Arun District Council (202329684)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329684

Arun District Council

29 April 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks and damp and mould within the property.
2. Concerns about a trip hazard in the communal area of the building.
3. Request for it to repair the bedroom window and the communal door.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, a 1-bedroom ground floor flat.
In May 2023 the resident applied for a mutual exchange to her current property. She asked the landlord when it was going to complete the outstanding repairs to the property, that the previous resident had reported. These included that there was a leak that had damaged the flooring in the bathroom. The resident said the outstanding repairs had made her unsure whether she wanted to continue with her application to complete the mutual exchange.
The landlord said it did not know about the outstanding repairs at the property. The landlord asked the resident to make her decision about moving to the property as soon as possible. It said its deadline to approve or refuse the mutual exchange was 20 June 2023.
On 7 June 2023 the landlord carried out a mutual exchange inspection report. This report said that there was a damp patch in the bathroom due to a previous leak. The landlord also said it needed to replace the flooring in the bathroom before the resident moved into the property.
On 22 June 2023 the landlord’s contractor carried out a damp and mould inspection of the property. The contractor identified damp in the living room and bathroom and made the following recommendations:
1. Investigate the roof felt, guttering system, soil stack and connected pipework for any leaks or damage and carry out any repairs identified.
2. Replace the stopcock and stem the leaks in the cupboard where the stopcock was housed.
3. Remove the existing extractor fan in the bathroom and seal the area due to its inappropriate location. Replace this with a humidistat extractor which should be installed through the wall.
4. Investigate the cold-water pipe which was under the bathroom floor. It should then carry out any works identified whilst allowing time for the flooring to dry out. The landlord should then replace the flooring in the bathroom.
The resident signed her mutual exchange agreement for the property on 7 July 2023 and her tenancy started on 10 July 2023.
In July 2023 the resident said she was due to move into the property on 29 July 2023. She said that she had visited the property and none of the repairs including the leaks in the cupboard housing the stopcock and, in the bathroom, had been completed.
In August 2023 the resident reported that there was a gap where the doormat used to be in the communal hallway of the building. The resident said her granddaughter had tripped over the gap and banged her head on the wall.
On 14 August 2023 the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of:
1. A smell of damp coming from the sink unit and the cupboard in the living room.
2. The property having not been inspected properly prior to her mutual exchange.
3. The doormat being removed from the communal hallway.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 September 2023. The landlord said:
1. It was sorry the resident was not happy with the mutual exchange to her current property.
2. As part of the mutual exchange process, the landlord had inspected the resident’s current property, and it had not identified any signs of damp.
3. Its contractor carried out an inspection and found no evidence of any leaks at the resident’s property on 15 August 2023.
4. Following a recent fire risk assessment of the building it had removed the doormat in the communal area. It was sorry the resident’s daughter had tripped and banged her head.
5. It would chase for an update regarding the outstanding repairs at the property.
Between 5 September 2023 and 12 September 2023, the resident asked the landlord to respond to her reports of damp and mould, and associated repairs at the property.
On 15 September 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaints. The resident said this was because of the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould within her property. She said the property was smelling of damp, her dehumidifiers were collecting water, and there was mould inside the property. She also said its repairs team were not responding to her.
On 6 October 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of her reports that the communal door, and her bedroom window was broken.
On 26 October 2023 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaints. The landlord apologised for its delay, and said its contractors had:
1. Carried out an inspection of the trip hazard in the communal hallway. As a result of this it made an appointment to level the floor on 30 October 2023.
2. Visited the resident’s property on a number of occasions between August 2023 and October 2023. The contractors said they:
  1. Could not find any signs of a leak at the property.
  2. Removed the old water tank, fitted letter box vents to cupboards, and applied antimould paint to affected areas.
  3. Fixed the leaking stopcock.
The landlord explained there had previously been a leak in the resident’s neighbours’ property above. As part of its response to this incident, it carried out a damp and mould survey of the resident’s property. The landlord accepted that most of the works recommended in this survey should have been completed prior to the resident moving into the property.
The landlord said it would not respond to the resident’s complaint about the broken bedroom window and communal doors in its final response. It said this was because the landlord had not had the opportunity to address these in its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord said it was waiting for parts and once it had received them it would complete these repairs.
The landlord said it was unfortunate the resident had not been made aware of the previous damp and mould survey. The landlord accepted it could have carried out some of the works in the survey sooner. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused by these delays and awarded the resident £175 compensation.
The same day, the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with its final response to her complaints. She said the landlord should have informed her about the damp and mould survey before she signed the mutual exchange agreement. The resident also said the landlord had not carried out the works it listed in its final response to her complaint. She asked the landlord to transfer her to another property that did not have an issue with damp and mould.
The landlord said it would look into the resident’s reports that its contractors had not carried out the works it listed in its final response.
Between October 2023 and March 2024 the landlord carried out:
1. Works to the roof, guttering, downpipe, and soil stack of the building.
2. A further damp and mould survey of the resident’s property.
3. Installed an extractor fan in the resident’s bathroom.
4. Fixed the resident’s bedroom window.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaints. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman stating she still had damp and mould in her bathroom, and within a cupboard which houses the stopcock. She has said the damp and mould was getting worse. The resident has said she would like the landlord to complete all of the outstanding repairs and for it to assist her in transferring to another property.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.’

