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

Thurrock Council (202344415)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344415

Thurrock Council

29 April 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 response to the resident’s:
    1. claim for damages to his personal belongings.
    2. reports of damp and mould in the property, including the quality of repair works.
  2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a one-bedroom mid-terrace bungalow that is owned and managed by a local authority landlord. The property was let under a secure tenancy agreement in June 2007. The landlord records that the resident is a wheelchair user.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould to the landlord between 2017 and 2024. The landlord inspected the property, completed some repairs, and provided the resident with advice about condensation. The resident continued to experience damp and mould, and the landlord’s actions and proposed remedies did not resolve the matter.
  3. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 10 November 2023. He said that he had an issue with mould in the property since December 2022. A surveyor had visited the property, and the landlord had completed insulation repairs, but nothing else had been done since. He had sent pictures of the property but had not heard anything further within a year. He was a wheelchair user and could not clean mould located in higher places. The landlord had said it would try to get rid of the mould, but this had not happened. The complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on 14 November 2023.
  4. The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 24 November 2023 in which it said:
    1. it had been unable to make contact with the resident to acknowledge his complaint when it called him on 14 November 2023;
    2. it had reviewed its repair records since he had reported damp and mould at the property on 27 April 2023. It had arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property on 23 May 2023, which concluded that the mould was as a result of a build-up of condensation because there were no building faults and no external water or moisture contributing to the issues being experienced;
    3. it had provided advice to the resident that heating and ventilation could reduce condensation. It had also arranged for repairs to the loft insulation, an extractor fan, mould treatment works, and a CCTV drain survey to be completed on 2, 6, and 21 June 2023;
    4. the resident reported damp and mould to the landlord again on 31 August 2023, and it had contacted him on 5 September 2023 to arrange an appointment to assess the condition of the mould in the property. It also said that the resident declined the appointment, as he did not wish it to attend and carry out a mould treatment only, and it had closed the works order because its contact attempts with the resident had been unsuccessful;
    5. it had arranged for a further inspection to take place on 4 December 2023 in response to the complaint. It also said that it would raise any remedial works required in keeping with its repairs policy and it quality assurance team would monitor the case to ensure works were progressed;
    6. it had taken learning actions from the complaint which would improve service delivery. It did not say if it upheld the complaint, but it advised the resident that he could explain further if he remained dissatisfied.
  5. The resident submitted a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 26 November 2023. The landlord responded to the resident on the next day to say that, as it was due to inspect the property on 4 December 2023, he could escalate the complaint or wait until the outcome of the inspection. The resident emailed the landlord on 28 November 2023 to say that he would escalate the complaint after the inspection. The resident referred the landlord to his stage 2 escalation request in an email he sent to the landlord on 2 January 2024. The resident said:
    1. he had not received a copy of the surveyor’s written inspection report;
    2. he was still waiting for certain repairs to be completed. He explained that the landlord had booked an appointment to complete loft insulation works and a bathroom fan repair on 5 January 2024, but it had not mentioned works to treat and clean mould on the bedroom ceiling;
    3. he had identified a puddle of water in the corner of the bedroom following a rain downpour on 30 December 2023, and mould behind the chest of drawers that had not been present in November 2023;
    4. he had told the surveyor a number of times that the issue was coming from the same corner and that mould had started in 2015, but this had not been inspected;
    5. he would provide video footage of the area and photographs that had been taken in 2015.
  6. The landlord sent a stage 2 acknowledgement letter to the resident on 4 January 2024, and it sent a stage 2 response to him on 29 January 2024. It attached a copy of the survey it had completed at the property on 4 December 2023. Additionally, it said:
    1. it had raised the repair works its survey had recommended;
    2. it had not found any mould in the bedroom area during its property inspection. However, it had identified that a new air vent would aid air circulation in the bedroom;
    3. it had completed a mould wash and confirmed the extent of additional repair works required during an appointment it completed at the property on 25 January 2024. Additionally, it raised an appointment to complete the works on 13 February 2024;
    4. its previous response had summarised the contact it had held with the resident. Additionally, it had contacted him on 1 and 21 December 2023 to schedule appointments in January 2024 and left a voicemail for him on 5 January 2024 about an appointment it had planned that day;
    5. its previous response had explained that it had added new loft insulation in June 2023. It had not recorded that any further works to remove insulation were required;
    6. during the most recent inspection on 4 December 2023, its surveyor recommended the completion of a separate inspection of the loft, as there was no requirement for them to enter the loft during the inspection. It had booked an appointment for this to take place on 5 January 2024, but the resident had denied access because he wanted all works to be completed on the same day;
    7. it had removed damp insulation and re-laid new insulation in the property on 26 January 2024;
    8. it restated that an extractor fan had been working correctly when it had visited the property in June 2023, but it had installed a new extractor fan and decommissioned the existing ceiling fan on 26 January 2024;
    9. information that it had included in its stage 1 response about a mould wash being completed in June 2023 had been incorrect. It apologised for its error;
    10. it advised that any claim for personal damages should be submitted to its insurance team, and it provided an online link for him to do so.
    11. it anticipated the remedial works which it intended to complete on 13 February 2024 would reduce the issues, but that he should report further issues if they occur;
    12. it upheld the complaint because it did not complete mould treatment works following its inspection in May 2023, its unthorough inspection in December 2023 had resulted in further attendance being scheduled, it had not considered the resident‘s vulnerabilities, and it had incorrectly said that it had carried out a mould wash on 6 June 2023;
    13. it offered the resident £500 as compensation in recognition of its failings and extended a further apology for the oversight and delays that had occurred.
  7. The resident held a conversation with the Ombudsman about his complaint on 24 April 2024. He explained that mould had affected the property since 2017 or 2018. He said that he wanted the landlord to find the root cause of the mould and stop putting it down to condensation. Additionally, during a conversation we held with the resident on 16 January 2025, he advised that the mould issues were ongoing and had not been resolved.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. The resident emailed the landlord on 26 November 2023, in which he said that he had had to dispose of a lot of his belongings and his clothes, bed, and wardrobes had been damaged. Additionally, he emailed the landlord on 9 January 2024 to say that he wanted to be paid for damage caused to his personal belongings. The landlord advised the resident in its stage 2 complaint response of 29 January 2024, that he could submit a claim via its insurance company, and it provided an online link for him to pursue this.
  2. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  3. There may be circumstances when the Ombudsman decides that it is appropriate to make an order that a landlord pays compensation in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused. However, while the Ombudsman has a wide range of discretion to suggest remedies, we do not make binding decisions on matters such as negligence and liability and cannot make the same findings that a court would in relation to personal losses and/or payment of damages.
  4. The Ombudsman cannot review how the insurers have dealt with claims or assessed loss or awarded damages. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s decisions about damages, he may wish to seek a remedy through the courts, another tribunal, or procedure.
  5. Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. Consequently, the Ombudsman considers the resident’s claim for damages to his personal belongings to be outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

