From 13 January 2026, we 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.

Sovereign Network Group (202440510)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202440510

Sovereign Network Group

11 July 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 response to:

a.     The resident’s report of damp and leaks.

b.     The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a house. The landlord said it has no listed vulnerabilities for the resident. She has shared that her son has sinusitis, and the damp and mould impacted his health. The resident’s elderly father also lives in the property.
  2. Between February and May 2023:

a.     On 28 February, the resident reported that her loft was soaking wet, there were holes in the roof, and that this could be causing damp and mould. She reported mould in 2 bedrooms and around the window in the kitchen.

b.     On 1 March, the landlord found that there was mortar missing and multiple felt repairs needed to the roof. It noted the resident had cleaned the mould but said it needed to inspect the windows if the issues persisted. It agreed to give her a £60 decorating voucher, which it provided by 13 March. The resident chased works at least 5 times in March and continued to report that water came through when it rained.

c.      The landlord raised an order on 28 March to overhaul the windows, noting that the resident said the damp and mould entered through the windows. It reported completing work to replace the front door on 31 March.

d.     Contractors inspected the windows on 13 April and found that all were overhanging the render, and the seals and trims were the wrong sizes. They suggested that windows had been fitted recently, and that the landlord should recall the fitters.

  1. The resident raised a complaint on 12 May 2023. She was unhappy that the landlord was not resolving the damp and mould in her property or communicating with her. She said it offered £60 towards decorating, but she could not do this as the problem was still there.
  2. The landlord raised work to complete an asbestos survey prior to re-roofing works on 9 June 2023. It also raised works to renew felt, repair any holes and replace any broken tiles to the roof on 11 July 2023. It issued its stage 1 complaint response on 14 July 2023 and upheld the complaint. It explained that all windows overhung the render, and the seals and trims were the wrong size. It asked a contractor to complete a survey of the roof to include the loft space. It would complete work to replace the roof, front door, and overhaul the windows. It said its contractors would contact her to book the work.
  3. We have seen limited evidence of communication or action between July and October 2023. From October 2023:

a.     The landlord reported completing the asbestos survey on 23 October.

b.     It discussed the work internally on 13 November and delivered a dehumidifier the following day. It noted that it had not completed work to the roof, the front door (which was uneven), or the windows. It also noted that the resident had said the mould was impacting her son’s health.

c.      It re-raised the work to the roof on 14 November and completed an inspection on 17 November. Its records note that the felt was deteriorating, leaving holes that exposed the tiles to the roof. The loft insulation was also thin and missing. The window reveals were very mouldy and damp, relying on the mastic to keep water out due to the fitting.

d.     On 29 January 2024, the resident reported that the window contractors refitted the windows but did not fit external ledges and it had been 2 weeks since. She then reported that they would be coming to correct the problems on 5 February. Around this time, she asked for additional decoration vouchers for other rooms in the property. Roofing contractors placed scaffolding on one side of the house by 13 February.

  1. On 20 February 2024, the resident said she had been complaining for a year about the roof and windows and issues with mould and damp. She advised that the landlord completed multiple inspections and said she needed a new roof as there were holes everywhere but had not done anything. She needed to wash mould 3 to 4 times a week, and the situation was impacting her son’s health. She wanted it to complete the work to resolve the damp and mould.  She also asked it to escalate the complaint on 23 February 2024.
  2. Between February and May 2024:

a.     The landlord inspected the property on 29 February 2024:

  1. It decided it did not need to install a new roof and that the planned work could progress. It would check the lead flashing around the chimney and install tile vents when completing works. It would also top up the insulation and install a thermal loft hatch.
  2. It needed to replace the extractor fan in the bathroom and install one in the kitchen.
  3. It recorded high damp levels around the windows. The resident had advised that the damp and mould around the windows was worse since the contractor overhauled them.
  4. It needed to investigate the cavity wall insulation as there were high damp readings on most walls, with a thermal imaging camera showing the walls were cold. It said the damp could be due to condensation.

b.     The resident continued to chase work and the complaint response. The landlord reported completing the roof works on 19 April 2024. It completed work to replace the bathroom extractor fan on 26 April 2024 and to install a thermal roof hatch on 10 May 2024.

c.      The landlord arranged a mould wash on 16 May 2024, but the resident said that she wanted another inspection as the windows were not fitted correctly. She said she did not want the mould wash as it would need to do this again another week. She wanted it to get to the root of the problem. It noted that there was mould in all upstairs rooms around windows and on ceilings.

d.     Records from 16 May 2024 indicate that operatives felt it needed to replace the roof, and it communicated internally about the roof being on its planned roof replacement programme that year.

