Charnwood Borough Council (202446541)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202446541

Charnwood Borough Council

8 August 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

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

Background

2. The resident is the secure tenant of the landlord at the property. She reports having respiratory problems which she believes have been made worse by damp and mould at the property.
3. The resident says she reported damp and mould at the property for more than 5 years. She made an insurance claim in late 2023 about damp and mould damage to her belongings. In April 2024, the landlord surveyed the property and found that damp was causing mould to grow on the inside of external walls. It recommended various works including repositioning radiators close to windows to ensure heat was better distributed.
4. The landlord sent contractors to the property over the next 6 months but, on the evidence, did not start remedial works until October 2024. In November 2024, the resident’s councillor approached the landlord on her behalf. They said the property was damp with “mould everywhere” which was bad for her health as she had respiratory problems. The landlord said it would arrange for a mould wash and tell the resident when works would be carried out at the property. In late 2024, the landlord’s insurers offered her £550 for damaged property.
5. On 27 November 2024, the resident complained formally about the landlord’s response to her reports of damp and mould in the property. She said:
   1. She had claimed on the landlord’s insurance and was not satisfied with the sum it awarded her. More damage had occurred since her initial claim. She had had to move her furniture around to reduce the mould. The situation was affecting her health.
   2. Since October 2023, she had made 31 phone calls to the landlord and had received 27 visits from the landlord’s contractors and nothing meaningful had been done.
6. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 7 December 2024. It said it was “upholding” the complaint. It said it had now completed the required works at the property. It apologised for the delays and said it would continue to monitor the problem. It said the resident had told its operative that she did not keep extractor fans turned on at the property. It said this would mean that damp and mould were more likely to be present.
7. The landlord visited the property on 11 November 2024 and found there was damp and mould present. The landlord arranged a further survey of the property on 8 January 2025. This survey found that no mould was present but recommended moving radiators to external walls near windows. It also recommended moving the thermostat from the hall to a cooler area to ensure the heating did not turn off too soon.
8. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 January 2024 and said she was unhappy with the landlord’s actions to date. It treated this as a request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure.
9. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 13 February 2025. It said that it had visited the property on 17 December 2024 and 15 January 2025 and had found no mould there. It said some works were complete and it had further works planned for which the resident should provide access.
10. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. She asked us to investigate. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her concerns and wanted greater recompense for her financial loss.

Assessment and findings

11. The resident says she has been reporting problems at the property for some years. Our rules say that complainants must generally bring matters to the attention of a member as a formal complaint within “a reasonable period”.
12. We consider that this would usually be within 12 months of the matter arising. In this case, therefore, we have only investigated back to late 2023. This is because this was a year before her complaint and also because we have no evidence of her having contacted the landlord for some time before then which creates a natural cut-off point in the investigation.
13. The resident claimed on the landlord’s insurance in 2023 for belongings which she said was damaged by damp and mould at the property. The insurer offered her £510 which she said was inadequate to cover her losses.
14. As the Housing Ombudsman Service, we have no authority to investigate the actions of an insurance company. We can only investigate social housing landlords. We have not, therefore, considered the adequacy of the offer.
15. The resident has stated that she has health concerns which she believes have been made worse by the damp and mould at the property. We are unable to establish a link between health concerns experienced by residents and the condition of the properties they live in. She may wish to seek legal advice, as a personal injury claim could be a better way of dealing with this issue. We have, though, considered the general distress and inconvenience which these events may have caused her.
16. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will deal with routine repairs where there is no immediate risk to a resident within 28 days. We recognise that, where works involve complex or extensive procedures or require specialist contractors, this may not be possible. Nonetheless, we expect to see landlords attempt to carry out works as soon as possible and within a reasonable timeframe. This is particularly so with damp and mould.
17. The landlord surveyed the property in April 2024 and found that there was damp and mould. The survey recommended various works to remedy the problem including:
    1. Repositioning radiators on external walls.
    2. Reinstating loft insulation.
    3. Cleaning out gutters/downpipes
    4. Inspecting a PVC window
    5. Replacing the door
    6. Hacking off plaster and applying a damp proof course injection then replastering with a salt retardant additive.
    7. Clearing debris around the exterior.
    8. Replacing extract fan grills with gravity grills.
18. While the landlord sent operatives to the property on approximately 30 occasions between April and November 2025 and carried out some works, such as replacing fans, it did not, on the evidence, carry out works to prevent mould on the external walls in a timely manner. It is true that there were some access issues at the property.
19. The landlord recognised this in its stage 2 response and apologised for it. However, it was only after the involvement of the resident’s councillor in November 2024 that it moved radiators and the thermostat. The landlord told the councillor that it had now established a team to deal with similar cases and would arrange for works to be completed. This was a recognition of the failings that meant the works were not completed sooner.
20. Whatever the reason for the delay, it took the landlord nearly a year to address the issue fully. Our report on damp and mould, “It’s Not Lifestyle” says that landlords should be “on the front foot” when dealing with damp and mould. By this, we mean, among other things, that they should respond swiftly to reports of damp and mould and address any problems quickly. The landlord failed to do this and failed to comply with its own policy. This was maladministration.
21. The landlord’s failures were compounded by its failure to offer the resident any compensation during its complaints process. It apologised to her, as was appropriate but not sufficient to remedy its failings. It should also have offered compensation and set out clearly when it would carry out any necessary works. It should also have ensured that any works proceeded within a reasonable timeframe. It should have considered taking interim measures to ensure that the property was habitable during the period of delay.
22. The landlord’s own “Supplementary Compensation Guidance [Complaints] Landlord Services” document sets out guidance on the kinds of financial remedies it should offer. It did not follow this guidance. The landlord’s guidance is in line with our own guidance on remedies. Both say that where there has been maladministration, compensation awards for inconvenience and distress between £100 and £1000 are generally appropriate.
23. In this case, the level of failure was at the upper end of that scale because of the length of the delay in carrying out works, around 11 months, and the repeated phone calls the resident made to the landlord over that time. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £750.
24. We have considered making an order that the landlord should review its procedures to prevent similar failings in future. However, the landlord told the resident’s councillor in November 2024 that it had recently set up a new team to deal with cases like hers. It also introduced a “Damp and Mould Framework” in December 2024 which commits to “proactive interventions and early identification”. It also accepts its responsibility to keep its properties mould-free We consider, therefore, that the landlord has already taken steps to remedy problems with its damp and mould response.
25. The resident says that the works the landlord carried out to the living room window in early 2025 were not successful and, if anything, made matters worse. We have not looked at this as part of this complaint as this occurred after the landlord provided its final complaint response. Our rules say that landlords must have the opportunity to respond to a resident’s concerns through the complaints process before we can investigate. We have recommended that the landlord investigates these concerns.
26. However, if the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her concerns, she can raise the issue with the landlord. She can complain formally through its internal complaints process and then, if she remains dissatisfied, bring her concerns to us. We will investigate her concerns as a separate complaint.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

28. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord must provide us with evidence that it has:
    1. Sent a letter to the resident apologising for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Paid the resident £750.
    3. Invited the resident to claim on its insurance for any damage caused by the delays to works throughout 2024 and 2025.

Recommendation

29. The landlord should arrange a visit to the property to inspect the works carried out during the period covered by this investigation to see if further works are required.