Stoke-on-Trent City Council (202412195)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202412195

Stoke-on-Trent City Council

17 April 2025

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the resident’s property.
2. Damp and mould in the property.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 1 bedroom flat. Her tenancy started in September 2023. She lives with both physical and mental health conditions including cystic fibrosis.
The resident reported concerns with her fence panel on 21 December 2023. The landlord attended on 15 January 2024, assessed the fence panel, and decided it was beyond repair and completed the work in February 2024.
The resident raised a complaint on 12 February 2024 and said she had been in the property since September 2023. She told the landlord she had mould in 4 areas of her property. She had just finished furnishing and now had mould in her bed. She raised concerns with her fence panel, and that her neighbour kept raising issues about her washing machine pipe. Its contractor also kept cancelling appointments and not attending. She explained her desired outcome was for it to fix the damage to her property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 11 March 2024 and apologised for the delay in its response. It explained the steps it had taken to investigate and said:
1. It had fixed the fence panel on 15 February 2024. It had also arranged to check the other panels on 2 April 2024 to determine if they required any further repairs.
2. In relation to her washing machine concern, it did not have a previous report about this on its system. It raised a service request on her behalf and made an appointment for its plumbing team to attend her home on 12 March 2024.
3. In relation to the damp and mould she experienced since moving into her new home, its records showed that she first reported the issues in February 2024.
4. It attended on 13 February 2024 to clean and treat the mould throughout her home. It understood from discussions that the contractor that attended did not remove the wallpaper in her hallway to treat the mould and left footmarks on her stairs carpet.
5. It apologised to hear she had medical issues and said it was happy to arrange a return appointment for its contractor to remove the paper on her behalf. It had also referred the carpet issue internally and provided her with a damage claim for her consideration.
6. Due to a communication error, its contractor still did not remove the wallpaper before offering to treat the damp and mould in the hall at the rebooked appointment. It apologised for this and for any inconvenience and upset caused. It had rearranged the job for 19 March 2024 and also arranged an appointment for it to visit her on 26 March 2024 to discuss any next steps and further treatment needed for the damp and mould in her home.
7. It apologised if it had been unable to attend any of its appointments as planned. It said it should make her aware of any changes to appointments that it needed to make and apologised for any inconvenience caused. It also apologised that its contractor did not remove the wallpaper on her behalf as arranged. It upheld her complaint.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 14 May 2024. She said that it previously told her it would do several jobs, and they remained outstanding. She explained that she had mould on the wall by her door. She told the landlord about her health conditions and the effects on her. She said she wanted the works completed and compensation.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident on 18 June 2024. It:
1. Said its contractor contacted her on 12 June 2024 and confirmed that their contractor would attend her home on 17 June 2024 to plaster the walls on the stairs and around the external doors.
2. Confirmed that on 18 June 2024 their bricklaying contractor would attend to carry out the required pointing above and around the external door.
3. Apologised and offered £150 compensation for the delays she experienced in getting her repairs resolved. It said it was aware she had health vulnerabilities and thanked her for making it aware of the illnesses her family had recently been living with.
4. Said it had referred her case to her housing officer so they could contact her to offer support. It said it upheld her complaint due to it not completing the repairs promptly.
On the same day, the resident accepted the landlord’s compensation offer as it covered the costs of redecorating from the mould. She asked it to confirm it would complete works accordingly. She also asked it to confirm that no further issues would occur as the matter had caused a lot of stress.
The landlord responded on 18 June 2024, asked for the resident’s bank details, and said in relation to her repairs, it would make every effort to meet all the appointments.

Post complaint

The resident wrote to us on 20 June 2024 and explained the situation to us. She told us she was unhappy about the landlord’s plasterers. They had stained her flooring, and it would not come out. She said:
1. They also had not done a full job, and it had told her she may also have to pay for the plastering as it was her responsibility. The £150 compensation did not cover the floor, the plaster work, and the stress caused.
2. She had been off work for 2 weeks due to stress and was losing out on money from work too. If the stains would not come off the flooring it looked like she would have to replace it.
3. Someone told her they would investigate the issue of her wall in the kitchen which it should have done before she moved in. The matter was causing her a lot of “bother” and she was in the property since “August 2023” and wanted normality.
4. She was trying to get a liveable flat but kept getting no help at all. She should have had a 2 bed property due to her disability and carer. She should have a wet room or minimum of a “banister” to help her get in and out of the bath. She had to have a carer help her in the bath and it was already intimidating having help into the bath.
The resident said she had also been unsuitably rehomed, and the landlord had not taken her medical conditions into consideration since moving. She had been unable to have a carer overnight and had to call a carer for a bath. It wrote to the resident on 20 August 2024 and told her that it had inspected her property and did not find any damage as she had described. It said in relation to the marks on her laminate flooring, it had identified that she could clean this off easily. As such it would offer no further compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident raised several concerns in her email of 20 June 2024 to us. These included concerns about the suitability of her property, concerns with the landlord’s contractors, damage to her flooring and having to pay for the plastering. She further raised financial concerns, and concerns around investigations into her kitchen wall. Our scheme says we cannot investigate matters which have not exhausted a landlord’s complaints process. This is unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure.
From the evidence provided, we cannot see that any of these matters have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. As such we will not consider them within this investigation. Should they remain outstanding, and the resident wish to raise a complaint, the landlord should consider providing the necessary responses.

