Central Bedfordshire Council (202300740)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300740

Central Bedfordshire Council

22 May 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 is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports about damp and mould in the property.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a local council. She lived in the 4-bedroom, terraced property with her 2 children until April 2025 when she moved out.
In January 2023 the resident reported damp and mould in her daughter’s bedroom. On 29 January 2023 the resident complained that the landlord had not contacted her or acted on her concerns. She said the mould was a danger to her health and wellbeing and she was unable to use the room.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its process on 17 February 2023. It said its surveyor would attend on 20 February 2023. It did not uphold the complaint as it considered it had responded within an acceptable timeframe.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 1 and 10 March 2023. She was upset that it had not completed works to address the mould.
On 29 March 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended to install additional insulation in the roof. The resident told the landlord she was under the impression the contractor would also be addressing the mould during the visit. She said she was ‘fed up’ with how long it was taking to resolve the issue. The landlord logged another complaint on this date but closed this in April 2023 without issuing a formal response.
In emails on 12 and 30 June 2023 the resident reported that the paint was peeling from her walls where the landlord had carried out the mould wash. She said it had told her it would look at the cladding on the outside of the building to see if it was contributing to the damp and mould, but it had not done so. She also said it had not replaced her bathroom fan. She expressed “despair” at how long it was taking to resolve the issues. The landlord logged this as a complaint on 30 June 2023.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 on 20 July 2023 in which it:
1. Clarified it had installed insulation, provided a dehumidifier, and completed a mould wash. It noted subsequent issues with paint flaking off the walls was not due to a reoccurrence of the damp and mould.
2. Apologised for delays, which it said were due to issues implementing its damp and mould taskforce in April 2023. It said it had also had difficulty arranging access.
3. Confirmed it would provide her with paint as a goodwill gesture.
4. Confirmed it had raised a work order to replace the bathroom fan.
The resident escalated the complaint the same day. On 25 July 2023 the landlord said it would investigate further at stage 1. It provided an additional stage 1 response on 17 August 2023 in which it:
1. Reiterated the reasons for the delays and assured her its damp and mould taskforce was now operating without delays.
2. Offered £30 compensation for its contractor’s failure to attend a scheduled appointment on 20 March 2023.
3. Explained that its surveyor had concluded no further work was required to the walls following their visit on 20 April 2023.
4. Acknowledged that its contractors should have explained the potential for paint to peel after the mould wash. It confirmed the area had been redecorated.
5. Apologised that its contractors had left her floor uneven after works to install the insulation. It confirmed its contractor had tried to contact her to rectify this and it would continue to try and find a convenient time.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response which she felt contained lies and discrepancies. She felt insulted by its claim its response time was impacted by her limited availability. The landlord logged an escalation request from her the same day.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 13 September 2023. It apologised for all the trouble she had experienced, which it said it had either caused or not resolved in a timely manner. Specifically, it acknowledged:
1. The mould wash had not been carried out properly and it was not appropriate that she had to resolve this herself.
2. There were discrepancies in its response and it had been inaccurate by saying there were no further works required following its surveyor’s visit on 20 April 2023.
3. It had been aware of her availability so this was no reason for its delays.
4. There was no evidence the mould had rendered her room unusable, and its surveyor said it presented a low risk to health.
5. It upheld the complaint and offered £280 compensation, comprised of £150 for disruption and distress, £100 for time and trouble, and the £30 it previously offered for the missed appointment.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the issue and referred the complaint to this Service. She would like it to take responsibility and ensure other residents do not experience the same service she did.

Assessment and findings

Under current legislation the landlord has a responsibility to ensure its homes meet the ‘Decent Homes Standard’ and that they are fit for human habitation, considering factors including freedom from damp. The landlord must also take reasonable steps to identify hazards and assess risks in line with the ‘Housing Health and Safety Rating System’ (HHSRS). Damp and mould growth is one of the 29 hazards listed in the HHSRS and can impact on the physical health and mental wellbeing of occupants.
Within its complaint response, the landlord said it had implemented a damp and mould taskforce in April 2023. It explained that when residents report damp and mould, a surveyor from its taskforce would inspect and progress necessary repairs as soon as possible. It would keep residents informed about the work it will do, along with timeframes for completion.
The landlord has a damp and mould policy in place since the time of this complaint. The policy does not mention the taskforce but notes it will triage all reports of damp and mould in line with the HHSRS and consider information such as the household composition and any vulnerabilities.
Under its repairs policy, the landlord will complete ‘routine’ repairs in 20 working days. For larger, non-emergency repairs, the landlord will agree a convenient time with the resident. It will inspect high risk cases of damp and mould within 5 days and all other cases within 28 days.
