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

Mid Suffolk District Council (202338776)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338776

Mid Suffolk District Council

29 January 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:

a.     The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

b.     The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a house owned by the landlord. She lives in the property with her partner and 6 children, 2 of which have additional needs.
  2. In January 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about its lack of response to the damp she had previously reported in her kitchen.
  3. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 16 January 2023. It said it would arrange for a damp survey. It acknowledged the delay and poor communication experienced by the resident.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 in May 2023. She said the landlord had not contacted her since its stage 1 response.
  5. In its stage 2 response of 18 July 2023, the landlord apologised that it had not yet completed a damp survey. It said its contractors would attend in the next 2 to 4 weeks. Once it received the results, it would put a plan together to help combat the damp and mould issues.
  6. The resident raised further complaints about the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould in November 2023 and April 2024. The landlord refused to consider the matter through its formal complaint procedure, citing that she had already received a stage 2 complaint response.
  7. In July 2024, the landlord offered the resident £550 compensation. It advised the resident to claim upon her contents insurance for damage to personal items. In September 2024, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £950.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied and referred the matter to this Service. She said that as of December 2024, repairs were still outstanding, and damp and mould remained in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident was concerned about the impact the living conditions had on the occupants of the property. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because the court 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 over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, the complaint about the health implications of the living conditions is better dealt with via the court.
  2. Within the resident’s communication with this Service, she said she experienced problems with damp and mould in the property since her tenancy started in October 2017. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about this, completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, or referred the matter to this Service at the time for support in engaging with the landlord. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happen. In this case, we have focused on the period from July 2022 onward, following the resident’s recent report of damp in the property. Reference to historic events is to provide context only.

Damp and mould

  1. Where a landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the resolution offered by the landlord put things right and remedied the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The Ombudsman also considers whether the landlord acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of a property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility to ensure a property remains fit for human habitation under s.9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  3. The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord will maintain and repair the structure and outside of the home. It states it will complete repairs within a reasonable amount of time.
  4. The landlord informed this Service that at the time of the complaint, it did not have a repairs policy. It provided a copy of its damp and mould policy, dated January 2024.
  5. Following a resident’s report of damp and mould within a property, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to conduct an inspection to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause, and decide an appropriate course of action.
  6. The Housing Ombudsman’s 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, we expect landlords to ensure there is effective internal communication between teams and departments and to ensure 1 team or individual has overall responsibility for ensuring complaints/reports relating to damp and mould are resolved, including follow up or aftercare.
  7. In April 2021, the resident informed the landlord that there was returning damp in her kitchen, hallway, and downstairs toilet. She said she could not control it with ventilation or heating, and there was a 6-week-old baby in the property. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of further contact about this issue until July 2022, where the resident made a further report of mould in the kitchen. This report was acknowledged by the landlord.
  8. The landlord failed to demonstrate how it responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould from April 2021 to when it completed a damp survey in July 2023. This has impacted our consideration of this case. The resident told this Service that prior to the damp survey in July 2023, several of the landlord’s contractors had attended the property and identified various issues that may have been contributing to the damp problem. However, the landlord has not provided evidence of this to the Ombudsman.
  9. 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 the landlord’s 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. When this Service requested evidence from the landlord, it said it was not able to evidence the dates it visited the property, details of any work, or details of outstanding issues. Excluding a damp survey, it said it could not provide any other surveys or reports. This is a significant omission in the landlord’s record keeping.
  10. Landlords cannot thoroughly investigate and respond to complaints without accurate and comprehensive records, and this could result in unfairness to residents.
  11. The landlord has not evidenced that it took actions in the interim to reduce the impact on the resident, apart from an offer of “preventive shielding” which she refused. It has not demonstrated that it discussed this in more detail with her to understand why she declined this or to discuss potential alternatives. Additionally, it is of concern that there is no evidence to suggest that the hazard of damp or mould and the impact upon the household was appropriately considered or addressed. The lack of a risk assessment and exploring options with the resident indicates disregard for the vulnerabilities of the household.
  12. Records show the resident repeatedly chased the landlord for updates, made many telephone calls, and explained the impact the issues had on her and her family. The Ombudsman finds the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident throughout this case. She did not receive clear and concise updates and spent an unreasonable amount of time trying to progress the works. Further, there were delays responding to emails and requests for updates. The Ombudsman determines that the communication failings exacerbated the situation, delayed the resolution of the substantive issue, and worsened the impact on the resident. This further undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
  13. The Ombudsman recognises this is a complex case and there were several issues within the property. The damp survey from July 2023 referenced blocked gutters, damaged windows, issues with the heating system and extractor fans. It also identified historic mould but did not explain why this was deemed “historic” and not active. Further, it referenced the resident’s behaviour around containing moisture, decluttering, using extraction in the kitchen, using lids on pots, keeping radiators clear, and cleaning mould. The resident strongly refutes that she does not follow best practice.
  14. Our damp and mould spotlight report states landlords should review, alongside residents, their initial response to reports of damp and mould to ensure they avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language that leaves residents feeling blamed. While a landlord is entitled to rely on the information provided by its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, the Ombudsman finds that its communication in this case partially inferred blame on the resident. This was inappropriate, especially as the landlord identified several issues within the property that may have contributed to damp and mould.
  15. Furthermore, the Ombudsman recognises the landlord was assessing the damp proof course, and it intended to install external wall insulation and replace the windows. We have seen no surveys or inspections relating to the above, or evidence of their impact on the substantive issue. Again, this record keeping failing has impacted this assessment.
  16. In relation to the resident’s request for compensation for damaged belongings, the landlord asked her to evidence her financial loss. This was in line with its compensation policy, which states it would consider, “actual financial loss that can be evidenced.” The Ombudsman finds the landlord acted in line with its policy here.
  17. In response to the photos provided by the resident regarding her damaged belongings, the landlord then directed her to her own contents insurer. The resident explained her contents insurer was unable to accept the claim as the damage was caused gradually, which is a policy exclusion. It is unclear if the landlord has since responded or re-considered this point.
  18. It concerns the Ombudsman that while the landlord has completed some repairs, such as the guttering and balancing the heating, the substantive issue of damp and mould remains unresolved 16 months after it issued its final complaint response, and more than 28 months since the resident’s report of damp in July 2022. This indicates a significant lack of repair management and ownership.
  19. The landlord does not dispute that there were delays in responding to the resident’s request for repair. On 31 July 2024, it awarded £400 for a delay that exceeded 2 years. However, it also stated the property was overcrowded and contractors had reported that she did not follow best practice when combatting damp and mould. Therefore, it would not accept full responsibility for the issues. For its partial responsibility, it offered £150 compensation, resulting in redress of £550. On 18 September 2024, it increased its overall offer to £950.
  20. In the Ombudsman’s view, compensation of £950 to reflect the service failings, extensive repair delays, and the impact on the resident was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case, nor was it in line with our remedies guidance. The landlord failed to offer suitable redress to recognise the resident’s distress and inconvenience or the time and trouble she spent pursuing an effective and lasting repair. Additionally, the Ombudsman notes the landlord offered no compensation within its internal complaints procedure and there was no oversight to manage the repairs through to completion.

