Stockport Homes Limited (202506964)

Decision
Case ID	202506964
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Stockport Homes Limited
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	26 November 2025

Background

1. In January 2025 the landlord identified damp and mould in the lounge and 2 bedrooms of the property. The resident complained about recurring damp and mould, damage caused by the damp and mould, and antisocial behaviour (ASB). The resident told the landlord she wanted to be rehoused.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould and associated repairs.
   2. Reports of ASB.
   3. Concerns about its communication relating to a request for a housing transfer.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated repairs.
5. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
6. There was service failure by the landlord in its response to its response to the resident’s concerns about its communication relating to request for a housing transfer.
7. There was service failure by the landlord in its response to the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

8. In summary, we found the landlord:
   1. responded reasonably when first told of the mould in the property, however the subsequent repairs took too long and there was a lack of communication regarding the delays.
   2. asked the resident for reports of ASB so it could investigate them, clarified its approach to tackling ASB based on evidence, and gave appropriate signposting advice.
   3. did not respond to the resident’s initial request for a move or make a reasonable attempt to set her expectations regarding the grounds for a move.
   4. did not comply with the timescales from within its complaint procedure and did not acknowledge this or offer reasonable redress.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 24 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £125 made up as follows: £75 for the frustration and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the request for a move. £50 for time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord must also pay the resident £575 (if it has not done so already) made up of: £75 offered in its stage 1 complaint response. £500 offered in May 2025. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date and not offset against any debt that may be owed. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 24 December 2025

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should contact the resident to enquire on the current situation regarding the mould in the property. If appropriate, it should complete a further property inspection and write to the resident setting out any works it had identified and a timescale for completion.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 December 2024	A leak was reported in the flat above. The landlord attended the flat above on 20 December 2024 and completed repairs.
24 January 2025	The landlord assessed the property but requested a technical inspection after the areas had dried following the leak.
3 February 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said: the property had recurring damp and mould, and it was causing health issues for the family. She said she had thrown food and belongings away that had been destroyed, and she could not replace the carpet as it was a furnished tenancy. the landlord had applied treatment, but it did not resolve the issue. the concierge was letting youths in that were hanging around corridors, smoking, and abusing her and other residents. she needed to be moved to another property and asked for compensation for her losses.
28 February 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. In summary, it said: damp and mould was reported on 23 December 2024. It attended on 24 January 2025, and a technical inspection was completed on 21 February 2025 when repairs were raised. it took longer than expected to attend but did so within a reasonable timescale. It offered £75 for the delay and inconvenience. it could not offer compensation for damages as the resident should claim on her own contents insurance. It said the furnished tenancies team would assess if the carpets could be replaced. it could not determine a link between the damp and mould and the impact on the family’s health as this was a matter for the courts. it tries to keep unwanted visitors out of the building, but it could not prevent tailgating or other residents allowing access. it was confident it had dealt with the ASB issues appropriately.
17 March 2025	The resident escalated her complaint as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said she wanted a move because of the property condition and did not feel her housing officer was helping.
17 April 2025	The landlord provided its final complaint response. In summary, it said: the housing officer had visited her and there was evidence of email exchanges with the resident and referrals for tenancy support. it assessed the property in April 2025. There were no visible signs of mould, but acknowledged the visit was done after a mould wash. No structural defects were found, and the mould was primarily due to the internal conditions. the property was habitable so it would not consider a move. it had raised repairs for the extractor fan and windows, and it would attend on 6 May 2025 following the resident’s report of mould. the impact on the family’s health was a matter for the courts. there was no evidence it had failed to respond to the issues raised.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us she wanted a move, an apology for how she had been treated, and more compensation.

 

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Reports of damp and mould and associated repairs
Finding	Service failure

9. The resident has stated the damp and mould issues started in November 2022. This is not disputed, however, based on the evidence provided to us and the date the resident complained, this case will focus on events from December 2024 to 17 April 2025, the date of the final complaint response.