In her initial complaint, the resident said she had reported damp and mould on 5 January 2023 and the landlord had failed to respond within the appropriate timeframe. In its response, the landlord said it had received the report on 12 January 2023. There is no record of the date on which the report was made or received.
The records show the landlord contacted the resident on 1 February 2023 and requested a surveyor attend on 20 February 2023. In any case, it attended 39 days from the date it said it received the report. While the landlord had to arrange a mutually convenient time to attend, it could have contacted her more promptly to allow for this. It was also inaccurate of it to say it had responded within timeframes in its initial complaint response of 17 February 2023.
Additionally, the resident informed the landlord that she was clinically vulnerable and had a compromised immune system when reporting the damp and mould. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to risk assess or consider this when scheduling the inspection and repairs. There is no evidence it explored her health needs further, or prioritised attendance based on this information.
The landlord’s surveyor attended on 20 February 2023. The records suggest they recommended it install additional insulation as the landlord raised a job for this with its contractor several days later. However, there is no record or summary of the inspection so it is not clear to what extent the surveyor assessed other aspects of the property, whether they made additional recommendations, and what they told the resident they would do.
On 1 March 2023, the landlord told the resident its contractor was ready to take on the works but this was not the case. The contractor had told the landlord they did not have any suitably qualified operatives to install the insulation on 27 February 2023. It was only after the resident chased the landlord on 8 March 2023 that it replied to the contractor and made a further request for them to attend and quote for the works. The landlord did not have effective oversight at this juncture which caused a short but unnecessary delay.
The contractor contacted the resident on 15 March 2023 to book in the works. She told the landlord she was concerned they were only coming to assess the insulation rather than to look at the damp and mould. She queried whether it had properly briefed the contractor. The landlord responded and said it would advise the contractor “accordingly, ensuring the mould wash and any supplementary action is required”. However, when the contractor attended on 29 March 2023, the resident was disappointed to learn they were just there to assess and install the insulation.
The confusion stemmed from the landlord’s poor record keeping following the survey, and its corresponding failure to keep her updated about the work it would do, and when. While there is no record it said it would complete a mould wash, this was a reasonable intervention, and the resident had given it an opportunity to correct her if this was not the plan. Instead, it gave assurance it would request this as part of the scope, but there is no evidence it followed up with the contractor. Its failure to do what it said it would meant it unduly raised the resident’s expectations, causing unnecessary frustration and a lack of confidence.
Following this, the landlord raised a job for a mould wash on 30 March 2023. It arranged for a dehumidifier which it delivered in mid-April 2023. It provided a cheque for the additional energy costs up-front, based on the resident’s concerns about affordability. It also approved further insulation works under the floor based on the contractor’s assessment and recommendations. It took reasonable action in raising and authorising a range of measures aimed at addressing the damp and mould at this time.
The landlord’s contractor attended to install insulation under the floors on 26 April 2023. This was almost a month after the landlord had approved the works, but the contractor updated the landlord that it was unable to schedule the works due to the resident’s limited availability. In her complaint the resident said she had told the landlord it could complete works while she was at work if it attended prior to 11am, which it acknowledged in its complaint response. The landlord should have communicated this to the contractor and demonstrated that it was actively trying to progress the repairs.
The landlord followed up with the resident on 16 May 2023 to check the status of the works. The resident confirmed the contractor had not completed the mould wash. The landlord chased the contractor and they completed the job on 25 May 2023. The resident noted it took the contractor only 2 hours to complete the treatment and repaint the area. She considered it unreasonable that it had taken 4 months for it to do so.
It is not clear why the contractor did not also schedule the mould wash when it arranged to install the insulation. While it may have made sense for it to prioritise the insulation works and dry the area prior to completing the wash, it offered no explanation of its process or plan. The landlord acted reasonably by following up with the contractor and asking it to prioritise the work, but it was ultimately responsible for progressing the works and could have provided more effective oversight by liaising with the contractor sooner.
The resident complained to the landlord on 12 June 2023 that, following the mould wash, paint had flaked off her walls. The resident felt the contractor had not allowed sufficient time for the walls to dry after applying the mould treatment before painting.
It was understandably frustrating for the resident that the contractor had not completed the job satisfactorily. The landlord created further confusion and frustration by its account of this in both its stage 1 responses. It noted this was not indicative of a reoccurrence of damp and mould, but she had not suggested this was the case. It also said the contractor should have warned her of the potential for the paint to peel, but she said it did not do so. Regardless, it was not reasonable that she was left with damage to her walls. It also noted the area had been redecorated but failed to acknowledge she had done this.
