St Albans City and District Council (202429405)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202429405

St Albans City and District Council

29 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

The resident’s complaint was about:
1. The resident’s concerns about the condition of the property on letting and further repairs.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould in the property.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident occupied a 2-bedroom flat under a secure tenancy which began on 20 December 2023. The resident had viewed the property on 15 December 2023 and moved in on a date in January 2024. She lived in the property with her 2 small children. The landlord had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. In her complaint, the resident reported that her children (now 2 and a half) had respiratory issues after moving in. In April 2025, she told us that they had a “lung disease”.

Legal and policy framework

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord’s obligations were as follows:
1. “We will keep the structure of the building, the outside of your home and any shared areas in good repair, including: window sills, window catches, sash cords, glazing putties and window frames (including painting these); skirting boards, floors and ceilings”.
2. “We will keep the following in good repair and proper working order the installations for supplying water, gas and electricity, and for taking away waste water and sewage, heating systems and water-heating systems. and drying rooms”.
3. “We will carry out any repairs which are our responsibility within a reasonable period of time, depending on how urgent the repair is”.
Section 9A of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies into the tenancy agreement an obligation that the landlord must ensure that the property is fit for human habitation throughout the lifetime of the tenancy. Section 10 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that a property will be unfit for human habitation if damp makes the property not reasonably suitable for occupation in the current condition.
Under the void policy, the requirements were as follows;
1. All windows will open and close easily. They will all fasten securely.
2. Floorboards will be even and secure.
3. “We do retain floor covering left by the previous occupant where possible and provided it is in very good condition. This will be gifted to you, and you will be responsible for maintaining and replacing”.
4. All fixtures, fittings, windowsills and ledges, radiators, pipes, door and window handles, and window frames will have been wiped clean.
Under the landlord’s repair policy, it would treat full water failure as an emergency. All other non–emergency housing repairs and would normally be completed within 28 days unless there were “exceptional circumstances”.
The landlord’s website states that it is “committed to tackling mould and damp issues across the district quickly, alongside our maintenance partners.“
Its damp and mould policy stated it would:
1. Investigate reports of damp and mould in a timely manner and implement all reasonable repairs and improvements to eradicate or manage damp including the management of condensation within the property.
2. Ensure that the fabric of the building is protected from deterioration and damage, thereby minimising the potential for condensation or damp to occur.
3. Undertake follow up visits by a surveyor, after works have been completed, where necessary. This is to check that the measures have been effective in resolving the issues of damp and mould in the property and to determine whether any further measures are required.

