Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Walsall Housing Group Limited (202445292)

Back to Top

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202445292

Walsall Housing Group Limited

24 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 the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat. The resident’s young child has a chronic lung condition and the resident was pregnant at the time of the complaint in November 2024. She also made the landlord aware of other household health conditions, including diabetes and asthma. The resident moved from the property in June 2025.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 15 November 2024 about ongoing damp and mould. She said that previous work had not resolved the problem, and the situation was impacting her family’s health. She advised that she was due to have another child and she wanted the landlord to move her family as she was not currently able to use a bedroom due to the damp conditions.
  3. The landlord inspected the property on 21 November 2024. It found that there was high humidity and condensation on windows and window sills. There was mould growth in the corners of the walls and around the windows of one bedroom, and mould growth in the bathroom, other bedroom, and living room. It found that the fans were switched off at the fuse and trickle vents closed in some rooms. It believed there was a lack of ventilation and recommended mould washing the affected areas.
  4. In its stage 1 complaint response on 6 December 2024, the landlord found:
    1. It did not initially raise works following an inspection on 26 October 2023. It set out the work it completed between February and March 2024 to repoint brickwork, renew the bathroom and kitchen extractor fans, and install a vent in the front bedroom and living room. It also noted that there were no signs of rising damp.
    2. Following further reports in June 2024, it arranged a survey on 4 July 2024, renewing the skirting board in the front bedroom and sweeping the cavity along the external wall on 10 July 2024. It had also installed data loggers for 2 weeks from 23 August 2024 and found that there were higher levels of humidity during showering and cooking activities. It did not find that these were significant during the warmer months.
    3. It referred her to its self help guides on 7 November 2024. It received a further report and surveyed the property on 21 November 2024. It found that there was a lack of ventilation and recommended a mould wash. It said the resident initially refused this on 29 November 2024, but it partially completed the work on 5 December 2024. It noted that she refused to allow it to apply fungi paint.
    4. It explained that fungi paint was essential as an extra protective barrier. It had agreed as an exception to investigate the windows in her daughter’s bedroom and carry out any necessary repairs to the window casement.
    5. It upheld the complaint on the basis that it did not initially raise works after the October 2023 inspection and offered £50 compensation.
  5. The resident continued to pursue her concerns about damp via her local councillor into January 2025. She also gave birth around this time and was concerned that she could not return home due to the damp.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 30 January 2025. She did not feel the level of compensation was suitable as the landlord did not compensate her for damaged belongings since 2018. The landlord advised her to speak to its risk and insurance team to raise a claim. It also explained that it only looked at the previous 12 months when handling complaints. The resident was unhappy with the length of time the unresolved damp had been ongoing and the proposed resolution, noting that it had completed multiple fungal washes which did not help. She said her daughter was sleeping in her room as the bedroom was smelling and soaking. She did not feel it was taking her daughter’s health conditions or the situation seriously.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 18 March 2025. In summary:
    1. It noted the findings of the surveyor in November 2024 and confirmed that it had completed previous works to install ventilation, point the external brickwork and sweep the cavity to remove any debris that could cause bridging. It noted that the fungicidal wash and mould inhibiting paint to areas of minor mould spotting were completed on 31 January 2025.
    2. It met with the resident and a surveyor on 6 March 2025. It apologised for the service she had received and recognised the distress and inconvenience caused. It found an area of cracked brickwork around the external wall by the front door of the upstairs flat and by the gully point of the rainwater downpipe. It also needed to inspect the area under the floorboards in the bedroom to check the effectiveness of the underfloor vents. It had scheduled the work for 19 March 2025.
    3. It needed to monitor the moisture, humidity, ventilation, and heating and had installed a monitoring device and sensors on 7 March 2025. It noted that the resident was currently pursuing a mutual exchange and it would carry out the work alongside that process.
    4. It increased its offer of compensation to £200 in recognition that it could   have completed all works within a shorter duration.

Events following the complaint

  1. On 19 March 2025, the landlord removed floorboards along the front wall of the bedroom to inspect for moisture and check the under floor air vents. It did not find signs of moisture or damp, and the underfloor vents were clear.
  2. Prior to the stage 2 complaint response, the resident contacted the landlord about damage to her belongings (on 7 March 2025). She listed costs associated with damaged belongings. On 8 April 2025, the landlord offered the resident £800 compensation to settle that claim.
  3. The resident referred her complaint to us for investigation as she remained unhappy with the level of compensation offered for the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said that she has experienced damp and mould in the property since 2010. While the historical incidents provide context to the current complaint, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to October 2023, which was around 12 months before the resident formally raised the complaint in November 2024. Prior to this, we have not seen evidence to show that she had reported damp and mould since December 2022.
  2. The resident reported that the long-term damp and mould impacted her family’s health, and medical conditions. It is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing, or to award damages in the same way a court might via a personal injury claim. The resident may want to seek independent advice on this. We have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused, and whether the landlord suitably considered the household vulnerabilities.
  3. In her complaint, the resident referenced damage to her belongings due to the damp and mould. It is not our role to decide whether the landlord was liable for the cost of damaged items as this is a matter best suited to an insurance claim. We note that she raised a claim with the landlord’s insurance team in March 2025 which the landlord settled in April 2025 by offering £800. We have not considered the damages settlement as part of this investigation.

Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days, and routine repairs within 45 days.
  2. The landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy states that it will contact customers after 28 days, following an initial diagnosis at the first point of contact, to determine whether a house visit is needed after guidance has been followed. Where advice and guidance to reduce damp and mould through mitigating environmental factors has not been successful, a surveyor is tasked to contact the customer within 5 working days and plan a visit.
  3. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It should acknowledge and respond to complaints at stage 1 within 15 working days, and complaints at stage 2 within 25 working days. If there is likely to be a delay, the landlord should contact the resident, explain the reasons for the delay, and provide a new response timescale.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. It is evident that the damp and mould in the property caused significant distress to the resident, who pursued her concerns for a considerable period. Within its responses, the landlord recognised that it had not raised works following an initial inspection in October 2023, and that it could have completed repairs between October 2023 and March 2025 within a shorter duration. It offered £200 compensation to recognise the impact on the resident.
  2. It may take more than one attempt to resolve damp as it can be difficult to identify the cause at the outset. In some cases, different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by a landlord.
  3. In line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS), the landlord has an obligation to address hazards and risks within its properties, including the presence of damp and mould. When assessing reports of damp and mould, we expect to see that it completed a damp assessment, using professional tools, to establish the underlying cause of the issues, and the location of defects that could contribute to damp and mould. It should assess all possible causes of damp, including leaks, rising damp, penetrating damp, and condensation. This is to have a clear understanding of the problem and provide a resolution within a reasonable timescale.
  4. Where the landlord finds that damp and mould relates to high humidity and condensation, it is expected to take all reasonable steps to mitigate the impact on the resident. This includes providing suitable advice regarding condensation, including adequately heating and ventilating the property, and installing ventilation measures to mitigate the impact.
  5. Following the resident’s report of returning damp on 22 October 2023, the landlord acted appropriately by inspecting the property within a reasonable timescale on 26 October 2023. In view of her reports that she was collecting excessive water from the windows in the property, alongside high humidity readings (79.8%) during the inspection, it was reasonable that the landlord believed the issue related to a lack of ventilation and condensation.
  6. The landlord has not disputed that it did not raise the recommended work to install and replace extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen, or repoint external brickwork at the time. This led to a delay of around 4 months in addressing the resident’s concerns. We note that it referred the resident to its its self help guide on 29 November 2023. While it was reasonable to provide advice from the outset, the landlord missed the opportunity to raise the necessary works. This led to her spending additional time and trouble pursuing her concerns both directly and via her local councillor into January 2024.
  7. The resident’s communication prompted another inspection on 6 February 2024. This again found high humidity levels (86.2%) and recommended the same work alongside installing vents. The landlord completed these works on 14 February, 23 February, and 22 March 2024 respectively, around 4 months after the initial inspection. The landlord acted reasonably through the complaints process by apologising for the delay in raising and completing works.
  8. Following further reports, the landlord inspected the property on 4 July 2024. It found no mould in the front bedroom and minimal mould in the living room (behind furniture) and around the bathroom windows. The humidity level during the inspection was 54.7% which is within a normal range. This shows that the steps it had taken to improve the ventilation in the property were at least partially successful in reducing humidity and condensation.
  9. It was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to complete a cavity sweep to reduce the likelihood of cold spots which could be at a higher risk of condensation related mould growth, and to renew the skirting board in the bedroom which had previously been affected by mould. While we have not seen evidence to show the findings of the cavity sweep, it apparently completed the work by 10 July 2024 which was within a reasonable timeframe. Given the history of damp in the property, it was reasonable for the landlord to take steps to monitor the humidity levels by installing a data logger between August and September 2024. It did not find that the humidity levels were significant in view of the warmer summer months at the time.
  10. The resident then began to report further damp and mould on 7 November 2024, and via her councillor on 12 November 2024. She said that the mould had returned and that she was clearing a significant quantity of water from the windows daily and replacing moisture absorbers weekly. This indicates high levels of condensation. She also noted that she could not turn the heating on as it made her daughter cough.
  11. The landlord acted reasonably in response to these reports by inspecting the property on 21 November 2024. This was within a reasonable timeframe. There were high humidity readings (77%) and it has provided photos showing significant condensation on multiple windows. We note that it checked the surface temperature of a bedroom wall where there was a more prominent area of mould. It found that the wall was warmer than the air temperature which indicates that there was not a cold spot contributing to the problems.
  12. At the time of the inspection, the landlord recorded that the internal temperature of the property was 15 degrees. Generally, properties should have an internal temperature between 18 and 21 degrees. Lower temperatures can increase the risk of condensation related damp and mould. While we appreciate the resident’s concerns about the impact of the heating on her daughter, adequately heating the property would reduce the likelihood of condensation related damp and mould.
