Arun District Council (202426223)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426223

Arun District Council

17 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 reports of damp and mould within the property.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. She was assigned the tenancy by way of a mutual exchange on 10 June 2019. The property is a 2-bedroom, first floor flat in a 2-storey dwelling. At the time of the complaint, the resident lived at the property with her partner and 9-year-old son. The resident advised the landlord in her complaint that her son had asthma and her partner was disabled, had paranoid schizophrenia depression and anxiety. At times, the resident’s partner was also in communication with the landlord, for ease of reading, within this report they will both be referred to as ‘the resident’.
According to the landlord’s repair records, it was aware of reported “reoccurring black mould” in November 2023. The resident wrote to the local mayor on 8 January 2024 and said the landlord had come to look at the mould issue, but as she had experienced with other repairs, there was no plan to resolve it. She also mentioned the front door which had just been fitted and radiators being in need of repair. The local mayor raised the resident’s concerns with the landlord, who responded on 18 January 2024 and committed to inspect the property and carry out the required repairs. The landlord arranged for a damp and mould assessment to take place on 21 February 2024. The assessment found damp and mould to be within several areas of the property including the roof space and recommended an extensive list of remedial work.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 7 May 2024, and said:
1. She had experienced a leaking roof, damp, and mould for over 5 years.
2. She had been left without flooring in the kitchen for 2 years and was now experiencing the same issues with her roof repairs.
3. She had contacted the landlord numerous times but was being passed from person to person.
4. She detailed the impact the mould had had on her son’s health.
5. It had taken months to get the front door fitted correctly.
6. Her carpets were “constantly damp”, the walls were damp to touch, showed water marks, and curtain poles had fallen due to crumbling walls.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 May 2024, this included:
1. It could not find records of damp and mould being reported prior to November 2023. It acknowledged however it had records of leaks going back to December 2022.
2. It confirmed a damp survey took place on 21 February 2024, which concluded that most of the damp and mould issues were due to the need for “extensive” roofing and chimney repairs.
3. It confirmed that by 7 May 2024, none of the works recommended had been carried out but it had now requested quotes for the work.
4. It confirmed it would not remove the plasterboard in the loft as recommended in the damp survey due to fire safety concerns.
5. It had asked for photographs of the damage to items to consider reimbursement.
6. It committed to inspect the radiators following the resident’s comments of them being “rusty”.
7. It upheld the resident’s complaint, apologised for the delays and the distress caused whilst waiting for works to be carried out, and offered £400 compensation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 August 2024 and said she wanted to complain as no roofing work had been carried out and she had not received any contact from the landlord. She said water continued to drip down her walls when it rained. She emailed again on the 11 September 2024 wanting to formally complain. Following this, the landlord took the decision internally to raise a stage 2 complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 October 2024, which included:
1. It said whilst a roof replacement was not deemed necessary, essential repairs were carried out to extend its lifespan. These included:
  1. “Installation of roof and fascia vents.
  2. Replacement of felt and battens where necessary.
  3. Reinstatement of original tiles, with replacements only where required”.
2. It said several repairs had been attempted to improve the water tightness of the front door, including adjustments and the replacement of exterior seals. It understood an appointment had been arranged for 7 October 2024, to fully resolve the issue.
3. It noted that radiators in the kitchen and bathroom had now been replaced, as had the kitchen flooring.
4. It noted the kitchen extractor fan had been repaired as of 2 October 2024.
5. It confirmed a mould wash was carried out on 2 October 2024 and it would carry out further mould washes if necessary.
6. It acknowledged the health and wellbeing impact the situation had on the household.
7. It recognised that its communication had been inadequate and advised of a single point of contact for any future concerns.
8. It upheld the resident’s complaint, apologised for the distress and disruption caused, and offered a further £500, which included:
  1. £100 for time and trouble.
  2. £100 for the distress caused by the prolonged repairs.
  3. £100 in recognition of concerns regarding the wellbeing of the household.
  4. It proposed crediting £300 to the resident’s rent account to “prevent the recurring arrears”, with the remainder of the compensation to be paid direct to the resident. It confirmed, the total compensation proposed to be paid directly to the resident to be £500.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 8 October 2024; she did not think that £500 compensation was satisfactory when the works had not been completed and the issue was not resolved. She also said the £300 credit to her rent account was not due to her being in arrears as her rent is paid direct by universal credit.
