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.

Town and Country Housing (202451395)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202451395

Town and Country Housing

17 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since October 2023. The property is a 1-bedroom flat.
  2. Since 7 October 2023 the resident has reported damp. The landlord has inspected on multiple occasions and completed various works, including gutter clearance, installing additional insulation, external repairs to the roof and damp proof course, mould washes and upgrading the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
  3. The resident made his first complaint on 2 January 2024, saying he was unable to sleep in his bedroom as water was dripping from a leak in the roof. He said the damp and mould was affecting his health and he felt the landlord should be dealing with it more quickly.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 7 February 2024 it upheld the complaint because of delays and poor communication. It apologised and offered £351.50 compensation (£250 for the service failures and £101.50 reimbursement for use of a dehumidifier over a 4 week period in January and February 2024).
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 22 March 2024, as the damp and mould was unresolved. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 8 May 2024 it again upheld the complaint as the cause of the damp could have been identified and resolved sooner. It apologised and offered £1,682.16 compensation (£250 for distress and inconvenience and £1,432.16 for damaged items) in addition to the compensation offered at stage 1.
  6. The resident made a second complaint on 10 December 2024, reporting further damp. He said he had been told he would be responsible for repairing damage caused by fitting a new extractor fan in the kitchen, and did not feel this was fair. He said his belongings had been damaged because of the damp and asked for compensation.
  7. On 24 December 2024 the landlord sent its stage 1 response to the second complaint. It said the complaint was not upheld as the previous extractor fans had been working correctly, and the replacements were upgrades. It said it would not normally decorate properties after works were completed, but as a gesture of goodwill, it had agreed to do this.
  8. The resident escalated his second complaint to stage 2 on 6 February 2025 because of failed call backs and a lack of updates. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 5 March 2025 said the complaint was upheld as there had been service failure. It apologised, offered £700 compensation and confirmed its action plan to resolve the damp and mould.
  9. The resident asked us to investigate his complaint in May 2025. He said the damp and mould was unresolved and he wanted the landlord to move him to another property.

