North Devon Homes (202315979)

Background

1. The residents are joint leaseholders and bought the leasehold on the open market in 2007. The property is a 2-bedroom maisonette. Since 2007 the leaseholder has reported damp and mould within the property. There is a long-standing dispute on the root cause of the damp and mould and the liability of repairs within this case. The leaseholder raised a formal complaint in December 2023 and completed the landlords internal complaints process in February 2024. They remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the complaint and contacted this Service.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s reports to damp and mould in the property.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s reports to damp and mould in the property.
5. We have found Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The handling of the damp and mould

6. The landlord maintained engagement with the leaseholder and responded to the emails regarding the ongoing damp and mould concerns. However, despite the volume of communication and undertaking multiple inspections, the landlord failed to establish a clear, agreed or time-bound resolution. The absence of a definitive position on causation, liability or next steps resulted in prolonged uncertainty. This also meant that landlord did not only not resolve the underlying issues but failed to adequately compensate for the distress and uncertainty the leaseholder could not but have experienced.

The handling of the complaint

7. The landlord did not consistently demonstrate procedural clarity in its complaint handling. Its correspondence reflected confusion regarding the status and progression of the complaint. The landlord’s responses also include inconsistent explanations on its position regarding causation of the damp and mould. Within these responses, it did not address the topic of compensation and failed to present a clear and structured plan to bring the matter to a close.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Background

8. Both parties in this case accept that this is a long-standing complaint, with complex issues stemming from when the resident bought the property in 2007.  This Service has assessed the period of time between March 2023 and March 2024. Any reference to events outside this timeframe is for contextual purposes only. From discussions with the resident and the landlord, it is clear that this is an ongoing case that has not yet reached a satisfactory resolution.
9. Typically, leases detail that the freeholder is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property and fixing it when its damaged. The leaseholder is then responsible for the internal walls, ceilings, plasterworks and floors. We understand that the leaseholder accepts that they are responsible for rectifying damage to the internal affected areas. But they claim the interior has been affected because of the landlord’s “lack of proper care and maintenance” to the structure. We understand that liability for the internal damage is a key element in progressing this case to a resolution, but we are unable to make an informed judgement on this element.
10. Not only is the root cause of the damp contested, but the dispute also includes contested issues relating to liability for repairs and remedial works under the lease. Such matters are more suitable for the technical expertise of and determination by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), which is able to consider questions of lease interpretation, reasonableness, and cost liability.

The investigation

11. The landlord took photographic evidence on 21 November 2023. This Service has reviewed this evidence, and the photos show visible damp staining, black mould growth, and damage to internal finishes at low level within the property. This included affected skirting boards, flooring and wall surfaces, with belongings and furniture moved away from the affected areas. While this Service cannot determine the technical cause of the damp from photographs alone, the images support the leaseholders account that the condition of the property during the period assessed had a tangible impact on their use and enjoyment of their home.
12. Both parties accept that mould growth was found in several rooms within the property, including the kitchen, bathroom and both bedrooms. The bedrooms in particular were affected by the damp and had a considerable coverage of mould growth on the walls.
13. On 2 March 2024, the leaseholder requested compensation for the mould damage to her belongings in “two bedrooms” but was not offered any compensation as the landlord advised that its priority was to establish liability before making any awards.
14. The evidence shows that during the period assessed, the landlord remained in regular contact with the leaseholder and responded to correspondence regarding the ongoing damp and mould concerns. This level of engagement was appropriate and demonstrated an intention to work towards a resolution. However, the communication largely consisted of repeated explanations of the landlord’s position, references to differing professional opinions, and proposals that did not result in a finalised position.
15. While the landlord remained engaged, the absence of a clear and agreed resolution meant the leaseholder continued to experience uncertainty and distress. We therefore consider, given the delay in establishing a definitive position it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered compensation to recognise the time, trouble the leaseholder experienced in the extended pursuance of the matter.
16. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould highlights the importance of landlords taking a proactive and outcomes-focussed approach, particularly where issues are complex and long-running. While recognising that this is a leasehold property and that liability for repairs is disputed, the Spotlight Report emphasises that prolonged uncertainty, repeated re-explanations of position, and the absence of clear resolution can cause significant distress and loss of trust.
17. The landlords decision to seek legal advice in January 2024 reflected the complexity of the dispute. However, we would expect that escalation to this level would bring clarity or a definitive position. Instead, the evidence seen shows no clear decision or resolution followed, and uncertainty regarding responsibility and next steps persisted. This failure to bring matters to a conclusion contributed to further avoidable delay and distress for the leaseholder.
18. From the evidence we have seen, there have been at least 10 separate inspections and subsequent reports on the condition of the property between 2010-2025. However, these reports provide differing conclusions. One of these inspections was a survey carried out on 21 March 2023 by an RICS certified surveyor. They submitted the report of their findings after the landlord sent its stage 2 response.
19. The report said that they found that the walls “to be free from any evidence of rising or penetrating dampness. There is no structural dampness therefore and no disrepair to the walls.” While this survey was useful in establishing the current status of the damp in the property, it did not soundly confirm what the root cause of the damp was. Where liability remained contested, even in spite of the expert advice, the landlord had alternative routes available. This was including Tribunal determination.
20. In 2022, the leaseholder instructed a solicitor to act on their behalf. From the evidence we have seen, this did not result in a resolution of the issues. This was not because the matter was unsuitable for legal consideration, but because of conflicting expert views and incorrect advice contributed to further confusion.
21. From discussions with the leaseholder, this Service understands that the walls now appear to be dry and they have treated the mould affected walls with a “3-step solution” with the hopes to fully redecorate within the coming months. But it is without dispute that the absence of a definitive plan meant that the leaseholder remained subject to prolonged uncertainty, despite repeated correspondence and senior-level involvement.
22. We therefore find Maladministration in the landlord’s ineffectiveresponses to and handling of the reported damp and mould and order the landlord to pay the leaseholder £360. This amount equates to £30 per month during the period of March 2023 and March 2024.

