From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Plymouth Community Homes Limited (202446159)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202446159

Plymouth Community Homes Limited

29 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp, mould and poor ventilation.
    2. The resident’s reports of an ant infestation.
    3. The resident’s concerns about patio repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, living in a 2-bedroom bungalow with her partner and children. The family have several vulnerabilities, including impaired mobility, mental health issues, and migraines.
  2. The landlord raised a work order on 16 January 2023 to inspect the garden as there was no drainage, and it had flooded. It completed a damp and mould inspection of the storage cupboard on 19 October 2023. On 7 March 2024, it raised a further work order to inspect the kitchen ventilation. The resident reported pharaoh ants in the garden on 8 May 2024, and the landlord advised it was her responsibility to address in line with its policy. The resident reported damp and mould in the bedroom on 23 May 2024, and the landlord subsequently completed works and further investigations.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 19 November 2024. She said:
    1. The garden patio slabs were a safety concern, which the landlord concreted rather than replaced.
    2. There was a pharaoh ant infestation in the garden. The resident hired an independent contractor in summer 2023 to resolve the issue, but it recurred in summer 2024. She had a second survey regarding the ant infestation and the proposed resolution was quoted for £1300. She reported to the landlord that the issue likely originated from the neighbour’s property, but the neighbour had not removed the compost bin. The landlord had not changed its position or taken any steps to resolve the issue.
    3. The ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom was not adequate for the size of the rooms.
    4. There had been damp in the main bedroom from May 2024, which remained unresolved, and she was sleeping in the living room. The works the landlord completed were not to a good standard. The landlord lifted the floorboards at the resident’s request, but it had not provided her with the outcome of the inspection. She said the positive input ventilation (PIV) unit was insufficient, caused the property to be cold, and had high electric costs. She provided 2 independent damp and mould survey reports.
  4. In its stage 1 complaint response on 3 December 2024, the landlord said:
    1. It had replaced the patio slabs with concrete to reduce the risk of potential health and safety issues.
    2. Ants are the resident’s responsibility to resolve. It passed the matter to its pest control contractor as a gesture of goodwill.
    3. It completed a survey of the property. The existing ventilation was compliant and in good working order. The survey explained the impact of the PIV unit.
    4. It carried out multiple visits and instructed 2 independent surveys since the resident initially reported damp and mould in October 2023. The contractor did not recommend any repair work in October 2023. It reattended in May 2024 following reports of damp and mould in the bedroom. It apologised that the contractor misdiagnosed that there was external water ingress. It later determined the property had condensation and it completed the recommended works. It completed a further survey by a damp and mould specialist in August 2024 and installed a PIV unit.
    5. It acknowledged that the resident thought the issue was caused by water ingress rather than condensation but said it had addressed all of her concerns. It also considered the findings of the 2 surveys the resident instructed. There was no evidence to suggest water ingress.
    6. It recognised that there were areas where its customer service fell short. It offered £100 for any inconvenience caused.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 11 December 2024. She reiterated her concerns regarding the ventilation, PIV unit, and damp and mould. She said the landlord replaced the garden patio with concrete, which was lighter in colour. This caused her daughter’s migraines to worsen when the sunlight reflects off the concrete. She did not think the landlord’s pest control contactor was sufficiently qualified as they could not identify the species of ants. She did not think the £100 compensation offer was sufficient and was unhappy her compensation claim for the carpet and wardrobe were denied.
  6. The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 11 February 2025. It said:
    1. It visited the property on 8 January 2025 with the damp and mould supervisor. It apologised if the resident thought the surveyor was dismissive of her concerns. All test showed expected humidity levels. It had commissioned 3 surveys and did not find any water ingress or leaks.
    2. It was normal for the concrete to be lighter in colour as the older concrete was weathered.
    3. The PIV system was in good working order. It addressed the resident’s concerns about the temperature and energy usage.
    4. It apologised that the resident received mixed feedback on the work it would carry out to remove the ant infestation. It had completed works as a gesture of goodwill. It would return in late spring to carry out another treatment as the contractor thought it would be a better time to treat the area.
