Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (202400388)

Decision
Case ID	202400388
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	29 October 2025

Background

1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She has additional needs, which the landlord is aware of. She complained that a leaking water pipe in her kitchen was causing damage to walls, dampness, mould and mushrooms and the landlord had not repaired it. She complained about the length of time she was waiting for a temporary move and the landlord’s response to her reports of other repairs, including guttering and vermin infestations.  The resident asked this Service to investigate because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaints and wanted compensation and a temporary move.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s management of repairs and the resident’s temporary move.
3. This Service has also investigated how the landlord handled the resident’s complaints.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s management of repairs and the resident’s temporary move.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s management of the repairs and temporary move.

5. We found that:
   1. There were severe delays in the landlord’s management of the repairs and temporary move.

 

2. The landlord made no timely, reasonable efforts to find temporary accommodation to enable repairs to go ahead.
3. Its responses lacked urgency and sensitivity, especially regarding the resident’s health concerns and poor living conditions.
4. Poor communication, repairs management and record-keeping caused the resident distress, inconvenience, avoidable time and trouble and a long-term loss of enjoyment and full use of her home.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

5. The landlord upheld each of the 3 complaints and apologised but showed little empathy for the resident’s situation.
6. The complaints process did not resolve or improve the resident’s dissatisfaction with her living conditions.
7. The landlord offered no compensation.
8. There was no sign of strategic oversight or learning from the complaints.

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 the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer. 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 28 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £3280.15 made up as follows: £1435.15 for loss of partial use of and full enjoyment of the kitchen. This is based on a proportion of rent between 28 January 2022 and 28 June 2024 at a rent of £82.48 (based on the resident’s average rent) for 125 weeks, calculated as follows:   10% of the rent for 30 weeks for the period 28 January 2022 to 29 August 2022, until the temporary move was agreed. 15% of the rent for 96 weeks for the period 29 August 2022 to 28 June 2024, until the temporary accommodation was provided. £200 for its failures in complaints handling.   £655 for the resident’s significant time and trouble in pursuing matters to completion, calculated as follows: 48 works orders raised for repair visits between January 2022 and March 2024 at £10 per time. 35 telephone calls between the resident and the landlord about the disrepair and the temporary move at £5 per time.    £990 for the significant distress and inconvenience of living in deteriorating conditions while awaiting a temporary move, calculated as follows: 99 weeks from 29 August 2022 to 28 June 2024 at £10 per week. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 28 November 2025
3	Learning Order 1. The landlord must undertake a strategic review of this case. The review must be undertaken by an impartial person who is external to the departments involved in this complaint. The review must: Identify areas for improvement, with a focus on: its delay in offering suitable alternative accommodation for the resident and her family to temporarily move to and in particular its reliance solely upon its internal pool of decant properties. its failure to offer compensation. Consider any additional remedy associated with the temporary move process and the resident’s return from temporary accommodation. Assess the fitness of its new Damp & Mould policy and procedures in preventing recurrence of the failings identified in this case. Assess the fitness of associated policies, such as temporary accommodation provision, to ensure policies complement each other and work together effectively to prevent recurrence of the issues found in this case.   2. The strategic report must be provided to the landlord’s Governance Board for consideration, the resident and to this Service.	No later than 19 December 2025

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 August 2023	The resident complained at stage 1 that the landlord had failed to address a damp issue following her previous complaint in August 2022. Despite repeated contact, the landlord was unresponsive regarding a temporary move. The damp had worsened to the point where mushrooms were growing from the skirting boards. The resident also informed the landlord that she was undergoing cancer treatment and had no immune system, making the living conditions especially hazardous to her health.
29 August 2023	The landlord upheld the stage 1 complaint. It apologised for the delays with the temporary move and said the property it had identified would not be available until the end of November. It said it would look for another property. It apologised for failing to respond to the resident’s calls and assigned a new point of contact.
6 November 2023	The resident raised a new stage 1 complaint. She complained the gutters at the front and back of the property were broken. The leak from the water pipe in the kitchen was causing damp and mould and the kitchen cupboards were soaked. There was an infestation of slugs, vermin and woodlice. The path outside the property was covered in moss and very slippery.
7 November 2023	The landlord apologised for the stress and inconvenience. It said it could not check or maintain the gutters on all its properties, and it relied on residents to report disrepair. It had raised works orders for the gutters and vermin. It said it was looking for a property for the resident to move to temporarily, so that it could carry out major damp works to the kitchen.
20 November 2023	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said the repairs she had reported had not been completed. She complained that the landlord had not contacted her.
11 December 2023	The landlord apologised for poor communication. It said it had unblocked the front and repaired the rear gutters. The property for the temporary move had been delayed and would be available at the end of January 2024.
12 March 2024	The resident complained that she was still waiting for a temporary move. The landlord raised a new stage 2 complaint to the resident’s complaint of 15 August 2023.
21 March 2024	In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had offered the resident 2 alternative properties which she had declined. It said the original property identified for her would be available after 26 March 2024. It apologised and upheld her complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident complained to this Service on 8 April 2024. She wanted the landlord to move her out of the property and provide compensation for the stress. She disputed the landlord’s statement that she had refused 2 other properties.
9 October 2025	The resident informed this Service that she stayed in temporary accommodation from 28 June 2024 until November 2024. The exact date she returned to her property is not specified. She stated that there were still problems with damp and mould when she returned, most of which have now been resolved. However, she has advised that an annexe area of the kitchen is still experiencing wet walls and dampness. She states that the landlord has told her that it does not have to repair this area, as it does not comprise a habitable living space.

