Westward Housing Group Limited (202414474)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414474

Westward Housing Group Limited

18 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:

Reports of drainage problems, damp and mould, and associated repairs at the property.
Concerns about the front door causing a pest infestation within the property.
Reports of an electrical fault.
Request for it to replace the windows.
Request for it to repair the damaged fence.
Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a 2-bedroom house. The resident is registered disabled which the landlord is aware of.
In early 2023 the resident’s solicitor submitted a legal disrepair claim to the landlord. Between March 2023 and July 2023 the landlord:
1. Inspected the damp and mould in the property.
2. Renewed the silicone between the frame and reveal of the front door.
3. Carried out a repair to the fuse box in the front porch.
In October 2023 the landlord’s surveyor said that following their visit to the resident’s property:
1. They found no evidence of a blocked drain and the driveway was clear of water.
2. The walls showed no sign of damp.
3. The front door was not warped.
4. The windows did not need to be repaired or replaced.
On 27 February 2024 the resident said she had withdrawn her disrepair claim and raised a formal complaint about repairs at the property. She said:
1. The drain outside the property was overflowing and the water was going through the cracked side of the property causing rising damp.
2. There was black damp and mould within the property.
3. The wooden windows were rotten, and water dripped on the inside of them.
4. The contractor had only carried out a temporary repair to the fuse box.
5. A fence panel had blown over and she had been unable to deal with this.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaints the same day. It then raised an emergency repair to make the fence safe.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 8 March 2024. The landlord apologised for its delays in handling the repairs and arranged for a surveyor to carry out an inspection at the property on 14 March 2024.
Between 16 March 2024 and 11 April 2024 the landlord raised a number of repairs to be carried out at the property.
On 12 April 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaints. The resident said the landlord had not communicated with her about the repairs and they remained unresolved.
On 20 May 2024 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaints. The landlord said:
1. When it visited the property on 17 May 2024, the porch showed no indication of rising damp, and there was no pooling water on the driveway.
2. It had cleaned the mould on the bedroom ceiling and had raised a job to make good the insulation in the eaves of the property.
3. A contractor had repaired the fuse box in June 2023.
4. It had agreed to:
  1. Change the setting on the extractor fan in the bathroom which would manage the small amount of mould on the ceiling.
  2. Ease the lock on the front door which was catching.
  3. Attend and make the fence panel safe.
5. It would not replace the wooden windowsills with UPVC.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaints. She brought her complaints to the Ombudsman stating the damp and mould had returned and some of the repairs were still outstanding. The resident would like the landlord to carry out the repairs to a satisfactory standard.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Scope of investigation

Section 42.e. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where a complainant had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings. We are aware the resident raised a legal disrepair claim, which she withdrew in February 2024. We also understand that no claim has been heard by the court to date, and matters were subject to the pre-action protocol stage. Therefore, the landlord’s handling of these repairs is within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider as it has not formed part of the formal stages of legal proceedings at this time.
Section 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. We have considered that the resident has said some of the repairs within her complaints go back to early 2022. However, in line with the Scheme, we have considered the landlord’s handling of these matters from March 2023 until the landlord’s final complaint response on 20 May 2024. This is because March 2023 is 12 months before the resident raised a formal complaint.
Section 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states we may not consider matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, or other tribunal procedure. We are sorry to hear the resident’s account that her health had been impacted by the damp and mould in her property. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can cause damage to health, particularly for those with respiratory problems or a weakened immune system.
However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to assess the specific impact of any action or inaction by the landlord on the resident’s health. Matters of liability for personal injury are better suited to a court or liability insurance to determine. We have considered the general impact the damp and mould would have had and the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that her health had been affected due to a repair issue.

The resident’s reports of drainage problems, damp and mould, and associated repairs at the property.

On 22 March 2023 the landlord’s surveyor reported they had identified issues with condensation during an inspection of the damp and mould at the property. It then took the landlord 11 months to act on the surveyor’s recommendation to provide the resident with information on how to manage this. This was also after the resident raised her complaint. The landlord should have directed the resident to its published guidance to assist her in managing the condensation in her property within 5 working days of it receiving this recommendation.
During the same inspection in March 2023, the surveyor said they found no defects or blockages in the drainage system at the property. We have not seen evidence of any reports about this issue again until February 2024. Therefore, based on the lack of further reports by the resident, it would be reasonable for the landlord to consider the matter to have been resolved.
On 26 February 2024 the resident reported the drain was overflowing and causing standing water on her driveway. She said this was slippery and a trip hazard. It was appropriate the landlord raised a repair. However we have not been provided with any evidence this repair was responded to. We would expect the landlord to be able to provide this information and its failure to do so is evidence of poor record keeping. The landlord should have responded to this as an emergency repair, which its repairs policy states it will respond to within 24 hours.

