East Devon District Council (202434674)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202434674

East Devon District Council

22 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 response to the resident’s repair requests and associated damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling
2. Record keeping

Background

The resident and his wife are joint secure tenants of the landlord since 2003. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat of a 2-storey building. The property above is owned by a leaseholder. The resident’s wife suffers from asthma. The landlord holds no records of vulnerabilities for the resident. For clarity, this report refers to both joint tenants as “the resident.”
In March 2024, the landlord surveyed the resident’s property. The landlord’s records are not clear but indicate that it identified a number of structural issues with the property.
On 30 September 2024, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. He said that he first reported issues with the property in March 2024 and he had been “fobbed off and lied to” by the landlord. He enclosed 4 work orders raised between March and May 2024 that the landlord had not actioned. He asked the landlord to resolve the issues with the property. On 2 October 2024, the resident reported that the issues found in March 2024 were:
1. gutters, soffits, and fascia boards needed replaced.
2. mould growing inside the house and on the back of the front door.
3. he had to redecorate the property and replace flooring.
4. he was continually removing the mould but it was growing back.
5. it was important to keep the property mould free because his wife suffered from asthma.
6. water ingress was damaging the paint and causing it to blister.
7. his neighbour was a leaseholder and had not received any contact from the landlord about the repairs.
On 17 October 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It apologised for the repairs delay and lack of communication. It offered £100 compensation to reflect the delay in resolving the issues. The landlord said that:
1. It agreed that work orders were not progressed after the surveyors visit in March.
2. It had surveyed the property again and found the same issues that its surveyor found in March 2024
3. It would issue a Section 20 notice to the leaseholder in the flat above his to complete the external repairs.
4. The external issues were the root cause of the damp and mould problems and caused the damage to the render and decoration as well as internal dampness that the resident already addressed.
5. The issues would persist if the external repairs were not complete in a timely manner.
On 17 October 2024, the resident escalated his complaint. He said that the landlord had failed to mention the replacement door identified in its survey. He said that the level of compensation was too low and he had spent £600 replacing flooring and wall decoration. He said he would provide receipts and images of the internal damage.
On 1 November 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It asked the resident to provide itemised receipts for the flooring and internal damage. It apologised for not addressing the replacement door and confirmed that it had raised a work order to replace the door. It said that it would be in contact with the resident in the near future to proceed with the Section 20 process.
On 31 March 2025, the resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He confirmed that the door had been replaced but was unhappy that it took so long. He remained unhappy because his neighbour confirmed that the Section 20 notice had not yet taken place. He said the mould impacted his wife’s asthma and he continued to treat the issue which affected his mental health.

Events after the internal complaints process

On 15 April 2025, the resident asked the landlord for an update. He reported that nothing had happened with regards to the external repairs. He reported that the decorations he carried out in his lounge were getting mouldy again and wallpaper had come off.
On 28 April 2025, an internal email of the landlord noted that the damp had worsened because the external works had not been completed. It noted that the Section 20 process had not been completed and as such external works could not begin.
On 8 May 2025, the landlord emailed the resident and advised that it had obtained the relevant documentation to begin the Section 20 process. It asked the resident for contact details for his neighbour in order to provide a notice of intention to the neighbour. It provided a timescale for the Section 20 consultation and an overview of the stages of the process.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The evidence shows that after the stage 2 complaint response the landlord delayed in beginning the Section 20 process. For fairness, and completeness, the Ombudsman has extended the scope of the investigation until the date of this report.
The resident raised concerns for the health of the household. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests and associated damp and mould

