Together Housing Association Limited (202331440)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331440

Together Housing Association Limited

30 May 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 in the property.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant and moved into the property in May 2014 with her family. The property is a 3-bedroom terraced house. The landlord has informed us that it is not aware of any vulnerabilities within the household; however, it is noted that one of the resident’s children has asthma.
  2. The resident reported signs of damp in a bedroom on 11 November 2022 which included peeling paint, stained plaster, and a damp smell. The landlord inspected the room on 28 December 2022 and found that the roof had insufficient ventilation which was affecting the bedroom. After the inspection it said it would:
    1. Install vents on the roof.
    2. Install a positive input ventilation (PIV) unit in the hallway.
  3. The landlord did a mould wash in the bedroom on 23 March 2023 and allocated the PIV installation to the supplier. The supplier informed the landlord that due to high demand it would be at least 10 weeks.
  4. The resident made a formal complaint on 9 May 2023. She said that she had reported damp and mould which affected her hallway and 2 bedrooms since 2022. She felt this had not been addressed correctly and that the landlord told her that it was condensation without investigating it. She was unhappy that the landlord had rearranged repairs several times and her belongings had been damaged by the mould.
  5. On 22 May 2023, the council’s environmental health team contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf and asked for the repairs to be completed. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 26 May 2023 and advised that it would arrange for a 3-part mould treatment in affected rooms and would schedule a roofer to fit roof vents. It apologised for any distress or inconvenience and said it would also arrange for decorating vouchers once the repair was complete.
  6. The resident raised another complaint on 31 July 2023 as she wanted to be reimbursed for her damaged belongings. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 29 August 2023 and said that a surveyor would visit on 1 September 2023 to discuss the complaint and plan a schedule of works.
  7. The landlord contacted the resident on 6 September 2023 to say that it had already repaired the roof, installed roof vents, and replaced the loft hatch. It said that it would not replace the loft liner but would visit on 21 September 2023 to complete remedial work in the affected bedrooms. The following day, the resident raised another complaint as mould was still present in the loft and she was concerned about the effects on her daughter, who has asthma, if it got worse again.
  8. On 11 October 2023 the landlord escalated the previous complaint to stage 2 and closed the new complaint. On 26 October 2023 the landlord raised a job for a damp surveyor.
  9. In the stage 2 response issued on 7 November 2023, the landlord said that it had resolved the ventilation issue in the roof space by installing vents. It confirmed it would not replace the felt as residents should not be using the loft. It said that it would check damp levels in the property and make sure all fans were operational as it believed any remaining damp issues would be due to condensation. It offered compensation of £150 in recognition of the roof defect which had caused the damp, and a further £100 towards decoration in the bedrooms.
  10. On 30 November 2023 the environmental health team asked the landlord to check ventilation in the property as they had found high moisture levels and humidity in the bedrooms. The landlord’s notes state that an independent damp surveyor completed a report on 6 December 2023. The report found:
    1. Significant mould in the bedrooms and on the underfelt in the roof.
    2. Water on the windows and ceilings in the bedrooms.
    3. High moisture in the timber trusses of the roof.
    4. No soffits in the roof.
    5. The surveyor recommended that the landlord clean the mould from the bedrooms, fit a PIV in the upstairs hallway, remove the mould from the underfelt, and apply a micro dual preservative.
  11. The landlord’s records show that on 9 January 2024 it treated the roof felt and applied a preservative. The contractor noted that the landlord should replace the loft insulation and increase the depth to 300mm and said that the roof should be inspected. The landlord replaced the insulation on 7 February 2024. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that the supplier fitted a PIV, but we have not been told what date this was done. Records indicate that the supplier attempted to make appointments between December 2023 and May 2024, but none were convenient for the resident.
  12. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and has asked us to investigate.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will take responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp, mould, and condensation issues in a timely and effective manner where they result from issues that require repairs and maintenance.
  2. With severe or reoccurring damp and mould, the landlord offers additional actions such as installing PIVs, providing dehumidifiers, or applying mould resistant coverings. Its repair policy says that it will complete repairs which will take longer than a day or require multiple trades within 63 days.
  3. The resident originally reported the damp on 11 November 2022 and the landlord inspected the property on 28 December 2022. Taking into consideration the holiday period and the resident’s availability, with the fact that it was not an emergency repair, this response was reasonable.
  4. The landlord installed the roof vents on 3 June 2023. This was 107 working days after the original inspection. This is longer than the expected response time of 63 days. We recognise that with roof works there can be unavoidable delays such as adverse weather; however, there is no evidence that this was a factor in this case, nor did it keep the resident adequately updated about the reason for any delays.
  5. Internal records show that the delay with installing the PIV was due to a combination of supplier delays, and a requirement to reschedule appointments to more convenient times for the resident. While is it not clear what date the vent was installed, we have seen evidence that the landlord made reasonable efforts to arrange installation.
  6. The resident told the landlord that she was concerned about the impact of damp and mould, particularly as one of her children had asthma. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider the risk and whether it needed to provide an escalated response. It is not evident it did so in this case. The delays and lack of communication regarding the repairs meant that the resident felt she had to contact the local environmental health team. Their assessment found that there were still high levels of humidity and damp 6 months after the roof vents had been installed.
