North West Leicestershire District Council (202506976)

Background

1. The resident has reported damp and mould in the property (a house) to the landlord over several years. The landlord has told us it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, however, the resident advised the landlord in her stage 1 complaint that her daughter was pregnant during the period the property was affected by damp and mould.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaints.

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

Summary of reasons

5. In summary, we found that the landlord:
   1. Delayed arranging a damp survey and did not prioritise the mould treatment and damp survey when the resident told it her daughter was pregnant.
   2. Delayed sending its stage 2 reply, however, it apologised for this and offered her reasonable compensation to put things right.

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.

6. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
7. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident said that she had emails and photos dating back to 2016 when she first reported the damp and mould issues. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. As the issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as us, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. We therefore consider it fair and reasonable for our investigation to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from December 2023 when the resident reported to the landlord that mould was affecting her daughter’s room and asked the landlord to carry out mould treatment.
8. The landlord’s records show that it raised orders in January and February 2024 for its contractor to carry out mould treatment. However, the treatment was not carried out until 20 February 2024, which was almost 2 months after the resident had reported the mould on 28 December 2023. The time taken by the landlord to carry out the mould treatment was inappropriate as its repairs policy states that urgent repairs will be completed within 3 working days and non-urgent repairs (called ‘scheduled repairs’) will be completed within 20 working days. The landlord accepted in its stage 1 response that the treatment had not been done in an “ideal timeframe”.
9. Although the landlord’s contractor had carried out mould treatment in February 2024, we have not seen any evidence that it followed this up with a survey to identify the root cause of the reported damp and mould. This was unreasonable as, without such an inspection, the landlord could not identify whether the damp and mould were caused by a building defect or some other issue that it would be responsible for addressing. The landlord’s records show that it had raised an order on 6 January 2024 to carry out a damp survey, however, the order shows that it did not carry out the survey. In its stage 1 reply, it said that the survey had not been done due to issues with the contractor and the order had then been cancelled. It was unreasonable that the landlord had failed to follow up the need for the survey after it had cancelled the initial order.
10. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 10 February 2025 to prepare a schedule of works required in the property. It then sent the schedule to the landlord on 17 February 2025 and advised the landlord that the bedroom used by the resident’s daughter was most affected by the mould and she was expecting a baby in April 2025. It recommended that the landlord should carry out a survey of the property.
11. The landlord arranged for an independent surveyor to inspect the property on 31 March 2025 and for a contractor to carry out mould treatment on 3 April 2025 It had therefore taken the landlord over 7 weeks to carry out the damp survey and mould treatment after the contractor’s email of 17 February 2025 stating that the daughter’s bedroom was the worst affected by the mould and that she was expecting a baby in April 2025.
12. The time taken to carry out the mould treatment and survey showed a lack of urgency on the landlord’s part. Furthermore, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord took into account the additional risks posed by the mould while the resident’s daughter was pregnant.
13. The Government’s publishes guidance on its website “Understanding and addressing the health risks of damp and mould in the home”. This states that, while damp and mould pose a risk to anyone’s health, it is particularly important that damp and mould is addressed with urgency for some groups as they are more vulnerable to significant health impacts. It lists pregnant women, their unborn babies and women who have recently given birth as among those groups that are more vulnerable. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord had taken this length of time to carry out the mould treatment and survey given the circumstances outlined in the contractor’s email.
14. The resident advised the landlord on 23 April 2025 that her daughter had given birth earlier that week and shortly afterwards the baby had been admitted to hospital with breathing difficulties. The baby was found to have a bacterial infection, which the resident indicated was linked to the reports of damp and mould. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is matter is better dealt with as a claim through the courts. However, as stated above, we have taken into account the delays in the landlord’s actions after it became aware that the resident’s daughter was pregnant.
15. The landlord received the damp survey report on 10 April 2025 and it recommended various works, including unblocking drains, replacing a missing chimney cowl, reconfiguring the downpipes/guttering, adding new drainage and upgrading the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen. The landlord’s records show that, after receiving the report, it raised various works orders between 8 and 16 May 2025. We have seen no evidence to explain why it took the landlord a month after receiving the report to raise the works orders. We have therefore concluded that the delay was unreasonable, particularly given the previous delays in arranging the damp survey.
16. The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 May 2025 to express her concerns that there were contradictions between the reports from the contractor’s visit on 10 February 2025 and the surveyor’s report following his visit on 31 March 2025. In its stage 2 reply, the landlord explained that the contractor’s visit was not an official damp survey. Instead, it was intended to allow the contractor to scope the works needed, primarily in relation to the mould treatment, which it then carried out on 3 April 2025. It confirmed that the surveyor’s attendance on 31 March 2025 had been to carry out a damp survey and the landlord had acted on the recommendations. As the resident had raised concerns about conflicting information in the 2 reports, it was reasonable for the landlord to use its complaints response to explain the status of the 2 reports.
17. In terms of the time taken to complete the works specified in the damp survey report, the landlord’s records show that a contractor unblocked the drainage on 9 May 2025, which was the same day the order was raised. The order was raised as an urgent (3-day job) in line with its repairs and maintenance policy. Therefore the landlord completed the work within an appropriate timescale after raising the order. The landlord upgraded the extractor fans on 27 May 2025, which was appropriate as this was within the timescale it had quoted in its stage 2 reply. The new chimney cowl was fitted on 13 June 2025, which was 20 working days after the landlord had raised the order. As the job had been raised as a ‘scheduled’ repair to be completed within 20 working days, the landlord had completed the work within an appropriate timescale as it was in line with its repairs and maintenance policy.
18. The most extensive work identified by the independent surveyor was to add new drainage, extend the downpipes and adjust the guttering. The landlord obtained quotes on 19 June 2025 and raised an order for the work on 24 June 2025. The work was completed on 26 September 2025, which was 3 months after the order was raised. Given the extent and complexity of the work required, particularly the drainage work, we consider the landlord completed it within a reasonable timescale after raising the order.
19. The resident has advised us that, as part of the drainage work carried out in September 2025, the contractor carried out a drain camera survey and found that 2 of the downpipes were not connected to the drainage system and this had contributed to the reported dampness. She said the information from the contractor was contrary to the landlord’s previous advice to her that the damp was caused by condensation. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by us as part of its complaint response. As the results of the camera survey were unknown to the landlord when it responded to the resident’s complaints, we do not consider it fair and reasonable to investigate any matters linked with the findings of the camera survey.
20. In her stage 2 complaint, the resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 offer of compensation because she had incurred costs in replacing damaged belongings, including a mattress, bed and damaged carpets. She also said in her email dated 18 May 2025 that she wanted the landlord to reassess the level of compensation to take into account the damage to her belongings. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the resident should complete a separate compensation claim form and attach receipts, photos and other evidence for the reported damage to her belongings. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise her to complete a separate claim form and provide any supporting evidence. This would allow it to investigate her claim.
21. The resident’s request to be compensated for her belongings had not formed part of her stage 1 complaint. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord had not addressed this as part of its stage 1 response and its previous offer of compensation.
22. Overall, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould:
    1. It took 2 months before the landlord carried out mould treatment after the resident reported mould in December 2023.
    2. It did not follow up the mould treatment with a survey to identify the root cause of the damp, despite raising an order in January 2024 to do the survey.
    3. Despite receiving an email from the contractor that the resident’s daughter was pregnant and her room was the worse affected by mould, It took 7 weeks to carry out mould treatment and for a surveyor to inspect the property.
    4. It took the landlord a further month to raise repair orders after it received the independent surveyor’s report.
23. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
24. In this case, the landlord acted fairly by using its stage 1 and 2 responses to acknowledge and apologise for the delays in arranging mould treatment and the independent damp survey. It then sought to put things right by arranging for the independent survey to take place on 31 March 2025, the mould treatment to be carried out on 3 April 2025 and for the other remedial works specified in the survey report to be completed within reasonable timescales. It upheld the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints and offered her compensation for its lack of action to resolve the damp and mould as well as its acknowledged lack of communication with the resident about this.
25. The landlord used its stage 1 and 2 responses to highlight the learning it had taken from the resident’s complaints, including informing the relevant team of the need to track progress with repairs and of the need to carry out a thorough investigation of the causes of damp.
26. In terms of the level of compensation offered, the landlord offered £250 at stage 1 and then increased this to £400 at stage 2. The offer of £400 consisted of £250 for its handling of the damp and mould and £150 for its complaint handling. We have considered the offer of £250 for its handling of the damp and mould and do not regard the amount offered as proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. In particular, it does not adequately reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of:
    1. The delay in carrying out the damp survey, which was done more than a year after the landlord raised the order in January 2024.
    2. The lack of urgency in carrying out the mould treatment and the survey after the landlord was told that the resident’s daughter was pregnant.
27. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration and ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation of £350 to the resident to put things right. The total compensation for the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould is therefore £600, which is in line with our remedies guidance for findings of maladministration. Our finding takes into account that the landlord acknowledged its failings and made some attempt to put things right but, in our view, failed to address the detriment to the resident.

28. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord may extend these timescales for responding if it needs more information or the complaint is very complex. However, in such cases, it will update the resident of progress every 10 working days until a full response can be given.
29. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 25 March 2025 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint within an appropriate timescale on 26 March 2025. It then sent its stage 1 response on 27 March 2025, which was sent within an appropriate timescale in line with its policy.
30. The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 2 April 2025 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint within an appropriate timescale on 3 April 2025. The acknowledgement said it would respond to the complaint within 10 working days. It then wrote to the resident on 17 April 2024 to say it needed a further 10 working days to respond. It is unclear why the initial acknowledgement had advised the resident that the landlord would respond within 10 working days as its policy says it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Nevertheless, as the resident was expecting a response within 10 working days, it was reasonable that the landlord had written to the resident to explain that the investigation would need additional time.
31. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 20 May 2025, which was 21 working days after it had sent its email on 17 April 2025 advising the resident it needed a further 10 working days. The time taken by the landlord to send its response was inappropriate as we have not seen any evidence that it had followed its policy and sent a further email telling the resident it was extending the timescale again. The delay resulted in the resident writing to the landlord on 18 May 2025 to ask why she had still not received the stage 2 response. The resident had therefore experienced additional time, trouble and inconvenience in pursuing her complaint.
32. As part of its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the delay in sending its stage 2 reply and offered compensation of £150 in relation to its complaint handling. The amount offered by the landlord is in line with our remedies guidance for service failures that may have caused time, trouble and inconvenience. We consider the amount was fair and proportionate to put things right in relation to the delay and therefore we have found that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress.

Learning

33. The landlord should ensure that appropriate priority is given to damp and mould issues when notified of special circumstances, such as pregnancy.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. Where there are performance issues with a contractor, the landlord should ensure that repairs and inspections are tracked/monitored so they can be followed up within a reasonable timescale.