Your Housing Group Limited (202522934)

Decision
Case ID	202522934
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Your Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	13 February 2026

Background

1. In October 2024 the resident, who has long‑term illnesses and mobility issues, reported damp and mould in the property, a leak in the garage, and a loss of electricity in the garage. They later said that their belongings and some fixtures and fittings had been damaged by the damp and mould and by the landlord’s contractors.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
3. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the garage.
4. The landlord’s handling of a request to compensate for, and replace, damaged items.
5. We will also consider the landlord’s complaints handling.

Our decision (determination)

6. The landlord provided reasonable redress in its handling of reported of damp and mould.
7. The landlord provided reasonable redress in its handling of repairs to the garage.
8. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request to compensate for, and replace, damaged items.
9. There was a service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

10. The compensation offered was reasonable for the failings identified. The landlord’s handling of the temporary housing process could have been improved and we have made recommendations in this area.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the garage

11. The compensation offered was reasonable for the failings identified. We have recommended that the landlord implement changes to ensure repairs committed to during complaints are monitored until completion.

The landlord’s handling of a request to compensate for, and replace, damaged items

12. The landlord’s refusal to replace or compensate for damage to the internal doors and fitted wardrobe was unfair and inconsistent with the tenancy agreement.

The landlord’s complaints handling

13. The landlord did not respond to the resident within its policy timescales at each stage of the complaint. This indicates shortcomings in its complaints handling throughout its full internal complaints procedure.

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
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £725 made up as follows: £150 for the distress associated with the landlord’s refusal to replace internal doors in the property. £100 for the distress associated with the landlord’s poor planning around damage caused to an inbuilt wardrobe. The £375 the landlord committed to paying in its stage 2 response for the damage caused to furniture and frozen food, if this amount remains outstanding. £100 for the distress associated with its complaints handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 13 March 2026
2	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 13 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should agree a working practice with its contractors which outlines its expectations for occasions when contractors cause damage. This will help to ensure both parties understand how to evidence and report damage.
The landlord should ensure its staff are aware of items it intends to gift residents at the start of a tenancy, and that this is formally documented.
The landlord is to pay the resident the compensation of £825 offered during its stage 2 response in relation to the damp and mould repairs and garage repairs, if it is yet to do so.
The landlord should consider improvements it can make to ensure repairs committed to during its complaints process are monitored to completion.
The landlord should consider what steps it can take to ensure members of staff pay greater consideration to vulnerabilities when making decisions around temporary rehousing.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 January 2025	The resident complained to the landlord as they felt they had not been kept up to date about ongoing repairs in the property which were linked to damp and mould. They felt the repairs had been ongoing for too long, and they wanted the property to be brought to a safe and liveable condition.
18 February 2025	The landlord drafted a stage one extension letter, but this was not sent to the resident.
15 March 2025	The landlord sent its stage one response. It said: After the resident reported damp and mould on 24 October 2024 several appointments had been made to address this. The outstanding works were scheduled to occur during a period of temporary rehousing between 3 to 24 March 2025. It would conduct additional inspections on 22 May 2025. It apologised for the inconvenience the resident had experienced and committed to making improvements. It offered the resident compensation of £200 for its service failures, £100 for the inconvenience caused, and £50 for its lack of communication.
19 May 2025	The resident escalated their complaint as they were unhappy that the planned repairs had not been completed. They were also dissatisfied that their personal possessions had been damaged, and this had a financial impact on them.
2 July 2025	The landlord requested an extension for its stage 2 response as it wanted a damp and mould supervisor to visit the property to assess its condition.
30 July 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response, it said: A repair was raised on 25 October 2024 to inspect the garage and to re-instate the electrics. The inspection occurred on 27 January 2025, and repairs were raised to replace the roof and re-seal joints. Contractors who inspected the garage recorded that the electrics were faulty. The contractors did not re-instate the electrics as they noted this was not something they would repair. The landlord described the repairs it had undertaken to address the damp and mould in the property. After the resident escalated their complaint an inspection of the property was conducted. This inspection identified further repairs that were required. During repairs to the flooring internal doors in the property had been damaged, and they were removed. The resident disposed of the doors due to the damage. It felt the doors could have been salvaged and re-hung. It said internal doors are a tenant’s responsibility, and therefore it would not replace the doors. As a gesture of good will, it committed to replacing the kitchen and bathroom doors. It would not cover the cost of replacing furniture that was damaged by the damp and mould. It advised the resident to pursue the costs via an insurance claim. It offered £300 as a contribution to the costs. It had arranged for repairs to occur between August and September 2025. These included repairs to windows, fixing a conservatory panel and repairing the flat roof. It offered compensation in addition to its previous offer comprised of: £75 for inconvenience caused. £50 for its complaint handling delays. £75 for freezer food spoiled during the works. £200 for lack of communication. £200 for time and trouble. £300 towards replacing damaged furniture.
17 November 2025	The resident brought their complaint to us as they were dissatisfied that: The repairs conducted were poor quality and did not fully address the matters contributing to the damp and mould. They wanted the landlord to complete the remaining repairs. They felt ignored by the landlord due to its lack of communication and time taken to conduct repairs. They wanted the landlord to improve its communication and understand the impact of its actions. They felt the compensation offered did not adequately address the landlord’s failings.
January 2026	The resident experienced a house fire at their property. The fire caused significant damage, and the property is not currently suitable for occupation. The resident has said they do not wish to return to the property. The landlord told us it is supporting the resident with a rehousing application, and it has awarded the highest priority banding.

