Plus Dane Housing Limited (202500381)

Decision
Case ID	202500381
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Plus Dane Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 January 2026

Background

1. The resident lived in a 2-bedroom house with his wife and 2 children. In April 2024, he reported damp and mould throughout the property. He told the landlord that his family had health problems, including chronic asthma and chest infections, and asked to be rehoused.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. Response to the resident’s requests to be rehoused.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord was responsible for service failure in its:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. Complaint handling.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.

We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp and mould

6. The landlord accepted responsibility for its failings and apologised, but it did not offer any compensation to address the impact on the resident.

Requests to be rehoused

 

7. The landlord acted fairly and followed its policy. When it received new evidence, it reviewed the case and showed a good understanding of the household’s circumstances.

Complaint handling

8. There were delays at both stages of the landlord’s complaints process, and it did not offer any compensation to address the frustration this caused.

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.

Order

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £450 made up as follows: £400 for the distress caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould. £50 for the frustration caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 23 February 2026

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 December 2024	The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of his reports of damp and mould and claimed the situation made his family ill.
24 April 2025	We told the landlord to respond to his complaint about damp and mould by 16 May 2025. The resident said high humidity was harming his family’s health and that, despite repeated requests, the landlord had not carried out any meaningful damp-proofing or ventilation work. He asked the landlord to rehouse his family in a 3-bedroom property and to pay compensation.
14 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response, outlining the actions taken since April 2024: It apologised for not inspecting the root cause after its May 2024 visit. It inspected the property between May and June 2024 but admitted there was no evidence it raised repairs at the time. After its December 2024 inspection, it cleaned the gutters and arranged to replace the bathroom fan and install a kitchen fan but did not do this within its policy timescales. It acknowledged that it waited 3 months after the December 2024 visit to arrange a survey by its insulation contractor. Further inspections in January 2025 showed the walls were still drying after roofing repairs. It confirmed the property was habitable and said the resident did not qualify for a managed move. After reviewing the medical paperwork, it concluded the household’s illnesses were not proven to be caused by the property. It found no mould during its 6 March 2025 inspection, although its contractor recommended cavity wall insulation, which the resident refused. It apologised for failing to log the December 2024 complaint.
16 May 2025	The resident asked to escalate the complaint. He said the problems had continued for more than 2 years and his family’s health and well-being had worsened. He wanted the landlord to investigate the health impact of the property and reconsider its decision not to move him.
26 June 2025	The landlord issued its final stage 2 response. It said: Its decision not to rehouse the resident at the time of its stage 1 response was correct. Although the resident did not meet the criteria for a 3-bedroom home based on his children’s ages, it agreed to make an exception due to new medical information. It offered a temporary managed move to a 3-bedroom property, so it could complete retrofit works without affecting his family. It gave the resident priority band A for a 3-bedroom home based on the medical evidence provided. It said it would monitor available homes and try to arrange a move after the resident’s daughter’s hospital discharge. If this were not possible, it would consider other temporary accommodation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the landlord failed to carry out effective and timely repairs to resolve the damp and mould. He claimed the property condition caused serious mental and physical health problems for his family. He wanted compensation for delays in resolving the situation. The landlord permanently re-housed him and his family in September 2025.

 

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.

Complaint	Handling of reports of damp and mould
Finding	Service failure

What we’ve not looked at

9. The resident told the landlord and us that its handling of the situation affected his health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can however decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Reports of damp and mould

10. The landlord accepts that there were failings in how it handled the resident’s reports. When this happens, we assess if the complaint was resolved fairly and if the landlord offered suitable redress. We also look at whether the landlord followed our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
11. In this case, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings and apologising. It also identified learning, including the creation of a dedicated damp and mould team to manage reports from start to finish. However, the landlord did not offer any compensation to put things right.
12. Although the landlord visited the property in May 2024 and carried out mould treatment, it did not investigate or address the underlying cause until December 2024, around 8 months after the resident’s April 2024 report. This was a significant delay and caused the resident distress. He felt the landlord was not managing the situation properly and had already explained how the issue was affecting his family’s health.

