From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

South Derbyshire District Council (202426679)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426679

South Derbyshire District Council

7 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, a council, since 2021. The property is a 2-bedroom house. She lives there with her son.
  2. The resident says she has reported damp and mould in the property multiple times since 2021. In February 2023 the landlord noted it attended to investigate the damp by checking the roof, an external vent in the bedroom, and window seals. It noted it reattended in May 2023 to check the roof for possible leaks.
  3. On 12 February 2024 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said water was getting in to the property, causing damp patches and black mould. She explained she had reported this more than 2 years ago but it was unresolved. She said the external brickwork was in poor condition, but this had not been checked. She said her son’s asthma had got worse because of this, as there was damp and mould in his bedroom.
  4. The landlord inspected the property on 11 March 2024. It noted there was visible mould on walls in the 2 bedrooms, which may be a result of damaged pointing to the external brickwork. It recommended works to address this and to treat the mould.
  5. The same day the landlord sent its stage 1 response (although not labelled as such). This said an appointment had been made for 21 March 2024 to treat the mould and discuss the issues raised.
  6. Four days later, the resident escalated the complaint as she was not happy with the outcome. She said she had been told for the past 3 years that the matter was being investigated but it was getting worse every year.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 26 March 2024 confirmed it had visited her on 21 March 2024. It said works were required to the roof and external brickwork, which would be completed that week.
  8. The landlord noted it attended in March 2024 to complete the roof works and May 2024 to complete the mould treatment and repointing works. 
  9. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint in October 2024. She said the problem was ongoing as there was still damp and mould. She said the landlord had done inspections and works, but these had been rushed and not completed properly.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Our investigations generally cover the period 12 months before a resident made their formal complaint to the landlord. In this case, the resident raised her formal complaint in February 2024, so we have included events dating back to February 2023 as part of our investigation. Anything that happened before this has been considered for context, but not formally assessed as part of this investigation. 
  2. The resident has told us and the landlord that the damp and mould has negatively affected her and her son’s health. We do not doubt the resident, but we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her, or her son’s, ill-health. She can seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she believes her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. We have, however, considered any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Handling of damp and mould

