Oxford City Council (202425826)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425826

Oxford City Council

26 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:
1. Damp and mould in the property.
2. The resident’s complaint regarding staff conduct.
3. The resident’s concerns regarding its record keeping.
4. The level of compensation offered.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a 2-bedroom end terrace house. The resident lives in the property with her son. She has arthritis and her son has allergies. The resident’s partner who frequently resided at the property has severe asthma and uses a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine. The resident’s son also communicated with the landlord during the complaint. For the purposes of this report, we will refer to both the resident and her son as the ‘resident.’
On 2 February 2023, the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection. It described the issue as mould in several rooms affecting the resident’s belongings. It said it had treated the mould before but it had returned, it said it would need to remove the kitchen units before it could treat the wall behind. The landlord’s records show further damp and mould inspections taking place on 26 June 2023 and 8 August 2023. It fitted extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom on 6 July 2023.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on 5 March 2024. She said she had been reporting mould related issues since 2019 which resulted in visits by the landlord to treat the issue but it could not treat all the areas. She said she had to throw away several items which were damaged due to the mould and the landlord did not offer to do anything about them. She referred to the visits in 2023 and the recommendation to take the kitchen furniture out to treat the walls behind the units. She said no-one had contacted her in relation to that.
The resident said the landlord visited on 1 March 2024 and outlined the action it would take, but she was not satisfied with the plan. She said she wanted the landlord to remove all the kitchen furniture, treat the walls, and install a new kitchen. She said she wanted compensation for the landlord’s negligence, the damage to her belongings, and for the impact on her health.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 8 April 2024. It outlined its timeline of events and stated the following:
1. It confirmed that since the resident’s complaint, it carried out a further inspection on 7 March 2024. It noted that the resident reported a staff member saying that she should not worry about the mould and that it was nothing. She said they also said, “mould killers only cost £2.50 from the shop”. The landlord said it could not evidence the content of the conversation but it sincerely apologised for if she felt it had not taken her concerns seriously.
2. The landlord confirmed it had carried out further inspections and outlined the works identified. These included clearing all gutters and downpipes, removing all kitchen units to access the walls and treat them, and to install a positive input ventilation (PIV) system. It also confirmed that a new kitchen replacement had been authorised.
3. It upheld the complaint. It said it had acted promptly since February 2024 but there was a lack of action between August 2023 and February 2024. It said it had taken steps to improve its record keeping and internal communication.
4. It said the next steps would be an appointment with its kitchen supplier for 5 April 2024. It said due to the disruption of having some kitchen units removed, it would pay 15% of the resident’s weekly rent until it had reinstated the kitchen. The landlord confirmed it would carry out an inspection within 28 working days of completing the work. It asked the resident to provide photos and details of the damaged items.
The resident escalated her complaint on the same day. She said the proposed remedy was inadequate. The resident felt that due to the severity of the mould and health issues faced by her family, the compensation should be more comprehensive. She referred to the landlord’s lack of record of her reports in February 2023 and in 2024, which she said showed its record keeping practices were lacking and undermined its ability to question her timeline of events. She attached medical reports and photographs of damaged goods.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 May 2024:
1. It referred to the timeline of events and outlined its records from the dates queried by the resident. It apologised for not detailing the events in its stage 1 response. It said it was clear from the stage 1 response that there had been delays and service failures in its initial responses prior to March 2024.
2. It said it completed the kitchen on 26 April 2024, it apologised for not completing it as quickly as the resident wanted. It said this was due to needing to complete design visits, asbestos testing, and order the kitchen. It said it treated the areas of exposed mould in that time. It said it would install the PIV on 7 May 2024 which in conjunction with its advice on how to avoid damp and mould, should resolve the issue throughout the property.
3. The landlord said the resident raised concerns regarding the energy efficiency of the property and the energy performance certificate (EPC) rating ‘D.’ It said the rating was on the assumption that there was no insulation in the walls. It said it carried out a test of the building which confirmed there was insulation in the walls.
4. It acknowledged the household’s health concerns and the resident’s request for a decant. It said it explained that it would only be an option in circumstances where there is a serious risk or if it deemed the property was unsafe. It said it did not deem the mould severe enough to warrant a decant. It said it asked for medical evidence that the mould was causing the household to become ill. And while the resident provided evidence of her ongoing health issues, she did not provide anything which demonstrated a link with the mould.
5. It referred to additional issues raised since the stage 1 response and its position on those matters. It acknowledged that the resident had requested copies of all information held for the property, it confirmed it had passed the request onto its freedom of information (FOI) team.
6. The landlord upheld the complaint and outlined what action it had taken to improve its services. It offered a total of £1,103.64 in compensation. It broke it down as:
  1. £153.64 for the time the resident was without full use of her kitchen.
  2. £200 for the delay in taking action prior to February 2024.
  3. £500 for the impact the delays had on the resident.
  4. £250 towards cleaning or replacing damaged items.
7. It outlined its next steps as inspecting the kitchen replacement on 3 May 2024, installing the PIV on 7 May 2024, and the resident continuing to follow its advice on preventing damp and mould.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She did not accept the compensation offered and questioned how the landlord had reached that amount. She said the new PIV was blowing damp air in the property and the landlord never fixed that. She said it also did not clean all the greenery off the walls. The resident said there were still issues with the external gable wall and she could not place furniture on it as they would get damp and mouldy.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident informed the Ombudsman that the landlord’s handling of the matters under review in this investigation had a negative impact on the household’s health and wellbeing. This Service is 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 it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Although, we will consider any impact that likely resulted in distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The resident has stated that she has been experiencing the reported issues for approximately 10 years. The Scheme notes that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. While the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s account, there is no evidence of the resident raising a formal complaint about the damp and mould at the time. This investigation will therefore, consider events starting from February 2023 as a reasonable timeframe to investigate the complaint submitted in March 2024.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property

