From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Thrive Homes Limited (202450757)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202450757

Thrive Homes Limited

27 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, mould, and subsequent repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a bedsit/bungalow. The landlord, a housing association, owns the property. The landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities which include asthma, physical and mental health concerns.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 30 May 2024. He was unhappy with the time taken to address the damp and mould in his home. He believed it had not taken enough action to resolve the issue.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 4 July 2024. It acknowledged it had failed to address the damp and mould within a reasonable timescale. It set out a timeline of events from February 2022 to the date of its response and the actions it had taken. It said it was seeking an independent damp and mould survey and would complete any identified repairs. It offered £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 1 October 2024. In its complaint acknowledgement on 8 October 2024, it noted he was unhappy with its lack of communication and that there were outstanding repairs.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 4 December 2024. It repeated its stage 1 response and set out a further timeline of events and actions. It acknowledged there had been delays, that it should have communicated better, and provided a quicker resolution. It increased its compensation offer to £200.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to us. He told us that he believes there is still mould in his bedroom and he wants it to move him to a different property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told us that the damp and mould has affected his health and mental wellbeing. He said that since living in the property he has developed asthma and breathing difficulties. The landlord’s stage 2 response also referred to his assertion that his heart attack may have been stress related.
  2. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an illness, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court. We can, however, consider any likely distress or inconvenience caused as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord provided limited evidence in relation to this case which has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. Our investigation has, therefore, relied on the available evidence.
  2. It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. The evidence shows that the landlord wrote to the resident on 29 May 2024. It confirmed that he reported damp and mould but did not specify when. It said its specialist surveyor would attend to complete a survey. It subsequently raised a complaint the following day noting his dissatisfaction with the time taken to resolve the issue.
  4. We have not seen a copy of the landlord’s damp and mould policy. However, its website states that after receiving a report of damp and mould it will visit to carry out a full investigation. It will confirm what it found by phone or in writing, confirm next steps, arrange any repairs needed, and provide timescales. It will carry out follow up visits to check on the issue and will monitor it for at least 3 years to make sure it does not become a problem again. It will inspect mild mould within 28 days and moderate mould within 10 days.
  5. The landlord inspected the resident’s home on 21 June 2024. This was 21 days after acknowledging his report and in line with its 28-day timescale. Its surveyor noted that:
    1. The kitchen and bathroom window trickle vents did not open and other windows had no vents.
    2. There were no areas with elevated moisture with the exception of the entrance door reveals and bathroom behind the toilet pan.
    3. The reason for mould in the bedroom may have been due to there being no separating door between the bedroom and lounge. There was a section of the wall with “de-bonded” plaster. While it was in good order, it could create a cooler area than the wall around it.
    4. The loft was in poor condition with evidence of rat droppings. There was insufficient insulation with large gaps. It required urgent attention and a pest controller should visit to remove any signs of vermin prior to contractors attending.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 4 July 2024 was comprehensive and demonstrates that it reviewed its repair history. It said that the resident first reported damp and mould to his living room wall in February 2022. It explained that it inspected his home in March 2022 and identified the cause as poor ventilation. It said that it provided advice on how to resolve this. It stated that it visited again in September 2022 and completed a mould treatment in October 2022. There is no evidence to show that it investigated the cause further at this time.
  7. The landlord said that the resident contacted it again on 18 January 2023 requesting a surveyor visit. It responded the following day but was unable to confirm when the appointment would be. He received a card on 27 January 2023 stating he missed a visit from its contractor. But it was unclear from its records if he had been notified of the date and this was rescheduled to 3 February 2023. Its failure to effectively communicate appointments resulted in a delay.
  8. The landlord said that it visited the resident in March 2023. He said he had received no further communication since its surveyor visit. It explained that its surveyor found that no damp and mould treatments or repairs were required. It failed to update him following its February 2023 visit, which is not in line with its process to notify him of its findings by phone or in writing.
  9. In its response the landlord said that the resident contacted it on 31 August 2023 stating that the mould had returned. It raised a repair the same day to install a vent in the reception room and bedroom. This was completed on 27 February 2024, almost 6 months later. This was not in accordance with its repair policy timescale of 20 working days for routine repairs.
  10. The landlord further explained that on 8 September 2023 the resident sent photographs of damp and mould. He also reported mould on his bedroom wall on 15 November 2023. It raised an inspection for 20 November 2023. While it raised an inspection within 5 days of his November report, this was over 2 months since he sent photographs. He made a further report on 28 November 2023 following a mould treatment to the bathroom, and it arranged a further inspection for 12 December 2023. However, it said that its records were unclear if the inspection took place or if it raised any repairs. This is concerning and does not demonstrate that it kept appropriate repairs records which is a failing.
  11. The landlord said that its asset team raised an independent survey which it completed on 21 June 2024. It confirmed the findings as set out above. It also noted defects to the brick mortar around the front entrance door and step, and possible issues with the rainwater downpipe. It set out an action plan and dates to complete the identified repairs. It acknowledged that while it had completed some remedial work, it failed to sufficiently investigate or treat the mould to prevent it returning. It apologised and offered £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
  12. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for its failings, state how it would put things right, and offer some redress. However, its compensation offer was not proportionate to the delays experienced by the resident and its communication failings.