  7. The landlord originally said in its complaint response that it would not replace the stained roof liner, and “the mould on the felt would not go through the ceiling into the bedrooms.” It said that as residents should not enter the loft, the remaining mould would not affect them. However, given the issues the resident had experienced with the conditions in the loft affecting her living space, it should have considered replacing or treating the liner sooner.
  8. The landlord’s contractors found on 28 July 2023 that the loft insulation was poorly laid and contaminated with mould so required replacement. It is unclear whether this was relayed to the landlord straight away, as the information was contained in an email from December 2023.
  9. There is evidence that the landlord’s contractors completed mould clearance at the property on 23 March and 28 July 2023. It is not clear why there was a gap between treatments, as only one room was treated in the original visit. The landlord should have attended more promptly to clear the mould in all rooms and minimise any risk to the occupants.
  10. We note that in the resident’s complaint, she referred to belongings that were damaged by the mould including furniture and carpets. The resident requested for reimbursement as she needed to replace them. The landlord advised the resident to contact her contents insurance provider. This advice was reasonable. It is not clear whether the resident contacted her insurer; however, given that she did not raise this matter in the stage 2 complaint request, it was reasonable that the landlord did not provide any further position.
  11. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will pay compensation if it fails to deliver services it has committed to. This includes where furniture or belongings have been damaged, or distress and inconvenience has been caused. The landlord offered £150 compensation and £100 decorating vouchers as a goodwill gesture in recognition of the fact that the roof had been incorrectly installed. It did not provide any compensation for the delays in the repairs process as it found no evidence of service failure.
  12. In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to the complaint. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any failures and the steps it has taken to offer redress and learn from the complaint can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
  13. In this case, the landlord determined that a roof defect had caused the damp and mould. It repaired the roof and installed additional insulation and ventilation as preventative measures. On the advice of a surveyor, it also installed a PIV which would function as further prevention from mould recurring in the living space.
  14. There were delays throughout the repairs process; however, there is evidence that some appointments for the preventative activities were rearranged at the request of the resident. It would therefore not be fair to attribute all the responsibility for delays to the landlord.
  15. It offered compensation amounting to £250, with £100 of this being in vouchers to fund redecoration. While this was positive, it did not reflect the level of inconvenience for the resident. There is evidence that she had needed to use an unaffected bedroom to store furniture and belongings from the affected rooms. This caused additional disruption to the household while the landlord treated the affected bedrooms. It was 7 months between the original report of mould, and its contractor completing the full 3-step mould treatment and this was not reasonable or in line with its policies. The landlord also failed to acknowledge the resident’s concerns about the impact on her daughter’s health.
  16. If the landlord had not tried to offer a remedy, the Ombudsman would have found maladministration in this case. It offered redress however the impact of the service failures on the resident meant that its offer was not proportionate, therefore a finding of service failure has been made. An order for £350 has been made to reflect the impact caused to the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It promises to respond within 10 working days at stage 1, and 15 working days at stage 2. In this case, the landlord responded to the original complaint within a reasonable period. However, when the resident made the second complaint in July 2023 it is evident that the landlord continued to address the original complaint. The landlord should have considered escalating the original complaint to stage 2 rather than opening a new complaint.
  2. The second stage 1 response issued on 29 August 2023 did not address the resident’s complaint. She said that her desired complaint resolution was reimbursement for damaged property. The response did not mention this at all and instead stated that a surveyor would visit the property and discuss the next steps.
  3. Therefore, the complaints process in this case had 3 stages and took 129 working days. This was not reasonable, not in line with the landlord’s policy, and led to confusion and frustration for the resident. She raised multiple complaints throughout the period investigated and felt that she had to contact her MP, environmental health, and the Ombudsman for support. While the landlord apologised for any inconvenience, it did not offer any redress for complaint handling.
  4. The landlord has acknowledged to this Service that complaint handling in this case was not at the expected standard, and it did not always follow its policies. It has confirmed that it made changes since the date of this complaint and introduced a process to monitor complaint escalations more closely. For this reason, we will not make any orders relating to process changes in this report.
  5. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  6. We welcome the positive changes the landlord made to its processes following this complaint. However, this does not negate the impact on the resident. Due to the landlord’s errors the resident’s complaint took 129 working days to conclude, which was not reasonable and led to confusion and frustration. It did not offer any redress for the resident for the inconvenience, time and trouble she experienced.
  7. For the reasons above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order for £125 has been made to reflect the impact caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. This includes, but is not limited to:
      1. Delays with removing the mould in the affected rooms.
      2. The failure to escalate the resident’s complaint appropriately
      3. The original stage 1 response failing to address the resident’s complaint.
      4. The length of time taken to reach the end of the complaint procedure.
    2. Pay the resident £475 made up of:
      1. £350 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident due to its handling of her reports of damp and mould. This includes the £250 offered to the resident during the complaints process. If this has already been paid, it should be deducted from this order.
      2. £125 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident due to its complaint handling failures.
      3. Payment must be made directly to the resident and proof of payment must be given to the Ombudsman.