    5. It recognised that the resident and her partner were currently sleeping in the lounge as she had removed the carpet as she thought it was damaged by damp ingress. It had completed all necessary repairs and there were no evident defects to suggest a breach in the damp proof membrane or penetrating damp. It reiterated its £100 compensation offer and offered to replace the carpet as a gesture of goodwill.
  7. The landlord sent a follow-on response on 13 May 2025. It previously said it would return in spring to complete a further ant treatment, and it attended on 7 May 2025. The pest contractor reported that they observed no evidence of ants other than generic insects which would be expected on a household lawn. It did not find any evidence of pharaoh ants, so it was satisfied there was no increased risk of harm. It would not complete any further works.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to the Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final position. She said it would not complete any further repairs to address the damp and mould, ventilation issues, or ant infestation. She wanted the landlord to complete the outstanding works and pay compensation including for the damage to her bed, carpet, and wardrobe. She said that the issues are impacting her health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident reported the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould has negatively impacted her health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of the Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on health. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are better equipped to access and assess all the relevant evidence that can provide an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and poor ventilation

  1. In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property and any installations it has provided in good repair. The landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy notes it will take a zero-tolerance approach. It states when damp and mould is reported, it will undertake effective investigations, risk assessments, and implement all reasonable remedial repair solutions and improvements to eradicate it. It will complete a survey within 1 week of all reports of damp and mould. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete urgent repairs within 5 working days, routine repairs within 20 working days, and non-responsive repairs within 60 working days.
  2. The tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for minor repairs including mould growth unless there is a defect the landlord is responsible for. The damp and mould policy states the landlord will provide residents with comprehensive advice on how to manage damp and mould.
  3. The resident initially reported poor ventilation in the kitchen on 7 March 2024. She said despite using the extractor fan, opening windows, and using saucepan lids, there was excessive condensation in the kitchen when she was cooking. The landlord attended on 4 April 2024 and subsequently completed follow-on work on 15 April 2024 to overhaul the extractor fan. This was reasonable and in line with its response timeframes.
  4. The resident reported damp and mould to her councillor on 20 May 2024. She said there was mould on the windows despite the vents being consistently open, there was damp in the main hallway storage cupboard, and poor ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom. The resident subsequently requested a damp and mould inspection of the bedroom on 23 May 2024. The landlord promptly attended on 29 May 2024 and reported there was mould in the bedroom, which was primarily caused by external water penetration, with a secondary cause of condensation. It recommended a further inspection by a damp and mould specialist, which the landlord scheduled for 11 June 2024.
  5. The repair records on 26 June 2024 detailed the outcome of the inspection:
    1. The ground level in the garden needed to be addressed.
    2. There were no readings consistent with water penetration.
    3. There was minor mould spotting and damaged wallpaper. It should repair the wallpaper and paint the wall using anti-mould paint.
    4. There was no mould present in the daughter’s bedroom, but it agreed to use anti-mould paint to address her concerns.
    5. The property had high humidity levels. It noted the main contributing factor was the resident being reluctant to open windows, as she had a house cat.
    6. It would arrange a further specialist survey with the view of possibly fitting a PIV unit.
  6. The landlord raised a work order on 12 July 2024 to continue the drainage below the bedroom window, repair the wallpaper, and apply anti-mould paint. It completed the works on 19 July 2024.
  7. The landlord completed a further specialist survey on 7 August 2024. It found:
    1. The existing fans were compliant and in good working order. However, the whole property ventilation was not compliant with approved document F. It recommended installing a PIV unit. It thought this would fully resolve the issues.
    2. There were no visible mould issues following the mould treatment.
    3. There was a potential condensation issue. It believed the main causes were insufficient ventilation and lack of fresh air source.
