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

Epping Forest District Council (202414667)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414667

Epping Forest District Council

23 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns as to the reasons given for the rent increase and an error on the rent increase letter.
    2. Reports of damp and mould in the bathroom and bedroom.
    3. Reports of outstanding repairs to structural cracks in the communal area and a roof leak into an internal cupboard.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a joint secure tenant of the property. The tenancy began on 9 August 2010. The property is a 1 bedroom first floor flat. The resident has Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).
  2. The resident’s husband is acting as an advocate on behalf of the resident in this case. For the purposes of this report, we will refer to both the resident and the advocate as ‘the resident’.
  3. In 2022 the resident raised concerns of disrepair with the landlord. She instructed a solicitor and both parties followed the pre-action protocol for housing condition claims. The landlord disputed the resident’s claim and the matter did not progress to court.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 30 October 2023 in relation to outstanding repairs. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 2 October 2024. It said there were no outstanding repairs for the resident’s property.
  5. Following escalation to stage 2 on 20 October 2024, and contact from us, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 23 December 2024. It said the stage 1 investigation found it had acted in line with its policies. It said the resident had not provided any further information and she had failed to explain what it had not covered at stage 1. Therefore, it had concluded its investigation of the complaint.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme says we may not consider complaints which “are made prior to having exhausted a member’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”.
  3. Part of the resident’s complaint relates to the concerns she raised as to the reasons given for the rent increase and an error on the rent increase letter. After carefully considering all the evidence, this aspect of the resident’s complaint sits outside of our jurisdiction. This is because the resident did not escalate this element of her complaint to stage 2 in her escalation request on 20 October 2024. Therefore, it has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

Scope of investigation

  1. This investigation will focus on the events that took place after the conclusion of the resident’s disrepair claim. This was sometime around the end of October 2022. This is because the evidence shows neither expert, who offered an opinion as part of the disrepair claim, found there to be any significant disrepair at the time. Therefore, the events prior to and including the disrepair claim are not included in this investigation. However, this report refers to the events prior to October 2022 to provide a background and to give overall context to the resident’s complaint.
  2. The resident has expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation has had on her health. We are unable to draw conclusions on causation, liability, or impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury must be decided by a court, who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Where there has been a failing by the landlord, we may consider any general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.

