From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Colchester City Council (202322142)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322142

Colchester City Council

6 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about an infestation of pests.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house and has a secure tenancy agreement for the property with the landlord. The landlord has noted that the resident has a mental health condition. She also told it that one of her children has asthma.
  2. The landlord did several repairs from 2021 onwards to try and resolve the mould problem at the property before the resident’s formal complaint was made:
    1. Anti-mould treatment was applied to the bathroom, kitchen and both bedrooms, realignment of the guttering was done, and ventilation was added to plinths in the kitchen.
    2. A channel was dug around the property to make sure there was 150mm under the damp proof course.
    3. It removed the sill on the back door to make it watertight, filled in an airbrick, and removed kitchen cupboards to seal a hole that was present.
    4. It repointed the brickwork on the elevated side of the property and cut out 5 courses of brickwork under a window.
    5. A damp and mould inspection was also done on 19 January 2023, which identified the main cause of the mould was due to excessive condensation at the property. The surveyor recommended that this needed to be overcome with constant heat and increased ventilation, but that the landlord should also review the property’s insulation and increase that if necessary.
  3. On 2 October 2023, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the damp and mould, and an infestation of book lice and mites. The resident said she has had issues with damp and mould since she moved into the property in 2017. The resident said:
    1. The anti-mould treatment had not worked, the house’s gutters had been realigned with little effect, walls within the property remained cold and damp, the kitchen floor covering had to be changed several times, and she said the mite infestation was caused by damp.
    2. She was advised by pest control not to use any of her kitchen equipment because moisture from their use could worsen the mite issue. Furthermore, the infestation of mites was causing damage to her personal property, as well as having a negative effect on her and her young children’s health.
  4. On 17 October 2023, the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1, which was partly upheld because not all repairs were identified in its previous visits. It apologised and offered compensation of £150 for inconvenience. Its stage 1 response said:
    1. There were high levels of humidity in the property, mainly caused by a lack of sufficient heating and ventilation.
    2. The resident had been using an unvented tumble dryer, which could be the cause of the condensation and excess moisture. It therefore fitted an external core vent to the tumble drier to reduce the level of condensation. It reminded the resident to make sure there was proper heating and ventilation. It also installed a dehumidifier for 2 weeks from 13 December 2023, in an attempt to dry out the property and in turn reduce the mite infestation.
  5. On 17 October 2023, the resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2 because she said she still could not use her kitchen. She also said that pest control had told her that the infestation at the property was actually bird mites. She also dismissed the landlord’s claim that the tumble dryer was the cause of the condensation and refused the compensation offered at stage 1 as too low and not covering her losses. She also said the experience was having a huge effect on her mental health and she had been prescribed medication as a result.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 1 December 2023, upheld the resident’s complaint, and offered further compensation of £750 for the loss of use of the resident’s kitchen. It repeated the actions it had taken to date and said it had taken additional steps at the end of October 2023 to install netting over the solar panels to prevent birds from nesting there in future.
  7. On 22 December 2023, the resident told the landlord she wanted compensation of half her rent for the past 6 years. On 19 January 2024, the landlord issued a follow up response to its stage 2 response. The landlord offered a further £520 compensation for the non-use of the kitchen for 13 weeks, but said it was unable to consider compensation for the resident’s damaged personal items. This was because the resident had not given it receipts for these in line with its remedies policy. The landlord also said that the resident was seeking to move home as part of the remedy of her complaint, however it said would not consider that. This was because the house repairs were now completed and the house was considered to be in a liveable condition. It did, however, signpost the resident to make a rehousing application on its housing register, or it said the resident may qualify for a mutual home exchange.
  8. The resident contacted the service because she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and reported the damp and mould was still ongoing. The resident said she was seeking the Ombudsman’s assistance to help resolve the damp and mould issue, and to get higher compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident explained that she was unhappy with its handling of damp and mould since before she moved to the property in 2017 onwards. However, no formal complaints were made before the complaint of 2 October 2023. Therefore, events that happened earlier than 12 months before the formal complaint are outside the scope of this investigation to consider. This is in line with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme, which advises that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which “were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.” Any historical events mentioned are for context only.
