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.

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202339589)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339589

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

17 September 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 reports of damp to an outside wall.

Background

2.     The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2022. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives on the first floor of a newly built block of flats containing 4 stories.

3.     In January 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that the wall underneath the balcony was very wet and did not appear to be drying out. The landlord referred the issue to the property developer as a ‘defect’ to resolve.

4.     A further 2 times over a period of 6 months the resident reported to the landlord that the outside wall on his balcony was very wet and mould was forming. Each time the landlord received a report it referred the issue to the developer, who agreed to investigate it as a defect. On 11 October the resident contacted the landlord again because he had not received a follow-up visit to his last report.

5.     On 14 November the resident complained to the landlord. He said that he had reported the issue of a saturated outside wall several times and felt his concerns were being ignored.

6.     A month later the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord stated that it would arrange for the staining to be removed from the outside wall and seek a long-term resolution from the developer.

7.     A week later, the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 because water stains had appeared inside the property around the living room window. The landlord’s stage 2 response stated that it had been in communication with the developer to resolve the issue. The developer would clean the outside wall and apply a water-resistant product to the wall outside.

8.     The resident brought his complaint to us because he felt the landlord’s complaint response had not provided a long-term solution. He also believed that the saturated wall was starting to cause water to seep through to the living room. The resident wanted a resolution to the issue, which he thought was caused by the design and location of the balcony.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

9.     Since the complaint was referred to us, the water seeping into the living room has been resolved and was not linked to the substantive complaint, therefore this will not form part of our investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of external damp

10. The resident referred to green and black staining on the external wall as mould. An NHBC inspection report called it ‘algae’, which has different properties to mould. Algae is a (usually green) plant-like organism that needs light and moisture to grow, while mould is a fungus that normally exists in damp, dark conditions. For the remainder of the report we will refer to the growth on the external wall as algae.

11. Under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the exterior and structure of the property. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days.

12. However, contracts for new buildings have defect liability periods (usually 12 to 24 months after handover) within which the landlord can ask developers to repair any inherent defects that are discovered. If the external damp issue was considered to be a defect (a fault or defect in the construction of the property because of a fault with the design, quality of materials, or poor workmanship) then the landlord would be obliged to take reasonable steps to ensure that the developers remedied the defect.

13. When the resident reported the issue with the property, it is evident that the landlord referred this to the developer to be dealt with as a defect. In his initial complaint to the landlord, the resident stated that the developer had been out to inspect the issue 3 times. Therefore, the landlord took reasonable steps to request that the issue was addressed as a defect, which resulted in several visits from the developer.

14. However, there is no evidence that the landlord monitored the outcome of those reports or visits through to completion. This resulted in the resident having to report the same issue multiple times. For example, in September 2023 the resident reported the issue for a third time, and there is no evidence that this resulted in any action, despite the developer categorising it as urgent. The resident chased the landlord a month later because he had not been contacted.

15. On 14 November 2023 the resident sent his initial complaint to the landlord stating that he felt ignored by the landlord and the developer because several visits had been carried out but the developer had not provided a solution.

16. When the landlord received the resident’s complaint it telephoned the resident. It arranged a visit to the property 2 weeks later and took photographs. This was an appropriate response from the landlord to fully investigate the resident’s concerns. At the visit, the resident stated that he wanted the external balcony wall to be cleaned while a long-term solution was being arranged.

17. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 14 December stated that it would arrange for the wall to be cleaned the following week. It explained to the resident that it was working with the developer to find a long-term solution to the problem. This was an appropriate response by the landlord because the issue was being investigated as a defect.

18. The resident escalated his complaint a week later. On 24 January 2024 the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated that it had been in long discussions with the developer to resolve the issue. It stated that the developer would be in contact to clean the wall and apply a water-resistant product. It said it hoped this would resolve the issue and apologised for the time taken to resolve matters.

19. The landlord had stated that the wall would be cleaned the week after the stage 1 complaint response was sent. Its stage 2 response a month later indicated that the wall had not yet been cleaned. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. Therefore, it was a failing by the landlord to delay the actions from the timescales it had set out in its stage 1 response. However, following the stage 2 complaint response, the developer cleaned the wall and also applied a water-resistant product.

20. Eighteen months later, the resident has advised us that the water-resistant product that was applied to the outside balcony wall has been 90% effective at preventing the wall from absorbing the water and algae growth. The areas where the algae are still present are on the parts of the wall where the developer could not apply the product, and also the rails and decking. Therefore, the landlord’s discussions with the developer during the complaints process resulted in an effective remedy.

21. The NHBC is a warranty and insurance provider for new homes. There is a 2-year builder warranty period to cover defects that are not general wear and tear or maintenance issues. The NHBC also provides further insurance under its Buildmark cover for the following 8 years if there is damage to the home because the builder failed to build certain parts of the home to NHBC requirements.

22. The landlord had been unable to find a long-term solution to the issue, in partnership with the developer, during the defect liability period. There is evidence that the landlord referred the issue to the National Housing Building Council (NHBC) in April 2024, and it visited the property in September that year.

23. The resident was not provided with a copy of the report but the resident was present for the visit. The NHBC inspector found that the building complied with NHBC’s technical requirements and that the algae forming on the side of balconies was a cosmetic issue.

24. The resident has informed us that he disagrees with this finding. However, the landlord has declined to take the matter further, relying on the findings outlined in the NHBC report dated 9 September 2024.

25. While the resident is still experiencing some algae growth on the balcony wall, it is reasonable and proportionate that the landlord has relied upon the opinion of the qualified surveyor that the issue is cosmetic. The resident has confirmed that it is possible to clean the algae from the balcony.

26. The resident has also informed us that since the end of the landlord’s complaint process, the landlord has offered to clean the algae from the remaining areas as a gesture of goodwill. This has not yet been arranged. However, in offering this, the landlord has taken a resolution focussed approach.

27. In summary, there is evidence that the landlord referred the issue reported by the resident to the developer as a defect. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to demonstrate that the landlord was actively engaged with the developer to check on the progress of these reports until after the resident’s formal complaint in November 2023.

28. Once it was unable to progress the matter with the developer any further, the landlord raised the issue with the building warranty provider. The issue has been inspected by an NHBC surveyor and reported to be cosmetic. The developer has cleaned the wall and applied a water-resistant product that has reduced the algae growth and saturation by 90%. The landlord has offered to clean the area again.

29. The resident has advised us that generally he was satisfied with the communication and complaint handling of the landlord. This feedback indicates that the resident’s dissatisfaction was mainly with the issue and not the landlord’s customer service.

30. For this reason, the landlord’s failures identified in this report appear to have had only a minimal amount of impact on the resident. Also, because of the eventual findings of the NHBC, the landlord’s failures to follow up on the defect reports, and arrange the wall clean, will not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. 

31. Therefore, in line with our remedies guidance, we find that there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of external damp. We have ordered the landlord to make a payment of £50 compensation to the resident to appropriately acknowledge this and to put things right. This is also in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which states that it may make compensation payments to recognise inconvenience caused to a resident where there has been a service failure.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of external damp.

Orders

33. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay to the resident (and not to his rent account) £50 compensation for the time and trouble he likely experienced as a result of the landlord’s handling of his reports of external damp to an outside wall.

Recommendations

34. It is recommended that the landlord:

  1. Share a copy of the report from the NHBC with the resident (redacted where appropriate so that it contains only information relating to his property).
  2. Contact the resident to reoffer a further clean to the balcony area to remove algae.