Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Sovereign Network Homes (202446672)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202446672

Sovereign Network Homes

21 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 been an assured tenant of the property, a bungalow that she acquired by Mutual Exchange (MEX), since June 2024. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. There is a history of damp and mould in the property. Inspection records of 22 December 2023 document extensive mould in the bedroom and black mould in the living room. They also noted external damp course repairs to the brickwork were needed. Although a brickwork repair was arranged for 9 February 2024, it is unclear whether this went ahead.
  3. The landlord inspected on 20 May 2024 as part of the MEX. No damp and mould or external brickwork repairs were identified. The inspector noted there had been no alterations by the previous resident.
  4. The resident moved in and reported damp and mould on 9 November 2024. She was concerned as she had asthma and a suppressed immune system. She asked for compensation for her newly decorated bedroom and said she had only lived in the property for 5 months.
  5. The landlord found damp and mould in the living room and bedroom during an inspection on 28 November 2024. It also found wet patches on the external brickwork. It decided a more detailed survey was needed and arranged one for 17 December 2024.
  6. The resident complained about how long the landlord was taking to resolve the issue on 1 December 2024. She reiterated her personal belongings had been damaged and said there were mould spores on her bedframe.
  7. The landlord offered to carry out a mould wash on 5 December 2024 but the resident declined and asked for brickwork repairs to be completed first. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 16 December 2024 said it hoped to carry out any recommended repairs from the imminent survey in the new year. It invited the resident to claim for damaged belongings through its indemnity insurance. It awarded £115 for the repair delays and apologised for these.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint the same day. She said the compensation did not reflect the effect on her health or the damage to her belongings. She said she had emailed the landlord’s insurance department but had no response.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 23 January 2025 said the inspection of 17 December 2024 found the previous resident had removed an external air brick which contributed to the damp. It acknowledged a missed appointment on 14 January 2025 to carry out work that included the application of a mould wash and repairs to the external brickwork. It said the repairs had been re-booked for 28 and 29 January 2025. It confirmed it had contacted its insurer who was considering her claim and had asked them to contact her.
  10. The landlord acknowledged communication failures and repair delays between the MEX inspection date to 29 January 2025. It revised its previous award of compensation to £731.68. The resident accepted the compensation, which was paid on 29 January 2025. However, she would not allow the repairs to take place while she remained in the property.
  11. The resident brought her complaint to us on 29 April 2025 and later said she had carried out repairs herself (to remedy the mould). The landlord completed the external brickwork repairs without accessing the property and they were signed off as complete on 24 June 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told us she has commenced legal proceedings against the landlord in relation to the issues raised in this complaint. However, we have not seen any evidence that a claim has been filed at court, and the landlord has advised it has no record of any legal action. We have therefore investigated on the basis that proceedings have not been issued and the complaint remains within our jurisdiction.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. The resident has referred to new damp and mould regulations and believes the landlord should have followed these. It appears she is referring to Awaab’s Law, but this does not come into effect until 27 October 2025. Our assessment is therefore based on the landlord’s policies and any other statutory guidance in place at the time of the complaint.
  2. The landlord’s MEX policy says it will carry out a visual inspection and safety checks prior to the MEX to make sure the home is in good condition. It says it will tell existing residents of any repairs they need to carry out before the MEX can take place. It says it will not allow the MEX to go ahead if the property does not meet its ‘empty homes standard’.
  3. The landlord’s empty homes standard says properties should be free from damp and mould. It goes on to say that a damp and mould survey should be carried out if there is a history of such issues to identify any remedial work to be undertaken. Although the landlord inspected the property prior to the MEX, there is no evidence it carried out a specific damp and mould survey. It should have done, given the history of damp and mould and this was a service failure.
  4. We have not seen evidence that damp and mould was present when the resident moved into the property. She did not report an issue until 5 months later. However, our spotlight report on damp and mould of October 2021, says landlords should take every opportunity to identify and address damp and mould during the MEX process. Had the landlord followed this advice (and acted in line with its policy) it may have identified potential problems caused by the missing ventilation brick and been able to remedy them. It could have carried out any required repairs before the resident moved in and avoided a service failure.
  5. The landlord’s repair policy treats such instances of damp and mould as routine repairs. It aims to visit the property within 2 weeks and carry out any repairs within one month. Following the resident’s report of 9 November 2024, the landlord should have inspected the property by 23 November 2024. It did not do so until 28 November 2024. This was another failure in service which, when considered with the other failure, compounded the detriment to the resident.
  6. Although the landlord arranged to treat the mould within its published timescales, it was unable to do so as the resident declined the work. Records suggest she believed it would not resolve the issue and she was worried the chemicals in the treatment would affect her health. Although the landlord said it could treat the mould while she was waiting for the brickwork to be repaired, it would have been helpful to also reassure her as to the safety of the treatment and whether there were any precautions it could take to minimise its effects.
