Platform Housing Group Limited (202415962)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415962

Platform Housing Group Limited

4 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

The resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs relating to damp.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the property since 21 February 2023. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord’s record shows the resident’s 2 children have autism.
The resident reported damp to the landlord on 5 September 2023. She said damp patches had appeared on her living room floor.
On 6 November 2023 the landlord visited the property and completed a damp and mould inspection. The inspection report said:
1. The lounge floor and area under the staircase were damp. Walls around the lounge bay window showed signed of moisture.
2. Airbricks had been blocked up.
3. Mortar was missing around the bay window allowing water ingress.
On 11 December 2023 the resident contacted her local MP. Following contact from the MP, the landlord logged a formal complaint. The resident’s complaint was:
1. She did not have a repair appointment for the damp to be resolved.
2. She had been asked by the landlord to speak to the contractor directly. The contractor would not speak to the resident.
3. The landlord was not taking responsibility to sort the issues out and the damp in the lounge was getting worse.
On 13 December 2023 a damp specialist completed a survey of the resident’s property. The report said:
1. There was rising damp to the lounge and hallway walls.
2. There was high moisture in floor surfaces of the lounge and hallway. A self-levelling compound had been used on the floor and it could not say what the flooring had been laid on top of.
3. It recommended works to:
  1. Remove the radiators, skirting and plaster to the lounge walls and one wall in the hallway.
  2. Insert a dry zone cream damp proof course to walls in the lounge and hallway.
  3. Replaster the lounge walls and one in the hallway in limelight renovating plaster.
  4. Reinstate the skirting board and radiators.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 8 January 2024. It said:
1. An inspection took place on 6 November 2023. Following that, the landlord raised a job for a property survey. The survey was delayed and it apologised.
2. A work order had been raised for a contractor to complete the recommended works. The resident would receive a start date from the contractor.
3. It would speak with the contractor regarding the resident’s access to her kitchen and bathroom in the 48-hour drying period. If the kitchen and bathroom would be inaccessible, it would put the family in temporary accommodation while the works were completed.
4. It upheld the complaint based on delays and lack of contact. It offered compensation broken down as:
  1. £100 for delays and lack of contact.
  2. £50 for distress and inconvenience caused.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 4 June 2024. She told the landlord:
1. The damp had spread to an extra wall in the living room and around the chimney breast. She had been told the contractor could not resolve those areas until the solid fuel heating system had been removed and replaced.
2. The offer of compensation in its stage 1 response was not acceptable. It did not take into account the disruption to the resident and her family’s lives.
3. Her family had to live upstairs for several days with furniture piled around them. Her children were autistic and the landlord had not taken into account their mental health.
4. She had not been able to put flooring down because of the damp. She was living with wet concrete floors.
5. The repairs had been outstanding since 2023 and were still not resolved.
On 16 July 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said:
1. The complaint had been handled within its policy however the stage 1 response had not fully stated the next actions.
2. It apologised for the delay in resolving the damp issues.
3. The repair was complex as the heating system had to be removed before the damp could be resolved. It apologised for the added delay and distress caused.
4. Contractors were currently working in the property and works should be completed on 22 July 2024. Temporary accommodation had been arranged for the resident.
5. The old heating system had been removed. The new heating system would be installed on 9 September 2024 as agreed with the resident.
6. The resident had previously accepted £150 compensation.
7. It had considered the compensation offered to the resident in a separate complaint. It offered a further £550 in compensation for her damp complaint, broken down as:
  1. £250 for the delays and lack of contact.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  3. £100 for the delay in providing the complaint response.
On 20 July 2024 the resident asked us to investigate her complaint. In summary she told us the landlord had not investigated her complaint thoroughly. She said the compensation offered was not fair and the landlord had not considered the impact on her family.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The landlord issued its final complaint response on 16 July 2024. At the time of its response, the substantive issues in relation to the works to remedy the damp were outstanding. For fairness we have considered events beyond the final response, as these are directly linked to the complaint and the landlord’s proposed resolution.

The landlord’s handling of repairs relating to damp.