    4. There were no readings that were consistent with penetrating damp or water ingress.
  8. The landlord’s response to the resident’s initial reports was appropriate as it promptly responded, completed inspections and recommended works. Its approach was holistic as it completed multiple investigations into the cause of the damp and mould. It is recognised that the landlord’s original incorrect diagnosis of water ingress may have caused the resident concern that it had not completed all necessary works to address the issue. However, the landlord completed sufficient further investigation to confirm there was no water ingress. The landlord apologised for the service and confusion caused, and said the contractor no longer worked for the landlord.
  9. On 13 August 2024, the resident asked the landlord to revisit to assess the bedroom floor boards as they smelt of damp. The landlord arranged to visit on 22 August 2024. The repair records show there were no issues with the floorboard. However, it did identify snagging issues with the appearance of the drainage, which it said it would address. The landlord installed the PIV unit on 29 August 2024.
  10. The landlord raised a further work order on 27 August 2024 as the resident said she had taken up the carpet due to a bad smell and she reported the floorboards are very weak. Further to this, the resident reported on 30 September 2024 that the bedroom floorboards had become more stained due to rainfall. She chased the matter on 15 October 2024 and raised a complaint on 19 November 2024 as she had not received an update from the landlord following the floorboard inspection. If the landlord determined no further works were required, it should have promptly informed the resident and clearly explained the reasons for its decision. As it failed to do so, it did not manage the resident’s expectations, which resulted in additional time and effort pursuing the matter.
  11. In her complaint, the resident provided the outcome of 2 independent surveys she had instructed.
    1. The first survey reported that the remedial works had not adequately addressed the issues in the property. It said the damp proof course was only 50mm above the adjacent ground level, rather than the recommended minimum of 150mm. It noted the landlord had recently installed a linear drain against the external wall but “unfortunately at the same level relative to the damp proof course and if this drain should get blocked or if its capacity be inadequate to deal with excessive rainfall any benefit [would] be lost”. It requested further investigation by lifting areas of flooring to establish whether there was any residual water. It also said the landlord should monitor the situation in heavy rainfall to determine whether the drainage was effective.
    2. The second survey reported poor workmanship. It noted the drainage channel did not seem to be connected to the drainage system. It reiterated the findings regarding the insufficient damp proof course. It found visual indication of high moisture levels at the base of the wall, which could be interpreted as penetrating damp. It said it “seems impossible” that the damp patch on the bedroom floor was caused by condensation. It noted possible solutions to the overheating in the kitchen included applying a heat rejection film to the window, increasing ventilation, additional roof ventilation, or improved mechanical extraction.
  12. It was reasonable that the landlord addressed the concerns raised in the independent surveys the resident provided, to demonstrate it was considering all available evidence. The landlord said the works to install the drain channel lowered the ground below the damp proof course. It had also completed further investigations into the flooring as suggested, and found it was dry and in good condition, and there was no evidence of rising or penetrating damp. It was satisfied it reached the correct diagnosis.
  13. Further to this, the landlord completed a further invasive survey on 22 November 2024 in view of the additional evidence provided by the resident. The survey found there was no evidence that the property suffered from water ingress or rising damp. It said the external drainage installation had sufficiently lowered the external ground level and provided additional protection. It said the condensation and humidity levels had improved since the installation of the PIV unit.
  14. In her complaint, the resident said the bedroom was unusable due to the smell of damp and as a result she was sleeping on the living room sofa. She said the flooring was splintering and cracking due to moisture. The resident told the Service that she is still sleeping in the living room and has not had use of the bedroom in over 12 months. This is a serious concern, and the landlord should have promptly given the resident reassurance that the bedroom was habitable.
  15. In response, the landlord confirmed the main issue was condensation, it had listened to the resident’s queries, and after further investigation it was satisfied that there was no evidence of external water ingress. It added that the flooring was in sound condition, the stain was present in the void stage, and it assumed it was caused by a previous spillage.
