Progress Housing Association Limited (202442599)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202442599

Progress Housing Association Limited

6 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 the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Transfer/rehousing application.

Background

2. The resident occupied the 2 bedroom terrace property on an assured tenancy, with her partner and children from July 2021 until June 2025. In May 2025 she signed a new tenancy for a 3 bedroom property. The landlord is a housing association.
3. In July 2024, the landlord arranged a Healthy Homes survey to be carried out following a report of damp and mould, which identified issues with the rear bedroom window.
4. The resident complained on 13 October 2024 about the landlord not addressing the damp and mould. She also said she needed a bigger property as there were 5 people living in a 2 bedroom property, and she was expecting another child. The complaint was acknowledged on 18 October 2024 and in its stage 1 response sent on 25 October 2024 the landlord apologised for not addressing the mould sooner. It said it had arranged for someone to attend the property on 29 October 2024.
5. The complaint was escalated by the resident’s mother, acting as representative, on 31 October 2024. She was unhappy that the landlord had failed to deal with the mould since July 2024 and had only offered to clean the mould, rather than address the cause. She also stressed the need for the resident to move.
6. The landlord spoke with the resident on 5 November 2024 who confirmed a mould wash had been done and she had been advised about ventilating the property. The landlord explained that in terms of a move, it could not change her banding for her housing application, but confirmed the complaint had moved to stage 2.
7. Another Healthy Homes inspection was carried out on 8 November 2024 and when the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 on 13 December 2024, it said it would ensure all repairs identified would be done. It also noted the resident had been unsuccessful in bidding on another property through its choice based lettings system, but that she was communicating with an area housing co-ordinator to ensure her application was banded correctly.
8. On 13 January 2025, the resident informed the landlord that her newborn child had been admitted to intensive care. It was told doctors had attributed damp and mould at the property as having affected the baby’s health, so they could not return home. The resident stayed with family until she signed a new tenancy for a 3 bedroom property in May 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The resident’s complaint said she had been reporting damp and mould for 6 months. However, the landlord’s records indicate it was first put on notice in early July 2024. We have therefore considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from this date. We have also considered events following the landlord’s final response as the issue remained unresolved and it made a further attempt to resolve the complaint in May 2025.

Resident’s reports of damp and mould

10. The resident’s complaint to the landlord, referred to her family’s health being affected by damp and mould. It is important to explain at the outset, that although we are an alternative to a court, we are unable to establish whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action, had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. We can though, consider any distress and inconvenience caused.
11. At stage 1, the landlord acknowledged it had received a report of damp and mould in July 2024 and that despite an order being raised, it had not been addressed. It therefore allocated the work to a different contractor, to attend on 29 October 2024. While it is good the landlord acknowledged the oversight, apologised and promptly took action, it should not have taken the resident to complain for this to have been addressed. If the landlord had had a system in place to ensure active jobs were monitored through to completion, the fact the job had been overlooked would have been picked up and it would have saved the resident having to escalate matters.
12. This Service’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould report, It’s Not Lifestyle (October 2021), says landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions and should ensure that responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord’s damp, condensation and mould growth policy also reflects that. It says an inspection, and potentially a survey, should be done once a report is made. However, in this case while an inspection took place in July 2024, no further action was taken for nearly 4 months and this amounts to unreasonable delay.
13. The landlord did take a more proactive approach from October 2024. As a result of the contractor attending, a mould wash was done and the resident was advised about ventilation. An arrangement was also made to reseal a window at the rear of the property the following month, but to also measure up in case the landlord needed to replace it. A further inspection that took place on 8 November 2024 confirmed an extractor fan to the kitchen had also been replaced and the whole property had been treated for areas affected by mould.
14. The landlord then arranged a follow up inspection on 13 December 2024. This again confirmed the property had been treated for damp and mould, but noted the following:
    1. The living room and kitchen still had some condensation.
    2. The back bedroom had a strong odour. There was a sofa with lots of shoes up against the wall at the window which the resident was advised to move. The other side of the room under the window had slight dark spots which had been treated but had come back.
    3. The children’s bedroom had some condensation on the windows.
15. To address these issues, the landlord identified work that needed to be completed. That being:
    1. To level out the loft insulation, where it was missing to the eaves of the property and to the front and rear over both bedrooms.
    2. To fit a loft mounted positive input ventilation unit to improve air quality.
    3. Extensive joinery work, including removing and replacing skirting and to hack off bridging plaster.
    4. To renew the door to under the stairs, install louvre vents to the front bedroom.
    5. Measure and replace failed double-glazing units and replace child restrictors to bedrooms.
16. The landlord planned to carry out these works, but on 13 January 2025 it was advised that the resident’s 3 week old son had been hospitalised. It was told doctors had suggested the damp and mould in the property was to blame for his illness. The landlord acted promptly. It explained that 2 surveyors had not found a significant risk due to mould, but if any was found, it would treat it as an emergency. It also considered putting the resident up in emergency accommodation but explained that the only option at that time was a hotel as there were no suitable properties available. It therefore took reasonable action in response, but as it was, the resident made arrangements to stay with her mother and another family member, instead of going back to the property. In the meantime the landlord scheduled the repairs to take place.
17. An appointment was made to have the loft insulation levelled off on 23 January 2025, however the contractors could not get access. So, the landlord rebooked the work alongside planned carpentry and joinery work on 31 January 2025. However, when the contractors attended the property that day, they were unable to do the work due to the condition of the property. Therefore, arrangements had to be made with the resident to have the property cleaned.
18. The resident did clean the property, and that was followed by 2 failed attempts to inspect the property again, so it took until 15 April 2025 to confirm the works could be carried out. While the landlord missed one of the inspections due to traffic, it would be unfair to hold it fully responsible for the overall delay, as it made a reasonable attempt to commence works.
19. It is not known if or when the landlord did complete the works, as a new property was found which the resident was formally offered on 10 April 2025 and later moved in to. It is clear though, that the landlord took reasonable steps as it made arrangements for the damp and mould to be treated and for repairs to be done. However, had the landlord started works in July 2024 as it should have done, it is likely they would have been completed sooner. An alternative property was found but it is clear there was some initial delay in the landlord taking action to address the damp and mould and this caused inconvenience to the resident and amounts to maladministration.
20. To recognise the effect this had on the resident, it would be fair for the landlord to pay the resident compensation. In May 2025 the landlord did offer her some compensation amounting to £2,367.38. However, this was after it had exhausted its internal complaints procedure, and it was calculated on the basis of 10% of the current rent for 201 weeks of the tenancy. It is not clear why that percentage was used, or how the number of weeks was calculated. The resident did not accept the offer, and her mother has said it was because she wanted to claim for damages as a result of the damp and mould, including new flooring.
21. No evidence has been provided to show the resident submitted a claim to the landlord, setting out all of her losses or out of pocket expenses. If she has evidence of losses due to the damp, then in the absence of her having her own home contents insurance, she could send that to the landlord. It could then consider the claim or refer her to its insurer, if required.
22. Although no claim for financial loss was made, the landlord was right to consider the impact this had on the resident. Where there has been maladministration, our remedies guidance suggests compensation of between £600 and £1,000 would be reasonable. The landlord’s complaints, feedback and redress policy also suggests the same, for a situation where the resident had to deal with damp and mould longer than she should have. In this case, while there was an initial delay of just over 3 months, the landlord did then take steps to try and address the issue. Taking all things in to account, the landlord’s offer of £2,367.38 was reasonable and above the level suggested in its complaints, feedback and redress policy.
23. While the amount of compensation is reasonable, the offer itself was not made during the internal complaints procedure. This indicates the landlord did not give adequate and timely consideration to its complaints, feedback and redress policy. It did not invoke remedies at the earliest possible stage, despite recognising it should have acted sooner than it did. Therefore, we endorse the compensation now offered and an order has been made to reflect that. However, as the compensation was not offered during the complaint process, we have made a finding of maladministration rather than one of reasonable redress.

