Exeter City Council (202426715)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426715

Exeter City Council

24 June 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 reports of:
1. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Damp and mould in the property.

Background

The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under a secure tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat and he has lived there since April 2023.
On 29 September and 9 October 2023 the resident reported incidents involving one of his neighbours, which he said he had found intimidating. On 25 March 2024 the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection and identified some required repairs. A further inspection was carried out on 17 May which also recommended repairs.
On 7 June 2024 the resident asked the landlord to raise a complaint about its handling of his reports of ASB. After speaking with him on 11 June, his concerns about damp and mould were added to the complaint. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 20 June, in which it said:
1. it had treated the report of ASB as a service request rather than a formal complaint and would deal with a case in line with its ASB policy
2. following a visit on 13 June a work order had been raised to look for rising and/or penetrating damp
3. it had instructed a contractor to upgrade bathroom and kitchen extractor fans
4. it had not instructed installation of a positive input ventilation (PIV) unit as he had raised concerns about running costs
5. it had raised a work order to clear the guttering and downpipes and carry out render repairs
6. it noted there had been some mould growth on the resident’s belongings and offered a £200 goodwill gesture
On 10 September 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He said it had failed to carry out agreed actions in relation to damp and mould and had not escalated the ASB case. On 12 September the landlord confirmed that although it had not issued a stage 1 response in relation to ASB, it would escalate both issues to stage 2.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 9 October 2024, in which it said:
1. it acknowledged that it took too long for initial contact to be made with the resident following his reports of ASB as it initially thought it was an isolated incident
2. it offered mediation and a good neighbour agreement, both of which he refused – it also offered an informal neighbour agreement but he did not want to commit to not talking to the neighbour when he felt it was appropriate
3. it had spoken to the neighbour about the seriousness of their actions – it said this action was appropriate in line with the circumstances and its policy
4. it had met with the resident on 19 September to discuss the damp and mould and he had said he was happy with how things were progressing
5. on 1 October he had taken delivery of a new bed and it asked him to confirm which 6 items of furniture he required and it would fund these
6. it had found that the damp and mould issue was being caused by condensation and had advised him that a PIV unit would help – it sent him literature about the unit and the running costs and asked him to reconsider having one installed
On 7 March 2025 the resident contacted us and asked us to investigate the complaint. He said he felt that he had been ‘victim blamed’ by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has raised concerns about his health and the impact on this by the issues raised. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages.
The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will:
1. fully investigate cases of ASB with sensitivity, taking firm but proportionate action where necessary
2. work in partnership with other organisations to resolve ASB
3. outline expectations of communication between itself and related parties during an open ASB case
4. maintain regular contact with the complainant while the case is open and send a case closure letter once the case is closed
On 29 September 2023 the resident spoke to the landlord to report an incident with his neighbour that had taken place the day before. He said the neighbour had interrupted his meal with friends in an ‘inappropriate and belligerent manner’. This incident took place in a local pub, not within the locality of the home, so did not relate to the landlord’s housing management. Therefore, the landlord was not obliged to take any action.
The landlord did, however, speak to the neighbour, which was a reasonable step for it to take. After speaking to them, the landlord decided no further action was necessary, which was appropriate. However, there is no evidence the landlord explained to the resident why it was taking no further action at this stage, which it should have done. This would have allowed it to set the expectation with the resident of what it was and was not able to deal with.
On 9 October 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say that on 5 October he had returned home to find his neighbour had parked their motorbike where he usually parked his car. He said that he felt that the neighbour was trying to use coercive behaviour to silence him about the previous incident. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it took any action at this time, or provided the resident with a response, which was not appropriate.
There were no further reports of ASB from the resident until 16 May 2024. He said bailiffs had knocked on his door looking for the neighbour. This is not something we would expect the landlord to treat as ASB, or get involved in. The landlord responded on 24 May to explain this, which was reasonable.
