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.

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202452094)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202452094

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

27 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. Requests to be transferred to a more suitable property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since December 2012. The property is a 1 bedroom flat and the resident lives with her young son. The landlord is aware that the resident suffers with her mental health and that her son has asthma.
  2. Since November 2014 the resident has been reporting issues with damp and mould within her property. The records show she reported issues in at least November 2014, October 2021 and March 2022.
  3. On 23 February 2024 the resident reported further issues with damp and mould to the landlord. She said her son had recently been taken to hospital due to his asthma and she was concerned the ongoing mould issues in the property were impacting his health. She said that she had been reporting these issues since she moved in and while the landlord had plastered and painted the bathroom walls with anti-mould paint it kept coming back. Within this email the resident also raised concerns with the living conditions in the property. She said that she had been sleeping in the living room for the past couple of years because the singular bedroom in the property was not big enough for both her and her son to sleep in. The resident continued to make reports of damp and mould throughout the property in March and April 2024.
  4. Additionally, between February 2024 and March 2025 the resident provided multiple items of medical information and asked the landlord to review these with the aim of increasing her band assessment for rehousing. She said current banding would not allow her to be rehoused urgently despite the adverse effect she said the condition of the property was having on her and her son’s health.
  5. The resident raised her complaint on 22 April 2024. She said the landlord had cleaned the mould 2 weeks before but it had already come back. She said she had called in multiple times about this but had not heard back from the landlord. She also said that her son had asthma and was unable to live at the property with the damp and mould issues.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 May 2024. It said that it was pleased that its contractors had already re-attended the property to treat the mould and install a fan. It also said that it had chased them about the installation of a pane of glass and they had confirmed it had been ordered. The landlord acknowledged there had been a failing and offered £20 for the time taken for it to raise her complaint and £80 for the delay in the treatment of the mould.
  7. A copy of the resident’s escalation request has not been provided. However, the landlord acknowledged it on 27 January 2025. The landlord later spoke to the resident on 18 March 2025 about her escalation.
  8. The resident also raised a complaint about the landlord’s failure to provide her with suitable accommodation on 13 March 2025. She said the property was small, damp and mouldy and that this had severely impacted both her and her son’s health. She said her son had medical conditions which were exacerbated by the damp and mould in the property. She said that it was only in the past year that the landlord had informed her about its home choice scheme and what the process was. She said the local authority (LA) had awarded her band B in 2023 but it had told her it was the landlord’s responsibility to provide her with appropriate accommodation. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the LA telling the resident it was the landlord’s responsibility to provide her with appropriate accommodation.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 1 response for the complaint about suitable accommodation on 27 March 2025. It said that information about all the ways the resident could have applied for a new property is on its website. However, it acknowledged that it should have provided the resident with this information sooner than it did. In recognition of this it offered £50 compensation. It also said that it would be holding a priority move panel meeting the week after in order to assess whether the resident met the criteria for an urgent move. It said it would inform her of the outcome of that panel by the end of the following week.
  10. Evidence of the resident’s request to escalate her complaint about suitable accommodation has not been provided by either party. This factor was however included in the landlords stage 2 response as set out below.
  11. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 April 2025. Regarding the complaint about damp and mould it said its contractor was carrying out the external works identified in the process of carrying out the thermal boarding. It confirmed it needed to complete these works before works within the property could be carried out. It said the resident’s temporary accommodation was booked until 16 April 2025 but would be extended if necessary. The landlord acknowledged that it needed to improve its communication, there had been delays in it carrying out the works as well as a delay in it issuing its stage 2 response. In recognition of these failings it offered a further £650 compensation broken down as:
    1. £550 for the impact of the delays to the repairs.
    2. £100 for the delay in it issuing the stage 2 complaint.
  12. The landlord’s stage 2 response also addressed the resident’s complaint about suitable accommodation. It said it had held the panel meeting earlier that week and had decided to add the resident to the priority list to be directly offered a 2-bedroom property. It also explained that it might still take a few months for a suitable home for her and her son to be found. As such, it said that once the outstanding repairs were completed the landlord would still move them back into the property until a new home was offered.
