Mount Green Housing Association Limited (202332707)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332707

Mount Green Housing Association Limited

21 March 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 the resident’s reports about repair issues.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since June 2012. The property is a 2-bedroom, first floor flat and the landlord is aware of her son’s additional needs.
In January 2023 there was a large leak at the property which caused extensive water damage throughout the property. As a result the landlord provided alternative accommodation for the resident while it carried out the reinstatement works. The landlord completed the works in May 2023 and the resident moved back into the property in June 2023. However, in September 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and raised further repair issues at the property. She said there were cracks in the ceilings and walls as well as wet plug sockets.
On 11 October 2023 the resident raised a complaint. She said that since she moved back in there had been ongoing issues with damp and mould in the property. She said this was causing the wallpaper to bubble and peel off, as well as causing the property to smell of damp. She also said there were cracks in the ceiling and she did not believe the landlord had changed the sockets in the hallway. The resident also said that she felt the landlord had been unwilling to resolve any issues in the property since she moved back in.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 November 2023. It said that it had carried out an electrical safety check in July 2023 and found the electrics to be satisfactory. However, the landlord confirmed it had arranged a final electrical check on the property. It said it had inspected the property on 26 September 2023 and had determined there was no longer any damp in the property. It said it was satisfied that it had responded to the resident’s repair concerns in a timely manner and had followed its policies.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 6 November 2023. She said the walls throughout the property were still wet and the paint was peeling off. She said the cracks in the ceiling were getting worse and the landlord had not addressed this in its initial response. She said her storage heater was not working and she had told the landlord about this several times, but it had done nothing about it. She said the flooring the landlord put down outside the property was slippery and that both she and her son had fallen several times as a result. She also said the ongoing issues with the property had impacted her mental health.
The landlord issued a partial stage 2 response on 24 November 2023. It said it could not issue the full response until it had inspected the property on 30 November 2023. It then issued the second part of the complaint response on 14 December 2023. It said that:
1. It had found there was no water ingress to the electrical accessories, only minor rust caused by the leak. It said it had scheduled a further inspection for 12 months time to ensure the rust did not get worse.
2. It had found areas of damp in the living room, hallway and the main bedroom. It confirmed that it had raised repair orders to address these and would provide a third dehumidifier for the bedroom.
3. It found hairline cracks in the ceiling of certain rooms where the plaster boards joined. It confirmed these were cosmetic and did not present any risk. However, it said it would fill the cracks when it redecorated the hallway.
4. It said the works to repair the terrace asphalt had affected the slip resistance of the surface and steps, which was why it was now slippery. It confirmed it would carry out works to ensure slip-resistance of the steps and terrace were completed as a priority.
The landlord acknowledged the inconvenience that the ongoing issues had caused, and the further works would cause, the resident. In recognition of this it offered £150 compensation.
The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 response on 18 December 2023. She said she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint and the compensation was not enough to address the impact the ongoing issues had had on her.
The landlord issued a stage 3 response to the complaint on 25 January 2024. It said that it had carried out an executive review of the resident complaint and upheld its previous responses. It said that the £150 previously offered for the inconvenience of plaster removal and having to run dehumidifiers was still available. It also outlined what it had learnt from the resident’s complaint.
The resident contacted this Service in December 2023 and confirmed she wanted us to look into the complaint. Later, on 5 March 2024 the resident confirmed that she was unhappy with the landlords response because:
1. The landlord had removed the plaster in the hallway but had not replastered or painted it.
2. The landlord had not fixed the leak from the tank in the loft. As such the leak was ongoing and causing the property to remain damp.
3. The £150 compensation was not enough to address the impact these issues had had on her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

Within her complaint the resident has said that the repair issues with the property and the length of time they have been going on has had a significant effect on her health and that of her son. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any effect on health and wellbeing. Personal injury claims must, ultimately, be decided by the courts, as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman can consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.
Additionally, the Scheme says we may not investigate complaints which have not gone through the landlord’s complaints process. When referring her complaint to us, the resident said there were ongoing issues with leaks and damp. Any events after the landlord’s stage 3 response have not gone through the landlord’s complaints process. This means while we may refer to those events for context, we will not make orders related to the landlord’s actions after its final stage 3 response as part of this investigation.

