Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

East Suffolk Council (202343843)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343843

East Suffolk Council

21 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local council. The property is a ground floor flat.
  2. The landlord has not recorded vulnerabilities for the resident on its information systems following the internal complaints procedure. The resident has informed this Service that he has mental health vulnerabilities, and respiratory conditions.
  3. The resident reported in January 2023 that there was damp and mould in the property. The landlord then provided a humidity reader. It inspected the property on 16 January 2023 and found the average humidity readings were 55%. It also found no visual signs of defects internally or externally, but it did find mould around the living room and bedroom windows. It provided condensation advice. The resident told the landlord he was unable to have the heating on for long because of the cost.
  4. The resident continued to report damp and mould in the property. Further damp and mould inspections took place by the landlord, which found the presence of some mould on the following dates:
    1. 18 April 2023 after the resident’s report of damp and mould issues on 12 April 2023.
    2. 28 April 2023 where the landlord provided the resident data loggers and explained how they worked. The data loggers recorded humidity between 27 April 2023 and 8 May 2023 at between 43.3% (lowest level) and 75.7% (highest level).
    3. 17 October 2023 which was 1-day after the resident raised damp and mould issues again.
    4. 28 November 2023 after the resident reported issues with damp and mould on 22 November 2023. Following this visit the resident submitted his complaint to the landlord about damp and mould in the property. He also said if the damp and mould was not resolved, he would want to move from the property.
  5. On 8 December 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. The landlord said in its inspection of the property it found no defects to the building and there was sufficient ventilation with extractor fans and trickle vents. It said it would arrange for a third party to independently assess the property. It also passed the resident’s details to a staff member to help him with heating the property and managing the humidity.
  6. The resident and the third party mutually agreed the date for inspection on 29 February 2024. The third party compiled its report on 7 March 2024 which was shared with the landlord. They found mould in the property and a gap in the external brickwork near the downpipe. They concluded that condensation was the cause of mould, and recommended that the landlord install a positive input ventilation (PIV) unit.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response on damp and mould and escalated his complaint via this Service. The escalation also included the resident wanting to be rehoused. This was received by the landlord on 8 March 2024. The landlord told us on 20 March 2024 that it would implement the recommendations made in the third-party report.
  8. On 27 March 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It reiterated it had not found any building defects within the property or communal areas. It said the property needed to be ventilated as it previously advised. This was because the property was suffering from internal surface condensation. Its staff member visited the resident on 25 March 2024 and offered support. The resident said his income could afford the heating bills. It also found some mould in the property and offered a mould wash, should the resident contact it.
  9. On 6 November 2024 the resident confirmed to this Service that he wanted us to investigate his complaint. He remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He said he had not slept in his bedroom because of damp issues. He also said the condition of the property was affecting his health.
  10. The landlord told this Service in March 2025 that as the resident did not agree with its findings of condensation causing damp and mould, it did not proceed with the installation of a PIV unit. The resident told this Service in March 2025 he was unaware of a potential PIV unit installation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is noted the resident said that damp and mould in the property has affected his health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. This element of the complaint may perhaps be better suited for the courts. However, we will consider the landlord’s actions and its consideration of any distress, or inconvenience caused.

