Milton Keynes Council (202421402)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421402

Milton Keynes City Council

28 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. The resident’s request that it replace her bathroom.
3. The resident’s report that her curtain rail had become detached from the wall.
4. The resident’s concerns about asbestos being present in the property.
5. The resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why aspects of a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

j. fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body

Part of the resident’s complaint relates to the decision not to replace her bathroom with a disabled-adapted bathroom. This was a decision reached by the council’s aids and adaptations section, as part of its adult social care services. The aids and adaptations section forms part of the council but does not undertake functions in the role of landlord. Consequently, this Service cannot investigate this aspect of the complaint as this remit properly falls within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Should the resident wish to pursue this aspect of the complaint, she should refer it to the LGCSO for investigation.

Background

The resident is an elderly woman with health needs including COPD and osteoarthritis. Her health needs impact her mobility. She has been a tenant in the property for over 30 years. The property is a 3-bed house. The landlord is a council. The resident’s daughter had complained to the landlord on the resident’s behalf and thereafter referred the complaint to this Service. She will be referred to as ‘the representative’ throughout this report.
There has been an ongoing problem with damp and mould in the property since 2018. The landlord raised works to repair the chimney and the roof in 2018, 2019 and 2020. In May 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that there was evidence of damp in her dining room. It raised an inspection and arranged for a roofer to visit the property to replace missing tiles on 6 June 2023.
On 18 September 2023, the representative raised a stage 1 complaint. She said that there was damp throughout the resident’s dining room. She had been chasing this since May 2023 and while some operatives had been out, they had not completed the repairs.
Between 19 September and 30 September 2023, the landlord raised works to repair and replace broken roof tiles, repair the dining room wall and to apply a mould wash. It raised further works to plaster walls in November 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 30 September 2023. It said that it had undertaken works to address the damp, and it would be contacting the representative in due course to schedule any outstanding works.
In February 2024, the representative reported that the resident’s curtain rail had fallen due to a crumbling wall. An operative attended on 5 March 2024 to fill the hole in the wall and install a wooden curtain rail batten. The representative raised a complaint on the 6 March 2024 because she was unhappy with the standard of the works, as the operative had neither sanded the fitting nor filled the holes.
The landlord raised these works on 27 March 2024 and attended on 9 April 2024 but concluded that the operative had completed the works to a good standard. The resident asked if it could refit the curtain rail brackets into the wall, rather than fitting a batten. The landlord agreed to do this but told the resident that while the fitting seemed secure, if it failed then it would need to install a batten. On 15 April 2024, the representative reported that the screws on the curtain rail were starting to come off. The landlord attended on 9 May 2024 and fixed the curtain rail.
In April 2024, the representative reported more damp in the resident’s dining room. The landlord raised an inspection on 3 April 2024, which went ahead on 24 April 2024, and which found that the downpipe to the front of the building required repair. On 16 April 2024, an asbestos survey went ahead.
On 26 April 2024, the landlord responded to the representative’s stage 1 complaint about the curtain rail. It said that it had checked the works on 9 April 2024 and the operative confirmed that the original work was secure and had refitted the curtain rail brackets following the resident’s request.
The representative asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 10 May 2024. She said that:
1. She was unhappy with the curtain rail repair as it had come away from the wall.
2. It had not yet resolved the damp.
3. There was now asbestos in the property.
The landlord raised further damp works between May 2024 and August 2024. This included a CCTV inspection of the pipes, installing pipework and a new soakaway to the front of the property. It also arranged to install new dry rods in the dining room wall and to remove ivy on the brickwork to the front of the house. In July 2024, it raised works to secure the curtain pole, which it completed on 25 July 2024.
On 29 August 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:
1. The works to repair the curtain pole had been reraised for 25 July 2024.
2. It had completed the damp works, and once it had removed the ivy, it would be repointing the brickwork, installing the downpipe, and completing a stain block.
3. As the asbestos in the property had not been disturbed, it did not need to raise works to remove it.
4. It offered the resident £50 in compensation for the delays.