Repair issues

The resident has raised several different elements as part of this aspect of the complaint. As such, we have considered each one separately.

Damp and leaks

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould sets out what the Ombudsman expects from landlords where damp and mould are concerned. It says landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, carry out proactive intervention, communicate effectively with residents, and, where significant works may be required, it should consider whether the resident is vulnerable and should be moved from the property at an early stage.
The evidence seen by the Ombudsman shows that on 10 July 2023 the resident told the landlord there was still water coming through the walls in the hallway and her son’s bedroom.
The evidence seen by the Ombudsman shows that the landlord inspected the property on 30 August 2023. However, this was only an inspection of completed works and damp in the kitchen following a washing machine leak in July 2023. As such, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to show that the landlord inspected the issues raised on 10 July 2023 until 26 September 2023. While there were some appointments rescheduled by the resident, the landlord has not explained why it only inspected the areas noted by the resident some 2 months later and only after the resident had repeatedly reported these issues. This delay was both unreasonable and avoidable. It also caused the resident unnecessary distress time and trouble as it extended the period of disrepair and forced her to have to repeatedly report these issues.
The landlord inspected the property on 26 September 2023, and in its stage 1 response it confirmed it had not found any damp at the time of the inspection. It also explained that the substance the resident had reported on the walls was salt and not damp or mould. It said that this would take a couple of months to dry out and once it had it would return to complete the decorations.
Despite the landlord’s findings during the visit on 26 September 2023, the resident continued to report issues with damp. The landlord arranged to again inspect the property on 23 November 2023, but the resident cancelled this and rescheduled the appointment for 30 November 2023. Following its inspection the landlord, in its stage 2 response, confirmed it had found areas of damp, set out what it believed was causing them and what it would do to rectify them:
1. It said the damp in the living room was coming from a leak in the neighbours wet room. It said the wet room connected to the resident’s living room and it was working to fix the leak. It said that in the meantime, it would provide the resident with a dehumidifier and assist with its running costs.
2. It said the damp in the hallway was residual dampness from a previous washing machine leak. It said to fix this it would need to remove the plaster from the affected area to allow it to dry out. It said it would provide the resident with a further dehumidifier and once the wall was dry, it would re-plaster and re-decorate.
3. It said calcification on the external wall beneath an overflow pipe had caused the damp in the bedroom. It said it had also inspected the cold-water storage tank and found a defective float valve was causing a recurring water leak. It confirmed it had raised an order to repair the valve and would be in touch to book an appointment. It also said it would provide a third dehumidifier for the bedroom.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges that damage caused by a leak and/or damp will inevitably get worse with time, it should be noted that identifying the source can be highly complex, and it can often take multiple visits and attempted repairs before it can be resolved. In this instance, it took 2 visits for the landlord to identify the source of the ongoing leaks and damp. It was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the property again, on 30 November 2023, in response to the resident’s further reports of damp. It was also reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to have explained its findings and what it would do to resolve the issues in the stage 2 response.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the inconvenience the additional works and having to run dehumidifiers would cause the resident. In recognition of this it offered £150 compensation.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
Overall it took the landlord 2 visits over the course of 4 months to inspect and diagnose the ongoing damp and leaks reported by the resident. Additionally, the landlord has not acknowledged or addressed the delay between the resident’s initial report in July 2023 and its first inspection of the reported damp and leaks on 26 September 2023. Without an explanation for the delay, the Ombudsman can only conclude that it was both unreasonable and avoidable.
The evidence seen by the Ombudsman shows that following the stage 2 response there were multiple appointments where the landlord could not gain access and/or were rescheduled by the resident. However, the landlord’s records show it removed the plaster from the damp areas on 11 April 2024 and fixed the defective valve on 25 April 2024.
During a call with this Service on 6 March 2025 the resident said that despite the repair works the landlord carried out in 2024, the property still suffered from leaks and damp. The landlord also emailed this Service on 12 March 2025 and said works to fix the damp were due to start that day. However, it said it had been unable to gain access to the property and it would try to rebook the appointment.