Background

According to a “Void/Works Timeline”, on 15 September 2023, the landlord raised the void works including:
1. New flooring required to bathroom due to tiles laid by previous tenant.
2. A skip for removal of rubbish/items.
3. Softwood skirting to hallway and lounge.
The timeline noted that on 10 November 2023 a joint visit was carried out. It removed the carpets to both bedrooms as they had not been covered during void works.
A void inspection dated 17 November 2023 noted as follows:
1. The front door opened “with ease”.
2. All windows open/close throughout.
3. “WC clean and in working order, seat changed for new”.
4. “All debris removed in the garden and disposed of” was not ticked as completed.
On 18 June 2024, the resident made a complaint as follows:
1. The flooring was not even when she moved in. The work was not completed until 3-4 weeks after she was given the keys. The bathroom floor was left uneven and was not stuck down. Since the bathroom flooring repair, she had been left with no skirting in the bathroom. There was no skirting and only “rotted” skirting in the kitchen.
2. It took two days for the water to be connected.
3. The bedroom light was not working and the switch was covered in architrave which needed to be ripped off to be fixed.
4. Two windows did not open correctly because of the way the extractor fans had been installed.
5. Faeces had been left in the toilet.
6. Rubbish from the previous tenancy was piled up against the external wall in the garden. While the landlord arranged its removal, no one had attended and she removed the rubbish herself.
7. Mould in the bedroom had been an ongoing issue.
8. Her children had had breathing difficulties since moving into the property, they had had to be hospitalised and been given steroids.
9. She requested:
  1. All the issues to be resolved.
  2. Replacement of lost items due to mould.
On 2 July 2024, the landlord wrote with its Stage 1 response as follows:
1. At the post inspection, it considered that the property met its lettable standard. The current flooring was to be left and gifted given its “excellent condition”. None of the other issues were present at the post inspection and the property was signed off as complete.
2. The resident requested that the flooring be taken away.
3. Prior to the handover of the property, an issue with the mains water supply. was rectified on 6 December 2023 and the water was tested and confirmed to be working.
4. It was its standard void practice to cap the boiler at the beginning of the void process and for the boiler to be recommissioned once new residents have taken occupancy. The water was reinstated prior to her occupancy and the boiler “should have been” recommissioned.
5. Some of the works raised on 16 January 2024 were new repairs and others as “recalls” to the voids team.
6. On 18 June 2024, the resident had said she was doing the “school run”.
7. Some of the works had been completed, including the bathroom flooring, the light switch and windows. The contractors were to provide a suitable timeframe to complete the remaining works. It would then post inspect to ensure satisfaction.
8. It apologised and said that this had taken a long time to resolve.
9. The resident had felt that she was being passed between departments.
On or around 6 August 2024, the resident requested to escalate her complaint as follows:
1. The lettable standards state that ‘All bathroom and toilet fittings would be clean and in good working order’. The toilet was left covered in faeces with a toilet seat that did not function properly and a toilet that was leaking.
2. The bathroom floor was dipping in places needing levelling and was not glued correctly. The lettable standards stated that the landlord would “ensure that there is adequate flooring in the kitchen and bathroom”.
3. The ‘gifted’ flooring was not in a good condition and not appropriate for her one-year twins.
4. The policy stated “All (openable) windows “(would open) easily. They did not due to poorly fitted extractors.
5. The policy stated “all internal woodwork will be free from visible damage and decay”. The skirting boards in the kitchen were rotten or missing, along with poorly fitted skirting in the bedroom. She had raised this. The landlord and void contractor confirmed that the skirtings were inadequate.
6. The viewing was short and brief due to not being able to gain access with her children so everything was picked up instantaneously.
7. She had had to continuously chase the landlord and its contractors. She was still awaiting updates.
8. The water tank was stored on a water damaged platform evidencing previous water damage. It had leaked numerous times and destroyed her belongings.
9. On 5 July 2024, she understood that the bedroom with mould would be thermal boarded. Although teams attended without notice, they were not able to carry out the thermal boarding.
10. She was also “met with an extremely rude and irritable electrician”.
11. The contractor promised a call but this did not happen.
On 10 September 2024, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. The window defects were not clear as the windows were closed during the “360” survey.
2. The bathroom and kitchen were left clean and “defect free”.
3. During the post inspection basins, sinks, toilets, and baths were checked to ensure they were clean and free flowing.
4. On the post inspection, the void co-ordinator did not note any defects and the property met its lettable standard for cleanliness including the flooring in the bathroom and kitchen. The floor covering was “intact”.
5. The floor coverings throughout the rest of the property were gifted due to the “excellent condition” but this was not always suitable for all. The void team would not be aware of who was to move in.
6. The coverings were removed throughout and replaced with latex ready to receive the new covering.
7. All void properties were “100% joint post inspected” by the landlord and its contractors.
8. It apologise if she “felt” the officer who undertook the viewing did not appreciate her concerns with the property and that the viewing did not provide adequate time to inspect prior to signing up. Her concerns about the property should have been noted by the lettings officer.
9. It offered to arrange for a surveyor to visit to run through any outstanding items to raise any required repairs. The void process was at a conclusion and any future works would be raised through its repairs service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

The resident reported how the events complained of affected her children’s health. The Ombudsman cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s actions or lack of actions has contributed to or exacerbated a resident’s or their family’s physical health. We cannot assess medical evidence and do not make findings on matters such as negligence. However, the Ombudsman does carefully consider what a resident tells us about how they have been affected by the issues in their complaint, including the overall impact on them. We may, where appropriate, set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a particular service failure by a landlord.

The condition of the property on letting and further repairs.

