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

Southend on Sea City Council (202438044)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202438044

Southend-on-Sea City Council

15 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 handling of reports of damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. Their tenancy began in January 2022. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. On 16 January 2024 the resident reported mould in their living room and kitchen.
  3. On 23 August 2024 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. They said that the landlord had inspected their property twice but had not fixed the issues.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 September 2024. It accepted it should have updated the resident about outstanding works. It said there had been a change in its repair contractor and this had caused delays. It apologised and offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience it had caused.
  5. On 9 October 2024 the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints procedure. They were unhappy that the landlord had not done what it said it would. They said the damp was getting worse and had begun showing in their bedroom.
  6. The landlord issued its final response on 5 November 2024. It accepted it had not met its service standards. It said it would do a further inspection and ensure it completed all outstanding works. It apologised for the distress and anxiety it had caused to the resident. It offered £300 compensation.
  7. The resident escalated their complaint to this Service on 29 November 2024. They were unhappy that they had not heard from the landlord following an inspection on 12 November 2024.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy states:
    1. It will attend within 7 days of receiving a report of damp and mould. This will be to determine the cause and remove any visible mould. It notes that, in some cases, it may need to do additional diagnosis to determine the root cause.
    2. Any required repairs will be carried out in accordance with its repair standards.
    3. It will keep tenants informed of any inspections, what it has found, and when it will carry out repairs. It will let the resident know if there any changes to the work it needs to carry out.
  2. The landlord’s website states it aims to respond to non-urgent, routine repairs within 28 days of being reported.
  3. There does not appear to be any dispute that the landlord failed to carry out actions in line with its policies. After the resident’s report on 16 January 2024 the landlord arranged an initial appointment for 2 February 2024. This was 17 days after the report and was not appropriate. It appears the resident requested the landlord re-arrange the appointment. The inspection took place on 14 February 2024.
  4. On 18 February 2024 the landlord raised a works order for a mould wash. The resident has stated that the landlord had arranged to attend on 19 March 2024. They have further stated that this was postponed until 25 March 2024. Both appointments were outside the landlord’s stated timescales. This was not appropriate.
  5. The evidence indicates the landlord attended the resident’s property on 25 March 2024. It was unable to carry out the mould wash as it needed a different contractor to attend and remove a radiator. It told the resident it would then re-attend to complete the mould wash. The resident informed the landlord that this was still outstanding on at least 3 occasions. These were in May, August, and September 2024. Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord had completed the mould wash by the time of its final response. This was not appropriate.
  6. On 25 March 2024 the resident told the landlord that during the February 2024 inspection they had been advised external works were needed. They were concerned the landlord had not yet told them when these would happen. The landlord consulted internally with the relevant team. It was unable to locate any evidence that the surveyor had identified or requested any external repairs. It therefore arranged for a further inspection of the resident’s property with a focus on the external wall. This was a reasonable action for it to take.
  7. While it was reasonable to conduct a further inspection, this did not take place until 19 July 2024. Following the inspection the landlord raised a works order to survey the guttering and drainage at the front of the resident’s property. It carried out this survey on 11 September 2024. It did not carry out either the inspection or the survey within its stated timescales. This was not appropriate.
  8. The September 2024 survey found that the drains were full with indications that they had been blocked for some time. The landlord’s contractor cleared the blockages. The survey also found that the guttering was leaking and that a section would need replacing. The landlord received the inspection report on 23 September 2024 but there is no evidence that it raised a repair for the gutter. This was not appropriate.
  9. In their stage 1 complaint the resident said the mould had damaged a good portion of their belongings. The landlord did not specifically address this in its stage 1 response. However, on 23 September 2024, it did provide the resident with information about how to make a claim against its insurance. This was in line with its damp, mould, and condensation policy. The landlord’s delay in providing this information was minor. We do not consider this failing, in isolation, would be sufficient to constitute maladministration.
  10. In its stage 1 and final responses the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It accepted there had been failings and apologised to the resident. In its final response it said it would carry out a further inspection and complete the outstanding works. These were reasonable actions for it to take to resolve the complaint.
  11. The evidence shows the landlord raised works orders on 5 November 2024 to repair the gutter and carry out a mould wash. The inspection of the resident’s property took place on 12 November 2024. This inspection found that the moisture levels in the property were normal and did not raise any concerns. It confirmed it needed to complete a mould wash. The landlord has provided us with a copy of the inspection report and moisture readings. Having considered these there is no indication that the landlord’s findings were inappropriate.
  12. On 22 November 2024 the resident said they wanted the landlord to do a further inspection. They asked that either of the surveyors who had attended in February or July 2024 re-attend to do the inspection. As this was the first time the resident had asked this and it was after the final complaint response, we have not assessed the landlord’s handling of it. However, it should be noted that landlords are entitled to decide how best to allocate their resources. Given an inspection had recently taken place it is likely that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to refuse this request.
  13. On the same day (22 November 2024) the resident advised the landlord that its contractors had erected scaffolding outside their property. This was in relation to the gutter repair. We have not been given confirmation the landlord completed the repair. However, we did ask the resident on 6 June 2025 if anything had changed since they escalated their complaint to us. In their response they did not indicate the guttering was an ongoing issue.
  14. The resident’s response to us advised they had contacted the landlord recently to request another inspection. The landlord had agreed to this. Inspections had taken place on 5 and 10 June 2025. These had found that a mould wash should be carried out and the property re-inspected in 2 months. The landlord’s repair log shows it raised relevant works orders.
  15. We have considered whether these recent inspection findings indicate the actions in the landlord’s final response were insufficient to resolve the resident’s issues. We are mindful that the landlord has provided evidence that it tried to complete the mould wash on 16 December 2024. Its records state the resident refused to allow it to do this. As the landlord was not able to remove the mould it is reasonable to expect that it would still be present during a later inspection. We do not consider, in the circumstances, it would be fair to take this as evidence of a failure by the landlord.
  16. In conclusion, it is clear there were failings by the landlord between January 2024 and its final response. The landlord has accepted that this was the case and apologised to the resident. The actions it said it would take in its final response were a reasonable remedy to the matters the resident had raised. The evidence indicates it has, or has made reasonable attempts, to complete these actions. The offered compensation (£100 in the stage 1 response and £300 in the final response) was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonable redress.
  17. For these reasons, the Ombudsman considers the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of reports of damp and mould.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of reports of damp and mould.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that, if the landlord has not already done so, it:
    1. Pays the resident the £400 compensation offered across its complaint responses.
    2. Carries out a mould wash of the resident’s property.
    3. Agree a mutual date and time for the 2 month re-inspection of the property.