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

Milton Keynes City Council (202328994)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328994

Milton Keynes City Council

14 April 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of roof leaks and subsequent damp and mould issues.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of a local authority landlord. The property is a 3 bedroomed semi-detached house. The landlord stated to us it had a service agreement with its contractor which authorised the contractor to respond on its behalf to service complaints at stage 1. 
  2. The landlord’s records show historical work being carried out on the resident’s roof and guttering since November 2020 because of her several service requests. In November 2022 the landlord carried out a mould wash and other repairs (it is unclear what they were) following the resident’s reports of damp and mould and her request for the flintlock concrete gutter to be replaced. 
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord’s contractor on 27 July 2023 about the guttering. She said she had been chasing the landlord to have this replaced for 3 years due to water ingress and now mould. The resident asked for compensation for distress and loss as she had to replace personal items due to the issue. She reported being a cancer patient since 2019.
  4. The landlord’s contractor responded at stage 1 of the complaint’s process on 01 August 2023. They said as follows:
    1. They had quoted the guttering work to resolve the reported issues.
    2. The work would begin once the landlord approved the quote.
    3. The mould wash previously arranged had not taken place due to the resident being unwell and asked the resident to rearrange.
  5. On 29 August 2023 the resident attempted to escalate the complaint to the landlord, however this was sent to a no-reply email address.
  6. On 06 October and 10 October 2023, the resident chased the escalation and contacted the landlord via the correct complaint email address. The resident stated she was unhappy the landlord had not fixed the cause of the damp and mould. She stated this affected her health and requested the work to start as soon as possible.
  7. On 23 November 2023 the landlord issued its final stage 2 response to the resident. The landlord stated it had received the escalation on 10 October 2023 and the work had been approved. The landlord explained the next steps were to reline the gutter, a damp and mould team to attend and complete any remedial work once the property dried out. The landlord apologised and explained the delay to the repairs was due to internal financial processes. 
  8. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 10 January 2024. She wanted to have the works completed in a timely manner, with a chemically resistant form of polyvinyl (UPVC) gutter replacing the current one. In recent correspondence, she advised us the landlord had carried out the work in January 2024. While the gutters were not replaced but relined, she said she was satisfied as the issue was resolved. 
  9. In response to the Ombudsman’s information request, the landlord acknowledged there had been failure in its handling of the issue from October 2020 to October 2023. The landlord stated it ensured it had taken learning from its failures.  The landlord also said it wished to offer the resident £800 compensation for its failures.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Service has seen evidence of work to the guttering and the roof carried out on a number of occasions in 2020 and 2021. The resident raised a complaint on 27 July 2023 and while the historical issues provided contextual background to the current complaint, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the events leading to the resident’s complaint, namely her reports from September and November 2022 that were considered in the landlord’s final response. This is because in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlord’s normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. Due to the nature of complaint related to works, the investigation is likely to also consider some events following the end of the internal complaints process.
  2. Although not complained about to the Ombudsman, during the internal complaint process, the resident said the condition of her home impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about this. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role 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 for damage to health. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s initial complaint. In line with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme these matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim to the landlord’s liability insurer.

Policy and procedures

  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 a good state of repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould from October 2021 (the spotlight report) recommends that the landlord takes a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions and review whether its approach will achieve this. It recommends social landlords complete a self-assessment. The landlord has informed us since that it is currently reviewing its self-assessment.  
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states if it identifies a minor issue, it may award a discretionary payment up to £350. The policy defines a minor issue as a complaint which exceeds 60 working days without keeping the customer updated. The policy further states if a moderate issue is identified it may award a discretionary payment up to £1000.  The policy defines a moderate issue a concern that had a significant impact over a long period of time or experienced on multiple instances. 
  4. The landlord’s complaint policy states the landlord has a 2-stage complaint process where at stage 2 it will provide a response within 20 days of the matter escalated and if required it will ask for a further 10 days extension.
  5. The landlord confirmed the resident making the complaint was its tenant, however it could not locate a tenancy agreement for her. While this is not something to be assessed during this investigation, we recommend the landlord improves its record keeping related to tenancies. 