On 7 June 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say that on 5 June he had been woken by banging and scraping outside. He said he went outside and found the neighbour sweeping chippings close to his car. He told the landlord he was concerned due to his car being damaged previously and asked the neighbour to be careful. He said the neighbour became ‘hostile and abusive’ and asked to raise a complaint. A friend of the resident was also present, and sent an email to the landlord to say they had witnessed threats and harassment from the neighbour.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 11 June 2024 and followed up with an email saying it had logged a complaint. However, in its stage 1 response it explained that it had treated the ASB issue as a service request rather than a complaint, and had opened an ASB case. We would not expect a landlord to investigate a complaint about the ASB itself, only its handling of the resident’s report of the ASB. As he raised the complaint shortly after he told it about the recent ASB. So, it had not yet had the opportunity to deal with the ASB reported in May, and it was reasonable for it to treat this as a service request rather than a complaint.
However, the landlord did not take any further action in relation to the ASB case and on 1 July 2024 the resident told it he feared for his safety and felt nothing had been done about the ASB. On 10 July the landlord spoke with the neighbour and decided the best course of action at that time was for them not to engage with each other. While this was a positive action by the landlord, it was taken more than a month after the incident was reported, which represented an unreasonable delay.
The landlord tried to speak with the resident on 11 and 12 July but was unable to make contact. It followed up with an email on 12 July saying it had been trying to make contact with him to discuss matters. It spoke to the resident on 17 July 2024 and visited him the next day. The landlord explained to the resident that the neighbour had made a counter allegation.
On 24 July 2024 there was an incident where the resident and his neighbour took photos of each other. The landlord spoke to both parties, who both said the other had taken photos first. It told the resident it had explained to the neighbour that they should not have been taking photos. He asked if the landlord would report it to the Police and it said that he could report matters to the police if he wished. As the landlord had conflicting accounts from both parties, it was reasonable for it not to involve the Police itself at that time.
On 25 July 2024 the landlord told the resident that his neighbour was willing to agree to an informal ‘no interaction agreement’ and asked if the resident would agree to this. He said that he did not want to speak to the neighbour again but did not confirm acceptance of the agreement. This offer from the landlord demonstrated that it had engaged with the neighbour and was a positive step.
On 31 July 2024 the resident emailed the landlord and said that he could not enter a ‘no contact contract’ due to his proximity to the neighbour. He said it was an inadequate solution and harsher steps should be taken. The landlord said it would respond within 10 working days. It updated the resident on 8 August, confirming it would provide him with notes from the visit on 18 July and phone call on 25 July.
In an email of 14 August 2024 the resident told the landlord he felt that it was its duty to report matters to the police, and he felt that he had been discouraged from doing so. While we appreciate the resident felt the landlord was discouraging, it did tell him he could report it. As explained above, it was reasonable for it not to report matters, based on the conflicting testimonies it had obtained.
On 10 September 2024 the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated as he said it had not escalated the ASB case. He said the landlord had not followed its ASB policy and procedures. Although the landlord had not investigated the complaint at stage 1, it agreed to escalate this issue straight to stage 2. Given that he had raised this with his complaint about damp and mould this was not unreasonable for the landlord to do.
In its stage 2 response of 9 October 2024 the landlord said that it had taken too long for it to make contact when he initially reported ASB. It said it had not initially opened an ASB case as it thought it was an isolated incident. It said it had offered mediation and a good neighbour agreement, both of which the resident had refused. It had spoken to the neighbour, which it felt was appropriate action in line with the circumstances and its policy.
On 13 December 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to let him know it had closed the ASB case as it had received no further reports. This was a reasonable action, and in line with its ASB policy.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord has a duty to take reports seriously from all of its tenants, and in this case it received counter allegations from the neighbour. Overall, its actions were reasonable and proportionate in line with its policy, based on the evidence it received.
However, the landlord failed to respond to the resident following his reports in 2023. It should have explained that the first incident was outside of its remit to investigate. It also should have investigated, and responded to, his second report, but it has not provided evidence it did so. Had it taken steps in line with its policy at that time, it may have prevented escalation of the ASB further down the line. It was also slow to take action when the resident reported an incident in June 2024.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to respond to his reports of ASB in 2023, and the delay in it taking action in June 2024. This award has been made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Damp and mould