According to the landlord, when providing evidence for this investigation on 2 April 2025, further remedial work remained outstanding to fully resolve the issues experienced by the resident. This included hallway, loft and cavity wall insulation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Evidence has been seen where the resident informed the landlord the living situation had directly impacted the household’s wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the residents’ comments. However, it is beyond the authority of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the complaint and the resident’s physical or mental wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that the household’s wellbeing has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any errors by the landlord.
The Ombudsman cannot consider claims for financial loss. This is because this Service does not have the jurisdiction to award damages, nor does it have the necessary expertise to assess liability and determine loss. These are matters within the jurisdiction of the court and this Service cannot provide a legal determination. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice to pursue this matter.

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. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, 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 potential detriment of damp and mould to a resident’s health and wellbeing has been highlighted in the Ombudsman’s October 2021 spotlight report entitled ‘Damp and mould: It’s not lifestyle’, and that the longer it is left untreated, the more damaging it can be to a person’s health. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, damp and mould are classified as a hazard.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy from June 2024 says action will be taken promptly to rectify issues reported that are within its responsibility. This policy says minor repairs will be completed within 30 days and major works will be agreed within 5 days of issuing a surveyor’s report.
According to the landlord’s records, it was aware of a “recurring black mould” issue in November 2023 and it is not disputed that the issue was due to the need for repairs at the property. It is not clear if the landlord took any action following raising an inspection in November 2023, but its repair records indicate this inspection to have been completed on 17 November 2023. Following the resident contacting a third party in January 2024, the landlord committed to inspect the property and raise “urgent works orders”. It promptly arranged for its contractor to inspect the property on 16 January 2024; however, no records of this inspection have been seen by the Ombudsman and an email between the contractor and landlord on 31 January 2024 demonstrates the landlord was not fully aware of what works were needing to be or were raised following this inspection. This indicates a failure in the landlord’s record keeping procedures.
The landlord arranged for an additional inspection of the property on 21 February 2024. This time a full damp survey report was produced which concluded the cause of the damp and mould to be due to a “huge amount of condensation” in the roof space which was dripping down the internal walls. This report concluded the damp was topside down and consistent with roof condensation. Works were recommended which included installing ventilation to the roof space. The landlord raised an order to one of its contractors to quote for the works. The landlord’s initial action was reasonable as it arranged to inspect the property, the need to inspect the property twice, however, would have likely caused unnecessary inconvenience for the resident. It is evident that the landlord experienced issues with its contractor and re raised the works to another contractor in late March and early April 2024.
Following the inspection in February 2024, the landlord requested a mould wash be carried out, this was raised on 2 April 2024. Even though the landlord’s damp and mould policy was not in place at this time, it was appropriate for the landlord to raise this works order due to the potential risks noted above. Unfortunately, it is not evident that this was carried out. Following this, the landlord internally requested a further order be raised “in-house” to carry out a mould wash on 2 May 2024, again it is not evident this was acted upon. The order was re-raised on 26 September 2024, and the mould wash was completed on 2 October 2024, 6 months after it had initially raised an order to carry out a mould wash. This amount of time is far from reasonable, furthermore, the resident had made the landlord aware in her complaint on 7 May 2025 that her young son had asthma and the living conditions were having an adverse effect on him. The landlord did not act upon this in a timely manner. In addition, the landlord has failed to provide evidence that it adequately investigated this delay. These were serious failings by the landlord.
According to the records provided, 2 further inspections took place on 21 May 2024 and 6 June 2024, meaning the landlord had inspected the property at least 4 times since January 2024. Its records indicate further visits may have taken place during this time. It is of concern that, from the information this investigation has seen, while the landlord’s records of these inspections all acknowledged the presence of damp within the resident’s home, it did not carry out any works to mitigate the issue for a significant amount of time. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 response that no works had been carried out by the time the resident complained on 7 May 2024. This would have likely caused an avoidable amount of inconvenience for the resident due to multiple visits being required.
