Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Limited — case 202520033

Decision Case ID 202520033 Decision type Investigation Landlord Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 30 January 2026 Background The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since May 2003, the property is a 3-bedroom, ground floor maisonette. The resident lives with her son, daughter-in-law and granddaughter. Since at least January 2023 the landlord has been treating damp and mould at the resident’s property.

Despite multiple mould treatments the resident has continued to report the return of the mould. As the landlord was unable to carry out a lasting resolution to the damp and mould the resident raised her complaint in February 2025. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould in the property. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. Our decision (determination) There was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of to reports of damp and mould in the property.

There was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord offered £500 for its poor handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It said this offer was in recognition of the delays in it starting the mould works and the break down in communication with the resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge these failings and offer compensation.

However, it has not acknowledged its failure to carry out the investigations recommended by the independent surveyor or to explain why it has not. This caused a delay in the landlord potentially identifying and resolving the root cause of the damp and subsequent mould in the property. This in turn meant the resident was left in a property suffering from damp and mould for an extended period. It also carried out works which had previously been used and had failed to resolve the issues.

Therefore we have ordered the landlord to increase the compensation offered, carry out the recommended investigations and provide a detailed action plan for any identified works. The landlord failed to adhere to its complaints policy timescales and this delayed its response to the complaint. As such we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation for the inconvenience caused. 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 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 the landlord’s management team.

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 27 February 2026 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,000 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the reports of damp and mould. This includes an additional payment of £500. The landlord must also pay £50 compensation for the impact of its failure to adhere to it complaints policy timescales and address all the resident’s complaint points.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. No later than 27 February 2026 Inspection orders The landlord must carry out the investigative surveys recommended in the independent surveyor’s report. It must also inspect the property and consider if the circumstances in the resident’s home amount to a potential emergency or a potential significant hazard.

If the circumstances could be, it must carry out an investigation in line with the provisions of the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date or within the relevant prescribed requirement if it believes Awaab’s law applies. The inspection(s) must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to inspect, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.

What the inspections must achieve The landlord must ensure the surveyor(s): Inspect all the plumbing below the bath, the below ground drainage and water supply pipes, the front external communal walkway and rear external balcony above the resident’s property. The landlord must refer to the independent surveyors report for the details on what these inspections must include. Inspect the entire property for any concerns with the walls, flooring, brickwork, damp, mould and necessary repairs.

The respective survey report(s) must set out: The condition of the pipes, underground drainage, communal walkway and balcony. If any current escapes of water were found or defects which could allow water to penetrate into the property. Whether there is an emergency or significant hazard – based on the conditions in the property and the household’s health and circumstances. If there are any hazards, confirm whether the property is fit for human habitation. A full scope of works, including timescales for completion, to permanently resolve any identified issues the landlord is responsible for.

If the landlord is not responsible for these issues, explain why. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during any required works. No later than 13 March 2026 Survey reports order Following the completion of the above surveys, the landlord must provide this Service and the resident with a copy of the inspection report(s) along with a detailed and timed schedule of works for any remedial works identified. No later than 10 April 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 16 February 2025 The resident raised her complaint.

She said that for years the landlord had carried out mould treatments but the mould kept returning. She said the landlord had failed to find the root cause of the mould and enact a permanent solution. She said the landlord’s failure to permanently resolve the issue had impacted her grand-daughter’s health. She also raised concerns about the mould spray used by the landlord as she believed the chemicals in it were potentially dangerous. She said that after raising this the landlord used a different mould wash but it contained the same chemicals.

She said for that reason she refused further mould washes. 24 February 2025 The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had made every effort to resolve the damp and mould issues, arrange the necessary investigations and carry out subsequent works. However, it said it would contact the resident within the next week to arrange a survey by an independent third-party damp and mould specialist. It said it would then carry out any recommended works. 21 May 2025 The resident escalated her complaint.

She said the landlord had still failed to find a permanent solution to the damp and mould issues. She said during the survey in March 2025 she was told the thermoboard installed the year before would slow the return of the mould but not stop it. However, when she spoke to the landlord in April 2025 it said the survey had recommended the installation of thermoboard. She also raised concerns about the impact the mould was having on her grand-daughter’s eczema. The resident also said the landlord had ignored her concerns about the health risks of it using mould washes containing chloride.