Assessment and findings

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord is responsible for addressing damp and mould in line with section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp.
  2. In October 2023 the resident reported leaks from the bedroom ceiling and windows. These were reported as individual issues, so it was reasonable for the landlord not to undertake further investigations and only complete repairs for the specific concerns reported. However, when the resident told the landlord in mid-November 2023 that the ceiling leak was ongoing (after a roof repair had been completed) and that damp and mould was affecting his health, it was sensible for the landlord to inspect on 4 December 2023.
  3. When dealing with damp and mould, it is vital that landlords not only treat it, but also seek to identify and resolve the underlying cause. The landlord has inspected the property on at least 6 occasions between December 2023 and August 2025; and on all occasions, it has considered the cause and sought to address this. This is reasonable and shows the landlord wants to resolve the issue.
  4. During the inspection on 4 December 2023, the landlord identified possible causes of the damp and mould. While positive, a subsequent inspection completed on 16 January 2024 highlighted further possible causes that had not been identified during the previous inspection. Considering the nature of these issues, including a lack of insulation and problems with the damp proof course, they would have been evident during the earlier inspection. This suggests it was not sufficiently thorough.
  5. This resulted in an avoidable delay in the landlord identifying and resolving the issues. It subsequently acknowledged there was a delay in it progressing the case to a surveyor for assessment and it is likely this was the reason for this failure. This delay was distressing for the resident as he had told the landlord he could not sleep in the bedroom because of this.
  6. Following the landlord’s inspection on 16 January 2024, it raised a works order for the identified repairs the following day. It subsequently completed these 29 days later, on 14 February 2024. This was 1 day over the 28 day committed timescale for routine repairs. As this was a minor delay, this was not a failure.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 January 2024 regarding the outstanding repairs. The following day, the landlord suggested revisiting the property and told the resident it would contact him to book this. However, it never did. The resident chased this up the following week, but it was only in the stage 1 response to the first complaint a week later that the landlord told him the plan had changed and a visit was not needed. While reasonable that the landlord decided this, it should have told the resident. Its failure to do so meant he was left expecting contact and feeling let down when this did not happen.
  8. The resident reported that the damp and mould was ongoing on 11 March 2024, and asked for a surveyor to attend. The landlord arranged this for 15 April 2024, 5 weeks later. Considering the resident had said the damp and mould was affecting his health, this was too long. Its failure to arrange this sooner suggests it had not properly considered the impact on the resident. The inspection in April 2024 did not go ahead and was subsequently rebooked for May 2024. As this was at the resident’s request, this further delay was not a failure by the landlord.
  9. At the inspection on 13 May 2024, the landlord identified works to address the damp and mould, which it completed 57 days later, on 8 July 2024. This was more than double the 28 day timescale for routine repairs. While there were a number of jobs required, these were not complex so it should have completed them within the timescale for a routine repair. Its failure to do so was unreasonable.
  10. When the resident reported the damp and mould had recurred in August 2024, it was sensible for the landlord to instruct a third party, specialist surveyor to inspect. This went ahead on 27 August 2024 and recommended improving the ventilation by upgrading the extractor fans. The landlord did not complete this work until 6 months later, on 24 February 2025. This was too long considering the specialist surveyor had concluded a lack of adequate ventilation was a likely cause of the damp and mould; and the resident had told the landlord this was negatively affecting his health.
  11. When the landlord attended to complete the work in February 2025, the operatives were unable to identify where the kitchen fan was venting to and believed this would have contributed to the humidity levels. It is a concern that the landlord had not identified this sooner, as it had been dealing with the damp and mould for 16 months by that point. During this time, it would have been sensible to check and overhaul the extractor fan to ensure it was working correctly. Adequate ventilation is a key factor when dealing with damp and mould and this contributed to the overall delay in resolving the issue.
  12. The landlord’s second stage 1 response said, once it had completed the upgrade works to the extractor fans, it had no further concerns about the property. It told the resident that if the problems persisted, it recommended seeking rehousing. This was an inappropriate response as the landlord could not know if the extractor fan upgrade works would fully resolve the damp and mould. If they did not, and it recurred, the landlord was still obligated to investigate further. By telling the resident to consider rehousing, it made him feel it was washing its hands of the matter and would not take further action.
  13. The resident asked the landlord to redecorate on several occasions after it completed works. The landlord said it did not normally redecorate after it completed works, but it had done this for him on a number of occasions. The resident told the landlord he had spent large amounts of money redecorating and this was clearly a major concern for him. Therefore, it was sensible for the landlord to agree to redecorate, and showed it was taking his concerns seriously.
  14. It can be challenging for landlords to resolve damp and mould and this often requires an incremental approach as there can be multiple factors contributing to it. We recognise it is distressing for the resident that the damp and mould has been a recurring problem for the last 2 years. While there have been some delays in the landlord addressing this, it is reasonable that it continues to take an incremental approach to resolving the issue.
  15. The landlord has identified failure in its communication. This is appropriate, as we have seen evidence that the resident had to chase for updates on multiple occasions and, at times, this is what prompted further action to be taken. In recurring issues such as this, it is important that the landlord schedules proactive contact with the resident so they are reassured it is taking the matter seriously. Residents should not be expected to expend time and trouble chasing for updates, as happened in this case. This was frustrating for the resident and made him feel the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
  16. From at least November 2023, the resident has told the landlord the damp and mould is negatively affecting his health and has provided at least 2 medical letters supporting this. Because of this, he has said the property is uninhabitable and has asked to be moved. While the landlord temporarily moved him for 3 days in February 2023, there is no evidence it formally responded to this concern until its stage 2 response to the second complaint on 5 March 2025. This was 16 months after the resident first told it about the impact on his health.
