Rykneld Homes Limited (202518594)

Decision
Case ID	202518594
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Rykneld Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	27 February 2026

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house owned by the local council. The landlord manages the property. The resident has vulnerabilities, including mental health conditions and a respiratory condition. The resident said he experienced damp and mould issues from 2021 and told the landlord about this. The resident would start the Right to Buy (RTB) process in November 2024 and complained in July 2025 about these matters.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s concerns regarding the RTB application and process.
2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated repairs.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. The complaint about the landlord’s handling the resident’s concerns regarding the RTB application and process is outside of our jurisdiction.
2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated repairs.
3. The landlord made an offer of reasonable redress which resolved its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Concerns regarding the RTB application and process

We can only consider complaints about the council’s actions in its capacity as a social housing provider. We cannot investigate the matters raised about the RTB.

Damp and mould, and associated repairs

The landlord did not complete repairs associated with the damp and mould in line with its repairs policy timeframes and did not show adequate consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities. It also did not provide an appropriate remedy to recognise the detriment caused.

Handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord identified in its own investigation that it made an error by not accepting the resident’s initial complaint. From August 2025 it then responded to the complaint in a timely manner and addressed his concerns.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 March 2026
2	Compensation order (based on rent) The landlord must pay the resident £439.19. This is based on a 10% proportion of rent between 16 December 2024 and 25 November 2025 at a rent of £89.63 (based on the Regulator’s average rent) for 49 weeks. This is to recognise the loss of use of the second bedroom.	No later than 27 March 2026
3	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his reports of damp and mould, and associated repairs. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance.	No later than 27 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 July 2025	The resident sent a complaint to the landlord. This said: He believed there were unresolved damp and mould issues in the property affecting 1 of his bedrooms and the kitchen. The roof needed to be repaired. An independent survey of the property had confirmed damp and mould, and structural issues. He was dissatisfied with the RTB process and felt pressured to submit his application.
21 August 2025	The resident submitted a new complaint. He referenced that the landlord had refused his previous complaint as it said no fault had occurred in the RTB process. He added that: The second bedroom of the property was uninhabitable and the kitchen was unusable. His ex-partner would not let his daughter live with him due to the extent of damp and mould. His health and wellbeing had been affected. The RTB valuation was incorrect, and he should receive a fairer valuation.
27 August 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
2 September 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response and said: The valuation of the property under RTB was done by an independent surveyor. It had not disputed that he had reported the bedroom walls were wet in 2024 and its records showed it had not completed repairs. Its lead surveyor and a manager would visit the property on 18 September 2025.
Between 20 and 26 November 2025	On 20 November 2025 we asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged this the following day. On 26 November 2025 it issued its stage 2 complaint response: After its inspection in September 2025 it found that repairs were required to the plasterboard of 1 wall in the bedroom, but no other internal parts were affected. It had undertaken plasterboard repairs on 31 October 2025. On 25 November 2025 it had completed repairs to a slipped tile on the roof and installed further insulation. Its surveyor confirmed repairs undertaken had resolved the damp and mould issues. It should have accepted his initial complaint and apologised it had taken until 27 August 2025.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident confirmed he wanted us to investigate his complaint as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He felt it placed more emphasis on the RTB process rather than the damp and mould he had experienced for 4 years.

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’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Concerns regarding the RTB application and process
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

We can only investigate complaints about councils where they are acting as the landlord under a licence, lease or a social housing tenancy. In this case, the landlord manages the tenancy on behalf of the local council. Complaints about the RTB application, processes (and preserved RTB) concern the council’s actions as a local authority in relation to the disposal or sale of its assets. This forms part of the council’s wider housing activities, as opposed to activities under its relationship as a landlord to its tenants or leaseholders.
As such, we have no power to investigate the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the RTB application and process. The resident may be able to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Complaint	Damp and mould, and associated repairs
Finding	Maladministration

