Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (202416992)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416992

Stoke-on-Trent City Council

25 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 handling of damp and mould at the resident’s property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. There are health issues within the family, including a condition impacting the nerves and respiratory conditions, which the landlord is aware of.
  2. In March 2024, the resident reported damp and mould to the landlord and her  GP wrote a letter to the landlord explaining that the resident’s daughter was currently being treated for asthma. The GP stated they were aware that the resident and her family were living in a property which allegedly had problems with plaster chipping and falling apart. The GP recommended for the outstanding repairs to be completed as soon as possible to promote healthy air quality in the resident’s home.

 

  1. On 22 May 2024, the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord. She stated there were outstanding issues with damp and mould and the plaster on the walls was crumbling and creating dust and fumes. The resident explained her daughter was admitted to hospital because of the property condition impacting her asthma and shortly after her second daughter was admitted to hospital with breathing difficulties. She also stated she had to throw away 2 beds because of the damp and mould. The resident also explained that the repairs contractor would book appointments and then not turn up for the appointment.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 6 June 2024. The landlord’s contractor issued the response. It apologised for the poor communication that she had received in relation to the outstanding repairs and missed appointments she experienced. It explained the plastering team attended the resident’s property and removed the loose plaster. The landlord’s repairs contractor stated a follow-on job was logged to complete the plastering works. However, it stated the job was no access and therefore placed on hold. The landlord’s contractor confirmed it would contact the resident to rearrange a suitable appointment date for the outstanding works. It stated it was partially upholding her complaint due to the poor communication she had received. However, it stated it could not fully uphold her complaint as it was not previously notified of any required plastering works.
  3. On 17 June 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. She stated she disagreed with the partial uphold decision, as she explained the landlord and repairs contractors were fully aware of the plaster issues. The resident explained there was poor communication between the landlord and its repairs contractors. The resident also stated one of her daughters had very bad breathing problems, so she would normally have to arrange childcare, so her daughter was not in the property when any work which created dust was carried out.

 

  1. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 18 July 2024. It apologised that the resident’s stage 1 complaint was only partially upheld and acknowledged this was incorrect as it overlooked the records detailing the plastering work. The landlord stated it was sorry to hear that on several occasions, the contractors had not contacted her prior to turning up at her property. It explained that a significant part of the outstanding plastering work had now been completed, and it had arranged for its surveyor to visit her property on 9 July 2024 to agree a schedule of works. The landlord also included a copy of a damage claim form for the resident to complete should she wish to make a claim for compensation for damage to her belongings. In addition, it offered the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the repair delays.
  2. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated her desired outcome was for the landlord to provide suitable accommodation for her and her family to live in.
  3. The resident told the Ombudsman that she was decanted (temporarily moved) to another property on 17 March 2025. She stated she would remain at the property until the works were completed at her existing property. On 22 April 2025, the landlord confirmed that works were completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation 

  1. The resident has mentioned as part of her complaint that the damp and mould has impacted her and her family’s health. She stated her two daughters were admitted to hospital due to the damp and mould causing breathing difficulties. We acknowledge that this has been a very difficult time for the family. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether there is a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and any specific impact on the resident and her family’s health. It would be more appropriately suited for a court or liability insurer to investigate this as a personal injury claim. Courts can award damages in a different way to the Ombudsman and review medical evidence. However, it is generally accepted that damp and mould can pose a significant health risk, particularly for those with respiratory conditions such as asthma. This service can consider the general risk, and distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her and her family’s health.
  2. The resident explained to the Ombudsman that the property she was decanted to was in poor condition and there were issues with moving her belongings to the temporary accommodation. The resident did not raise the issues as part of her initial complaint to the landlord. And therefore, the landlord was not required to consider this issue through its complaints process. The Ombudsman will not consider it either, because we can only investigate matters which have been through the landlord’s complaints process. This is in line with Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which is made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. The resident can make a separate complaint to the landlord about the issues surrounding the move to the decant property. She may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response about the condition of the decant property and the issue with the moving of her belongings.
  3. The resident raised as part of her complaint to the Ombudsman that she asked the landlord to add her on its housing transfer list. This report will consider the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould at her property. It will not consider the issues she raised about her request to be added to the landlord’s housing transfer list. The rules which govern our service are set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which falls properly within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. Housing transfers related to the housing allocation banding, which is awarded by a local authority in accordance with its allocation policy, are outside the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Complaints about local authority housing allocations banding scheme, fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident may be able to refer the complaint about this issue to the LGSCO if she wishes to pursue it further.

 

Policies Procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy explains that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property.
  2. In addition, the landlord’s repairs policy includes the following response timescales for the following repair categories:
    1. Emergency repairs – the landlord will respond and make the repair issue safe within 24 hours.
    2. Day–to–day repairs – the landlord will respond within a reasonable timescale and, where applicable, within the timescales included in the right to repair regulations.
  3. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states when a report of damp and mould is made, it will investigate and arrange a prompt repair. The policy also states if the damp and mould issues identified are serious or recurring, the landlord will undertake a survey of the property and complete the necessary remedial works.

The landlord’s handling of a damp and mould at the resident’s property.