It was reasonable that the landlord attended the day after the resident’s reports of 16 and 24 January 2024 respectively and raised works after the viewing and after each inspection.
It was reasonable that the landlord left the remaining lounge and wooden flooring in the property because its policy gives it discretion to make a judgment on a case-by-case basis. It had removed the bedroom carpets as it did not consider them in sufficiently good condition. It is difficult for a landlord to make a judgment as to what an incoming resident may want. Its explanation in its complaint response that it would not know who was moving in was reasonable. Some landlords remove all flooring regardless of their condition. In many circumstances, it is helpful to residents to give them the option of keeping existing flooring.
The landlord reasonably agreed to remove the flooring, raised the job on the same day and removed it on 19 December 2023 prior to the start of the tenancy. This was a prompt and reasonable timescale.
According to the landlord’s email of 20 December 2023, as a result of removing the floor, additional works were required including removing damaged tiles and laying latex to level the floor. The latex needed time to dry. We consider that the landlord could not have necessarily anticipated this due to the floor covering. Although the landlord reasonably tried to arrange for the resident to stay in her temporary accommodation, she had to move out. It was agreed that the works would be carried out with her in occupation.
On receiving the resident’s further report on 15 January, the landlord inspected the next day and arranged to have the floor screed so that the flooring works were completed by 23 January 2024. This was a reasonable timescale. It was also reasonable that, in order to assist the resident, the landlord referred her to its tenancy sustainment officer who, according to internal emails and file note of 18 January 2024, raised funds for new flooring and other items.
There was a dispute as to the condition of the flooring. The void policy stated that the flooring had to be in “very good” condition to be left. The resident reported that it was stained and dirty. We have seen photos and a video of the property but while the floor covering looked clear, we cannot definitely determine from the photos the condition of the floor coverings.
While we appreciate this was inconvenient for the resident, in particular as she had very small children, we do not attribute fault to the landlord that the floor covering was in place when she moved in or that works were required after it was removed. This is because it was not unreasonable to have left the flooring and because the follow-up works required time to be completed.
The evidence showed however, that the works to the flooring itself was not satisfactory. The works to the bathroom flooring referred to on 15 September 2023 was unsatisfactory, including that it is likely the tiles should have been removed and the skirting replaced at the time. The bathroom and kitchen skirting was not referred to in the void inspection so there was no evidence that it had been checked. On 25 January 2024, the landlord reported that the bathroom floor had not been glued down “again” and tiles below that had not been removed. There had been patch work done on the kitchen floor. It had not been welded but only mastic sealed. This was not reasonable. However, once identified at that inspection, the landlord addressed the issue promptly.
We do not attribute fault to the landlord for the cleanliness of the windows. The policy stated that all windowsills and ledges, window handles, and window frames should have been wiped clean. While the policy does not refer to the glass glazing, it would not be significant work to clean the glazing as well. However, we note that the void works were carried out in November 2023 and the resident viewed the property one month later in winter months. While this would have caused the resident some inconvenience, we did not see evidence that this caused a significant impact on the resident.
It was not satisfactory under its void policy, or in any event, to leave a dirty toilet. The landlord noted that the toilet was stained but clear of faeces. We cannot make a finding about the exact state of cleanliness of the toilet, but it was not disputed that it was not clean which was a requirement of void works. While the toilet should have been clean, the landlord addressed it promptly and before the tenancy began.
The issues of the bedroom and kitchen skirting, a kitchen wall unit hanging off, rubbish being left in the garden and a fan preventing a window from opening should have been picked up in accordance with the void policy. However, there was no evidence either way that the kitchen tap leak, the bedroom light and boiler issues would have been present or identifiable during the void works. The landlord reasonably raised job to address these promptly.
It was not clear what steps the landlord took in relation to the resident’s reports of 24 January 2024 as follows:
1. A “slight” gas leak.
2. Bathroom window vent was missing “so she could put her hand through”.
3. Window/door handles were loose.
4. Taps were the “wrong way round”.
The landlord should have checked the functioning of the front door lock and front door under the void works. It addressed the lock a few days after the viewing, on 19 December 2024. However, the evidence showed that on 25 January 2024, the door was not closing properly. This was not reasonable as it effects the security of the property.
The landlord raised a job to check the water storage tank the same day as the viewing. The landlord reasonably raised a lack of hot water the resident reported on 24 January 2024 as an emergency. There was no evidence that the issues were connected. The lack of hot water was attended to on 26 January 2024. The resident reported in her complaint of 18 June 2024 that she was without water for 2 days.
The evidence showed there were issues with the boiler. According to a summary, on or around 1 February 2024 the landlord’s contractors re-pressurised and balanced the central heating system. On 2 April 2024, the landlord installed a new boiler and upgraded the radiator valves, replaced or repaired the hot water cylinder and controls. While this was a delay, it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt a repair first. It would have needed time to arrange the installation of a new boiler. The resident reported to us in January 2025 that the boiler leaks. We are unable to investigate this as this is likely to be a fresh issue that occurred after the period of the complaint.
The evidence, in summary, indicated that issues were missed in the voids works. This included the cleanliness of the toilet, the rubbish left in the garden, windows not being openable, and the bedroom light not working. Some issues may have developed later such as the front door lock and the boiler/cistern. We have not attributed fault to the landlord for the unevenness of the floor as this emerged after the floor covering was removed.
The landlord, in the main, addressed these and the resident’s other reports reasonably promptly. However, there was evidence of delays to finalising works such as to the floor and the skirting board. Moreover, while we understand that a landlord may miss an issue here and there, and each individual issue may not be major in itself, there was an accumulative effect on the resident that the landlord did not recognise. In the circumstances, we find maladministration for this complaint. We are making an order for compensation to reflect the impact on the resident for the frustration and inconvenience as a result of the delays and the loss of hot water over 2 days.