Our Scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time (normally 12 months). The resident stated he experienced damp and mould from 2021. He raised a formal complaint on 29 July 2025. We have not seen evidence that he raised a complaint earlier, within 12 months of when he became aware of the issue, or that he was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. Our investigation has therefore focused on events from July 2024. Historical damp and mould, and associated repairs prior to this have not been considered although they may be referred to for context.
The resident complained that the damp and mould affected his health. While we cannot consider any reported effect on a resident’s health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which they experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This is echoed in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The landlord also has responsibilities under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider this and if it requires remedying.
The landlord’s repairs policy says routine repairs are to be completed in 45 working days. The landlord was aware from 5 August 2024 that it needed to inspect the property for damp and mould. We can see the landlord found damp and mould in 1-bedroom on 6 August 2024 and completed a mould clean on 9 August 2024. This showed a prompt response which was within target timescales.
The resident reported further damp and mould affecting the same bedroom on 1 October 2024. The landlord surveyed the property on 14 October 2024 within target timescales and found further repairs were required to address the damp and mould in the bedroom. However, its communication with the resident about next steps was unclear. It visited the property again on 29 November 2024 and confirmed damp in the property. Despite this, there was no record that it had undertaken any further repairs until 9 months later. It should have completed damp and mould repairs by 16 December 2024 in line with its repairs policy.
The resident hired an independent contractor for a damp and mould survey on 17 July 2025. They found the property had both penetrating and rising damp. The resident shared this with the landlord on 23 July 2025. On 25 July 2025 the resident added a quote for roof repairs stemming from the independent survey. We can see the landlord had considered the evidence provided and completed a mould clean on 8 August 2025. It then inspected the property on 18 September 2025, which was within its 45 working days target.
Ultimately, the landlord accepted it would undertake repairs to the internal walls of the property and the roof. The landlord clearly communicated its position to the resident that damp and mould issues were resolved on 26 November 2025 and he has not disputed this. The landlord had completed internal repairs on 31 October 2025, which was within its target timescales from the September 2025 inspection. External works were completed on 25 November 2025, 3 working days over target. However, while these actions were positive, the landlord missed opportunities to resolve issues for the resident sooner than it did.
The evidence showed the landlord was aware the resident had a respiratory condition, as well as mental health vulnerabilities. However, there was no evidence the landlord risk assessed or took into consideration the reported vulnerabilities while the resident continued to live in a property affected by mould. Ultimately, it was unreasonable that the resident had to live in a property with untreated damp and mould for nearly 9 months.
By the landlord’s final response, it had not taken ownership of any repair delays. It knew further repairs were required and these should have been completed in line with its repairs policy.
It was clear the resident experienced distress and inconvenience and the landlord had not done enough to put things right for him. The landlord also failed to provide its position on the resident saying he lost use of his second bedroom. Having considered this, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated repairs.
To put things right we have considered our remedies guidance. Due to the above failings, and the length of time repairs were outstanding, we have ordered £300 in compensation due to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. We have taken into consideration that no further repairs were required to the kitchen from October 2024 onwards. However, it was clear the resident had a loss of use of his second bedroom and was particularly concerned his daughter could not visit and sleepover in this bedroom, so we have also ordered rent-based compensation.

Complaint	Handling of the resident’s complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge in 5 working days. It aims to respond at stage 1 in 10 working days and at stage 2 in 20 working days following its acknowledgement. After the resident submitted another complaint on 21 August 2025, it acknowledged and responded to the complaint at both stages in line with its complaints policy.
The contents of the complaint responses addressed the resident’s concerns regarding the damp and mould, and associated repairs.
Additionally, in the landlord’s final response, it apologised for not accepting the resident’s initial complaint made on 29 July 2025. The landlord should have acknowledged and responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its process by 19 August 2025 but he did not get a full stage 1 response until 2 September 2025. As such, the resident’s complaint journey at stage 1 was delayed by 10 working days. We have considered the resident’s time and trouble re-raising his complaint in line with our remedies guidance. We have not seen evidence there were further aggravating factors caused by the landlord’s decision to reject the complaint on 29 July 2025.
While the above was a failing by the landlord, it identified this during its own investigation. In the circumstances, we have considered the landlord’s apology was enough to put things right for the resident. As such, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:
1. Let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.
2. Gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory.
Additionally, our spotlight report on damp and mould recommended that a landlord ensures it clearly and regularly communicate with a resident regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
In this case it was clear that the resident lacked updates from the landlord regarding the status of repairs. The distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident may have been mitigated if its communication was better and followed our spotlight report recommendations.