  7. The deed of assignment (signed by the resident during the MEX) stipulated that the incoming resident would be responsible for any alterations or damage caused by the previous resident. However, it is positive the landlord accepted responsibility for repairs caused by the missing ventilation brick. It was not in a position to repair the brickwork until 28 January 2025. This was outside its published timescale of one month to carry out such repairs and was another failure in service.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the repair delays in its stage 2 response. While it did not apologise for its failure to carry out a damp and mould survey prior to the MEX, it fully acknowledged that the MEX inspection could have picked up the ventilation issues (because of the missing ventilation brick). It acknowledged this contributed to the damp and mould and it considered the effect of this on the resident and took this into account in its compensation award.
  9. The response also addressed the resident’s enquiries about her claim for damaged personal belongings. We cannot make liability decisions and decide whether the landlord was responsible for the damage. Such decisions may be made through the landlord’s liability insurance, the resident’s own contents insurer, or via the courts. However, we have assessed how the landlord responded to her concerns. It acted appropriately by inviting her to make a claim through its insurer and chasing this up when she reported hearing nothing further. This shows it took her concerns about damage to her property seriously.
  10. Further, the landlord invited the resident to contact it if its insurer did not pay the full value of her claim. It also said she could provide details of the full amount of her claim and supporting evidence at any point and said it would consider the quickest action, taking into consideration her financial situation. This was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy. This says that public liability indemnity insurance should be explored before it considers awarding compensation (if the claim is rejected). However, it also says it can consider compensation once any insurance claim has been put forward, regardless of the outcome. It is positive that it invited the resident to do this in this case.
  11. The repairs were not completed until sometime later and outside of the landlord’s published repair timescales. However, the landlord could not complete them sooner as the resident declined them while she remained in the property. We have not been given a copy of the resident’s initial tenancy (only the deed of assignment), but it would have been conditional on her allowing access for repairs, in line with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. As a result, the landlord cannot be held responsible for delays completing the repairs at that time.
  12. The landlord’s temporary move (decant) policy says it may arrange a temporary move to carry out major work if the resident is unable to remain in the property. Records show the landlord consulted a surveyor who decided a temporary move was not necessary and said the resident could remain in the property while the repairs went ahead.
  13. It is positive the landlord reconsidered this position when the resident continued to refuse the work. It worked with her to accommodate her needs and offered to arrange a hotel. We understand why the resident could not accept this offer with a pet, but the landlord’s further offer of pet friendly rental accommodation went over and above its policy requirements. Further, its policy did not prescribe that the resident should be offered a permanent move, but it is positive that it told her how she could apply and offered wellbeing support. The landlord continued to explore other options and was ultimately able to complete the brickwork repair without accessing the property.
  14. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  15. The landlord has accepted failings and awarded redress. Therefore, the question before us is whether the redress was appropriate to remedy the identified failings. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can award compensation when it has carried out repairs outside of its expected time limit and not followed its own policy. It calculates the amount of compensation based on 3 levels of impact (low, high and medium). Awards range from £11 to £45 a week, depending on the level of distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the complainant because of its failure. It can also make awards of £30 for missed appointments.
  16. The landlord’s award of £315 for repair delays following the report of 9 November 2024 to 29 January 2025 was appropriate. This recognised the high levels of distress, time and trouble caused to the resident when she lived with damp and mould. The landlord also recognised that failings in the MEX process delayed repairs. It awarded a further £120 for the low impact these caused from the date of the MEX inspection. This award was also reasonable as the resident did not report damp and mould until 5 months after the inspection so was not living with the problem during the entire period. That being said, it is understandable that she was unhappy the issues were not identified during the MEX and she was justified in her complaint about this.
  17. This overall award of £435 is in line with our remedies guidance for when there has been maladministration that adversely affected the resident with no permanent impact. It is positive the landlord also acknowledged the missed appointment and that the issues would have affected the enjoyment of the property and resulted in a loss of amenity, awarding a further £296.68 for this. This covered the period from the resident reporting damp and mould to the landlord being in a position to remedy it.
  18. The resident told us the issues affected her health, but we are unable to assess whether the landlord’s actions impacted ay medical condition. She could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the general impact of any failings by the landlord. This includes any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  19. The landlord’s decision only to recognise failures up to 29 January 2025 was reasonable. When considering appropriate remedy, we must take into account the resident’s actions and whether they contributed to the situation she found herself in. The resident did not co-operate with the landlord to facilitate repairs after this period, despite the landlord making reasonable efforts to address her concerns about remaining in the property. Therefore, we find the landlord has provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the damp and mould.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.