Reports of damp and mould

  1. 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 (HHSRS) to assess hazards and risks within its 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.
  2. The landlord’s ‘repairs charter’ says it carries out property inspections within 30–working days concerning damp, mould, and condensation. From the evidence provided, all the landlord’s own inspections of the property from the date of the resident’s separate reports have been within 30-working days. The evidence shows the landlord appropriately arranged inspections on:
    1. 16 January 2023.
    2. 18 April 2023.
    3. 28 April 2023.
    4. 17 October 2023.
    5. 28 November 2023.
  3. The landlord provided the resident with advice about condensation at the outset in its visit to the property of 16 January 2023. It reiterated this in its inspection on 12 April 2023. At this point, the landlord responded reasonably to the residents reports and showed it was treating the resident’s concerns seriously.
  4. There was some contrasting information from the third party’s inspection of 29 February 2024 in comparison to prior inspections by the landlord which found no defects. The third party’s report dated 7 March 2024 said there was a gap between the brickwork behind the downpipe. The third party also recommended the landlord install a PIV unit.
  5. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould was published in October 2021. This said landlords should avoid apportioning blame and instead take responsibility. The report also states that landlords should:
    1. Ensure it clearly and regularly communicates with its residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
    2. Share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with its residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps.
    3. Take reasonable steps in partnership with its residents to consider improving ventilation or other appropriate measures, even if the cause of damp and mould is non-structural.
  6. The HHSRS states:
    1. Mould can grow when the indoor relative humidity exceeds 70%.
    2. The optimum range of indoor relative humidity should be between 40% and 60%.
    3. There should be means of ventilation to deal with moisture generated by normal domestic activities without the need to open windows.
    4. Properties should be able to cope with normal moisture producing activities.
  7. The data recorded by the landlord in April 2023 and May 2023 across 12-days, showed relative humidity exceeded 70% on 9 of those days. From 1 May 2023 the lowest recorded relative humidity was more than 63%. Despite knowing the relative humidity levels, the landlord placed responsibility on the resident by saying the property was not being heated and ventilated sufficiently by him. This was inconsistent with the spotlight report on damp and mould which says landlords should take responsibility. Following the data collected after 8 May 2023 and in line with HHSRS, it should have considered what action was required to reduce the humidity in the property. As the evidence shows it did not take further action, the resident had raised damp and mould issues again on 16 October 2023. The landlord’s inaction during this time was not appropriate in the circumstances.
  8. The landlord told this Service on 20 March 2024 that it would incorporate the recommendations made within the third party’s report of 7 March 2024. However, it confirmed to us in March 2025 that it had not installed the PIV unit. The landlord told us the resident did not agree with its findings of condensation contributing to the mould. However, there is no evidence that the installation of a PIV unit was shared with the resident. This is further supported by the resident’s contact with this Service in March 2025, when he said he did not know about the PIV unit. The landlord’s actions in this regard were inconsistent with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report.
  9. While it was reasonable for the landlord to listen to its own surveyor’s findings in previous visits, it should have taken into consideration the third party’s expertise and recommendation. The third party’s report noted an installation of a PIV unit would have improved the internal surface condensation. It is also not clear why the landlord got a specialist involved if it did not comply with the recommendations made. As above, the spotlight report suggests the landlord takes reasonable steps in partnership with the resident to consider improving ventilation. Its stage 2 complaint response reiterated that the property needed to be ventilated. It would have been reasonable to install the PIV unit, which would have helped ventilate the property.
  10. Further, there is no evidence that the landlord took into consideration the third party’s assessment of a potential brick defect. This was unreasonable as it had the opportunity to check the brickwork in its visit to the property on 25 March 2024. Instead, it said in its final response that it was satisfied there was no building defect, which was contradictory to the third party’s findings. However, it did not set out why it disagreed with the findings from the third party. Overall, at this point its communication was poor.
  11. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said it would arrange for a staff member to provide support with heating issues. There is no evidence this was arranged until its property visit on 25 March 2024. This meant 108 calendar days had elapsed since it said it would do so. This was unreasonable action by the landlord and delayed providing support to the resident sooner.
  12. The evidence shows that the first time the resident was offered a mould wash was 25 March 2024. While this was positive by the landlord, it had found evidence of mould in every prior visit. This Service acknowledges the landlord said the extent of the mould was minor. An offer to clean the property was made on 27 June 2023 but it did not clearly state this would entail a mould wash. It would have been reasonable to offer support specifically with a mould wash at an earlier stage.
  13. The resident told this Service that he has mental health vulnerabilities and a respiratory condition. There is no evidence that the resident told the landlord about this prior to its stage 2 complaint response. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (published in May 2023) recommends that a landlord knows its products, services and residents well, and that it uses this data to inform business and financial planning. As the landlord told this Service that it does not hold any information about the resident’s vulnerabilities, a recommendation has been made for it to contact the resident and record any vulnerabilities.
  14. The resident’s complaint to the landlord also included that if the damp and mould was not resolved, he would want to move from the property. The information provided to us was limited, even though on 25 March 2024 the landlord’s staff spoke to the resident about wanting to move. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request for rehousing directly except in its stage 2 complaint response. This is where it confirmed the resident was on the housing register and his banding at that stage. Therefore, the landlord failed to fully understand the resident’s request to move or consider his request for rehousing.
  15. The landlord also failed to appropriately communicate information about the resident’s other options to find alternative properties, such as via mutual exchange. In failing to identify these shortcomings, it has missed the opportunity to put them right. The lack of consideration and lack of clear communication about rehousing by the landlord caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
  16. It was positive the landlord offered advice on fuel bills to provide adequate heating in March 2024. However, the landlord has not acknowledged all its failings and done enough to put things right. It was not proactive in managing the mould in the property which was present since its inspection of 16 January 2023. This was not in line with HHSRS.
  17. In consideration of the above, we find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Orders have been made that take into consideration the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  18. Under this Service’s guidance on remedies, consideration is given for distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by service failures. The guidance on remedies also considers the length of time the resident experienced detriment.
  19. Given the prolonged nature of the issues with damp and mould in the property, we have considered the resident has experienced damp and mould since January 2023. This means 25 months has elapsed since the resident first started experiencing issues. The landlord’s inspections lacked detail as to how widespread the mould was in the property even though it said it was small. The evidence shows in the third-party’s inspection of 29 February 2024 there was some extent of mould found in all rooms of the property. It was not documented as severely widespread, but there was presence of some mould.
  20. We have also considered the resident did not tell the landlord about his mental health and any loss of enjoyment of his home. Due to the distress and inconvenience experienced in the past 25 months, the landlord is required to pay compensation which totals £500. This equates to £20 per month across 25 months and reflects the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s delays and failures. This award is also in line with our guidance on remedies.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must ensure the following:
    1. A senior member of the landlord’s staff apologises to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. It contacts the resident to explain its position on the third party’s report of 7 March 2024. This is to include the recommendation to install a PIV unit and the gap in the brickwork.
    3. It pays the resident £500 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, as well as the time and trouble.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is also recommended to contact the resident to discuss and record any vulnerabilities.