Adur District Council (202443324)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202443324

Adur District Council

29 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of black mould in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a ground floor 2-bedroom flat within a block. The block is made up of 4 flats, 2 are leaseholder owned, and 2 are local authority properties. The landlord, and freeholder of the block, is the local authority. The resident lives at the property with her partner and young daughter, who is asthmatic.
For context, the resident contacted the landlord in late 2023 to report a pest issue. She said the brickwork at the block needed repointing as that was how she thought mice were accessing the cavities in the walls. The resident then contacted the landlord on 8 January 2024 to report persistent black mould which had caused paint to bubble.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the block on 22 February 2024. He noted the gutters were overflowing and the pointing was in a poor state of repair. He raised repairs the next day to:
1. Realign the gutter and fix the bracket.
2. Open and clear the cavity walls and close with air bricks (Front elevation x 3) (Gable x 2).
3. Rake out and repoint the gable wall.

He also requested the leaseholders be informed of any costs.

The surveyor attended again on 4 March 2024. The resident said:
1. The surveyor used specialist equipment which highlighted all the property walls were damp.
2. They discussed that the front of the property needed repointing, not just the gable wall.
3. The surveyor said he would submit his report to the landlord, who would contact her to provide notice of the work costs.

A repair was subsequently raised by the landlord on 12 March 2024 to rake out and repoint the rear elevation, however this was cancelled (unclear when).

The landlord’s contractor completed the gutter repairs on 14 March 2024. After the resident chased on 22 April 2024, the landlord asked its contractor to attend and assess where scaffolding would be assembled. The repair log said scaffolding was required to “clear the front elevation and gable cavities, repoint the gable end, and repoint the rear elevation.” The contractor attended on 3 May 2024.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 18 June 2024 after not hearing anything further.
The landlord sent the Section 20 Notice of Intentions (NOI) to the leaseholders of the block on 23 July 2024. It issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident the same day, in which it said:
1. Its surveyor had said the:
  1. Gutters needed to be realigned.
  2. Wall cavities needed to be opened and cleared.
  3. Gable and rear walls of the block needed repointing.
  4. Work required scaffolding to the whole block.
  5. Repairs will prevent further water ingress and damp.
2. As there are 2 leaseholders within the block, it had issued the NOI. Once the 35 day consultation period had ended, it would get estimates for the work and send a second consultation letter, the Notice of Estimates (NOE). The NOE would provide a further 35 day consultation period.
3. Once the repairs were completed it would visit and see what internal decoration was required as a result of any damp and mould. Any decoration costs would not be recharged.
4. It apologised for the length of time the resident had waited and anticipated a start date for the work in Autumn 2024.
The resident emailed the landlord the next day. She said:
1. “The surveyor also said the front wall of the property was damp.
2. There was mould around the window frames in her bedroom and lounge [at the front of the property].”
The landlord raised a repair job to repoint the front of the resident’s property on 2 August 2024. Its contractor attended on 3 September 2024, but pointing repairs were not completed. The landlord chased its contractor for cost estimates 3 days later after the NOI consultation period had ended.
The resident escalated her complaint on 2 October 2024 after no further action or update from the landlord. On 11 October 2024, the landlord:
1. Acknowledged the complaint escalation.
2. Assembled scaffolding at the property.
3. Raised repairs to:
  1. Replace the front elevation downpipe and adjust the gutters.
  2. Rake out and repoint the gable wall brickwork.
4. Told the resident the repairs were not being completed as part of the Section 20 process.
The landlord’s repair records said it:
1. Cleared the wall cavities to the front and gable elevations on 18 October 2024.
2. Repointed the gable wall on 24 October 2024.
3. Replaced the front elevation downpipe and adjusted the gutters on 24 October 2024.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response, in which it upheld the complaint, on 6 November 2024. It said:
1. It had:
  1. Inspected the property and identified repairs were required to the external walls.
  2. Noticed rubble and insulation in the wall cavity had given way and fallen to the bottom of the wall. Its contractor removed the debris in the cavity and this was inspected by its surveyor.
  3. Repointed the walls.
2. Its surveyor visited after the work was completed and said the walls would take a while to dry out properly.
3. It had offered dehumidifiers, but the resident had declined.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The resident emailed the landlord shortly afterwards and said:
1. She had been told the front wall would be repointed but only the gable wall was done.
2. The landlord had said it would redecorate internal areas affected by damp and mould but it had not done so.
3. She wanted compensation for having to live in a property with black mould on the walls as it affected both her and her daughter’s health.
The landlord responded promptly on 7 November 2024 and said:
1. It was confirmed work would be carried out on the gable wall, and added the front wall repairs when it had started the work.
2. It was not asked to carry out repairs to the rear wall.
3. It acknowledged it said it would paint areas damaged by water ingress. But this would only be up to the water line and not the whole wall. However, its surveyor had attended and said no internal redecoration was required.
4. The resident had only been charged £250 as a leaseholder, rather than £1,353.16 she would have been charged under a Section 20.
5. It would arrange for its surveyor to attend in 6 months to measure the walls for damp.
6. Any compensation claim would have to go through its insurance department. But it did not believe a claim would be upheld.
The resident complained to us on 28 January 2025. She said:
1. She had decided to take things further as she had been signed off work. She did not clarify whether this was due to ill health.
2. She regularly bleached the walls to remove the black mould.
3. Since the removal of the insulation, paint was bubbling up in other places on the front wall.
4. She had bought a dehumidifier as the landlord did not respond to her email in relation to providing one.
5. She wanted the landlord to repoint the front wall and redecorate where water ingress had caused damage.
The resident emailed us 4 further times between March and August 2025 and said:
1. The property still had black mould growing and paint bubbling. She also provided us with dated photographs showing black mould on the walls.
2. The surveyor had not visited as promised in its email of 7 November 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said living at the property impacted her and her daughter’s health. We empathise with her situation. But we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions/lack of action and their health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her or her daughter’s health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord.
We have previously determined another case in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of black mould in November 2024 (202302149). As part of that case, we ordered a senior landlord manager to review the case and self-assess against recommendations made in our spotlight report on Damp and Mould from October 2021. The landlord provided this to us on 24 June 2025.
We acknowledge the landlord has made improvements in its handling of reports of damp and mould, communication between departments, and complaints. The events assessed below predate the positive changes it has made. Therefore, no additional orders will be made which would duplicate work carried out by the landlord to improve its handling of damp and mould cases.