The landlord’s damp and mould webpage states that it will carry out a survey to identify what type of damp there is and what may be causing it. It says it may also treat any mould as part of the survey. It states that where further work is needed it will arrange to have it carried out. The guidance confirms that, if necessary, it will offer advice on managing condensation. It states if a resident still has problems with damp and mould after 4 weeks, to contact it again and it can consider installing monitoring equipment.
The landlord’s repairs webpage classifies repairs into 3 categories which are emergency, urgent, and routine. For emergency repairs it aims to attend within 24 hours. For urgent repairs, within 3 days. And for routine repairs within 28 days or they may be scheduled into a planned programme of works. The repairs policy does not provide a specific timeframe for damp and mould reports.
Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
It is not disputed that the landlord failed to fully resolve the reported damp and mould in the property prior to the formal complaint. Despite the findings of the inspections which took place in 2023, the landlord could not evidence that it removed the kitchen cupboards to treat the walls. This was not appropriate or in line with its guidance. This likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident in repeatedly raising the issue and living in a mouldy environment. The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged this delay. It said it had taken steps to improve its record keeping and internal communication.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 19 February 2024 to report the same issues and the landlord inspected the property on 1 March 2024. The inspection referred to condensation and the possible reasons for it. It outlined what works it would carry out and advised the resident that there was a 2–week deadline to address and resolve the damp and mould.
In its complaint response, the landlord clarified that the information regarding the 2–week deadline was inaccurate and related to “Awaab’s Law” which was not yet in effect. However, the impact of the statement led the resident to chase the landlord when it had not completed the works within that timeframe and question the landlord’s obligations. It would have been reasonable upon realising its error for the landlord to have outlined the actual timescales it was working towards and how they were in line with its policies and obligations. In not doing so, the landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord has evidenced that since the formal complaint, it carried out reasonable actions to identify and treat the cause of the mould in the property. The stage 1 response appropriately outlined a timeframe for the works and offered 15% of the resident’s weekly rent for partial loss of use of her kitchen.
However, the landlord’s stage 1 response failed to evidence that it had considered any risks posed to the resident. This is a failing and was not in line with its obligations under the HHSRS. Given the reports made and the time taken to resolve the issue, it would have been reasonable to see evidence of the landlord carrying out a risk assessment of the property. This would have reassured the resident that the landlord had assessed her concerns and the habitability of the property.
Within the 6 weeks of the landlord carrying out works to the kitchen, the resident contacted it at least 10 times to express concerns for the household’s health while exposed to the mould in the property. The resident referred to it impacting their breathing, resulting in allergic reactions, and the impact on their mental health. She felt the landlord should have removed the exposed mould from behind the units sooner or offered a decant.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it contacted the resident on 9 April 2024. It explained that based on the inspections and the information provided by the resident, the mould was not severe enough to warrant a decant. It said it asked the resident to provide evidence that the mould was causing her to become ill and it would reconsider a decant. It acknowledged that it could have requested medical evidence from when the resident first mentioned health issues. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the landlord has stated that it now explicitly asks whether a decant is required within its damp and mould surveys.
It is positive to see the landlord took steps to consider the habitability of the property and what it could have done differently to assess the situation sooner. It also carried out mould washes to the exposed areas and tested the walls for damp. However, considering the absence of any risk assessments following the formal complaint and the delays in considering the health concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered compensation for the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in that time.
The overall time taken to replace the kitchen and treat the mould was in line with the landlord’s policies for routine repairs. However, it has not evidenced that it carried out all the works within a reasonable timeframe. In its stage 1 response the landlord outlined the following works:
1. “Clear out all gutters and down pipes around the property to ensure there are no blockages.
2. Clear all low-level vegetation along wall outside front entrance and ensure level of soil is kept minimum of 150mm below DPC (damp proof course).
3. Cut back bushes adjacent outside store at from to property to ensure clear space between bush and property wall and remove all ivy on walls.
4. Remove all vegetation growing alongside and up gable wall.
5. Remove all existing kitchen units to provide access to wall surfaces behind wall and treat surfaces to remove any black mould that is found there. Surfaces to be treated with anti-fungicidal paint before cabinets are refitted.”
In her correspondence to the Ombudsman the resident stated that the landlord did not “clean all greenery off the walls and near the walls of the property.” The resident has recently confirmed that a gardener did attend to some of the vegetation at the front of her property but there are still climbing plants going up the external wall. She feels this could be a contributor to the damp and mould and a fire hazard. As stated, the landlord’s records do not evidence that the landlord carried out all the above works, which is a failing. An order has been made for the landlord to complete the works if it has not done so already.
The resident has also informed the Ombudsman that the PIV system is blowing damp air around the property, causing a damp smell. She said she informed the landlord but it has not done anything about it. She also believes there is still an issue with the end gable wall, she said it is cold, and she does not believe the insulation is sufficient. We have seen evidence of the landlord inspecting the walls and confirming they are insulated. However, as the resident is still experiencing issues and given the time which has passed, an order will be made for the landlord to inspect the property again. The inspection should pay close attention to the concerns regarding the exterior wall and the PIV system.
Overall, the landlord did recognise most of its failures in its complaint responses, it upheld the complaint and offered compensation for the delays in taking action and the impact caused to the resident. It also offered compensation for the 6 weeks that the resident did not have full use of her kitchen. The Ombudsman finds the amounts offered for those failings was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. However, we have identified additional failings within this assessment.
The landlord failed to show consideration to the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident from the time of her formal complaint where she expressed her health concerns. While she may not have met the criteria for a decant, the landlord should have evidenced how it considered the risks and communicated its findings to the resident sooner. The landlord has not evidenced that it completed all of the works identified to fully address the damp and mould, which is a failing. The resident also has ongoing concerns which do not appear to have been addressed.
Therefore, the landlord must pay the resident an additional £300. The amounts are awarded in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which adversely impacted the resident and are broken down as:
1. £100 for the delay in completing a risk assessment and the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
2. £100 for not evidencing that it completed all of the works identified and the impact caused to the resident.
3. £100 for its failure to address the resident’s ongoing concerns with the PIV unit and external wall. This includes the time and trouble caused to the resident in raising the issues.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint regarding staff conduct