Reports of damp and mould

10. The landlord said the resident first reported damp and mould on 23 December 2024. It assessed the property on 24 January 2025 and requested a technical inspection for after the area had dried following a leak from the property above. It would have been helpful if the landlord had offered a dehumidifier at this time to speed up the drying time and potential damp concerns. There is no evidence it did this.
11. The landlord completed a technical inspection on 21 February 2025, which allowed time for the kitchen to dry after the leak. It identified issues with the extractor fan in the kitchen, the mechanics of the window, and the boiler and radiators, to which it requested the necessary repairs. This was appropriate as it demonstrated a commitment to fulfilling its repair obligations.
12. The damp and mould was treated on 3 March 2025, however on 25 March 2025, the resident said it had started to grow back. A further wash and treatment was completed on 2 April 2025, when a damp, mould and condensation technician also inspected the property. The technician confirmed there was no visible black mould during the visit, however it noted the inspection had taken place after the mould had been treated. The landlord provided general advice on preventing condensation, a leaflet on preventing damp, and 2 hygrometers to measure the humidity. The landlord’s response was appropriate and in line with its repair policy.
13. On 14 and 15 April 2025, the resident told the landlord the mould was growing in the main bedroom despite the previous 2 treatments. She said she was unhappy the landlord was not doing more as the property was not liveable, and she wanted to be moved. The landlord arranged a further appointment to wash and treat the damp and mould on 6 May 2025 which was completed as arranged. This was appropriate and in line with the policy response time of 21 working days.
14. In its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed there were no structural defects found in the property, and the damp and mould was primarily due to the environmental conditions.

Kitchen fan

15. The landlord identified the fan was not working on 21 February 2025, and although it raised a repair for 10 March 2025, there is no evidence it completed this. The technician noted it was still not working on his visit on 2 April 2025, and a further appointment was made for 2 May 2025, 3 months after it was first identified.
16. The evidence shows the landlord did not replace the fan until 28 July 2025. We acknowledge the landlord experienced some access issues regarding this work, however the overall time it took was not appropriate given the repairs policy says it will carry out a routine repair within 30 working days.

Window repairs

17. The resident raised concerns relating to the windows with the landlord during the inspection on 21 February 2025. The landlord raised a repair to look at the window handles and restrictors on 28 April 2025. This was reasonable.
18. The resident asked the landlord if it could provide better ventilation and a dehumidifier as her son was poorly and there were only small air vents above the windows. The landlord confirmed the bathroom ventilation ran off a communal system running through the block of flats, but there is no evidence it responded to the request about the vents in the windows. This was a communication failure by the landlord as it failed to address the resident’s request in full. The landlord agreed to gift a dehumidifier, however it took a further 2 months to be delivered. Without an explanation to confirm why it took so long, this delay was not reasonable.
19. The landlord has since confirmed it has completed the window repairs, however it did not provide further detail. We cannot therefore assess if the landlord complied with its repair timescales or communicated any delays to the resident. This is a record keeping failure.

Boiler and radiators

20. The technician raised a repair for the boiler and radiators to be checked following the visit on 21 February 2025. The landlord did not confirm the appointment date until 23 April 2025, 3 months after the request was made. This was not appropriate as the landlord did not comply with its repair policy. Furthermore, there is no evidence it provided the resident with an update on the repair or the delays. This was a communication failure by the landlord.
21. Iin summary, the landlord responded to the resident’s reports to damp and mould and applied treatment in a timescale that was consistent with its repair policy. However, it took too long to complete the repairs raised by the damp and mould technician. For example, it took 5 months to replace the kitchen fan, 2 months to provide a dehumidifier, and it took 3 months to arrange the inspection of the radiators. Further, it did not communicate the delays to the resident. The landlord offered appropriate compensation of £75 for its initial delay in attending the property. This was in line with its compensation policy for a minor service failure. However, it did not highlight or acknowledge the failures highlighted in our investigation or identify any learning to prevent a recurrence.
22. The resident stated the damp and mould affected the health of her and her son. As confirmed to the resident, we cannot determine liability for damages to health as this is a matter best suited to a court. We have advised the resident to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue this matter. 
23. Following the final complaint response, the landlord has confirmed:
    1. it assessed the property again on 6 May 2025 but there were no traces of mould.
    2. it conducted a heat loss calculation, and in September 2025 it replaced radiators in the bedrooms for larger ones. It gave an additional £500 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in replacing the undersized radiator.
24. Given the additional compensation awarded in May 2025, we consider the £575 offered in total by the landlord to be proportionate redress for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated repairs. We have made a finding of service failure. This is because we consider the landlord missed an opportunity to provide suitable redress earlier, within its internal complaints process and before the case was accepted by us for formal investigation. 
25. In a recent conversation with the resident, she confirmed she has found evidence the mould is returning in the bedroom and lounge. She acknowledged the areas are small, but she is concerned as to how quickly it can grow, and she does not want a repeat of what happened the previous year. She advised she had spoken to other residents in the block who were also experiencing similar issues to her, therefore she believes there could be a wider structural issue. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact to the resident to enquire on the most recent situation, and to consider a further inspection if appropriate.