Reports of damp and mould in the bathroom and bedroom

  1. The evidence shows the resident reported issues with damp and mould to the landlord prior to her disrepair claim. The landlord carried out a damp and mould survey in November 2021. The inspection report recommended the landlord investigate the cavity wall insulation next to the bedroom wall and, if needed, reinsulate, including the communal cupboard. It also recommended the landlord install an extractor fan in the bathroom. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the cavity wall investigations took place.
  2. The landlord was due to upgrade the resident’s bathroom under a planned programme of works. The work included the installation of an extractor fan. The landlord put the works on hold in August 2022 as the resident had not given access for an asbestos survey. The work could not go ahead until the survey had been done. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord has since completed the bathroom upgrade.
  3. The landlord contacted the resident on 31 March 2023 to arrange a date for the asbestos survey in the bathroom. The resident responded and said the landlord had already completed an asbestos survey. She said she would not be taking any more time off work to allow access.
  4. The landlord’s records show it requested a survey of the cavity wall insulation on 15 August 2023. It is unclear from the evidence provided what prompted the survey and what the results of the survey were. However, the landlord raised a repair on 13 September 2023 to install cavity wall insulation to the side elevation of the resident’s property. The landlord’s records show it completed the work on 17 October 2023.
  5. The landlord removed the resident’s property from the planned programme of bathroom works in October 2023. This was because it was unable to start the work until it had carried out the asbestos survey. This is in line with the Health and Safety Executive’s guidelines when asbestos could be present in a building. There is a legal requirement for all asbestos containing materials (ACM’s) to be removed, as far as possible, before any major refurbishment or demolition.
  6. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 30 October 2023. She said the landlord told her the full outside wall would be injected with cavity wall insulation. She said the operative had only been instructed to do one floor. She said the landlord told her it would send the operative back to do the rest of the wall. She asked the landlord when it would complete the work. She also said the insulation had made no difference to the temperature of the flat and to the damp and mould.
  7. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 3 December 2023. However, the landlord did not send the resident a stage 1 complaint response until 2 October 2024. Its response said it did not uphold her complaint as there were no outstanding repairs to her property.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 20 October 2024. She said she had been reporting damp and mould since 2021. She asked the landlord to confirm what works it had completed in relation to her reports of damp and mould. She also said an independent surveyor had found multiple outstanding repairs to the block.
  9. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 23 December 2024. It said its stage 1 investigation found it had acted in line with its policies. It said the resident had failed to explain what it had not covered or supply additional evidence to support her complaint. It said it felt it had communicated with the resident throughout the issues and matters raised. It said, although the resident had said she was unhappy with the response, it had completed the works.
  10. In summary, the evidence shows it was reasonable of the landlord to put the bathroom works on hold until it was able to complete the asbestos survey. It was also reasonable of the landlord to undertake a cavity wall survey and install further insulation as part of its action to address the damp and mould.
  11. However, in its responses to the resident’s queries, it did not make any reference to the cavity wall insulation or confirm whether it had completed the additional insulation work. The landlord’s responses did not acknowledge the resident’s reports of continuing issues with damp and mould. It did not make any attempt to further address the resident’s concerns by arranging a damp and mould inspection. This was particularly concerning as the resident has COPD and she had reported the effects of mould in the bedroom.
  12. The evidence shows the landlord conducted what works it could in the bathroom, subject to completing an asbestos survey. However, it did not appropriately respond to the resident’s concerns it had not completed the necessary works for damp and mould or provide information to the contrary. Its level of communication left the resident without resolution to her complaint.
  13. As a result of these failings, and the level of detriment caused to the resident as her issues with damp and mould remain, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Reports of outstanding repairs to structural cracks in the communal area and a roof leak into an internal cupboard.