  13. On the 14 April 2025 the resident confirmed to this Service that she wanted us to investigate the complaint. On 19 May 2025 she told us that she was unhappy with the complaint responses because the landlord kept coming to wipe down the mould in the property but it had not fixed the cause of it. She said to resolve the complaint she wanted the landlord to fix the cause of the damp and mould, fix the damp and mould itself and to move her to a 2 bedroom property.
  14. The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord completed the works to resolve the mould issues on 17 June 2025 and the resident was moved back into the property on 27 July 2025. Additionally, the landlord has confirmed that it has directly offered the resident another of its properties and she accepted.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

  1. The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord’s handling of the reported damp and mould issues has had a significant effect on her son’s health as well as her own mental health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any effect on health and wellbeing. Personal injury claims must, ultimately, be decided by the courts, as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman can consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. In the resident’s correspondence she has referred to historical issues with damp and mould going back to 2012. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that she raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the issues until April 2024. The Ombudsman encourages residents to bring complaints to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually within 12 months, so that it has a reasonable opportunity to resolve the issues whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate them. Therefore, this assessment focuses on events from April 2023 (12 months before the complaint was made) until 27 July 2025 (when the resident moved back into the property). Anything that happened before or after this period this is considered for context but not formally assessed or determined as part of this investigation.

Damp and mould

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. In line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS), the landlord has an obligation to address hazards and risks within its properties, including the presence of damp and mould. When assessing reports of damp and mould, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence that the landlord had completed a damp assessment, using professional tools such as a moisture meter, in order to establish the underlying cause of the issues experienced within a property, the exact location of any defects which may contribute to the spread of damp, and to assess all possible causes of damp, including leaks, rising damp, penetrating damp and condensation. This is to have a clear understanding of the problem in order to provide a resolution within a reasonable timescale.
  3. It would be reasonable to expect that any quality inspection of damp and mould should include an assessment of all possible causes of the damp, (leaks, rising damp, penetrating damp, and condensation) which would involve checking the fabric of the building for faults. This should include the roof, DPC, brickwork, plumbing, external drains/gulleys, rainwater goods as well as the airflow and extraction within the building.
  4. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that when it receives reports it will categorise the severity based on the information provided. The records provided by the landlord show it classed the resident’s reports as ‘moderate’ which its policy says involves:
    1. Multiple areas of damp and or mould growth identified but limited in area and location.
    2. May be some low level of customer risk factor such as very young or elderly but no specific vulnerabilities.
    3. Routine mould treatment within 28 days. Surveyor inspection may be required.
  5. The landlord responded to the resident’s report of issues with damp and mould on 23 February 2024 on the same day. It said that she needed to call the damp and mould team to arrange a mould survey of the property. The resident contacted the landlord again regarding the mould in the property on 15 March 2024. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of when the resident called the damp and mould team to arrange a survey. However, on 21 March 2024 the landlord attended the property and wiped down the mould. This was a reasonable response by the landlord and the wipe down was carried out within its policy timescales.
  6. The information seen by the Ombudsman shows that there was a missed appointment for a damp and mould survey on 25 March 2024. The resident reported this to the landlord and it said its contractor would call her to reschedule the appointment. The resident then reported that the mould had returned on 26 March and 2 April 2024. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of when the landlord’s contractors called the resident about the missed appointment. However, the information seen shows that it carried out the damp and mould survey on 8 April 2024. The landlord has not provided an explanation as to why it missed the appointment on 25 March 2024. Without such an explanation the Ombudsman can only conclude that this was unreasonable as it caused an unnecessary delay as well as time and trouble for the resident as she had to chase it about the appointment.