Complaint	Reports of ASB
Finding	No maladministration

26. The resident reported ASB to the landlord as part of her stage 1 complaint. She said the concierge team were letting youths into the building who were smoking and abusing her and other residents. The landlord asked the resident for dates of when this happened so it could investigate it further. This was reasonable. While the resident said she had also been assaulted by another resident, there is no evidence of when this happened, if she reported this to the landlord at the time, and no dates of the youths entering the building as requested.
27. The landlord advised the concierge team managed over 2,000 cameras across 40 blocks. It said it was confident it dealt with the issues as best it could, but at times it may not notice tailgating and could not stop residents letting people in. The landlord said it might be able to identify the youths if further detail could be given around times and dates, but there is no evidence this was received. The landlord told the resident to contact the police with any criminal activity. While the landlord’s response was reasonable, it would have been helpful to show a proactive approach to reducing potential tailgating and preventing unwelcome visitors entering the building. This would have shown the resident it had taken her concerns seriously and it would do what it could to prevent the issues in the future.
28. In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the impact ASB could have on residents living in high rise buildings. It confirmed it was required to take proportionate action based on evidence provided. As there was no evidence of any reports of ASB, or any additional information from the resident, the landlord’s response was reasonable.
29. In summary, we find no maladministration. The landlord asked for evidence of allegations of ASB, but this was not received. This prevented it from conducted any further investigation. It provided appropriate advice regarding the reporting of criminal activity to the police and confirmed its approach and responsibility to investigate reports of ASB based on evidence.

Complaint	Concerns about its communication relating to a request for a housing transfer
Finding	Service failure

30. The resident asked the landlord for a move as an outcome of this case. This is not something we can order the landlord to do. This is because this would be subject to assessed bedroom requirements for the household, the availability of properties, and the priority of other applicants. Our assessment will therefore focus on the landlord’s communication with the resident and whether this was reasonable.
31. The resident asked to be relocated to another property as part of her stage 1 complaint. She told the landlord she could not bear to live in the property due to ongoing damp and mould which was making herself and her son unwell. The landlord failed to address the resident’s request within in its stage 1 complaint response. This was not reasonable and contributed to the resident’s complaint escalation when she told the landlord she was not making any progress through the home choice system or the mutual exchange option. She told the landlord she could see a 2-bedroomed property that had been boarded for months.
32. The landlord confirmed the complaint would not affect or influence the allocation of social housing and it was aware the resident was bidding through home choice and exploring a mutual exchange. The landlord confirmed the boarded property was still tenanted. This was reasonable and set the resident’s expectations.
33. In its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed the property was considered habitable therefore it would not consider a direct let for housing. The landlord’s allocation policy states a resident could be prioritised for housing if there was evidence of harassment or because of a serious hazard such as serious disrepair. As there was no evidence of a structural defect or serious disrepair issue, the landlord’s response was appropriate. The landlord apologised and encouraged the resident to provide any new evidence so it could be reviewed in line with its allocations policy for assessing the correct level of priority.
34. In summary, we find service failure. While the landlord’s final complaint response addressed the request and provided a response that was in line with its allocation policy, it failed to address this at the first opportunity. This led to time, trouble and inconvenience for the resident. Furthermore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide further context regarding its decision making for direct lets. This would have helped set the resident’s expectations. As such, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £75 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance and recognises the likely frustration and inconvenience to the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

35. The resident complained to the landlord on 3 February 2025. The landlord acknowledged receipt on 14 February 2025, 9 working days later. This was not in line with the complaint procedure which states it would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. While the acknowledgement was delayed, it was unlikely to have had any serious detriment on the resident or the investigation.
36. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 28 February 2025, 10 working days after the acknowledgement. This was appropriate and in line with the procedure. The landlord confirmed the issues raised by the resident, the desired outcome, and its approach to investigating them.
37. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 March 2025. The landlord acknowledged it on 21 March 2025 and said it would provide a response by 18 April 2025. According to the complaint procedure in place at the time, the landlord would respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of the request being made. The response date given to the resident was therefore not accurate.
38. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 17 April 2025, 23 working days later. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with complaint procedure. The landlord addressed the issues raised and provided a detailed response to each, but it did not identify the service failures highlighted in our investigation. This was a short coming of the landlord.
39. In summary, we find service failure. At stage 2, it provided timescales that did not align with its procedure, this meant its final complaint response did not comply with the timescales. The landlord did not highlight this, therefore it did not apologise, provide reasonable redress or identify any learning.
40. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation. This reflects the likely frustration and inconvenience caused to her by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Learning

41. The landlord should provide accurate response times for complaints that are in line with the policy or procedure in place at the time of the complaint. It should ensure staff who are responsible for investigating complaints are aware of the timescales involved to ensure it complies with its policy timescales.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

42. We expect landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.

Communication

43. Where possible and to help set a resident’s expectations, a landlord should provide clear information to support its decision making. This could be in the way of quoting a policy or procedure.