  1. In March 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and reported damp and mould issues at her property. The resident’s GP also wrote a letter to the landlord explaining the condition of the resident’s property would exaggerate the resident’s asthma. The GP asked the landlord to carry out the necessary repairs as soon as possible.
  2. Following the resident’s report and GP letter, there was a delay in the landlord carrying out an inspection and completing works to resolve the damp and mould at the resident’s property. Whilst the works remained outstanding, during April 2024, the resident’s daughter was admitted to hospital, and she stated this was due to the conditions of the property impacting her daughter’s asthma. The Ombudsman recognises this would have been a difficult experience for the resident and her family. The resident also stated there were multiple missed appointments from the landlord’s contractor. Shortly after, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord in May 2024 about the outstanding works. The delay by the landlord was unreasonable, and the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to respond promptly to the reported damp and mould issue. The landlord should have looked to prioritise the repair, if possible, in view of the concerns raised about the resident’s daughter’s health. If it identified that the repairs could not be completed quickly due to the scale of the works needed, it should have promptly assessed whether the family needed to be decanted on health grounds until the mould could be resolved.
  3. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response issued in June 2024 that there had been poor communication about the outstanding repairs and missed appointments by its contractor. It apologised for this and explained the contractor had removed the loose plaster. However, it stated the plastering works remained outstanding, and it would arrange an appointment for these works to be completed. The landlord confirmed it partially upheld the complaint. The resident raised as part of her escalation request that she did not agree with the outcome that the complaint was partially upheld. It is positive that the landlord apologised for its poor communication. However, considering the damp and mould issue had been outstanding for several months, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to uphold the complaint in full to appropriately recognise the impact of the delay on the resident.
  4. Shortly after the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord’s surveyor completed an inspection of the resident’s property. The surveyor recommended plastering works to the rear bedroom and lounge. They also recommended for an air vent to be installed in the rear bedroom, works to the chimney breast and for the extractor fan in the kitchen to be overhauled. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging an inspection to identify necessary works to resolve the damp and mould. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out the inspection much sooner than it did, particularly as it was aware that there were family members living at the property with vulnerabilities who might be worse affected by damp and mould.
  5. Following the surveyor’s inspection, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 18 July 2024. The landlord apologised and acknowledged it incorrectly partially upheld the resident’s complaint, and it stated the complaint should have been fully upheld. It is a positive step that the landlord recognised the error with its initial outcome. It also apologised for the delays she experienced and for the missed appointment from its repairs contractor. The landlord confirmed it had completed some plastering works, and it would agree a timetable of works for the remaining works. It also provided the resident with a liability claim form for her damaged belongings, as the resident previously raised that she threw away 2 beds because they were damaged by the damp and mould. The landlord acted appropriately by apologising for the delay in completing the works and confirming it would provide the resident with a timetable for the remaining works. It also took reasonable steps by providing the resident with a claim form so she could submit a claim for her damaged belongings.
  6. The landlord also offered the resident £100 compensation in its stage 2 complaint response to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the repair delays. Considering the length of time the damp and mould repairs had been outstanding at the resident’s property, the amount of compensation offered was not sufficient to recognise the distress and inconvenience.
  7. In August 2024, the landlord visited the resident’s property to assess the outstanding works and to confirm if a decant was required due to the impact of the works on some of the family members’ medical conditions. The landlord’s decant risk assessment report identified that a temporary move was required for the completion of the works to proceed due to the location of the outstanding works, which was the living room, and due to the resident’s daughter’s asthma. The landlord responded appropriately by assessing whether a decant was required. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out the decant assessment when its surveyor carried out an initial damp and mould inspection.
  8. Shortly after the decant risk assessment, the landlord stated that its repair manager contacted the resident to discuss the outstanding repairs. The landlord stated during the call it offered the resident a hotel. However, the landlord has not provided a copy of the call note to confirm this. Also, the resident has told us that the landlord did not offer her any accommodation. We acknowledge that the landlord has provided us with an email sent by the resident to the landlord where she asks further questions about staying in a hotel, such as what would happen to her belongings. Therefore, it is likely there was some discussion about a hotel. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence that it responded to the resident’s questions about the hotel or that it offered a hotel as an option in writing.
  9. In January 2025, the landlord confirmed in its file submission sent to the Ombudsman that a suitable property had become available for the resident and her family to move into temporarily. However, it confirmed the property needed to be prepared prior to it being ready for the resident and her family to move into.
  10. There was a delay in the decant property being available and the resident and her family did not move into the property until around 17 March 2025. The delay in the resident being decanted was unreasonable. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to consider alternative temporary accommodation such as an Airbnb or hotel while it was waiting for the property to be prepared. It was unacceptable for the resident and her family to remain living in the property with damp and mould for such a long period of time.
  11. The Ombudsman recognises the landlord apologised and offered £100 compensation in its stage 2 complaint response for its delay in completing the damp and mould works. However, the resident and her family with vulnerabilities had been living in damp and mould conditions for a considerable period of time and the landlord’s offer of compensation was not sufficient in view of this. In addition, all the works to resolve the damp and mould were only recently completed and remained incomplete at the time of the final response. Therefore, there has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the resident’s property.
  12. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £1000 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the considerable delay and distress the resident has experienced due to the landlord’s failure to resolve the damp and mould within a reasonable period. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation set out in our remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards of £1000 or more where there have been serious failings by the landlord, which had a significant long-term impact on the resident. This amount is in addition to the £100 compensation the landlord offered in its stage 2 complaint response.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the resident’s property.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1000 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of damp and mould at the resident’s property. This amount is in addition to the £100 the landlord offered in its stage 2 complaint response.
  2. The landlord must comply with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report, providing evidence to the Ombudsman that it has done so by the same date.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review the resident’s case and identify any areas for improvement with a focus on its delay in offering alternative accommodation for the resident and her family to be decanted to. In addition, it should also focus on the multiple missed appointments by its repairs contractor and look at ways of preventing similar situations from occurring in the future.