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.

Kingston upon Hull City Council (202451024)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202451024

Kingston upon Hull 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 the resident’s damp and mould concerns, and associated repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local council. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident lives at the property with her 2 children. The landlord is aware of household vulnerabilities.
  2. The resident told the landlord on 24 January 2024 that there was a leak in the property. On 25 January 2024 she said the gully was blocked. The landlord said it attended the property and carried out repairs which made safe the relevant areas within 24 hours. It then:
    1. Replaced a safety switch in the fuse box and checked electrics on 1 February 2024.
    2. Carried out temporary repairs to the resident’s boiler on 2 February 2024.
    3. Re-piped the boiler and completed boiler repairs on 5 February 2024.
  3. On 15 April 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say that when it rained, the wall above her front door became wet. The resident also told the landlord that the plastering had “flaked off” near the front door, and she was having similar issues on a wall near her front bedroom window. On 9 September 2024 the landlord said that there was no evidence there was an issue with the property’s roof. The landlord said the damp was coming up from the ground floor. The landlord inspected the property again on 20 September 2024 and took damp meter readings which recorded a 22% moisture content. Due to the damp meter readings, the landlord actioned repairs to the:
    1. Radiator in the rear porch area and isolated a socket in the living room on 19 November 2024.
    2. Wall in the lounge and a section of a wall in the kitchen on 20 November 2024.
    3. Socket in the living room and fitted skirting on 22 November 2024.
  4. The resident complained about damp and mould to the landlord on 9 January 2025. On 14 January 2025 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its internal complaints procedure. Additionally, the resident discussed her complaint with the landlord in a phone call on this date. The resident said:
    1. She had reported damp in January 2024.
    2. Plastering repairs did not dry out after works were completed and other areas had not been investigated correctly.
    3. There was damp around electric switches and “mould falling” from the walls onto the floor.
    4. Her children had vulnerabilities.
    5. On 15 January 2025 she added that there was:
      1. Damp around electric light switches, sockets, and a fuse box.
      2. Mould, plaster, and brick falling from walls.
      3. Rising damp on nearly every wall and she believed there should be a hazard assessment carried out for the property.
  5. On 27 January 2025 the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord said:
    1. It had carried out repairs in January and February 2024, but there was no mention of damp in the resident’s reports. There was a leak from the boiler, which caused water to leak into the ceiling below.
    2. In April 2024 after the resident reported damp, it sent a bricklayer to attend the property, who said a surveyor was needed. This was due to visible damp patches. After the surveyor attended, it carried out repairs in November 2024. However, repairs were not completed. It tried to clarify this with its contractors, but the bricklayer was no longer employed.
    3. A surveyor inspected the property on 16 January 2025 and did not find defects in the brickwork, but further investigation was required once the kitchen units had been removed.
    4. It had raised the following actions:
      1. A surveyor would attend the property on 4 February 2025.
      2. To inspect the damp and start plastering work by 5 March 2025.
    5. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint. This was because it found the causes of the damp issues were identified but not dealt with. It said the resident reported the issues more than once and it apologised for the delays in repairing the damp throughout the home.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked for her complaint to be escalated on 30 January 2025. The resident said:
    1. Hazardous areas around the house were not being dealt with.
    2. She was mainly concerned about the damp and mould in the kitchen.
    3. That there was only one wall in the property which was not damp.
    4. She was concerned about the damp around the electrics.
  7. Following the landlord’s survey on 4 February 2025 it wrote to the resident on 6 February 2025. The landlord told the resident an appointment was arranged for 25 February 2025 to assess work. Following this, it aimed to:
    1. “Hack off” and re-apply pebbledash finish to the front and rear of the property.
    2. Seal the rear door and ensure it is watertight.
    3. Hack off defective plaster and repair skirting in rear lobby, pantry, kitchen, and lounge. Then apply renovating plaster and skim.
    4. Hack off the full front of the chimney breast.
    5. Repair the chrome wash basin.
  8. On 27 February 2025 the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It also:
    1. Reiterated the works it said it would carry out. The contractors would be in direct contact with the resident about repair dates going forward. It would also monitor the repairs.
    2. Said its surveyor had not made any further recommendations and that the property was habitable.
  9. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate her concerns on 15 March 2025. The resident wanted to be compensated for her experience. She asked to be moved to a suitable property or for the repairs to be completed. She also added that:
    1. There were wasps outside her property
    2. The property may be unsuitable for her children due to their vulnerabilities.
    3. There are other outstanding repairs not related to damp and mould.
  10. The landlord told us that on 26 June 2025 it carried out all the repairs it had raised on 6 February 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We have reviewed the resident’s complaint of 9 January 2025, her correspondence of 15 January 2025, and her complaint escalation of 30 January 2025. We have also noted the issues subsequently referred to us.
  2. We can look at issues complained of up until the resident exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 27 February 2025. We can also comment on any commitments it made in its final response. However, we cannot comment on any new events that have happened after 27 February 2025. If the resident is dissatisfied with any new events, she may wish to raise a complaint with the landlord.
  3. Additionally, any matters that have not progressed through the full 2-stage complaint process fall outside the scope of this investigation. This includes her complaint about:
    1. Wasps.
    2. The suitability of the property for her children.
    3. Other outstanding repairs not related to damp and mould.