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’s repairs policy sets out its timescales for responding to repairs. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s repair policy sets out that non urgent repairs will be completed at a time that suits the resident and the contractor. The contractor would attempt to arrange for the works to be completed as soon as possible. It is sometimes the case that a landlord is not able to keep to defined timeframes, as the circumstances surrounding each repair can differ, including delays in sourcing materials and scheduling works. In such cases, basic good practice is for a landlord to liaise regularly with the resident to explain the reason for any delays and take meaningful steps to resolve any outstanding repairs as quickly as possible.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, (HHSRS) 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 Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’) obliges the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation
It is not disputed by the landlord that there were failings. In its stage 1 complaint response it apologised for the delay in carrying out follow on works from its survey in March 2023 and offered £100 for this delay. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of the Ombudsman to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, the Ombudsman considers 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.
Based on the landlord records, it was on notice about the resident’s concerns around damp and mould from at least March 2024. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it failed to carry out follow on works from its survey in March 2024. It said that due to changes in roles and staffing challenges it did not process work orders from that survey. Based on the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord was aware of the damp and mould issue in March 2024.
When the resident raised a complaint, he reported mould on the back of the front door, in bedroom 1, and in the lounge. He reported having treated the mould and redecorating and replacing the flooring that was covered in mould. He said that his wife suffers from asthma and the mould returns after each treatment. The landlord was on notice of damp and mould issues and the resident was considered vulnerable to the effects of damp and mould.
It is not disputed that the repairs and damp and mould were the responsibility of the landlord. When the landlord carried out its second survey of the property its surveyor reported that “these are the root cause of the internal damp and mould due to overflowing gutters/downpipe, which has caused damage to render and decoration and also caused issues with damp internally which the customer has rectified themselves however if the external works are not completed in good time this will continue to be an ongoing issue.” The resident also reported that he was continually treating the mould. With this information the landlord should have treated the repair as a priority and considered its responsibilities under HHSRS.
The lack of engagement around the damp issue was contrary to the approach required under HHSRS. It could have carried out a damp and mould survey and considered actions to counter the damp and mould in the interim period. Measures such as dehumidifiers, checking ventilation fans, mould washes, mould paints, air filters, and even temporary accommodation had it found the property unsuitable considering the resident’s vulnerabilities, could have lessened the impact of damp and mould. That the landlord took no action to address the damp and mould was unreasonable and caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.
It is unclear what actions the landlord took to progress the Section 20 process after its stage 1 complaint response. An internal email on 28 April 2025 says that a Section 20 had not been utilised by responsive repairs for a substantial amount of time. When the landlord provided evidence to the Ombudsman, it said that there had been a delay in beginning the section 20 process because the operative was not aware of its responsibility to carry out the process. It said that it had since provided training.
The length of time it took the landlord to begin the Section 20 process was inappropriate given the situation’s potential health implications, and the vulnerability of the resident. Had the landlord carried out a damp and mould assessment and found health and safety concerns the landlord could have considered applying for a dispensation order from serving the Section 20 notice to progress with the external works. The resident also reported little communication from the landlord on the progress of the works which exacerbated the frustration caused.
An element of the resident’s complaint was the landlord’s delay in replacing the front door. On 15 October 2024, when the landlord surveyed the property, it noted that a front door required replacing. It raised a work order and replaced the door on 16 December 2024. It responded to a follow-on repair because of an issue with poor installation and completed the follow-on repair on 17 February 2025. The landlord’s records are not clear as to the reasons for the delay in replacing the door and the delay in completing the follow-on repair and there is little evidence of communication with the resident in this period.
The evidence shows that on 8 May 2025 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it received the required documentation to begin the Section 20 process. This was 14 months after the initial survey, when it should have begun the process. This was a significant delay and caused further frustration, distress, and inconvenience to the resident.
It is a concern that when providing evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord said that it held no record of vulnerabilities for the resident. Its stage 1 complaint response refers to the resident’s asthma. This was a record keeping failure that has been assessed below.
Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to minimise the disadvantages suffered connected to a person’s protected characteristics. The evidence available indicates that the landlord did not have due regard for whether the resident had a disability, as defined by the Equality Act. The landlord was aware that her health conditions made her particularly vulnerable to the effects of damp and mould. The landlord failed to acknowledge or take any action to minimise the potential risk to the resident. This indicates that it did not have due regard for its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. The landlord failed to consider the resident’s unique circumstances, her disability, and the potential impact of damp on her health.
The resident reported property damage as a result of the damp. It is not our role to determine liability for any damage caused to the resident’s possessions. This would be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is our role to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures. It was reasonable for the landlord to request receipts for the redecoration. It is not clear if the resident provided receipts or received any redress for this damage. The resident reported that the damp and mould re-occurred and caused further damage. It is recommended for the landlord to revisit the resident’s claim for redecoration and assist with an insurance claim if appropriate.
On 16 January 2025, the landlord published an information article on its website on dealing with damp and mould, saying that it reviewed its policy and procedure for tackling damp and mould in its properties. It specifically references asthma as an underlying health concern which could be affected by damp and mould. It set out its commitment on dealing with reports of damp and mould, including staff training, recruiting a specialist damp and mould surveyor, reviewing historic cases, and identifying properties that are at high risk of damp and mould, and inspecting void properties for signs of damp and mould. These are positive steps which indicate the landlord has a commitment going forward to addressing damp and mould.
Given the extent of the external repairs required, the report of damp and mould affecting the health of the household, the considerable delay in starting the repairs process, the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident in getting the landlord to address the issues, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s compensation offer of £100 was not sufficient.
The Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests and associated damp and mould. This is because the landlord delayed significantly in responding to repair requests and its communication with the resident has been poor. There is no evidence that the landlord complied with its HHSRS obligations to assess the potential hazard. It did not take any action to address the mould in the first instance and failed to implement any remedial or preventative measures to reduce the impact of the damp and mould. It demonstrated a lack of empathy and urgency to resolve the issue.
The landlord’s failure had a significant impact on the resident who raised concerns for the health of the household. The landlord’s failings caused distress, inconvenience, time, trouble, and loss of enjoyment to the resident.
When calculating a figure for loss of enjoyment, it has been considered that the resident reported mould affecting more than 1 room and it caused concern for the health of the household. Loss of enjoyment of the property has been calculated at 30% of the resident’s rent for a period of 67 weeks. This is from March 2023, when the landlord was on notice about the damp issue, until the date of this report. The total amount is £1790.
The Ombudsman further considers a payment for distress, time, trouble, and inconvenience is appropriate. The resident reported having to carry out repeated mould treatments and concern for the household’s health. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, and in recognition of the length of time and the distress this matter may have caused the resident, £1500 has been awarded.