The landlord completed the roofing works around September 2024, this included installing ventilation to the roof space. Although it is noted that the landlord had to follow a procurement process to instruct these works, in its stage 1 response it said it was chasing a required second quote, it is not clear that it raised any orders for quotations for the roofing works until 9 April 2024. This was a 6-week delay following its inspection in February 2024, it should have raised requests for quotes sooner in the circumstances.
In an email dated 26 September 2024, the landlord detailed a list of further works to the resident to aid ventilation in the property but did not commit to any timescales. It would have been reasonable for the landlord in the circumstance, knowing the delays the resident had already experienced, to book these jobs in and confirm appointments with the resident to ensure the work was completed in a timely manner. Had this been done, it would have provided a welcome reassurance to the resident that a remedy to the issue and resultant impact on her family was in hand.
In addition to the damp and mould, the resident complained about issues with a new front door that had been fitted, a broken electrical shower, and old radiators. It is clear from the evidence provided that the repairs to the front door also took an unreasonable amount of time to resolve and would have likely caused an amount of inconvenience due to multiple visits being required.
As noted above, it was evident that the landlord’s record keeping was not adequate. Clear record keeping is core to a repair service and assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate, complete, and accessible records ensure that the landlord can understand what repairs are required, monitor outstanding repairs, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. A system should be 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.
Overall, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had adequate oversight of its repair contractors which caused unnecessary and avoidable delays. It failed to demonstrate that it communicated the delays to the resident, which resulted in her spending time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates about the repair and raising a complaint. The landlord demonstrated internal communication failures with repairs not being actioned when requested with any level of urgency. The landlord’s poor record keeping was a contributing factor to the failures identified in its repairs service. Ultimately, the time taken to carry out the repairs was not reasonable. Taking the above into account, given the level of failures identified, and the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, experienced by the resident as a result, a finding of severe maladministration has been made.
While the landlord identified some service failings for delays and communication, and compensated for this, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this does not go far enough to acknowledge the issues identified in this investigation. Nor did it demonstrate that the landlord learned lessons from the case and put things right. The landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident and pay her a total of £1,650 compensation to recognise the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble experienced by the resident.
This being equivalent to £150 per month for the 11 months between when the landlord was originally put on notice, on 16 November 2023 and 2 October 2024 when its records indicate the mould wash was completed. This is in line with our remedies guidance, where there was a series of significant failures which have had a significant impact on the resident. It also takes into account the personal circumstances of the case and most especially that the landlord was made aware of the households’ vulnerabilities and yet failed to evidence that it effectively considered the risk of the detrimental impact on well-being in its handling of the repairs. The landlord has also been ordered to undertake a senior management review of the case to help prevent similar failures reoccurring.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould within the property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. This apology must come from a senior officer at Director level or above.
2. Pay the resident £1,650 compensation for the failures identified in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. This compensation replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £900. The landlord must pay this compensation directly to the resident and not apply it to his/her rent account or similar, unless the resident requests this. If the landlord has paid its previously offered compensation of £900, or any part of it, it may deduct this from the amount ordered above.
4. Confirm to the Ombudsman that all identified remedial works including the insulation at the property have been completed. If these have not yet been progressed, the landlord should confirm its proposed timeframe for completing these works.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this determination.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to complete a management review of this case. This should be conducted by a senior officer outside of the service involved. It should identify learning opportunities and produce a timed improvement plan that must be shared with this Service outlining its review findings and proposed actions. This should focus in particular upon ensuring the delivery of its damp and mould policy standards and the following:
1. Its operational oversight of contractor performance, with a particular focus on how cases such as this could be highlighted earlier, remedial strategies set out, enacted and tracked through to enduring remedy.
2. Its communication processes with residents when repairs are raised to multiple contractors.
3. Its record keeping processes, with a particular focus on how it records customer interactions and agreed actions.
4. How its procurement process and frameworks might ensure the avoidance of unreasonable delay impacts.
The landlord should provide evidence including the report findings to this Service and its Governance Board, that it has complied with the above order within 12 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

It is noted that the landlord suggested some compensation be used to offset arrears accrued due to payment cycles. It is recommended the landlord consider its general position on this, taking into consideration the Ombudsman guidance on remedies.