23. The landlord did not promptly recognise the leaseholder’s correspondence on 6 December 2023 as a formal complaint. Instead, it later explained that it had interpreted this as part of “ongoing discussions” rather than a new complaint. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that there had been extensive prior engagement between the parties, the correspondence expressed dissatisfaction and a desire for a formal review.
24. This dissatisfaction was acknowledged by the landlord within the evidence seen. Therefore, the landlord should have identified this at the time and progressed it through its complaints procedure without delay. It is noted that the landlord did apologise for this but did not recognise it as a failing. Failure to appropriately recognise a complaint at the point it is made is contrary to good complaint handling practice and resulted in avoidable delay and uncertainty for the leaseholder.
25. The landlord’s stage 1 response was lengthy and contained a detailed chronology. While the inclusion of background information was appropriate given the complexity of the case, the response did not clearly set out a structured assessment of the complaint issues or provide a clear outcome. Instead, it largely reiterated the landlord’s position, set out ongoing engagement, and referenced the proposed next steps without explaining how these addressed the substance of the complaint.
26. The response also contained factual inaccuracies which the leaseholder had to correct in their escalation request. This undermined the reliability of the investigation and placed an unreasonable burden on the leaseholder to clarify the landlord’s own records.
27. Throughout the complaints process, the landlord emphasised that it had remained in regular contact with the leaseholder, had engaged “professionally”, and had attempted to progress matters through dialogue and “alternative dispute resolution”. While ongoing engagement is relevant, it is not a substitute for effective complaint resolution.
28. In this case, we find that the landlord relied too heavily on evidence of communication rather than demonstrating tangible progress towards resolving the issues raised. When the landlord cited that both parties had reached an impasse, it failed to maintain procedural grip of the matter. Repeated explanations, of its position, without a clear plan or outcome, resulted in the complaint becoming protracted and circular.
29. In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not offer any form of compensatory redress. While it acknowledged the leaseholder’s frustration and the length of time the issues had been ongoing, it maintained that it had acted reasonably and appropriately. It also contained a lot of repetition.
30. The Ombudsman finds that this response did not sufficiently reflect on whether the landlord’s complaint handling itself had caused distress, time and trouble, regardless of the unresolved substantive dispute. In addition, the landlord did not offer proportionate redress in line with its discretionary compensation policy, or outline learning it could take from the circumstances within the case.
31. Taking the above into account, we find that the landlord’s complaint handling was not effective. The failure to promptly recognise the complaint, the lack of clarity and accuracy in its responses, the emphasis on process over outcome and the absence of compensatory redress demonstrate a failure.
32. These elements all prolonged the leaseholder’s frustration and did not demonstrate learning or reflection. The Ombudsman therefore finds Service Failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and orders the landlord to pay the leaseholder £100 for the impact of this failing.

Learning

33. The landlord delayed establishing its final position in respect of liability and it may wish to consider what learning from this case might avoid any reoccurrence.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord maintained its records well in this case, as much of the evidence bundle contained reports, surveys, relevant correspondence and photographs.

Communication

35. Whilst the communication was prompt and professional, the investigation surfaced issues with clarity and repetition which prolonged uncertainty and distress.
36. Our spotlight report on damp and mould highlights the importance of proactive and outcomes-focussed approach, particularly when cases become complex and protracted.