Broken storage heater

In its stage 1 response the landlord explained that during its inspection on 30 September 2023 it found that the resident had not been using the heating. It also confirmed that it was essential that she do so in order to help dry the property.
In her escalation request, the resident said that during the inspection the landlord had not told her that she needed to use the heating. She said that if it had, she would have told it the storage heater in the hallway did not work properly. She also said she had told the landlord about this several times but it had done nothing about it.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the resident reporting issues with the storage heater before her escalation request on 6 November 2023.
The landlord has said that following the resident’s escalation request it raised a repair order for the heater but it was unable to access the property. However, the landlord has also confirmed that, other than the stage 3 response, it has been unable to find information about the issues with the storage heater. As such, the landlord has been unable to evidence what, if any, steps it took to try and fix the heater. This is unreasonable and indicates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
Without such evidence the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord took appropriate steps to fix the heater. Given the heater was necessary to aid in the drying of the damp, as the landlord said in its stage 1 response, this delay cannot but have impacted the drying process. Therefore, the landlord’s failure to repair the heater within a reasonable timeframe would also have been a contributing factor in the length of time it took for the property to dry out. Consequently, this would also have delayed the landlord’s ability to complete the repair works and redecorate the affected areas. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence or explanation for the delay, the Ombudsman can only conclude that it was both unreasonable and avoidable.
Additionally, the landlord said in its email dated 12 March 2025 that it resolved the issues with the storage heater in October 2024. This was nearly a year after the resident had reported the issue.

Condition of the ceiling

The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will carry out routine repairs within 28 working days. However, the policy does not give a clear timescale for when the landlord will inspect any reported repair issues by.
The evidence seen by the Ombudsman shows that on 10 July 2023 the resident told the landlord there were cracks on the ceilings.
The evidence seen by the Ombudsman shows that the landlord inspected the property on 30 August 2023. However, this inspection was not related to the cracks the resident had reported the month before. As such, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to show that the landlord inspected the issues raised on 10 July 2023 until 26 September 2023. The landlord has not explained why it took over 2 months, and the resident’s second report of cracks on 7 September 2023, for it to inspect the ceilings. In the absence of any such explanation, the Ombudsman can only conclude that the delay was both unreasonable and avoidable.
In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed that it had inspected the property on 26 September 2023. However, it did not confirm that it looked at the ceilings during that inspection or what it had found if it had. As such, the Ombudsman can only conclude that the landlord did not inspect the ceilings on 26 September 2023. This was unreasonable and caused a delay in the resident’s concerns about the ceilings being addressed. This in turn caused the resident time and trouble as she had to chase the landlord about the cracks in the ceilings.
The landlord inspected the property again on 30 November 2023. The report shows the surveyor found hairline fractures on the ceilings in the living room and second bedroom. It did not identify any other issues with the ceilings. In its stage 2 and 3 responses the landlord said the cracks in the ceilings were where the plaster boards joined together. It confirmed the cracks were cosmetic and were safe. However, it said it would address the cracks when it redecorated the property.
It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the information provided by the surveyor in determining that the cracks in the ceiling were cosmetic. This is because a landlord is entitled to rely on information provided by its contractors in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Additionally, it was reasonable for the landlord to say it would fill in the cracks.