On 7 March 2024, the resident contacted the landlord regarding a staff member’s comments of “you should not worry about the mould, that is nothing” and “mould killers only cost £2.50 from the shop”. She felt the comments were unacceptable. When speaking with the Ombudsman, the resident said this led to her having a breakdown and having to take time off work. The resident has also said that the staff member laughed in her face, however there is no evidence of the resident raising this with the landlord at the time. As such, we cannot consider that aspect of her complaint.
In its complaint response the landlord confirmed it had interviewed the relevant staff members. It said it could not evidence the extent of the conversation but wanted to extend its sincere apologies for if the resident felt it had not taken her seriously. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the landlord confirmed that the staff members in question could not recall the phrases mentioned by the resident. They stated that they may have recommended using a mould spray as part of their general advice. It confirmed that while it could not evidence what was said by its staff on the visit, it felt that further training for the staff members would be sufficient, with no further formal action.
Overall, while the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s account and the likely impact this had on her, we must rely on the contemporaneous evidence provided to us. The landlord appropriately interviewed the staff members involved and could not conclude the content of the conversation. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider the likely impact on the resident and how she felt as a result of the visit. It did this by providing an apology and outlining its stance on damp and mould. The response outlined what action it was taking to address the issue which was reasonable. It was positive that it provided further training to the staff members to ensure it provides a consistent approach to residents reporting damp and mould.
Given the limited information available to it, the Ombudsman finds the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding staff conduct was proportionate and in line with its obligations. As such, we have made a finding of no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding its record keeping