Repairs to the resident’s property

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend to routine repairs at an agreed mutually convenient appointment. Prioritisation will also reflect the vulnerabilities of the resident and any prevailing whether conditions. It does not provide specific timescales for when it will complete repairs.
The landlord acted reasonably by raising a service request for the resident in relation to her washing machine. This was because this was the first time it became aware of the matter, and it appropriately took necessary steps to rectify the situation.
The resident raised repairs with the landlord in relation to her fence. She raised the matter on 21 December 2023, and it inspected on 15 January 2024 to determine the necessary actions. This was 14 working days, and we find this timeframe reasonable, particularly as it was around the holiday period. The landlord then found that the fence was beyond repair and needed replacing. It attended on 15 February 2024 to replace the fence. Whilst this is beyond the usually accepted position of 28 days for completing repairs, we believe this is reasonable as the landlord had to replace rather than repair the item.
Where there was however a failing was with the landlord’s communication. This is because it has not shown that it explained the likely timescales involved in replacing the fence to the resident and this was inappropriate. Its records also show that she called the landlord to check on the status of the works. It has provided no date on when this was, or what information it provided her. Based on this we find that there was a service failure with the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s property.
Although the landlord offered the resident compensation, this appears to be in relation to the outstanding works to the damp and mould in her property. As such, we order the landlord to pay the resident added compensation.

Damp and mould in the resident’s property

The landlord acknowledged that there were several failings in its handling of the damp and mould works to the resident’s property. It explained to us that it completed the damp, and mould works in May 2024, and pointing works in June 2024. It apologised for its failings in its responses, acknowledged that there were delays, missed appointments, and communication issues with its contractor. It offered the resident compensation of £150. As it has acknowledged these failings, we shall consider its actions and whether it has done enough to put things right.
The landlord explained to us on 9 April 2025 that its damp and mould procedure is to request that residents remove wallpaper prior to it carrying out work. This is unless the resident is vulnerable and unable to do so. It acknowledged that it did not properly communicate the need to remove the wallpaper to her. It also explained that its compensation offer was in relation to the delays in resolving the plastering repairs. It was also for the time that the resident spent chasing the completion of the works.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it treats all reports of damp and mould seriously. It says it understands the health implication it may have if left untreated, particularly to some of the most vulnerable members of the community. It explained that risks include respiratory problems and/or other conditions affecting the immune system as well as having an impact on the mental health of residents.
The policy further says that the landlord takes a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould. It ensures that it completes work to proactively identify and address issues where they may arise. It responds quickly and thoroughly when residents report issues. Its attendance and completing a mould wash within 24 hours of the resident notifying it of the issue supports its policy of taking the matter seriously and a zero tolerance approach and this is appropriate.
Despite this however, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould which it did not recognise. Its damp and mould policy explains that in some instances residents may be vulnerable or at high risk of the negative health impacts of damp and mould. In such cases, it would work with the resident to identify suitable alternative accommodation while undertaking the works.
The landlord was aware since July 2023 of the resident’s vulnerabilities as she expressly declared these in the documentation prior to her signing the tenancy agreement. The form itself also had a “vuln” marker on it. One of her reported vulnerabilities included a respiratory condition, and it is commonly accepted that damp and mould may affect respiratory function. It has not shown that it took these into consideration when dealing with the damp and mould in the property.
The landlord also has not shown that it considered whether the resident was able to remove the wallpaper herself given her vulnerabilities and this was inappropriate. As the matter remained ongoing for a period of 3 months, and given the resident’s conditions, the landlord should have also considered if a temporary move was appropriate. This was in relation to both the damp and mould. It has not demonstrated that it ever did, and this was unreasonable. Its actions are not in keeping with its policy.
The landlord’s repair records also identify that on several occasions it said that the resident did not have any vulnerabilities. For example, on 13 February 2024 and 25 April 2024. This raises questions with the landlord’s investigation into the resident’s concerns. This is especially the case as one of these recorded instances followed her informing it about her vulnerabilities. This was an opportunity to reconsider its position and approach, and it has not shown that it did which was unreasonable.
Based on the failure to show it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities, and poor investigation around this on multiple occasions, we find that there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property. The landlord’s compensation policy says it may consider making a monetary payment as a gesture of goodwill where service delivery failings cause exceptional inconvenience, stress, disturbance, or annoyance.
While the landlord offered compensation in its complaints process, the offer does not take into consideration the failings identified in this report. Based on this, we order the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation.

Determination (decision)

By paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
2. Maladministration with the landlords handling of damp and mould in the property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with an apology around the failings identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £350 this is inclusive of its previously accepted offer of £150. If the landlord has previously paid the £150, it does not need to pay this again. We break this down as:
  1. £150 previously offered in its stage 2 response.
  2. £50 for its communication failings around the handling of the repairs.
  3. £150 for its failure to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities in line with its policy.
3. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.