Damp and mould concerns

  1. We will consider whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and our Remedies Guidance. The principles are:
    1. Be fair, treat people fairly, and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. 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. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards and risks within its properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard under HHSRS. Therefore, the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould amount to a hazard and requires remedying.
  3. The resident’s tenancy agreement also states that the landlord will repair and maintain:
    1. The structure and exterior of the property.
    2. The supply of gas and electricity.
  4. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy (repairs policy) sets out timescales for:
    1. Emergency repairs, which it aims to attend within 24 hours and make safe. After it has made safe, further non-emergency repairs could be raised.
    2. Non-emergency repairs, which it aims to complete within 28 calendar days.
  5. We can see that the resident told the landlord she had been experiencing a leak in the property on 24 January 2024. On the following day, she told the landlord that the drains were blocked. The evidence shows that the landlord:
    1. Treated the above as an emergency repair and attempted to make safe within 24 hours.
    2. Completed repairs to the electrical unit, pipes, and boiler within 12 calendar days.
  6. At that stage, the landlord’s actions were appropriate and in line with the timescales set in its repairs policy.
  7. However, the resident reported that she was experiencing damp in the property on 15 April 2024. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it said a contractor attended the property in April 2024 to inspect the resident’s porch. The contractor said a surveyor was required. However, there is no evidence the landlord was proactive in managing any repairs that may have been required. The landlord’s repairs policy does allow for inspections to be carried out but does not specify timescales. As above, non-emergency repairs should be completed in 28 calendar days. Therefore, it was inappropriate the landlord did not arrange an inspection until 9 September 2024, over 4 months later.
  8. Another inspection of the property took place on 20 September 2024. The landlord did this so it can check the exterior walls of the property, after it had established there was no roof issue. Following this, it further took:
    1. 24 calendar days for the landlord to first attempt to schedule a repairs appointment with the resident.
    2. 63 calendar days to complete some of the repairs which it identified in its inspection of 20 September 2024.
  9. While the landlord attempted to arrange a repair date with the resident within 28 calendar days from its inspection of 20 September 2024, it was unreasonable. This is because it was nearly 6 months from April 2024 when she first told the landlord she was experiencing damp issues.
  10. Additionally, these repairs were completed outside the landlord’s repairs policy timescales and more than 7 months from her initial report. The landlord also accepted in its stage 1 complaint response that internal damp repairs had not been completed by November 2024. As such, the landlord’s actions were inappropriate. In the circumstances, the landlord should have inspected the property and completed repairs by 13 May 2024. By it not doing so, the resident experienced distress and inconvenience. Ultimately, the resident complained in January 2025 as the issues were not resolved.
  11. As above, the resident reported further concerns with damp and mould in the property to the landlord on 9 January 2025. This included concerns about the property’s electrics and the effect of damp and mould on her children. From being put on notice, the landlord took:
    1. 7 calendar days to send its contractors to the property, who recommended a surveyor assess the damp in the property.
    2. 26 calendar days for it to carry out a survey of the property.
  12. The above actions were appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. However, the surveyor found repairs were required due to the damp in the property. The landlord clearly communicated the repairs to the resident on 6 February 2025. The landlord arranged for repairs to start on 25 February 2025 (21 calendar days from the date of the survey). This was appropriate. It was also reasonable that it advised the resident its contractors would update her.
  13. Despite this, the resident experienced delays with the completion of the repairs that were agreed in February 2025. The evidence shows the repairs the landlord committed to were not completed until 4 months and 22 calendar days after the surveyor’s inspection. This was inappropriate as it exceeded the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. This was evidence of a significant delay. We have not seen evidence that the delay was explained or that the resident4 was kept updated, as the landlord had committed to doing. The resident was clearly distressed and experienced inconvenience.
  14. In the resident’s complaint, she disputed that the property was safe, including concerns about damp around electrical components. From the information provided, the surveyor had found no issues with the supply of electricity, electrical components, or issues with the brickwork. The landlord also confirmed to the resident that the property was habitable in its final response. As the landlord had conducted a survey, it was reasonable for it to rely on the professional opinion of its staff. It was also reasonable that it set out its position on the habitability of the property. We have not seen any contrasting evidence that the extent of the damp and mould in the property meant that it was inhabitable.
  15. Overall, the landlord had tried to resolve the resident’s concerns, but there were delays with its management of the repairs. There were also inconsistencies with its application of its repairs policy. Further, it is evident the resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the delays. Although the landlord did not dispute the resident experienced damp issues from April 2024, it is clear it was not proactive in updating the resident.
  16. The landlord also had the opportunity to put things right and learn from outcomes within its internal complaints procedure. The landlord apologised for its inactions and poor communication between 15 April 2024 and 20 September 2024. While this was the case, an apology alone was not proportionate redress considering the detriment experienced by the resident from April 2024 until 22 November 2024, when some, but not all repairs were completed. As above, delays continued after its final response. As such, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s damp and mould concerns, and associated repairs. Orders have been made below.
  17. Under our Remedies Guidance, consideration is given for distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by service failures. The Remedies Guidance also considers the length of time the resident experienced detriment.
  18. In the circumstances, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by unresolved damp issues which should have been completed by 13 May 2024. Repairs remained incomplete as of the landlord’s new survey in February 2025, which then identified additional repairs. These repairs remained outstanding until 26 June 2025. Therefore, we have made an order of £500 in compensation to be paid to the resident for the distress and inconvenience experienced.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s damp and mould concerns, and associated repairs.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays to the repairs which it raised on 6 February 2025.
    2. Pay the resident £500 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by her living with unresolved damp issues from May 2024 until June 2025.
  2. Within 6 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to conduct a case review. This is to include what it has learned from the complaint and what steps it can put in place to avoid repeat errors. This is to be shared with us.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to us.