Somerset Council (202433641)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202433641

Somerset Council

25 July 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 response to the resident’s reports of humidity, damp, and mould.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has a secure tenancy property with her husband. The tenancy started in April 2023, and the property is a 2-bedroom bungalow. The resident told the landlord she has respiratory issues and a brain condition.
4. The resident reported to the landlord damp and mould in September 2023. On 20 November 2023 she complained to the landlord about this. She said the mould was in several rooms and she had thrown out items damaged by it. On 5 September 2024 the resident complained again about this and told the landlord her property was “full of bugs, woodlice and silverfish”. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 16 September 2024 and said:
   1. it completed a treatment job for the damp and mould on 31 January 2024.
   2. it could not gain access to the resident’s property between 17 April 2024 to 20 May 2024 having made 3 attempts.
   3. it found condensation related mould on 12 September 2024 and agreed to treat this and investigate reducing the humidity in the property.
   4. it accepted it should have made further attempts to gain access.
   5. it reviewed its processes and partially upheld the complaint.
5. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 October 2024 stating the landlord’s stage 1 response was inaccurate. She said the landlord had not communicated with her and left her in a mouldy property. She also clarified the bugs included woodlice, silverfish, spiders, beetles and cockroaches. The landlord completed some damp treatment and ventilation work in October 2024 to include replacement fans. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 November 2024 and said:
   1. it recorded 8 missed appointments between 14 September 2023 to 20 May 2024 due to access issues but accepted it could have checked the resident’s availability beforehand.
   2. it gained access on 12 September 2024 and raised mould treatment work but could not access the property to complete this.  
   3. it agreed to check the new fan system and make adjustments.
   4. it agreed to inspect, treat the mould, and monitor this over 3 months.
   5. it recommended installation of a positive input ventilation unit (PIV), but the resident refused this.
   6. it agreed to provide the resident with a hygrometer to measure humidity and offer advice on humidity.
   7. it upheld the complaint, agreed to call before attending the property and offered £50 for stress and anxiety.
6. It is unclear if the landlord has resolved the damp and mould. The resident said to us she incurred £1,000 of damage to her furniture due to mould and was sleeping on the sofa. The landlord has said the resident cancelled appointments in May and June 2025 to complete a damp and mould survey and to deal with the bugs. The landlord told us the resident has not accepted its offer of £50. The resident would like the issues raised in her complaint resolved.

Assessment and findings

The scope of investigation

7. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaint procedure. This is because we expect residents to raise complaints with the landlord in the first instance to allow them an opportunity to respond. The resident raised a complaint about bugs, woodlice and silverfish during the landlord’s complaint process. This was before the landlord provided its stage 1 or stage 2 responses. The resident raised this complaint alongside her complaint about mould making the issues inextricably linked. The landlord did not respond to this during its complaint process, but we are aware that it opened a separate complaint after complaint closure to address this which has not exhausted its complaint procedure. Therefore, we have not assessed this substantively in this report. Instead, we have considered whether the landlord‘s complaint handling was in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint about bugs, she may refer it to us after it has exhausted the complaint process.
8. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental effect on her and her husband’s health. She specifically referred to having breathing problems and skin reactions. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to damp and mould

9. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure states:
   1. it will make contact with a resident to discuss any damp and mould report.
   2. it will complete a damp and mould survey with the resident to form an initial diagnosis and to identify any health risks.
   3. if it identifies any risks to health, it will complete a damp and mould inspection within 10 working days of the report otherwise the landlord has up to 20 working days to complete this or to complete identified repairs.
   4. it will inform the resident of the works needed and any mitigation measures.
   5. if condensation–related mould is present the landlord will offer advice and a hygrometer (to measure humidity).
   6. it can signpost the resident to energy or financial advice if there are concerns that the damp and mould is the result of fuel poverty. 
   7. it can consider alternative accommodation if a resident’s health is at risk.
   8. it will leave a card if it fails to access a resident’s property on a first and second attempt at a pre-arranged visit and will attempt to contact the resident within 20 working days of the visits.
   9. it will leave a card on a third pre-arranged visit if it cannot gain access and send a letter or email to the resident with a pre-arranged appointment.
   10. after a fourth attempt of no access on a pre-arranged appointment the landlord will complete a risk assessment of any risks to the resident if it cannot gain access and consider more formal steps to access the property if there is an assessed risk.
   11. if the assessed risk is minimal then the landlord will place the case on hold for 3 months, pending the resident making contact.
10. The above procedure also requires the landlord to complete repairs in a timely way. On its website, the landlord says that it will attend routine repairs within 20 working days, and it will make an appointment for the soonest time slot convenient for the resident.
11. The landlord’s records do not state when the resident first reported damp or mould. However, the evidence shows the landlord was aware of the resident’s report of mould by 6 September 2023. The landlord provided evidence it attempted to visit the resident about this in September and October 2023. It provided photographs showing it left cards. However, following these visits, the landlord did not show what other efforts it made to access the property, and it did not complete a damp and mould inspection until 17 January 2024. This was an unreasonable length of time given the landlord’s commitment to act in a timely way.
12. After completing the inspection in January 2024, the landlord said it raised a job to treat mould in the lounge, bedroom, bathroom pipework and hallway. It said it completed this on 31 January 2024. However, the landlord has provided conflicting evidence on whether it completed this. As it has not provided a report to show what work it did on 31 January 2024, we cannot be satisfied it completed the work. The landlord said it visited the resident on 10 April 2024 and discussed damp and mould but has not provided evidence of the outcome of this visit.
13. According to the landlord’s account there was a gap between 10 April 2024 and 12 September 2024 in it being able to access the resident’s property. It booked a visit for 17 April 2024, but the resident cancelled this. While it said it attempted to visit the resident again on 10 and 20 May 2024, we have not seen evidence to verify this or to show what efforts it made to obtain access. The landlord accepted in its complaint responses it ought to have done more to remind the resident of appointments and gain access. As the landlord was also aware that the damp and mould had affected the resident’s breathing it should have completed a risk assessment and considered if more formal methods of gaining access were appropriate. This is because its damp and mould procedure required this. We have not seen evidence the landlord considered either of these which was a failing.
14. The landlord provided 2 other damp and mould inspection reports from 12 September 2024 and 24 September 2024. The latter report served to confirm that damp and mould was present in the lounge and in 1 bedroom and noted the loft insulation was uneven, and the relative humidity was high. It recommended the landlord remove the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom and install a mechanical extract ventilation in the loft to discharge moisture externally. It also recommended mould treatment work. The recommendations were in line with the landlord’s damp and mould procedure, and it completed the recommended work between 8 to 9 October 2024. This was within a reasonable time of these inspections and in line with its repair policy.
15. When the resident reported the “new system” was not working on 14 November 2024 the landlord attended on 26 November 2024, checked the airflow, and changed the settings and diffusers on the fans. This was in line with its repair policy. The landlord agreed to monitor the damp and mould and address the humidity after its final response, but the resident called to cancel the appointments it had booked for 17 December 2024, 16 and 22 May 2025 and did not provide access on 3 June 2025. We are not questioning the resident’s reasons for cancelling these appointments or not allowing access. However, this affected the landlord’s ability to resolve the issues. As such, the landlord is not fully responsible for delays caused by a lack of access. However, the landlord has not explained the length of time it took it to re-arrange an appointment between December 2024 to May 2025. Therefore, we cannot be satisfied it acted in line with its damp and mould procedure which required it to act in a timely way. The evidence shows the landlord made reasonable attempts to book appointments with the resident from May 2025 to the present.
16. We note the resident refused the landlord’s recommendation of installing a PIV to deal with the mould. While we cannot fault the landlord for not installing this in this situation, we note the underlying reason behind the resident’s refusal was its cost. As the landlord’s damp and mould procedure allowed it to signpost residents to energy and financial advice it would be appropriate of it to have considered this. It therefore missed an opportunity to address the resident’s concern.
17. The resident told the landlord the damp and mould had caused damage to her bed, mattress, shoes, and furniture. The landlord concluded that a lack of airflow from a lack of mechanical ventilation was the main cause of the damp and mould. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for it to have considered discretionary compensation or a referral to its public liability insurers. This is because the resident had alleged the landlord’s actions had caused damage to her personal property. Therefore, its insurers could consider whether there were any failures by the landlord in addressing the lack of ventilation that caused the said damage. We have made an order for the landlord to provide this information to the resident.
18. The landlord also ought to have considered alternative accommodation in line with its damp and mould procedure. The resident said she could not stay at the property on health grounds in September 2024 and formally requested alternative accommodation on 2 October 2024. The evidence shows that the landlord received the medical evidence it requested on 4 October 2024 to consider this request. However, it either did not make a decision or if it did it failed to communicate its decision to the resident which was a failing.  
19. The landlord completed works in October 2024 within a reasonable time of its September 2024 inspections and it also completed an appropriate repair to the fans in November 2024. It acted reasonably in trying to make appointments from May 2025.
20. In summary we have identified the following failures:
    1. it did not show it made reasonable efforts to contact the resident or access her property after the failed visits in 2023 or complete a damp and mould inspection in a timely way.
    2. it did not consider a risk assessment or whether formal methods of gaining entry would be appropriate.
    3. it did not show it made reasonable efforts to access the resident’s property between 17 April 2024 to 12 September 2024.
    4. it did not explain or show the delay (between December 2024 to May 2025) in it arranging an appointment as part of its stage 2 response commitments was reasonable.
    5. it did not consider the resident’s claim for damage to her belongings or her request for temporary accommodation in line with its redress policy and damp and mould procedure.
21. These failures amount to maladministration and are likely to have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The resident told the landlord on 8 April 2024 that she slept on her kitchen floor for 4 weeks. It was also aware that the resident stayed in hotels and with her mother to avoid her living conditions which the resident told it was on medical advice. As the resident had breathing difficulties the presence of damp and mould evidently caused her considerable distress and inconvenience. In its complaint responses the landlord accepted there were communication issues, and it ought to have made further efforts to gain access. It also said it reviewed its processes to make sure there was no recurrence. It agreed to call the resident before an appointment to check her availability and treat the mould. It also offered £50 compensation and re-offered to install a PIV. Therefore, the landlord sought to put things right and learn from outcomes in line with our dispute resolution principles. However, it did not adequately acknowledge in its stage 2 response the level of likely distress and inconvenience caused to the household given their vulnerabilities. 
22. Therefore, we have awarded compensation of £350 in line with our remedies guidance which replaces the landlord’s previous offer. This sum takes into account the vulnerabilities of the resident which meant the failings identified would have had a more severe effect on the household compared to other residents in the same position without their vulnerabilities. We have also considered the extent to which the resident’s actions (in cancelling several appointments from December 2024 to May 2025) might have failed to minimise the impact on the household.
23. This guidance allows for awards of this amount where there have been failings that have adversely affected a resident, but which have had no permanent effect. We have also made orders for the landlord to contact the resident to arrange a damp and mould inspection, and if there are any ongoing issues provide a schedule of work, hydrometer, and complete a risk assessment. We have made these orders because it is unclear if the damp and mould is still present and these steps are in line with the landlord’s damp and mould procedure and redress policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

24. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling as:
    1. the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 16 September 2024 which was 207 working days after the resident’s complaint (20 November 2023), when the target response time at stage 1 was 10 working days. While the landlord’s delay in logging a complaint was down to it initially dealing with the issue as a service request this was not appropriate. This is because its complaint policy required it to log a complaint as soon as the resident expressed dissatisfaction.
    2. the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 November 2024 which was 38 working days after the resident’s escalation (1 October 2024) against a target of 20 working days. In mitigation it explained on 29 October 2024 it needed more time to respond and told the resident she could refer her complaint straight to the Ombudsman on 14 November 2024.
    3. it failed to incorporate and address the resident’s complaint about bugs into its stage 1 response. Paragraph 6.8 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code required it to do this as the resident raised this during the landlord’s investigation before the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response and it was related to her complaint about damp and mould. The landlord did not seek to address this until nearly 6 months after its complaint closure and only after our Service made contact.
25. We have made an order for the landlord to update the resident on her related complaint about bugs. We have also awarded compensation of £100 for the likely distress and inconvenience these failings caused the resident. This is consistent with the awards our remedies guidance allows for failures which have adversely affected a resident, but which have had no permanent effect.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of humidity, damp, and mould.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

28. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must:
    1. contact the resident to agree a date to inspect the property for damp and mould, it should provide a copy of its report to the resident within 2 weeks of its inspection together with a timeline of when it will complete any recommended repairs.
    2. if damp, mould or humidity is present complete a risk assessment.
    3. contact the resident to explain what it needs to consider compensation for any damaged goods or confirm it will refer the resident’s claim to its liability insurer.
    4. consider if it should reimburse the costs of any hotel accommodation on production of a receipt for these costs and taking into account medical evidence and write to the resident with its decision. 
    5. update the resident on the complaint about bugs including any rights of referral to this Service.
    6. pay the resident without any deductions £450 made up of:
       1. £350 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the humidity, damp, and mould (replacing the previous £50 offer)
       2. £100 for the likely distress caused by its complaint handling
29. The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

30. We recommend the landlord consider referring the resident to any advice or support with energy bills with the resident’s agreement.