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.

Wigan Council (202415951)

Back to Top

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415951

Wigan Council

29 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. The resident’s reports of damp and mould, and repairs.
    2. The resident’s request to access a storage cupboard.
    3. The resident’s concerns about the safety of the garden.
    4. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat within a block of similar properties. The building has a shared communal entrance, storage cupboards and garden.
  2. The resident had historically raised a pre-action claim for disrepair with the landlord in 2021 in relation to damp and mould in the property but did not pursue this. The landlord has said the legal case was closed in April 2023.
  3. The landlord reported completing a mould wash on 7 December 2023. It then issued a schedule of work on 29 January 2024. This included works to plaster and insulate the bathroom ceiling, plaster in a bedroom, external pointing, rake out and renew grout, replace windows in the lounge and bedrooms, fit a kitchen fan, upgrade the bathroom fan, and decorate following plastering works. It intended to complete this between 20 February and 2 April 2024.
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 26 February 2024. In summary, she said that:
    1. The landlord had begun work, but was not planning to do anything in the two worst rooms (the kitchen and WC). She did not know when the next visit was, and needed to move her bed to the living room for the work. She did not know if she could now put this back.
    2. Operatives damaged her blinds and did not cover rooms, leading to dust and debris damaging furniture and carpets. Her bed also had damp and mould damage. She wanted a clear plan of action and details of someone she could contact. She also wanted compensation for her damaged furniture and for the landlord to clean the carpets.
    3. She had asked for access to a personal storage cupboard in the communal area since she moved in and there was an open repair for the back garden, but it did not communicate with her.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response on 12 March 2024, the landlord apologised for its service and any inconvenience caused. It said the resident reported damp and mould on 4 March 2024, and it would complete a mould wash within the agreed timescales. Its disrepair inspector had also found extra work needed and would be visiting with contractors on 18 March 2024 to book in the repairs. It said that it had not started work to the grouting in the bathroom yet and she had full access to the facilities. It advised it would complete this, and extra tiling in the WC, within the scope of works. It noted it had assessed the damages and would rectify this with the contractor.
  6. The landlord provided a further schedule of work on 20 March 2024, which listed both the start and estimated completion date as 2 April 2024. This   included work to install new blinds to a bedroom window, plaster and damp works to the WC, kitchen, and a bedroom, install a new kitchen, repair the toilet waste pipe, tile in the WC, decorate after plastering work, and install new flooring in the kitchen, WC, and bedroom.
  7. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 8 April 2024 as follows:
    1. She said the situation was impacting her mental health and she was unhappy that the landlord had left her and her family with damp and mould. She said that contractors changed some windows on 21 March 2024 but left 3 mouldy windows. She felt it needed to also replace 3 other windows and that it “cut corners”. She alleged that the work also damaged her blinds. She advised that an inspector had since agreed to replace the other 3 windows and replace some blinds but it had not updated her.
    2. She reported that an inspector gave her an updated job sheet and the expected completion dates on both sheets (2 April 2024) had now passed. She said that contractors began work on 2 April 2024 and installed a new kitchen, but had not returned as expected that day for other work. She also reported that a kitchen socket did not work but had not had a response.
    3. She listed the outstanding work. She also said that she was meant to have access to a cupboard in the communal area but had not had this since she moved in. She said the garden was also dangerous and unsafe and the landlord had raised jobs but these were closed or ongoing.
  8. In its stage 2 complaint response on 24 June 2024, the landlord:
    1. Set out the history of the resident’s reports from October 2021, when she pursued a pre-action disrepair claim. It said it did not receive any further reports following a mould wash in February 2023, but completed an inspection and another mould wash in December 2023. The landlord found that, while she did not raise its handling of her case prior to January 2024 in the complaint, it did not inspect the property or arrange works in a timely manner after it was made aware of potential issues.
    2. Said that it gave her an initial schedule of work that was due to start on 20 February 2024, but at her request, it completed a further inspection. There was an error on the document and the expected completion date should have been 3 May 2024. It also raised a separate order to replace the kitchen, bathroom, and toilet windows.
    3. Concluded that it completed most of the works on the first schedule by 2 April 2024 apart from to the bathroom grouting and kitchen fan. It noted that it did not complete work to install the kitchen vent on 14 March 2024 as the resident wanted it to replace the window, which it then completed on 15 April 2024. It found that it completed work to the grouting by 22 April 2024.
    4. Said that it completed most of the remaining work by 3 May 2024, with work to redecorate, fit new blinds, and fit bedroom flooring completed between 10 and 23 May 2024. While some of the work was slightly outside of its expected timescales, it did not believe these delays were unreasonable. It appreciated that when numerous works were being completed, this could cause inconvenience and disruption. It apologised that the resident experienced some further disruption in the bedroom.
    5. Confirmed that it had agreed to replace blinds in a bedroom as these would no longer fit the new window. It then agreed to replace the blinds in the kitchen, living room and another bedroom as a gesture of goodwill as these were affected by mould. It also resolved the issues with dust as it agreed to replace the bedroom carpet. It said it would not usually clean furniture when carrying out a mould wash.
    6. Apologised if it had not communicated effectively. It said that it subsequently provided the contractor’s contact details and it had reminded them to ensure that they kept tenants updated with the dates and times of visits and work.
    7. Recognised that due to an administrative oversight, it did not progress her request on 1 December 2023 about access to her communal cupboard. It said there was a further delay following the complaint in February 2024. It had since completed work to the door and given her a key on 3 June 2024. It apologised for the delay and inconvenience caused.
    8. Noted that she raised concerns about adult males in the garden smoking drugs on 22 April 2024 and that she was unable to lock the gate to make the garden secure. It said it completed this work by 2 June 2024.
    9. Recognised that its stage 1 complaint response did not fully address her concerns about its communication or the cupboard. It also acknowledged that it did not issue its stage 2 response within its set timescales due to needing additional time to investigate.
    10. Offered £350 compensation comprised of:
      1. £250 to recognise the delay in arranging remedial work.
      2. £50 in recognition of the delay in arranging access to a locked storage cupboard.
      3. £50 for the delay in handling the complaint at stage 2.
  9. The resident referred her complaint to us to investigate because she was unhappy with the length of time the landlord had taken to address her concerns. She wanted it to pay additional compensation in view of the loss of rooms for over a week at a time, the amount of cleaning she needed to do to combat the mould, and the delays to the remedial works. She added that she did not have access to the storage cupboard as her neighbour had claimed access to the one the landlord gave her a key for, and it did not sort the garden. In her communication in June 2024, she said it had not yet paid the compensation.
  10. In her communication with us in August 2025, the resident has shared that she believes the damp may have returned in the kitchen, and the landlord did not seal the kitchen during works. She added that the garden remained unsafe and overgrown, and it had not provided access to her storage cupboard.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referenced how the situation impacted her health and that the mould caused damage to her belongings. While we do not doubt her comments, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing, or award damages in the same way that an insurance claim, or court might. We have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. The resident also raised concern about mould damage to her bed. As set out above, we are unable to determine whether the landlord is liable for the damage to the resident’s bed as these matters are best decided via an insurance claim. We have recommended that the landlord provides the resident with details of its liability insurance so that she can pursue a claim if she feels it is liable for this.
  3. We understand that the resident instructed a solicitor and began the pre-action protocol for housing condition claims in October 2021 due to damp and mould, but did not pursue this. While the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to February 2023, a year before her formal complaint.

