South Derbyshire District Council (202413684)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413684

South Derbyshire District Council

17 March 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. A dispute over the location of the resident’s parked car.
2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. He has lived in the 1-bed bungalow, classed as a sheltered scheme since 2021.
The landlord confirmed it has no vulnerabilities recorded. However, there is evidence of it being notified of several health conditions affecting the resident including a heart condition, a chronic lung condition and recurring chest infections.
The resident’s daughter brought the complaint to us on the resident’s behalf as his representative. For ease of reference, the representative’s actions will be referred to as the resident’s throughout the report.
The resident reported damp and mould in November 2023. The landlord assessed the property in December 2023 and completed a mould treatment and repairs to the brickwork in January 2024. After further contact from the resident in April 2024, a further assessment and mould treatment was carried out however the resident remained unhappy with the lack of communication as to how the landlord would address the damp problem. On 25 April 2024 the resident raised dissatisfaction with a letter received from the landlord which told him he could not park on the grassed area immediately outside his home.
The resident complained to the landlord on 17 May 2024. He said:
1. when he moved in, he was told by his Housing Officer that he could park his car on the grass outside his home, but after 3 years, he had been told he could no longer park there
2. parking on the roadside would impact his health as he was unable to walk the distance from the road to the property
3. he was unhappy with the constant damp, cold, and problems with slugs, which had been ongoing for 12 months and had impacted his health
4. the landlord had cleaned the property twice, but the problem returned
5. he wanted the landlord to resolve the problems with the property
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 3 June 2024. It said:
1. there was no evidence to confirm written permission had been given to the resident allowing him to park on the grassed area
2. the resident could not park on the grassed area and quoted the relevant clause from the tenancy agreement
3. there was evidence it had treated the mould, but it would ask a Damp and Mould Officer to inspect the property and report any recommendations.
The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 11 June 2024. He said:
1. he did not know permission had to be requested and it was not his responsibility that the agreement had not been documented
2. cleaning the mould off was not sufficient and better prevention was needed, along with resolving the issue with the slugs
3. the property was cold, and damp and was hazardous to his health
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 26 June 2024. It said:
1. the car had to be moved, and provided advice on the options available
2. a referral had been made to a Damp and Mould Officer. It said the officer had taken time off work the past 2 weeks but would prioritise a visit and feedback any recommendations.
The resident brought the complaint to us on 6 August 2024, he said:
1. when he took the tenancy he was told he could park on the grassed area, but now he had been told he could not
2. the property had an ongoing issue with damp and mould and slugs, and the conditions were contributing to numerous admissions to hospital for chest infections
3. as a resolution he wanted an assessment of the property conditions, and although he acknowledged the landlord had cleaned the mould twice, it kept returning and this did not prevent the property from being cold and damp
On 27 February 2025 the resident informed us:
1. a new layer of loft insulation had been laid over the existing insulation 2 weeks prior, however, the team who did this told him the existing insulation was damp and ideally needed replacing, which to date had not been done
2. the mould had been cleaned off, but from historical knowledge, he knows it will return
3. the landlord is aware more work is required and although previous comments have been made about the incorrect fitting of windows, the need for pointing work, and the walls needing insulation, no work has been done

Jurisdiction

The resident has complained about the landlord instructing him to remove his car from the grassed area near his home.
In line with paragraph 41.d. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing, or the management of dwellings which they own and let on a long lease.
As the piece of land is not connected to the dwelling, it would be a local authority decision whether it could be converted to allow parking. As such this element will not be included in this investigation. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, he should contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s website for information on how to raise a complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated the property condition has had an impact on his health. Although we can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability for damage to health. This is a matter best suited to an insurance claim or court. Any compensation offer will be assessed in line with our remedies guidance. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, he should seek legal advice.
The resident has confirmed he first reported a problem with damp and mould in the winter of 2022. It was then not reported again until the end of 2023. Due to the time that lapsed in between these reports, it is appropriate to focus on events from 2023 to 26 June 2024, the date of the final complaint response.