The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it will:
1. visit every home that reports damp and/or mould and assess the issue to determine the severity of the situation and the potential risk to the resident
2. undertake appropriate investigations to determine the cause of damp and mould, acting swiftly where concerns about the resident’s health have been raised
3. keep the resident informed about action being taken and the timescales for this
4. identify and tackle the underlying causes of damp and mould, including building deficiencies, inadequate ventilation and condensation
5. install appropriate energy efficient mechanical extraction systems and provide information to residents about ventilation, heating controls and humidity levels in the home
On 20 March 2024 the resident reported that there were puddles in his flat and asked if he could borrow a dehumidifier. The landlord told him the damp needed to be investigated and arranged an inspection for 25 March. This inspection found mould in the lounge, bathroom and bedroom. The report said that the property was not being heated adequately and that the extractor fans needed overhauling as they were not extracting properly.
On 26 April 2024 the landlord emailed the resident and apologised that no jobs had been raised following the inspection. It said it had booked a mould wash treatment and work to upgrade the bathroom fan. It was not appropriate that it took the landlord a month to raise these jobs.
On 8 May 2024 the resident emailed the landlord, saying that damp appeared to be rising from the floor. He said his belongings were ruined and there was damp and mould 3 feet up the wall. He told the landlord the damp was causing him to cough. The landlord responded the next day to say it would arrange a further damp and mould inspection.
On 16 May 2024 a mould wash and work to the extractor fan were carried out.. A damp and mould inspection was carried out on 17 May which found that the trickle rates of the kitchen and bathroom fans were poor. The report said the overall humidity levels were surprisingly high and there were signs of prolonged humidity, such as rusted bathroom fittings. It noted that the bedroom rug was wet to the touch and the resident’s footwear was covered in mould. It said the resident was concerned about the extra cost of a PIV unit and had rarely used the heating in the last year.
The inspection report recommended a PIV unit be installed, as well as new vents in the bathroom and kitchen. It also said that the gaps under the internal doors were insufficient to allow for air flow and should be adjusted to 10mm. The report did not comment on whether there were any signs of rising damp, despite the resident raising this as a concern, which was not appropriate.
On 11 June 2024, the resident asked the landlord to add his concerns about damp and mould to his existing ASB complaint. In its stage 1 response of 20 June the landlord said that following a visit on 13 June it had raised a work order to inspect for rising or penetrating damp. It had raised orders for upgrades to the extractor fans but had not instructed installation of a PIV unit due to his concerns about costs. It had also raised an order for a drain survey, clearing of guttering and downpipes, and render repairs. It offered £200 to compensate him for his damaged belongings. It is not clear whether that was reasonable at that time, as it had not yet established the underlying cause of the damp and mould.
On 13 June 2024, jobs were raised for a drain survey, to clear out gutters and patch up render. The drain survey was completed on 14 June. Blockages were cleared and CCTV was used to confirm the drains were then flowing freely. Render repairs were later completed on 11 July and the gutters were cleared on 18 July.
Emails between the landlord and the resident on 21 June 2024 said that an appointment had been booked for that day for a further inspection. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence that this inspection went ahead. No report has been provided to show that it completed the promised investigation into possible rising or penetrating damp, which was not reasonable.
On 1 July 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say the amount of compensation it had offered would barely cover the cost to dispose of his damaged items, leaving nothing to replace them. It said that mould had infested his bed and a living room cabinet and replacing those alone would cost more than £200. On 12 July the landlord acknowledged the information he had provided about damaged items and asked him for an approximate figure he was looking for as compensation.
On 16 July 2024 the resident told the landlord he was not in a position to pay for running costs of a PIV unit, when the damp and mould problem was not caused by him. On 22 July he asked the landlord for an update on a referral for him to have some of his damaged items replaced. We have not seen any previous correspondence relating to this referral, so it is not clear when, or why, the landlord offered this.
On 10 September 2024 the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated as he said the landlord had failed to carry out what it had agreed. On 26 September the landlord tried to contact the resident to arrange a new damp and mould inspection, but was unable to make contact. On 30 September the landlord sent him some literature about the PIV unit. On 2 October it explained that its contractor, who was a specialist in damp and mould had recommended the unit, as well as vents in the kitchen and bathroom. It said that they had also recommended ensuring all internal doors had a 10mm gap to allow for airflow.
On 3 October 2024 the landlord offered £20 towards his bills and said that a month after installation of the vents and PIV unit it would inspect to check for draughts and cold. According to the literature provided by the landlord, this amount was more than a year’s running cost of the ventilation units, and was a reasonable offer. The resident responded to say he did not think trimming the doors would help as he rarely closed them, but did not mention the vents and PIV unit. He told the landlord he had found slugs in the bathroom.
In its stage 2 response of 9 October 2024 the landlord said that the resident had taken delivery of a new bed, provided by the landlord on 1 October. It asked him to let it know what other 6 items he wanted it to replace, however it is not clear how it decided on this number of items, or whether this covered his losses in full.
The landlord said that a damp inspection had found that the damp and mould was being caused by condensation. However, no inspection report has been provided to support this. No evidence has been provided that the landlord carried out the inspection to rule out rising or penetrating damp promised at stage 2, so this conclusion was not reasonable.
On 29 January 2025 the resident emailed the landlord to say that despite several mould washes, the mould had returned worse than before. He said that this was affecting both his physical and mental health. On 16 April he emailed the landlord’s contractor to ask what he could do to stop mould reoccurring. The contractor responded to say that it was likely that with only a mould wash it would continue to return.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. It did not undertake the agreed inspection to rule out rising and or/penetrating damp as the cause of the damp and mould, failing to act in line with its damp and mould policy.
The landlord has continued to tell the resident that the damp and mould was caused by condensation and that a PIV unit would resolve this. The resident was concerned about running costs, as he did not believe that condensation was the cause, which was a reasonable concern given that rising and penetrating damp were not ruled out. Despite the resident reporting the damp and mould issue more than a year ago, it remains unresolved.
The landlord made an offer to the resident to pay £200 towards his damaged belongings, and provide some replacement items, but its records do not make it clear how it concluded what items, or how many items, should be replaced. It does not appear to have considered referring the resident to its insurer to submit a claim for his damaged items.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to identify the cause of the damp and mould. This award has been made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £800, including the £200 the landlord offered for the damaged belongings during its internal complaints process. An order has also been made for the landlord to provide the resident with its insurer’s details to enable him to make a claim, should he wish to.
An order has also been made for the landlord to arrange an inspection to establish whether there is rising and/or penetrating damp. The landlord should provide the resident and this Service with a schedule of required works, including timeframes for completion.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB
2. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of residents reports of damp and mould in the property

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £900, less any amount already paid during its internal complaints process, broken down as follows:
1. £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of ASB
2. £800 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of damp and mould
A senior manager at the landlord to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
The landlord to provide the resident with its insurer’s details, so he can make a claim, should he wish to.
The landlord to provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of this report.
Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord to provide evidence it has carried out the following actions:
1. arrange a damp and mould inspection of the property to investigate whether there is rising and/or penetrating damp – an appropriately qualified specialist should conduct the inspection
2. provide the resident and this Service with a schedule of required works including timeframes for completion