  1. In its stage 2 complaint response on 22 May 2024, the landlord said:

a.     It inspected the property and highlighted work needed to upgrade the kitchen and bathroom fans, repair the roof felt and tiles, check and top up the loft insulation once it completed roof work, carry out work to the windows, fit a new thermal loft hatch, complete a cavity wall insulation inspection, and do a mould wash.

b.     Its window contractors said they completed work to refit and install new trims to 8 windows. It completed work to install the loft hatch on 10 May 2024 and was currently in the process of work to the roof, which would include installing vents to increase ventilation in the loft space.

c.      It recognised that it should have completed work sooner. It said it would arrange an inspection of the completed roof works in the next week, and a follow-up inspection in 3 months time to ensure that the works resolved the damp and mould issues. It offered £200 compensation as a gesture of goodwill for the inconvenience caused, and the length of time the complaint was open.

Events following the complaint

  1. Between June 2024 and May 2025, the following occurred:

a.     The landlord said it would call to arrange a 2-hour inspection on 11 June 2024 in response to the resident’s ongoing concerns. It raised work to replace the roof on 18 June 2024. It completed this between September and October 2024. It also completed an energy performance assessment in August 2024. 

b.     In October and December 2024, the resident chased window replacement works and a damp and mould inspection that did not take place in June. It completed an inspection on 2 January 2025 and reported that the loft needed insulation, there was no kitchen fan, the humidity in the property was over 90%, and all window reveals and walls showed as cold. It said it needed to discuss installing external insulation.

c.      Following the resident’s reports that water was running down the walls on 5 January 2025, roofing contractors established that the issues could be related to the concrete chimney. It completed work to weatherproof the chimney on 4 March 2025.

d.     On 26 March 2025, the landlord said that as the resident had referred her complaint to us for investigation, the complaint handler could not communicate further and would close the case. It scheduled works to top up the loft insulation on 12 May 2025.

  1. The resident initially referred her case to us for investigation in January 2025 as she wanted the landlord to resolve the ongoing leaks, and damp. In her communication with us in July 2025, she said that there was still damp in the property due to the windows.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her communication with the Ombudsman and the landlord, the resident referenced how the situation impacted her son’s health. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. The resident raised a new complaint with the landlord in April 2025 about roofers covering a vent from her bathroom which resulted in a foul smell. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process in April 2025; however, we have not seen evidence to show that this matter has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. As the resident did not raise this as part of her initial referral to us, and this has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, this does not form part of the investigation.

Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy information provided by the landlord does not set out the tenancy conditions in relation to repairs. The landlord’s website confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, which is in line with its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This includes roofs, walls, ceilings, windows, gutters and external walls.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 38 days. Some major work projects fall outside of the scope of routine repairs, including structural and external work. It would agree specific completion timescales and communicate these to residents. If it is unable to complete a repair on the first visit, it may complete a temporary repair. It would not leave the property until it completes any remedial works to make the home safe and secure.
  3. It further states that, in some cases, it may be appropriate for its team to visit to identify the cause of the issue and specify and scope the work needed. Examples include follow-on work for repairs that it was unable to complete on the first visit due to the complexity or extent of work required, structural issues, and work needing a complex diagnosis. It may put follow-on works on a programme and aims to complete these within 6 months.
  4. The landlord’s damp and mould policy (from August 2023) states that it would react promptly to reports of damp and mould and address any structural issues. It aims to respond within 10 days where possible, provide clear timelines, and complete repairs as quickly as possible. It would ensure staff had training to spot potential causes of damp, mould and condensation. Where customers have young children or vulnerabilities, it would aim to prioritise its response and assess the damp and mould within 3 days.
  5. The landlord’s complaint policy confirms that it has a 2 stage formal complaints process. At stage 1, it aims to respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days. If it needs additional time to provide its response, it will contact the resident to explain the reasons why, and provide a new response timescale, which would be within a further 10 working days.

The resident’s report of damp and leaks

  1. It is evident that the resident spent considerable time and trouble pursuing her concerns regarding damp and mould in the property from February 2023 onward. These matters were not fully resolved at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in May 2024, 15 months later, and have continued into 2025. Within its stage 2 complaint response, it recognised that it should have completed work sooner and offered £200 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
  2. We have considered the landlord’s handling of works to the roof and windows, and reports of damp and mould individually below.