  17. The landlord’s complaint response said it would not agree to move the resident, either temporarily or permanently, as it believed completing the identified works would resolve the problems. While this may have been the case, there is no evidence the landlord considered the resident’s specific health concerns as part of this assessment. Similarly, there is no evidence this was considered during any of the property inspections completed over the last 2 years. This is a concern, as the resident has told the landlord on multiple occasions how the damp and mould is affecting his health. The landlord’s failure to properly consider this has left him feeling let down.
  18. As part of its stage 2 response to the second complaint, the landlord told the resident it could not address compensation claims for impact on health via its complaints process and he would have to raise this as a public liability insurance claim. This was reasonable and in line with its compensation procedure. For similar reasons, we cannot determine that there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. We are aware he has submitted a public liability claim via the landlord’s insurer, which is the correct process for this to be considered.
  19. The landlord inspected the property in August 2025 and identified further works, which the resident has confirmed it is completing this month. This is positive and shows it is committed to resolving the issues. The resident said the landlord has told him it will not complete any works in the bedroom as there was no damp and mould when it inspected. This is confirmed by its inspection note. While disappointing for the resident, it is reasonable that the landlord will not complete further works, if there are no current or ongoing concerns.
  20. However, as damp and mould is seasonal, and considering the resident’s comments about the impact on his health, it would be sensible for the landlord to arrange a follow up inspection, when the weather turns colder, so it can proactively check whether the damp and mould has returned. In doing so, it will remove the need for the resident to expend further time and trouble in re-reporting this if it reoccurs.
  21. Therefore, we have recommended the landlord arrange an inspection of the property for 6 weeks’ time so it can assess whether the damp and mould has returned. It should also assess whether the property is habitable, taking into account the resident’s health concerns. The outcome of this to be confirmed in writing to the resident, including any actions it will take, with a timescale for these to be completed, and whether it will provide temporary or permanent rehousing.
  22. The resident told the landlord his personal items had been damaged as a result of the damp and mould. In response to this, the landlord provided a claim form and requested evidence of the damage. This was in accordance with its compensation procedure and was reasonable. The landlord subsequently agreed to pay the resident £1,432.16 as reimbursement for damaged items, which he accepted. As we have seen evidence this has been paid, we have not made a recommendation in respect of this. As the resident has said further items have been damaged as a result of the recurring damp and mould, we have recommended the landlord write to him with details of how to make a further claim.
  23. In January 2024 the resident asked for compensation for costs he had incurred running a dehumidifier. In the landlord’s complaint response the following month, it offered £3.50 a day for this; which was reasonable and in line with its compensation procedure. The resident subsequently accepted the £101.50 offered and we have seen evidence that this has been paid to him.
  24. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter across both complaints, apologised and offered a total of £1,200 compensation for the service failures, distress and inconvenience. 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.
  25. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused, and in consultation with our remedies guidance; the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident. We have recommended the landlord pay the resident the £1,200 compensation, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord acknowledged the first stage 1 complaint on 2 January 2024, 2 working days after the complaint was made. This was in line with its complaints policy at the time, which said it would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
  2. The landlord sent the first stage 1 response in 25 working days. This was more than double the 10 working day committed timescale set out in its complaints policy. During the period of delay, there is no evidence the landlord told the resident about this or provided a revised deadline, as required by its complaints policy. It was only after the resident expended time and trouble chasing the response on 5 February 2024, that it sent it 2 days later.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the first stage 2 complaint on 8 April 2024, 9 working days after the complaint was escalated. This was in contravention of the 5 working day committed timescale. While the landlord noted internally that this was delayed, it did not acknowledge this delay or apologise to the resident. Nor did it confirm a timescale in which it would send the response. This left the resident uncertain on when he would receive this.
  4. The landlord sent the first stage 2 response in 21 working days. This was 1 working day over the 20 working day committed timescale set out in its complaints policy. However, the landlord informed the resident about this on 1 May 2024, when it asked for a 5 working day extension. The landlord went on to meet this extended deadline. Therefore, this was not a failure.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the second stage 1 and 2 complaints in 5 and 3 working days respectively. This was in line with the 5 working day timescale. The landlord sent the second stage 1 response in 5 working days, and the second stage 2 response in 16 working days. These were, again, in line with the 10 and 20 working day committed timescales.
  6. The landlord acknowledged there had been failures in its handling of the first stage 1 complaint, and apologised for this. However, there is no evidence it considered any other redress, which it should have done. Similarly, it did not offer any redress, such as an apology, for the delay in it acknowledging the first stage 2 complaint. This was unreasonable.
  7. While the landlord identified failure in its handling of the complaints and offered some redress, this is not quite proportionate to the failings identified. Therefore, a finding of service failure is appropriate and we order the landlord to pay the resident £60 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures with minimal impact, that did not affect the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has paid the resident £60 compensation for its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord:
    1. Arranges an inspection of the property for 6 weeks’ time so it can assess whether the damp and mould has returned. It should also assess whether the property is habitable, taking into account the resident’s health concerns. The outcome of this to be confirmed in writing to the resident, including any actions it will take, with a timescale for these to be completed, and whether it will provide temporary or permanent rehousing.
    2. Writes to the resident with details of how to make a further claim for damaged items.
    3. Pays the resident the £1,200 compensation already offered for its handling of damp and mould, if not done so. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.