Damp and mould

There is no evidence of the date when the resident reported damp and mould prior to her complaint June 2024, therefore how promptly the landlord addressed her reports. The resident did not raise this in her early reports and the landlord did not identify mould when it attended the property in January 2024. It is reasonable to assume that the mould emerged sometime after January 2024 and before 25 April 2024. On that date (25 April 2024), the landlord reasonably raised works to undertake a mould wash to both the bedrooms and lounge, further mould washing “in line with the manufacturer’s instructions” and then thermal board 2 walls.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord addressed the mould satisfactorily. After 25 April 2024, the repair log shows:
1. On 3 May 2024, thermal boarding to the children’s bedroom which required ancillary works. The job was marked as incomplete.
2. On 9 May 2024, an operative attending but did not carry out works due to questions from the resident.
3. On 24 May 2024, the landlord or its contractors carried out a further mould wash to the children’s bedroom.
4. On 3 and 5 July 2024, the landlord or its contractors carried out works preparatory to installing the thermal boarding
By the time of the resident’s request to escalate the complaint on or around 6 August 2024, the resident reported that the bedroom had not yet been thermal boarded and the mould was still present. The resident has told us that it did not follow up and install the thermal boarding. She also told us that she arranged to have the works carried out. The repair log does not show that the thermal boarding was installed.
While we appreciate the landlord had to carry out preparatory works and that it carried out mould washes, it was unreasonable that it did not carry out the works that it raised. There was no evidence that the landlord followed up the works “to check that the measures have been effective” in accordance with its damp and mould policy. We would have expected the landlord to have monitored progress and apply a zero-tolerance approach to the mould, in particular given what the resident had reported about the health of her small children.
We do not know if and when prior to her complaint the resident reported that her small children were suffering from “breathing difficulties”, being hospitalised and being prescribed steroids. We note that, despite the resident having reported this, the landlord has not noted this as household vulnerabilities. We would have expected the landlord to have recorded this, given the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
As part of her complaint in June 2024, the resident had requested the “replacement of lost items due to mould.” In the circumstances, we will make an order that the landlord to consider the resident’s request to be compensated for damaged items on the presentation by the resident of an itemised list and any evidence such as she possesses such as photographs and receipts.
The resident told us in April 2025 that she is still concerned about the level of damp and mould in the property, that the mould had damaged possessions and she was only using one bedroom. She did not raise she was only using one bedroom in her complaint. While this is significant, we cannot investigate that aspect.
In the circumstances, we find maladministration in relation to the mould in the property, given we are not satisfied that the mould was addressed satisfactorily and given the importance to the resident and the impact on her. The resident told us in January and April 2025 that she was, and is still, worried about the mould in the property. We will be making orders that the landlord addresses damp and mould in her property.
We are making an order for compensation in the amount of £750 to reflect the impact of the damp and mould on the resident over the period of the complaint. While we have noted that the landlord carried out mould washes, our order for compensation will take into account:
1. £350 for the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused by the delays for the period of the complaint April 2024 to September 2024.
2. £200 for the resident’s frustration and inconvenience given the promised works of the thermal boarding were not carried out at all.
3. £200 to address the resident’s concerns and worry about her children’s health.
We cannot assess whether the property was fit for habitation or the cause of the mould but we would expect the landlord to have undertaken a damp and mould assessment, consider carrying out an assessment of any related level of hazard in the property, and minimise the risk of damp and mould, in particular where there are health vulnerabilities.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The complaint response did not recognise issues even though the landlord had not disputed they existed, such as the toilet, non-openable windows and the inadequate repair to the bathroom floor. Indeed, the Stage 2 response denied there were any defects identified. It did not acknowledge that the resident raised issues after the viewing and that the housing officer did note the resident’s concerns. It did not make allowances that a viewing would not necessarily reveal all issues. There appeared to have been confusion about the date the resident did not have hot water. We noted that the landlord had some difficulty in gathering the evidence which may reflect on the adequacy of the complaint investigation.