Work to the roof

  1. The landlord inspected the roof within a reasonable timeframe following the resident’s initial report that the loft was “soaking” on 28 February 2023. It was aware of gaps in the felt, missing mortar, and inadequate loft insulation from 1 March 2023. The resident needed to spend time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates as to how it would resolve the issues between March and May 2023, and it is evident that there was some confusion about whether it would repair or replace the roof. The landlord did not progress any work to the roof until around March 2024 when it erected scaffolding. This was a year following the initial report, which was an unreasonable timescale.
  2. The extent of water ingress from the roof is unclear from the evidence provided. However, it is of concern that the landlord did not take steps to complete any temporary repairs to prevent possible water damage in the first instance. This would have been an appropriate measure given that roof repairs are major works and expected to take a longer timeframe to complete than routine repairs.
  3. The landlord raised a work order to complete an asbestos survey of the roof (so it could progress re-roofing work) on 9 June 2023. It did not raise repairs to the roof until 11 July 2023. This was over 4 months after it identified works needed which was an unreasonable timescale. It also said that it was going to replace the roof in its stage 1 complaint response on 14 July 2023 which understandably led the resident to believe this would happen.
  4. The landlord established in November 2023 that the asbestos survey was for re-roofing work under a planned programme of work, and that it had not completed the repairs to the roof. It re-raised repairs to the roof on 14 November 2023 and asked internally whether the roof was due to be repaired or replaced. Roofing contractors then placed scaffolding on one side of the property on 13 February 2024. The resident raised concern on 15 February 2024 that the it would not replace the roof as previously agreed.
  5. It was reasonable for the landlord to complete another inspection of the loft on 29 February 2024 given the length of time that had passed and the resident’s concerns. It ultimately established that it did not need to replace the roof, there were no current leaks, the chimney was dry, and repairs could continue. It added that it would also check the chimney and flashing and install vents to aid ventilation.
  6. The situation was evidently distressing for the resident as she continued to chase updates and report that the roof was causing water to run down the walls, and the damp conditions were impacting her son’s health in March 2024. While it previously identified no leaks from the roof on 29 February 2024, her report of water running down walls should have prompted the landlord to take additional action at this stage.
  7. The landlord’s records regarding the work completed to the roof are unclear. It reported completing repairs on 19 April 2024. However, in its stage 2 complaint response on 22 May 2024, it said that the repairs to the roof were still in progress. Its records from 16 May 2024 also indicate that an operative said that there were issues with the roof and it needed to be replaced. The landlord was ultimately aware of the ongoing issues at the time of its stage 2 complaint response, and it did not provide clear or up to date information.

Work to the windows

  1. The resident also reported damp and mould in 2 bedrooms and around the kitchen windows. The landlord raised works to inspect, treat any mould, identify the cause, take photos, and order repairs. While an operative inspected on 1 March 2023, they reported that the resident had cleaned the mould, and the landlord should complete an inspection if the issue persisted. It would have been appropriate for it to have considered the cause from the outset. We have not seen evidence to show that it did, which was a failing.
  2. Following the visit on 1 March 2023, the resident spent time and trouble chasing updates from the landlord on 5 occasions regarding the roof and a window inspection. The landlord then raised works on 28 March 2023 to overhaul the windows as the resident said this was the cause of damp and mould. While it is reasonable for a landlord to take a resident’s comments into account when considering what repairs to complete, at this stage it had not diagnosed the cause of damp and mould, and it is unclear whether it was reasonable for it to raise this work without first inspecting the windows to identify what the problems were.
  3. On 13 April 2023, contractors said that the windows were overhanging the render, and the trims and seals were the wrong sizes. We note that the operatives suggested the windows had been fitted recently and recommended that the landlord pass the work back to the contractor who fitted the windows. Its records from February and March 2023 indicate that it was aware the windows were fitted at least 2 years prior, and its repair records show these were installed in November 2019 and not “recently” as suggested. Despite stating that it intended to overhaul the windows in its stage 1 complaint response on 14 July 2023, 2 months later, we have not seen any evidence to show that the landlord progressed the work at the time.
  4. The landlord has not provided clear repair records regarding the work to the windows. Its communication records with the resident indicate that the original window fitters returned in January 2024 to refit the windows. Staff were confused about which contractor was completing this work and relied on the resident to provide information. This was unreasonable and indicates poor record management. She informed it that the contractors were due to return to complete the work to install external trims on 5 February 2024. There were evidently failings in the landlord’s handling and monitoring of repairs to the windows and the 10-month delay in addressing this matter between April 2023 and February 2024 was excessive.
  5. The landlord was later aware (from 29 February 2024) of the resident’s reports that the windows had been worse after being adjusted. While it said that its window contractor had completed works, and it would be arranging an inspection (within its response on 22 May 2024), this was 3 months after the visit in February 2024 and was not addressed within a reasonable timeframe.

