Stockport Homes Limited (202329955)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329955

Stockport Homes Limited

30 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Response the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments in line with the Equality Act 2010.
3. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 10 January 2021. The property is a 3 bedroom semi- detached house.
The landlord’s records show that the resident has mental health conditions including post-traumatic stress disorder. Her adult son has autism and her partner has Chronic Pulmonary Obstructive Disease (COPD) and heart disease.
The resident authorised a friend to act as her representative during her complaint. For the purposes of this report the resident and her representative are referred to as ‘the resident.’
On 28 April 2023 the landlord inspected the property for damp and mould. It raised follow on works. The property was inspected again on 30 June 2023 and further works carried out.
On 9 October 2023 the resident made an online complaint in which she said:
1. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her reports and felt the property was “neglected.”
2. The landlord was attending unannounced causing her anxiety.
3. Both she and members of her household were “very vulnerable” and asked for the landlord’s support in resolving the matter.
4. She wanted compensation for payments she’d made.
The landlord inspected the property on 2 November 2023 and raised further repairs.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 13 November 2023, the main points being:
1. Following its visit to the resident on 10 November 20223 it had referred her to support services.
2. It set out its visits to the property and the associated repairs carried out, including those which were outstanding.
3. It did not uphold the complaint but recognised the resident’s experience and impact on her wellbeing.
4. It offered £100 as a decorating grant to assist with redecorating once works were complete.
On 29 November 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to ask to escalate her complaint. She also set out her communication preferences.
During an email to the landlord on 9 February 2024 the resident raised concerns about the behaviour of operatives who had attended her property.
On 23 April 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to report that the mould had returned. She raised concerns about works carried out to the gutters, loft insulation and extractor fans.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 22 May 2024, in which it:
1. Updated the resident regarding works and methods of communication.
2. Acknowledged its responsibility to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.
3. Proposed that the resident engage in mediation to build her trust with it.
4. Set out the steps it took to investigate the resident’s complaint about its operatives and said it was unable to take further action.
5. Apologised for the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2.
6. Offered £500 for failures in its communication following the request to escalate the complaint and towards redecorating the hallway.
7. Had added a marker to her file that she should not be visited unannounced. It had also added information regarding her vulnerabilities.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

During her communication with the landlord the resident referred to historical incidents in 2019. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord considered that period of time and provided a summary response.
Our assessment is limited to more recent reports of damp and mould considered by the complaint accepted by us for investigation (duly made). This is the complaint which ended with a final response dated 22 May 2024. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is so that they have a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live,’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
While we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. We are therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
We cannot decide if a landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010 because this is a matter for a court to decide. However, we have assessed the landlord’s response to the residents request for reasonable adjustments.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s Dampness and Condensation Policy (damp policy) says:
1. Its initial rapid response team will be deployed within 10 working days of a report to clean down affected areas. They will also carry out any minor and related repairs.
2. It will provide a free meter reader and associated information to help residents understand, monitor and control the level of moisture within the property.
The landlord’s Vulnerability Policy says it will:
1. Record vulnerabilities on resident’s records.
2. Ensure communication with residents is clear, accessible, relevant, timely, appropriate and sensitively delivered.
3. Make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to how services are delivered as needed.
The resident reported damp and mould in February 2023. The landlord’s repairs log shows it tried to attend to inspect on 27 February but was unable to gain access. It is unclear if the landlord notified the resident of the appointment. It eventually carried out the inspection on 28 April 2023. It is unclear why this took a further 2 months which is a record keeping failure.
The inspection report dated 28 April 2023 noted that a member of the household had “bad COPD.” The landlord raised works including carrying out repointing, mould washes and applying paint. It flagged that there might be a leak in the bathroom and that the fan did not work.
There is no evidence that the landlord deployed its rapid response team in line with its damp policy. This was particularly inappropriate given the health issues outlined in the report.
