NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited (202441461)

Background

1. The resident lived in the property with her son who has ADHD, ASD, a collapsed lung and severe asthma, which the landlord became aware of in October 2024. She said that she had reported damp and mould to her landlord for several years and although it had applied mould treatment, the issues returned. In January 2024 and September 2024, she made further reports of damp and mould. In October 2024 the landlord responded by completing damp and mould surveys, offering temporary accommodation and considering the resident for a direct let. In April 2025 the landlord permanently rehoused the resident.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. The resident’s request for a direct let.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident requests for a direct let.
5. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of damp and mould

6. The landlord did not handle the resident’s damp and mould reports in line with its damp, mould and condensation policy between January 2024 and September 2024. It failed to act on the resident’s reports with urgency and to record or share the outcome of the survey it completed in June 2024.
7. Overall, from October 2024 onwards, the landlord handled the resident’s damp and mould reports appropriately and demonstrated consideration of household vulnerabilities. However, it did not install the environmental sensors within its published timeframe and failed to communicate the reasons for the delay to the resident.

The resident’s request for a direct let

8. The landlord offered temporary accommodation before completing the damp and mould survey due to concerns about the resident’s son’s health. It later withdrew its direct let offer after reviewing the survey outcome. While this was distressing for the resident, the decision was consistent with its letting policy, as no mould was found in the property. However, the landlord exercised discretion by recognising the resident’s exceptional circumstances and subsequently offered a direct let, which the resident accepted. Throughout the process, the landlord kept the resident informed and managed her expectations.

Complaint handling

9. Although the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within its published timeframe, it did not consider its handling of the issues prior to the resident raising a stage 1 complaint. This was a missed opportunity to learn from previous failings and ensure a more robust and fair review of the matters.

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.

10. The resident repeatedly reported to the landlord about the effects of damp and mould on her son’s health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. Therefore, this element to the resident’s complaint is better dealt with via the court. However, we will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to any reported impact on his health.
11. The landlord provided us with its damp, mould and condensation policy, which sets reasonable timeframes for addressing such issues. However, it is unclear whether these timeframes were policy during the events we reviewed. Nonetheless, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to act promptly and transparently in such cases, in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report (October 2021) recommendations, by responding quickly, investigating thoroughly, and sharing findings and proposed solutions with the resident.
12. The landlord carried a mould treatment out in the property on 14 March 2023. Although the resident initially disputed this, the landlord shared evidence of the repair with her. We are, therefore, satisfied the treatment took place. We did not see evidence that the resident reported the issue had returned prior to January 2024. Therefore, while the historical report offers some context, this investigation focuses on events from January 2024, when the resident raised further damp and mould concerns.
13. Between January 2024 and September 2024, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s reports with a sense of urgency and promptly inspect the issue. For instance:
    1. The resident reported damp and mould in the living room and the bathroom on 11 January 2024. The landlord left a message for the resident 18 days later, but it did not show that it followed up or inspected the problem.
    2. On 4 September 2024 the resident reported damp and mould again. The landlord logged the report but did not show that it inspected the problem. This caused inconvenience to the resident who had to raise the issue again.
14. The evidence shows that the landlord responded to the resident’s October 2024 reports in line with its damp, mould and condensation policy. On 11 October, she reported that the landlord had not followed up on her September’s report and described the impact on her son’s health. The landlord raised a job for a survey the same day, completed it on 16 October and shared its findings with her. It explained that it found no damp or mould but identified poor air circulation and faulty fans, and it outlined proposed remedial repairs. It also gave the resident advice on managing the humidity level in her property and answered her queries.
15. Overall, the landlord acted promptly on the survey’s recommendations and in line with its current damp, mould and condensation policy. This was also in line with its repair policy, which require completion of non-urgent repairs within 30 days. For example, on 7 November 2024, 2 days after receiving the survey report, it promptly raised a job to replace the extractor fans. Although there were delays in completing the repairs, the evidence suggests these were out of the landlord’s control. For example, this included arranging a new damp and mould survey on 23 December 2024, to provide the resident with a second opinion on the issue, as well as rescheduling appointments where necessary.
16. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident about installing the environmental sensors or complete the work within its 90-day repair policy timeframe. It delayed raising the job until January 2025, without providing an explanation and did not discuss completion dates with the resident. Although it had committed in its stage 2 complaint response to complete the installation on 12 February 2025, it later postponed until the property became void without explaining why. We understand that in January 2024, it agreed to offer a direct let to the resident, but she did not move until April 2025. Although we did not see that the resident chased the landlord for this repair, its lack of communication was unreasonable and not in line with its repair policy to keep residents updated on the status of their repairs.
17. The evidence shared with us raised concerns about the landlord’s record keeping. Its lack of clarity raises concerns about the accuracy and completeness of its record keeping, especially as the resident said she had reported damp and mould for several years and was ignored. For instance:
    1. It arranged a survey for 27 June 2024, but there was a 6 month gap in reports before this, and its logs do not show what triggered the survey. This suggests it had failed to log some of the resident’s reports. It also did not demonstrate that it documented or shared the survey findings with the resident or whether it had implemented any follow up actions.
    2. In January 2025, it raised a job for repairs it promised in its stage 2 complaint response, including installing trickle vents, repairing and redecorating the lounge, and adjusting the UPVC windows and doors. However, its repair log does not show when or if it completed those repairs, or why it had not.
18. The landlord considered the household vulnerabilities after the resident disclosed her son’s health conditions in October 2024. For instance, it offered her a direct let and when she reported that her son was admitted to hospital with uncontrolled asthma linked to damp and mould, the landlord promptly agreed to look into the issue further. Although the initial survey found no mould, it arranged hotel accommodation until it completed further investigation on 30 October. These actions show that the landlord considered the potential impacted on the resident’s son and worked to minimise the risks.
19. The landlord rejected the resident’s request for compensation for damaged belongings and did not advise her on making an insurance claim. In its stage 1 complaint response, it gave a clear and fair explanation for rejecting the compensation request. In the circumstances of the case, it was also reasonable for the landlord not to signpost the resident to an insurance claim as it had not received evidence to support a potential claim.
20. The resident continued reporting damp and mould after October 2024 and until she moved. She also described sleeping in her tent box with her son to protect him. While the landlord has shown that it had taken some steps such as mould treatments and inspections, it did not complete some of the recommended works.
21. Considering the above, we order the landlord to pay £150 directly to the resident to reflect the impact of the failings identified in this report. This amount considers its failure to act on some reports and to communicate effectively about the matters and repair status. It also reflects that, since October 2024, the landlord responded appropriately to her reports and considered household vulnerabilities.

