was a complex job or needed any additional planning. We have also seen no evidence to suggest the landlord was given any indication the timescale for delivery of the valve would be excessive. Even if that had been the case, we would have expected this to have been clearly communicated to the resident, which there is no evidence of the landlord doing. As such, we are satisfied that the actions of the landlord resulted in an unnecessary delay in the repair, raised on 3 October 2023, being completed.
With regards to the damage reported to the resident’s toilet. A landlord only becomes responsible for any damage caused by in this case a leak if it does not carry out its repairing obligation within a reasonable time.
It is not disputed the resident did not report a leak from the radiator until his complaint of 5 December 2023 and that the landlord carried out the repair the following day. The landlord therefore carried out its repair obligations with regards to the leak within a reasonable period of time.
It is also not possible, nor would it be reasonable for us to speculate as to whether the delay in the repair, reported on October 2023, directly resulted in the leak which damaged the residents wallpaper.
Nevertheless, the landlord did offer to ‘fully inspect’ the resident’s toilet and to raise any required works such as plastering. This was a reasonable and resolution focused approach for it to take.
The landlord recommending that the resident claim for the wallpaper via his contents insurance was also in accordance with its compensation policy.
Whilst this was a reasonable approach, given it was clear the resident believed the landlord to be liable for the damage, it would also have been reasonable for it to have at least considered if the matter should be referred to its insurers. That said given the cost of replacing the wallpaper, even if the landlord had referred the resident’s claim to its insurance it is likely this would not have met the threshold for any such claim.
Overall, whilst the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak from their radiator on 5 December 2023 was reasonable, the initial delay in it completing the repair raised on 3 October 2023, has resulted in a finding of maladministration.
To put this right the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident and pay him £100 compensation. This figure being in line with amounts set out in our remedies guidance in situations where there was failure which adversely affected the resident which it did not appropriately acknowledge and made no attempt to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with their boiler is outside of our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of issues with his toilet radiator and associated damage.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified. It is has not done so already, the landlord is to also to provide the resident with a response to his query as to whether an extractor fan should have been installed in his toilet following the removal of the skylight.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,000 compensation. This is made up of:
  1. £800 for the understandable distress and inconvenience as a result of the failures identified in relation to its handling of his reports of damp and mould in his property.
  2. £100 contribution towards the cost of redecorating the wall in his living room.
  3. £100 for the inconvenienced caused by the delay in it completing the repair to his toilet radiator, raised on 3 October 2023.
It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by us should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Carry out a review of our findings in this case, most especially in relation to why it did not engage a damp and mould specialist at a much earlier point. The landlord is to confirm to us what its findings were, what learning it has taken and what action it intends to ensure the failures identified in this report do not occur again going forward.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with the above orders in line with the above timescales.