11 July 2025 The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged there had been a service failure due to a breakdown in communication and delays in starting the damp and mould works. In recognition of these failings it offered £250 compensation for the breakdown in communication and £250 for the delay in starting the works. 7 October 2025 The resident confirmed that she wanted this Service to investigate the complaint. She said the landlord’s final response did not resolve her concerns.

She said the landlord had carried out works recommended by its own contractor rather than a third party surveyor’s recommendations. She said the damp and mould issues had been ongoing for years but the landlord had only ever carried out short term solutions. She also said that some of these solutions had been tried before but the mould had always returned. She said the £500 compensation did not reflect the seriousness or duration of the problem nor the impact it had had on her family’s health.

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 Maladministration Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.

The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that when it receives a report it will remove the mould and identify the root cause of the problem.

The policy says the landlord will diagnose the cause of damp and mould in a timely and effective way. It also says it will carry out works in line with its repairs policy, which says it will respond to non-emergency works within 10 working days. In the resident’s correspondence, she has referred to historical issues with damp and mould going back many years. However, we have not seen evidence that she raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the issues until 16 February 2025.

We encourage residents to bring complaints to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually within 12 months, so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to resolve the issues. Therefore, the scope of this investigation includes events from February 2024 (12 months before the complaint was made) up to the point the resident’s complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaints process (11 July 2025). Anything that happened before or after this period is considered for context purposes only.

Similarly, the resident’s correspondence refer to how the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould has impacted her family’s health. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any effect on health and wellbeing. Personal injury claims must, ultimately, be decided by the courts, as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, we can consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.

Based on the evidence seen it is not in dispute that during the period in question the landlord carried out multiple mould treatments. It is also not in dispute that these treatments failed to resolve the issue and the mould kept returning. The landlord has also acknowledged there were delays in it starting the mould works and there was a break down in communication with the resident. However, the resident has said the landlord did not carry out the works recommended by an independent third party surveyor.

She has said the works it carried out were actually based on recommendations made by an earlier survey by the landlord itself. She has said that, therefore, the landlord has not addressed the root cause of the mould or carried out a permanent solution to the issue. The evidence seen shows that on 17 March 2025 an independent damp and mould survey was carried out. However, it also indicates that before this the landlord’s contractor had inspected the property on 10 May 2023. The earlier survey report said the structural mould was caused by excessive condensation in the property.

It said the walkway above the bathroom needed to be inspected for any cracks which were allowing moisture ingress. It also said the landlord needed to investigate the 4 blown windows in the property as they were letting out heat. The landlord has not provided evidence to show that it carried out these recommended works. On 17 March 2025 an independent damp and mould specialist carried out a survey of the property. The survey report said they found structural dampness affecting various, localised areas within the property as well as severe damp staining.

The report found the temperature in the property was well below that recommended by the public health guidance. It suggested the dampness found in each area of the property may originate from the following: First floor bathroom – potential historic or on-going escapes of water emanating from supply/waste pipes serving the wash basin, toilet and/or shower unit within the bathroom, requiring further investigating and eliminating. Ground floor toilet /living Room – potential historic or on-going escapes of water emanating from below ground drainage at or near the subject dwelling, requiring further investigating and eliminating, via a full CCTV camera survey carried out by a drainage specialist.

First floor bedrooms/bathroom – the external ceilings and rear external balcony (from the flat directly above) are thermally inefficient. It said this makes them vulnerable to condensation and resultant mould growth. First floor bedrooms – the damp affected windows and ceiling junctions suggested this may be related to the lower internal air temperature and inadequate ventilation. Based on these findings the survey recommended the landlord: Thoroughly wash down all mould affected surfaces using an anti-fungicidal biocide safe for domestic use.

Followed by the application of a mould stain blocker and then ready for redecoration works. Thoroughly inspect the plumbing to the upstairs bathroom as well as carry out a full CCTV inspection of the drains supplying the property. Inspect the condition of the front external communal walkway and rear external balcony above the resident’s property. It said the landlord should carry out a water and dye test to identify any defects that could allow water to enter the resident’s property.