 

13. There were further failings after the landlord’s inspection in December 2024. It did not complete some of the identified works within the timescales it had committed to. Its records show that it recommended cleaning the leaking gutters within 7 days, but this did not take place. The landlord also failed to replace the bathroom fan within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. These delays increased the resident’s distress, especially given his concerns about his family’s health.
14. In its submission to us, the landlord said the resident had told it on several occasions that he was not seeking compensation and only wanted to move. However, the evidence does not fully support this. Although a landlord note from May 2025 states that the resident was not seeking compensation, he clearly requested compensation in his April 2025 complaint.
15. In any case, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation. Its compensation framework states that discretionary compensation may be offered where ‘exceptional inconvenience or distress has been caused.’ By not doing so, the landlord missed an opportunity to put things right and showed a lack of insight into the impact its failings had on the resident and his family.
16. We recognise that the resident refused some works and inspections, such as insulation works, which made it harder for the landlord to progress the case. We also acknowledge that, after several inspections, the landlord assessed the property as habitable, and there is no evidence to show otherwise.
17. While we have taken this into account when assessing an appropriate remedy, it is still fair for the landlord to pay the resident compensation to address the detriment caused by its failings. If the landlord had not taken the steps it did, we would likely have found maladministration. Despite this, the landlord did not properly address the resident’s distress. For this reason, we have ordered compensation.

Complaint	Response to requests to be rehoused
Finding	No maladministration

18. On 13 January 2025, the resident asked the landlord to rehouse him because of the condition of the property and concerns about his family’s health. In response, the landlord acted reasonably by inspecting the property twice in January 2025. It found the property habitable and reasonably asked the resident to provide medical evidence to support his request to move. This was in line with its policy, which states that a managed move will generally only be considered where a household faces a serious and imminent risk if they remain in their home.
19. The evidence shows that the resident submitted medical information in February 2025, but the landlord did not act on it at first because the team handling it did not understand what it related to. This was a shortcoming the landlord recognised, and it has shown learning by introducing a medical letter process with supporting guidance for staff.
20. The landlord inspected the property again in March 2025 after being contacted by Citizens Advice on the resident’s behalf. It found that the property was not in a poor state of damp and mould, and that there was not enough evidence to indicate it was unfit to live in. Its records also show that, by this time, it had assessed the medical evidence the resident submitted, confirming its findings and outcome to him in writing shortly after the inspection. This was reasonable, as it set out the landlord’s position and provided the resident with alternative options for moving.
21. The resident provided further medical evidence at the beginning of May 2025, which the landlord considered. However, it concluded that the information did not meet the criteria for a managed move and explained that some works could be carried out to address the humidity levels in the property. The landlord also advised that, under its policy, the resident would only be eligible for a 2‑bedroom property if he wished to move. The landlord acted fairly by reviewing the medical evidence and managing the resident’s expectations.
22. Later in May and June 2025, the resident submitted further medical evidence, including information showing that his daughter had been hospitalised with a chest infection. The landlord acted reasonably by contacting medical professionals and other relevant bodies to seek their advice. After considering this new evidence, the landlord agreed to a managed move to a 3‑bedroom property. This was fair and showed a considered approach, as well as a willingness to change its decision when appropriate.
23. The evidence shows that the landlord stayed in regular contact with the resident throughout this process and offered him properties in June 2025, which he declined because of their location. Even so, the landlord acted reasonably and honoured its commitment by providing temporary accommodation for the resident and his family after his daughter was discharged from hospital and until a permanent move was secured in September 2025.
24. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused was reasonable. It considered the evidence and made an initial decision based on its policy. When new evidence was later provided, it reviewed the case again and took a flexible, customer‑focused approach by departing from its policy. This demonstrated fairness and an understanding of the household’s health needs.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

25. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 May 2025, more than 5 months after the resident’s December 2024 complaint. This was outside its stage 1 policy timescale. The delay caused the resident time and trouble, as he had to contact us for help in obtaining a formal response.
26. The landlord also missed further opportunities to raise a complaint in January and early April 2025, even though its records show that the resident had clearly expressed dissatisfaction with how it was handling his damp and mould reports. This was contrary to both its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code.
27. There was also a delay at stage 2, as the landlord did not acknowledge or respond to the complaint within its 25‑working‑day policy timescale. It issued its response 29 working days after the resident’s escalation request. Although this was a minor delay, it still showed a lack of learning, particularly as the landlord had already apologised for failing to log or respond to the original December 2024 complaint.
28. The landlord asked to extend the complaint on 24 June 2025. However, this request came after its policy deadline, and its final response did not acknowledge the delay at stage 2. As a result, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 in compensation for the frustration caused by its delayed responses.

Learning

29. The landlord did well by reassessing the resident’s requests to be rehoused when provided with new evidence.
30. The landlord did well by consulting with medical professionals and external bodies when health concerns were raised, as this supports informed decision‑making.
31. The landlord’s formal responses were comprehensive and addressed all of the key issues. It also identified several learning points from the complaint.
32. The landlord should investigate the root cause of damp and mould at the earliest opportunity rather than relying on surface-level treatments.
33. The landlord should consider offering compensation where its failings have clearly caused distress or inconvenience.

Knowledge information management (record–keeping)

34. Although there were some small gaps in the landlord’s records, overall, its record-keeping was satisfactory.

Communication

35. In general, the landlord’s communication was good.