  7. The survey report shows that the landlord found the property suffered from moisture migration due to inadequate ventilation and a poor heating regime. It says it found the kitchen radiator was poorly positioned and that numerous radiators were covered which can restrict the flow of heat in the property. It said it found that the property was made of solid brick with no cavity and it also suspected there was no insulation. It said that there were no doors in the kitchen or lounge and that this can allow moisture to flow more freely throughout the property. The report also said that during the visit the landlord explained to the resident the importance of not just using the heaters when she felt it was necessary and not leaving windows open in unoccupied rooms. Overall, the survey recommended that the landlord install extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom windows.
  8. The information seen by the Ombudsman shows that the landlord installed the fan in the kitchen on 30 April 2024. The records also show that on that day the landlord raised an order for a mould wash and this was carried out on 3 May 2024. In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed the pane of glass for the second fan should arrive soon. The landlord’s records show it installed the second fan on 24 May 2024. It took the landlord 33 workings days from the date of the already delayed survey for it to carry out the recommended installation of the fans in the kitchen and bathroom. This was not in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy. However, the Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord would have had to order the required fans and as such this was not an unreasonable delay in itself.
  9. On 31 May 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and said that despite the recent repairs there was still damp and mould in the property. The records show that the landlord’s contractor asked it to raise an order for further mould treatment on 3 June 2024 because the resident had reported that the mould had returned. The records seen show the landlord raised this order on 25 June 2024 and it was carried out on 4 July 2024. The carrying out of a further mould treatment by the landlord was reasonable and it was done within its policy timescales.
  10. The records seen do not show any further reports of damp and mould from the resident until 6 January 2025. Following this report the landlord was due to carry out a mould treatment and survey on 27 January 2025. However, the landlord rescheduled the survey for 29 January 2025. The survey found that the level of mould in the kitchen, bathroom, toilet and hallway was minimal while the level of mould in the living room was moderate. The survey also made the following observations:
    1. The kitchen fan was working but needed to be cleaned.
    2. There was only one trickle vent on the bathroom window.
    3. Not all the doors had a 10mm gap at the bottom for air transfer.
    4. The solid brick construction of the property offered minimal natural insulation which contributed to high heat loss.
    5. The gutters at the rear of the property were blocked with plant life. This may cause the brickwork to become wetter and take longer to dry out which could contribute to condensation and mould issues inside the building.
    6. There were some salts and blistering paint visible on the wall in the lounge which is shared with the stairwell.
  11. The survey report made the following recommendations:
    1. Install a continuously running fan in the bathroom.
    2. Clean the kitchen fan.
    3. Install a wall-mounted PIV to increase the background fresh air circulation.
    4. Trim the noted doors that do not have 10mm gap between the bottom of the door and finished floor level.
    5. Advise the resident on how to set and use the heating timer to maintain a consistent indoor temperature.
    6. Unblock the gutters.
  12. The Ombudsman has noted that the second survey found that the bathroom did not have an extractor fan. The survey carried out in April 2024 found the same and recommended the landlord install an extractor fan in the bathroom. However, the landlord’s records indicate that it installed that fan in the bathroom in May 2024. Additionally, when the resident contacted the landlord on 4 May 2025 it informed her that the installation of an extractor fan in the bathroom had been recommended in the previous survey but due to a miscommunication it was never installed. This contradicting information indicates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord. Furthermore, the miscommunication caused a delay of over a year in having a fan installed in the bathroom. This was unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s policies.
  13. The landlord moved the resident into temporary accommodation on 14 February 2025 to allow it to carry out works to resolve the damp and mould issues in the property. The landlord’s records show that initially the resident was only meant to be decanted until 13 March 2025. However, the works were not completed until 22 June 2025 and the resident moved back to the property on 27 July 2025. It was reasonable for the landlord to move the resident to temporary accommodation while it carried out works to resolve the mould issues. However, the landlord has not provided an explanation as to why it took 5 months for these works to be completed. This was a significant amount of time and not in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy. This delay caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience as she has told this Service that her son’s school was in a different area to the alternative accommodation. As such, she has said she had to make a longer and more expensive journey twice a day to get him to and from school.