  16. The landlord also reattended with the damp surveyor on 8 January 2025. During the meeting, the resident said she did not think the PIV unit was working correctly, she reiterated that the bedroom and cupboard smelt of damp, and said she had to dispose of the carpet due to damp and mould. The landlord said it tested the PIV unit, and it was in full working order. It tested the humidity, which was in the expected levels. It said the works sufficiently addressed the issue and the resident could move back into the bedroom. In view of this, it is clear the landlord took appropriate steps to address her concerns.
  17. In its complaint response, the landlord said it had taken the resident’s reports very seriously. The landlord determined the damp and mould was caused by condensation, which it had completed works to address. It is understood the resident believed the issue resulted from water ingress due to the original survey. However, none of the subsequent reports, including those instructed by the resident, found evidence of water ingress. It was satisfied that it correctly diagnosed and remedied the issue.
  18. In view of the evidence, the landlord completed extensive investigation, completed the recommended works, and fairly considered the evidence provided by the resident. There were minor failings due to the delays in addressing the resident’s concerns regarding the flooring and the initial misdiagnosis of the cause of the damp and mould. While these failings meant the landlord failed to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations at times, it did not have a significant impact on the landlord’s overall handling of the repair works.
  19. In its final response, the landlord offered £100 compensation as its handling of the matter fell short of its customer service standards. It also offered to replace the bedroom carpet as a gesture of goodwill. The overall approach to the repairs was reasonable, however, in view of the highlighted shortcomings it was appropriate that it offered compensation. The level of compensation was in line with the Service’s remedies guidance, which states awards of up to £100 are appropriate in cases where there was a failing by the landlord which may have caused distress, inconvenience, or time and trouble, but did not significantly affect the overall outcome.
  20. In her complaint to the Service, the resident said she wanted compensation for the damage caused to her bed, carpet, and wardrobe, caused by damp and mould. The landlord’s compensation policy states “Where damage has not been caused by [the landlord] and the loss is covered by the customer’s own contents insurance, or the customer could reasonably have obtained such insurance, claims will not be considered”. It is unclear whether the landlord referred the resident to her own insurer. Nonetheless, the landlord would not be expected to reimburse the resident for damaged items, in line with its policy. The resident may contact her insurer to further pursue the matter if she has not done so already.
  21. It was also reasonable for the landlord to suggest that the resident could pursue a claim through its liability insurance policy if she considered that the landlord was responsible for causing damage to her carpets and personal possessions. The landlord told the Service it referred the resident to its insurance in August 2024, and the claim was subsequently denied. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to assess the handling or outcome of insurance claims and therefore we cannot comment on this further in our investigation. The landlord is entitled to have insurance in place to assist it with the cost of negligence claims and it would not be expected to provide compensation for negligence claims outside the insurance process. However, the landlord did offer to replace the bedroom carpet as a gesture of goodwill, which exceeded its obligations.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an ant infestation

  1. The landlord’s pest control policy states that residents are responsible for arranging pest control services for ants within the property or the garden.
  2. The resident initially reported issues with tropical ants in the back garden on 5 September 2023. She said she had previously paid an independent contractor £400 to resolve the issue, but the ants had returned. She said she could not afford another treatment. The following day, the landlord told the resident that in line with its policy it would not treat ants in individual gardens. It added that the pest control officer advised that they would not survive winter so the issue would likely disappear. This response was in line with its policy. It was reasonable that the landlord promptly confirmed its position and sought professional advice on how the resident should best manage the issue.
  3. The resident further pursued the matter on 8 May 2024, reporting that issues with pharaoh ants and spiders had recured. The landlord reiterated that in line with its policy residents are responsible for managing issues with ants. The resident raised concerns with the condition of the neighbour’s garden and said she thought the issues may have originated there. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord visited the neighbour on 23 May 2024. It found the garden was well maintained but she would remove her compost bins within the next few months. It is recognised that the neighbour did not remove the compost bin for several months, but the landlord would not be responsible for the delay.
  4. The resident continued to pursue the matter with her councillor. The landlord promptly responded and maintained its position. It said its pest control contractor advised the resident to treat the issue with ant powder.
