Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202445281)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202445281

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

30 July 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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord of a flat that she has occupied since April 2024. The resident’s young child also lives in the property. The resident has asthma.
The resident reported damp and mould in her property on 23 October 2024. On 28 October 2024, she raised a complaint to the landlord, in which she said:
1. the damp and mould had damaged items including shoes, bedside tables and her son’s bed.
2. the damp and mould must have been a problem before she moved into the property.
3. she has asthma which had become worse, and she believed this was caused by the mould.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 December 2024, in which it said:
1. a specialist contractor carried out a survey and a mould wash on 30 October 2024.
2. the survey identified mould in 4 rooms in the property.
3. the contractor made recommendations for future works which would be considered under its planned maintenance programme. This included updating the bathroom fan and installing a fan in the window in the kitchen.
4. it was unable to compensate for damaged items and the resident would need to claim on her contents insurance.
5. it had taken immediate action once it was made aware of the damp and mould and it therefore did not identify a service failure.
6. it would continue to monitor the issue for 2 months to confirm whether the mould returned.
The resident escalated her complaint on the same date, in which she said:
1. the mould issue had not been resolved, and she had supplied photographic evidence of this taken after the contractor’s visit.
2. the landlord knew the property had damp and mould problems and did nothing to fix this prior to the resident moving in.
3. a neighbour told her there had been severe mould problems in the property for years and she requested to see information on the property’s condition before she moved in.
4. the issue had affected her physical and mental health.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 February 2025, in which it said:
1. there had been a service failure following the contractor’s attendance.
2. it did not take action soon enough after the resident reported that mould was still present.
3. it would go ahead with the contractor’s recommendations for new fan installs in the bathroom and kitchen, as well as a further mould wash.
4. its repairs surveyor would attend on 10 February 2025 to investigate the cause of the damp.
5. it completed the required void work to ensure that the property was in good condition before it was let out and the photographs taken at the time confirm that there were no signs of damp and mould.
6. it offered £250 compensation, made up as:
  1. £150 for the time taken to chase the repair and the stress and inconvenience caused due to the repairs delay.
  2. £100 for the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 22 April 2025. She told us that:
1. the damp and mould issues were ongoing and she believed the issue had been ongoing for years.
2. the landlord was not investigating the cause of the problem.
3. the mould had caused damage to various items of furniture.
4. the issue had impacted her mental health due to the amount of time she had spent complaining.
On 14 July 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord had carried out the ventilation works identified in October 2024 and that the landlord had began carrying out the works that were identified by its surveyor in February 2025. These works included thermal boarding the walls in several rooms. She said that in order to resolve her complaint, the landlord should resolve the damp and mould issue and pay compensation for the distress caused, time spent chasing the landlord and for the damage to her belongings.
On 16 July 2025, the landlord told the Ombudsman that the works were due to be completed by 21 July 2025 and a post-inspection was provisionally scheduled for 23 July 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments about the effect of the issue on her physical and mental health. It is generally accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. However, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine if there was a direct link between any action or inaction by the landlord and any specific damage to the resident’s health in this case. Matters of legal liability for damage to health may be better suited to a court or liability insurer to decide. The Ombudsman is able to consider any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that when a property becomes vacant, and prior to re-letting, it will seek to identify and remedy any issues which may cause damp. This may include ensuring doors and windows are serviceable and can effectively ventilate the property and applying mould treatments where necessary.
The damp and mould policy states that when receiving a report, the landlord will log it and apply an initial severity rating. It states it will respond to severe cases within 5 working days and moderate and mild cases within 28 days. The policy states where a property inspection is undertaken, it will identify and resolve root causes such as sources of dampness, inadequate insulation, heating and ventilation. Any recommended upgrade or installation work will be considered as part of its planned investment programmes.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend urgent repairs within 5 working days and complete these within 28 working days. It will attend and complete routine repairs within 28 working days.
The landlord provided photographs of the property before and after it conducted void works. The photographs show that there was mould present in the property prior to the void works. The evidence reflects that the landlord carried out various repairs during the voids period including stain blocking, skimming the walls in the lounge and bedrooms and repointing to the front and rear brickwork. The landlord’s surveyor completed an empty homes survey on 24 January 2024. No mould can be seen in the photographs taken after the void works were completed.
It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine what works the landlord should have carried out to address the damp and mould before the tenancy start date. We have therefore not found a failing regarding the works conducted by the landlord during the voids process. However, it is evident that the mould returned within 10 months of the works being completed which could indicate that the repairs did not address the root cause of the issue.
The resident reported damp and mould on 23 October 2024. We do not have any evidence that the resident reported damp and mould prior to this date. The landlord arranged for its damp and mould contractor to conduct a survey which took place on 30 October 2024. The landlord therefore responded promptly and in line with the timeframe stipulated in its policy for urgent repairs, which was appropriate.