  14. Throughout the period considered in this report the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould by carrying out mould washes and treatments. In itself this was a reasonable response to the resident’s reports and the treatments were for the most part carried out within the landlord’s policy timescales.
  15. However, the Ombudsman has also not seen evidence to show that at any point the landlord carried out a structural survey of the building to try and identify the root cause of the damp and mould in the property. Given that the resident regularly reported that the mould had returned despite the most recent treatment, and taking into consideration the fact that this had been the case for some years, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have carried out such a survey. By failing to carry out a structural survey the landlord missed the opportunity to potentially uncover the root cause of the mould and then carry out a full and lasting repair to prevent it returning. As a result of this failing the resident and her son were left in a property with regular damp and mould issues for an extended period of time. This cannot but have impacted their full enjoyment of the property.
  16. Additionally, it is important to note that the landlord was aware of the residents additional needs as well as those of her son. These additional needs would have meant that living in a property with ongoing issues with damp and mould, especially for an extended period of time, would have had a greater impact on them.
  17. Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as a failure to:
    1. Adhere to the repair timescales set out in its policies.
    2. Carry out a structural survey to identify the root cause of the damp and mould.
    3. Keep accurate records.
  18. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  19. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged there had been a delay to it completing the treatment of the mould in the property. In recognition of this failing it offered the resident £80 compensation. The landlord then offered a further £550 compensation in its stage 2 response as it acknowledged there had been further delays with the repairs. Bringing the total compensation offered to £630.
  20. Based on all of the above, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the service failings and uphold the resident’s complaint at both stages and offer compensation.
  21. However, further compensation is warranted to adequately address the increased impact the landlord’s failings had due to the resident and her son’s additional needs. This is mainly in relation to its failure to effectively deliver timely, enduring remedies to the required repairs within its own policy timeframes. This is particularly the case regarding the works relating to the damp and mould, as well as the consequential distress, time and trouble and inconvenience caused by the poor level of communication and the resident having to repeatedly chase the landlord about the ongoing issues.
  22. In view of this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration and orders the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and increase the total compensation to £1,000. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation and the impact on the resident.
  23. Additionally, while the resident is due to move to a new property she told this Service on 31 July 2025 that the mould has returned since the works were completed in June 2025. Therefore, if it has not already done so, the Ombudsman also orders the landlord to carry out a structural survey of the building to identify the root cause of the damp and mould and carry out any required works identified in the report.

Request to be rehoused

  1. The landlord operates a ‘choice based lettings’ housing register scheme where it advertises available homes to residents. The scheme is called home choice. Its reallocations policy explains that residents wishing to access the scheme should also consider alternative move options, including registering for a mutual exchange or house swapping to increase their opportunities for moving. The scheme works by determining 4 priority bands and considers a number of factors, including medical conditions. The policy explains that the landlord holds the ultimate right to band applicants “however it feels appropriate and at its sole discretion”, taking into account circumstances relevant to the application.
  2. The policy also says that if a tenant applies for housing on the basis of medical grounds, it will seek an independent medical review from a medical advisor. It says there is no right of appeal against decisions made by the medical advisor. However, if more information becomes available or if medical circumstances change, it will arrange a new medical review. The policy does not provide a timescale for application reviews.
  3. On 24 February 2024 the resident contacted the landlord regarding the damp and mould issues at the property. Within this email she said she had tried to be rehoused to a property suitable for a mother and child through the LA but this had not been possible. She described how the bedroom in her property was small and so her son had slept in there for the past couple of years while she slept in the living room. She also described how these conditions had impacted her mental health. The evidence seen indicates that at this time the resident was classed as band C within the landlord’s reallocations system.
