Rooftop Housing Association Limited (202523428)

Background

1. The resident’s tenancy began in September 2024. She first reported damp and mould in November 2024. The resident is vulnerable because of physical and mental health. She lives with a young child. She has appointed a representative to act on her behalf. For the purposes of this report, we will refer to them as ‘the resident,’ unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about damp and mould.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord accepted its failures and offered proportionate redress for them. However, we found it did not explain the delays and missed acting on a survey recommendation.
6. The landlord’s overall handling of the complaint was in line with its policy and the code.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it responds to reports with inspections, checking or updating insulation and ventilation, completing identified repairs, and referring residents to its money advice team if they are struggling. If the issue reoccurs, it will reopen the case, reinvestigate, and raise further work.
8. The landlord responded to the resident’s first report in November 2024 with a hazard survey, repairs, and mould washes. In January 2025 the resident told the landlord that the treatment had worked in the bedroom. She said the bathroom might also have improved, although she was unsure because it was not painted yet. This response was in line with the landlord’s policy.
9. In this same email, the resident reported damp and mould in the kitchen. The landlord responded in line with its policy by reinspecting the property and raising more repairs. However, it then delayed the work, and it did not keep the resident updated. It also missed appointments, which the resident had to chase. These actions were not in line with the landlord’s policy.
10. The landlord’s policy says it will complete minor repairs, such as repairing or replacing extractors, as soon as possible. It will arrange major repairs, such as damp-proof courses (DPC) or insulation, through a planned programme. It says work can be prioritised where there are concerns about a resident’s health and/or vulnerability.
11. The landlord has acknowledged delays but did not explain to the resident why these occurred. It was also aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, but we have not seen evidence that it considered if work should or could be prioritised. The only time vulnerability was noted with a request to prioritise work was in June 2025. By which date almost all major work had already been completed. This was not in line with its policy.
12. The landlord completed identified repairs. However, a survey in June 2025 noted the resident had concerns about repointing. It also noted that the DPC was potentially not performing as it should despite earlier repairs. The survey recommended that the landlord investigate this as a possible cause of the mould. We have not seen evidence that it carried out this investigation, even though its own survey said it needed to do so.
13. The resident asked the landlord to replace the carpet because of the damp and mould. Under the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for furnishing the property, including carpets. The landlord offered to clean the carpet. It also referred her to its money advice team to see if it could obtain external help for her. This was a reasonable response in the circumstances. We recommend she seeks independent advice about her options if she remains unhappy.
14. The landlord has accepted its service failures in its complaint responses. It has sincerely apologised, offered £500 compensation, and made internal changes to learn from its mistakes. This was a reasonable response to the identified failures. The landlord’s actions show it took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and rectified the identified failings.
15. However, we found service failure in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s concerns. It has not carried out the recommended investigation of the DPC to establish if this was the root cause of the mould issues. We also have not seen evidence that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities sufficiently during its handling of her repairs.
16. We order the landlord to carry out an inspection of the property in line with the survey recommendation of June 2025. The landlord must give the resident a copy of the inspection report, along with an action plan if the inspection identifies any further work. We also order the landlord to pay a further £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance, considering the redress already offered, length of time the repair was delayed, poor communication with the resident, and the distress and inconvenience caused.

17. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure also complied with the Code.
18. The landlord’s overall handling of the complaint was in line with its policy and the Code. It sent the stage 2 acknowledgement 4 working days late. However, this minor delay did not have a significant impact on the resident. Therefore, we found no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord showed it had kept clear records and it provided us with sufficient information to investigate the complaint and reach a decision.

Communication

20. The landlord did not always communicate clearly or promptly. It should make proactive and timely contact with residents to give updates or explain delays, even when these are minor. This approach supports good customer service and helps prevent avoidable trouble and inconvenience for residents.