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

Arun District Council (202449303)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202449303

Arun District Council

15 August 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 caused by a neighbour’s driveway.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, a council, since 1997. The property is a 2-bedroom, ground floor flat. The neighbour is a leaseholder and lives directly above the resident. The neighbour owns the land on the right-hand side of the building, which they have made into a driveway. This runs along one side of the property.
  2. In December 2023 the landlord completed a damp inspection in the property. It noted there was damp as a result of the neighbour’s brick-paved driveway that had been installed to the height of the damp-proof course. It said this was incorrect and caused rainwater to splash back and penetrate the wall. It recommended works to address this but said these would need to be discussed with the neighbour.
  3. Following a complaint from the resident, the landlord wrote to the neighbour on 7 March 2024 and asked them to take action within 28 days to rectify the driveway.
  4. On 18 August 2024 the resident made another complaint to the landlord. She said she had been waiting months for the neighbour to rectify the driveway, which was causing damp. She asked the landlord to chase them to get it resolved.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 11 September 2024 it upheld the complaint as it had not followed up with the neighbour to ensure the driveway works were completed. It had assumed this would happen, but it had not, and it should have followed up to confirm this had been done. It apologised and said it would contact the neighbour to ensure the required works were completed.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint 5 days later as she was not happy with the outcome. She felt the landlord had not done enough to contact the neighbour. She said this was costing her money as she had to redecorate because of the damp and replace furniture and carpets that had been damaged by mould. She asked for fortnightly updates on progress.
  7. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 4 December 2024 it again upheld the complaint as it had failed to fully resolve the matter. It apologised and offered £150 compensation (£50 for complaint handling and £100 for the failure to resolve the driveway issue). It confirmed it had been in contact with the neighbour, who had agreed to complete the works. Once this was done, the landlord would complete further works and checks. It agreed to contact her fortnightly until the situation was resolved.
  8. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint in March 2025. She said the matter was unresolved and there was still damp in multiple rooms as a result. She explained that she wanted the landlord to resolve this and pay increased compensation for the time taken.