  2. The resident has also mentioned that the landlord’s handling of her case affected her mental health, which resulted in her being prescribed medication, and affected her and her young children’s physical health. This is very concerning. We are unable, however, to draw conclusions on the causes of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing or award damages for these. This is because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so in the way a court or insurer might. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. Therefore, the effect on the resident’s family’s health and wellbeing is outside the scope of this investigation to consider. This is in line with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, which says we may not investigate complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal or procedure.
  3. It is noted from more recent communications with the resident that the damp and mould may still be ongoing after the landlord’s stage 2 response, but this falls outside the scope of this investigation to consider. The resident also later mentioned having subsidence, cracks, sealing wall, and paintwork issues that we cannot currently investigate. Therefore, the resident may want to consider logging a further complaint with the landlord about these matters. This is in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, which says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Currently, there is no evidence a complaint about these issues has exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure yet.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s repair logs show that the resident made a report of reappearing damp and mould in her kitchen and bathroom on 29 December 2022. The landlord raised a repair on 31 May 2023 to treat and apply anti-mould paint to the bathroom and kitchen. This was completed 106 working days later on 2 June 2023. The landlord’s repairs and rechargeable repairs policy says routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days, which was not achieved in this instance. This is inappropriate and not in line with its repair obligations, which made it responsible for structural work, electrical, bathroom and kitchen fixtures and fittings, and plaster under its policy. The landlord should have completed the works by 27 January 2023.
  2. On 29 December 2022, the resident made a report that the gutters at her property were blocked and needed emptying. The resident also said that some parts of the guttering were broken. The landlord’s repair obligations under its policy made it responsible for the upkeep of the guttering, and its repair logs note that this was completed on 9 May 2023. The subsequent PVCU joint was replaced on 24 May 2023. However, it should have been fully completed by 27 January 2023. There was almost a 4-month delay in this repair being completed. This is inappropriate and not in line with its policy for routine repairs that should take 20 working days.
  3. On 30 March 2023, the resident reported that all the internal doors at her property were rotten and needed replacing. According to the landlord’s repair logs, this was not completed until 11 September 2023. The landlord’s repairs and rechargeable repairs policy says routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days, which was not achieved. This is inappropriate and not in line with its repair obligations, which made it responsible for fixtures and fittingsunder its policy. The landlord should have completed the works by 28 April 2023, which meant there was an over 5-month delay, which was not appropriate.
  4. The landlord outlined the repairs it had undertaken to try and resolve the damp/mould concerns. This included anti-mould treatments completed on 2 June 2023and the realignment of guttering completed on 24 May 2023.It also installed a dehumidifier for 2 weeks on 6 December 2023 following a surveyor’s recommendation in November 2023. The landlord previously carried out works outside of the scope of this investigation including additional ventilation in the kitchen, damp proof course additions, the sealing of the backdoor, and the filling of an airbrick on 21 August 2021, and the sealing of a hole behind the kitchen cupboards on 11 May 2021. Further, it repointed the brickwork on the elevated side of the property and cut out 5 courses of brickwork under a window on 21 August 2021.
  5. The landlord therefore eventually acted in line with its obligations by undertaking the repairs, which demonstrates that the landlord did take appropriate action after its above delays to try and remedy the resident’s concerns. This is in line with its repairs and rechargeable repairs policy, which it is obligated to do under the resident’s right to repair in line with the Secure Tenants of Local Housing Authorities (Right to Repair) Regulations 1994.
  6. However, the landlord acknowledged its failure to record all of the repairs required at previous visits and offered £150 compensation as gesture of goodwill for the inconvenience caused. The landlord’s remedies policy says “in cases where it is considered appropriate, a goodwill gesture can be made”. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for maladministration, starting at £100, that adversely affected the resident, and was therefore reasonable in recognition of the effect on the resident from the time she made the complaint on 2 October 2023, to the date the stage 1 was issued on 17 October 2023, which was 11 working days at the time.