Reports of damp and mould

  1. 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, we expect to see evidence that the landlord completed a damp assessment, using professional tools, to establish the underlying cause of the issues, and the location of defects that could contribute to damp and mould. It should assess all possible causes of damp, including leaks, rising damp, penetrating damp, and condensation. This is to have a clear understanding of the problem to provide a resolution within a reasonable timescale.
  2. While the landlord recognised repair faults involving the roof and windows, this was prompted by the resident stating in February 2023 that these elements could be contributing to damp and mould. While not disputed, we have not seen clear evidence to show that the landlord sought to diagnose the cause of damp or mould from the outset. This would have been appropriate to establish the extent of the water ingress, the potential risk to the residents, any other factors that could contribute to the damp, and to inform its approach to completing repairs needed.
  3. The landlord reported “massive issues” with damp and mould in the property on 13 November 2023. It acted reasonably in view of the resident’s reports regarding her son’s health by prioritising an inspection on 17 November 2023. It also provided a dehumidifier. However, it did not provide a clear plan of action as to how it would resolve the reported problems following this or provide any reassurance to the resident. We have not seen a copy of the report from this inspection and the landlord has not demonstrated that it had a clear understanding of the extent of the problems affecting the property.
  4. We have not seen evidence to show that the landlord completed a damp assessment, using appropriate tools such as a damp meter or thermal imaging cameras, until 29 February 2024. This was following the resident’s escalation request, and a year after her initial reports of damp. At this stage, it identified works needed to the roof, to the loft insulation, to fit new extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen, to investigate high levels of damp around the window reveals, and to consider the cavity wall insulation (due to walls showing as cold). It is of concern that the landlord reported collecting a dehumidifier on 13 March 2024 despite being aware of ongoing moisture. We have not seen that it provided the resident with a plan, or timeframes, for the work and she needed to spend additional time and trouble chasing this.
  5. The landlord’s records state that it found no ongoing leak from the roof on 29 February 2024 despite recent rain. However, the resident reported that water was running down the walls a short time later – on11 March 2024.While it is evident that it chased updates internally, the worsening condition of the property should have prompted the landlord to act and confirm the cause of the water running down the walls. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider whether the resident could remain in the property, or if it should offer temporary accommodation while waiting for works to be completed. We have not seen evidence to demonstrate that the landlord adequately considered the risk.
  6. While the landlord completed some works to replace the bathroom extractor fan (26 April 2024), install a thermal loft hatch (10 May 2024), and attempt to complete a mould wash (16 May 2024), it is of concern that it did not provide any timescales for the remaining investigations or works in its May 2024 stage 2 complaint response. At the time of the stage 2 response, it had been roughly 3 months since the inspection in February 2024, and it is unreasonable that the landlord had not progressed work to investigate the ongoing issues with the windows or to inspect the cavity insulation which it believed to be contributing to the issues the resident experienced.
  7. As set out above, the resident needed to actively pursue updates throughout the complaint. We have not seen evidence that the landlord communicated effectively with her or suitably monitored agreed actions through to completion within a reasonable timeframe, especially following its stage 1 complaint response in July 2023. While it accepted delays, it did not seek to put right its communication failures or adequately recognise the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing her concerns.
  8. We have seen that the landlord was more proactive in its handling of the matter, with a greater level of internal communication regarding, once it was aware of the household vulnerabilities from November 2023. However, its communication was still poor, and its actions delayed. It is of concern that despite being aware of household vulnerabilities, including medical conditions that made her son more susceptible to the impacts of damp and mould, and an elderly resident living at the property, it said it had no listed vulnerabilities for the household when it provided information to us regarding the case in April 2025.
  9. It is important for landlords to recognise resident vulnerabilities when handling repairs and to prioritise or adapt their response to repairs accordingly. There is a lack of available evidence to show that it suitably considered the household vulnerabilities in its handling of works to the property. We have included an order below for the landlord to update its records.

