Harlow District Council (202343281)

Decision
Case ID	202343281
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Harlow District Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	6 November 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 2 bedroom maisonette with his wife and 2 children. The landlord also owns the neighbouring property.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the residents:
1. Reports of a leak causing damp and mould
2. Associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

We found the landlord responsible for:
1. Maladministration in its handling of the resident’s report of a leak causing damp and mould.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The handling of the resident’s reports of a leak causing damp and mould

The landlord failed to resolve the leak within a reasonable period. The landlord was already aware of access issues at the neighbouring property. It would have been reasonable for it to take this into account and form an action plan to gain access and resolve the leak.
The landlord has not evidenced that it completed other works that it and its contractor have identified as potential causes of damp.
During the complaints process, the landlord did not provide adequate information to the resident and did not offer compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint handling

The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint within a reasonable period at stage 1. Its responses did not provide a resolution to the complaint at either stage. The landlord did not put right its earlier failings or learn from the complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a director or assistant director. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 11 December 2025
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £650 made up as follows: £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of a leak causing damp and mould. £150 for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 11 December 2025
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident and the occupier of the neighbouring property to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified person. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date and a plan of action for any outstanding repairs. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor inspects all issues included in its previous damp and mould reports, checks that any works done have been completed to an appropriate standard, and takes moisture readings of the living room party wall. The survey report must set out what repairs have been completed and what, if anything, is outstanding. It must also confirm whether it believes the leak has been resolved. If not, it should provide a scope of necessary works and the timescales to complete them, including an action plan to ensure access. It should send a copy of the survey report to the resident.	No later than 11 December 2025