Scope of investigation

Section 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s [landlord’s] complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
We have taken into consideration that the resident first raised her complaint to the landlord about her request for it to repair the bedroom window and the communal door on 6 October 2023. We understand the landlord said it would not address this within its own complaints process. The landlord advised the resident this was because she had raised the complaint after it had provided its stage 1 complaint response to her other complaints. We have taken the landlord’s decision into consideration.
However, the Ombudsman has taken the view that the landlord should have either provided a separate stage 1 complaint response or it should have addressed this issue in full, within its final response to the resident’s complaints. We consider this to be evidence of a complaint-handling failure. Therefore, in line with the Scheme the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of her request for it to repair the bedroom window and the communal door from May 2023 through to the landlord’s final complaint response on 26 October 2023.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs handbook states that it is responsible for roofs, gutters, downpipes, extractor fans, window catches and handles. It advises residents to contact its repairs team if they have problems with damp. The landlord defines major repairs and planned maintenance as repairs that are complicated, high value, or require scaffolding to be erected. The timescales for major works will depend on the nature of the works involved.

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a resident’s stage 1 complaint within 5 working days. It will then provide its written response at stage one within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. The landlord will provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days. It will provide a resident with an explanation if it requires more time to respond to a resident’s complaint, at either stage. This will not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.

The resident’s reports of leaks and damp and mould within the property.

In May 2023 the resident applied for a mutual exchange to her current property. The landlord’s inspection prior to it authorising the mutual exchange highlighted that the flooring in the bathroom was in a poor condition after a previous leak at the property. It was appropriate that the landlord carried out a damp and mould survey at the property 15 days later. We understand this was following a leak in the resident’s neighbour’s property above.
The resident signed her tenancy agreement and completed the mutual exchange for her current property a further 15 days after. The landlord did not advise the resident about the results of this survey, or the works that had been recommended. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have kept the resident informed as to the state of the property she was considering moving to. It should have provided this information, which it had available to it, before it asked the resident to sign her tenancy agreement. This was so the resident could make an informed decision, based on the true condition of the property she was looking to transfer to.
We have seen correspondence where the landlord told the resident that it was ‘unfortunate’ she was unaware of the damp and mould survey prior to completing the mutual exchange. The landlord also communicated that it had not identified any damp during its first inspection, and that the resident had also not raised any concerns, when she visited the property. This communication was defensive and inappropriate. We understand the resident was upset at the landlord’s use of language, which she felt was its attempt to diminish the impact, whilst seeking to blame her for not identifying the damp herself. We expect a landlord’s communication to be professional, and courteous with its residents. The landlord should have apologised for its failing to disclose the results of the damp survey at the resident’s property.