On 11 May 2023 the landlord raised a works order to carry out a technical inspection because plastering to the kitchen was poor.
The repair logs state that the landlord tried to gain access to inspect the gutter 4 times between 15 May and 28 June 2023. It was also unable to gain access to inspect the pointing on 12 May 2023. The evidence shows that the landlord sent multiple “appointment confirmed” texts to the resident for various repairs. However, they do not state which works they refer to. Therefore, it’s unclear whether the resident was notified of these particular appointments which is a record keeping failure.
On 30 May 2023 the landlord cancelled a works order to install a kitchen fan and overhaul the one in the bathroom. Its repair logs note this was because it had not gained access. It also cancelled an order to rake out and reseal the sealant around the bath. This was because during a telephone call the resident said it had been done. It’s unclear who carried out the work which is a record keeping failure.
It inspected the sealant to the downstairs window on 30 June 2023. The repair logs show that also on 30 June the landlord inspected the insulation above the bathroom, carried out a mould wash and applied paint.
It is acknowledged the landlord experienced difficulties gaining access to the property. However, the evidence shows this was the first appointment offered to the resident to carry out these works. This was 2 months after the inspection was carried out. Therefore the landlord failed to comply with its damp policy.
A file note dated 26 July 2023 says that during a call with the landlord the resident said its inaction had caused her to pay for a mould wash and paint. This was because her partner had COPD. It’s unclear when the works were carried out which makes it difficult to make a determination on this point. She also asked that it only attend by appointment. This was because her adult son had autism and unannounced visits caused him distress. This was a reasonable request.
The repair logs show that also on 26 July 2023 the landlord moved an appointment to remove the skirting at the foot of the stairs and hack away bridging plaster. The notes said the resident had requested that as many appointments as possible be booked for 29 August 2023.
The repair logs show that the landlord attended on 27 July 2023 to carry out works to check for leaks, replace the bath panel and sealant. Works to check and relay insulation above the bathroom were completed on 29 August 2023.
An entry on the repair logs dated 7 September 2023 noted that a job to carry out works to the kitchen ceiling and window was cancelled following failure to gain access on 5 occasions. It said that a 7 day letter was to be issued however, there’s no evidence this was actioned.
The resident’s complaint to the landlord of 9 October 2023 set out the anxiety caused by its attendances at the property. She disputed that it had called in advance. She also set out the impact of the ongoing situation on their physical health, including chest infections. She asked for help and support.
An internal email dated 11 October 2023 noted that works raised in May were outstanding. A further email asked that an urgent inspection be carried out. It also asked that contact be made with the resident to establish her vulnerabilities. The landlord failed to comply with its Vulnerability Policy because it had not already logged them on the resident’s record. Furthermore, if they were not logged it could not use the information to ensure it was delivering its day to day service as needed.
An entry on the repairs log dated 12 October 2023 said the resident had requested a property inspection booked for 23 October to be rescheduled. It was rebooked to 2 November 2023.
The landlord’s logs show that on 1 November 2023 it referred the resident for support because she had requested support to access mental health services and counselling.
The landlord inspected the property on 2 November 2023. Its records show there was no evidence of condensation or mould. However its damp meter picked up moisture when placed against the recently painted area. It said the problem could be due to the plaster itself and raised works to replaster as necessary.
An internal email dated 7 November 2023 set out a call from the resident. She was “upset” and asserted it had told her plastering works were complete. She said the plasterer was meant to attend on 2 November 2023 but failed to do so. While we do not doubt the resident’s account there’s no independent evidence to corroborate events. A request was made for a visit to the resident to reassure her that her concerns were being addressed.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 13 November 2023 referred to its visit to the resident on 10 November to discuss her support needs. While it was positive that a visit took place we have not seen a detailed record of the discussion which is a record keeping failure. It said it had made a referral to its housing support officer who would be in contact. It also repeated its offer to refer the resident for counselling which she declined.
