Watford Community Housing Trust (202530619)

Decision
Case ID	202530619
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Watford Community Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 March 2026

Background

The resident has lived at the property since 2011 with her children. She told us that 3 of her children have health conditions that she believes are affected by damp and mould in the property. She said she has reported damp and mould concerns for several years and that the issue returned in 2025. A surveyor attended. When she did not receive any further updates following the surveyor’s visit, she raised a complaint.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damp and mould.
2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. The landlord made an offer of reasonable redress for its handling of damp and mould at the property.
2. Service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

The landlord provided reasonable redress to recognise the impact of its acknowledged failure to act on the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property, including a payment to reimburse her for damaged flooring.

The complaint

The landlord accepted that it did not log the resident’s initial complaint. This was a failure in its complaint handling, which the landlord did not acknowledge during the complaint process.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £100 to acknowledge the failings in its complaint handling. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment made direct to the resident by the due date.

No later than

23 April 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should pay the resident the £1000 it offered in its complaint process if it hasn’t already done so. This payment recognised genuine elements of service failure and we made the reasonable redress finding on that basis.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 June 2025	The resident complained about the return of damp and mould at the property. She set out her children’s health problems. (The landlord now acknowledges it logged this as a service request rather than a complaint.)
3 September 2025	The resident complained that a surveyor had attended to assess damp and mould at the property but that no repairs had been completed afterwards.
4 September 2025	The landlord called the resident to acknowledge and discuss her complaint.
17 September 2025	The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It apologised, saying that while a surveyor had visited in June 2025 and said works were necessary, the case had been incorrectly closed. It had arranged another survey on 16 September 2025 which revealed that a temporary decant would be necessary while it completed works. It offered £250 for its delay in completing repairs and £100 for its lack of communications following the survey.
22 September 2025	The resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said she: would accept temporary accommodation if pets were allowed felt the completed works had been temporary fixes felt that the disruption and serious impact on her family’s health over the years warranted higher compensation had incurred costs for flooring and painting which had been damaged by the damp and mould
15 October 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said it: accepted the resident had been reporting damp and mould since 2011 had failed to investigate the root cause of the problem was now arranging multiple works to improve the condition of the property had arranged a “serviced apartment” for the family to stay in It increased the compensation to £500 and offered to pay £500 for her damaged flooring in the lounge and hallway.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident took her complaint to the Ombudsman. She was concerned about how the landlord handled: the temporary relocation process, including the accrual of car parking tickets and having to permanently rehome her dog increased electric bills at the property during the relocation and items damaged by the damp and mould the impact on the household in terms of health since 2011 and the resident having to take time off work for stress the return of damp and mould at the property a few weeks after they returned She did not consider the compensation offered by the landlord was sufficient.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Damp and mould
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we did not investigate

The resident has said this situation has impacted her children’s physical health and her mental health. If she believes the landlord’s actions or inaction have affected her family’s health it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. It is best for the courts to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice. We have therefore not investigated this further.
Within her complaint, the resident has said that the property has been affected by damp and mould since 2011. As matters become historic, it becomes harder for this service to fairly investigate issues due to reasons such as the passage of time and staff turnover. This investigation will therefore concentrate on events which took place in the lead up to a complaint the resident made in September 2025.
The resident has also said that since the final response was issued in October 2025, she told the landlord that the damp and mould had returned. This is understandably distressing for the resident. However, the Ombudsman’s role is to investigate complaints brought to it that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process. This investigation report, therefore, concerns the matters which were the subject of the resident’s formal complaint in January 2025 and which were the subject of the landlord’s final response dated 15 October 2025.
The resident has also told us that she wishes to complain about the temporary relocation, (including increased electricity bills through the period she was relocated, parking charges at the temporary accommodation and (and as her dog did not settle after an extended stay away from the property), having to rehome it. She said she had also incurred costs because of damaged personal possessions such as clothing and a sofa. However, she did not raise these as issues during the landlord’s internal complaints process. She would need to do so before we can consider looking at those matters.

What we did investigate

When a landlord acknowledges failings, as it has in this case, we consider whether its redress offer was sufficient to put things right and resolve the resident’s complaint. In doing so, we assess whether the landlord’s redress, which included an apology, compensation, and an action plan to complete the works, aligned with our Dispute Resolution Principles: to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
In its complaint responses, the landlord accepted that it did not act on the findings of a survey completed on 27 June 2025. The surveyor identified several repairs, but these were not raised or progressed because the landlord closed the case in error. The condition of the property worsened. By the time the resident complained in September 2025, the family had to move into temporary accommodation.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord set out an action plan for extensive works. These included replacing the bathroom, kitchen, and flooring in those rooms, and carrying out work to the damp‑proof course. It also increased its compensation to £500.
The landlord apologised for its poor communication and the inconvenience the resident experienced. It acknowledged that earlier action to identify the cause of the issues at the property would have prevented some of the disruption to the resident and her family.
The resident said the compensation offered did not reflect the impact of the issues on her and her family. The landlord’s compensation policy does not specify amounts for this type of failure. However, £500 aligns with our own guidance on remedies for a range of failings of this type and nature, so it was reasonable redress in the circumstances of the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s handling of the matter.
The landlord also offered £500 to contribute towards the cost of replacing damaged flooring. It explained how it calculated this figure, and its rationale was clear and reasonable. This was also a remedy and contributed to the overall reasonableness of the landlord’s response.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process that is line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
Following our enquiries, the landlord accepted that it should have logged the resident’s complaint on 16 June 2025 as a stage 1 complaint. Its failure to do so resulted in a delay of 57 working days before a response was issued. It is positive that the landlord eventually recognised this error. However, if it had logged the complaint when first received, the steps it took once it did log the complaint on 3 September 2025 could have been taken earlier, which may likely have reduced the inconvenience to the resident. Further, if it had recognised this error before the end of its complaints process, it would have had the opportunity to provide a remedy, acknowledging its mistaken approach.
At stage 2, the landlord responded within the 20-day timeframe.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

As noted above, failings in the landlord’s record‑keeping contributed to its failure to respond to the damp and mould reported at the property. The landlord should consider the recommendations in our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management to support accurate and consistent record keeping.

Communication

The evidence shows that when the landlord did communicate with the resident, its communication was clear and constructive. In particular, the staff member who contacted the resident on 3 September 2025 to acknowledge her complaint provided accurate information and responded appropriately to her concerns.