Policies and procedures

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, and installations for the supply of gas, water, and electricity. The tenant is responsible for internal decoration and cooperating with other tenants and the landlord to ensure the communal garden area is clean, tidy, and free from obstruction.
  2. The landlord has not provided a repairs policy setting out the timeframes in which it will complete repairs. However, it is expected to complete repairs within “a reasonable timeframe”. In line with industry best practice, a reasonable timeframe is generally around 28 working days for non-urgent repairs. More complex works, involving multiple repairs or the need to manufacture parts, can take longer but should generally be completed within around 3 months. The landlord is expected to communicate effectively with residents about repair timescales.
  3. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  4. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge complaints or escalation requests within 5 working days, and respond within 10 and 20 working days at stage 1 and 2 respectively. If it is unable to provide its response within these timescales, it should contact the resident to explain the delay, and provide a new timescale.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould, and repairs

  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould prior to January 2024 did not form part of her complaint. However, it is evident that the resident had reported problems at least as early as October 2021, when she pursued a disrepair claim.
  2. While not part of the complaint, it acted reasonably within its stage 2 complaint response by recognising that it had not arranged remedial work in a timely manner. It offered £250 compensation in recognition of the delay in arranging a mould wash (February 2023) and remedial works. The landlord has said that it did not receive any reports during this time, which the resident has not disputed. It was resolution focused for the landlord to recognise failings, offer £250 compensation, and apologise. We have considered the events from January 2024 in more detail below.
  3. Following a mould wash on 7 December 2023, the landlord provided a schedule of work on 29 January 2024, and said it would start work on 20 February 2024. This was 2 months after the initial mould wash. The landlord may have had the opportunity to arrange work sooner. However, the timeframe is not unreasonable given the nature of the work, additional planning required, and time to manufacture windows for installation.
  4. In her complaint on 26 February 2024, the resident raised specific concerns that the landlord had not raised works to address damp and mould in the 2 worst rooms (her kitchen and WC) and the property inspector had not been interested when she shared her concerns. It acted reasonably in response to the complaint by re-inspecting the property and providing a further list of works which included replacing the kitchen in full, and further damp and plastering to the WC, bedroom, and kitchen.
  5. We have not seen evidence or the survey completed as part of the disrepair claim in August 2022, or the inspection in December 2023, to document the landlord’s investigations, or the extent of damp within the property. Given the extent of work found to be needed following the second inspection, it is likely that the landlord had the opportunity to identify some of the works required sooner, and prevent a delay. Due to the lack of available evidence of the inspection, we are unable to determine whether the landlord failed to act on recommendations at the time. However, it could have done more to recognise the time and trouble the resident needed to raise concerns about other work needed.
  6. The landlord acted reasonably by recognising that there was an error on the second schedule of works, with the expected completion date listed as 2 April 2024, rather than 3 May 2024. It was reasonable, given the further works identified, that the landlord would require additional time to complete these, and that these could not be done within the initial timeframe. It is, however, evident that the incorrect completion date meant that it failed to adequately manage the resident’s expectations as to when it would complete the work, which was likely to have caused inconvenience.
  7. The landlord took steps to address the resident’s concerns about the remaining windows in the kitchen, bathroom, and WC by agreeing to replace these. It also took reasonable steps to put right damage she said contractors had caused to her blinds and flooring during the initial works by replacing these, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
  8. The resident has raised concern about the level of disruption caused to her and her family during the works, that she was without use of multiple rooms in the property for weeks at a time, and that the landlord did not communicate with her or provide a clear plan for the work.
  9. It is expected that there will be some disruption during major works. The landlord completed work to most, if not all, rooms in the property and we appreciate the level of disruption this caused. Nevertheless, the landlord would not be expected to compensate the resident for expected disruption caused by major works. However, the landlord missed some opportunities to address the time, trouble, and inconvenience experienced during this time.