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.

Compensation calculations

14. In its stage 2 response the landlord offered £1,250 in compensation. The amount cannot be divided evenly across all parts of the complaint, as the landlord stated that specific sums related to particular issues.
15. Part of our role is to consider whether the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable, taking into consideration all the circumstances. As the landlord did not attribute specific amounts to each part of the complaint, for the purposes of this report we have apportioned the £1,250 in a way that is fair, aligns with the landlord’s stated intent, and recognises that damp and mould was the primary issue. We have apportioned the compensation as follows:
    1. Complaints handling: the £50 offered at stage 2 for complaint handling delays.
    2. The request to compensate for, and replace, damaged items: the £300 offered to contribute to the damaged furniture and the £75 offered for the spoilt frozen food.
    3. The remaining £825:
       1. £450 for the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould repairs.
       2. £375 for the landlord’s handling of the garage repairs.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould
Finding	Reasonable redress

16. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will aim to complete routine repairs within 28 days. Complex repairs are classed as major repairs, with an expected completion target of 90 days. It will share a plan and projected timescale for major repairs within 28 days.
17. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will aim to start damp and mould repairs within 28 days of the issue being reported, or within 7 days of a damp and mould inspection.
18. Under the landlord’s temporary relocation policy, residents can be moved temporarily while works are carried out. They return once the work is complete. The landlord will offer suitable alternative accommodation that reflects the resident’s needs, including any medical conditions.
19. On 25 October 2024 the resident reported damp and mould, leaking windows, and other leaks. The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable and prioritised the case. It arranged a mould wash for 26 November 2024, 33 days after the report. The visit did not take place and was recorded as no access. A heat loss survey took place around this time, but the landlord has not provided the records. This is poor record keeping. Without the survey findings, we cannot establish what assessment was made or how this informed the landlord’s response to the damp and mould.
20. The evidence suggests the resident may not have known about the mould wash appointment. They contacted the landlord on 12 November 2024 for an update and reported mould on carpets and skirting boards, and damp damage to built‑in furniture and wallpaper. An inspection took place on 14 November 2024 during which the landlord noted the resident was vulnerable and that the issue needed to be addressed “as soon as possible”.
21. The landlord then arranged further inspections and works between January and March 2025. The proposed dates meant the landlord had made plans which meant the works would not have been completed within its expected timeframes. This would have caused the resident distress, as they would have been required to live with the issues for longer.
22. In January 2025 the resident told the landlord they had been sleeping in the living room because the bedroom was cold and affected by mould. The landlord’s surveyor noted this was not sustainable given the resident’s medical needs. The landlord then arranged works to address the damp and mould. Records show it completed significant repairs, including installing a new drainage system, removing flooring, applying damp‑proofing measures, and redecorating. This was appropriate.
23. The landlord temporarily rehoused the resident between 3 and 24 March 2025 because the planned works involved removing flooring that contained asbestos. Given the nature of the works and the disruption involved, temporary rehousing was appropriate. However, the landlord did not complete all flooring works during this period. Its records show the resident said they should not be in the property because repairs were ongoing and water was pooling on the floor. Given the resident’s mobility needs, it was a failing that the landlord did not assess whether the rehousing period should be extended to reduce the risk of slips and trips.
24. The works the landlord carried out were significant and complex, so it was understandable that they could not be completed quickly. In such cases we expect landlords to be transparent and provide regular progress updates. The evidence shows communication was infrequent. The landlord said it had drafted a programme of works but had no evidence that this was shared with the resident. This was inappropriate.
25. When the landlord sent its stage 2 response, it had not completed all the planned works. It said it aimed to finish the windows, conservatory panels, soffits, fascias, and the flat roof by 24 September 2025, which was 11 months after the initial damp and mould report. Despite the complexity of the repairs, this timescale was significantly longer than expected under the landlord’s policies and caused extended disruption for the resident.
26. Based on our compensation calculations, we decided that the landlord awarded the resident £450 for its handling of the damp and mould works. In its stage 2 response it apologised for the delays and thanked the resident for their cooperation. We consider £450 reasonable for the time taken to complete the repairs.
27. While we have found failings in how the landlord handled the temporary rehousing period, we have determined that the compensation offered was reasonable when accounting for the failings identified as a whole.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of repairs to the garage
Finding	Reasonable redress

28. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will aim to address routine repairs within 28 days. If a repair is complex or requires specialist contractors, the landlord will class this as a major repair.
29. The property has a garage that is separate from the main structure, and is located on the driveway.
30. On 15 October 2024 the resident reported a leak into the garage from the roof. Contractors inspected the garage on 27 January 2025 and said the roof sheets needed replacing and the joints required resealing. This inspection took place 105 days after the report, which was unreasonable.
31. An additional inspection occurred on 30 June 2025. The surveyor noted the corrugated roof sheets had split, and this was allowing water to enter the garage.
32. On 25 October 2024 the resident also reported that the garage electrics were not working, saying they had been functional when they moved in. Contractors inspected the electrics on 18 December 2024 and found the wiring was faulty. They made the wiring safe but took no further action because they had not installed the original electrics. The landlord did not carry out further investigations to assess whether an appropriately qualified contractor could repair the fault.
33. In its stage 2 response the landlord said garage roof repairs were arranged for 8 September 2025. During our investigation, the landlord told us on 23 January 2026 that the repairs were still outstanding and that it had asked its subcontractor to arrange a start date. This represented a significant delay: the issue was first reported 15 months earlier, and the cause of the leak had been identified 12 months before our enquiry. We have recommended that the landlord consider improvements it can make to ensure repairs committed to during its complaints process are monitored to completion.
34. While the impact on the resident would have been limited because the garage was not part of the living area, the landlord’s lack of action would still have caused frustration. The water ingress also affected the resident’s ability to use the garage for its intended purpose.
35. In usual circumstances, we would order the landlord to inspect and repair the garage. However, as the resident is no longer living in the property and does not intend to return, we have not considered making orders relating to repairs on this occasion.
36. Based on our compensation calculations, the landlord awarded the resident £375 for its handling of the garage repairs. This is a reasonable amount for the distress caused by the failings identified, taking into account that the garage was separate from the living area of the property.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of a request to compensate for, and replace, damaged items.
Finding	Maladministration

