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.

Norwich City Council (202440031)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202440031

Norwich City Council

26 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:
    1. Damp and mould.
    2. The resident’s reports of damage to possessions.

Background

  1. The resident is the secure tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is a council. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, who says she has asthma. The resident has been assisted with her complaint to the landlord and the Ombudsman by her husband and a representative, who will all be referred to as the resident for ease of reading.
  2. On 28 February 2024 the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection. It noted the resident was taking medication for breathing difficulties. It found damp and mould in the bathroom, living room, and 2 bedrooms which it said was extreme or severe. It completed a mould wash and resealed around windows on 29 May 2024. It reinspected on 11 June 2024. It said the possible causes of damp were a plumbing leak in the bathroom, and failure of the damp proof course. It wrote to the resident the next day to provide the outcome of the inspection and a list of repairs it would complete. The landlord provided a dehumidifier in June 2024 and completed various repairs from its list between 25 July 2024 and 13 September 2024. On 5 November 2024 the resident made a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
    1. Having had damp and mould for many years.
    2. Outstanding repairs not completed from the list while she had been temporarily moved out for the works.
    3. Its contractor having damaged pictures, her television and speakers by spraying a chemical over them, which was not on the list of repairs to be completed. Mould had also damaged curtains.
    4. She had not received a response from emails she had sent and asked for a named contact who was overseeing the matter.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 November 2024, and provided its response the same day in which it:
    1. Apologised for not replying to her emails.
    2. Provided a copy of its survey report and said it had completed all repairs as per the report while the resident had been temporarily moved out. However, it would arrange another damp and mould survey.
    3. Advised her to submit a claim to its insurers regarding the alleged damage to possessions.
    4. Did not provide a named contact but said she could contact its call centre or use its website to contact it.
  4. The following day the landlord arranged a damp and mould survey for 13 December 2024. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 18 November 2024 and said it had not completed all the repairs and had failed to apologise for the damage caused. She also said it should provide a named contact who was overseeing the matter to avoid the current fragmented approach. She said the household were becoming ill due to the conditions. The landlord wrote to her on 3 December 2024 to apologise for any damage caused by spraying in the property but advised her to make an insurance claim. The following day it acknowledged her stage 2 complaint and provided its response, in which it:
    1. Apologised if its contractor had caused any damage to possessions.
    2. Confirmed it had previously completed all repairs but that it would post inspect on 13 December 2024.
    3. Explained it would not provide a single point of contact. It said this was to avoid delays and to enable the first available member of staff to deal with any enquiries. It also confirmed no individual member of staff was overseeing the repairs.
    4. Said it was committed to resolving the damp and mould and had been taking action to do so.
  5. On 13 December 2024 the landlord inspected. It said in an internal email it had not completed any of the repairs listed for one of the bedrooms, which was worst affected by damp and mould. It chased for a response to the email on 7 January 2025 and said between 27 and 28 January 2025 it needed to raise further repairs. Its records show it completed repairs in the bedroom to the walls, sealant around windows, and to the damp proof course by 15 April 2025. It said in an internal email on 2 May 2025 that it suspected ‘cold bridging’, where the external walls were too cold. It suggested installing a positive input ventilation (PIV) system. It agreed to do so on 27 May 2025 and raised the repairs order on 2 June 2025.
  6. The resident told the Ombudsman, on 11 May 2025, that she had had damp and mould for 14 years. She believed there must have been a structural problem and wanted it resolved. She said the worst room affected was her son’s bedroom. It had caused damage to carpets, curtains and furniture over the years which had cost thousands of pounds to replace. She said it had affected her asthma and at times had made her husband feel suicidal. At the date of this report the issues have not been resolved. The resident said the landlord inspected again on 30 July 2025 but has not given her a copy of the report. She said she is still waiting for a call from it to agree a date for the PIV system installation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised that her health, and her husband’s mental health, have been negatively affected by damp and mould being present in the property. While we can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident, the Ombudsman cannot determine causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. Under paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts. If the resident does wish to pursue a personal injury claim she may wish to seek independent legal advice.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould

  1. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property, as well as installations for the supply of services including water and sanitation. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord has not provided copies of its policies to the Ombudsman but has instead provided links to relevant information on its website, which will be referred to as its policies for ease of reading. Under its repairs policy it classes repairs as either emergency (make safe within 24 hours), urgent (repair within 5 working days) or routine (repair within 60 working days).
  2. The evidence shows the resident has been reporting damp and mould to the landlord since at least December 2020. The landlord inspected in April 2021 and completed repairs to improve ventilation and repair the external mortar and window trims. The resident reported damp and mould again in 2022 and the landlord inspected in February 2023, recommending further repairs which it completed by August 2023.
  3. The landlord has not told the Ombudsman when its damp and mould policy came into use. Under the policy, when a resident reports an issue, it will raise any identified repairs or an inspection if an investigation is needed. It will complete the inspection within 14 working days to determine the causes of damp and mould, and any repairs needed, which it will start within 7 working days of the survey. Following the repairs it says it will post inspect to ensure the repairs met the required standards. The landlord has not provided evidence of when the resident first reported damp and mould in 2024, but it inspected as per its policy in February. While it set out the repairs needed, there is no evidence it started any within its 7 working day policy timeframe or at all, which was a failing. It delayed until 29 May 2024 to complete mould washes, which was 3 months later and an unreasonable delay.
  4. Following its next inspection in June 2024 it did complete some repairs, but it took over a month to start these in excess of its policy timeframe. It also took until 13 September 2024 to finish the repairs, in excess of all its repairs policy timeframes. However, it did not complete all the repairs it had listed, which was a substantial failing. Despite incorrectly stating in both its complaint responses that it had, its later inspection on 13 December 2024 confirmed it had failed to complete any repairs in the room most affected by the damp and mould. This was a significant failing to follow its damp and mould policy, and in its knowledge and information management. Had its records been accurate it could have accepted its failing and put things right at stage 1 of its complaints process. The landlord had also failed to post inspect the repairs following purported completion of the repairs as per its policy.
  5. Accountability starts at the point the matter is reported not at the point a complaint is made. The evidence shows the landlord had tried to resolve the damp and mould since at least 2021 and had completed various different repairs to try to resolve it. However, it has been slow to act, and it is not clear why it had not identified and resolved the causes sooner. Additionally, following further inspections after the end of the complaints process it again delayed for a month between recommending and ordering the PIV system works. At the date of this report the PIV system had not been installed evidencing further delays. There is no evidence it took into account the resident’s health and health concerns when it was made aware of them.
  6. Within her complaint the resident asked for a single point of contact or the name of the staff member overseeing the repairs. The landlord responded that there was no such person, and it would not provide one. For simple and transactional requests, such as raising a simple repair or making an enquiry, calling a call centre or using its website may have been the most effective way to communicate. However, in the resident’s situation, it would have been helpful to have a named member of staff oversee the investigation and repairs needed, and to be able to provide updates and answer questions. The landlord’s refusal to provide this was not fair in all the circumstances. Rather than delaying communication it may have aided it. It would have helped the resident to feel heard, and that her serious and long running issues were being taken seriously and actively managed.
  7. Overall, there was severe maladministration. The landlord has been slow to act, had not communicated clearly, and has not resolved the damp and mould issue. To reflect the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused over a long period, an order has been made that the landlord pay £1,000 compensation to the resident. This amount is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to possessions

  1. Within her stage 1 complaint the resident raised that her television, speakers and wall hung pictures had been damaged by the landlord’s contractor. She said they had been sprayed with a chemical. The list of repairs it sent to her before the works did not include this. For the living room it listed a single repair, being “Cloaking: Rake out and repoint sealant”.
  2. The Ombudsman does not have evidence of what was sprayed on the living room walls, why or when it took place. Equally, we cannot make a finding of negligence like a court can. Under its compensation policy, the landlord says when an allegation of negligence is made against it or its contractors it will provide a form to the resident to make an insurance claim. It says if it is found liable by its insurers then it will compensate the resident. When the resident raised damage to possessions the landlord appropriately provided a claim form and advised her to make a claim to its insurers. This was in line with its policy. It consistently repeated this, while also appropriately apologising if any damage had occurred.
  3. Under its damp and mould policy the landlord says it will confirm “whether any furniture needs to be moved to enable the works” needed to go ahead. It says it will do this following the survey and before the repairs take place. There is no evidence the landlord did this which is a failing to follow its policy. This is especially so as the resident had been temporarily moved from the property for the duration of the repairs and so had not been there to supervise or move her possessions. The resident told it in her stage 1 complaint she would have removed her possessions if she had known spraying would be taking place.
  4. As there is no evidence the landlord followed its damp and mould policy to give advanced warning, there was maladministration. To reflect the distress and inconvenience caused an order has been made that the landlord pay £100 compensation to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to possessions.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident, from the chief executive, for the failings detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £1,100 compensation made up of:
      1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling damp and mould.
      2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in handling her reports of damage to possessions.
    3. Provide a named member of staff, and direct contact details for that person, to the resident to act as a sole point of contact until the damp and mould issue is resolved.
    4. Provide a copy of its most recent damp and mould survey to the resident and this Service.
    5. Agree with the resident a date to install the PIV system, which must be no later than 8 weeks after the date of this report.
    6. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.