However, the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report about this was reasonable. The surveyor offered to inspect and remedy the problem but the resident had already redecorated. They agreed to provide a ‘paint pack’ as a goodwill gesture despite the work being complete. In its final response the landlord also recognised the contractor’s work had been defective and apologised for the inaccuracies in its initial complaint responses. It recognised the detriment caused to the resident and reflected this in its offer of compensation, which was fair.
The resident also reported that the contractor had left her floor uneven after works to install the insulation. It is unclear when she raised this concern but the surveyor inspected the floor on 4 August 2023 and said it would ask the contractor to rectify it. Again, it is unclear when they raised the job with the contractor, but in its additional stage 1 response the landlord said the contractor had tried to contact the resident to book this. The contractor ultimately attended and re-laid the floor on 24 August 2023.
The landlord’s response was reasonable. But because its contractor did not complete the work to a satisfactory standard the first time, this caused the resident frustration, and the inconvenience of having to report the problem and facilitate additional visits. She was also unable to lay her carpet over the floor. The landlord recognised the detriment caused to the resident and apologised in its final response, which was fair.
In its final response the landlord confirmed that its contractor had carried out a damp and mould survey on 8 August 2023. It identified mould in the bathroom due to insufficient ventilation. It recommended a new bathroom fan and an additional mould wash, which it completed on 19 September 2023.
The resident had reported that her bathroom fan was not working well in her initial report in January 2023. The landlord should have complied with its policy and inspected and remedied this sooner. There is no evidence it considered this as part of its initial inspection and it raised no follow-on works. The resident chased the landlord on 30 March,17 May, and 12 June 2023, asking when it would replace the fan. Despite the surveyor saying they would chase this up, the issue remained outstanding. In its initial stage 1 response the landlord said it had raised an order for a new fan and the contractor would contact her to schedule this, but again, there is no evidence they did.
It was unreasonable that the landlord missed so many opportunities to address this and that it took a total of 9 months for it to replace the fan. As a result, the resident continued to live with mould in her bathroom and had to repeatedly chase the landlord for a resolution.
As part of her complaint, the resident said the landlord had told her it would investigate the cladding on the external walls to see if this was contributing to the damp and mould. She said it had also discussed lining the external walls. She chased the landlord on this in emails in May and June 2023 and complained it had taken no action. On 30 June 2023 the surveyor queried who had told her this was necessary and said they would follow up. There is no evidence they responded further on this point.
In both its stage 1 responses the landlord clarified it did not consider this necessary as the mould was caused by a lack of insulation creating cold spots on the walls. This was a reasonable explanation but it was a failure of the landlord that it did not communicate its position sooner. It could also have apologised if its operatives, or those of its contractor, had mismanaged her expectations by saying this was necessary. Its poor communication caused her frustration, and she spent time and effort chasing it.
In its final response the landlord took ownership of the delays and its poor communication and acknowledged it had let her down. It explained it had experienced a spike in reported cases of damp and mould which it was not prepared for. It said it had cleared its backlog of cases and had allocated additional administrative staff to improve communication with customers. It was fair of the landlord to acknowledge responsibility and outline the measures it had since put in place. This offered assurance to the resident that it took her concerns and its failings seriously.
It also offered compensation as remedy for the detriment it had caused the resident, in terms of time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience. Its offer of £280 was reasonable in line with our remedies guidance which states figures in this region are appropriate where the resident has been negatively impacted by the landlord’s failings.
Because it took reasonable steps to put things right for the resident by taking responsibility, apologising, and offering compensation, we have found reasonable redress. Were it not for this, we would have found maladministration.
However, this finding comes with recommendations for the landlord. It should reflect on how it can more effectively see repairs through to completion. Some of the drift in this case stemmed from its failure to establish a clear plan of action following its survey. As a result, it lacked direction and progressed works often only in response to requests from the resident. It should consider how it can better project manage cases to prevent the delays seen in this case. This should include a reminder to staff responsible for inspections that they record what they have identified and recommended.
It should also ensure it has embedded its new damp and mould policy and that staff are effectively triaging cases in line with risk factors including the household composition and vulnerability. It should record its risk assessment to evidence its consideration of the risks and demonstrate how this informs its response.

Complaint handling

The landlord outlines its timeframes and standards for complaint handling in its complaints policy. Under the policy in effect at the time, the landlord should:
1. Upon receipt of a complaint, offer the resident a conciliation meeting to try and resolve the matter at stage 1 or provide a written response within 10 working days. If the complaint is detailed or lengthy it can respond within 20 working days.