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 resident initially complained on 2 January 2023. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 16 January 2023, 9 working days later. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 31 May 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 July 2023, 34 working days later. The Ombudsman finds the landlord responded in line with the timescales set out in the Code.
  3. When responding to a complaint, the Code expects a landlord to explain the decision, its reasons, and the remedy offer to put things right. At stage 1, the landlord upheld the complaint in view of the delays and poor communication. It said it would arrange for its damp and mould team to contact the resident to arrange a damp survey. It is a concern to the Ombudsman that it did not set out a timeframe for the survey within its response, nor did it consider any redress for its shortcomings.
  4. At stage 2, the landlord recognised it did not follow through with its complaint commitment to complete a damp survey, which remained outstanding 6 months after it addressed the complaint at stage 1. It promised that its contractors would complete a damp survey within 2 to 4 weeks. While it apologised for the delay, it failed to consider the impact to the resident and the time she had spent pursuing a resolution. Additionally, it did not offer compensation. This was inappropriate and not in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right.
  5. Under the dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to identify clear learning points and outline actions to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future. While the landlord recognised failings, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it could have done more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience within its complaint responses to improve its complaint handling, communication, and repairs provision.
  6. The Code sets out that a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. In this case, the Ombudsman recognises the resident tried to make follow on complaints about continuing damp and mould in the property in November 2023 and April 2024. The landlord refused to consider these complaints through its internal complaints procedure as the resident had previously received a stage 2 response. This was inappropriate.
  7. When a resident makes another complaint following a stage 2 complaint response, we expect a landlord to set up a new case to investigate what happened following its previous response. Additionally, further complaints about similar issues can provide insights into a landlord’s service provision, function as an early warning system for potential problems and be a catalyst for organisational learning. The landlord acted unfairly here and missed opportunities to put things right.

Determination

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

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:

a.     Apologise to the resident for the failures identified.

b.     Pay the resident £1550, inclusive of the £950 offered post complaint. This is comprised of:

  1. £1300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of her reports of damp and mould from July 2022 to September 2024.
  2. £250 for the impact of the complaint handling failures.
  1. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:

a.     Arrange an independent survey of the property to assess its condition and identify any outstanding repairs which the landlord is responsible for. Within 14 days of receiving the report, it must write to the resident to set out the repairs it is responsible for (if any) and an action plan to complete them with timescales.

b.     Use its best endeavours to start the repairs within 28 days of the date it receives the survey.

c.      Provides the resident with the details of its liability insurer should she want to make a claim for her damaged personal items or consider the claim for damaged contents under its discretionary compensation policy as an alternative.

d.     Submit a copy of its draft repairs policy to this Service and provide an update on its implementation.

Recommendation

  1. Following the survey, the landlord may wish to appoint a fixed point of contact for the resident to keep her updated and address any enquiries. The point of contact should introduce themselves to the resident and agree a frequency for updates.