While the resident had focused on the condition while void, the complaint response should not have limited itself to the void condition and referred to the repairs as if a separate issue. It should have addressed all the issues.
The resident reported in her email 26 August 2024 that the water tank had leaked several times, damaging her belongings. The landlord did not address this or, of greater concern, it did not address the damp and mould at all. This meant that the landlord’s complaint team did not monitor the progress of the repairs.
The landlord referred to the resident not being available on 18 June 2024. Surprisingly, given the age of the resident’s children, the complaint response referred to a “school run”. The lack of access on that date did not explain the overall delays. Its explanation that the windows were closed during the 360 survey was unreasonable given there was an actual physical inspection. This and the landlord’s denial of any defects, despite having been recognised, came across as defensive.
The Stage 1 response referred to outstanding works. Given this was 6 months after the resident moved in this indicated a delay. While it provided an apology for “delays”, the response did not provide a clear plan and resolution.
While it was reasonable to offer to raise a surveyor inspection at Stage 2, we consider there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling due to the lack of evidence of a proper investigation, its defensive stance but of most concern, that the complaint responses did not address the resident’s complaint about mould.
We are making an order for compensation to reflect the impact on the resident as follows:
1. It was frustrating for the resident that the landlord did not fully address her issues about the condition of the property when void and subsequent repairs.
2. The resident’s complaint about damp and mould was not resolved, given the landlord did not address the issue or her request for compensation for damaged items in its complaint responses.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the condition of the property on letting and further repairs.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould in the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should carry out a damp and mould inspection. The inspection should assess:
  1. The level of hazard at the property.
  2. The humidity levels and temperatures in the property.
  3. The cause of the damp and mould.
  4. Any steps it could take to reduce the risk of mould such as replacing fans.
2. Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord should provide to Ombudsman and the resident a report with photographs, any recommendations and reasonable timescales in which it will carry out any works.
3. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay direct to the resident the sum of £1,200 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in this investigation. The sum consists of as follows:
  1. £250 in relation to the condition of the property on letting and further repairs.
  2. £750 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould in the property.
  3. £200 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should contact the resident to discuss with the resident recording the health conditions of her children in its central records to ensure it had a consistent record across all its records and databases in particular in relation to its approach to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. If the resident presents an invoice for the works she had carried out to the thermal boarding and re-plastering, the landlord should, within 6 weeks of this report, either pay those costs or write to us and the resident with a reasonable explanation why not.
6. Within 6 weeks, on the presentation by the resident of an itemised list and any evidence such as she possesses such as photographs and receipts, the landlord should consider any claim by the resident for damage to her possessions arising from the water leak, including offering reasonable assistance with a claim to its insurers. The landlord should write to us within 8 weeks with its reasonable intentions.
7. Within 6 weeks, on the presentation by the resident of an itemised list and any evidence such as she possesses such as photographs and receipts, the landlord should consider any claim by the resident for damage to her possessions by the mould, including offering reasonable assistance with a claim to its insurers. The landlord should write to us within 8 weeks with its reasonable intentions.
8. The landlord should carry out a review of the complaint handling in this case, setting out what steps it intends to take to improve its complaint handing and provide a copy of that review to the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of this report.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 and 8 weeks of this report.