On 20 March 2019 The Homes (Fitness of Human Habitation) Act 2018 came into force with the aim of ensuring that all rented accommodation is fit for human habitation. It required landlords to make sure that properties are safe, healthy and free from things that could cause serious harm. The Government’s guidance for tenants sets out that “damp and mould growth” must be considered. As the resident’s complaint concerned damp the landlord was obliged to investigate and make good any issues identified.
The landlord’s compensation policy states “We will consider offering remedies and compensation payments when a customer has suffered distress and inconvenience, unnecessary time and trouble or actual financial loss due to an action or omission on our part.”
The resident has told us the landlord first contacted her by video call to look at the damp she reported. She said that she was told during the call the landlord would call her back the same day. That did not happen and she had to chase the landlord. We have not been provided with contact notes of this call.
The landlord’s inspection of the property was 44 working days after the resident made her repair report. We consider that this was a significant delay in assessing the damp issue. No explanation has been provided for the delay in arranging the inspection. The resident would have experienced uncertainty and distress in addition to feeling that her situation was not being taken seriously.
Following the inspection the landlord raised a job to “top up insulation”. The works did not take place until over a year after the inspection. This is a significant delay in completing the repair. We have not seen any explanation for the delay.
The landlord’s inspection report stated there were 2 adults and no children living in the property. This indicates that the landlord did not fully assess the resident’s circumstances. It was inappropriate for the landlord not to record the resident’s 2 children lived in the property. The resident’s family circumstances were available on the landlord’s system. The landlord should have cross-checked its records to ensure the family’s needs were considered when deciding an action plan to resolve the damp.
It was positive the landlord referred the case to a damp specialist to survey the property. This was appropriate to allow the landlord to determine the extent of the damp, what works were necessary, and schedule identified works. In an internal email on 9 November 2023 that landlord said it had raised a job for the survey “a couple of days ago”. The survey was delayed and did not happen until over a month later.
We have seen evidence the resident spent time chasing the landlord for an appointment for the survey. The evidence shows the landlord and contractor had the incorrect telephone number for the resident. The resident updated the landlord with her correct contact details however she did not hear anything and continued to chase the landlord. The landlord gave the resident the contractors number to arrange an appointment, however the contractor would not speak to her without an order number. We have not seen evidence the landlord followed up with the contractor. It should not fall on the resident to chase works in this way. The landlord should have coordinated with its contractors to ensure the appointment was booked.
The evidence shows a works order was raised to the contractor on 5 January 2024 to complete the recommended works. The repair record does not clearly show when the works were completed. The job was marked as “practically complete” on 5 January 2024 and “job fully completed” on 26 June 2024.
The evidence shows the landlord was not proactively taking action to resolve the damp issue or support the resident between January 2024 and June 2024. We asked the landlord to provide us with information of any works completed relating to damp and contact records during that time. It told us that it had no information to provide. The resident has told us that no repairs were completed. It was unreasonable the landlord did not take any action during that period. The delay would have caused distress to the resident.
The evidence is not clear as to why the decision was made to remove and replace the solid fuel system before completing some of the damp works. We asked the landlord for further information, however it told us it had nothing to provide.
On 17 June 2024 the resident told the landlord that the works to resolve the damp had failed. She said her floor was cracked and dangerous and she was living in a “cold damp building site with minimal possessions and 2 disabled children”. She said the property was “not fit for habitation” and the situation was worse than ever.
On 19 June 2024 the landlord raised a job for damp proofing works. That included renewing the airbrick and repointing the front of the property. We consider there was a significant delay in raising the repair. This is because the repairs had been identified at the landlord’s initial inspection in November 2023. The landlord showed no urgency in arranging the required repairs. We have not seen evidence that explains the delay.
We have seen evidence the landlord inspected the repair on 19 June 2024 and the contractor also visited the resident. The contractor and landlord discussed how best to resolve the issue. On 10 July 2024 the landlord raised a job for:
1. Skirting boards to be removed and reinstated upon completion of works.
2. Floors to be dug out and debris removed.
3. Supply hardcore and compact to the floors. Overlay with sand and damp proof membrane.
4. Overlay the floors with insulation and fibre reinforced screed.
5. Existing wall plaster to be removed and make good with dry flex membrane and plaster.
The landlord arranged for the resident to be temporarily rehoused from 15 July 2024 to 21 July 2024. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide temporary accommodation, as the layout of the resident’s property meant she would not have been able to access the kitchen and bathroom for that period.
The contractor recommended that the resident’s temporary accommodation should be extended to 24 July 2024. Due to costs, the landlord did not do so and said “extra works will need to be completed around the customer”. It is reasonable to for the landlord to consider and balance the cost implications as most of the works were planned to have been completed by the end of the resident’s temporary accommodation booking. However, we have seen no evidence the resident was updated, or the impact on the resident and her family was considered when making its decision not to extend the accommodation.
The evidence shows the resident did not receive clear communication from the landlord about her temporary accommodation. She sent multiple emails to the landlord, raising concerns about the lack of communication. Examples of some of the emails are below:
1. On 8 July 2024 the resident contacted the landlord. She said works were beginning on 15 July 2024 and she had not had confirmation of her alternative accommodation.
2. On 21 July 2024 the resident told the landlord she been to the property that day and had noticed a few gaps in the new floor. She was unclear if works had finished and said she felt “in limbo”. She told the landlord she had not had any communication.
3. On 22 July 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and was distressed. She said the alternative accommodation had ended but works were still ongoing in her property. Her children were highly distressed and anxious. She said nobody was helping her.