Carry out any remedial works identified by this inspection. The survey also said that following the initial investigations the landlord should: Remove all damp affected timber skirting boards and internal plaster throughout the property. It also said the landlord should remove all existing artificial floor coverings to the ground floor toilet. Complete drying works on the exposed areas of walls and flooring. It said the landlord should carry out further testing following the drying works.

If the walls and floors remain within acceptable dryness levels, it can then carry out reinstatement works. The reinstatement works should include replastering the affected walls, lay new resilient or textile floor coverings and fit new skirting boards where removed. On 27 May 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said that it had received the survey report and raised works orders for all the recommendations in it. On 17 June 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident with a program of works.

It said following the independent surveyor’s report it had determined that the cause of the damp and mould was the humidity and temperature control issues resulting in excessive condensation. It said that in response to this it would carry out the following works: A full assessment of the heating system. It said it would move or upgrade radiators where necessary. Replace the bedroom windows, where condensation was most significant, with argon-filled units. Install 2 vents in the rear bedroom to improve airflow and ventilation.

In the bathroom it would: Scrape back, prep and firm-board the ceiling to insulate against the cold region from the balcony above. Repaint with anti-condensation paint. Insulate exposed pipes or cover them in thermal paint. Reseal the bath and sink areas. Install thermal boarding on the ceiling of the children’s rear bedroom and paint it with anti-condensation paint. Install thermal boarding on the ceiling section below the external walkway in the front bedroom and paint it with anti-condensation paint.

Clad all the internal boxing around the property’s windows in UPVC. It was appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident about what works it was going to carry out following the structural survey. Although we have noted that this letter did not contain a schedule for when these works would take place. Additionally, the works proposed by the landlord were, in themselves, appropriate under the circumstances. This is because the works it had chosen to carry out would treat the mould as well as resolve some potential causes of structural dampness.

However, the list of works provided by the landlord did not include all those recommended in the survey report. For example the drainage surveys, inspecting the external walkway and balcony, drying works and subsequent testing, etc. The landlord has not explained why it chose not to carry out all the investigative works recommended by the independent structural survey. It can be reasonable for a landlord to disregard a surveyor’s recommendations. In such cases, we would expect to see evidence that such a decision was based on the advice of appropriately qualified experts or new information becoming available.

The landlord has provided no such information. It has also provided no reasoning for its decision to not carry out all the works recommended by the independent surveyor. Additionally, the surveyor recommended these investigations with the aim of identifying the root cause of damp and mould in the property. Therefore, given its previous attempts to resolve the mould had failed, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to carry out these investigations without good reason. By failing to carry out these investigative works it missed the opportunity to potentially uncover the root cause of the damp.

In turn, it then missed the opportunity to carry out a lasting repair to prevent the damp and subsequent mould returning. In particular, it was unreasonable for it not to explain to the resident why it had chosen to disregard these investigative works. Had the landlord explained its reasoning to the resident, it could have avoided the distress and inconvenience caused by the resident believing it had simply chosen not to carry out the surveyor’s recommendations. We have also noted that the landlord’s program said it would install thermoboard in the children’s bedroom and the ceiling under the external walkway.

The evidence seen shows it had previously attempted to resolve the damp and mould issues with thermoboard in the bathroom in November 2023 and around April 2024. The use of thermoboard proved ineffective in providing a lasting solution to the damp and mould as the resident kept reporting that it had returned. The landlord has not explained why it decided to carry out works which had previously proven ineffective in providing a lasting solution to the damp and mould. It was unreasonable for the landlord to carry out works which it had previously tried and had failed to fully resolve the damp and mould issues.

It was also unreasonable for it not to explain its decision to the resident and why it felt the results would be different this time. The repair records provided by the landlord indicate it replaced the radiators on 26 June 2025 and the windows on 7 July 2025. The records also show it carried out the other works from its program between 28 July and 23 September 2025. However, the resident informed this Service on 19 January 2026 that these works had not resolved the issues and the mould had started to grow back.

Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as failing to: Carry out all recommendations made by the independent surveyor without good reason. Adequately communicate with the resident and explain why it had disregarded the independent surveyors recommendations. Find a permanent solution to the damp and mould issues. In identifying whether there has been maladministration we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure.

The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has used the complaints process to fully acknowledge any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them. In this case, the landlord offered £500 compensation for the delays in it starting the works and the breakdown in communication with the resident.

It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and offer compensation for these failings. However, it has not acknowledged its failure to follow the recommendations of the independent surveyor nor its failure to explain why it chose not to. By not carrying out all the recommendations the landlord failed to take all reasonable steps to identify the root cause of the structural damp. Subsequently, the resident and her family were left in a property with ongoing damp and mould issues for an extended period of time.

This in turn caused them distress and inconvenience, especially when considering that a young child lives at the property. As such, we have made a finding of maladministration. In view of this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and increase the compensation offered to £1,000. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

We wrote to the landlord on 16 December 2025 giving it notice that the resident had informed us of a change which indicates there could be a hazard under the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. It was required to consider and assess if this could be a potential significant or emergency hazard. The landlord has not responded to confirm that it has considered this. We are concerned the landlord may not have recognised its obligations under Awaab’s law as it has not indicated whether the circumstances in the resident’s home could be a potential emergency or significant hazard.

We also order the landlord to: Carry out the CCTV and drainage surveys recommended by the independent surveyor. Inspect the condition of the front external communal walkway and rear external balcony above the resident’s property as recommended by the independent surveyor. This must include a water and dye test to identify any defects that could allow water to enter the resident’s property. Carry out an investigation in line with the provisions of the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025.

Upon completion of these investigations the landlord must provide the resident and this Service a copy of the inspection reports. It must also provide the resident and this Service with a detailed action plan for any identified remedial works. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 2 working days and issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement.

It also says the landlord will acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 2 working days and issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days of its acknowledgement The policy says that should more time be needed at either stage the landlord will inform the resident. It says an extension will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2. In this instance, the resident raised her complaint on 16 February 2025 and the landlord issued its response on 24 February 2025.

This was within the timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. On 21 May 2025 the resident escalated her complaint and the landlord acknowledged this on 30 May 2025. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and caused a delay in the landlord responding to the complaint. On 25 June 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident to explain it needed more time to respond to the complaint. It said it would issue its response by 25 July 2025. The landlord then issued its stage 2 response on 11 July 2025.

It was reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident it needed more time to issue its stage 2 response. However, it should have done this within the initial 20 working days deadline. In this instance, due to the delay in the landlord acknowledging the escalation, it informed the resident of the extension 22 working days after it should have logged the escalation request. When the resident raised her complaint she raised concerns about the mould spray used by the landlord.

She said she believed the spray contained chemicals which were potentially dangerous. When the resident escalated her complaint she again raised concerns about the chemicals in the mould spray. She also said the landlord’s stage 1 response did not address those concerns. Neither of the landlord’s complaint responses address the resident’s concerns about the chemicals contained in the mould wash it used. This was unreasonable as landlord’s must address all points raised in a complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.

Overall the landlord’s failure, as set out above, amounts to a service failure and can be summarised as a failing to: Follow its complaints policy timescales. Address all the resident’s complaint points. In view of this, we order the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and pay £50 compensation. This sum is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which did not have an impact on the outcome of the complaint nor a lasting impact on the resident.

Learning Communication Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords let residents know what to expect regarding repairs. If the landlord chooses not to go ahead with the works recommended by an independent surveyor, it should explain the reasons why to the resident. It must also explain why it feels the works it has decided to carry out will provide a lasting resolution to the issues. Complaint handling The landlord must ensure it follows its complaints policy timescales and that it addressed all the points raised by a resident in their complaint.

Consideration of hazards Following our contact with the landlord, there is no evidence it considered if the circumstances in the resident’s home amounted to a significant or emergency hazard under Awaab’s law. The landlord needs to have processes in place to recognise these reports at every stage of the customer journey.