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.

Selwood Housing Society Limited (202449545)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202449545

Selwood Housing Society Limited

28 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 reports of damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as an assured tenant since January 2015. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow.
  2. On 29 October 2024 the resident reported damp and mould in her home. She said the walls were cold and there was water running down them. She said the mould was affecting her asthma.
  3. The landlord arranged a survey for 11 November 2024. It found “low” levels of damp and mould and the ventilation turned off. It raised work to do a mould wash and re-lay the loft insulation. It did a follow-up survey on 19 November 2024. This found “no serious damp”. It raised work to upgrade the ventilation.
  4. On 6 January 2025 the resident complained about damp and mould. She said there had been severe mould for years and it had damaged clothing and furniture. She said the landlord had done work before but there was still a problem. She said it was affecting her health, and she had recently been in hospital due to breathing problems. She said the property was not habitable.
  5. The landlord visited the property on 9 January 2025. It found the bedroom had deteriorated since the visit in November 2024, and tiles under a carpet were contributing to the damp. Because of the resident’s health concerns and the work needed to remove the tiles, the landlord agreed with the resident to move her to temporary accommodation.
  6. In its complaint response on 17 January 2025 the landlord set out the repairs it would do. It said it would lay a new carpet and replace the bed and wardrobes. It said it would check for damp through quarterly visits. It apologised for the inconvenience caused. It asked the resident to provide details of damaged items and said it would consider compensation.
  7. The resident returned to her property on 24 January 2025 and told the landlord about outstanding repairs. The landlord said it would do these.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 18 February 2025. In its final response on 26 February 2025, the landlord said sensors in the home showed an improvement in humidity since it made changes. It said after reviewing the resident’s photos, it could not assess the damage. Following discussions with the resident, the landlord offered £500 compensation.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the damp and mould affected her health. She said she had to throw away belongings due to the mould, which had a financial impact. She said because of her health, she needed the landlord to move her to another property. She wanted the landlord to pay more compensation and do outstanding repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman has seen the resident complained there had been damp and mould for several years. The resident first complained to the landlord in January 2025. The Ombudsman usually only investigates matters brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which is typically 12 months. This investigation will limit its scope to 12 months before the complaint was made but may reference some historic events for context.
  2. In her complaint, the resident said the mould damaged personal possessions and affected her health. Although we can consider the impact the mould had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, in this case we cannot assess whether the landlord’s actions caused damage to possessions or her health. These are legal aspects better suited to an insurance claim or court. While the Ombudsman is an alternative to the courts, in this case we are unable to prove legal liability or whether the landlord was responsible. However, we will consider how the landlord responded to the concerns.
  3. The resident told the Ombudsman that as an outcome she wanted the landlord to rehouse her. This was not part of the complaint the resident raised with the landlord in January 2025. Because of this, the Ombudsman will not investigate how the landlord dealt with a request for re-housing.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord is responsible under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for keeping the structure of the property in good repair. This means the landlord has an obligation to do repairs to the building that are its responsibility. The landlord did not dispute that it had a responsibility for the repairs.
  2. The landlord has a damp and mould procedure. This says the landlord aims to resolve reports of damp and mould quickly. It says it will support and work with residents on how their living activities may contribute towards damp and mould.
  3. The procedure says when the landlord receives a report of damp and mould, a surveyor will assess the property and discuss with the resident how they can control moisture and ventilation. It says the surveyor will undertake a “thorough and detailed investigation”. At the end of the inspection, the surveyor will talk through the findings to explain what it found and what the landlord will do.
  4. Records provided by the landlord show that following a survey in March 2022, the landlord did work at the resident’s home in June 2022 to deal with damp and mould. The work included fitting new windows, work on the chimney, upgrading ventilation, and moving radiators. The actions the landlord took at this time are not part of this investigation. This is because they were more than 12 months before the resident complained.
  5. The resident reported damp and mould in her home on 29 October 2024. She said despite the earlier work, there was damp and mould throughout her home. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of reports of damp and mould in the 2 years between the work done in June 2022 and October 2024.
  6. The landlord visited the resident’s home on 11 November 2024. Its records say it found “low level” damp and mould, the extractor fans not turned on, and air vents closed. It raised jobs to do a mould wash and re-lay the loft insulation. The landlord visited again on 19 November 2024 to do the mould wash. It found “no serious damp”. It noted it was unable to view the bedroom during the visit. It raised a job to upgrade the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans.
  7. The Ombudsman has found there was a slight delay in the landlord’s visit after the report on 29 October 2024, as it took place 2 weeks later. However, the landlord then acted reasonably. This is because it inspected and raised repairs that were reasonable for the type of damp and mould it found. When it did a mould wash a week later, the landlord was unable to access the bedroom but raised a job to improve ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom.
  8. The resident complained on 6 January 2025. She said there had been severe mould in her home for years. She said she had to throw away clothing and furniture because of mould damage. She said there had been multiple surveys over the years and the landlord had made minor changes, but this had not stopped the problem. She said the mould was making her asthma worse and she had recently ended up in hospital due to breathing problems. She said the landlord was not helping and her home was not habitable.