Post complaint

The landlord increased its offer of compensation from £50 to £100 following contact with this Service in February 2025 because of the time and effort the representative spent in pursuing the resident’s complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In her submissions to this Service, the representative has referred to new issues, which she has raised as a complaint, but which had not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process at the time she had asked us to investigate the resident’s complaint.
In the interests of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the representative’s formal complaint and that had gone through both stages of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

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. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), 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 must consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s repairs policy provides target timescales in responding to requests for repairs which range between 4 to 24 hours for an emergency repair and 28 days for a routine repair. The landlord also has a damp and mould procedure which supplements its repairs policy. This provides a framework of the processes the landlord follows where it receives a report of damp and mould and the timescales for its response.
The information on the landlord’s website says that it will look to carry out an initial damp and mould inspection within 14 days, and this will include a mould wash. If this is sufficient to resolve the issue the contractor will contact the resident within 6 weeks for a review. Where further investigation is needed, it will arrange an inspection. Where it classifies reports as high risk, either due to severity or the vulnerability of the resident, it aims to attend sooner. It aims to complete works within 28 days.
We acknowledge that resolving an issue such as mould and damp at a property requires an investigative approach. It is not always possible to find the source of water ingress at first inspection. Sometimes there needs to be further investigation of the issues, particularly where there is complexity. It can take multiple visits to fully treat and resolve damp.
When the representative reported damp in the living room in May 2023, the landlord followed its published response timescales by inspecting the property. It raised works to replace tiles on the roof which were attended to within 28 days but not completed.
The representative had to chase this up in August 2023 and twice in September 2023 before raising a complaint, after which the works were raised and completed that month, with further works undertaken in October 2023 and November 2023.
This 3-month delay in raising follow on works was unreasonable, and did not follow the landlord’s procedure for damp and mould repairs which says that it will follow up with residents at six weeks, and then 3 months and 6 months. It also led to the representative having an unnecessary level of involvement in the repairs procedure and she spent time and trouble in chasing this up because of the landlord’s poor communication. However, once the works were raised the landlord completed them within its target response timescales of 28 days.
When the representative reported that damp had returned in April 2024, the landlord took proper action by promptly raising an inspection, however the landlord failed to undertake the inspection within the timescales outlined in its damp and mould procedure and it has not provided an explanation for this. Nonetheless, once it had raised the repairs it completed them within 14 days, therefore minimising the impact on the resident.
When the representative reported further damp issues on 15 May 2024 the landlord undertook a further inspection and raised works to install dry rods and thereafter to replaster the walls. Some of the works extended beyond its target response timescales of 28 days, as it needed to undertake follow up works. Such delays would not constitute a failing if they were because of unforeseen complexities in the works, however it is not clear that the landlord had explained the reason for the delays to the representative.
Further, works completed in July 2024 to replace the gully, install piping and a new soakaway had to be raised again in October 2024, because the standard of the original works was poor. It is unclear from the records whether the works were post-inspected in July 2024, however this caused further detriment to the resident as it delayed the completion of the works by 4 months.
Overall, this was a case involving damp and mould where there were complexities in finding the source of the damp. Sometimes the cause of damp and mould is not clear from the outset, and landlords need to follow a process of elimination to find and treat the cause. This was necessarily a lengthy process however it undoubtedly caused frustration to the resident.
However, there was an unreasonable delay of 3 months in raising works, for which the landlord has not provided an explanation. Once raised, it completed the works in 3 months, which was reasonable given the complexity of the damp issue. However, there is no evidence as to the landlord’s communication with the resident or representative over this time and whether it managed their expectations about the works.
Further, this Service has seen no evidence to show that the landlord explored what it could do to minimise the impact on the resident. This could have included providing dehumidifiers or completing a risk assessment to inform what other steps it could take to mitigate the disruption to her, given her age and vulnerabilities. The standard of some of the works undertaken was poor, which meant that contractors had to return to undertake the works 4 months later.
For this reason, the Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord. In its complaint response, the landlord did not offer redress to the resident for any delays in originally raising the damp works. We therefore order the landlord to pay the resident an amount of £300. This award is within the range of financial awards in our remedies guidance where there has been a failure in service delivery that has had an adverse effect on a resident. It also considers the added impact on the resident due to her age and vulnerability.

