Cornwall Housing Limited — case 202520036

Decision Case ID 202520036 Decision type Investigation Landlord Cornwall Housing Limited Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 22 January 2026 Background The resident lives in a 2-bedroom bungalow. He reported that there was damp and mould throughout the property and complained that he was experiencing rising damp in his bedroom. He said the issue had caused damage to some of his belongings. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and request for compensation for damaged belongings.

We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling. Our decision (determination) We have found that: There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and request for compensation for damaged belongings. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Summary of reasons The landlord acknowledged that it failed to take action to address the issues identified during its initial inspection. It offered compensation which was proportionate to its failings and took appropriate steps to put things right.

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy and complied with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). 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. Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident compensation of £1,000. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and request for compensation for damaged belongings, is made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 12 February 2025 The resident reported damp and mould throughout his property.

He complained to the landlord that he was experiencing rising damp in his bedroom and said that water had come up through the floor and damaged his carpets and bedframe, He said he had to dispose of the items and was now sleeping on the floor. He asked the landlord either to move him to another property or to resolve the issue. 19 February 2025 The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said that it had visited the property and found damp areas on the bedroom floor.

It said moisture readings taken on the walls were consistent with rising damp and that other parts of the property showed signs of damp, mould, and water ingress. It confirmed that it would arrange works to address these issues and asked the resident to provide evidence of the belongings he said had been damaged. 28 May 2025 The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He said the landlord had not carried out any work following its stage 1 response. He explained that he could not provide a receipt for his bedframe because a family member had purchased it.

He also said he was sleeping on his sofa, as he was unable to use the mattress in his bedroom due to the wet floor. 26 June 2025 The landlord issued its final complaint response. It apologised for not taking action after its stage 1 response. It said it had spoken to the surveyor who attended on 12 June 2025, who found minimal mould in the property and noted that the bedroom floor was dry. It explained that it had arranged a cavity wall inspection because of the earlier surveyor’s findings.

The landlord said the resident had not provided evidence to show that mould had damaged his belongings, but it would contribute towards a new bedframe as a goodwill gesture. It confirmed it would complete the cavity wall inspection by 2 July 2025 to determine whether rising or penetrating damp was present. It also said it would clear the gutters and remove ivy to address the possible cause of damp patches on the ceiling and wall edges. The landlord offered the resident £1,000 in compensation.

27 June 2025 The landlord’s contractor completed the cavity wall inspection and issued a report. The report recommended several works, including replacing the existing insultation and carrying out repairs to the render on the external walls. 23 July 2025 The landlord completed the cavity wall insulation works and the repairs to the external render. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate his complaint.

He said the landlord had not resolved the rising damp in his property, which had prevented him from using his bedroom. He also said the landlord had not completed the remedial works identified from its initial inspection in February 2025. He asked the landlord to move him to a new property and cover his costs. 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 The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and request for compensation for damaged belongings. Finding Reasonable redress What we have not considered The resident told us that the condition of his property and having to sleep on his sofa has damaged his health and caused him injury. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused.

The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience. What we have considered The resident reported damp in his bedroom on 12 February 2025. The landlord inspected the property on 19 February 2025 and recorded high moisture readings on the bedroom floor beneath the mattress.

The inspection also noted high moisture readings on the walls and said the issue could be caused by rising damp. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord set out the remedial works it considered necessary and said it would arrange these. However, it did not complete any works following its response. The failure to carry out the necessary works in a meaningful timeframe was unreasonable, left the issue unresolved and caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The landlord carried out a second inspection on 12 June 2025 and found that the bedroom floor was dry.

A contractor completed a cavity wall survey on 25 June 2025. In its report dated 27 June 2025, the contractor stated it was unable to confirm whether there were signs of rising damp but noted that a visible damp proof course was in place. The survey identified problems with the cavity wall insulation that affected thermal performance. It also found cracks in the external walls that were likely to contribute to the internal damp and recommended repairs to address these issues.

In its final complaint response, the landlord agreed to complete several actions by 2 July 2025. The evidence showed that the landlord carried out the gutter and ivy clearance and the cavity wall inspection within the agreed timescales. It completed the cavity wall insulation replacement and render repairs by 23 July 2025. After the landlord issued its final response, the resident disputed its decision not to carry out the actions recommended in the initial survey. The evidence shows that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in July, August and September 2025 and explained its position.

It said it had based its decision on its most recent survey and the report from an independent contractor. In response to the resident’s continued concerns, the landlord carried out a further inspection on 17 October 2025. The inspection found that there were no floor coverings in the bedroom and that the damp reported by the resident was caused by condensation, not rising damp. The assessor explained that concrete floors were designed to have underlay and carpet to prevent warm air from condensing on the cold surface.

The resident had placed mattresses directly on the bare concrete floor, which restricted the airflow and caused moisture to build up beneath them. Moisture readings taken with pinned probes were normal except in the areas beneath the mattresses. The assessor noted the walls showed no signs of rising damp and that no repairs were required. The assessor advised the resident to install suitable floor coverings and raise furniture off the floor. He told the resident if he installed carpets as recommended and they were later damaged due to a proven landlord issue, the landlord would compensate him.

The assessor noted the resident declined to lay carpets until the landlord resolved the issue. While the resident was dissatisfied the landlord had not acted on the recommendations from the February 2025 survey, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the more recent findings of its qualified contractors and internal assessors when deciding what repairs were needed. The surveys completed between June and October 2025 found no signs of rising damp and confirmed that a damp proof course was in place.

As these later inspections provided clearer and more comprehensive evidence, the landlord was entitled to base its decisions on the professional advice it received and to determine that no further remedial works were required. As part of his complaint, the resident asked the landlord to compensate him for damage to his belongings. The landlord asked the resident to provide evidence of the damage, but we have seen no evidence he supplied the requested information. The landlord’s compensation policy states it may award compensation for damaged belongings if there is evidence that the damage was caused by its service failure.

It was appropriate for the landlord to consider the resident’s claim, however, as he did not provide evidence of the damage, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline this request for compensation for damaged belongings. The resident asked the landlord to move him to a new property as a resolution to his complaint. The landlord responded on 23 July 2025 and explained that its investigation had found no evidence of rising damp in the bedroom. It therefore considered the room suitable for use and concluded that the resident did not meet the criteria for a managed or temporary move.

The landlord provided information on how he could apply for a move through a mutual exchange or the local council. This response was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s policy. The landlord explained why the bedroom was considered usable and how the resident could pursue a move through the routes available to him. In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged it failed to act after its initial inspection. It offered compensation of £1,000, which included £635.

58 for the loss of use of the bedroom for 27 weeks, calculated at 25% of the rent, plus £250 for distress and inconvenience caused by the delay, and £100 goodwill contribution towards the cost of a replacement bedframe and mattress. This totalled £985.58, which the landlord rounded up to £1,000. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.

The landlord’s compensation of £1,000 and actions to resolve the complaint were in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and learn from Outcomes. When assessed against our remedies guidance, we consider the landlord has made an offer of compensation which was proportionate to the failings we have identified by our investigation and put things right. This leads to a determination of reasonable redress, in that the landlord has made an offer of compensation which satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding No maladministration The landlord’s complaint policy is in line with the Code The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 and 2 of its process within the timescale allowed by its policy. We have found no failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. This leads to a determination of no maladministration. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) We have seen that the landlord kept records of contact made with the resident and repair logs.

We have identified no issues with the landlord’s record keeping in this case. Communication The landlord demonstrated effective communication with the resident following his stage 2 escalation. Its communication was timely and transparent.