Trident Housing Association Limited (202347952)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347952

Trident Housing Association Limited

3 November 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:

a.     Reports of damp and mould.

b.     Request for compensation.

2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 1-bedroom, ground floor flat. The landlord is a housing association. The resident is recorded as having mental health conditions and asthma.
4. There is a history of damp and mould reports since 2021. The landlord has arranged inspections and carried out remedial work, but the resident complained her belongings were damaged by mould. On 12 April 2023 the landlord offered £500 to replace damaged items in a stage 1 complaint response (it did not progress to stage 2).
5. Shortly after, the landlord repaired a leaking pipe underneath the property that had been contributing to the damp and mould. It also improved ventilation. The landlord arranged a joint final inspection and wellbeing visit for 25 July 2023 and found the damp and mould had returned. It was unable to carry out further investigations while the resident remained in the property. She asked for a permanent move but the landlord was unable to facilitate this.
6. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of repairs on 16 April 2024 and her MP formally complained about the lack of progress on 20 September 2024. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 24 October 2024 it explained the action it had taken. It said it would arrange another survey and carry out any remedial work after this. It agreed to review the compensation awarded for damaged items after an inspection.
7. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 November 2024, saying she believed the mould was due to rising damp. However, a subsequent inspection of 28 November 2024 concluded the cause was condensation and high humidity. The resident sent the landlord multiple images on 4 December 2024 via Whatsapp relating to costs of damaged items.
8. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 6 December 2024. It said it had carried out extensive repairs and installed ventilation solutions to address the damp and mould. It invited the resident to provide receipts or photos of damaged items and said it would review her costs for compensation. It offered a goodwill gesture of £200 for time and inconvenience.
9. The resident told us the compensation offered did not reflect the value of items she disposed of, including her bed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould

10. Damp and mould has affected the property since 2021. However, it was not until September 2024 that a complaint was made which subsequently exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. In the interests of fairness, and taking into account the availability of evidence, this investigation is focused on events from April 2023, which were addressed in both stages of the complaint process.
11. The landlord carried out extensive investigations and repairs in April 2023, which initially resolved the damp and mould. The subsequent wellbeing visit was arranged, in part, because the surveyor reported the resident was experiencing mental health problems. This was appropriate as the landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will arrange wellbeing visits for vulnerable residents or those identified as having damp, mould and condensation issues. It is also positive the landlord arranged a final inspection of the work carried out in April 2023 as its policy says it will adopt a proactive approach to post-work monitoring.
12. The landlord’s inspection of 25 August 2023 was appropriate after it found damp and mould had returned (it offered to inspect the property sooner but the resident declined). Its policy says it may need to carry out further investigations to identify the cause of damp and mould. We understand why the landlord needed to inspect the property before deciding the best way to remedy it and it arranged the survey at the earliest opportunity.
13. The landlord has not provided a record of this inspection but surveyor notes document that mould had returned under the stairs. They also noted that concrete affected by the previous leak would need at least 4 months to dry out and, ideally, the resident should move out whilst this happened. The surveyor also wanted to carry out invasive work to establish if there was water ingress from the ground or whether the damp proof course was breached, but again noted the resident would need to be decanted while this happened.
14. The landlord has not provided a full record of communication with the resident at that time, but internal emails suggest it offered to accommodate her in a hotel but she declined. The reason for this was noted as being because she had a pet and felt being away from people she knew would adversely affect her mental health.
15. The landlord investigated whether the damp may have been caused by insufficient heating in a neighbouring property (it later ruled this out). It fitted air vents and cleaned the black spot mould on 22 September 2023. This was appropriate as it could not carry out its planned investigations and could only treat the mould whilst the resident remained in the property. Alsothat day, the resident asked for an immediate move as she believed the damp and mould was affecting her health. As a result, the landlord tried to source temporary accommodation (other than a hotel, we note it could have explored this option sooner). The resident later asked for a permanent move, which the landlord progressed on 27 October 2023.
16. It is positive the landlord accommodated the resident’s request for a permanent move and offered an alternative property on 23 November 2023. However, the resident declined this as it was in an unfamiliar area and did not have a garden. While we fully understand the resident’s reasons for declining the property, the landlord’s letting policy says that single people should be offered a bedsit or a one-bedroom flat, and there is no requirement to offer a garden. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer her this property.
17. The landlord made no further offers of alternative accommodation at that time and the resident’s MP asked for an update on 13 February 2024. The landlord replied on 19 February 2024 that it was reviewing the issue. Internal notes document that the landlord was unable to carry out anymore investigations while the resident remained and it was trying to find suitable accommodation for a permanent move. We would have expected the landlord to tell the MP and the resident this and it later apologised for the delay in doing so.
18. The landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and tried to source properties with a garden, which was appropriate. It offered another property with a garden on 20 June 2024, but the resident declined this due to its location. The landlord offered further properties with a garden on 23 September and 8 October 2024 but the resident declined both.
19. Although the landlord could not carry out its planned investigative work, it was proactive and arranged further inspections on 17 and 22 October 2024 to see if there were any alternative ways to resolve the problems. However, both inspections were cancelled as the resident was unwell. Evidence suggests the landlord completed a mould wash while the investigations were outstanding, but it is not clear when this happened.
20. The inspection went ahead on 6 November 2024 and found damp, mould and condensation. As a result, the landlord arranged for external specialist contractors to survey the property on 28 November 2024 to determine the best treatment. This was appropriate as its damp and mould policy says it will work with external contractors to develop a long-term solution to damp and mould.
21. The external surveyor found low level passive air vents were closed. The resident told us she believed vermin may enter the property if they were open but the landlord disputes this and said there was a fine mesh to prevent this happening. The surveyor also noted that when the bedroom vents were open the relative humidity levels dropped from 95% to 76% in a short time. They concluded that condensation and high humidity were the main factors causing the ongoing issues.
22. The landlord’s stage 2 response documented what it had done to establish the cause of damp and mould and remedy this. This included reference to inspections carried out on 1 October and 1 November 2024. We have not seen a record of an inspection of 1 October 2024 but the landlord said it found the mould was caused by condensation and not rising damp. The inspection of 1 November 2024 appears to be an incorrect reference to the one carried out on 6 November 2024.
23. The landlord said the resident had declined its offer to visit the property and assess the issues further during a call of 4 December 2024. It highlighted that she had also declined alternative properties but said it would keep her on a waiting list. It offered to explore the option of a 2-bedroom property. This was appropriate as, although the landlord’s lettings policy only allowed for a one-bedroom property, it also said it could apply standards flexibly in the case of vulnerable residents. It said the landlord could exceed the standard to meet the needs of a particular individual and it is positive that it did so in this case.
24. The landlord did not uphold the complaint and said there was no evidence of rising damp. It advised the resident how to reduce damp and mould and recommended she kept air vents open, opened windows periodically to allow air circulation and maintained a consistent indoor temperature of 20 degrees. This was appropriate, as the landlord’s damp and mould policy says it should work with resident’s when damp and mould is caused by non-structural issues. It says it should consider improving ventilation (it had already done so) and provide practical advice to help reduce the risk of damp, mould and condensation.
25. The resident has told us that mould continues to affect the property. We do not dispute this or that this would impact her overall well being and enjoyment of her home. However, our role is to assess whether the landlord dealt with her reports of damp and mould reasonably and in line with its policies. As we have explained, overall, the landlord followed its damp and mould policy and acted appropriately to try and resolve the issues.
26. We accept the landlord was limited in the investigations and repairs it could undertake while the resident chose to remain in the property. We are satisfied it made reasonable efforts to mitigate this and it offered a number of suitable alternative properties that the resident declined. Therefore, we find there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
27. We encourage the resident to work with the landlord to facilitate any further inspections while she is waiting for a suitable alternative property. We recommend that the landlord carries out a further wellbeing visit to assess whether any more support is needed and provide an update on her re-housing application.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation

28. The landlord’s response to the previous complaint on 12 April 2023 said the resident had reported mould damage to: 2 sets of drawers; 2 material storage boxes; bedding; a mirror; footwear; and carpet. It offered £500 compensation for this damage and said it had asked contractors to redecorate and replace the carpet. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can award quantifiable loss payments when a resident’s property has been damaged because of its action or inaction. It says costs should be reasonable and evidence provided. We do not know if the resident provided evidence of her losses but it is positive that the landlord accepted responsibility for damaged items and made an appropriate offer of compensation. The resident informed the Ombudsman the replacement of the carpet has not been actioned, therefore a recommendation will be made to the landlord to respond directly to address the matter.
29. The landlord tried to complete a form with the resident so it could pay the compensation. However, she emailed on 12 June 2023 to say she could not do this on the phone and would collect a copy. As she failed to do so, her housing officer was asked to explore the reason for this during the wellbeing visit of July 2023. Records do not show whether he did. However, surveyor notes from 12 October 2023 document an attendance during which the resident gave him another list of damaged items.
30. Neither the landlord or the resident have been able to provide details of this list. The lack of formal records from the landlord in this case amounts to a failure in service. It should have records of important communications, rather than relying on email retention or notes of individual staff members. It appears the list prompted a further offer of compensation, as notes from 23 October 2023 document the landlord offering the resident a £150 voucher (the landlord has also referred to this as a ‘furniture starter pack’). They also say the landlord asked the resident to make a further list of the damaged items which it would consider. There is no evidence of her providing this further information and she declined the £150 voucher as her support team told her not to accept it.
31. The resident has provided copies of messages from 2 support workers which say she received support between April 2023 and July 2024. They say they contacted the landlord during that time to progress the resident’s claim for compensation, but there are no records of these communications so we cannot ascertain what action the landlord took, if any.
32. The next significant event was when the resident emailed the landlord on 24 September 2024. She said all her clothes, furniture and bed were becoming mouldy. The landlord’s stage 1 response said they would need to investigate any damage as the resident had not provided specific details. The landlord said it would need to inspect the property and consider support with replacement items. There is a record that the housing officer attended the property on 17 October 2024 but the resident did not answer the door (although the resident disputes this).
33. The landlord’s stage 2 response said the resident declined its offer to visit the property and assess her request for compensation as she felt it was unnecessary (although no formal record of this has been provided). It invited her to provide receipts or photographs of damaged items and said it would review her costs for compensation. This was reasonable and in line with its evidence-based approach to quantifiable loss payments. Although the landlord gave the resident a further opportunity to provide additional information to support her claim for damaged items, again we have not seen evidence that she did so.
34. The Ombudsman acknowledges the provision of a screenshot of a Whatsapp conversation illustrating multiple images sent on 4 December 2024 to a member of the landlord’s staff. This coincides with the date of the telephone conversation referred to within the landlord’s stage two response. There is no evidence to suggest the images had or had not been reviewed at this stage, however, I find it reasonable the landlord may not have been able to review the images in the timeframe prior to the stage two response being issued. In line with evidence that further images were issued on 4 December 2024, a recommendation will be made to the landlord to review all images provided.
35. We do not dispute the resident’s reports of damage, but our role is to assess whether there was maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to compensate her for this and whether it was appropriate and in line with its policies. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response. 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.
36. We are satisfied the landlord has offered appropriate compensation for the items listed in paragraph 28. We cannot determine if the £150 offered in recognition of the damage reported in October 2023 was appropriate. However, following this the landlord invited the resident to provide further evidence. As aforementioned, the resident provided evidence of photographs which it is unclear if the landlord had reviewed, a recommendation has been made.
37. The landlord did not provide a breakdown of the £200 payment awarded for time and inconvenience. For the purposes of this investigation, we have allocated £100 to the issues identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation. We are satisfied this payment recognises any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its record keeping failures. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of up to £100 when there is a service failure that did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident but resulted in distress and inconvenience (the landlord uses our framework as a guide). Therefore, we find the landlord has provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for compensation.

Complaint handling

38. Records of 16 April 2024 document that the resident had called the landlord and said she was very unhappy with the service she had received in respect of the damp and mould. It noted she was extremely frustrated with the lack of response and felt the landlord was not keeping her informed. She had also tried to progress this issue with us at that time.
39. The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation’. It is clear the resident was dissatisfied in April 2024 and the landlord should have clarified whether she wanted to pursue this dissatisfaction as a formal complaint. It should have also provided her with an update to reassure her that her concerns were being taken seriously. There is no evidence that it did and this was a failure in service.
40. The landlord ultimately logged a complaint following the MP’s contact in September 2024. The landlord’s complaint policy also says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. Although it requested a 10-day extension on 9 October 2024, it should have already issued the stage 1 complaint by 4 October 2024. The stage 1 response was then issued 1 day outside of the extension. Again, this was a failure in service although we note the detriment to the resident was minimal during this short delay.
41. Following the resident’s complaint escalation, the stage 2 response was issued within a reasonable time. On 11 November 2024, the landlord told her to expect the response within 20 working days and it provided one within this timeframe.
42. We are satisfied the remaining £100 (of the landlord’s payment for time and inconvenience) recognises any distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. It is in line with our guidance and we would expect to see awards of up to £100 in recognition of time and trouble caused by delays getting matters resolved. Therefore, we find the landlord has also awarded reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling failures.

Determination

43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
44. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the:
    1. Resident’s request for compensation.
    2. Associated complaint.

Recommendations

45. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Pay the resident the £850 previously offered for damaged items and distress and inconvenience, if it has not done so already. This recognised genuine elements of service failure and the reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this being paid.
    2. Arrange a wellbeing visit with the resident to ascertain if she needs further support in respect of damp and mould, and provide an update on her application for an alternative property.
    3. Review the images provided by the resident via Whatsapp on 4 December 2024. If appropriate, the landlord should consider whether further action such as an offer for compensation is warranted.
    4. Contact the resident and respond to the assertion the resident’s carpet has not been replaced.