Between July 2023 and August 2023, the resident chased the landlord for it to carry out the repairs to address the damp behind the sink in the kitchen, the bathroom, and cupboard in her living room which housed the stopcock. The landlord’s contractor carried out an inspection at the resident’s property to try and locate the cause of the damp, and suspected leak at the property on 15 August 2023. It was reasonable that the landlord made an appointment for a contractor to respond to the resident’s further reports of damp in an acceptable timeframe.
However, the landlord had already completed a damp and mould survey which made a number of recommendations for works to be carried out to address this issue. We have seen no explanation as to why the landlord did not communicate with the resident about this. The landlord should have communicated with the resident about its existing schedule of works that had been recommended by its surveyor, to address the cause of the damp in the property. It should have then worked with the resident to set out a reasonable timescale to complete these works. We understand that causes of damp and mould can take multiple visits to locate the cause and resolve the issue. However, the landlord’s failure to carry out the original works, whilst completing further inspections demonstrates a lack of organisation, poor record keeping, and is evidence of its poor handling of this repair.
The resident said that during the contractors visit in August 2023, they advised her they could find no cause for the damp in the property, but she should use an “air freshener” to mask the smell. This communication was inappropriate and was understandably upsetting for the resident. It was right the landlord apologised for the language used by its contractor in its final response to her complaints. It was also appropriate that it referred the matter to its contractor so it could carry out a proportionate investigation which would include speaking to those persons whose conduct was in question.
On 26 September 2023, the landlord authorised its contractor to complete the works recommended in its original damp and mould survey 3 months earlier. It was right that the landlord authorised for these works to be carried out. However, these should have been raised within 5 working days of it being in receipt of the report.
In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaints on 26 October 2023, it set out a list of works as referred to above, that it said its contractor had completed. The resident told the landlord that the works had never been carried out. We have not been provided with any records that the landlord relied on to conclude these works had been completed at that time. However, it was reasonable the landlord said it would follow this miscommunication up with its contractor so it could rectify this error.
It was also appropriate that the landlord agreed to carry out a secondary damp and mould survey at the property. This was because the resident had said the delays in completing the works had led to the damp and mould getting worse. Therefore, this further survey would have identified these further issues and would have also addressed its miscommunication about what works remained outstanding at the property.
On 27 October 2023 the landlord replaced the extractor fan in the resident’s bathroom. This was 127 days after this repair was raised by its surveyor. This was a significant delay. We would expect this type of repair to be completed within 28 days, in line with industry best practice. The resident has also said that its contractors had missed 3 appointments to seal the area where it removed the old extractor fan, as previously recommended. This is evidence of poor handling of the landlord’s repairs. We will make an order for the landlord to seal the area following the removal of the old extractor fan in the bathroom, which is to be completed within 28 days of this report.
On 30 October 2023 the landlord’s contractor confirmed that the guttering and downpipes were blocked. The landlord confirmed that it had completed these works, as well as the felting to the roof by 15 February 2024. This was 238 days after the works were recommended. We accept repairs to a roof can be subject to weather conditions and therefore may take longer than a routine repair of 20 working days. However, this delay was significant, during which it did not communicate any timescale with the resident. We would expect the landlord to keep the resident updated, whilst setting reasonable timescales for the works.
On 20 November 2023 the landlord carried out a secondary damp and mould survey at the resident’s property. We have not been provided with a copy of this survey and so are unable to comment on what works were recommended. However the resident has told the Ombudsman that she still suffers with damp and mould in her property. Therefore, we will make an order that the landlord carries out an updated damp and mould survey, and that it carries out any recommended works within a reasonable timescale, in line with industry best practice.
The resident has said she replaced the flooring in the bathroom herself due to the landlord’s delays in responding to her request for it to complete this repair. The landlord should have replaced this flooring prior to the resident moving into the property. Therefore, we will make an order that subject to the resident providing copies of her receipts for the replacement of this flooring, that the landlord should compensate the resident for this.

For the reasons described above, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and damp and mould within the property. This is because of the landlord’s overall delays, its poor communication, and that its failing to address the damp and mould within the resident’s property.
The landlord awarded the resident £175 compensation as part of its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. It is positive that the landlord attempted to put things right, but we do not consider that the landlord went far enough.
We have considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) in respect of compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors. We will increase the award to £600. Examples of this level of compensation in the guidance include where the landlord has made errors which caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident has said that she wants the landlord to transfer her to another property. It is outside our remit to order the landlord to move the resident as the landlord would be expected to go through its allocations process when assessing such requests. This is to ensure that the landlord allocates properties fairly, taking into account personal circumstances and prioritising applicants who are in the greatest need of rehousing. We will make a recommendation that the landlord communicates with the resident in writing, advising her about what options are available to her if she wishes to transfer to another property.

The resident’s concerns about a trip hazard in the communal area of the building.