Events following the internal complaints process

  1. We have considered events following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 22 May 2024 as the issue remained unresolved, and the landlord committed to completing certain actions within the response. This included installing a kitchen extractor fan, topping up the loft insulation, inspecting the roof works and windows, inspecting the cavity walls, and completing a follow-on inspection within 3 months of the works.
  2. Following the complaint, the landlord raised works to replace the roof on 18 June 2024. These were subsequently completed in September and October 2024 as part of a planned programme of work. It is unclear what prompted this, and it is evident that this did not resolve the issues experienced in the property. Further work was needed to cap the chimney on 4 March 2025 following the resident’s reports that water was running down the wall on 5 January 2025. The resident has explained that she is not yet sure whether this has resolved the leak from the roof given relatively dry weather but she is still experiencing damp and mould in the property.
  3. Despite being aware of ongoing issues involving the windows at the time of the stage 2 complaint response on 22 May 2024, we have not seen evidence to show that any further inspections or work to the windows took place. The resident has said that these are still the main cause of damp. There is reference to the resident chasing window replacements in October and December 2024 but we have seen no evidence to show that any work has progressed.
  4. The landlord agreed to complete a further damp and mould inspection within its complaint response. On 11 June 2024, its records show that a surveyor was due to call back the following day to book a 2-hour inspection. However, this did not happen, and the landlord failed to monitor this action through to completion. This led to the resident spending additional time and trouble chasing this into December 2024. The inspection took place on 2 January 2025 and found that the loft needed to be insulated, there was no kitchen fan, all window reveals and walls were cold, and the humidity levels were over 90%.
  5. It is of concern that, despite recognising that the loft insulation was missing or poor in February 2023, the landlord did not progress work to rectify this within a reasonable timeframe. It is understandable that the ongoing issues with the roof may have prevented it from fully addressing the insulation between February 2023 and October 2024 (when the roof was replaced). However, despite operatives reporting that it needed to insulate the loft on multiple occasions, it did not raise this work until 12 March 2025. This is an extended period of delay. We note that this was booked for May 2025 but the resident has said she needed to rearrange the appointment as it was inconvenient.
  6. It is unclear from the evidence provided as to when the landlord arranged to survey the wall insulation. However, we note that it completed an energy performance assessment of the property in August 2024 which said the walls were very poor and assumed no insulation due to the system built concrete walls. Its records from 2 January 2025 indicate that it needed to discuss the possibility of installing external insulation given the cold walls. It was discussing possible options in relation to external insulation in March 2025 but we have not seen evidence to show whether this has progressed.
  7. The resident has explained that the landlord could not install a kitchen extractor fan as there was not enough room in the kitchen to vent this appropriately. It is unclear from the evidence when the landlord completed investigations or that it explored all possible ventilation measures in the property given that the humidity was reported as 90% in January 2025.
  8. It is evident that the resident was subject to further delays and a lack of clear communication following the complaint. The landlord has not demonstrated that it adequately monitored agreed actions through to completion within a reasonable timescale. This indicates that it did not learn form the resident’s complaint which led her to experience further inconvenience.

