Yorkshire Housing Limited (202333578)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333578

Yorkshire Housing Limited

24 July 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:
1. Damp and mould.
2. A delay in setting up his direct debit and rent account.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord. The resident completed the purchase of the property on 22 July 2022. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
On 23 July 2022, the resident told the landlord he was disappointed with the handover process due to poor customer service and snagging issues. A document from 26 July 2022 noted 92 snagging issues in the property. The landlord met the resident on 3 August 2022 to discuss the snagging issues. At this visit, he told the landlord his independent contractor had identified mould behind the skirting boards.
The resident raised a complaint on 28 October 2022 as he was unhappy there was a delay in setting up his rent account and direct debit. He disputed the arrears on his account.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 November 2022. It acknowledged it did not correctly follow its process to set up the resident’s rent and service charge account and direct debit when the sale of the property completed. It offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
The resident escalated the complaint as he did not think he should pay rent as the property was not habitable. The date of the escalation request is unclear from the evidence provided.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 21 December 2022. It said the resident reported damp and mould in August 2022 and it arranged the necessary works for the week commencing 22 August 2022. There were some delays as the resident asked the contractor not to continue with the works and the contractor left the property due to the resident’s behaviour. The extent of the damp and mould did not prevent the resident from moving into the property as it was not unfit for habitation. It apologised for the inconvenience caused as he had to take time off work to travel to the property. It offered £250 compensation.
To resolve the complaint, the resident told the Service he wanted compensation for fuel expenses to travel to the property, bills incurred when the contractors were completing works, and the rent paid when he was unable to live in the property.
Following the completion of the complaint process, the landlord paid a settlement. It said “In full and final settlement of all remaining matters, including, but not limited to, damages, repairs, costs, and interest. If accepted [the landlord] would pay you the sum of £17,500 which you could then use to effect the repairs to your property in any way you wish, using your own contractors. That would then extinguish any further liability for [the landlord] to pay for repairs or compensate you in any way, and your claim would be over.” In his complaint to the Service, the resident disputed that this was to cover the damp and mould issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In his complaint to the Service, the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of the bathroom repairs and that he was without use of a toilet for a prolonged period. However, there is no evidence this was raised as part of the complaint. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new complaint to the Service if required.