On 5 August 2023 the resident told the landlord that her granddaughter had tripped over a gap in the floor of the communal hallway and banged her head. The resident said that her granddaughter was not injured but she was concerned about the trip hazard that had been caused by the removal of the doormat. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s initial communication about this. The landlord should have responded within 10 working days. This is evidence of poor communication which may have given the resident the impression that it was not listening to her or taking her concerns seriously.
It was right the landlord said it was sorry to hear about this incident in its stage 1 complaint response on 4 September 2023. It was also appropriate that the landlord explained it had removed the doormat following a fire risk assessment. It then carried out an inspection, completing the works to level the flooring, and removing the trip hazard on 30 October 2023. This was 86 days after the resident reported the repair. The landlord should have responded and completed this repair within 28 days as it would be considered a routine repair.
For the reasons described above, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a trip hazard in the communal area of the building. This is due to it failing to initially respond to the repair, which then caused its delay in carrying it out.
We have considered our own remedies guidance in respect of compensation. The landlord is to pay the resident £100 compensation. The remedies guidance gives examples of an award in this range where there has been a minor failure in the service provided by the landlord and its action to put things right did not fully reflect the detriment to the resident.

The resident’s request for it to repair the bedroom window and the communal door.

The resident said the landlord had agreed it would repair the communal door before she moved into the property in July 2023. We acknowledge what the resident has said. However, we have not been provided with any information or evidence about the resident’s contact with the landlord about this initial agreement between May 2023 and July 2023. Therefore, we have been unable to confirm if the landlord said this.
The resident raised a repair for the landlord to fix her broken bedroom window twice between 8 September 2023 and 15 September 2023. The landlord failed to respond to these initial reports. This is evidence of poor handling of its repairs. The landlord should have responded to this as a routine repair within 20 working days.
The resident raised the repair for her broken window a third time, on 29 September 2023. The landlord told the resident that it would aim to complete the repair by 27 October 2023. We have not been provided with the exact date this repair was completed, although the resident has confirmed it was around this date. The landlord also updated the resident during this time that it was waiting for parts and once it had received them, it would complete the repair. The landlord’s communication was appropriate, and the repair was completed within a reasonable period of it acknowledging the repair.
On 6 October 2023 the resident told the landlord that the communal door to the building was still broken. The landlord updated the resident that it was waiting for parts to fix the communal door, and that once they arrived it would complete this repair. We have not been updated when this repair was completed. However the resident has said the communal door was repaired between October 2023 and November 2023. This was reasonable because windows and doors often require specialist parts, which contributes to the time taken to complete these types of repairs.
In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaints, it said it would not investigate its handling of her request for it to repair the bedroom window and the communal door. The landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s communication about this issue on 6 October 2023, as a complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy states it recognises a complaint as a resident’s expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of services, action, or lack of action by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord should have either provided a separate stage 1 complaint response, or it should have scoped these repairs into its final response to the resident’s complaints on 26 October 2023. This is evidence of poor complaint handling.
The Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to repair the bedroom window and the communal door. This is because of its lack of response to the resident’s initial repair reports and subsequent complaint.
In line with our own remedies guidance. The landlord is to pay the resident £150 compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about a trip hazard in the communal area of the building.
2. Request for it to repair the bedroom window and the communal door.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing. This apology is to be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance that it acknowledges the maladministration, and service failure in which it expresses a sincere regret for its handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks and damp and mould within the property.
2. Concerns about a trip hazard in the communal area of the building.
3. Request for it to repair the bedroom window and the communal door.
The landlord is to pay the resident a compensation payment of £850. The breakdown of this compensation is as follows:
1. £600 for its maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property. This includes the £175 it awarded in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.
2. £100 for its service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a trip hazard in the communal area of the building.
3. £100 for its service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to repair the bedroom window and the communal door.
The landlord is to arrange to seal the area in the bathroom where it removed the old extractor fan, in line with its damp and mould survey dated 22 June 2023.
The landlord is to arrange for a survey to be carried out of the damp and mould in the resident’s property. This is to include the bathroom, and the cupboard in the living room which houses the stopcock. It is then to set out a schedule of works it is responsible for, including timescales that are reasonable and in line with industry best practice, which it is to share with the resident.
Subject to the resident providing satisfactory copies of her receipts for the replacement of flooring in the bathroom, the landlord should compensate the resident for this.
The landlord is to share evidence with the Ombudsman confirming that it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should communicate with the resident in writing, advising her about what options are available to her if she wishes to transfer to another property.