  9. The landlord visited the resident’s home 3 working days later, on 9 January 2025. During the visit, it was able to look in the bedroom and found the condition of the room had got worse since it visited on 11 November 2024. It said ceramic tiles under the carpet in the bedroom were contributing to the damp. It said it needed to remove the tiles, which would not be possible with the resident in the property.
  10. Because of the nature of the work and concerns about the possible effect of damp on the resident, the landlord discussed moving the resident to temporary accommodation while it did the work. The resident agreed to a temporary move and work started on 19 January 2025.
  11. The Ombudsman has found the landlord acted reasonably after the resident complained on 6 January 2025. This is because it quickly arranged an inspection. When it found tiles in the bedroom were contributing to the damp, it suggested what work it needed to do. It recognised that this would be disruptive to the resident and agreed to find her alternative accommodation while it did the work. The work started 10 working days after the resident’s complaint, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
  12. In its complaint response on 17 January 2025 the landlord said during the recent inspection it had found a problem with the floor in the bedroom. It said it would do the repairs before the resident returned to the property. It also said it would lay a new carpet in the bedroom, do a mould wash, and replace the mould damaged bed and wardrobes. It said it would visit the resident’s home once a quarter to check for mould and offer advice and support. It apologised for inconvenience and time taken to resolve the problem. It said it would pay compensation for inconvenience and towards the cost of damaged clothes. It asked the resident to provide details of the items and an estimated value.
  13. The Ombudsman has found this was a reasonable response. This is because the landlord set out what repairs it would do and did them in a reasonable time. It also replaced the carpet and furniture. It offered compensation for inconvenience and asked the resident to provide evidence of other damage, so it could compensate her. The landlord also said it would visit every 3 months to do checks and offer advice on managing humidity. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the actions the landlord took were reasonable and supportive.
  14. Records show the resident returned to her home on 24 January 2024. The landlord inspected the property with her. It noted it had laid a new carpet, and delivered the bed, with wardrobes due on 29 January 2024. It said the resident raised queries about some outstanding repairs and compensation for damaged clothes. The resident also asked about compensation for decorating.
  15. The landlord spoke with the resident on 28 January 2025. It agreed to provide decorating vouchers and said it would do the outstanding repairs and a mould wash. It asked the resident to send a list of damaged items and an amount of compensation she expected.
  16. The Ombudsman has found that when the resident moved back to her property, the landlord continued to act in a supportive way. This is because it checked the works with her and arranged to do the outstanding repairs. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask for details of damaged items so it could assess what compensation to offer.
  17. The landlord did a further inspection of the property on 4 February 2025. It found the only area with a high moisture reading was the porch, which it said was not a living space. It found it needed to do a few minor repairs but said these were not related to moisture in the resident’s home. These included repairs to external brickwork. It said based on the readings it took, it should have resolved the damp and mould once it completed the outstanding repairs, and if the resident continued to manage ventilation as advised.
  18. The resident escalated her complaint on 18 February 2025. She said she wanted the landlord to resolve the damp and mould and compensate her for clothing she had thrown away.
  19. In its final response on 26 February 2025 the landlord said it was important the resident used the extractor fans and vents. It said when it recently visited, it had adjusted a window vent in the bedroom to help improve ventilation. It said sensor data showed an improvement in humidity in the room since it made the change. It said the sensors in other rooms showed the environment in a good condition. It said after reviewing the photos the resident sent, it could not assess the damage. Following discussions with the resident about damage to her possessions, the landlord offered £500 compensation for inconvenience caused and damage.
  20. Records provided by the landlord show it completed the outstanding repairs in March and April 2025. On 29 May 2025, the landlord did a quarterly inspection as agreed in its final response. This found the kitchen, bathroom, and lounge were free from damp and mould. It said in the bedroom there was a small area of “historic staining on the ceiling” and “some minor spotting of mould on the wall”. It raised work to deal with this.
  21. Overall, the Ombudsman has found the landlord acted reasonably in response to the reports of damp and mould. This is because the landlord acted proportionately when the resident first reported damp and mould on 29 October 2024. When it became clear the situation had got worse in January 2025, it acted quickly and with the seriousness the situation deserved. It recognised the possible effect on health and that it could not do the work while the resident was in her home. It quickly arranged alternative accommodation and did the work within a week to minimise disruption.
  22. The landlord also did follow-on repairs in a reasonable time. It replaced a carpet, bed, and wardrobes the mould had damaged. It provided decorating vouchers. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and asked the resident to provide details of other mould damaged items. When the resident sent these, the landlord said it could not assess the items but offered £500 for inconvenience and damage.
  23. The Ombudsman is unable to assess what is fair compensation for damage to clothing. This is because we cannot assess loss in the way an insurance company can. The landlord could have suggested the resident made an insurance claim. Instead, it offered compensation, which the resident accepted. The Ombudsman has seen there was no breakdown on how much of the compensation was for inconvenience and how much was for damage to clothing. However, considering the replacement of the carpet, furniture, and decorating vouchers, it is the Ombudsman’s view that £500 is reasonable in the circumstances.
  24. The Ombudsman has also seen the landlord gave the resident advice about reducing humidity, by using extractor fans and making sure vents were open. The level of humidity fell in the bedroom when the landlord adjusted the vent. It is reasonable for a landlord to give advice to a resident on what they can do to ensure the property is well ventilated.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord on its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord reoffers the £500 previously offered if it has not already paid it to the resident.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord includes a breakdown of how it calculates compensation in its complaint responses.