Reports of damp and mould

At the time of this investigation, the landlord confirmed it did not have a damp and mould policy and that it was only in draft form. For this assessment, we have referred to the landlord’s damp and mould process that was provided as evidence. This stated:
1. if the issue had not been reported more than 3 times within 12 months, a mould wash should be arranged, a damp and mould leaflet should be given to the resident, and an assessment of the windows and fans should be done, and any findings fed back for further investigation
2. if the issue had been reported more than 3 times within 12 months, an order should be raised for a damp and mould inspection
In the absence of a damp and mould policy, we have referred to the landlord’s repair policy and associated timescales which states:
1. it will attend emergency repairs (immediate risk to life and limb) within 1 calendar day, urgent repairs (danger to life and limb) within 3 calendar days, and routine repairs within 20 calendar days
2. exceptions to timescales would be made where, for medical or social reasons, the repair required is necessary due to the increased vulnerability of the resident concerned and where carrying out the repair in the normal timescale would cause suffering to the occupier
Our spotlight report on ‘Damp – it’s not lifestyle,’ published in October 2021 includes a list of recommendations for landlords. These include:
1. landlords should ensure its response to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue
2. landlords should communicate clearly and regularly with residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould
On or around 10 November 2023, the resident reported damp and mould. Due to a lack of records, it is not known if the resident told the landlord about his health concerns at that time. Notwithstanding this, the landlord’s repair records confirm the target date to complete the assessment was 8 December 2023, therefore its attendance on 17 November 2023 was timely and appropriate.
On 1 December 2023 the landlord requested the removal of the skirting boards to check for any issues. This was completed on 7 December 2023, ahead of the target date. This was appropriate.
It then arranged to treat the mould in the living and bedroom and repoint the brickwork around the damp course. This was appropriate follow up, however the records indicate this work was not completed until 9 and 21 January 2024 respectively. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy. Further, there is no evidence the landlord communicated the delays with the resident. This was unreasonable and not in line with the recommendations from our spotlight report.
The resident reported further damp and mould in the property on 26 April 2024. The landlord attended on 1 May 2024 to assess the property and take photographs, and on 15 May 2024 it applied a second mould treatment. As this was only the second report within a 12-month period this was appropriate as it was in line with the damp and mould process. However, there is no evidence of the assessment findings, therefore the landlord has not demonstrated that it addressed any follow up work as a priority in recognition of the resident’s health as per its repair policy. This was not appropriate.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 17 May 2024 in which he said the property was damp and cold despite the heating being on, and there was a problem with slugs. He said his GP had said the property conditions were contributing to his existing lung issues and recurring chest infections.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 3 June 2024, it confirmed there was evidence of previous mould treatment, but did not take the opportunity to thoroughly investigate or confirm the actions taken to date. This was unreasonable as it meant it did not highlight any service failures, identify any learning, or address how these may have impacted the resident.
The landlord confirmed a Damp and Mould Officer would assess the property and there is evidence it asked for this to be prioritised. This demonstrated the landlord had considered the potential impact on the resident’s health. This was reasonable, but there is no evidence the inspection was done, and this led to the resident investing more time and effort into escalating the complaint.
In its final complaint response on 26 June 2024, the landlord repeated its initial response regarding a damp and mould assessment. It said the officer had not been in work for 2 weeks, but the inspection would be prioritised. It is acknowledged the landlord may not have been able to predict the staff absence, but given the resident’s vulnerability, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to make alternative arrangements to inspect the property sooner than it did. The inspection would have allowed the landlord to identify any underlying reasons for the damp and mould which would have addressed the resident’s biggest concern.
As with the initial response, the landlord did not investigate the history of its actions regarding the damp and mould, nor did it address the problem with the slugs, what it had done or how it could help prevent this. This was a further missed opportunity to recognise any failures and learning. This was unreasonable and did not demonstrate the landlord had followed our Dispute Resolution Principles of being fair, putting things right and learning from outcomes. It meant the landlord was not able to assess the impact of the failures on the resident or offer any redress.
Following the landlord’s final response, it contacted the resident to arrange an appointment. Although the resident said he was waiting to go into hospital and did not want to book anything in, an appointment was arranged for 5 July 2024 to check the property for any underlying disrepair issues. This was appropriate as the landlord had followed up on its commitment to inspect the property, albeit this relied on the resident’s availability.
On 5 July 2024 the landlord confirmed it had spoken to the resident’s daughter who confirmed the resident was in hospital and they would contact the landlord when he was back at home. On this basis, it was reasonable for the landlord to defer the inspection of the property until the resident returned from hospital. The evidence seen shows the resident made no further contact with the landlord until November 2024, when a health worker contacted the landlord on his behalf.
While there is evidence to confirm a damp inspection was completed in December 2024, it is not within the scope of this investigation to assess if the landlord completed any repairs identified.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of damp and mould. This is because:
1. there is no evidence of the assessment findings from the visit in May 2024 which means we cannot fully assess if the landlord identified any work required, or if it prioritised the work due to the resident’s health concerns
2. the application of the mould treatment and the repairs to the skirting in January 2024 were not completed in timescale
3. there was a lack of communication with the resident to explain the delays in repairs or inspections
4. despite the landlord agreeing on 3 June 2024 that it would arrange an inspection by a Damp and Mould Officer, by the time of its final complaint response on 26 June 2024, it had not yet arranged the inspection
5. the landlord did not offer any compensation in recognition of the delays and the impact on the resident

Complaint handling

The landlord operated a 2-stage complaint policy. This stated it would acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5–working days when it would confirm the reference number, case handler and response times. It would aim to respond to complaints at both stages within 10–working days, and if an extension was needed at either stage, it would communicate with the resident.
The resident raised a complaint on 17 May 2024 however there is no evidence to confirm the landlord acknowledged receipt of this. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of the complaint process on 3 June 2024. This was appropriate and was in line with policy.
On receipt of the complaint escalation on 11 June 2024 the landlord acknowledged it the same working day. This was appropriate as it was in line with the policy.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 26 June 2024 which was not in line with policy. While it is acknowledged it was only 1 day out of timescale and is unlikely to have any detriment on the resident, or the overall outcome of the complaint, there is no evidence to confirm the delay was communicated to the resident. This was a failure of the landlord which was not acknowledged in its response.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Record keeping

We expect landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. Additionally, we expect the landlord to keep a record of any vulnerabilities when notified by the resident in respect of any member of the household. This will allow landlords to consider and adapt its service delivery with a view of minimising any adverse impact on those living in a property.
Although the landlord has provided some records, it is our opinion that the detail and adequacy of these has impacted our ability to conduct a thorough investigation. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 41.d. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint regarding a dispute over the location of the resident’s parked car is outside of our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. write an apology to the resident which should address the service failures identified within this report
2. pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays in repairs associated with the damp and mould
  1. the payment should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed
3. complete a further property inspection and write to the resident to advise of any underlying causes of damp and mould identified, and provide a schedule of repairs for addressing these
4. provide us with evidence to confirm it has complied with the above orders within the specified timescale

Recommendations

The landlord should provide us with a copy of its damp and mould policy once finalised.