Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Stevenage Borough Council (202412705)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202412705

Stevenage Borough Council

15 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 the resident’s:

a.     Reports of damp and mould

b.     Complaint

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house with her adult son, who has significant mental health needs, including obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority.
  2. The resident and her son have corresponded with the landlord during the period of complaint. The resident has granted her son authority to communicate on her behalf. For clarity in this report, the resident and her son will be collectively referred to as the ‘resident,’ except when individual identification is necessary.
  3. The resident has reported issues with damp and mould in her property since October 2020. An initial inspection in October 2020 found minor mould due to condensation. Work was planned to upgrade the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans and clean the mould. An operative attended several months later, in May 2021, to complete the work, which the resident refused, as she did not believe it would be beneficial.
  4. In September 2021, the resident made a further report of damp and mould. The inspection on 22 September 2021 recommended a Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) unit, roof vents, and a mould treatment.
  5. On 19 May 2022 the resident complained about the prolonged delays in the landlord completing the work, which she said affected her and her son’s health. In its stage 1 response on 27 May 2022, the landlord apologised for the delays and confirmed that it was waiting for a date from its contractor to start the work.
  6. The resident’s dissatisfaction prompted her to escalate the complaint on 9 August 2022. She said the contractor had quoted to complete the work in May 2022, but the landlord had made no progress. Additionally, she inquired about how a PIV unit and fan would help.
  7. On 1 September 2022, the landlord issued a stage 2 response. This response recognised the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It said it was unknown that the contractor had not received the work order until after the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord then arranged for the contractor to start work on 20 September 2022. It offered £230 in compensation for the distress and delays caused, which it said would be credited to the resident’s rent account to clear her arrears.
  8. On 20 September 2022, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the compensation offered for the 2 years of damp and mould that she reported had affected her and her son’s health. Additionally, she said she was unhappy with the contractor’s report that the bathroom walls would not be treated, and she was told to speak to the landlord about the work. She requested to escalate her complaint to stage 3.
  9. The PIV unit and bathroom extractor fan installation was completed around the end of September 2022. The evidence shows that the PIV unit was not fully connected at the resident’s request.
  10. By November 2023, a further inspection revealed that the PIV unit still had not been turned on and that the roof vents for the bathroom extractor fan had not been installed. The landlord asked the contractor to return that month to ensure the PIV unit was operational, but the resident refused. 
  11. On 15 May 2024, the resident started another complaint, reiterating her prior concerns. She expressed that the mould had damaged her personal belongings and that the contractors lacked an understanding of her son’s mental health challenges.
  12. On 15 June 2024, the landlord issued a final stage 2 response, which confirmed the following:

a.     a stage 3 response was prepared but not sent to the resident in 2022. The landlord apologised and indicated that the complaints process had been revised from 3 stages to 2. This response was considered equivalent to its stage 3 investigation

b.     The landlord offered to temporarily relocate the resident’s son so that work could be completed. However, the offer was declined. Discussions regarding potential bedroom swaps for the resident’s son were also considered but ultimately declined. The landlord said it had taken the son’s mental health into account. 

the outstanding work included the following: 

  1. connecting the PIV unit 
  2. installing roof vents for the bathroom fan 
  3. treating damp and mould in her son’s bedroom and bathroom 

c.      the landlord provided information for the resident to claim damages for her personal belongings 

d.     The compensation offer was increased to £480, which included an additional £250 for failures in the complaint handling

  1. In February 2025, the resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She was unhappy with the compensation offered and wanted the landlord to provide her son with another property so that repairs could be completed.  

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident began reporting damp and mould in 2020. For completeness and given the length of time the resident has been reporting the same issue, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the reports from this date with the information we have. We have considered events following the landlord’s final response as the issue remains unresolved.
  2. The resident has said that the damp and mould in her property have affected the household’s mental and physical health. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone’s health has been impacted, the courts rely on expert evidence from the parties involved. This allows expert opinions on the cause of any reported health effects. This would be a more appropriate way of considering such an allegation, and if the resident wishes to pursue this matter, she should seek independent advice.

The landlord’s handling of the damp and mould

  1. The landlord did not provide the damp and mould or repair policies in place at the time of the resident’s complaint in 2022. However, information available on the landlord’s website confirms that under its 2020 policies, it committed to:

a.     investigating damp, mould, and condensation and implementing reasonable remedial actions aimed at keeping residents informed and ensuring homes were safe and in good repair

b.     responding to emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 working days and routine repairs within 20 working days.