On 14 March 2024 the landlord completed another inspection of the damp and mould within the resident’s property. The landlord raised a job on 16 March 2024, for it to carry out a mould wash to the bedroom ceiling. The landlord carried out this repair 52 days later on 7 May 2024. This was a routine repair which the landlord should have carried out within 28 days, in line with its repairs policy. This delay would have inconvenienced the resident as she was living with untreated mould for longer than she should have been.
In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaints on 20 May 2024, the landlord acknowledged the resident had experienced previous issues with the drains, as well as having water pooling on her driveway. It was reasonable the landlord explained:
1. Its surveyor had not identified any issues with the drainage system during their most recent visit to the property.
2. There were no signs of rising damp at the property.
3. The property had a damp proof course which would restrict any moisture penetrating the property.
4. It would respond to any future reports including to clear the gulleys, as it had done previously.
The landlord said it would arrange for the extractor fan to be set on a low setting continuously to assist the resident in managing the condensation in her property. The landlord completed this repair 224 days later on 30 December 2024. This was a significant delay, which should have been completed within 28 days as a routine repair. The delay would have added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
The landlord carried out repairs to the insulation in the eaves of the property on 24 May 2024. This was an appropriate response because it was completed 17 days after it was first raised and carried out as a routine repair.

The Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of drainage problems, damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property. This is because of its repeated delays throughout its handling of this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord is to pay the resident £200 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets out our approach to compensation. Examples of this level of compensation in our guidance include where the landlord has made errors which caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident but there may be no permanent impact.
The resident has told us she still has a problem with the drains and that the issue is contributing to a pest infestation at the property. Therefore, we will make an order for the landlord to carry out an inspection of the drainage system. The landlord is to then set out a schedule of works it is responsible for, including estimated timescales that are reasonable and in line with industry best practice, which it is to share with the resident and the Ombudsman.

The resident’s concerns about the front door causing a pest infestation within the property.

On 22 March 2023 the landlord’s surveyor said the front door to the property was not warped. However, the landlord did agree to renew the silicone between the frame and reveal of the front door which it completed on 22 May 2023. The works were completed outside its published timescales of 28 days. However, this was reasonable because the landlord had made a number of attempts to contact the resident during this time to arrange the appointment to do the work.
On 26 February 2024 the resident raised a complaint that her front door was warped. She also said the gap under the door was allowing an infestation of insects to access the property. The landlord inspected the front door 81 days later on 17 May 2024. The landlord should have completed this inspection within 28 days of the resident raising the report.
The landlord said the door was not warped, and there was no sign of a pest infestation during its visit to the property, on 17 May 2024. The landlord accepted the lock on the front door was catching and agreed for its contractor to ease the lock. The landlord raised this repair 181 days later on 27 November 2024.
The resident confirmed this appointment did happen after this date. However, we have not been provided with any information about when it took place. This is a significant delay and is evidence of the landlord’s poor handling of its repairs.
The resident has told us there is still a gap in the bottom of her front door. Therefore, we will make an order for the landlord to carry out an inspection of the front door and to carry out any repairs for which it is responsible.
In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaints, the landlord advised the resident it was her responsibility to manage any pest infestation within her property. This advice was not in line with the landlord’s pest control guidance published online which states the landlord is responsible for investigating all reported pest issues.
Whilst we understand the landlord did not identify a pest infestation, its communication with the resident was not in line with its own guidance.
For the reasons described above, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the front door causing a pest infestation within the property.
The landlord is to pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as set out above.

The resident’s reports of an electrical fault.

On 18 June 2023 the resident reported a smell coming from the fuse box in the porch of the property. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day as an out of hours response and carried out a repair. This was an appropriate response as it was in line with its repairs policy which states the landlord will respond to emergency repairs and make them safe within the 24 hours.
On 26 February 2024 the resident chased the landlord stating the original contractor who had attended the property told her:
1. They had carried out a temporary repair.
2. The fuse box would need to be repaired or replaced.
The next day, the landlord arranged an appointment to inspect the fuse box. We have not been provided with any explanation why this appointment did not go ahead. There is no evidence the landlord followed this matter up which is a failing. The landlord then changed its position in its final response to the resident’s complaint on 20 May 2024. The landlord said it was satisfied its original contractor had completed the repair and no further works were required. The landlord said it had taken this information from a repair log. We have not seen this evidence. We understand the landlord’s decision to change its mind about the inspection and close the matter caused the resident distress.
Where there is a lack of independent evidence to support the account made by the resident about what the original contractor told her, the Ombudsman as an impartial arbiter cannot determine what was said by the contractor. However, the landlord should have investigated these concerns raised by the resident, including speaking to the contractor about what they told the resident. The landlord should have then communicated its findings of the investigation with the resident.

The resident also said she had chased the landlord between June 2023 and February 2024, about the repairs to the fuse box. The resident said the landlord responded and asked her if she still wanted the repair of the fuse box to be carried out. We have not been provided with any evidence to corroborate this communication between the resident and the landlord. Therefore, we are unable to assess this communication due to the lack of available evidence.
However, the landlord should have carried out an inspection of the fuse box as it had initially agreed to do in February 2024. We will make an order for the landlord to carry out this inspection.
For the reasons described above, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of an electrical fault.
The landlord is to pay the resident £100 compensation for this aspect of the complaint.

The resident’s request for it to replace the windows.