Summary

  1. In summary, we have found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and leaks. There were significant delays in completing any work to the property for almost a year after her initial reports in February 2023. The delay in rectifying faults with the roof and windows meant it failed to identify other factors that could be contributing to damp and mould in the property. The resident needed to spend significant time and trouble pursuing a resolution and chasing updates on what work would be completed, and there was a lack of clear oversight from the landlord.
  2. Overall, the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation was disproportionately low at the time of its stage 2 complaint response in May 2024 in view of the timescales involved, the lack of action between February 2023 and January 2024, and the impact on the resident. We note that the resident experienced further delays and a lack of clear communication following the complaint which added to the overall inconvenience caused. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £800 compensation in recognition of the significant impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint responses were delayed at both stages of its complaints process. The resident raised a complaint on 12 May 2023. It responded at stage 1 on 14 July 2023, 44 working days later. She asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 between 20 and 23 February 2024. It responded at stage 2 on 22 May 2024, around 61 working days later.
  2. While the landlord somewhat recognised the length of time the complaint had been open within its stage 2 complaint response, it did not address any failings in its handling of the complaint. These included a lack of clear communication about when she would receive its responses at either stage. It has not taken sufficient steps to put right these failings.
  3. The quality of the landlord’s responses was also poor. At stage 1, while upholding the complaint, it did not recognise any failings in its handling of the repairs or provide any clear information or reassurance to the resident as to when it would complete work. It told her it would replace the roof and overhaul the windows but provided no timeframe.
  4. In addition, it said it would replace the front door; however, its records show the door was replaced in March 2023, prior to the complaint. It did not demonstrate that it had a true understanding of her concerns at the time. It also failed to monitor any agreed complaint actions through to completion or offer redress for its failings at this stage.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not adequately engage with the events since its stage 1 complaint response, including its failure to complete agreed actions, and did not fully recognise the impact on the resident due to its failings. While it set out what it intended to do, it did not provide timescales or clarity on how its proposed actions would resolve the problems that were ongoing for over a year at this stage.
  6. As identified above, the landlord failed to take adequate points of learning from the complaint, especially in relation to its communication and oversight of repairs. This led to similar failings following the complaint. We have not made any specific learning orders for the landlord as we have previously made several learning orders related to the landlord’s record keeping and complaint handling as part of separate cases since the time of this complaint.
  7. The landlord informed the resident on 26 March 2025 that it would not be able to communicate with her or provide updates and would need to close its complaint file as she had referred the matter to us for investigation. We would expect a landlord to continue to attempt to resolve issues that fall under its responsibility, and communicate with residents, regardless of whether we have accepted a case for investigation or not, especially where proposed actions have not yet been completed. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide a point of contact and confirm who would be responsible for providing updates if it intended to close the complaint file at this stage.
  8. The landlord’s complaint responses and internal communication indicates that there is a lack of transparency around the staff member handling a complaint at each stage. In line with our Complaint Handling Code, it is our view that the person considering the complaint at stage 2 must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage 1.
  9. The landlord’s records indicate that the complaint handler named on the landlord’s stage 1 response did not investigate the complaint at stage 1. They investigated the complaint at stage 2, which was then issued under a different staff member’s name. We have not seen evidence to show that this adversely impacted the resident as her complaint was handled by different staff members at each stage. However, the landlord should ensure there is transparency in the staff member handling the complaint at each stage so that there is no confusion for residents and it can demonstrate it has acted in line with the Code. We have included a recommendation below.
  10. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It did not suitably recognise the delays in its complaint handling and did not use the complaints process to properly engage with its failures, identify learning or put things right. We have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation in view of this below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of damp and leaks.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:

a.     Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified.

b.     Pay the resident £1,200 compensation, comprised of:

  1. £200 as previously offered through its complaints process.
  2. £800 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to her by the failings in its handling of her reports of damp and leaks.
  3. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to her by its poor complaint handling.

c.      Contact the resident to gain up to date information about any household vulnerabilities. It should provide evidence that it has updated its records so that it can use this information when delivering its services.

d.     Arrange a damp and mould survey of the property to provide a clear diagnosis of any ongoing issues. The survey should:

  1. Consider the history of the resident’s reports and assess any ongoing causes of damp in the property, using professional tools as appropriate.
  2. Consider the condition of the windows and any faults contributing to water ingress.
  3. Include a heat assessment to determine whether the radiators in the property are adequately sized for the rooms they are in and functioning appropriately.
  4. Consider whether the wall insulation is contributing to any ongoing problems and rearrange work to top up the loft insulation.
  5. Consider whether there are adequate ventilation measures in the property and determine whether a central ventilation system is required.
  6. Post-inspect the roof and chimney works to confirm that these are now watertight.

e.     We note that the landlord said it was due to complete an inspection on 8 July 2025. If it has not included the above in this inspection it should complete a further inspection to include these elements.

  1. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must write to the resident to provide the outcome of the surveyor’s report, its proposed actions and timescales for completing the work. It must provide a named point of contact who will oversee any outstanding works and provide regular updates to her.
  2. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that:

a.     The landlord takes steps to ensure that it provides transparent information to residents regarding the person investigating and responding to their complaint, and when they can expect to receive a complaint response, at each stage.

b.     The landlord considers compensating the resident for any additional energy usage experienced from February 2023 to February 2025 because of the damp issues within the property. The landlord should confirm the evidence it would need from the resident to be able to consider this.

c.      The landlord ensures that it has suitable systems in place to monitor agreed complaint actions through to completion and provides dates for any agreed actions within its complaint responses where possible.

  1. The landlord should confirm its intentions in relation to these recommendations within 4 weeks of the date of this report.