Landlord’s handling of reports of black mould in the property

The leaseholder handbook available on the landlord’s website says:
1. The landlord:
  1. Is responsible for repairing and maintaining the fabric and main structure of the building, including: structural walls, roofs, joists, gutters, rainwater and soil pipes.
  2. Has a duty to repair and maintain the building. But costs are recovered through resident’s service charges which is a contribution paid towards the day-to-day running of the block.
2. As well as routine repairs, it will carry out planned major and cyclical work. Examples of these are to brickwork. The landlord is required to consult with leaseholders before any work that will cost more than £250 per flat is carried out. The consultation process is in 2 stages:
  1. Stage 1 – The NOI provides a summary of proposed work and why it is required. Leaseholders have 30 days to make any comments or observations.
  2. Stage 2 – The NOE will be sent to leaseholders with at least 2 quotes for the work from contractors. Leaseholders have 30 days to provide observations.
The landlord:
1. Does not set out timescales as to when it will aim to complete emergency, routine, or major/cyclical repairs on its website.
2. Does not appear to have a policy setting out how it will handle reports of damp and mould. However, its website provides general information. The landlord also said relevant policies are under review following our investigation into the previous case mentioned in the scope of this investigation section above.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth is a potential category 1 hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. Landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to reports of damp and mould.
The resident initially reported black mould on 8 January 2024. There was no evidence the landlord took any action until 16 January 2024 when it requested a repointing repair be raised. Having not heard anything, the resident chased on 19 January 2024 and said “the black mould is getting progressively worse.” Internal emails showed the landlord chased the repair the same day, which was positive. However, there was then no further action taken until it chased again on 19 February 2024. This was 6 weeks after the resident first reported the black mould, which was a failing.
After a third internal landlord email chasing the repointing repair request, the landlord requested a property inspection due to the lack of detail as to what exactly was required. The surveyor attended promptly 3 days later and raised repairs, which was positive. No record of the surveyors report has been provided to us, but it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its surveyor as to any repairs that were required to address and resolve the black mould.
It was unclear why, but the surveyor attended again on 4 March 2024 and raised a further repair to repoint the rear wall of the property. In a phone call with us, the resident said the surveyor visited multiple times, but would not provide any notice, so she was unaware when he would visit. The landlord did not provide the surveyors report or evidence of damp readings. However, it was positive the landlord was taking the resident’s reports seriously. The repair raised to repoint the rear wall was subsequently cancelled. However, there was no evidence to confirm why this was.
The evidence showed the gutter repairs raised after the surveyor visit in February were completed on 14 March 2024, which was a reasonable timeframe. However, the repair records showed the other repairs raised on 23 February 2024 were cancelled. Again, there was no evidence to confirm why this was.
There was then no evidence of any further action until 22 April 2024 when the resident chased for an update. While this was an unreasonable length of time for the resident to not be updated, the landlord promptly requested its contractor attend to assess where scaffolding would be assembled. The contractor attended 9 working days later and provided the landlord with estimated work costs the same day, which was positive.