Between March 2023 and January 2024, we have not seen any evidence of reports made by the resident about her windows. We understand the landlord’s surveyor visited the property within that time as part of the resident’s disrepair claim. We also acknowledge the surveyor said there was no disrepair to the windows at the property. the landlord was entitled to rely on the surveyor’s opinion that there were no repairs needed to the windows and was not obliged to take any further action until the resident next raised this as an issue in February 2024.
On 26 February 2024 the resident said she had requested for the landlord to install UPVC windows at the property. The resident said the wooden window frames were rotten which caused the paint to peel. She also said the windows dripped water on the inside. The landlord acted appropriately when it carried out an inspection of the windows 17 days later, on 14 March 2024. This is because this type of inspection should be completed within 28 days, in line with its repairs policy.
The landlord said it had offered to decorate the window frames. It also repaired the hinge in the front bedroom window. The resident declined the landlord’s offer to decorate the windows as she said this would not solve the problem as the wooden frames were rotten.
The landlord is not obliged to install UPVC windows as it is entitled to repair or replace the windows with like for like materials. However, its repairs policy states the landlord is responsible for keeping external window frames and sills in a good state of repair. Therefore, whilst we are not commenting on the resident’s reasons for refusing the landlords offer to decorate the windows, it was appropriate it did so, in line with its repairs policy.
The resident has told us the landlord has since applied sealant around the windows. She said these works were completed to a poor standard. The resident said the window frames which are rotten, soak up water which then contributes to the condensation within the property. We recommend that the landlord carries out a full inspection of the windows at the property as it has been two years since its last inspection and the windows’ condition may have changed since then. The landlord should communicate its findings of this inspection to the resident, and it should carry out any works for which it responsible.
The landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s request for it to replace the windows was appropriate given regard to all the circumstances. This is because the landlord is entitled to make good any window repairs as an alternative to replacing them. If the landlord’s repairs were then unsuccessful, it would then be reasonable for the landlord to consider replacing the windows at the property. Therefore, the Ombudsman makes a finding of no maladministration for this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

The resident’s request for the landlord to repair the damaged fence.

On 26 February 2024 the resident reported a fence panel had fallen down between the resident and her neighbour’s property. The landlord raised an emergency repair and responded the next day. The landlord was unable to access the fence within 24 hours as per its published timescales due to the resident not being at the property. The landlord acted appropriately by raising the repair again on 1 March 2024 and then removing the broken fence panel.
On 20 May 2024 the resident asked the landlord to install a new fence panel as she had been unable to let her dog out. In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord said that fence panels between neighbouring properties were the responsibility of residents. This advice was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy which states the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair fences which it has installed. We have not seen any evidence the landlord sought to ascertain who originally installed the fence. The landlord should have investigated this and then it should have communicated with the resident about who was responsible.
The resident has informed us the landlord installed a new fence panel after its final response to her complaint. Whilst the landlord provided inaccurate information, its actions were reasonable in making the fence safe. The landlord also ultimately installed the new fence panel, although the missing panel may have caused the resident to be concerned about security, she would still have had access to her garden with a missing fence panel. Therefore, for these reasons the Ombudsman makes a finding of no maladministration for this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

The resident’s associated complaint.

On 26 February 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of the above repairs. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaints and then provided its stage 1 and stage 2 written complaint responses on time, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code), which sets out our service’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling.
In the landlord’s stage 2 written complaint response, the landlord said the resident could escalate her complaint to stage 3 of its internal process. This was inaccurate information as the landlord previously reduced its complaints procedure to a 2-stage process. The landlord was right to apologise to the resident for giving this incorrect information and referred the resident to the Ombudsman. This failing caused no detriment to the resident as she was ultimately able to refer her complaint to us without delay. It was also positive the landlord changed its procedure to ensure it was in line with the Code.
The landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s complaint was appropriate given regard to all the circumstances. Therefore, the Ombudsman makes a finding of no maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord does not need to do anything further regarding this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of drainage problems, damp and mould, and associated repairs at the property.
2. Concerns about the front door causing a pest infestation within the property.
3. Reports of an electrical fault.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for it to replace the windows.
2. Request for it to repair the damaged fence.
3. Associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology is to be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance that it acknowledges the maladministration and expresses a sincere regret for errors in its handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of drainage problems, damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.
2. Concerns about the front door causing a pest infestation within the property.
3. Reports of an electrical fault.
The landlord is to pay the resident a compensation payment of £400. The breakdown of this compensation is as follows:
1. £200 for its maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of drainage problems, damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.
2. £100 for its maladministration in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the front door causing a pest infestation within the property.
3. £100 for its maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of an electrical fault.
The landlord is to carry out the following within 6 weeks:
1. An inspection of the drainage system at the property.
2. An inspection of the front door including the gap at the bottom of the door.
3. An inspection of the fuse box in the porch of the property.
The landlord is to then set out a schedule of works it is responsible for, including estimated timescales that are reasonable and in line with industry best practice, which it is to share with the resident and the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

The landlord should carry out an inspection of the windows at the property. The landlord should share its findings of these inspections with the resident. The landlord should then set out a schedule of works it is responsible for, including timescales that are reasonable and in line with industry best practice, which it is to share with the resident.