Scope of the investigation

  1. During a conversation the resident held with the Ombudsman on 24 April 2024, he reported that he had experienced damp and mould in the property since 2017 or 2018. The Ombudsman has not investigated the historical incidents, as they were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme, which states that we may not investigate complaints not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 12 months of the matters arising. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint the resident made in November 2023.

Damp and Mould

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair; this includes an obligation to stop any penetrating or rising damp. The landlord visited the property on 8 December 2022, in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. However, it failed to follow up on the appointment by contacting the resident with the outcomes or scheduling any required repairs, which was unreasonable. This caused time and trouble to the resident in pursuing the matter with the landlord.
  2. The landlord, as a local authority, has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its area’s rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard, and the landlord was required to consider whether damp and mould problems in its properties amounted to a hazard and required remedying. There is no evidence that it created a plan following its December 2022 inspection to address the presence and causes of damp and mould, so as to limit any potential hazards to the resident and the property. This was unreasonable, given that it later identified that ventilation and an imbalance of temperatures in the property was a potential cause of damp and mould.
  3. The resident reported damp and mould to the landlord again on 27 April 2023, and the landlord inspected the property 16 working days later on 23 May 2023. The landlord’s housing repairs policy has 4 repair priorities with timescales ranging from 24 hours to according to programme. Its housing damp and mould policy adds that it will conduct inspections within 5 working days in response to reports of damp and mould. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to have inspected the property to assess the condition of the damp and mould prior to raising any repairs, but it was inappropriate that it did so 11 working days later than its policy’s timescale for it to do so.
  4. The landlord identified mould in the property during its inspection of 23 May 2023, and it noted that there were no faults with the building and no external water or moisture was contributing to the issues. It concluded that the mould was as a result of condensation due to an insufficient heating and ventilation balance. It advised the resident to avoid storing clothes in close proximity to external walls, flooring and around heating, and to ventilate and use the central heating. Additionally, it recommended the supply of new loft insulation, a CCTV drain survey, and the overhaul of an extractor fan. It was reasonable for the landlord to have provided advice to the resident about actions he could take to limit the presence of condensation in the property. Furthermore, it was appropriate for it to arrange further exploratory and preventative repair works.
  5. The landlord’s housing damp and mould policy says it would raise any repairs for severe cases of damp and mould resulting from its surveyors’ inspections within its 20-working-day routine repair timescale. The landlord arranged for a CCTV drain survey, and extractor fan and loft insulation repairs to be completed on 2 and 6 June 2023. This was in keeping with its housing repairs policy timescales and its housing damp and mould policy, which says any required repairs identified by the surveyor would take place within a 20-day target time. However, there is no evidence that the landlord arranged for a mould wash to be completed following the inspection which was unreasonable. Additionally, it was a missed opportunity for the landlord to build the resident’s confidence in its repairs service.
  6. The landlord inspected the extractor fan in the property on 2 June 2023 and concluded that it was working correctly. However, the resident later reported, in an email dated 26 November 2023, that the contractor had not switched on the fan and had not investigated water dripping from an extractor connecting pipe that had been poorly connected. The landlord decommissioned a ceiling fan and relocated the extractor fan in the property on 26 January 2024, over 7 months later than its initial inspection. It subsequently arranged to install a new extractor fan on 21 February 2024, after it had issued its final complaint response. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have fully inspected the extractor fan and/or connecting pipes so as to ensure it was in an appropriate condition. Furthermore, it was unreasonable for it not to have completed a lasting repair when it had identified the fault. This caused time and trouble to the resident in pursuing the repair.
  7. The resident reported further concerns about mould in the property to the landlord on 31 August 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 5 September 2023 to arrange an appointment to assess the condition of the mould in the property, which reasonable under the circumstances. However, when the resident declined the appointment because he did not wish it to attend to carry out a mould treatment only, the landlord closed the works order. This was inappropriate and not in keeping with the landlord’s housing damp and mould policy, which says it would refer cases that were not caused by the fabric of the building to partner agencies for support in addressing the main causes. Furthermore, it was not in keeping with the Ombudsman’s 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould, which recommends landlords move from inferring blame to taking responsibility.