  4. In its stage 1 response to the complaint about rehousing, the landlord has said it received the resident’s home choice application (application) on 7 March 2023 and her son’s birth certificate on 12 March 2023. The landlord has not provided a copy of this application. The information seen shows it passed the application and the supporting medical evidence to a medical advisor for review on 17 April 2023. It was appropriate and in line with its reallocations policy for the landlord to pass the resident’s application to a medical advisor to review. However, it has also not provided an explanation as to why it took over a month for it to pass the resident’s application for review. Without such an explanation the Ombudsman can only conclude that such a delay was unreasonable.
  5. The evidence seen shows that the medical advisor provided their report on 26 April 2024. They said that they had noted the background of anxiety, depression, asthma and overcrowding. However, they said that as long as the landlord dealt with any disrepair issues urgently there was insufficient medical information to recommend changing the resident’s banding. Landlords are entitled to rely on information provided by third party experts. As such, it was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to rely on the medical advisor’s recommendation not to change the resident’s banding at that time.
  6. On 7 May 2024 the resident told the landlord that she disagreed with its decision and asked for her application to be reassessed. She said she was surprised that the landlord did not acknowledge her sons asthma and her mental health issues as enough evidence to change her banding. She said the LA had recently awarded her 180 points and put her into band B based on the same evidence she had provided the landlord. Alongside this the resident also provided further medical evidence to show she was off work due to stress.
  7. The landlord has not provided a date for when it passed this new information on to the medical advisor. However, the medical advisor provided their response on 17 May 2024. The advisor acknowledged the resident’s certificates advising that she was unfit for work but said they did not appear to link her mental health with the accommodation. As such their previous recommendation remained unchanged as long as the landlord dealt with the disrepair issues ‘urgently’.
  8. Evidence has not been provided to show when a further review of the resident’s application was requested. However, the landlord has provided a copy of the medical advisor’s report dated 17 June 2024. They said they had confirmation that the building works had been unsuccessful in resolving the mould issues. As such, they recommended a banding change until the disrepair issues were permanently dealt with. Based on the evidence seen, it is the Ombudsman’s understanding that the landlord awarded the resident a band B for a 2 bedroom property following this application review. This was reasonable and appropriate given the medical advisors recommendation based on the most recent evidence provided to them.
  9. By January 2025 the landlord had not yet offered the resident a new property. On 20 and 21 January 2025 the resident provided further evidence in support of an urgent move to a different property due to the return of the mould. This included letters from her GP and her son’s school talking about the impact the conditions at the property were having on them and supporting her requests to be moved urgently.
  10. The landlord passed this new evidence to a medical advisor and they responded on 23 January 2025. They said there were no management updates regarding disrepair and it remained uncertain whether any asthma exacerbations were related to the accommodation or not. As such, they said their previous advice remained the same but that this should be reviewed following any updates regarding the disrepair.
  11. While the Ombudsman has not seen precise dates, the evidence indicates that on 2 separate occasions in February 2025 the resident provided further medical evidence in support of an urgent move to a different property. Both times the landlord passed this information on to a medical advisor for review and they responded on 11 and 17 February 2025 respectively. In each response the medical advisor said the new evidence did not support a move to a higher banding but that this should be reassessed following further information about the disrepair.
  12. The Ombudsman appreciates that throughout this period the resident wanted to be moved to a new property urgently because she believed the damp and mould in the property was directly impacting her and her sons health. However, the landlord followed its allocations policy by having all the evidence she provided in support of her application reviewed by a medical advisor. It therefore acted reasonably and appropriately by doing so as well as by relying on the recommendations of those advisors when deciding whether or not to award her a higher banding.
  13. In its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about suitable housing, dated 27 March 2025, the landlord said it had information about how to apply for housing on its website but acknowledged that it should have provided this when she enquired about moving in 2024. It explained that it can only keep 1 in every 4 properties that become available for applicants on its transfer register, which is why it had a limited amount of transfers each year and why it informs customers of the importance of also registering with the LA. It confirmed it was aware the resident was registered with the LA’s home swapper scheme. It confirmed the resident was on the transfer list as a band B for a 2 bedroom property and offered a total of £50 compensation for not informing her sooner of the other housing options available. The landlord also confirmed that it would be holding a priority move panel the week after in order to assess whether the resident met the criteria for an urgent move based on all the information she had provided. It said it would inform her of the outcome of that panel by the end of the following week.