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 management of repairs and the move to temporary accommodation
Finding	Severe maladministration

 

6. The landlord is legally required under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Homes Act 2018, and the Housing Act 2004 to ensure properties are safe, healthy, and free from hazards like damp and mould.
7. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance policy states it will seek to complete routine repairs within 25 working days. In September 2024, the landlord introduced a Damp, Mould and Condensation (DMC) policy which outlines its expectations and approach to managing these issues. The new measures and oversight practices highlight major gaps and inconsistencies in the landlord’s previous handling of damp and mould, effectively addressing its acknowledged key deficiencies in its past approach.
8. The Ombudsman’s zero-tolerance stance on damp and mould is outlined in our report “Damp and Mould: It’s not a lifestyle”.
9. The landlord has provided its repair records for the relevant period, but they lack clarity. The records include a list of work orders, but no proof that the repairs were completed. For instance, a job was listed as completed on 2 February 2022, but there are no contractor notes to confirm this, and a new order for the same issue was raised a month later. Some repairs orders are marked as closed with no explanation. This lack of clear documentation has made it difficult for the Ombudsman to investigate the complaint properly.
10. The landlord knew about the mains water leak in the resident’s kitchen from 28 January 2022. Between then and August 2022, its records show 6 reports of water damage, black mould, and rotting fixtures. Yet, it only agreed to arrange damp works after the resident’s stage 1 complaint in August. A delay in repairs is not always considered a failure, particularly if the issue is complex. However, the landlord would be expected to proactively manage the repair and complete it as soon as practically possible. It would also be expected to update the resident and manage their expectations. The landlord failed to do either.
11. The landlord’s survey report identified high moisture levels and damp, including behind kitchen units and under the stairs. Timber defects, including a weevil infestation, were found at the entrance, indicating prolonged damp exposure. High humidity and poor ventilation led to condensation and black mould growth, posing health risks. The absence of an extractor fan in the bathroom further increased the likelihood of mould.
12. The resident made 6 calls to the landlord between February and August 2023, where she reported mushrooms growing from her walls. She also reported infestations of mice, slugs and rats on 6 occasions between 22 May 2023 and 4 March 2024. Pest Control attended the property 13 times in response to those reports. Given that mice can pose a potential health risk, the landlord did not demonstrate sufficient urgency in addressing the underlying causes of the infestation.
13. The landlord’s internal records on 22 August 2023 state that it was unable to fully stop the leak or carry out the specialist works required until the temporary move had happened. It should have considered any interim actions it could take to alleviate the damp, while the resident remained living there. There is no evidence that it did, which meant the resident remained living in a property with worsening damp and mould, during a distressing period when she had told the landlord her health was at risk.
14. That the landlord did not provide dehumidifiers, mould washes, an extractor fan or other means of mitigating the damp conditions was unacceptable. It also stated in an internal email on 22 August 2022 that the mushrooms growing from the walls were “unharmful” to the tenant and should not affect her health. It sent a copy of this email to the resident on 30 August 2023. It is unclear what information or evidence the landlord relied upon when making this statement.  The landlord’s statement reflects a lack of urgency and empathy toward the resident’s situation. This likely caused additional distress to the resident, who was undergoing cancer treatment, had informed the landlord of her compromised immune system, and was concerned about the health risks of living in unsafe conditions.
15. By 29 August 2023, the landlord had identified a temporary property (Property A) for the resident. However, it told her the property wouldn’t be available until late November. The resident asked if it could find a different property sooner, which had secure fencing for her dog and was close to her support network and daughter’s school. The landlord agreed to search for alternatives, which was a reasonable response.
16. The landlord identified a potential alternative property (B) on 13 October 2023. However, it said the condition of property B meant it would not be ready for several months. It advised the resident that property A would be ready sooner. On that basis, the resident understandably preferred to wait for property A to be available.
17. However, on 29 November 2023, the landlord told the resident that property A would not be ready for at least another 10 weeks. The landlord should have been aware of this at an earlier stage. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not tell the resident about the delay until around the date she was expecting to move. The delay prolonged the resident’s exposure to the unsafe conditions at her home and could not but have caused further damage to the landlord and tenant relationship.
18. There is no evidence that the landlord made anything but sporadic and minimal efforts to identify alternative properties for the resident. This was unreasonable, given the prolonged wait and the unacceptable living conditions. The available evidence suggests the landlord limited its search to a specific pool of temporary accommodation. In light of the severity of the disrepair, the landlord should have considered a broader range of options, including properties in the private rented sector or other housing pathways within its remit.
19. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response on 21 March 2024 that it had offered the resident another property (C) on 19 December 2023, which the resident declined. Its records do not support this statement. This Service has not seen evidence of an offer of property C, nor of discussion with the resident about another property. The resident has told this Service that she did not refuse 2 other properties. In the absence of evidence to the contrary it is impossible for this Service to take into account the landlord’s assertion that it offered the resident a 3rd property.
20. The landlord compounded its poor handling of the resident’s temporary move. It told her that property A would be ready in November 2023, January 2024, and March 2024. The resident did not move into the property until 28 June 2024, after the internal complaints process was exhausted.
21. Between January 2022 and March 2024, 48 repair work orders were raised for the property. The resident spoke to, or attempted to speak to, the landlord 35 times and submitted repeated complaints. This reflects the significant level of disrepair and poor living conditions experienced by the resident, as well as the considerable time and trouble, distress and inconvenience she experienced as a result.
22. The continuing delays in the temporary move, inaccurate information and late notice of the new dates each time indicates persistent failures in the landlord’s record keeping, communication, housing management and repair systems. These were significant failings, which directly exacerbated the resident’s primary repair issues and can only but have caused her additional distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

23. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the Ombudsman’s complaints handling Code (the Code).
24. The policy states where possible, a remedy will be offered to restore the resident to the position they would have been in had the issue not occurred. This may include compensation in line with the Homes and Neighbourhoods Redress Policy. Each case will be assessed individually to determine the most appropriate resolution and to support service improvement.
25. The landlord’s Redress Policy has a compensation framework. It helps the landlord decide fair compensation when things go wrong, based on each household’s specific needs. Compensation is categorised by impact: low (£10–£50), medium (£50–£100), and high (£250–£1000), depending on the severity and duration of the failure. Additional payments may apply for loss of use of part of the property due to the landlord’s fault, calculated proportionally to rent, and for qualifying repairs not completed on time, starting at £10 plus £2 per day, up to £50.
26. The resident submitted 3 complaints over 15 months, 2 of which completed the internal complaints process. While the landlord upheld each of her complaints and apologised, its responses were characterised by a detached taciturn tone and a lack of demonstrable empathy for a patently distressing situation.
27. For example, in its stage 2 response on 12 March 2024, the landlord states “Unfortunately, we have limited properties available to decant families in to, and although a property was identified for you in October 23, I understand why this was not suitable for your needs. I am sorry for the delay in identifying a property within your area of choice.” The statement downplays the resident’s situation by focusing on property availability, without acknowledging the impact on the resident of the delay. It does not acknowledge the landlord’s lack of cohesion in purporting to offer the resident a suitable property (B), which would not be available until after property A. It seeks to divert its own failure to source suitable temporary accommodation and apportion responsibility onto the resident for refusing property B. This was an inappropriate response to her complaint about the delays in being provided temporary accommodation. The landlord offered a brief apology, but no meaningful reassurance or commitment to resolving the issue, which left the resident feeling unsupported and unheard.
28. In its responses, the landlord also failed to acknowledge the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing repairs and complaints. Nor does it acknowledge the distress and inconvenience of living in hazardous and worsening conditions, at a time when the resident’s health was particularly at risk. It also failed to recognise the distress and frustration caused to the resident of being repeatedly informed that the date for her temporary move was being delayed.
29. Furthermore, the complaints process failed to provide a cohesive and enduring resolution to the resident’s complaints. The landlord did not learn from the resident’s repeated complaints. It could have tried to establish what had gone wrong prior to her 1st complaint. Its findings may have helped the landlord to improve its resolution in this case and its services for other residents. Its incurious approach was contrary to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle “learning from outcomes”.
30. The landlord did not, at any point within its complaint process, offer compensation to the resident. Its redress policy sets out several criteria which were clearly met in this case, including service failures, delays, loss of full enjoyment of a room, missed appointments and incurred costs. None of these appear to have been used to assess a possible award of compensation. This was a significant failing and a missed opportunity to provide the resident with meaningful redress.

Learning

31. This Service notes that the landlord has completed a Damp & Mould Self-Assessment, following the Ombudsman’s recommendations in our Spotlight Report. The self-assessment refers to the production and delivery of an action plan, which covers three main themes, data and intelligence, communication and engagement, processes and procedures. This is a positive step which demonstrates the landlord has recognised its need to improve its service to residents.
32. This Service also notes the landlord referred itself to the Regulator of Social Housing, as it had identified a consistently high number of homes with unresolved cases of damp and mould. The regulator found in March 2024 that the landlord breached part 1.2 of the Home Standard, creating a potential risk of serious harm to its tenants. The regulator held that the landlord has put in place a programme to rectify its failures and had assurance that the landlord was remedying its breach of the standard.
33. In light of this, this Service has ordered, as set out above, that the landlord undertakes a strategic review of the failings identified in this case to ensure with reasonable confidence that its newly introduced policies and procedures are capable of effectively eliminating any recurrence of the specific issues highlighted in this case.