37. The landlord’s compensation policy says requests are assessed on a case by case basis. It will not compensate for items that could be claimed through contents insurance, but it may award compensation or complete repairs where damage is caused by the landlord or its contractors.
38. The resident’s tenancy agreement defines the property as including the home and any furniture, fixtures and fittings that the landlord provides. Residents must insure their personal possessions. The landlord is not responsible for adaptations or fixtures and fittings installed by residents.
39. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of creating and storing accurate data. Maintaining good records enables landlords to provide better customer service and improves the overall quality of their services.
40. In February 2025 the resident asked whether the landlord would compensate for furniture damaged by damp and mould and for frozen food that thawed after contractors unplugged the freezer. The landlord advised the resident to claim through contents insurance and said it would contact its own insurer if this was unsuccessful. This was consistent with its policy. At stage 2 the landlord offered £300 towards the damaged furniture, which was a supportive gesture as the policy did not require it to pay compensation.
41. Before issuing its stage 2 response the landlord agreed to pay the resident £75 for the spoiled food. This was reasonable.
42. The landlord’s records show that in May 2025 the resident asked it to replace internal doors in the property which had been damaged by contractors. The contractors removed the doors from their hinges after the damage. When contractors cause damage, best practice would be for a landlord to record what happened, assess the damage, and decide whether repair or replacement is needed. The landlord kept no records, so it is unclear how the damage occurred, how extensive it was, or what action was considered.
43. In its stage 2 response the landlord agreed to replace the bathroom and kitchen doors as a goodwill gesture but declined to replace the others. It said it believed the remaining doors could have been repaired but were no longer available because the resident had disposed of them. It also said internal doors are a resident’s responsibility. There is no evidence to support the claim that the doors were repairable, as the landlord kept no records of the damage or of how the removed doors were stored. Its decision placed responsibility on the resident without acknowledging the uncertainty created by the lack of records.
44. The landlord’s position that the doors were the resident’s responsibility was inconsistent with the tenancy agreement and its policies. When asked to explain, the landlord accepted that the tenancy agreement does not make doors a resident responsibility but pointed to a clause requiring residents not to remove contents from the property. As the doors were damaged by contractors and the landlord did not ask the resident to retain the doors, it was understandable that they were disposed of. It was not reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to store large, damaged items without being told to do so.
45. The resident also said shelving in a fitted wardrobe had been removed and disposed of during the works. The landlord said the wardrobe had been installed by a former tenant. Normally, such items are ‘gifted’ to the incoming tenant and recorded as such, meaning the landlord will not repair them. The landlord had no record of any gifting. In the absence of such evidence, and given the tenancy agreement’s definition of the property, the landlord appears responsible for the fitted wardrobe.
46. The landlord declined to repair, replace, or compensate for the wardrobe. It said the resident had agreed to its removal during flooring works and relied on a surveyor’s email from 12 June 2025 which recalled this agreement. The works took place in March 2025 and there are no contemporaneous records showing that the resident agreed to removal or disposal, or that the landlord discussed repair or replacement. As the email was written three months after the works, it may not be an accurate reflection of what both parties understood at the time that the wardrobe was removed.
47. We consider the landlord’s response to the damaged furniture and spoiled food to be reasonable and consistent with its policy. However, there were significant failings in how it handled the damaged internal doors and the fitted wardrobe. In usual circumstances we would have ordered replacement of the remaining doors and reinstatement of the wardrobe. Given the house fire, we instead award additional compensation of:
    1. £150 for the landlord’s handling of damage caused to, and a request to replace internal doors.
    2. £100 for the landlord’s handling of damage caused to the in-built wardrobe.
48. In addition to this we have recommended the landlord takes additional action in an aim to prevent similar failures from occurring in the future.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

49. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its timeframes for responding to complaints. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of that acknowledgement. If the resident requests escalation to stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge the request within 5 working days and provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of that acknowledgement. If the landlord cannot meet either deadline, it is required to contact the resident within the relevant timeframe and request a 10 working day extension.
50. The resident submitted their complaint on 15 January 2025, and the landlord acknowledged this 10 working days later, on 28 January 2025. This was outside of its policy timescales. On 18 February 2025 the landlord drafted a 10 working day extension letter, but it told us this letter was not sent to the resident. This was unreasonable. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 15 March 2025; this was 34 working days after the complaint was acknowledged. The landlord did not recognise, or apologise for, the delays in its stage one response.
51. The resident escalated the complaint on 19 May 2025. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 4 June 2025, which was 12 working days later. It requested an extension on 2 July 2025, 21 working days after the acknowledgement. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 July 2025, 21 working days after the extension request.
52. The landlord did not meet its policy timeframes at any stage of the complaint process. In its stage 2 response, it acknowledged that delays had occurred and offered £50 in compensation. Although the individual delays were not substantial, the resident experienced delays at every stage of the process. The cumulative impact would have been frustrating for the resident, and the £50 offered at stage 2 did not fully address the shortcomings in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

53. The resident’s complaint, and the landlord’s handling of the complaint, highlighted shortcomings which the landlord should learn from.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

54. The landlord kept limited records about the damage that occurred during the repairs process. This affected its ability to assess responsibility for the damage, understand its extent, and evidence any commitments made at the time. Keeping accurate records would have supported the landlord in reaching decisions that were reasonable and fair.

Communication

55. Given the complex nature of the repairs, the landlord could have improved its communication by taking additional steps to keep the resident informed. These could have included agreeing a timeframe for regular updates or providing a single point of contact to support continuity and clarity.