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

Under the terms of the lease, the resident would typically be responsible for repairs to the property. However, when the property was in the defect liability period, the developer was responsible for any repair issues resulting from defects. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days. The Service’s spotlight report “A new lease of life: Spotlight on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds: complexity and complaint handling”, noted “during the defect period residents are reliant on the landlord to pursue the developer. Landlords must pursue these issues effectively on their behalf.”
The resident initially reported damp and mould on 3 August 2022 during a meeting with the landlord regarding snagging issues in the property. He said his independent contractor had identified a vast amount of mould under the skirting boards. He requested the developer to inspect within one week.
The landlord promptly responded on 8 August 2022 and said the developer confirmed the issue was caused by a leak, which it had repaired. It said it would commence works on 22 August 2022 to strip and replace the damaged plasterboard and skirting boards and re-decorate. It said alternatively the developer offered to pay a settlement to allow the resident to complete the works, after which he would accept any future liability.
The resident was dissatisfied with the proposed work and did not think it would be completed to a suitable standard. The landlord appropriately responded to his concerns as it promptly attended to investigate the issue on 12 August 2022. The contractor found low moisture meter readings which it said was consistent with the finding that the leak was not ongoing. The landlord therefore determined that the proposed works would be sufficient to resolve the damp and mould issues.
The work commenced on 22 August 2022. However, on 24 August 2022 the resident asked the landlord not to return. He said the contractors were careless and the property had been left in a state of disrepair. He reported the contractors damaged a radiator, banister, front door, and fireboard. He also said he did not want an apprentice to complete the works. It is understood that any further damage would have caused additional distress and frustration to the resident. The following day, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the failings in the attitude and workmanship of the contractors. It said it would repair the issues reported by the resident and would brief the contractors on the expectations.
The contractor recommenced works on 25 August 2022, but they left the property due to “pressure / scrutiny” from the resident. In correspondence with the Service, the resident disputed he was rude to the contractors and said he only asked that the works were completed to the correct specifications. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine the exact nature of the interaction between the resident and the contractors due to the limitations of the evidence provided. However, the contractors would be entitled to leave the property if they did not feel there was a suitable working environment.
The landlord internally noted it was unable to complete works in September 2022 due to the resident’s independent contractor completing floor tiling. It recommenced works on 10 October 2022. From the evidence provided, it appears the damp and mould works were completed on 28 October 2022.
In its complaint response, the landlord explained that the damp and mould did not prevent the resident from living in the property as it was not unfit for habitation. It recognised his concerns that the damp and mould could impact his daughter’s asthma, but said the works could have been completed quicker if he had allowed the contractors to continue.
The resident also told the Service he was dissatisfied as he said the landlord had left him primarily responsible for liaising with the subcontractors. The landlord had offered to retain a key, so the resident did not need to be at the property during the works to reduce the impact caused by him travelling to the property. However, he declined this offer. The landlord therefore made reasonable attempts to reduce the impact on the resident.
Overall, the landlord largely took reasonable steps to resolve the damp and mould. It promptly took actions to liaise with the developer, arrange the works, and address the resident’s concerns about the scope of the works. The delays caused by the resident asking the contractor to leave, the contractor leaving due to the resident’s reported behaviour, and the resident’s independent contractor completing tiling works were largely outside of the landlord’s control.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised the inconvenience caused by the repairs due to the time the resident had to take off work and travel to the property. It offered £250 compensation. The landlord subsequently offered a £17,500 final settlement which covered “damages, repairs, costs, and interest”. The landlord confirmed this was in place of any previous compensation offers that the resident had not accepted.
The resident disputed that the settlement was inclusive of the damp and mould issues. In correspondence with the landlord’s solicitor, the resident stated he thought the settlement was to pay for repairs and he considered the damp and mould to be a separate matter. However, the solicitor reiterated it was to cover all matters, and that “damages” covered all aspects of the case including repair costs, disrepair, inconvenience, and any other costs.
On reviewing the evidence, the Ombudsman has determined that the costs incurred by the resident due to the damp and mould issues were considered as part of the final settlement offer. This is because the damp and mould issues were reported as part of the snagging issues in the property and were resolved prior to the settlement agreement. The landlord’s solicitor also confirmed that the offer was inclusive of all issues and damages.
The resident discussed the proposed settlement amount with the landlord’s solicitor and the landlord provided an extension to allow the resident to seek legal advice to properly consider the offer. This meant he had sufficient opportunity to review the details of the offer before accepting it.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In this case, the landlord acted reasonably by engaging a solicitor to reach a reasonable level of compensation to resolve the issues, which the resident accepted.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a delay in setting up his direct debit and rent account

The sale completion date was 22 July 2022. From this date, the resident was responsible for paying rent to the landlord for the portion of the property it owned. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that following the sale completion it received a copy of the completion statement, direct debit mandate, affordable home ownership approval, and mortgage offer. It stated upon receiving these documents it would normally set up the rent and service charge account and direct debit. However, it noted it did not complete this due to human error.
As part of the complaint resolution, the landlord set up the rent and service charge account to commence on 1 December 2022. This was over a 4-month delay, which exceeded a reasonable timeframe. However, there is no evidence to suggest the resident chased the matter prior to raising the complaint so the landlord did not necessarily have the opportunity to identify its error and resolve the matter at an earlier date.
Due to the error, the balance on the account when it was set up was £1000.69. This may have caused detrimental financial implications for the resident. However, this is somewhat mitigated as he would have been informed of the monthly rent amount prior to the completion of the sale.
The resident told the Service he thought the landlord had waived the rent as he was not living in the property due to the damp and mould issues. His concerns regarding whether the property was habitable have been assessed separately above. There is no evidence that the resident had discussed this with the landlord or that such agreement was reached. The resident was therefore still responsible for the rent charges during this period.
Considering its error, it was appropriate that the landlord offered £50 compensation. It also apologised for the inconvenience caused. This is in line with the Service’s remedies guidance which states that £50-£100 compensation is appropriate where there was a minor failure in the landlord’s service which may have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to the Ombudsman’s investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the following complaints satisfactorily:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould; and
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a delay in setting up his direct debit and rent account.