22. On 16 October 2023 the resident explained that damp and mould had a significant impact on her 7 years old son and requested to move. The landlord discussed the issue with her and offered her to view a property the following day. The resident declined the property as it did not meet her needs. This offer was outside the landlord’s usual letting policy, as it made it before completing a direct let application and a damp and mould survey. While the property was unsuitable, the landlord’s actions were reasonable and showed consideration for the resident’s circumstances.
23. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord confirmed that the most recent survey identified remedial repairs but no mould. It explained that, based on these findings, it had withdrawn of a direct let. This was because it was confident that the remedial repairs would resolve the problem and the resident did not need to move. In this case, the landlord’s actions were reasonable and consistent with its letting policy to offer direct lets only in exceptional circumstances.
24. As agreed in its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her housing options on 11 November 2024. It provided her with a named contact and said it would inform her when it had identified a suitable property. While the resident had previously indicated her son was unwell in the property, it is unclear why the landlord continued to consider a direct let after withdrawing its offer to do this. This may have caused some confusion, but the resident confirmed she was satisfied with its decision.
25. The landlord contacted the resident on 10 December 2024, with the details of a property that might meet her needs. It clarified that under its letting policy it could only make 1 direct let offer. This was reasonable, as it showed the landlord was actively seeking suitable accommodation and appropriately managing the resident’s expectations.
26. After completing a second damp and mould survey on 23 December 2024, the landlord informed the resident that rehousing her was not necessary. On 16 January 2025 it discussed her housing options and offered support to explore a mutual exchange. It also confirmed she could bid for properties via the local authority housing platform. These actions were reasonable and in line with its letting policy.
27. The landlord demonstrated that it recognised the resident’s special circumstances and used its discretion when applying its letting policy. For instance, after further discussion about the resident’s son health conditions, it reviewed its decision about offering her a direct let. On 27 January 2025, it informed her that as a good will gesture it would make her another direct let offer. These were reasonable actions by the landlord.
28. On 5 February 2025 the resident expressed interest in a new built due for completion in March 2025. The landlord offered her this property as a direct let, and she moved on 11 April 2025. The resident informed us she was satisfied with this outcome.

29. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. In this case it acknowledged the resident’s complaints and provided a formal response at both stages of the process within the timescales set out within its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
30. During its investigation of the complaint, the landlord took steps to put things right but failed to consider its handling of the matter prior to the resident making a complaint. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to review its earlier actions, particularly as the resident had said she reported damp and mould for several years. The landlord’s failing to do so was unreasonable and not in line with its complaint policy and the Code, which require landlords to address all points raised in a complaint. This was also a missed opportunity to identify and learn from earlier failings and conduct a more thorough and fairer investigation of the complaint.
31. Considering the above, we order the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings on her.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. Our Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords keep clear and accurate records of the repairs. In this case the landlord could not demonstrate this prior to the resident’s complaint and this affected its investigation.

Communication

33. Effective and timely communication is key to understanding residents’ requests, keeping them updated, building trust and resolving complaints to satisfaction. The landlord demonstrated good communication and set out clearly the resident’s expectations in relation to the damage and rehousing.