2. If the resident provides new information, consider whether to continue investigating the complaint at stage 1, or escalate to stage 2.
3. Respond to complaints at stage 2 within 20 workings days.
By having 2 ways of responding to complaints at stage 1, and by allowing for further investigation at stage 1, the policy and approach were confusing. We note the landlord has since updated its complaints policy. It now operates a simplified 2-stage complaints process and provides a written response at each stage of the process, in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident initially complained to the landlord on 30 January 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint after 4 working days, on 2 February 2023. It responded after a further 11 working days on 17 February 2023. The landlord’s complaints policy states it should acknowledge complaints within 3 working days so it delayed by 1 day in both acknowledging and responding to the complaint. This was not a significant delay but it had informed the resident it would respond by 13 February 2023. There is no evidence it told her about the delay, and it did not acknowledge or apologise for this in its response, which was unreasonable.
The resident asked that the landlord escalate the complaint on 1 and 10 March 2023. There is no evidence the landlord logged this. Instead, the complaint handler accepted the service had not been up to standard. They said they would update the original complaint decision and uphold the complaint.
It was not sufficient for the landlord to change the decision without responding formally, in writing, to identify what it had got wrong and how it would put things right. Its approach created confusion for the resident who was unclear about the status of her complaint.
The landlord logged a new complaint following the resident’s email on 29 March 2023. The resident was clearly upset with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and had specifically requested that it escalate the complaint. The complaints team discussed whether it should withdraw the complaint as the complaint handler had responded to the resident and raised a job for a mould wash and a dehumidifier based on her concerns. Throughout its ongoing correspondence with the resident, it was clear she remained dissatisfied but there is no evidence the landlord progressed the complaint. Instead, it reiterated that it had upheld her initial complaint and said it would arrange a meeting to discuss its performance after it had completed the work.
It was unreasonable that the landlord did not act on the resident’s numerous and clear requests that it escalate her complaint. It did not progress the complaint as it was working with her to address her concerns, but this should not have prevented it from considering its handling of the matter through its formal process. While it said it was willing to reflect on its failings in a post-works meeting, this did not offer reassurance or provide remedy for the resident. It failed to apply its policy and to provide an accessible and accountable complaint handling service, causing the resident frustration and time and effort chasing it.
Following an email from the resident on 30 June 2023 the landlord logged a further complaint. This resulted in its stage 1 response of 20 July 2023, which was 14 working days later. Again, this represented a slight delay which it did not acknowledge. It also failed to identify its confused complaint handling approach up to this point.
The resident escalated the complaint the same day and the landlord informed her it would investigate again at stage 1. As discussed, the landlord acted in accordance with its policy at the time. However, its approach unnecessarily lengthened the complaints process and delayed her being able to bring the complaint to us.
The additional response was due on 3 August 2023 but the landlord responded after 20 working days on 17 August 2023. It managed the resident’s expectations about this so no fault is found. However, we note this contributed to the overall delays she experienced in the landlord addressing her complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint and the landlord responded at stage 2 on 13 September 2023. This was after 19 working days and was within its policy timeframe. As discussed, the landlord accepted responsibility for failings in its handling of her reports about damp and mould and took steps to put things right. However, it did not reflect on its complaint handling. As such it did not identify any failures and take steps to put this right. We have therefore found maladministration.
As discussed, the landlord has now updated its complaints policy and operates a simplified 2-stage process in line with the Code. As a result, it can deal with complaints more swiftly and transparently.
However, the landlord should apologise to the resident for failures in its complaint handling, most significantly its repeated failure to escalate her complaint. This caused the resident frustration and unduly lengthened the complaints process for her. It should remind staff involved in complaint handling that they must not refuse to escalate complaints through the process without a valid reason. Where they have a valid reason, they should explain this to the resident.
It should also compensate the resident for the frustration she experienced because of its protracted complaints process. It should pay the resident £180 in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Write a letter of apology to the resident for failures in its complaint handling. It should share a copy with this Service.
2. Pay the resident £180 compensation for the impact of its complaint handling failures. It should provide evidence to this Service it has paid this.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. It has not already done so, pay the resident the £280 compensation it previously offered for failings in its handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould. We have made a finding of reasonable redress based on the landlord paying this amount.
2. Review its process for project managing repairs through to completion to prevent the drift seen in this case.
3. Ensure it has embedded its damp and mould policy and is effectively triaging cases of damp and mould, considering factors such as household composition and vulnerability.
4. It should remind staff involved in complaint handling that they must not refuse to escalate complaints through the process without a valid reason. It can share this information through email to relevant staff or as part of future complaint handling training.