  1. In October 2020, the resident reported mould in the property. The October 2020 report showed that the mould was minor, but the humidity at 80% was high (ideal humidity levels between 40-60%). The landlord confirmed that it would install extractor fans to reduce moisture in the property and would instruct a contractor to complete the work. The landlord did not complete the necessary work promptly, and there was no explanation for the delay, which extended to May 2021, 7 months later. We have considered the possibility that the pandemic may have contributed to these delays; however, we do not have the evidence to ascertain whether the landlord was entirely responsible.
  2. When an operative attended in May 2021, the resident refused to have the fans installed, believing they would not resolve the issue. The landlord closed the work order without providing a resolution, overlooking the opportunity to explain the advantages of the extractor fans and their significance in addressing the reported issue conditions. This response was inconsistent with the policy approach at that time, which aimed to engage with residents to ensure that homes were safe and in good repair. Consequently, the resident was left without any clarity regarding the progression of the matter.
  3. In September 2021, the resident reported additional damp and mould and expressed concerns for the health of the household. An inspection on 22 September 2021 recommended further works, including a PIV installation and roof vents for the bathroom extractor fan. This suggests that the issue had escalated beyond what had originally been regarded as a ‘minor’ problem.
  4. Despite this, progress stalled, and the resident raised a formal complaint in May 2022, citing long-standing delays and the impact on her son’s health. In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for the delays and explained it was awaiting a start date from its contractor. However, it did not address the resident’s concerns about the potential health impacts on both her and her son, who had pre-existing mental health vulnerabilities and OCD. This showed a lack of consideration for their circumstances.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint in August 2022, indicating that the contractor had provided a quote for the work back in May 2022, but there had been no further progress or communication from the landlord since then. She also requested information on how the PIV unit and fans would improve the conditions of her living space. There is no evidence that this information was communicated to the resident in a timely manner and the improvements they would make. This lack of communication does not align with the landlord’s policy.
  6. In its stage 2 response dated 1 September 2022, the landlord recognised the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord acknowledged it was unaware that the contractor had not received the work order until the complaint was escalated. This shows a breakdown in the landlord’s contractor management processes. Additionally, it did not explain how this error happened or outline any steps taken to prevent similar incidents in the future. Work was scheduled for 20 and 27 September 2022, and the landlord offered £230 in compensation. 
  7. On 20 September 2022, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the level of compensation, particularly in light of the 2-year duration of the reported issues and the continuing impact on her son’s health. She also disputed elements of the contractor’s report who had attended to complete work, particularly the exclusion of the treatment of the bathroom walls. The PIV unit and extractor fan installation were completed around the end of September 2022. The PIV unit was left ‘isolated’ after the resident had complained.
  8. Despite ongoing issues, the landlord was aware from January to February 2023 that the PIV unit had not been activated at the resident’s request, primarily due to concerns about her son’s mental health and the restricted access to his bedroom. By November 2023, a follow-up inspection revealed that the PIV unit remained inactive and that the roof vents for the bathroom extractor fan had not been installed. Although the contractor was instructed to return in November, the records show that the resident refused access. However, there is no evidence that an appointment was offered and subsequently declined in November 2023, nor was there a clear plan to manage access, considering the household’s known vulnerabilities, which would have ensured better communication.
  9. The landlord documented in January and February 2023 that obtaining access to the son’s bedroom posed a considerable barrier to completing the work. However, it did not seek help from support services or suggest alternative solutions, such as temporary relocation, until April 2024, approximately 14 months later. This delay, despite acknowledging that the son’s mental health complicated access, reflected a lack of proactivity in its case management.
  10. On 15 May 2024, the resident made a further complaint, stating that the landlord’s contractors lacked an understanding of her son’s mental health and her personal belongings had been damaged. In its final response on 15 June 2024, the landlord acknowledged that work remained outstanding, including connecting the PIV unit, installing roof vents, and treating the damp and mould in the son’s bedroom and bathroom. It explained how the resident could claim damage to personal items caused by damp and mould through its insurers which was in line with its complaints policy. It offered £480 compensation (£230 previously offered, plus £250 for the complaint handling).
  11. The evidence indicates that the landlord did not complete mould treatment or schedule recommended appointments throughout the complaint process. Our Spotlight report on Damp and Mould (2021) emphasises the need for proactive management and ownership of ongoing issues. In this case, the landlord’s reactive approach, lack of contractor follow-through, and insufficient documentation failed to meet these standards. Given the vulnerabilities of the resident’s son, a more personalised approach was necessary, including an earlier escalation to adult safeguarding.
  12. While some actions were taken to address access difficulties, they were too late and inadequate to resolve the issues. The compensation offered was not proportionate to the persistent problems and their impact on the resident and her son.
  13. Ultimately, the landlord failed to acknowledge and rectify its failures, and as such, we have found maladministration in handling the reports of damp and mould due to several factors:

a. unjustified closure of the May 2021 work order without engagement 

b. missed opportunities to communicate the benefits of proposed works 

c. inaction despite knowledge of the inactive PIV unit 

d. failure to install identified roof vents from 2021 by 2024 

e. no evidence of offered mould treatment appointments

f. delayed responses to access issues and inadequate early engagement   with support services 

  1. Consequently, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £700, which replaces its previous offer of £230, for the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused in addressing the damp and mould over a period of more than 2 years.
  2. This compensation amount aligns with our remedies guidance where there have been failures which have significantly impacted the resident.
  3. We recognise that the outstanding work identified in June 2024 is still unfinished, and we have instructed the landlord to complete it.
  4. During her communication with our Service, the resident requested that the landlord provide her son with a permanent move to facilitate the completion of repairs. The landlord is not obligated to do this. However, it did propose reasonable alternatives, including a temporary move, to ensure that the repairs in the property can be completed. 

Complaint handling

  1. At the time of the resident’s complaint in May 2022, the landlord operated a 3-stage complaints process. Under this policy, stage 1 responses were to be provided within 10 working days, stage 2 within 15 working days, and stage 3 within 20 working days of escalation.
  2. In addition, our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets expectations for landlords to provide timely, fair, and resident-focused complaint handling. It also requires landlords to maintain clear records, issue comprehensive and meaningful responses, and ensure the complaints process is accessible and transparent.
  3. The resident complained on 19 May 2022. The landlord responded on 27 May 2022, within the 10-working-day timeframe outlined in its complaints policy. While the response was timely and apologised for delays in the work, it did not address the full complaint, specifically the resident’s concerns about the impact on her son.
  4. After the resident escalated the complaint on 9 August 2022, the landlord issued a stage 2 response on 1 September 2022, adhering to the 15 working day target. The landlord offered £230 as compensation for the distress and delays experienced by the resident, confirming that this amount would be applied to settle the resident’s rent account in full.
  5. On 20 September 2022, the resident requested escalation to stage 3, expressing dissatisfaction with the compensation offered and the impact on the household’s well-being. However, no stage 3 response was provided. The landlord later acknowledged in June 2024 that a stage 3 response had been prepared in 2022 but had not been sent to the resident. This contributed to the resident’s distress and uncertainty about resolving her concerns. The landlord did not explain how the error had occurred or what steps it had taken to prevent a recurrence.
  6. In response to the further complaint on 15 May 2024, the landlord issued a final stage 2 response on 15 June 2024. The landlord reasonably treated the complaint as a continuation of the earlier complaint, given that no stage 3 response was issued. The Code supports this approach, as the issue remained unresolved and was not closed. However, that this was only identified following the resident’s further complaint is a failure in its complaint tracking and escalation process.
  7. The Code emphasises that landlords must show evidence of learning and improvements in cases of service failures. Although the landlord apologised for not providing a stage 3 response in 2022, explained that its complaints process was revised from 3 stages to 2, and offered £250 for its handling errors, it did not adequately show learning from the missed stage 3 response. Therefore, we have found service failure in the handling of the complaint.
  8. We have not ordered additional compensation because the amount offered aligns with our remedies guidance regarding the identified failures. However, we have instructed that the compensation be paid directly to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:

a.     apologised in writing to the resident for the failures we have identified

paid the resident £950 compensation, made up of:

  1. £700 for the distress inconvenience and time and trouble caused in addressing the damp and mould over a period of more than 2 years
  2. £250 as offered by the landlord for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to issue a stage 3 response
  3. this money should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against arrears (minus any money already paid to the resident or onto her rent account)

b.     provided the resident with a clear and detailed plan setting out:

  1. the outstanding work to be completed, including the activation of the PIV unit, installation of roof vents for the bathroom fan and mould treatment for the son’s bedroom and bathroom
  2. the action needed by the resident to enable repairs to be completed, and agreed frequency for updating the resident
  3. a named officer appointed to coordinate the outstanding works

c.      consider the failures that occurred and outline the steps that will be taken to ensure that similar mistakes are not made in the future, with a focus on supporting residents with vulnerabilities.