The resident’s report that her curtain rail had become detached from the wall

The landlord’s repair policy says that some minor works are the responsibility of residents to repair. It includes pelmets, battens, and curtain rails with the list of these items. It was reasonable for the landlord to exercise its discretion to complete these repairs, given the resident’s age and vulnerabilities. It completed the works within its target response timescales of 28 days.
When the representative raised a complaint that she was unhappy with the standard of the works, the landlord arranged to inspect the works which it also completed within its target response timescales.
The representative reported the repair again in April 2024. It is not clear from the information provided whether this was about the curtain rail batten or where the contractor had fixed the curtain rail brackets into the wall, following the resident’s request on 27 March 2024. The contractor had recorded at this visit that should the repair fail, they would need to install a batten. It reattended within its target response timescales and completed the repair.
Overall, the landlord responded appropriately to the representative’s reports. It had reviewed the work of the first operative and concluded that it was satisfactory. Following the resident’s request, it did not fix a batten for the lounge curtain rail and fixed it directly into the wall. It did alert the resident, at the date of the repair, that this was a less secure method than using a batten. When the repair failed, some weeks later, it returned to fix this within its target response timescales. This Service therefore finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s curtain repair.

The resident’s concerns about asbestos being present in the property

When a landlord is undertaking works to an older property, that may involve disturbing the structure of a property, such as walls and ceiling, they will usually undertake an asbestos assessment prior to works starting. This is because asbestos is commonly found in older properties and can present a risk if disturbed and airborne. Therefore, a landlord must take steps to arrange for its safe removal. The landlord therefore took proper steps to arrange an asbestos inspection.
Where the inspection found asbestos containing material (ACM) in the rear porch ceiling and bathroom, the report concluded that this was a ‘minor’ risk and should only be removed if disturbed through demolition or refurbishment works. According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), ACM in good condition is considered safe unless asbestos fibres become airborne, which happens when materials become damaged. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord left the ACMs in the property and took no further steps to remove it.
However, the representative and resident were worried by the presence of asbestos in the property. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained to the resident and representative about the risks with asbestos and why it was satisfied that no further works were necessary. There is no evidence that they did so, which led to the representative raising this as part of her complaint.
In its correspondence with this Service, the landlord has said that it provides information to residents about asbestos at the start of the tenancy. The resident is an elderly woman who has been a tenant for over 30 years. It would have been reasonable, therefore, for the landlord to have provided this information to the resident and representative again, so that they could understand why the report had found that the risk was minor. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have reassured the representative as to the risk, through its complaint response.
The Ombudsman therefore finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the representative’s concerns about the presence of asbestos in the property and orders the landlord to pay the resident £50 for her distress and inconvenience due to its ineffective communication.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Its relevant policy, provided to this Service (dated 2024 to 2026), states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to both stage 1 and 2 complaints within 20 working days. Where cases are complex it will add a further 10 working days at each stage
The landlord’s complaints policy is not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) which became statutory on 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our compliance framework and act where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. It is noted that the landlord has previously been referred to our team responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code.
The version of the Code applicable at the time of the representative’s complaint says that landlords should respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of it logging a complaint. The landlord did respond to some of the representative’s complaints within the timescales contained in the Code, however its response to the resident’s curtain repair complaint was 27 days outside of the timescales contained in the Code, and 17 days outside of the landlord’s published timescales, which, in the absence of an explanation, was unsatisfactory.
The landlord also responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint response 58 working days outside its target response timescales listed in its complaints policy, which was unreasonable.
The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it had agreed an extension to the deadline with the representative in advance. The Code states that a landlord must decide whether it needs an extension to the timescale when considering the complexity of the complaint and then inform the resident of the expected date for response. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and it must clearly explain the reason(s) to the resident.
Further, the complaint responses did not comply with the Code in that they did not provide a decision on the resident’s complaint and the reason for any decisions made, rather it provided details of works that it had completed since the representative had made the complaint.
The landlord had apologised for this delay in its complaints response and offered the resident £50 compensation. It later increased this to £100 but as this was after we had accepted the complaint for investigation, we cannot consider this later offer in our determination.
We therefore find service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling and have included an order for further compensation below, equal to the offer of compensation made by the landlord after we had accepted the complaint for investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report that her curtain rail had become detached from the wall.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos being present in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Send a written apology to the resident for the service failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £450 compensation, which includes
  1. £300 for her distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble due to the landlord’s delays and communication failings about her damp and mould repairs
  2. £100 that the landlord had previously offered the resident for its complaint handling failings if it has not already paid this to her.
  3. £50 for her distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s ineffective communication around her request to remove asbestos from her home.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider reviewing how it presents information about the risks of asbestos in its properties, particularly for elderly residents who may not have access to its website.
The landlord should consider providing additional training to staff regarding complaints handling.