It also confirmed that damp was not caused by a structural defect therefore no other repairs were identified. However, there was a need to manage “high condensation” levels. There’s no evidence that the landlord provided any further information about what might be causing the condensation and what could be done to reduce it. Therefore it did not adhere to its damp policy in relation to moisture levels.
Its response set out that it attended on 29 August 2023 to address plaster bridging. However, it arrived to find the work had already been carried out by the resident. We have not seen any information, such as costs, relating to works carried out by the resident which has impacted on our assessment.
Between 14 and 28 November 2023 the landlord and resident communicated about a visit to progress a referral for support. It tried to attend on 15 and 17 November but did not gain access. On 21 November the resident emailed the landlord to confirm she was not well and that she’d make contact when she was feeling better. The landlord followed up by email on 28 November 2023 but there is no evidence that she responded. The evidence shows it attempted to try to engage with the resident to establish her support needs.
On 29 November 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say she was under “immense stress and pressure.” She said she found its phone calls triggering and asked that all correspondence be by letter as she struggled with “technical aids.” This was a reasonable request.
A file note dated 5 December 2023 said that the resident had asked that all contact go through her representative. She requested support from a specialist in mental health. The landlord agreed to refer her to social services. The following day it called the resident to update that had allocated a support officer and would carry out a joint visit.
Repair logs show that works to the pointing were completed on 4 January 2024.
The evidence shows that following written communication with the resident the landlord tried to visit to discuss her support needs. It made approximately 7 appointments between 10 January and 6 June 2024. All were cancelled or recorded as ‘no access.’ Therefore the case was closed on 16 October 2024.
It’s acknowledged that the landlord attempted to engage with the resident regarding additional support. However, there’s no evidence that it referred the resident to social services as agreed. This was particularly inappropriate because the resident requested targeted support with her mental health.
In her email to the landlord dated 9 February 2024 the resident reiterated that all appointments should be confirmed in writing. She felt the landlord was not taking her request for adjustments seriously. This was partly because since 5 December 2023 she’d received texts and operatives had attended unannounced. We do not doubt the resident’s account however, we have not seen independent evidence to corroborate incidents when it attended unannounced.
She also raised concerns about the conduct of operatives who had attended her property. She said they’d used inappropriate language, used her hose which soaked her garden and made racist remarks about her neighbour.
On 18 March 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say she was too vulnerable to trust any processes it suggested until the complaint was “back on track.” In its response of 25 March the landlord offered an appointment for a further property inspection on 16 April 2024.
In her email to the landlord on 23 April 2024 the resident said it had insisted on visiting even when she said she was “too low” to proceed. She’d received “endless” texts including during early hours of the morning which had woken her up. To stop the problem she had put her phone in a drawer or switched it off. This caused anxiety as she was worried she’d miss an important call which could be about a medical matter.
She was dissatisfied with the inspections carried out regarding leaks, guttering and loft insulation. She did not feel it was reasonable to close a repair due to no contact or access. She considered that it should take a different approach where poor health was an issue. As such she felt it did not have regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
Also on 23 April 2024 the landlord reraised the orders for the extractor fans. It appropriately advised the contractor that the resident must be advised of appointments via letter. It also raised other closed works with appropriate contractors. There is no evidence that a similar instruction was given to them.
An internal email dated 24 April 2024 noted that when the landlord’s contractor tried to call the resident she expressed her frustration and hung up. Given the resident’s repeated requests for no phone calls it was inappropriate to call. The resident’s frustration was evident in her response to the contractor.
In an email to the resident of 1 May 2024 the landlord asked the resident to provide further evidence, including ring doorbell footage, to support her complaint about its operatives. It requested photographs of the muddy garden following their visit. It reiterated that the only way to resolve any outstanding repairs was to inspect the property. It said it had made another appointment for 21 May 2024 and asked the resident to confirm if she required any reasonable adjustments. It’s response was reasonable.