There was no evidence the landlord responded to the contractor for another 2 weeks, at which point it said it could not consider the costs for a further 2 weeks due to its current workload. This added a further month of delays in progressing the issue for the resident. Again, there was no evidence the resident was updated which resulted in her chasing for updates on 2 and 17 June 2024. Having had no response, she raised a formal complaint on 18 June 2024. She chased again on 3 July 2024 after receiving no response. The landlord replied 2 days later, but only to say the staff member she had been contacting was on annual leave until 17 July 2024. The landlord’s lack of action between 9 May 2024 and 17 July 2024 caused significant delays in progressing the repairs for the resident, which was a failing. This was made worse by its poor communication, which caused the resident inconvenience.
In line with the leaseholder handbook, the landlord issued its Section 20 NOI on 23 July 2024. It then used its complaints process to explain the next steps to the resident, which was positive. But this was now over 6 months after the resident’s first report of black mould, which was an unreasonable delay. There were further failings as the landlord provided a 35 day consultation period, rather than 30 days as outlined in the leaseholder handbook. The landlord then failed to respond to the resident’s questions sent the day after the stage 1 complaint response. This caused her further inconvenience chasing for a response on 21 July 2024.
The evidence showed a pointing repair for the front of the property was logged on 2 August 2024. However, it was unclear why this was raised or why it not included as part of the Section 20 work. The landlord attended on 3 September 2024, but the resident said she was not informed of the appointment. The evidence suggests there was confusion all round as the contractor “could not understand why he had been sent to do a small patch of pointing [at the front of the property]” as he was “aware of the amount of work that needed to be undertaken” as part of the Section 20 work. The resident requested the repair be rescheduled as her partner had not long returned home from working a night shift. However, there was no evidence this was done.
The landlord asked its contractor for 2 quotes for the repair work on 6 September 2024, in line with the Section 20 process. It chased the quotes for the NOE on 19 September 2024. However, this only appeared to be prompted by the resident chasing as an internal landlord email said it “had the leaseholder chasing.” The lack of updates and poor communication with the resident were further failings.
It was unclear what happened in the following 3 weeks but scaffolding was assembled on 11 October 2024. The landlord completed some of the repairs in the following weeks. However:
1. This was nearly 8 months after the surveyor had first raised repairs and 9 months after the resident’s first reports of black mould.
2. It was unclear why repointing repairs to the front elevation were not completed.
3. It was unclear why repointing repairs to the rear elevation raised on 12 March 2024, and referred to in the landlord’s stage 1 response, were not completed.
4. It was unclear whether an NOE was issued to leaseholders. Or why the landlord did not continue with the Section 20 process.
The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to try and explain its position in relation to the repairs. But there appeared to be further confusion. It said “it repointed the walls.” But in its email to the resident the next day said “the rear wall was not done as it was not asked to do this work.” The email did not address the resident’s question as to why the front wall had not been repointed, which was unreasonable.
The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible repairs, regardless of whether it outsources the work to contractors. The landlord should accept responsibility, monitor the repairs, and ensure repairs were completed. From the outset, there was confusion over what repairs were required. The landlord should have done more to follow up with the resident, its surveyor, and its contractors, rather than leaving it to the resident to chase for updates, which was a failing.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of black mould was exceptionally poor.
1. We accept there may have always been some delays due to leaseholders in the block, and the need for scaffolding. And the landlord completed some repairs. However, there were lengthy and avoidable delays investigating and addressing the reports of black mould, between:
  1. 8 January and 19 February 2024.
  2. 15 March and 22 April 2024.
  3. 4 May 2024 and 16 May 2024.
  4. 17 May 2024 and 22 July 2024.
  5. 22 August 2024 and 27 August 2024 due to allowing 35 days for NOI instead 30 as per policy.
  6. 6 September 2024 and 19 September 2024 when it did not chase quotes for the NOE.

This adds up to almost 6 months of delays.