  13. We note that the resident was moved to a hotel on 31 July until 3 August 2024 while the landlord completed repairs. Its records show that it visited on 2 August 2024 to check the work. On his return home at 10am on 3 August 2024, he found that the electric was off, resulting in the loss of his freezer contents. He also claimed his toilet seat was broken, his washing machine draw front did not close, the numbers on his cooker dials had been removed by chemicals, and there was damage to personal belongings.
  14. The landlord noted that the lights had been on when its contractor was completing the cleaning and suspected the lack of electricity may be due to them. It attended as an emergency to check and reinstate the electrics. It provided the resident with a £100 voucher to cover the loss of his food and raised a repair to replace his toilet seat. This was reasonable and demonstrates an effort to put things right.
  15. The resident escalated his complaint on 1 October 2024 due to the lack of communication and stated there was outstanding work.
  16. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 4 December 2024, it explained the actions it had taken to consider the resident’s health concerns. This included offering to bring the work forward but due to medical procedures this was not convenient. It explained that it arranged temporary accommodation but would not compensate for health-related matters. It also acknowledged that it failed to communicate internally about his health concerns which were not shared during its stage 1 investigation. This limited its understanding of the impact his living conditions had on his physical and mental wellbeing.
  17. The landlord’s offer to bring forward the repairs was reasonable, as was its offer of temporary accommodation to minimise the effect of dust on his asthma. It was also appropriate to recognise its failings during its stage 1 investigation. However, it should have advised the resident how to make a claim via its insurance if he believed its action or inaction affected his health.
  18. The landlord also stated that the resident explained that it had previously refused a management move as it could not find a property close to his mother for support. As a result, he had approached the local council but was experiencing difficulties.
  19. We understand that it would be challenging for a landlord to offer a management move where it has limited stock in the resident’s desired location. However, while it made the above statement, it failed to offer any support or guidance on moving options despite acknowledging his difficulties. We have made a recommendation in relation to this.
  20. The landlord confirmed that the rat infestation was resolved on 24 July 2024. Its pest control team removed droppings, disinfected, and sealed the holes in the walls. This demonstrates that it completed the recommendations suggested by its specialist contractor. However, the recommendation was made on 21 June 2024 as urgent but this was not completed until 24 July 2024, over a month later.
  21. The landlord confirmed that it completed the repairs in August 2024. It acknowledged that the loft insulation was due to take place on 22 July 2024 but it rescheduled this to coincide with the resident being in temporary accommodation. This was a positive measure to take to minimise disruption.
  22. However, the landlord’s contractor failed to complete the loft insulation on 2 August 2024. It explained that when they attended, they waited for the resident to answer the door. It was unclear if they saw its email about the key safe and the resident being at a hotel. They attended on 13 August 2024 but he had asked them to leave as he was unaware of the appointment. He chased the work and this was booked for 7 October 2024, almost 2 months later. It appropriately acknowledged that its contractor management should have been better and that he had to chase for updates.
  23. The landlord also provided information which did not form part of the resident’s complaint. It is not known when these matters were raised. It said it would replace the windows through its planned maintenance programme and service the storage heaters. It said there were no issues with the storage heaters when it inspected them on 2 August 2024. It acknowledged the resident’s request for gas central heating and advised it would arrange a gas survey to see if this were possible. It said it passed his request to paint the walls to its repairs team.
  24. The landlord stated that the resident complained about the condition of his home on his return. It explained it had been unable to establish why the electric had tripped but it provided a £100 voucher to purchase food and raised an urgent order to replace his toilet seat. It acknowledged that his washing machine and other personal belongings were damaged by its contractor but it did not compensate for damage caused by its contractors. It advised him to claim on his contents insurance but appreciated that he did not have this. It acknowledged that he had provided a list of items, photographs and videos and asked him to provide as much information as possible so it could contact its contractor about the issue.
  25. The landlord’s response was confusing. It covered the cost of the loss of food and replaced the toilet seat, both of which were attributed to its contractor’s failings. Regarding the other damages it had taken a different approach, stating that these would have to be covered by its contractor’s insurance. It also asked him to provide information having already acknowledged receiving this. The contractor was working on its behalf and the resident had no relationship with the contractor. It would, therefore, have been reasonable to have advised him to claim against its own insurance and later sought to recover the monies from its own contractor.
  26. The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience and increased its compensation offer to £200. It summarised that while it completed some remedial work to treat the damp and mould, it failed to sufficiently investigate the issue and promptly treat it to ensure it did not return. It said there had been delays, it should have communicated better internally and with the resident, facilitated a quicker resolution, managed its contractors better, and communicated his health concerns to relevant teams. It set out further actions relating to the outstanding repairs.
  27. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for its multiple failings. It also demonstrated some learning from the complaint in acknowledging its errors but does not state how it will prevent similar failings in the future. While it attended periodically to complete some remedial work, the resident faced recurring time and trouble, distress, and inconvenience. Its compensation offer is not proportionate to its multiple failings. We have, therefore, made an order for additional compensation to be paid to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this determination and provide evidence of its compliance:
    1. Pay to the resident £400 broken down as follows:
      1. £200 offered in its stage 2 response if not already paid.
      2. £200 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience for its identified failings.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Contact the resident to discuss his moving options and provide guidance and support.
    2. Provide its insurance information to enable him to make a claim for any losses.