  7. The landlord increased its offer of compensation by an additional £750 at stage 2 for the loss of kitchen access. The amount of compensation offered was in line with the landlord’s remedies policy, which says compensation may be appropriate when “a tenant is unable to use part of their home because repairs are required or are being completed”. This level of compensation was reasonable and is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for maladministration, starting at £600, which had a significant effect on the resident.
  8. The landlord subsequently offered further compensation of £520 in recognition of the non-use of the kitchen for a further 13 weeks while the works were completed from 8 September 2023 to 1 December 2023. This amount was reasonable and proportionate and was in line with the landlord’s remedies policy and our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for maladministration, starting at £100, which adversely affected the resident.
  9. The overall compensation was therefore reasonable and proportionate, and in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for failures that had a significant effect on the resident. Therefore, the landlord has been recommended to pay the resident the £1,420 compensation it previously offered her during its internal complaint process, if it has not done so already. This determination is based on it doing so.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about an infestation of pests

  1. In respect of the infestation of mites, as the mites were initially identified as being from birds, the landlord took appropriate steps. It did so by installing netting over the area of solar panels where birds were nesting which, according to the landlord’s repair logs, was requested on 19 October 2023 and installed on 6 November 2023, 12 working days later. This was in line with the 20-working-day routine repair category of its repairs and rechargeable repairs policy. The resident also made her reports of the infestation on 2 October 2023, and the landlord instructed pest control services to attend on 28 November 2023 but did not identify any live mites. They concluded the mites were caused by the damp and were not bird mites as previously thought. They recommended the installation of a dehumidifier to help dry out the property but indicated that no specialist cleaning or insecticide would be required.
  2. While the landlord does not have separate pest control obligations in its tenancy conditions or policies, apart from its repairs and rechargeable repairs policy, which say it is responsible for major pest infestations where public health concerns exist, for example major rodent or significant flea infestations. The policy says the timescales for dealing with such issues depends on priority, with the maximum amount of time to attend and complete routine works being 20 working days. The landlord therefore did not meet this expectation, taking a total of 41 working days to respond from 2 October 2023 to 28 November 2023. This is contrary to its policy and inappropriate.
  3. The compensation of £150 offered at stage 1 was appropriate to recognise the above delay, and in line with the landlord’s remedies policy’s recommended range of compensation where it has failed to complete a repair on time. This is as well as our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for maladministration, starting at £100, for a failure that adversely affected the resident. The landlord further supplied a dehumidifier for 2 weeks on 6 December 2023, which further assisted in the termination of the mites.
  4. While the landlord will not consider compensation for the damaged personal items the resident reported without receipts, this is in line with its remedies policy, which says that residents should “have contents insurance in place to protect their furniture, belongings and decorations”. However, it should have provided the resident with details of its liability insurance so the resident could consider making a claim. Therefore, the landlord has been recommended to provide the resident with its liability insurance details for the resident to consider making a claim for her damaged items and her reports about her and her family’s ill-health.
  5. Following the intervention by pest control, it is noted in the emails exchanged with the landlord that the mites were more likely to be as a result of recent damp problems and not birds. Pest control therefore said the installation of the dehumidifier was appropriate, and their inspection on 28 November 2023 noted no live mites, and no insecticide was needed or specialist cleaning. The landlord therefore took appropriate action by instructing pest control and installing a dehumidifier as recommended. The landlord’s offer of £520 at stage 2 for the loss of use of the kitchen also covers the infestation as part of the loss of use of this, which is reasonable and in line with the landlord’s remedies policy where the resident was unable to use part of her home. It is also in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for maladministration, starting at £100, where the resident experienced no permanent effect.
  6. The overall compensation was therefore reasonable and proportionate, and in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for failures that had a significant effect on the resident. Therefore, the landlord has been recommended to pay the resident the £1,420 compensation it previously offered her during its internal complaint process, if it has not done so already. This determination is based on it doing so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about an infestation of pests.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Provide the resident with its liability insurance details for the resident to consider making a claim for her damaged items and her reports about her and her family’s ill-health.
    2. Pay the resident the £1,420 compensation it previously offered her during its internal complaint process, if it has not done so already.