  10. The resident raised specific concerns that she did not know when contractors would return in her initial complaint on 26 February 2024, and further concern on 8 Aril 2024 that they had not turned up as expected. We have not seen evidence to show that the landlord adequately communicated with her about dates of attendance at any stage outside of the schedule of works which only provided a start and expected completion date.
  11. Given the expected length of time the work would take, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided a clearer breakdown of when it would attend, and when it intended to complete different aspects of the work. This would have allowed the resident and her family to plan ahead and minimise the disruption. While the landlord recognised a failing in its communication with the resident within its stage 2 complaint response, and recognised the need to remind contractors to keep residents updated about dates of attendance, it did not offer suitable redress to put right the impact of the uncertainty and inconvenience caused.
  12. We note that the landlord began work on 20 February 2024 and did not complete this until 23 May 2024. This was a period of 3 months, and outside of the revised expected completion date of 3 May 2024. While the landlord said that the delay was not excessive, it did not suitably recognise the additional disruption this was likely to have caused.
  13. The resident raised specific concern that she had needed to move her bed into the living room within her initial complaint on 26 February 2024. The landlord acted reasonably by agreeing to replace the carpet due to contractor damage, but it did not reinstate the carpet in this room until 23 May 2024. While it apologised that she experienced further disruption in the bedroom, and said the delay in reinstating the carpet was due to the contractor’s workload, it did not suitably engage with her concerns about the impact this had, or take steps to put right the inconvenience caused.
  14. We have found service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated repairs. Our remedies guidance states that compensation amounts between £100 and £600 can be considered proportionate in circumstances where there has been service failure or maladministration that had an adverse, but not permanent, impact on the resident.
  15. Overall, the landlord’s offer of £250 compensation goes some way to recognise the impact on the resident prior to her complaint. However, it is disproportionately low in view of the communication failures and extent of disruption over a 3 month period. Despite recognising the impact on the resident within its stage 2 complaint response, it has not taken adequate steps to put this right. We have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation below.

The resident’s request to access a storage cupboard

  1. We understand that there are several storage cupboards in the communal area of the building which were allocated to individual properties. Within her complaint, the resident said that she had never had access to her storage cupboard despite her requests for the landlord to arrange this. The landlord has not disputed that the resident should have access to the communal storage cupboard and that there were delays in it handling her request from 1 December 2023.
  2. The landlord acted reasonably by recognising that the repair raised on 1 December 2023 did not progress due to an administrative oversight. While it said it had passed the matter to the relevant team within its stage 1 complaint response on 12 March 2024, it did not raise a work order to address this until 12 April 2024, a month later.
  3. The landlord attended to change the lock on 9 May 2024 but its communication records show that the resident needed to chase updates as it had not provided a key. It reported completing the repair and providing the key on 3 June 2024. Overall, it took the landlord approximately 6 months to address her request which was an unreasonable timescale.
  4. While the landlord acted reasonably by apologising for the delay, its offer of £50 compensation for the 6 month delay in providing access was low given her time and trouble pursuing the matter. For this reason, we have found service failure and ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation in line with our remedies guidance.
  5. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have checked to see whether it had resolve the matter before issuing its stage 2 complaint response on 24 June 2024. However, we have not seen evidence to show that it was aware that the resident’s neighbour had claimed the cupboard it had provided keys for at the time of the complaint and that the matter was unresolved. The records provided indicate that she informed it of this on 8 July 2024 following its stage 2 complaint response.
  6. The landlord apparently intended to revisit in July 2024, but we have not seen evidence to show that it raised any further work orders until November 2024, 4 months later. While the ongoing issues did not form part of the complaint at the time, it is of concern that this remains unresolved as of August 2025. As such, we have included an order below for the landlord to address this.