The evidence shows the landlord’s communication was consistently poor. There is no evidence that the landlord supported the resident and provided her regular updates. The lack of communication and uncertainty added to the resident’s distress in what was already an unsettling time for her and her family.
The evidence shows the landlord did not have clear ownership on managing the case. In internal emails, the landlord’s staff appeared confused as to who was responsible for relaying information to the resident. The lack of communication between departments meant the resident and her family were not properly supported during this period. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider a single point of contact for the resident so she could be regularly updated and be assured it was taking her case seriously.
Throughout the case the resident told the landlord she had 2 vulnerable disabled children. We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered this at any time. The evidence shows the landlord did not respond when told the resident’s children were distressed and anxious. This was unreasonable and showed a lack of empathy to the resident’s situation.
The resident has told us that the damp issues reported as part of this complaint have been resolved. There is no evidence that the landlord post-inspected the works. This would have been appropriate to satisfy itself that the repairs completed had been effective in addressing the damp issue. It was not reasonable for the landlord to assume that the repairs had resolved the problem, given the nature and extent of the works that had been carried out.
We find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs relating to damp. This is because:
1. The landlord was not proactive in completing repairs to resolve the damp. It left the resident for a considerable period of time without any works or contact. The works it completed were significantly delayed.
2. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s circumstances and her children’s disabilities. It did not offer sufficient support to the resident.
3. The landlord’s communication was consistently poor. The resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates.
The landlord said the resident accepted the compensation offered at stage 1. The resident disputes accepting or receiving any compensation for her complaint. We have seen evidence the resident told the landlord she had not accepted the offer.
The landlord offered the resident £450 compensation at stage 2 for this part of the complaint in addition to the £150 offered at stage 1. The landlord’s total £600 compensation offer was broken down as:
1. £350 for delays and lack of contact
2. £250 for distress and inconvenience.
In our opinion, the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord is ordered to pay £1100 compensation to the resident for this complaint point. This amounts to the £600 compensation offered in its complaint process and an additional £500. Our award reflects the evidence we have seen and the landlord’s compensation policy where there had been a high to severe impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord extended both of its complaint response timescales. In line with the Complaint Handling Code (the code) it provided the resident with reasons for the extensions. It provided both responses within the extended timescale. The landlord offered £100 compensation to the resident for “delays for in providing this response” at stage 2. It was positive the landlord offered compensation and recognised the impact the extended response would have had on the resident.
The landlord’s stage 1 response refers to an email the resident sent on 2 January 2024, outlining her complaint. We have not received a copy of this to be able to confirm what the resident raised. Following the stage 1 response, the resident felt the landlord had not commented on the video call with the landlord and the lack of contact thereafter. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have commented on this in its complaint response as it should have been considered by the landlord when reviewing the resident’s complaint about delays in completing the damp repair.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out that a landlord must address all points raised in a complaint. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it did not respond to the resident’s complaint that she felt the landlord had not considered her children’s vulnerabilities and the impact on their mental health. This was unreasonable and did not show the resident her concerns had been taken seriously. It did not give confidence that the landlord fully understood the impact on her and her family.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it apologised for the delay in resolving the damp issue and the lack of contact. It missed opportunities to provide details of why the failings had occurred throughout the timeline of the whole case. The landlord commented on actions that were ongoing at that time but did not show it had fully reflected on its handling of the issue prior to the complaint response. In not doing so, the apology to the resident did not restore trust that the landlord had fully understood its failings and the effect it had on her.
When offering the resident compensation in its stage 2 response, the landlord referenced a separate and unrelated complaint and its offer of compensation for that complaint. It is unclear why the landlord included this in its response. This resulted in the resident feeling the landlord had not offered compensation fairly and based on this complaint alone.
As repairs were ongoing at the time of the stage 2 response, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident when she would next receive contact from it. The landlord’s response detailed a “complaints aftercare team” however the team was not being created until the end of that month. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident how it would keep her updated and follow up on the issue to resolution.
We find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. This is because it did not address all the points of the resident’s complaint. The landlord did not show it used its complaints process to fully consider all its actions and the detriment to the resident.
We order the landlord to pay £200 compensation to the resident for the handling of the associated complaint. This amounts to the £100 compensation offered in its complaint process and an additional £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs relating to damp.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident in respect of the failings identified in this investigation. These included poor repairs service, poor communication and poor complaint handling.
2. The landlord should pay the resident a total of £1,300. This figure compromises the £700 the landlord offered during its complaint process, if it has not already been paid, in addition to an extra £600 broken down as:
  1. £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handing of repairs relating to damp.
  2. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the associated complaint.
  3. This should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any possible arears.
3. Provide us with evidence the orders have been complied with.
Within 12 weeks the landlord must carry out a review of this case. It must identify why its failings in the resident’s damp repairs and complaint handling occurred, as highlighted by this investigation. The review should outline exactly how the landlord proposes to prevent them from occurring again in the future. It should provide the resident and us with the outcome of its review.