We have received photographs of the resident’s garden however they are undated. Furthermore, it is unclear if they were provided to the landlord at the time of the complaint. Therefore, it has not been possible to consider them during our assessment.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 22 May 2024 advised that works to the fans were outstanding due to no access. It referred to the recent call to the resident which was inappropriate for the reason set out above. It demonstrated that it had taken reasonable steps to check that works to the loft and guttering were satisfactory. The resident has provided no independent evidence to the contrary. It provided written confirmation of further appointments to inspect the property, carry out works to the plastering and fans.
Its offer of mediation demonstrated a commitment to rebuild the resident’s trust. While its offer was positive it would have been appropriate to acknowledge the resident may not have felt able to participate at that time. It could have reassured her that the offer remained open for when she was ready. This would have ensured the resident did not feel pressure to attend at that time when she was evidently unwell. It would’ve also reassured her that it understood and recognised her individual circumstances.
It set out the investigation into the resident’s complaint about the conduct of its operatives including action taken where appropriate. Its response was reasonable and at the time of its response there was no independent evidence which disputed its findings. It failed to expressly set out its position regarding the condition of the garden which was a shortcoming. However, as set out above it had offered to inspect the property 21 May at which point it would have been able to review the condition of the garden.
The landlord’s response also referred to the resident’s request for compensation for damage caused to her personal belongings and for works she had carried out herself. It noted that it had not received any information from the resident in regard to this element of her complaint.
However, there is no evidence that it expressly requested that the resident provide the information. Had it done so it could then have taken a view on whether to consider the claim itself or whether to signpost the resident to make a claim on its liability insurance.
We would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs. It’s recognised that there has been a large volume of correspondence regarding repairs in this case. However the evidence has not been comprehensive making it hard to identify the process end to end. This has impacted on our determination of the complaint.
It’s vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The landlord offered £500 compensation which encompassed complaint handling failures and the cost of redecorating the hallway. It’s unclear how much was apportioned to each failure.
We have not seen detailed communication between the landlord and resident regarding work she carried out including when it took place and how much it cost. This has impacted on our ability to assess the landlord’s response on this element of the complaint.
The landlord’s failures amount to service failure because they may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident. For the purposes of this investigation we have assumed half of the compensation was apportioned to the cost of redecoration. The landlord did not offer any compensation for distress and inconvenience. Therefore the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 in line with our Remedies Guidance.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments in line with the Equality Act 2010.

The landlord’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy (equality policy) sets out its commitment to ensure equal opportunities in provision of its housing services. This includes treating residents with fairness and respect and making reasonable adjustments where appropriate.
The resident’s emails of 9 February and 23 April 2024 set out her concerns that the landlord had not had regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010. She asserted it had not made reasonable adjustments in how it provided its services to her and her family. For example, it failed to consider the distress caused by unannounced visits and telephone calls.
The evidence set out above shows the landlord did have regard to the Equality Act 2010. Its responses showed empathy and an understanding of the situation. However, it did not go far enough to ensure the resident’s needs and subsequent reasonable adjustments were consistently embedded into its approach.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 22 May 2024 provided a reasonable explanation as to how it used texting during its repairs response. However, it failed to acknowledge the resident’s communication preferences which were provided in December 2023. Furthermore, it demonstrated a lack of awareness by asking again for her communication preferences. Had it complied with its Vulnerability Policy these would have already been recorded on her record. This would have ensured its services were delivered appropriately in line with its equality act and vulnerability policies.
Its response said it would “identify improvements to communications relating to repairs appointments.” There is no evidence that it did so. This has been reflected in the orders below.
The landlord’s failures amount to service failure because they may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s Customer Feedback Policy (complaints policy) says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Resident should make any requests to escalate their complaint to stage 2 within 20 working days of the stage 1 response being provided.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says landlords may extend complaint response deadlines by 10 days where there is good reason to do so. If an extension to stage 2 responses beyond 10 working days is required to enable a landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.
