Southend on Sea City Council (202503824)

Background

1. The resident lives with her 3 children. The resident has a medical condition that impacts her breathing, and her children have vulnerabilities such as autism. She reported there was an issue of damp and mould in her kitchen that had started to spread to other areas.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. reports of damp and mould
   2. the resident’s complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for maladministration in its response to reports of damp and mould
4. We found the landlord responsible for service failure in response the resident’s complaint

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

5. The landlord failed to complete repairs within required timescales, did not follow its damp and mould policy, and provided poor communication throughout. It also failed to carry out a risk assessment for recurring issues and did not comply with its decant policy when offering temporary accommodation.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord failed to meet its Complaint Policy timescales.

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.

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 new complaints after the stage 2 response, including an issue with her boiler. These were not part of her February 2025 complaint, so we have not considered them. If she remains unhappy and has completed the landlord’s complaint process for these issues, she can refer them to us as a new case.
8. We considered the ongoing damp and mould issue after stage 2. This was fair because the landlord agreed to investigate it as part of its stage 2 resolution. The landlord also had the chance to review its actions but told the resident to refer the matter to us.

What we have looked at

9. The resident said she reported damp and mould from July 2024. However, evidence shows the first report was on 5 December 2024. Within 7 days, the landlord attended, fixed a leak from an upstairs room, cut holes in the kitchen ceiling, made the area safe, and arranged a mould wash, which was completed on 20 December 2024. This initial action was reasonable and followed the damp and mould policy. The policy says the landlord will attend within 7 days to identify and resolve the cause, then complete follow-up works within 28 days.
10. Despite this, the landlord took 3 months to repair the ceiling holes, only doing so after the resident chased at least 3 times. This delay was outside its 28-day timescale and caused distress.
11. On 10 January 2025 the resident reported mould was still present and raised concerns about her and her children’s vulnerabilities. The landlord took 11 days to respond, outside policy timescales.
12. The landlord booked an inspection for 23 January 2025. We have no evidence this inspection happened. It is likely a surveyor visited at least twice before 5 February 2025, as the resident emailed on that date saying several people had entered her home over the previous 3 days. She told the landlord this negatively affected her autistic children and that she did not know what was happening.
13. This shows the landlord failed to follow its damp and mould policy, which requires clear and regular communication about planned actions. There is no evidence the resident was updated on what was happening or the timescales involved, causing further distress and inconvenience.
14. On 5 February 2025 the landlord told the resident there was a “very small” amount of damp and mould due to air vent issues. This showed a lack of understanding. The resident had repeatedly said she was worried about health risks and was upset by the issue. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says residents should be treated with empathy, but this update showed none, increasing distress.
15. In February 2025 the landlord offered a temporary move but did not follow its decant policy. The policy requires a decant report, risk assessment, and an offer of like-for-like or alternative suitable accommodation. Instead, it offered shared accommodation, which did not consider the resident’s circumstances. She refused because her autistic children could not cope with sharing facilities such as a bathroom or kitchen. This failure to consider the resident’s individual circumstances worsened the distress and inconvenience.
16. Also in February 2025 the landlord said it should not have completed a mould wash while the resident was at home due to her health conditions. This further shows it failed to take a resident-focused approach.
17. Between March and April 2025 the landlord visited at least 3 times and identified multiple areas needing treatment. Despite this, it only treated skirting boards in April 2025 and ignored other issues. This was unreasonable and outside its policy timescales.
18. After the stage 2 complaint response the landlord surveyed the property on 30 April 2025. The survey found work was needed in the kitchen, living room, bedrooms, bathroom, and hallway. The work included repairs to extractor fans, trickle vents, and mould treatment. While the survey was positive, it came 4 months after the January 2025 report. This lack of progress in resolving the damp and mould did not align with the 28-day repair timescale.
19. It then took 6 more weeks to complete most of the outstanding work. However, extractor fan repairs were not finished until November 2025, a further unreasonable delay that caused some inconvenience.
20. Communication throughout was poor. The landlord failed to provide clear, regular updates or set out timescales for damp and mould work. This was against its damp and mould policy and missed an opportunity to reassure the resident.
21. The damp and mould policy says recurring damp and mould should trigger a comprehensive risk assessment. Despite the landlord recognising recurrence, there is no evidence this was done. This was especially important given the resident and her children’s vulnerabilities and was a missed opportunity to show a zero-tolerance approach outlined in its policy.
22. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged delays and distress, apologised, and offered £500 compensation for issues up to 24 April 2025. Our remedies guidance suggests awards between £600 and £1,000 failures that significantly impact residents. The £500 offer was below this range and did not reflect the full distress and inconvenience. While the landlord recognised the impact delays had on the resident, it did not recognise its failings when dealing with the resident’s vulnerabilities.
23. Additionally, the landlord showed a lack of learning. Despite recognising the delays and poor communication, the landlord repeated these failings following the stage 2 complaint response. This only heightened the impact on the resident and led to a breakdown in the relationship it had with her. To recognise these additional failings we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional amount of £500, on top of the £500 already offered.
24. The resident asked for compensation for damage to carpets, flooring, and belongings. In May 2025 the landlord gave insurer details for her to claim, which was fair and followed its Compensation Policy. The policy says claims over £250 should be referred to insurers. As this was done, we have not included compensation for damaged items.

25. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue responses within 10 working days for stage 1 and 20 working days for stage 2. While the landlord acknowledged both complaints on time, it took 19 working days to respond at stage 1 and 24 working days at stage 2. These delays were unreasonable and caused inconvenience.
26. The landlord offered £50 for the stage 2 delay but nothing for stage 1. We have ordered an additional £50 to reflect the inconvenience caused by the stage 1 delay. This is in line with our remedies guidance for short delays that do not affect the overall outcome.

Learning

Communication

27. Clear and consistent communication is a key part of effective case management. The landlord could strengthen its approach by being more proactive in sharing updates and progress. Doing so would help reassure residents, reduce uncertainty, and build confidence in how a matter is being handled.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. Clear record keeping is essential for an effective repair service. Accurate and accessible records help landlords identify required repairs, track outstanding work, and provide residents with reliable information.
29. In this case, records were incomplete. Inspection and surveyor reports were missing, and there was little evidence of communication with the resident. The landlord should have a system to record repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to show what action was taken. Without it, the landlord cannot properly investigate complaints or identify recurring issues.