Assessment and findings

Damp caused by the neighbour’s driveway

  1. The landlord is responsible for addressing damp and mould in line with section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp.
  2. When dealing with damp and mould, it is vital that landlords not only treat it, but also seek to identify and resolve the underlying cause. In this case, as the damp is believed to be caused by the leaseholder neighbour’s driveway, it is reasonable that the landlord would not be responsible for the necessary repairs, and it would be the neighbour’s responsibility to complete them.
  3. While the landlord is not responsible for rectifying the driveway, it is responsible for ensuring the neighbour takes the necessary action to do so, in order to ensure the damp issue affecting the property is resolved. The landlord is also responsible for taking action to treat the damp and mould inside the property, while the neighbour addresses the underlying cause.
  4. Following the damp inspection in December 2023, there is no evidence the landlord contacted the neighbour until nearly 3 months later, in March 2024; and this was only after the resident had raised a formal complaint. This delay amounts to maladministration and made the resident feel the landlord was not taking this matter seriously.
  5. In addition to the letter sent to the neighbour on 7 March 2024, the landlord said it contacted them and they agreed to take action to rectify the driveway. This was reasonable. However, the landlord did not follow up with the neighbour, or the resident, to confirm this had been done. This meant the resident incurred time and trouble re-reporting the issue 5 months later when no action had been taken. This amounts to maladministration.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged it had failed to follow up with the neighbour and committed that it would do so. While positive, there is no evidence that it actually did. It was only in response to the stage 2 complaint, nearly 2 months later, that the landlord confirmed it had been in contact with the neighbour and agreed actions to resolve this. By that time, it was a year since the landlord had identified the issue and no action had been taken to resolve the underlying cause of the damp. This amounts to maladministration.
  7. As part of the stage 2 response, the landlord agreed to give the resident fortnightly updates until the matter was resolved. This was sensible to ensure it kept her updated and showed it had listened to her, as she asked for this as part of the stage 2 complaint. Despite committing to this and making contact in December 2024 and January 2025, there is no evidence the landlord has made any contact with the resident since then. In recent contact the resident has told us she has not heard anything from the landlord since January 2025. This amounts to maladministration and has left her feeling let down.
  8. The resident has told us the matter is still unresolved and no action has been taken to rectify the driveway. The landlord told the resident that, as this was the neighbour’s responsibility to resolve, it could be a time consuming process and may involve its legal department. It was sensible for the landlord to warn the resident of this so she understood its limitations. However, it has now been around 20 months since the landlord first identified this issue and, while it has contacted the neighbour on several occasions, it has not done enough to ensure the matter is resolved. This amounts to maladministration.
  9. In December 2024 the landlord contacted the neighbour and asked for permission to arrange the necessary works to the driveway, which they agreed to. This was a practical approach to take as this was more likely to result in a quicker resolution than progressing legal action. Despite this, the driveway has still not been rectified 8 months later and it is unclear why. This amounts to maladministration. We have made an order for the landlord to complete the required works to the driveway. If it is unable to do so, it must tell the resident why in writing and explain the reasons. This should include what action it will take to ensure the neighbour rectifies the driveway and how regularly it will contact her with updates, until the matter is resolved.
  10. In March 2024 the landlord offered to provide a dehumidifier to help manage the moisture entering the property, while the neighbour took action to rectify the driveway. This was sensible and showed it wanted to help the resident manage the situation. The landlord provided this the same month. It also offered to reimburse the cost of running this, which was appropriate. However, we have seen no evidence that it has told her the specifics of this, including how much it will pay her or when, or that it has actually paid her any money. This amounts to maladministration.
  11. As this matter remains unresolved, the resident has been using a dehumidifier for over a year, since around 12 March 2024. We order the landlord to pay her £1 a day for the running cost, since the date it was delivered. The landlord must calculate the amount to date and confirm this in writing to the resident, along with a commitment that it will pay her an additional amount at this rate, once the matter is resolved and the use of the dehumidifier is no longer required.
  12. The resident has told the landlord the damp has damaged her wallpaper and decoration. In the stage 2 response, the landlord agreed to give her a decorating voucher. This was a reasonable offer. However, we have seen no evidence this was ever given to her and in recent contact the resident has told us she never received this. While the resident cannot make use of the voucher until the underlying cause of the damp is resolved, the landlord should have followed through with its promise to provide one. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration and caused the resident to lose faith in it. We order the landlord to provide the resident a decorating voucher, as promised.
  13. In her escalation request, the resident told the landlord that some of her carpets and furniture had been damaged by mould.
  14. Despite the resident raising this with the landlord, it did not address this concern within the stage 2 response. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will only consider compensation payments for home contents that are damaged due to proven landlord negligence. As the landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter, which resulted in the underlying cause of the damp not being resolved, it should have considered paying compensation for the damaged items. Its failure to do so contravened its compensation policy and amounts to maladministration. We order the landlord to write to the resident advising how she can make a claim for compensation for her damaged items.
  15. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter. While it acknowledged failure and offered redress, it did not provide this or follow through with the promises made. This means the complaints process did nothing to put things right for the resident. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £600 compensation (inclusive of the £100 already offered, if not done so). This is in line with our remedies guidance for a maladministration finding and is at the top end of the compensation scale, considering the extent of the delays and the detriment caused to the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 19 August 2024, the day after the complaint was made. Its policy said it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints “immediately”. While the next day was not immediately, this timescale was reasonable.
  2. The landlord sent the stage 1 response in 17 working days. This was over the 10 working day committed response time set out in its complaints policy. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for this delay in the stage 1 response, and did not tell the resident about this prior to issuing the delayed response.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint in 15 working days, on 7 October 2024. This was over the 2 working day committed timescale set out in its complaints policy; and the resident expended time and trouble to chase this up on 1 October 2024.
  4. The landlord sent the stage 2 response in 57 working days. This was more than double the 20 working day committed response time set out in its complaints policy. On 1 November 2024 the landlord sent an internal update advising the response deadline had been extended until 5 November 2024. Where a landlord needs more time to investigate a complaint, it is reasonable that it extends the response deadline.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy said if it could not respond within the 20 working day timeframe, it would provide regular updates at least every 10 working days. This would explain the reason for the delay and when the resident could expect to receive a response. We have seen no evidence that the landlord complied with its policy and provided regular updates during the period of delay.
  6. The stage 2 response made reference to a number of phone calls about the complaint, but we have seen no record of these and do not know when they happened, or what was discussed. This means we cannot be satisfied the landlord provided updates in accordance with its policy. This amounts to maladministration.
  7. The landlord acknowledged failure in its complaint handling as part of the stage 2 response. It apologised and offered £50 compensation. While positive that it identified failure and attempted to put things right, the redress offered is not quite proportionate to the failings identified. Therefore, a finding of service failure is appropriate. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation (inclusive of the £50 already offered, if not done so). This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has made some attempt to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp caused by the neighbour’s driveway.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Completed the required works to the driveway. If it is unable to do so, it must tell the resident why in writing and explain the reasons. This should include what action it will take to ensure the neighbour rectifies the driveway and how regularly it will contact her with updates, until the matter is resolved.
    2. Paid the resident:
      1. £1 a day for the running cost of the dehumidifier, since the date it was delivered. The landlord to calculate the amount to date and confirm this in writing to the resident, along with a commitment that it will pay her an additional amount at this rate, once the matter is resolved and use of the dehumidifier is no longer required.
      2. £600 compensation for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of damp caused by the neighbour’s driveway (inclusive of the £100 already offered, if not done so).
      3. £100 compensation for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling (inclusive of the £50 already offered, if not done so).
    3. Provided the resident a decorating voucher, as promised.
    4. Written to the resident advising how she can make a claim for compensation for her damaged items and the process for this.
    5. Apologised to the resident for its handling of damp caused by the neighbour’s driveway.