The landlord was poor in its communication with the resident:
1. The resident chased for updates on at least 19 January 2024 (when she said the black mould was getting progressively worse and her daughter is asthmatic), 22 April 2024, 2 June 2024 (where she said her daughter is asthmatic and there was black mould on her bedroom wall), 17 June 2024, 18 June 2024 (where she said her daughter is asthmatic, her bedroom wall is damp, and her daughter was having more regular episodes of her asthma flaring up), 31 July 2024, and around 19 September 2024.
2. The stage 1 response was not clear in relation to any decorative repairs that it may carry out. This caused the resident’s expectations to be raised, only to be told months later it would not carry out decorative work and would “only complete decorative repairs damaged by water ingress up to the water line.”
3. In relation to the Section 20 notices. The resident was only told the work would not be carried out under the Section 20 notices after she called on 11 October 2024. It was unclear who made this decision, or why. It may be because the repair work was covered by service charges, in which case the landlord wasted time issuing the NOI letter. Or it may be the landlord decided to only charge the resident £250 as a gesture of goodwill due to the overall delays.
The landlord was also poor in its communication with the surveyor and managing of repairs raised:
1. There appeared to be a lack of clarity/communication issues between the landlord and surveyor as to exactly what repairs were required.
2. It was unclear why work raised to repoint the rear of the property was raised on 12 March 2024, then not carried out.
3. It was unclear why work raised to repoint the front of the property was raised on 2 August 2024, then not carried out or rescheduled.

We acknowledge the landlord has said it has made improvements since the events in this case. But in this case the resident lived with, and continues to live with, black mould for a significant period of time. Taking all the circumstances of the circumstances of the case into account, particularly the landlord’s failure to:
1. Acknowledge any failings.
2. Act with any urgency over a significant period of time despite the resident raising the fact her daughter was asthmatic on multiple occasions.
3. Consider its lack of action may undermine the landlord/resident relationship.
4. Make any significant attempt to put things right.

A finding of severe maladministration is made.

The landlord has not provided a compensation policy, and its website does not give any guidance on remedies/compensation. Therefore, taking our remedies guidance into account, the landlord should pay the resident £1,750 compensation for the failings identified. This compensation award would be higher, but we acknowledge the landlord appeared to cap the cost to the resident for repairs carried out at £250. And we have ordered further repairs to the property which the resident must not be charged for.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy available on its website says it will:
1. Acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
2. Send a stage 1 response within 10 working days.
3. Send a stage 1 response within 20 working days.
The resident complained on 18 June 2024. The landlord did not send its stage 1 response until 23 July 2024, 25 working days later. We acknowledge the landlord’s staff member was out the office for 8 working days. However, the response was still late. The landlord’s stage 1 response:
1. Said the gutters needed to be realigned although repairs had already been completed on 14 March 2024.
2. Offered no compensation for:
  1. The late complaint response.
  2. The length of time the resident had waited for repairs.
3. Offered decoration that “may be required” as a form of compensation. This was an unreasonable approach, particularly given the landlord ultimately then decided no decoration was required.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 2 October 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation 7 working days later, which was slightly over the timeframe outlined in its complaints policy. Although the stage 2 response was sent within 18 working days, in line with policy, it failed to acknowledge failings and failed to offer compensation for the delays in responding to the complaint and the repairs. A finding of maladministration is made and the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £250.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of black mould in the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident and not offset against any monies owed £2,000 which made up of:
  1. £250 for poor communication.
  2. £750 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused.
  3. £750 for the overall delays in resolving the issue.
  4. £250 for its poor complaint handling.
3. Contact the resident to arrange suitable repair appointment(s) to repoint the rear and front walls of the property. This must be completed and the resident must not be charged. The landlord should provide us and the resident with a time-specific action plan as to when it will complete the repointing work.
4. Contact the resident and arrange for a surveyor to attend as promised in its email to the resident on 7 November 2024. The surveyor should assess the property for damp and mould and provide a copy of the findings to us. The resident has said her property is still affected by black mould. If further repairs are identified, an action plan with timescales should be agreed with the resident as to when any further repairs will be completed. This should also be provided to us.
5. Contact the resident to advise her how to make a claim through its liability insurance for internal decorative damage caused by black mould. The landlord’s insurers can consider the resident’s claim and contact her in due course with a decision.

Recommendations

As mentioned in paragraph 21.a, the landlord should consider having a repairs policy which includes how it prioritises emergency/routine/major repairs and target timescales for completion. This will enable consistency in its repair provision for staff and transparency for residents/leaseholders.
The landlord should be clear with leaseholders what work is covered by service charges paid by residents, and what work is classed as major work which requires leaseholder consultation.