Complaint handling

Complaints can provide independent, practical, and unique insights providing an early warning system for significant problems and acting as a catalyst for organisational learning. The Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that landlord’s must acknowledge its failures and set out the actions it has taken or intends to take to put things right. When the answer to the complaint is known, outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly after issuing the complaint responses with appropriate updates provided to the resident.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord accepted that it should have acted more promptly to obtain the Section 20 notice. As a resolution it said that it would manage the section 20 process diligently. There was no evidence that the landlord followed up and tracked the outstanding actions that it agreed as a resolution to the complaint. This was a significant failure by the landlord. Had it continued to track the outstanding actions, it would have known that its Section 20 process remained outstanding while damp and mould continued to affect the property.
The landlord’s complaint response failed to address the resident’s concerns for the household’s health. The landlord’s response lacked empathy to the resident’s situation in the circumstances and indicated a lack of urgency and awareness of the potential risk associated with mould. It is reasonable to consider that this failure exacerbated the resident’s distress in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it failed to track its agreed actions to resolve the complaint, which was a significant failure in the circumstances because all actions remained outstanding when the resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman. Its complaint responses lacked empathy in the circumstances. This caused further distress to the resident. An order of £200 compensation has been made in line with the Housing Ombudsman Guidance on Remedies to reflect the distress caused.

Record keeping

The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors.
Throughout this investigation the Ombudsman’s work has been hampered by a lack of evidence or the provision of poor-quality records by the landlord. In particular:
1. There were no records of the initial repair request and report of damp and mould by the resident.
2. There were no records of the initial survey in March 2024 or follow up work orders from that survey.
3. Its records indicate that there was an issue with the installation of the door, however, it was unclear what the issue was or what affect it was having on the resident.
4. The landlord held no record of vulnerabilities for the resident.
The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s record keeping. Although we were still able to determine this case using the information that was available, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests and associated damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is ordered that a senior manager, at director level or above, for the landlord apologise to the resident in person for the failures identified in this report.
It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £3490, compromising:
1. £1790 for loss of enjoyment of the property representing approximately 30% of the resident’s rent for a period of 67 weeks from when it should have started its Section 20 process until the date of this report.
2. £1500 for distress, time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its failure to respond effectively to the resident’s reports of repairs, damp, and mould.
3. £200 for distress caused by the failures identified in its complaint handling.
If the landlord has paid the resident £100 it offered in its stage 1 complaint response, this can be deducted from the amount.
It is ordered that the landlord inspect the property for damp and mould. This should be in the form of a comprehensive survey and must focus on reasonable steps that can be taken to avoid or minimise damp and mould in line with HHSRS and other available guidance. The landlord should share the report’s findings with the Ombudsman. This should also include a plan for additional future monitoring of the damp and mould.
The landlord should set a communication plan with the resident setting out timescales for the section 20 process and then timescales for works to be completed and ensure the resident is provided with regular updates.
The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord must initiate and complete a strategic review of the learning from this case within 8 weeks of the date of this report. This must be carried out by an individual independent of the service areas involved. The review must seek to identify improvements and provide a timed implementation plan for these. It must include at minimum the following:
1. its practices in respect of the equalities act 2010.
2. its capacity to effectively deliver on its damp and mould policy, including any leaseholder consultation requirements.
3. a review of other complaints it has received about damp and mould to consider whether vulnerabilities are being recorded and acted upon correctly.
4. its record keeping practices and oversight framework.
The landlord should share the resultant report with its governance board and the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

It is recommended for the landlord to revisit the resident’s claim for redecoration and assist with an insurance claim if appropriate.
It is recommended for the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report if it has not already done so.