  8. The resident raised the matter again in his stage 1 complaint of 10 November 2023, and the landlord subsequently arranged to reinspect the property on 4 December 2023. It noted that it did not find any mould in the property because the resident had cleaned the areas affected. It recorded that the property would benefit from the installation of a new air vent and the removal and replacement of any damaged loft insulation. The surveyor recommended that a separate loft inspection was completed, as there was no requirement for them to inspect it at that time. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have inspected the loft at the time of the visit so as to make best use of the time the resident had provided within his property. Furthermore, this was necessary to ensure it had conducted a complete investigation into the likely causes of damp and mould in the property. This caused further time and trouble to the resident in arranging for the loft to be inspected again in January 2024.
  9. It is evident that the resident raised concerns about the extent of the inspections the landlord had completed at the property. In an email he sent to the landlord on 5 February 2024, he explained that the surveyor had completed the inspection from the doorway of the bedroom without accessing the room. The landlord was expected to complete an appropriate inspection of the property to satisfy itself that it had diagnosed the likely causes of the presence of damp and mould. It is unclear to what extent the surveyor needed to move around the property to assess the likely causes of damp and mould in the property. The landlord was entitled to rely on the qualified assessment of its surveyor, which was reasonable under the circumstances, given the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary.
  10. The landlord arranged to inspect the loft insultation again on 5 January 2024. It was unreasonable for it to have been required to do so, given it had completed loft insulation works over 7 months previously, in June 2023. The resident explained in his stage 2 complaint that the landlord had failed to remove wet insultation and/or relay sufficient loft insulation during the 10 minute appointment the landlord had previously completed. It is unclear to what extent the previous loft insulation repairs had been unsuitable. Notwithstanding this, it was appropriate for the landlord to have subsequently reassessed the condition of the loft insulation.
  11. The resident reported that the landlord’s operatives had been poorly prepared for the loft insultation repair it had arranged on 5 January 2024, as it had failed to bring a ladder to access the loft. It is not clear whether the landlord completed a subsequent inspection prior to finally completing loft insulation works on 26 January 2024. Notwithstanding this, the landlord was expected to ensure its staff were suitably prepared to complete the works it had requested. The failure of the loft inspection appointment caused unnecessary time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident.
  12. The Ombudsman’s October 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould recommends landlords adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould. When assessing the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, the key elements are whether the landlord was proactive in identifying the cause of the damp and mould, the actions taken by the landlord to treat, remove and combat the mould, as well as adherence to the landlord’s relevant policies and expected customer service standards.
  13. It is evident that there were a series of service failures that caused time and trouble to the resident in providing access for multiple inspections, repairs, and surveys, and pursuing the matter via the complaint policy. However, the landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident in its complaint responses. Additionally, it sought put things right by returning to the property to complete further repairs to the loft insulation, an extractor flexi-pipe, an extractor fan, mould washes, and subsequently, the installation of an air vent. Furthermore, it awarded the resident £500 as compensation for its recognised failings.
  14. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, acknowledgement of service failure, and compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  15. The compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for circumstances where there were identified failings that adversely affected the resident. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failures. It has therefore been recommended to pay this to him if it has not already done so.
  16. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
  17. The landlord also provided evidence to the Ombudsman which shows that it reviewed its response to reports of damp and mould against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (October 2021) in June 2023. Additionally, the Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its practices, processes, and procedures under paragraph 54.f. of the Scheme in relation to responding to reports of repairs in a reasonable timescale, and to resolving these with effective and lasting works. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the cases already determined. The landlord is demonstrating compliance with our previous wider order, so we have not made any learning orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord. We have, however, recommended the landlord reassess the property to consider whether there are any additional repairs that are required to address the presence of damp and mould in the property.