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If we find that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.’
In her stage 2 escalation, the resident raised concerns regarding the landlord’s record keeping. She referred to times she had called the landlord on 2 February 2023 and 19 February 2024 and that the landlord had no record of them. She said on 19 February 2024 the landlord promised to call back following its meeting and did not until she chased it on 29 February 2024. She felt it was evident that the landlord’s record keeping practices were lacking.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord addressed the specific times referenced by the resident and what its records showed in relation to it. It evidenced that it did have record of them but apologised for not outlining them in its stage 1 letter. It accepted that there were times it did not take further action when it should have and that they were service failures. It also outlined what action it had taken to address the issues. The landlord provided the resident with the details for the team which could assist with her request for all information held for the property and that it had passed on her request.
The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was reasonable. It was appropriate for it to consider the occasions which led the resident to believe its record keeping was poor. And while it did find evidence of those records, it was appropriate for it to acknowledge the lack of follow up action and how that did suggest an issue with its record keeping. In remedying the issue, it said it had taken steps to improve its record keeping and internal communication and it would continue to make improvements based on the findings of the complaint.
The landlord has evidenced to the Ombudsman that it did continue to make improvements in its record keeping. Some of the action taken includes that it now has a spreadsheet for tracking damp and mould inspections, an inspection template for damp and mould surveyors to complete, and it has conducted training with staff regarding record keeping and updating the systems.
The resident has referred to further concerns following receipt of the information provided as part of her FOI. However, as these concerns have not been through the landlord’s complaints process, we would be unable to consider them in this investigation.
Overall, the landlord’s actions were in line with our dispute resolution principles. The landlord was fair in its investigation into the complaint, it put things right by clarifying where it had failed the resident and offered compensation for the delays caused. It showed how it learnt from the outcome by evidencing the action taken to improve its record keeping.
As such, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding its record keeping.

The level of compensation offered

The resident remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered. She felt it did not reflect her deteriorating health issues or time taken out of work due to dealing with damp and mould in the property for the last 4 years. As already stated, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the landlord was responsible for any impact on the resident’s health. We are also unable to order compensation for the time a resident has taken from work. We can however consider any likely distress and inconvenience caused and we expect landlords to consider this too.
It is clear that in the timeframe investigated, there was a lack of action prior to the formal complaint which resulted in the resident living in the conditions for an unacceptable length of time and having to chase the landlord. The landlord acknowledged this, it offered a total of £700 for the delays and impact on the resident. The landlord also offered an additional £50 after the stage 2 response for the delay in fitting the PIV. As already stated, the amount offered was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for where cases of maladministration apply and where there was a significant impact on the resident. As such, we would not order further compensation for this failure.
The landlord also offered 15% of the resident’s weekly rent for the time she was without full use of her kitchen. While this was an appropriate amount to offer for the loss of full use of the room, the landlord failed to consider the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in that time. As already identified, given the reports made from the resident in that time regarding concerns for the household’s health and the delay in assessing any risks, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to award compensation for that.
As part of this investigation, we also found that compensation should be awarded for the landlord’s failure to complete all the works and fully resolve the issue.
The resident reported damage to her belongings over the years as a result of the damp and mould in the property. She felt the landlord should reimburse her for her damaged belongings due to the delays in addressing the issue. The landlord asked the resident to provide photos and details of the damaged items to allow it to investigate. Following its investigation, it acknowledged that the resident had thrown items away and it felt that some of the items could be cleaned. The landlord offered £250 as a contribution towards cleaning or replacing the damaged items that had been evidenced.
The landlord’s initial approach to addressing the resident’s reports of damaged items was reasonable. However, the resident was not satisfied with the offer. At that point it would have been good practice for it to have referred the resident to her own or its insurer. This would have allowed for a loss adjuster to decide both liability and whether compensation was owed to the resident. The failure to show that it considered this was not appropriate and has delayed getting the matter resolved. Based on this and the additional compensation awarded in this investigation, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the level of compensation offered to the resident.
The landlord must provide the resident with advice on how to make a claim to its insurer. The landlord should also pay the resident an additional £100 in recognition of the failure to refer the resident to its insurer and the likely impact caused to the resident as a result of not knowing what next steps she could take. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for where a landlord has not appropriately acknowledged a failure or put it right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint regarding staff conduct.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the level of compensation offered.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

The landlord must apologise to the resident for the additional failures outlined within this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies (available on our website).
The landlord must provide the resident with advice on how to make a claim to its insurer.
The landlord must carry out a further inspection of the property. It should take into consideration the outstanding concerns raised by the resident and provide its position on those. If it identifies repairs, it must put together an action plan with defined timescales for carrying out the repairs. It should also complete a risk assessment noting the household’s vulnerabilities and any potential hazards in the property.
The landlord must arrange to and/or evidence that it has completed all works outlined within the stage 1 response.
The landlord must pay the resident a total of £1,553.64 which is broken down as:
1. £1,103.64 it offered in its stage 2 response if it has not done so already.
2. £50 it offered after its stage 2 response for the delay in fitting the PIV, if it has not already done so.
3. £300 awarded for the additional failures identified in its handling of the damp and mould.
4. £100 awarded for the failure to refer the resident to its insurer when she did not accept the amount offered.
The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this decision.