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

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (202413545)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413545

East Riding of Yorkshire Council

25 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a bungalow owned by the landlord. The landlord is aware the resident has terminal cancer and is vulnerable.
  2. The resident has a representative who has corresponded with the landlord and this Service. For ease, this report refers to “the resident” throughout.
  3. In November 2023, the resident expressed several concerns to the landlord about damp and mould in her property. She said she had to sleep on the sofa as mould covered her bed and furnishings. She explained she had cancer and at times, difficulty breathing.
  4. The landlord informed us that the resident made a formal complaint on 24 January 2024. It said she complained about the landlord’s delay submitting information to its insurer concerning her damaged items and its lack of contact with her.
  5. On 6 February 2024, the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. It apologised for the delay forwarding the details of the resident’s insurance claim to the relevant department. It set out that while an inspection did not identify any significant issues to the fabric of the building in the bedroom area, it ought to have done more to find a resolution to the high humidity levels. It offered her £300 compensation so she could buy a bed while waiting for the outcome of her claim.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 15 April 2024 as her insurance claim was outstanding. She explained the situation was stressful and she felt the lack of communication from the repairs team had made things worse.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 17 May 2024. It acknowledged the shortcomings in its communication. It confirmed it agreed to settle the resident’s insurance claim, which would be concluded shortly. It reoffered £300 compensation and said this was for its customer service failings.
  8. The landlord’s final complaint response dissatisfied the resident and so she referred the matter to this Service. To resolve the complaint, she wants a reimbursement of rent and increased compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said the way the landlord managed the issues caused significant stress and impacted her health. The Ombudsman empathises with her. However, the courts are the most effective place for disputes about impact to health. This is largely because it can appoint independent medical experts to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise, the court can examine oral testimony. Therefore, concerns about the health impact of the issue are better dealt with via the court.
  2. The resident was dissatisfied with the settlement value and timeliness of her insurance claim for damaged belongings. We cannot consider complaints that concern matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member landlord. The insurer is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Therefore, we cannot consider complaints about it. The independent body for complaints about insurers is the Financial Ombudsman Service.
  3. Within the resident’s communication with us, she said she experienced problems with damp and mould in the property since 2021. We have seen no evidence that she raised a complaint to the landlord or completed its internal complaints procedure concerning this. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matter arising.
  4. In this case, we have considered events which occurred in the preceding 12 months from the resident’s email dated 8 November 2023, up to the date of the landlord final response letter of 17 May 2024. Reference to historic and more recent events is to provide context only.