  1. The landlord is responsible for addressing damp and mould in line with section 9(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp.
  2. It is best practice for landlords to do an inspection in response to damp and mould reports as soon as possible. This allows it to assess the severity and identify the underlying cause and any actions needed to address this. A landlord should keep formal records of inspections as evidence of what it has done and how it has made decisions. In this case, we have seen a formal record confirming the landlord inspected the property in March 2024, identified mould, and recommended actions to treat this and address the suspected underlying cause. This was sensible.
  3. However, the resident had reported this issue at least 12 months earlier and so the landlord should have inspected sooner. The resident has said the landlord has completed multiple inspections, but we have not seen any formal records of these (other than the one in March 2024). This indicates poor record keeping practices and is a concern, as there is no evidence to support the landlord’s decision making, or show that it fully assessed the issue prior to March 2024. This amounts to maladministration.
  4. Similarly, an inspection was carried out in October 2024, but there is no formal record of this either. This shows ongoing poor record keeping practices, which is a concern. We have, therefore, made an order for the landlord to deliver training, to all staff who carry out damp and mould inspections, on the process for and importance of recording them.
  5. The landlord raised works orders in March and May 2023 for actions to investigate the damp and mould. The proposed actions were sensible, but it is not clear what prompted the landlord to take these actions or how it decided they were required. Similarly, we have seen no record of the outcome of these visits and what, if any, works were completed. It is not clear if this is because there are no records or because they have not been provided to us. Either way, this is a concern.
  6. Ultimately, whatever the landlord did or did not do in March and May 2023, this was not enough to resolve the issue, as the resident said it was ongoing in February 2024, when she raised her formal complaint. The lack of records and adequate follow up amounts to maladministration and contributed to the overall delay in it resolving the issue. We have made an order for the landlord to review its approach to record keeping for repairs to ensure the outcome of visits is noted and easily accessible.
  7. Following the inspection in March 2024, the landlord recommended the mould be treated and subsequently said it would do this on 21 March 2024. We have seen no evidence this was done and it was 4 days later, on 25 March 2024, that it raised a works order for this job. It noted this was completed nearly 2 months later, on 22 May 2024. This was an unreasonable delay and particularly concerning as the resident had told the landlord her son’s health was being negatively affected by the mould in his bedroom.
  8. In light of this, the landlord should have treated the mould wash as an urgent repair, which its repairs policy said it would complete within 3 calendar days. In this case, it was not completed until 73 calendar days after it identified this was needed. This amounts to maladministration and meant the resident and her son were left living in a property with mould for longer than they should have been. This was disappointing for her and made her feel that the landlord did not care about the impact on her and her son.
  9. In addition to the mould treatment, the landlord recommended works to address the underlying cause of the damp and mould, following the inspection in March 2024. The actions suggested were sensible and the evidence provided indicates the roof works were done in March 2024. However, the repointing was not noted as completed until nearly 2 months later, on 23 May 2024. It is reasonable that this type of job may take longer than a routine repair due to the nature of the work and that scaffolding is required.
  10. The resident said scaffolding had been erected in early 2024 and was still up at the time the works were raised in March 2024. Therefore, it is unclear why there was a delay in this work being carried out. We have seen no evidence the landlord told the resident the timescale for this job or explained why it was delayed. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling that the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
  11. Despite repointing works being completed in May 2024, the landlord identified in October 2024, that further repointing works were needed. This is concerning as this was only 5 months later and calls in to question the quality of the works completed in May 2024. The resident has said she felt the landlord rushed works and did not complete them properly. The need for further repointing works in October 2024, so soon after some had been completed in May 2024, supports that position.
  12. The landlord completed the further repointing works in February 2025, 11 months after the landlord first identified they were required. This was an extended and unreasonable delay which amounts to maladministration, and contributed to the overall delay in the damp and mould being resolved.
  13. The resident reported the damp and mould was still an issue in October 2024, which resulted in an inspection being carried out. While there is no formal record of this inspection, an internal email was sent the following month with a summary of its findings. This said the landlord had not arranged any follow up works because “I don’t think it would make any difference” and commented that the property was old.
  14. This was a concerning conclusion to reach as the resident had reported there was still damp and mould and that this was getting worse. It is unacceptable to leave residents living in such conditions and landlords should continue making efforts to resolve this issue, regardless of the age of the property. The landlord has subsequently taken further actions to address this, which is positive. However, this was only as a result of the resident continuing to chase it up. This amounts to maladministration.
  15. Our spotlight report on damp and mould confirms it is best practice for landlords to schedule follow up visits after works are completed to check that the problem has not returned. This ensures the resident is reassured that the landlord is taking the matter seriously and means the onus is not on them to continually report and chase this up. In this case, there is no evidence the landlord made any proactive contact with the resident as follow up. It did not check its actions were successful and the onus was placed on the resident to re-report the issue multiple times. This was disappointing for her and amounts to maladministration.
  16. In the last few months, the landlord has completed further works. While positive, this means the resident has been living with damp and mould for at least 2 years. While the landlord has taken action during this time, it has not done enough to properly manage the issue. This has resulted in delays and the resident has incurred time and trouble in repeatedly reporting the issue. This amounts to maladministration and has caused her to feel let down.
  17. It is not clear if the recent actions taken have fully resolved the issue, so it is important that the landlord follows up to ensure they have been successful in the long term. We have made an order for the landlord to arrange a follow up visit with the resident in October 2025, when the weather turns colder, to review the damp and mould issue and identify if any further works are required. The appointment is to be confirmed in writing to the resident, with a commitment that she will be sent a written update following the visit, confirming the outcomes and any further works it will carry out, with a timescale for completion.
  18. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this issue. We have identified failures which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord failed to acknowledge this or make any attempt to put things right. We have made orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £500 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance and is reflective of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she incurred.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days and respond to them both within 10 working days.
  2. The landlord acknowledged both the stage 1 and 2 complaints in 1 working day and sent the stage 2 response in 7 working days. These were in line with the target timescales set out in its policy at the time. However, it sent the stage 1 response in 20 working days, which was over the committed response time set out in its policy at the time.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said if the stage 1 timescale could not be met, it would notify the resident and give an indication of when a full response would be sent. We have seen no evidence that it did this and it failed to acknowledge the delay within the response. This amounts to maladministration.
  4. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time said that stage 1 responses must include the complaint stage and details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident was not satisfied with the response. The stage 1 response sent did not include the stage, but only confirmed it was a complaint response.
  5. Similarly, there were no escalation details included in the response. These were set out in a second, covering letter sent to the resident on the same date. While the resident received this information from the landlord, it should have included this within the response itself, as set out in the Code.
  6. The stage 1 and 2 responses were brief and only provided an update on recently completed or future actions. The landlord made no assessment of its previous handling of the issue or its actions taken before the complaint was raised in February 2024.
  7. This is the fundamental purpose of a complaint response and the landlord’s failure to properly investigate the complaint was a missed opportunity to identify its failings, put things right at an earlier stage, and identify learning. This contravenes our Dispute Resolution Principles and amounts to maladministration. This caused the resident to lose faith in the landlord’s complaints process.
  8. Further, while the resident’s complaint prompted some action in respect of the damp and mould, the landlord did not monitor those actions through to completion. This resulted in further delays and lack of action. In addition to identifying past failure, complaints should be used as a way of ensuring ongoing issues are resolved. That did not happen in this case, which was disappointing for the resident.
  9. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. In consultation with our remedies guidance, we have made orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £200 compensation. This amount is reflective of the distress and inconvenience she experienced as a result of the identified failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Damp and mould.
    2. The associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Arranged a follow up visit with the resident in October 2025, when the weather turns colder. The visit must:
      1. Review the damp and mould and identify if any further works are required.
      2. Be confirmed in writing to the resident.
      3. Be followed by a written update to the resident, confirming the outcomes and any further works to be completed, and timescales for completion.
    2. Apologised to the resident for its handling of the damp and mould and the associated complaint.
    3. Paid the resident £700 compensation, made up of:
      1. £500 for its handling of the damp and mould.
      2. £200 for its complaint handling.
  2. Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Delivered training to all staff who carry out damp and mould inspections on the process for, and importance of, recording them.
    2. Reviewed its approach to record keeping for repairs to ensure the outcome of visits is noted and easily accessible.