The contractor identified mould and undertook a mould wash in the property. It found that the bathroom fan worked intermittently and that there was no fan in the kitchen, which resulted in moisture building up in the property. It recommended installing an extractor fan in the kitchen window and replacing the bathroom extractor fan.
The landlord initially stated it would consider the extractor fan recommendations under its planned maintenance programme. It did not provide a timescale for when the programme would take place. Given that the contractor had identified this as a possible cause of the damp and mould, it is concerning that the landlord did not initially consider carrying out the recommended works ahead of its planned maintenance programme. Landlords should ensure they take preventative actions when dealing with damp and mould.
On 18 November 2024, the resident reported that the damp and mould had returned since the contractor carried out the mould wash. On 26 November 2024, she again reported mould in the property. The landlord did not take action to address the issue within a reasonable timeframe following her further reports. The resident chased the landlord regarding the issue in January and February 2025. She said that the mould was getting worse and that the landlord was ignoring her requests to fix the issue.
In its stage 2 response, dated 5 February 2025, the landlord appropriately identified a service failure as it had not acted soon enough after the resident’s further reports of damp and mould. The landlord stated it would install the extractor fans and arrange for its damp and mould surveyor to investigate the cause of the damp.
The landlord’s surveyor attended on 18 February 2025 to inspect the damp and mould. Although this occurred after the stage 2 response, it was an action that the landlord said it would carry out in its final complaint response and we have therefore considered it as part of our investigation.
On 14 March 2025, the surveyor requested various works orders to be raised, including for thermal boarding to be applied to several of the walls in the property. It unclear why it took almost 4 weeks for the surveyor to raise the works orders following his inspection. The landlord began carrying out the works on 14 July 2025, which was approximately 5 months after the surveyor’s visit. This delay was outside of the repairs timeframes stipulated in its damp and mould policy.
The evidence indicates that the landlord replaced the bathroom extractor fan on 17 March 2025. The landlord did not provide evidence to reflect when it installed the kitchen window fan. However, the resident informed us that this took place in May 2025. The ventilation works were initially identified in October 2024 and this therefore reflects a further lengthy delay by the landlord to carry out these works.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould recommended that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. However, the evidence reflects various delays by the landlord to act following the resident’s November 2024 reports of damp and mould, which was a failing. The resident reported health concerns related to damp and mould and the resident’s child also lives in the property. The landlord’s response to the damp and mould does not reflect that it properly took these vulnerabilities into account.
The resident also reported that the mould had damaged several items of clothing and furniture. The landlord advised the resident to make a claim on her own contents insurance. Given the resident’s position was that the damage was caused due to negligence by the landlord, it should have provided advice to the resident on how she could make a claim to its own liability insurers. This was a failing by the landlord to provide the correct information to the resident, which prevented her from making a claim.
The failings identified in the report amount to maladministration by the landlord. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould. She also incurred time and trouble in reporting the issue to the landlord. Further, the landlord did not appear to acknowledge the resident’s concerns about her health, which likely caused her further distress.
The landlord made some efforts to put things right by offering £150 compensation in recognition of the delays in carrying out damp and mould repairs. However, the amount offered is insufficient to remedy the failings identified in this report. We have made an order below for the landlord to pay additional compensation to the resident. The amount offered is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for financial redress for failures that had an adverse effect on the resident. We have also made further orders regarding the resident’s reports of damaged belongings and the damp and mould works in the property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issues stage 1 responses within a further 10 working days. The policy states it will respond to escalation requests in 5 working days and issue stage 2 responses in 10 working days of its acknowledgment.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint within the 10-working day timeframe. However, its response to the stage 2 complaint was delayed. The resident escalated the complaint on 2 December 2024 and the landlord acknowledged this on 6 December 2024. On 8 January 2025, the landlord notified the resident it needed more time to investigate. The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint on 5 February 2024, which was 25 working days in excess of the timeframe stipulated in the complaints policy.
The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the delay in responding to the complaint. The amount offered was reasonable to remedy the inconvenience caused by the delay, and we have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress that was reasonable to resolve the complaint handling failing.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must:
1. pay the resident £550. This should be paid directly to the resident rather than credited to her rent account. The amount is made up as follows:
  1. £150 already offered by the landlord at stage 2,
  2. £400 for the additional failures identified in relation to the landlord’s response to the damp and mould reports.
2. provide the resident with details of its liability insurers and advice on how she can make a claim for damaged belongings caused by the damp and mould. The landlord must evidence to the Ombudsman that it has provided this information to the resident.
3. provide the outcome of the post works survey to the resident and the Ombudsman. If further works are identified to resolve the damp and mould, the landlord should contact the resident to schedule this.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the orders to the Ombudsman within the timeframe stipulated.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £100 it offered for complaint handling, if it is not already done so. The reasonable redress finding is made on the condition that this amount is paid to the resident.