Resident’s transfer/rehousing application

24. After the resident complained to the landlord that she needed a bigger property as she was going to have a fourth child, the local council arranged an inspection on 8 November 2024 and concluded it was overcrowded. The landlord explained, as per its allocation policy, it used a choice based lettings policy. It noted she had been bidding on properties, without success, and it encouraged her to check it every day and continue bidding as properties came up all the time and something may become available.
25. The landlord’s allocations policy states that where existing tenants need rehousing, they have the right to apply to transfer subject to its own choice based lettings policy eligibility. The resident was therefore entitled to apply for a transfer but she was still subject to the same assessment on eligibility as other applicants when establishing priority. The allocations policy does recognise though, that there may be exceptional circumstances, and in that case, a resident may be approved for a direct match.
26. Upon being notified the resident had moved in with family on 13 January 2025, the landlord promptly took action. It discussed Home Choice options with the resident, which is the system for letting properties, and explained that her banding was as high as it could be. The landlord has supplied a copy of its Consistent Assessment Policy which confirms the resident was correctly allocated to Band C as she had a local connection and the property was overcrowded and another bedroom was needed. The landlord explained it could only be increased with enforcement action from the council, and it had inspected the property in November 2024 and confirmed that there was no category 1 risk present in accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. The assessment found no serious and immediate risk to the resident’s health and safety. This shows the landlord complied with its obligations and provided guidance and support but also ensured the resident was in the best possible position for rehousing.
27. The evidence shows the landlord did appreciate the situation the resident was in, with her newborn baby being ill. As soon as it was notified of the situation, it took a proactive stance. Emails of 14 January 2025 show it spoke with its allocations team straight away and noted the resident had recently been unsuccessful bidding on a property. Unfortunately, it said at that time there were no 3-bedroom properties available. The resident did not qualify for a larger property, but it was noted a suitable property may soon become available. It therefore made the decision to treat her case as being an exceptional circumstance and approved the resident for a direct match. That meant as soon as a property was available it would contact the resident, rather than her having to bid on it.
28. During January 2025 the landlord spoke with the resident’s mother about the possibility of other properties becoming available. However, as they had 4 bedrooms, it meant the resident did not meet the criteria under its allocation policy and there was also a concern over affordability. As it was, on 21 January 2025 a property was identified as potentially being suitable, but it needed work before the resident could move in. In the meantime, it agreed to continue to look for other properties. As mentioned earlier, the property was formally offered to the resident in April 2025 and the tenancy agreement signed on 23 May 2025.
29. Overall, the landlord took a number of steps to try and help the resident. It clearly explored alternative properties for her, but unfortunately nothing suitable was available. A shortage of properties meant it was restricted in what it could do. However, it complied with its allocation policy as it checked her banding and she was still encouraged to bid.
30. It is clear the resident has been through a difficult time, due to her child being unwell but the landlord noted her situation had changed and took action when it became aware of her concern about moving home. It acted quickly and arranged for her to be granted exceptional circumstances and selected for direct match. Therefore, it did all that it could to assist the resident with her transfer/rehousing application, so there has been no maladministration.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer/rehousing application.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

33. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid the resident £2,367.38 for the delay and inconvenience addressing the damp and mould, as already offered.

Recommendation

34. The landlord to contact the resident within 4 weeks of this report to establish whether she wishes to make a claim for any financial loss and provide her with details of how to do that.