  5. In her complaint, the resident said that she was quoted £1300 to resolve the issue. She was dissatisfied that the landlord had not changed its position. The landlord referred the matter to its pest control contractor as a gesture of goodwill. The landlord was not obliged to do so; however, it is positive to note it made an exception due to the significant cost of the proposed works.
  6. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that the pest control contractor used diatomaceous earth powder intended to eradicate the infestation, but the ants were deemed to be deep underground and mainly in a larva state. It said it would return in late spring to complete another treatment as the contractor advised it would likely be more effective. In its follow-up response on 13 May 2025, the landlord said the pest contractor reattended on 7 May 2025 to reinspect the garden. The contractor found “no real evidence of ants apart from generic insects that would be expected to be found on the surface of any household lawn”. Further to this, it said “upon digging down below the surface he did observe yellow meadow ants and has assured us that these are harmless and not pharaoh ants as you originally believed”.
  7. The landlord said it was satisfied there is no increased risk of harm to the resident’s family so it would not undertake any additional work. While it is understood that the resident was likely disappointed that the landlord changed its position regarding the works it would complete, it acted reasonably based on the evidence available at the time. Further to this, ultimately it completed the works as a gesture of goodwill which exceeded its obligations under the pest control policy. As a result, there was no maladministration in its handling of the issue.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the patio repairs

  1. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping pathways, steps, and means of access in good repair. The landlord raised a work order on 30 January 2023 to take up the rear patio, concrete, and make a new path under the window with drains to stop flooding. It raised a further work order on 20 February 2023 to repair the patio. The landlord marked the work orders as completed on 30 March 2023 and 27 June 2023.
  2. The resident initially raised concerns regarding the works in an email to her councillor on 20 May 2024. There is no evidence she raised any issues to the landlord prior to this date. She said the patio was replaced with concrete which caused sun and additional heat to reflect into the property during summer months. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to her concerns, which resulted in the resident pursuing the issue as part of the complaint in November 2024.
  3. In its complaint response, the landlord said it was sorry that the resident was unhappy it had replaced the patio slabs with concrete. It said this was to ensure the area was more stable and future proof. Although the landlord should generally try to replace items like-for-like, in some cases there can be practical reasons for using an alternative. In this case, the landlord’s decision was reasonable.
  4. However, the landlord failed to address the issue for over 6 months, which was an unreasonable delay. This meant it did not manage the resident’s expectations about its position on the matter from the onset. It is recognised that the delay did not impact the overall outcome, but the landlord failed to demonstrate it took the resident’s concerns seriously. It is noted that the resident did not chase the issue in the interim, so the landlord did not have a further opportunity to recognise it had not addressed the issue. An order has been made for the landlord to apologise for the delay in responding to the resident’s concerns.
  5. The resident subsequently told the landlord in her complaint escalation that the patio was causing her daughter migraines as the sunlight was reflecting off the concrete as it was a lighter colour than the patio. In response, the landlord said, “due to the required material specification for concrete repairs it is normal for the colouration to be lighter in appearance to patio slabs or older concrete due to weathering”. It said that with further rainfall and weather patterns the colour would dull overtime and reduce the bright appearance.
  6. Overall, the landlord had appropriate reasons for replacing the existing patio to alleviate the health and safety risk, and it provided appropriate reasons for its decision to use a different material when completing the works. Although it is understood that the appearance of the patio had a negative impact on the resident, this was largely outside of the landlord’s control. It also explained how the issues the resident experienced would naturally reduce over time. Nonetheless, it is recommended that the landlord considers whether it can take any alternative action to mitigate the impact on the resident. It could consider applying a heat rejection film to the kitchen window as recommended by the resident’s independent contractor. It is recognised that there may not be an appropriate solution.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and poor ventilation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an ant infestation.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of resident’s concerns about the patio repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord should apologise for the delay in addressing the resident’s concerns regarding the patio repairs. It should provide the Service with a copy of the apology as evidence with compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation and replace the carpet as offered in its final response.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord considers whether it can take any action to mitigate the impact of the concrete patio on the resident.