Platform Housing Group Limited (202450883)

Background

1. The resident lives in a property with her two young children. At the time of her first complaint in September 2024, she was pregnant and close to her due date. Her landlord was aware of this. This investigation has looked at 2 separate complaints made to the landlord by the resident about window repairs, window replacement and mould and damp from August 2024 until July 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a repair to the window.
   2. Request that it replace the windows of the property.
   3. Reports of damp and mould.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found the landlord is responsible for:
   1. Service failure in its handling of a window repair to the property.
   2. No maladministration in its handling of the resident’s request that it replace the windows of the property.
   3. Service failure in its handling of mould and damp.
   4. No maladministration in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The repair to the window

5. The landlord’s offer of compensation at stage 1 of its complaints process adequately reflected the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by it giving her the wrong information about the repair appointment.
6. However, it did not acknowledge the further inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the length of time taken to resolve the window repair, which was not in keeping with its own published timescales for appointed repairs.

The replacement of the windows

7. The landlord’s position that it would not replace the windows was reasonable. This is because it used information from its stock condition survey and recent repairs to come to this conclusion. It acted appropriately by carrying out a further inspection of the windows which it completed on the date it had committed to in its stage 2 response to the resident.

Damp and mould

8. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s reports of damp and mould by carrying out a number of damp and mould inspections. Where it found no repairs where required, it gave the resident appropriate advice about managing condensation.
9. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how to make an insurance claim should she have believed the conditions of the property and its handling of mould and damp had affected her family’s health.
10. However, it failed to raise a timely follow up inspection in line with its surveyor’s recommendations from April 2024. This led to delay in carrying out repairs to the windows which it had identified could be contributing to issues of condensation and mould in the property.

Complaint handling

11. The landlord responded to both of the resident’s complaints in line with its policy and procedures and kept the resident updated throughout its internal complaints process.

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.

Repair to the window

12. The landlord investigated the resident’s complaint appropriately by listening to the call recording its staff member had made with her regarding the repair appointment for the window. It identified it had given her the wrong information and acknowledged its error. It was then appropriate that it apologised to her for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by this failing.
13. The landlord took 18 days to attend to the first repair appointment for the window. This was in keeping with its published timescale of 28 days for appointed repairs. After it had measured the window, it took a further 79 days to complete the repair. This was not in keeping with the published timescales of its repairs policy. This was a failure by the landlord which caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
14. It was positive however, that the landlord attempted to schedule this appointment sooner than originally planned. Although it was unsuccessful, this did show it took the resident’s concerns regarding the impact of the outstanding repair to the condition of the property seriously.
15. When the landlord has made an offer of compensation, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether the offer is fair and reasonable. Our approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance published on our website. The landlord offered the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the incorrect information it gave to her regarding the repair appointment on 16 September 2024. The amount the landlord offered is in line with what we would have awarded if the landlord had not made an offer and adequately reflected the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of this failure at the time.
16. At stage 2 of its complaint process, the landlord failed to acknowledge that the time taken to complete the second appointment was not in keeping with its published timescales for appointed repairs. This caused the resident further distress and inconvenience and amounts to service failure by the landlord. It is ordered to pay the resident an additional £100 for the inconvenience and distress caused for its handling of the repair to the window. This takes the total amount of compensation to £200 which replaces its original offer of £100.

17. The landlord told the resident the windows were not on its list for replacement in 2025/26 in February 2025 and that it had not received a referral for their replacement from any recent repair appointment. It also checked when the last stock condition survey took place and found the windows were deemed satisfactory in 2022. The landlord’s position was in keeping with its repairs policy which states it will seek to complete planned programmes to update or upgrade properties, the timing of which is agreed annually and informed by frequent stock condition surveys.
18. Although the landlord was not obligated to replace the windows, it was responsible for repairing them. It was therefore appropriate that it raised a new repair following the resident’s continued dissatisfaction which was linked to damp and mould. This appointment was completed on 11 August 2025 as advised in its stage 2 response. The outcome of this appointment was a referral to its asset team for possible replacement.
19. Should the resident remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the replacement of the windows after this time, she may be able to make another complaint to the landlord. It is outside the scope of this investigation to look at its more recent handling of the matter because the landlord needs to have an opportunity to respond to this through its complaints process before we can investigate.

20. Although the resident raised concerns that the outstanding window repair could lead to a draught and result in damp and mould issues in September 2024, she did not report damp and mould in the property to the landlord until her escalation request of the initial complaint on 4 November 2024. The landlord’s damp and mould policy does not provide timescales for inspection appointments, but we have found in this case, the landlord responded promptly by arranging a mould and damp inspection on 11 November 2024. The inspection records from this visit are detailed and include a hazard assessment using the housing health and rating system (HHSRS). This was good practice by the landlord and demonstrated it took the resident’s concerns regarding her and her family’s health seriously.
21. Given that the surveyor found no evidence of damp and mould on their visit but did identify condensation issues, it was appropriate that they provided the resident with information and guidance on how to manage this at the time.
22. The resident made a further report of damp and mould on 20 March 2025.The landlord’s surveyor attended to complete an inspection 16 working days later on 11 April 2025. Although it might have completed this appointment sooner given the resident had 2 young children, overall, this was a reasonable response by the landlord.
23. The surveyor found mould in both bedrooms, the hallway and the lounge caused by condensation issues. They also found seals of the windows were black and had perished with some of the glass having blown. They recommended mould treatment of the affected areas which it completed within its published timescales for appointed repairs on 25 March 2025. They also recommended a further investigation into the windows as a possible cause of the mould.
24. It does not appear the landlord acted on the recommendation to inspect the windows until it responded to the resident’s second complaint at stage 2 at the end of July 2025 and completed the repair to the windows related to her damp and mould concerns on 11 August 2025. This was a failure by the landlord as it should have acted on these recommendations promptly as they were made by an appropriately qualified member of its staff. This resulted in delay to the repair and was a failure by the landlord which caused the resident inconvenience and distress.
25. Considering the failure identified above, we have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the mould and damp. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we will order the landlord to pay the resident £100 for the inconvenience and distress cause to her by its handling of mould and damp. This is in line with our remedies guidance which suggests awards of this range where there has been a failure by the landlord which affected the resident, but the failure did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint.
26. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how to make an insurance claim should she believe the conditions of the property and its handling of mould and damp had affected her family’s health. We can consider the distress and inconvenience any identified failings may have caused, but we do not have the required expertise to determine effect of the landlord’s action or inaction on the health of the resident and her family. Any such claim would be more appropriately progressed through liability insurance or as a civil action through the courts. If the resident wishes to pursue a personal injury claim, she should seek independent legal advice.

27. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. The landlord responded to both of the resident’s separate complaints within these timescales and also our Complaint Handling Code. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
28. It was appropriate that the landlord raised a new stage 1 complaint in March 2025 following the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Due to the time that elapsed from her last reports in November and December 2024, we do not consider it a continuation of the issues originally complained about at that time. This means it was correct to raise a new complaint so that it could assess its handling of the matter after this time.

Learning

Record keeping

29. The landlord was able to provide a detailed record of its damp and mould inspection on 11 November 2024 and 11 April 2025. This included a risk assessment in line with the Housing Health and Rating System (HHSRS), and a room-by-room assessment along with pictures. This was good practice and good record keeping by the landlord.

Communication

30. The landlord’s overall communication with the resident during the complaints process was good. It kept her updated on the progress of her complaint and spoke with her on multiple occasions to better understand her concerns.