  13. In addition, while the landlord has not referenced this within its correspondence to the resident, during the inspection in November 2024, it found that extractor fans were switched off at the fuse, and trickle vents to the windows were closed in some rooms. This indicates that these may have not been used effectively. While it had previously referred the resident to its self-help damp and mould guide, it would have been appropriate for it to have provided specific information about how inadequate heating can contribute to higher humidity levels, and the importance of using the ventilation measures it had provided to mitigate condensation related mould.
  14. It was reasonable in the circumstances, and in view of the resident’s concerns about the impact of mould on her daughter and unborn child’s health, for the landlord to arrange a mould wash of the affected areas to remove potentially harmful mould spores. While we appreciate the resident’s concerns that this would not resolve the situation, it was an appropriate step to reduce the potential impact on the resident and her household’s health.
  15. We note that the resident disagreed with the surveyor’s view that the damp and mould related to a lack of ventilation and she did not feel this was the only issue. She maintained that she ventilated the property appropriately, and she believed there was a problem with the windows and walls. While we appreciate the resident’s concerns, the evidence, including excessive condensation on windows and high humidity levels, indicates that it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the damp in the property was largely related to condensation.
  16. However, as part of damp investigations, we would expect landlords to take suitable steps to rule out other possible contributing factors. While it may have done so, we have not seen evidence to show that the landlord used a damp meter to test the walls of the affected areas. There is no evidence to show that there was evidence of leaks into the property, or tide marks that would indicate rising damp. However, it is unclear how the landlord satisfied itself that the internal parts of the walls were dry to rule out other contributing factors.
  17. Alongside the complaint, the resident contacted the landlord multiple times about the windows, which she said were part of a programme to be replaced. We note that there were conflicting opinions from operatives and surveyors who attended regarding whether the windows needed to be replaced.
  18. The landlord acted reasonably by confirming within its December 2024 stage 1 response that it would assess the window in the resident’s daughter’s bedroom. However, it was unreasonable for the landlord to say that it would not inspect the window unless the resident agreed for it to apply anti mould paint. It should have taken steps to ensure the windows were not contributing to the damp, in line with its repair obligations, regardless of whether she accepted the mould treatment.
  19. The landlord completed the final work to apply the anti-fungal paint, and install humidity sensors on 31 January 2025, following the resident’s agreement. However, we have not seen evidence to show whether the window inspection inspection went ahead, what the outcome of the assessment was at the time, or how it satisfied itself that the windows were not contributing to the damp within the property. In her communication with the landlord on 31 January 2025, the resident also referenced being told that it would install a positive input ventilation (PIV) unit, which can be useful in reducing humidity within a property. While the landlord’s records indicate that it was to ask internally about this, there is a lack of evidence to show it did so.
  20. The presence of damp in the property and lack of clear communication about the next steps was likely to be distressing for the resident, particularly given her daughter’s medical conditions, and that she also gave birth prematurely between December 2024 and January 2025. While the landlord had taken steps to remove mould spores in December 2024, it is understandable that the resident was worried that the mould would return in view of her past experiences. The landlord could have done more to provide clarity on why it believed the issue was purely condensation related to manage her expectations regarding the action it was able to take.
  21. We note that during a visit on 6 March 2025, the landlord identified repairs needed to the pointing around the neighbour’s front door (which was accessible via external steps adjacent to the affected bedroom), and around the gully which was also adjacent to the room. While it was reasonable for it to address these repair issues, we have not seen evidence to confirm that these repairs were causing damp to the walls or directly contributing to humidity levels within the property. As such, it is unclear how the landlord believed that completing these repairs would resolve the damp.
  22. We have found service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp. While delayed, the landlord took reasonable steps to install vents and extractor fans to improve the ventilation and reduce humidity in order to mitigate the impact on the resident. It took reasonable steps to refer her to its self help guidance from the outset. However, it would have been appropriate, following the inspection in November 2024, for it to have provided more specific advice around the importance of heating the property effectively, and using the ventilation measures it had provided to prevent condensation related damp and mould. It may have had the opportunity to take more effective measures had it engaged with the resident’s concerns about using her heating at the time.
  23. Given the history of damp in the property, we would have expected to see clear evidence to show how the landlord satisfied itself that there were no other contributing factors. While it is evident that there was a problem with humidity and condensation in the property, the landlord has not provided evidence to show that it ruled out all other causes in an attempt to resolve the situation.
  24. The landlord’s offer of £200 compensation goes some way to recognise the impact on the resident in line with our remedies guidance. However, we have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation in view of additional failings we have identified, including some poor communication regarding the damp and mould, and the lack of clear evidence to show that it followed up on her specific concerns about the windows and potential PIV.

Determination

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

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified.
    2. Pay the resident £350 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its handling of her damp and mould reports. This includes its previous offer of £200.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to us within 4 weeks.