  1. The landlord dealt with structural cracks as part of the resident’s disrepair claim. The landlord agreed on 13 October 2022 some structural investigations and monitoring would be needed going forward. It said, if it found significant movement, it would carry out repairs.
  2. The resident reported the need for a repair on or around 17 January 2023 as water was coming through the roof and into an internal cupboard. The landlord inspected the leak on 1 February 2023. It found the leak was coming in through the roof around the old boiler flue and dripping down into the resident’s flat.
  3. The landlord raised the repair on 21 February 2023. The repair is recorded on the landlord’s system as being completed on 3 July 2023. This was over 5 months from the date of the resident’s report. The time to complete the repair was not in line with the timescales set out in the landlord’s housing and maintenance policy. The policy says routine repairs will be completed within 30 working days of the defect being reported.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 30 October 2023. She told the landlord it had not resolved the roof leak and the water ingress had caused damage. She said it had erected scaffolding on 13 March 2023 to carry out repairs to the roof. She said its contractor had to return 3 times, but the roof still leaked into her cupboard. She also raised concerns the old heating pipe was made of asbestos. She said she had been told it was not an issue as long as she did not touch it. However, the leak was causing debris from the pipe to fall onto clothing within the cupboard.
  5. The resident also raised concerns about subsidence. She said the landlord had informed residents it would be removing 6 trees which were causing structural subsidence. She asked the landlord when it would be completing the work as it was still outstanding.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 2 October 2024 said there were no outstanding repairs.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 20 October 2024. She disputed all repairs were complete as the leak was still outstanding. She said she had been reporting her concerns about structural cracks in the communal areas since 2021. She said the landlord made assurances it would monitor the cracks, but she had seen no evidence of it doing so. She said the landlord had not installed “tell tales” (a device used to monitor the movement of cracks in buildings) as she expected it would do.
  8. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 23 December 2024. It re-iterated the outcome of the stage 1 response. It said the resident had failed to explain what it had not covered at stage 1 or supply additional evidence to support her complaint. It said it was aware the resident was unhappy with its responses, however, it asserted that it had completed the works.
  9. In summary, the landlord took too long to carry out works to the roof. It did not follow up on the resident’s reports of a continuing leak by arranging an appointment to inspect the roof, the cupboard and the asbestos pipe. It did not explain how it was monitoring the cracks in the communal area. This was unfair to the resident as it was aware of the resident’s concerns as to whether the building was structurally safe. It has not shown that it did anything to allay the resident’s concerns.
  10. These failings caused the resident distress and inconvenience as a result. She did not receive a resolution to her complaint and her repair is still outstanding. As a result of these failings, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the outstanding repairs.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 15 working days.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 30 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day. It said it would respond to the resident by 13 November 2023.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 December 2023 as she had not received a complaint response. The landlord responded on 4 December 2023. It said it was sorry she had not received a response and it sign-posted the resident to us.
  4. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 2 October 2024. This was 11 months from the date of the complaint and significantly outside of the timeframe set within the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord told us the response covered the matters raised in this complaint and other issues raised in another more recent complaint made by the resident. However, the landlord’s complaint response was confused and does not make this clear. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in the stage 1 response.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 20 October 2024 as she disputed the landlord’s response that there were no outstanding repairs. We contacted the landlord on 18 December 2024 as the resident had not received a stage 2 response.
  6. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 23 December 2024. This was 2 months from the date of escalation and outside of the timeframe of 15 working days set within the landlord’s policy. The landlord did not acknowledge the significant delays in the complaints process, apologise to the resident or offer any redress.
  7. Paragraph 1.48 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2024 (the Code) sets out residents must not be required to explain their reasons for requesting a stage 2 consideration. Landlords are expected to make reasonable efforts to understand why a resident remains unhappy as part of its stage 2 response.
  8. Paragraph 1.54 of the Code states landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
  9. In its stage 2 response, the landlord placed the emphasis on the resident to explain what the landlord had not done in relation to her complaints of damp and mould. This was contrary to the Code and unreasonable.
  10. The landlord also did not address the resident’s specific concerns about the leak, the asbestos pipe, subsidence or structural cracking. This was also a breach of the Code and unreasonable by the landlord as it left the resident without resolution to key aspects of her complaints.
  11. In summary, there were significant failures in the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint. It acted inappropriately when it took 11 months to respond to her stage 1 complaint. The stage 1 response was confusing and it was not clear it covered 2 separate complaints. It did not escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 until we asked it to. It did not act in line with the Code and it did not acknowledge its complaint handling failings or offer any redress.
  12. These failings unreasonably delayed a resolution for the resident and caused distress and inconvenience as a result. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns as to the reasons given for the rent increase and an error on the rent increase letter, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the bathroom and bedroom.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to structural cracks in the communal area and a roof leak into an internal cupboard.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report. A senior manager must make the apology.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £950 made up of:
      1. £325 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the bathroom and bedroom.
      2. £325 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to structural cracks in the communal area and a roof leak into an internal cupboard.
      3. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
    3. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
    4. Investigate the source of the leak into the resident’s cupboard. The landlord must carry out any works necessary to make a repair within 1 week of the inspection.
    5. Provide the resident and this Service with an update as to whether the structural cracks have progressed since 13 October 2022. If they have progressed, and work is required, the landlord must explain how it intends to remedy the problem.
  2. Within six weeks of the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Arrange for a suitably qualified surveyor to carry out a damp and mould survey of the property. Within 2 weeks of the survey, based on the recommendations made within the survey report, the landlord must compile a schedule of works with proposed dates for completion. The landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the report and schedule of works. Any required works must commence within 6 weeks from the date of the survey report.
  3. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.