  14. The evidence provided by the landlord indicates that it informed the resident of the outcome of the panel in its stage 2 response dated 10 April 2025. It said it had decided to add the resident to the priority list for a 2-bedroom property. However, it also explained that it could still take a few months to find a suitable home. It said that as a result, once the outstanding repairs were completed they would be expected to stay at her current address until a new home was offered.
  15. It was appropriate for the landlord to hold a priority move panel to determine if the resident met the criteria for an urgent move. However, the landlord has not provided an explanation for why it did not do this around 14 February 2025 when the decision to decant the resident while major works were carried out. Once the landlord made the decision to decant the resident she fulfilled one of the characteristics which its reallocations policy says is an instance where it can award a tenant band A. Namely that it can award band A in instances ‘where essential works to the property require them to be moved out in order to carry out the major works or because of health and safety reasons’. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to have reviewed the resident’s banding and see if she qualified for an urgent move sooner than it did.
  16. That said, it is important to note that, as explained in the landlord’s stage 2 response, it may still take some time for the landlord to offer a resident a new property even after being approved for an urgent move. As such, while it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have carried out the priority move panel sooner than it did, this caused a delay of about a month and there is no evidence to suggest that this significantly impacted the resident with regards to how long she had to wait to be offered a property.
  17. On 31 July 2025 the landlord told this Service that it had offered the resident a new property and she had accepted. The landlord did not confirm when it offered her the property but confirmed she was due to sign up for it on 5 August 2025.
  18. Overall, based on all the information provided, the landlord reviewed the resident’s applications in accordance with its reallocations policy and reasonably relied on the recommendations made by the medal advisors. There were 2 instances in which the landlord should reasonably have acted quicker than it did and this caused a delay. However, the delays were not significant and we have not seen evidence of a significant impact on the resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to be transferred to a more suitable property.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of it being logged. It also says the landlord will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from the date of the escalation request. The policy says that should more time be needed at either stage, the landlord will inform the resident and an extension will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 22 April 2024 and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 May 2024. This was 5 working days late and not in keeping with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
  3. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged there had been a delay in it raising the complaint and offered £20 in recognition of this failing.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint around 27 January 2025, the landlord therefore had until 24 February 2025 to issue its stage 2 response. The landlord contacted the resident on 24 February 2025 and confirmed it was unable to provide its stage 2 response but it would do so by 24 March 2025. The landlord then issued its stage 2 response on 10 April 2025. This was outside of the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy and it failed to adhere to 2 different deadlines.
  5. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged there had been a delay in it issuing its response and offered £100 in recognition of this failing.
  6. Having taken into consideration the delays and the impact these had on the resident, the Ombudsman finds that the total amount of £120 offered for the delays in the complaints process is reflective and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. This is because the landlord’s complaint handling failures did not have an impact on the outcome of the complaint nor a lasting impact on the resident and it has compensated her for the inconvenience caused by the delays.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s requests to be transferred to a more suitable property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its failures. This written apology must be from a member of the landlord’s senior management team and it may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance on our website.
    2. Directly pay the resident £1,000 compensation for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This amount includes the £630 offered in the landlord’s complaint responses.
  2. If it has not already done so, within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must carry out a structural survey of the building with the aim of identifying the root cause of the damp and mould in the policy. The landlord must then provide a copy of its findings and its timed plan of action to carry out any recommended repairs within 8 weeks of the date of this report.
  3. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must carry out an independent review of the failings found in this report and identify any oversight measures it can implement to prevent these failings occurring in future. The landlord must provide this Service a copy of its report within this timescale.
  4. The landlord is to reply to this Service to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £120 compensation it offered through its complaints process. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress determination is made on the basis that this amount is paid.
  2. The landlord should write to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to set out its intentions regarding the above recommendation.