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord provides training to its front line staff to ensure they can recognise and raise a complaint in line with its policy.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 September 2023	The resident emailed and phoned the landlord to raise his dissatisfaction that it sent contractors to carry out damp and mould works when it had not resolved a leak from next door that was causing the issue.
08 February 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It said: It had received the resident’s complaint on 26 January 2024. It had raised a planned priority job to attend for ‘damp works’ and booked it for 19 February 2024, within the target period from 26 May 2023. A gully gutter was the cause of the leak, but it had repaired this. It apologised for the delay in repairs and lack of communication.
20 February 2024	The resident escalated his complaint as he felt the response did not address the cause of the leak. He requested an inspection to find and fix the leak. He said he felt trust was broken by the inadequacy of the response in addressing the cause of the leak.
12 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response upholding the resident’s complaint as follows: It apologised for the inaccuracy of the stage 1 response. It confirmed a visit on 7 March 2024 had found the neighbour’s washing machine pipe was causing the leak, and it had isolated this. It would inspect to see what it needed to do in the resident and his neighbour’s houses in the next 7 days.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought his complaint to us and said: There was damp and mould on his living room party wall caused by leaks which his landlord had not fixed. His landlord had sent surveyors who confirmed there was a leak. He had to complain twice for a stage 1 response. The stage 1 response was not accurate and addressed a different issue, not the cause of his living room damp. He felt ignored by the landlord. He wanted the landlord to stop the leak and carry out necessary repairs to his property.
29 October 2025	The resident told us that when he said he would raise a disrepair claim, the landlord had carried out internal works to his property. It then made a compensation payment of £300. He did not make a disrepair claim. He was concerned that the leak may be ongoing and that the landlord hadn’t completed all the necessary works recommended in its own report.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak causing damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord has not disputed that it is responsible for the leak in the neighbouring property. In its stage 2 response it acknowledged that this caused damp and mould in the resident’s home. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 working days and standard repairs (including inspections following reports of damp) within 20 working days. The policy says it will complete planned work within 9 months. This includes replastering following damp issues.
In March 2023, the resident reported water around a wall socket and damp on his lounge wall. The landlord attended the socket within 24 hours and disconnected it. It said there was a leak from the neighbouring property which needed resolving before it could reinstate the socket. This was within the landlord’s repair policy and an appropriate response.
The landlord has said it resolved the leak in June 2024 but has not provided evidence of this. There were ongoing issues with accessing the neighbouring property to resolve the leak between March 2023 and June 2024 (after a temporary repair in March 2024). The landlord has provided evidence of its continued communication to the neighbouring property stating it required access under the tenancy agreement. The landlord has also showed it attempted to engage with other services to support its attempt to gain access. This shows that it took some steps to gain access, which it repeated consistently with no evidence of any effect.
We acknowledge that landlords must consider individual vulnerabilities and needs when addressing access issues. It was aware of ongoing concerns regarding access and the condition of the property prior to the report of a leak. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not consider escalating the matter or seeking legal advice at an earlier stage. This meant it did not gain access to resolve the leak with a permanent solution for over a year.
The landlord carried out a damp survey in May 2023 (after the resident’s March 2023 report). This was outside of its repairs policy. It found evidence of issues with the neighbour’s heating system. It recommended that it should inspect and fix this and then do a mould wash. Following the initial delays in the survey, the landlord failed to follow the surveyor’s recommendations.
The landlord then wrote to the resident saying condensation had caused the mould and sent him information about reducing the condensation in his property. It is of significant concern that the landlord focussed on condensation without evidence that this was the primary cause of damp. Its surveyor had identified multiple repair issues as causes of the damp and mould. The landlord’s actions were inappropriate.
The landlord also noted internally that it had been chasing access to the neighbouring property to resolve a leak for 10 months. It is unclear why it failed to communicate the cause of the issue to the resident. The landlord did raise a mould wash following this report but the resident refused this on the basis the leak was still ongoing so there would be no benefit.
The landlord raised a further damp and mould survey in February 2024. This had the same recommendations as the one 9 months prior, with the additional notes of garden issues and some drainage required. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it has completed these recommendations. The 2 survey results highlight that it had not attended the works in the interim. This was a failure in its repairs service.
The landlord has said that on 7 March 2024 the contractor confirmed it had done a temporary repair to the neighbour’s washing machine. The attending contractor said there was also a gap between the wall and worktop (behind the sink) which may contribute to the damp next door. It noted it could not do a permanent repair in the property’s current condition. This was an excessive delay in completing a temporary repair. The neighbour was then able to override this and use her washing machine. The landlord told the neighbour not to do so. However, it was aware she continued to and still did not consider escalating its requirement for access to complete a full resolution.
In March 2024, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It confirmed it had isolated the leak on the washing machine and was awaiting further repairs. It said it would inspect the resident’s property and his neighbour’s to assess the required work within 7 days. Its response was reasonable, but it failed to account for the access issues in its likelihood of visiting in the 7 days. It evidenced no plan to escalate this and deliver its resolution.
The landlord has told us that it carried out a permanent fix to the washing machine in June 2024. It has not provided evidence of this, or that it has fixed the gap between the worktops and wall. It repeated actions through late 2023 to early 2024 even though there appeared to be no progress in gaining access and completing necessary repairs. There is no evidence of a robust plan of action. There is no evidence that the landlord has sought any legal advice about gaining access to resolve the leak. This was unreasonable and shows it was not resolution focussed.
Overall, the landlord failed to respond to reports of a leak and related damp and mould for a significant length of time. The resident had to live with ongoing damp and mould for over a year. He has told us he had to repeatedly clean the damp and mould throughout that time. He also had to repeatedly chase up action from the landlord which would inevitably cause distress and inconvenience. The landlord exacerbated this with poor communication and unreasonable attempt to misinform the resident about the cause of the damp after the initial report. The landlord has also not shown it learned from the complaint. We therefore find there has been maladministration.
In addition to a written apology, the landlord must pay the resident £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the leak. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, but which do not have a permanent impact. The landlord needs to inspect both properties. It must provide formal confirmation it has completed all the works recommended in its surveys, including those listed at the neighbouring property.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord issued its stage 1 response 5 months after the resident’s initial complaint. The delay in providing a response was unreasonable and was not in line with either the landlord’s complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord upheld the complaint and acknowledged the delay in the repair, but not in its response to the complaint.
The resident had to continually chase the landlord for updates and complained twice before receiving a response. The landlord’s stage 1 response addressed a different leak which it had resolved. It also noted there had been access issues which evidences some confusion over the response and which leak was the cause of the resident’s complaint. This was not an adequate response.
The landlord failed to provide a timely and adequate response at stage 1. There was also a significant delay in following through on the actions in its stage 2 response. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Its response did not put right this delay. The landlord noted learning internally around access in its stage 1 response. It did not show it had put this learning into action in its stage 2 response. We therefore find there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
In addition to a written apology, the landlord must pay the resident £150 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the complaint. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect the resident, but which do not have a permanent impact.

Learning

Access for repairs

Repeatedly issuing tenancy breach warnings over an extended period without achieving access can diminish the effectiveness of such warnings. This may prolong resolution. It is important to balance enforcement with empathy and proactive engagement. In this case, it was positive that the landlord collaborated with external agencies to improve the likelihood of gaining access. This demonstrated a constructive approach to overcoming barriers and safeguarding both the resident and the property. But it should also be able to show that it considered other options, such as taking tenancy enforcement action, where there are prolonged access issues.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should strengthen its knowledge and information management systems to ensure that relevant records are readily accessible and accurately maintained. It showed an inability to retrieve key information to support the complaint response, including clear evidence of completion information for repairs. This undermined the landlord’s ability to demonstrate service delivery and accountability. Effective record-keeping is essential not only for resolving complaints but also for ensuring transparency and building trust with residents. Improvements in data handling and documentation practices would support more robust responses and better service outcomes.

Communication

The landlord should improve internal communication between staff and departments to ensure that it can efficiently resolve access issues. In this case, better coordination could have helped overcome barriers to entry sooner, reducing delays in addressing the resident’s concerns. The landlord did not keep the resident adequately informed about the progress of repairs, leading to frustration and the need to repeatedly chase updates. Clear, timely, and proactive communication with residents is essential to maintaining trust and ensuring that service delivery is both responsive and transparent