Conclusion

Overall the landlord’s failings, as set out above, can be summarised as failing to do the following in a reasonable timeframe:
1. Inspect and remedy the leak and damp.
2. Fix the storage heater.
3. Look into the resident’s concerns about the cracks in the ceilings.
Cumulatively these failings amount to maladministration as they caused an avoidable delay in the landlord addressing the reported repair issues. This in turn caused the resident distress, compromised their full enjoyment of the property alongside the time trouble and inconvenience of having to report the same issues repeatedly and provide access multiple times.
In view of this, the Ombudsman will be ordering the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and pay £600 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) requires landlords to respond to a resident’s stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of logging it. It also says landlord’s must respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the date of the escalation request. The landlord’s complaints policy also says that if it needs more time to investigate a complaint, it will agree an extension with the resident. Additionally, the Code in operation at the time required that a landlord’s complaints process have only 2 stages.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time had a 3 stage process. This was not in line with the Code in operation at the time. However, this did not prevent the resident from bringing her complaint to this Service in December 2023 after the landlord issued its stage 2 response. The Ombudsman has also noted that the landlord has since updated its complaints policy to be in line with the Code.
The resident raised her complaint on 11 October 2023 and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 November 2023. This was 15 working days later. The Ombudsman has also not seen evidence to show that the landlord agreed an extension with the resident. This was unreasonable and not in line with the Code or the landlord’s complaints policy.
Additionally, the landlord’s stage 1 response did not address all the damp related repair issues the resident raised in her complaint. It only gave a general response that it had inspected her property on 26 September 2023 and determined that there was no damp present. Landlord’s are required to take an evidence based approach to their complaint responses and ensure the accuracy of the evidence relied upon. This is particularly relevant in this case as the landlord’s later inspection of the property found areas of damp throughout the property.
In this instance, the landlord did not explain what evidence it had relied upon when coming to the conclusion that there was no longer damp at the property. For example, it did not reference any damp meter readings taken during the inspection on 26 September 2023 to support its finding that there was no longer any damp. Therefore, the landlord did not adequately respond to the concerns raised in the complaint or support its position that there was no longer any damp.
Aside from responding on time, landlords should use the complaint process to understand and resolve the substantive issue complained about. In this case, the landlord did not fully address and resolve the resident’s underlying concerns in its stage 1 complaint response.
The resident escalated her complaint on 6 November 2023. The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 November 2023 and said it would not be able to issue its full stage 2 response until 30 November 2023. It also confirmed that the response would be issued within 10 working days of 30 November 2023. The landlord issued its final stage 2 response on 14 December 2023. This was 25 working days after the resident’s escalation request. While there was a short delay, it was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to inspect the property and the reported issues before issuing its full response. The landlord then issued its stage 2 response within a reasonable timeframe after it had inspected the property.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the inconvenience the additional works and having to run dehumidifiers would cause the resident. In recognition of this it offered £150 compensation.
Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as failing to adhere to its complaints policy timescales and to fully resolve the resident’s concerns. Cumulatively these failures amount to a service failure as they delayed the landlord issuing its complaint response and did not adequately support its conclusions.
In light of the above, the Ombudsman will be ordering the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and pay £100 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which did not have an impact on the outcome of the complaint nor a lasting impact on the resident. As the landlord has since updated its complaints policy, the Ombudsman will not make any orders for a policy review.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for its failures. This written apology must be from a member of the landlord’s management team and should follow the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance on our website.
2. Directly pay the resident £700 compensation, which includes the £150 it offered in its final response, comprised of:
  1. £600 for its poor handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
  2. £100 for its poor handling of the complaint.
3. Review its processes to ensure awareness amongst its contractors of the importance of always using proper measuring tools, such as moisture/damp meter readings, when inspecting for damp in order to ensure accurate monitoring. The landlord must provide this Service with a copy of any guidance issued.
The landlord is to reply to this Service to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider how it can ensure that its complaint responses are evidence based and fully explain to residents the basis for its findings.
The landlord should make efforts to inspect the resident’s ongoing reports of damp related issues and resolve them as appropriate.
The landlord should write to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to set out its intentions regarding the above recommendation.