The resident’s concerns about the safety of the garden

  1. We understand that the property has a shared garden for the residents of the block. In her complaint on 8 April 2024, the resident said that there was an open repair for the back garden, but nothing had been done. The landlord has provided limited repair records. We have seen limited evidence to confirm when the resident began to report issues with the garden, any work raised, or what the specific issues were at the time.
  2. While it was unclear what work was needed at the time of the complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained its position regarding the garden, including whether there was an open repair and when it intended to complete work. If there was no open repair, it would have been appropriate for it to have asked the resident for more information about her concerns to resolve these at the time. It failed to demonstrate that it fully considered the complaint as it did not comment on her concerns about the garden in its stage 1 complaint response on 12 March 2024.
  3. The resident needed to pursue her concerns. Within her escalation request on 8 April 2024, she said that the garden was dangerous and unsafe. As above, we would have expected to see evidence to show that the landlord sought to gain further information about her concerns at the time but there is no evidence to show it did so.
  4. On 22 April 2024, the resident reported that she had witnessed 3 adult males in the garden smoking drugs and that the garden was insecure as residents of the block could not lock the gate. While the landlord said that it completed work to make the gate secure by 2 June 2024, this was around 2 months after her initial complaint and it may have had the opportunity to address her concerns sooner had it asked for clarity about her concerns at an earlier date.
  5. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the garden as it failed to suitably engage with her concerns during the complaints process. It is of concern that the resident has explained that the garden remains unsafe, overgrown, and insecure. As such, we have made several orders for the landlord to address this below.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The resident raised a complaint on 26 February 2024 and the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 12 March 2024, 11 working days later. She asked it to escalate the complaint on 8 April 2024 and it provided its stage 2 complaint response on 26 June 2024, 53 working days later.
  2. The landlord responded within a reasonable overall timeframe at stage 1. In its stage 2 complaint response, it acted reasonably by recognising that it did not fully address the complaint at this stage, specifically her concerns about its communication and the storage cupboard. This did not significantly impact the overall outcome of the complaint as it subsequently addressed this at stage 2.
  3. The delay at stage 2 was outside of the landlord’s set timescales to respond. It contacted the resident on 3 occasions in May and June 2024 to extend the timeframe of the complaint, which was reasonable in an attempt to keep her updated. However, the overall delay, and multiple extensions were likely to cause the resident inconvenience.
  4. Overall, the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation to recognise the delay in its handling of the complaint was proportionate to put right the impact of its failings. In line with our remedies guidance, amounts in this range are proportionate where there has been service failure which affected a resident, but may not have affected the overall outcome of the complaint. We have found that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to access a storage cupboard.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the safety of the garden.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in relation to its handling of the complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £600 compensation comprised of:
    1. £400 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of damp and mould. This includes its previous offer of £250.
    2. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures to adequately engage with her concerns about the garden at the time of the complaint.
    3. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delay in arranging access to the storage cupboard at the time of the complaint. This includes its previous offer of £50.
  2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified.
    2. Visit the property and confirm which storage cupboard is assigned to each property within the building and provide the resident with access to her assigned cupboard.
    3. Inspect the communal garden and communicate with the resident to discuss her concerns that the garden is overgrown, attracts ASB, and is unsafe.
  3. Within 6 weeks, the landlord must write to the resident and set out:
    1. Whether there were any service failures in its handling of her request to access a storage cupboard since July 2024 and, if so, what compensation it is willing to offer to recognise any delays it was responsible for. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the response, she may wish to raise a separate complaint.
    2. Who is responsible for managing and maintaining the communal garden and whether there is a maintenance programme in place. It should also confirm any action it will take to address her concerns, and the timeframes for this.
  4. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance within the timescales above.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord pays the resident £50 as offered for its complaint handling, if it has not already done so. Our finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis that it paid this amount.
  2. We recommend that the landlord inspects the resident’s kitchen in view of her ongoing reports of damp and mould.
  3. We recommend that the landlord provides the resident with details on how she can pursue a claim for damage to her personal items via its liability insurer if she feels it is liable for the damage.