Damp and mould

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
  2. Once on notice of a repair, the landlord must conduct the works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and housing law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is – this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it aims to undertake repairs within 24 hours up to 56 working days, depending on the categorisation of the repair.
  4. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will investigate causes of condensation, damp, and mould within 12 days from the date reported by conducting a property inspection. Following the inspection, it will deal with any remedial works on a case-by-case basis. It acknowledges that in some cases, resolving damp and mould will require significant works that it cannot conclude within 56 days. In such cases, it will agree a timescale with the resident and provide regular updates.
  5. Following a resident’s report of damp and mould within a property, we find it reasonable for a landlord to conduct an inspection to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause, and decide an appropriate course of action.
  6. Our spotlight report on damp and mould states a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach and must ensure its response to reports of the above are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Additionally, there should be effective internal communication between teams and departments and to ensure 1 team or individual has overall responsibility for resolving complaints/reports relating to damp and mould, including follow up or aftercare.
  7. The landlord’s records show it inspected the property for damp and mould in June 2020. It also referenced a further inspection in 2021. It is not disputed that the resident moved into temporary accommodation for a few months while it completed remedial works.
  8. The resident said she reported a further occurrence of damp and mould on 15 August 2022, and an inspection took place on 26 August 2022. While the repair history for the property shows various attendances and repairs from August 2022 and September 2023, it is not clear from the evidence available what actions the landlord’s surveyors and contractors took at the time. Therefore, while we are minded that it attended on several occasions, we are unable to fully consider its actions at this time.
  9. The landlord’s records show it completed a damp and mould inspection in September 2023 and raised several work orders to check the loft insulation, hack off plaster, and inject damp proof course. While these works were pending, the resident contacted it on 8 and 14 November 2023. She referenced that a contractor identified a burst pipe under the concrete floor in October 2023 and felt this contributed to the mould in her bedroom. While the landlord has provided some records to this Service from this period, it has not fully demonstrated its actions and decision-making. This has impacted our assessment of this case.
  10. It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand its actions and decisions. If this Service investigates 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 determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies. In this case it failed to provide full records of its communication with the resident or comprehensive evidence of what it did each time it attended the property. This means we are unable to determine whether there were any avoidable delays or accurately assess the landlord’s communication.
  11. Following the resident’s earlier reports of damp and mould, the landlord has not evidenced that it took actions in the interim. It is a concern it has not exhibited the completion of a risk assessment or shown that it had a discussion with the resident about her needs. Furthermore, it has not demonstrated that it kept her updated throughout or provided estimated repair timescales in line with its damp and mould policy. The Ombudsman determines that the communication failings exacerbated the situation and worsened the impact on her. This further undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
  12. When deciding on how best to proceed with a repair, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. In this case, the landlord completed another damp and mould assessment on 13 December 2023. Following this, it raised several work orders and completed the relevant works in January 2024. During this period, the landlord completed the work orders in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
  13. We note that post-stage 2, the landlord arranged for a ‘specific defect’ survey following further concerns from the resident about mould in the bedroom. This took place in September 2024. The surveyor reported that while there was no visible damp or mould at the time of the inspection, the property was suffering from high humidity and condensation, so mould growth was feasible. It provided several recommendations to the landlord which it progressed in November and December 2024.
  14. The Ombudsman recognises this is a complex case and there were several issues within the property. The damp and mould reoccurred on several occasions despite surveys and the landlord undertaking work from 2021 – 2024. While it followed the advice of its staff and contractors when investigating and attempting to remedy the issue, we find it ought to have had greater oversight and managed this with a sense of urgency considering the property history and the resident’s known vulnerabilities. The lack of active management of the issues coupled with poor communication caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who had serious health problems.
  15. In view of the resident’s reports of damaged belongings, it was appropriate in the circumstances for the landlord to refer the matter to its insurer. We have not been provided with a full record of correspondence between the landlord and its insurer. Nonetheless, it is not disputed that it delayed submitting information to its insurance team from 8 November 2023 to 8 January 2024. The landlord apologised within its complaint response and explained it had since reminded staff that they must log insurance claims as soon as possible. While it apologised and identified learning, we find it would have been reasonable for it to also consider the impact of the delay and offer financial redress. Its failure to do so was a shortcoming.
  16. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it offered £300 compensation. It explained this sum was for the resident to replace her bed while its insurer considered her claim. At stage 2, the landlord said the £300 previously offered was to recognise the customer service failings it identified. This was inappropriate and confusing for the resident for it to change its position on the reason for compensation.
  17. Our remedies guidance sets out that compensation in the range of £100 to £600 is appropriate for failings that adversely affected a resident. In our view, the landlord failed to offer proportionate redress to recognise her distress and inconvenience, the time she spent pursuing a lasting repair, or its poor communication. Additionally, we are aware the matter continued post-stage 2, indicating it did not learn sufficient lessons from the complaint and failed to put things right within a reasonable period.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies that a stage 1 response should be issued in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 response should be issued within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 20 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
  2. The Code defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. A resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for the landlord to treat it as such. Whenever a resident expresses dissatisfaction, landlords must give them the choice to make complaint.
  3. The resident’s communication with the landlord on 8 November, 12 November, and 3 December 2023 expressed significant dissatisfaction about its handling of her reports of damp and mould in the property. We have seen no evidence that it gave her a choice to make a complaint at these times.
  4. The landlord informed this Service that the resident submitted a formal complaint on 24 January 2024. It issued its stage 1 response 9 working days later. It issued its stage 2 response 23 working days after her escalation request. This was broadly in line with the timescales set out in the Code.
  5. The landlord has a duty as a member to respond to complaints in line with the Code. Its failure to recognise the complaint initially meant it missed opportunities to remedy the resident’s concerns, address, and resolve the wider aspects of her complaint, show empathy, and improve the landlord/resident relationship. This had an impact as she kept chasing for responses, felt frustrated and ignored, and contacted her MP for support. Considering the evidence available, we find the landlord failed to treat this complaint with the necessary attention it deserved. We note at stage 2, it recognised it did not log a complaint until January 2024. However, it did not apologise or offer redress specifically for this.
  6. Under our dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to identify clear learning points and outline actions to ensure similar failures will not occur in the future. While it recognised general customer service failings, it could have done more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience within its final response to improve its service provision.
  7. Although the landlord offered redress within its complaint response for the substantive issue, in the circumstances, it ought to compensate the resident for the shortcomings in its complaint handling. As such, we order the landlord to pay her £50 to remedy this aspect of the complaint. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified.
    2. Pay the resident a total sum of £700 in compensation. This includes the £300 it gave her to replace her bed. The additional sum of £400 consists of:
      1. £300 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication and overall handling of her reports of damp and mould.
      2. £50 for the delay providing relevant information to its insurer.
      3. £50 for impact of the complaint handling shortcomings.