Complaint handling

  1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, as the landlord:
    1. did not fully address the resident’s stage 1 complaint, such as by responding to the resident’s comments that it had not responded to photographs he had previously sent to the landlord. This was not in keeping with paragraph 5.6 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time of this complaint, which says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint;
    2. said that it had taken learning points from the stage 1 complaint but did not explain what the learning points were. This was a missed opportunity for it to evidence that it had learned from outcomes in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles;
    3. did not say if it had upheld the stage 1 complaint in accordance with paragraph 5.8 of the Code, which says that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made;
    4. did not clearly explain that the resident could escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints procedure, in keeping with paragraph 5.8 of the Code.
  2. The landlord did not issue its response to the resident’s initial stage 2 complaint of 26 November 2023 until 29 January 2024. This was 22 working days later than its 20-working day stage 2 response timescale in its complaints procedure. However, the resident did not resubmit his stage 2 complaint until 2 January 2024 after he had agreed to wait until after the landlord inspected the property. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 4 January 2024, thereby making it clear when it had accepted his stage 2 complaint. The landlord responded to the complaint 19 working days later, in keeping with its complaints procedure. Furthermore, the landlord addressed matters in its complaint response that the resident had raised on 26 November 2023, which was appropriate.
  3. When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord did not consider its handling of the resident’s complaint when reviewing the housing services it had provided. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to consider the impact of its complaint handling delays and recognise that they had caused inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident. An award of compensation is therefore ordered below.
  4. The complaint handling failings had no permanent impact on the resident but may have had an adverse effect on him in terms of the inconvenience, time, and trouble they had caused. An award of £100 as compensation is therefore ordered below in keeping with the range awards set out in our remedies guidance for matters where service failure is found that has not been proportionately addressed by the landlord. Additionally, we have asked it to write to the resident to apologise for its handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme the resident’s claim for damages to his personal belongings is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its complaint handling failings.
    2. Pay the resident an additional £100 in compensation for inconvenience, time, and trouble that may have been caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident the £500 compensation offered in the stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
    1. Inspect the property to assess if any outstanding repairs are required. If works are required the landlord should send the resident and the Ombudsman details of the works, together with a timetable for the works to be carried out within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.