Colchester City Council (202445527)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat with her partner and 2 young children. She reported mould to the landlord on 16 October 2023. She said the landlord delayed addressing the mould which affected her and her children’s health and damaged personal belongings. The resident said compensation provided by the landlord was not enough to replace mould damaged belongings, complete redecoration or address the impact on their health.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Mould reports and compensation for mould damage.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord provided reasonable redress in its handling of mould reports and compensation for mould damage.
4. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlords handling of mould reports and compensation for mould damage

5. We found that:
   1. There was an unreasonable delay in the landlord’s response to the resident’s mould report and completion of recommended actions. It did not show it had considered the resident’s and her children’s vulnerabilities. The landlord later apologised and offered fair compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused. This response was reasonable and in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
   2. The landlord appropriately agreed to consider compensation for the resident’s mould damaged items under its liability insurance policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord’s complaint responses were timely and in line with its complaint policy response times.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not looked at

7. The resident raised concerns about impact of the mould on her and her young children’s health. The resident’s concerns were understandable as mould is a recognised health hazard, and she said her young children have respiratory conditions. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last.
8. We have therefore not investigated this further however we recommend that the landlord provide the resident with details of its health insurance. We can however decide if a landlord has provided appropriate compensation for distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of mould reports and compensation request

9. The resident first reported mould in the toilet, living room and bedrooms on 16 October 2023. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states following a report of damp or mould it will complete a survey and detail any recommendations within 20 days. The landlord did not complete a mould survey until 7 December 2023 which was a delay of 24 days. It did not share the survey recommendations until 7 January 2024 a further 26 days delay which was an inappropriate delay.
10. The survey identified some mould present in the bedrooms, living room, around the front door and toilet. It also identified some damp in a bedroom and toilet but noted no penetrating or rising damp. It stated the mould was related to condensation. It recommended a number of actions to improve ventilation and checks to the cavity wall insulation.
11. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states survey actions will be completed in line with its repairs policy response times. It also states it will keep residents updated regarding the progress of actions. However, the landlord’s file confirms that the only action completed was a mould spray treatment 4 months later on 9 April 2024. There is no record of updates to the resident despite the excessive delay. This was not appropriate and a breach of its policy response times.
12. The resident complained to the landlord on 10 June 2024  she said the mould had returned. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord apologised for delays in completing the mould survey actions due to a high volume of mould cases. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords must complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe, and any delays should be unavoidable. It is the landlord’s responsibility to allocate sufficient resources to meet demand and prioritise repairs appropriately and it failed to do so in this case.
13. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it would appoint a damp surveyor to inspect and recommend actions. This was appropriate given the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) classes damp and mould as a category one hazard. However, the landlord failed to monitor progress of its stage 1 actions which led to continued mould exposure for the family. The health risks associated with damp and mould is well documented. The landlord was aware of the specific vulnerabilities in the resident’s household, resident’s asthma and young children with respiratory issues, and there is no evidence to show that a risk assessment was completed by the landlord. This would have been an appropriate action to assess the potential effect of this hazard on the household.
14. The landlord’s lack of monitoring and urgency was not appropriate. It also missed an opportunity to consider how it could enhance its service to vulnerable residents in line with its repairs policy. Instead, the resident had to escalate her complaint to seek appropriate action which could have been avoided.
15. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response (21 November 2024) however acknowledged its failure to progress its stage 1 complaint response actions which was appropriate. It committed to carrying out a mould inspection and completing all necessary works. It took steps to provide redress by apologising, offering £300 compensation and agreeing to review the compensation once the works were complete. It also said it would review how its contractor manages mould reports which showed efforts to prevent future occurrences. On 30 January 2025 it offered the resident an additional £1,000 compensation to reflect the delay, inconvenience and distress which the resident experienced. These were appropriate steps towards offering redress in line with our dispute resolution principles.
16. The resident said the total £1300 compensation paid did not cover the loss of items affected by mould damage. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows on 10 February 2025 it told its insurer to consider compensation for the resident’s mould damaged items. The landlord had failed to inform the resident however and this communication failing led the resident to believe the landlord had not considered this aspect of her complaint.
17. The landlord previously noted the mould damage to the resident’s personal items in its mould survey of December 2023. It was therefore appropriate that it considered offering compensation for these damaged items. It is noted however that the landlord has not advised the resident of a compensation decision yet.
18. The landlord provided evidence to show it completed the necessary works including the cavity wall works (completed on 25 March 2025) which the resident had specifically requested be completed. The resident has stated that the property is much better and there is no evidence of further mould recurrence.
19. The resident said the landlord did not provide compensation for redecoration that was needed. The landlords damp and mould policy states it will make good internal decoration following remedial works and its remedies policy allows for a goodwill payment where its actions or inaction have caused damage.
20. The resident provided photographs that show sections of wallpaper peeling and affected by mould. The damp and mould survey also noted peeling wallpaper in December 2023.  However, it is not possible from the information provided to determine the extent of mould damage to internal decoration. It is noted that the landlord completed a mould wash (April 2024) and completed anti mould painting (November 2024) to address the internal mould.
21. The resident has not provided us or the landlord evidence of any redecoration completed yet or of any redecoration costs incurred. It is therefore understandable why the landlord did not consider redecoration costs. The resident may wish to liaise directly with the landlord regarding potential redecoration costs which the landlord can consider in line with its policies.
22. Overall, the landlord took over 14 months to complete the relevant mould works. In its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses the landlord acknowledged delays which was appropriate. It apologised for inconvenience and distress the resident experienced due to the outstanding repairs, and it offered the resident £1300 total compensation. It also advised it would review its damp and mould process. This shows the landlord took accountability for its failings and had made efforts to prevent future occurrences in line with our dispute resolution principles.
23. The apology, compensation and learning were appropriate steps by the landlord to acknowledge its failings and offer redress to the resident. Also, the total compensation of £1300 paid to the resident is in line with our remedies guidance for severe maladministration where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The compensation was proportionate redress for the prolonged delay in resolving the mould issues and lack of regard for vulnerabilities. It is therefore our view that the landlord has provided the resident reasonable redress for the failings identified.

24. The landlord’s complaint responses were procedurally compliant. It acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint of 28 May 2024, within its 5-day acknowledgement response time frame on 29 May 2024.  It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 10 June 2024, which allowing for its 5 working day acknowledgement response period was within the 10-working day timeframe of its complaints policy.
25. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 30 October 2024 which it acknowledged on 4 November 2024, within its 5 days acknowledgement time period. It provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 November 2024 which was within its 20- working day timeframe for stage 2 complaint response.

Learning

26. The landlord noted relevant learning. It stated it would complete a review of its management of damp and mould reports. This  was an appropriate action to ensure damp and mould reports are promptly assessed, appropriately prioritised and help prevent future occurrences.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord’s records were clear and detailed and enabled an effective assessment of the complaint issue.

Communication

28. The landlord failed to update the resident on a number of occasions regarding its mould repair actions which added to the resident’s distress and frustration. It should reflect on its communication in this case as effective communication is key to providing assurance to residents and helping rebuild trust.