The landlord’s handling of leaks, damp and mould

  1. The landlord provided repair logs as part of this investigation from November 2022, however the logs are not clear as to when the resident reported the guttering issues that led to the damp. In providing information to this investigation, the landlord acknowledged that it had not had a tracker to improve works prior to 2023 which may have led to the delays experienced by the resident. There were historical repairs to the property as far back as 2020 which do not appear to have resolved the long-term issue. The logs show the resident complained of damp from gutters that had not been replaced as well as missing roof tiles from a previous job in late September 2022 and early November 2022.
  2. The landlord provided audit photographs taken by its contractor dated 08 November 2022 showing black mould above a fan in the resident’s property. The landlord’s repair logs show work was completed on or around 11 November 2022, however it is unclear as to what work had been done other than a mould wash. While there were some works and mould washes noted in the landlord’s repair logs as completed in the following months, the landlord did not evidence that it had fixed the root cause of the damp and mould at this point. The landlord’s file lack evidence of when the issue was resolved but the resident advised that this was only resolved in early 2024.
  3. The resident raised her initial complaint at stage 1 with the contractor on 27 July 2023. The resident requested her guttering be replaced and be compensated for distress and the loss of personal items damaged from the damp and mould. The contractor’s response of 01 August 2023 appropriately advised that it had obtained a quote and was awaiting the landlord’s approval before work could begin. The contractor did not however provide any further reasons for the delays or give a response to the resident’s vulnerabilities and her claim for compensation for damage. 
  4. In the resident’s escalation request from 06 October 2023 the resident complained she had been told by a manger on 14 September 2023 she would be contacted about the works but had heard nothing. She stated her home was deteriorating and this affected her health.
  5. In its stage 2 response from November 2023, the landlord apologised for the delay in dealing with the gutter and explained it had requested further quotes as the replacement was expensive. The Ombudsman has seen an email from the landlord’s building surveyor to the landlord’s contractor from 18 September 2023 which stated that the flintlock gutters were in a fair condition other than leaking in a couple of places and advised lining should suffice. The email asked the contractor to amend the quote from May 2023 (which was for full replacement, as it considered this expensive) to reflect this.
  6. While it was understandable that the landlord had to consider the appropriate use of its resources, the financial discussion and the lack of effective and timely communication with its contractors caused unnecessary delays. Furthermore, the landlord’s file could not evidence the work was completed. While the resident reported the gutters as fixed in January 2024, this was 14 months from the damp and mould issue being reported (in November 2022). This delay was unreasonable.
  7. During this time the resident repeatedly complained about damp and mould and explained she had been vulnerable. In response to the damp and mould visit report of 09 August 2023 which revealed mould in the lounge, 2 bedrooms and kitchen the landlord followed up with some repairs. The landlord’s repair logs shows that it installed extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen on 16 August 2023 and cleaned/repaired the trickle vents, resealed a window and treated the damp. While these were reasonable steps to mitigate the damp and mould, the landlord could have done more and considered further interim measures in line with the spotlight report (such as dehumidifiers and heaters, or consideration of a decant). However, it could not demonstrate that it had done so.
  8. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged delays, and while it openly explained the reasons for the delays (its internal financial process), it failed to provide remedy and consider the impact on the vulnerable resident. In recent correspondence to the Ombudsman the landlord stated it had identified learning and introduced a tracking system to approve works, which would reduce delays. The landlord also advised the Ombudsman it had evolved its processes when dealing with damp and mould and was reviewing its self-assessment. The landlord explained that it wished to offer £800 compensation to the resident for its failures. We have not seen evidence of whether this had been offered to the resident. However, this level of compensation responds to the high end of maladministration as per the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance and provides a proportionate remedy for the failures identified in this report related to the delays in repair and the failure to consider the impact of these delays on the resident.
  9. While the level of compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate for the failures in the repairs handling, this was offered following the end of the landlord’s process. As such, the landlord missed an opportunity to provide resolution in a timely manner. Additionally, the Service has not seen evidence that the landlord or its contractor addressed the damage to belongings reported in the resident’s original complaint. It would have been reasonable that the landlord had applied its discretion in considering compensation for the damage or aided in/advised the resident in submitting a claim with its liability insurers. However, the landlord did not do any of these. Furthermore, it did not address the damage part of the complaint and as such it missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident. Therefore, we have ordered increased compensation.

The associated complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 23 November 2023 stated it received the escalation request on 10 October 2023. The evidence provided has shown the date the landlord actually received the escalation was on 6 October 2023. This was a factual error in its response. Additionally, its stage 2 response took 35 working days from escalation (15 working days outside of the timeframes set out in its complaints policy) and did not advise the resident of an extension. 
  2. The landlord did not acknowledge the delays in its complaint handling and as such it missed an opportunity to put things right. We have made an order in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website, where we have identified a failure but there may be no permanent impact on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the leaks, damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to action the below points within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay the resident £950 total compensation, made up of:
      1. £900 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delays in repairs. This includes the offer of £800 which the landlord wished to offer to the resident following the end of its complaint process. (If the landlord paid this already to extract it from this amount)
      2. £50 additional compensation for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures in the associated complaint handling. 
    2. Contact the resident to discuss any damage caused to belongings with the view to consider compensation or assist her with claim submission to its insurers.
    3. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reviews its record keeping, in relation to the retention of tenancy agreements.