On 16 October 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 9 October 2023. In its email it asked the resident to let it know if she needed additional support to access the complaints process.
The landlord phoned the resident on 25 October 2023 with the intention of discussing the complaint. It left a voicemail asking the resident if she would agree to a 10 working day extension meaning the response was due by 13 November. There’s no evidence that she replied however, the duration of the extension was in line with the Code.

The landlord provided its response on 13 November 2023. It said that while it did not uphold the complaint it appropriately recognised that the resident’s experience and concerns were “genuine.”

On 29 November 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to request an extension to the 20 working day deadline to request to escalate her complaint. This was because she needed more time to provide information to support her request. She asked that if this was not possible the landlord accept her email as a request to escalate. It failed to provide a response causing distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident’s frustration was evident in her email to the landlord of 18 March 2024. She said its inaction made her feel “forgotten” which exacerbated the resident’s loss of trust in the landlord.
An internal email dated 20 March 2024 confirmed it should progress the resident’s email as a stage 2 complaint. While this was positive there was a delay of almost 4 months which was unreasonable.
On 25 March 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm it would provide a response by 24 April. It apologised for the delay. It again offered additional support with the process should the resident require it. It said it would be guided by her as to how best to understand her dissatisfaction in time to provide its response by the deadline.
On 23 April 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to add to her complaint. On 29 April the landlord wrote to the resident to set out the definition of her stage 2 complaint.
The landlord’s email to the resident of 15 May 2024 confirmed she needed to provide evidence to support her complaint by 22 May which was the new target date. It said this was necessary for it to comply with the Code.
It sent a further email on 21 May 2024 to reiterate that it would issue its response the following day regardless of whether she had been able to provide her evidence. The resident replied to say she had it but was finding the process difficult due to her health issues.
The resident emailed the landlord later that day to say she’d tried to send video clips over but had received a message to remove attachments. She said it was “becoming impossible” and in the alternative provided a transcript of the operative’s visit.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 22 May 2024. It was positive that it was mindful of its obligations. However, the Code makes provision for both parties to agree a new response date to allow them to respond fully to the complaint.
The resident was vulnerable and the landlord made repeated offers to make reasonable adjustments. It therefore would’ve been appropriate for it to have agreed a new response date to allow the resident to provide her evidence. That it did not do so was a further example of its failure to embed reasonable adjustments in its day to day practices.
The Code requires landlord’s to set out in clear plain language any remedy offered to resolve a complaint. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint offered £500 for the complaint handling failures at stage 2 and to reimburse the costs of redecoration. As set out above it’s unclear how much was apportioned to which failure of service which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s failures had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has offered compensation to try to put things right. On the basis that half of the compensation was for complaint handling failures the amount offered was in line with our Remedies Guidance where there was no permanent impact.
Therefore this investigation considers that while the landlord’s complaint handling could reasonably have been improved it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure the landlord’s response to the residents request for reasonable adjustments in line with the Equality Act 2010.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to:
  1. Apologise for the failures identified in this report.
  2. Offer a further appointment to discuss her support needs.
  3. Offer an appointment to inspect the property to identify any outstanding works. If further works are required it should set out a time bound action plan including how it will proceed in the event of no access.
  4. Set out the reasonable adjustments it has made including communication preferences.
2. Pay the resident £200 compensation comprised of:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. £100 for the distress caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments in line with the Equality Act 2010.
3. Reoffer the £250 it offered in its stage 2 response if this has not already been paid.
Evidence of compliance with the orders above should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should consider what changes it can make to improve its communications relating to repairs appointments in complex cases. This should include incidents of no access. It should also consider how it will embed its commitment to making reasonable adjustments into the culture and practices of the organisation.

Recommendations

The reasonable redress finding is dependent on the landlord paying the resident the £250 as offered in its stage 2 response if it has not already done so.