Canterbury City Council (202339997)

Background

1. The resident is a secure tenant by assignment. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of damp in the property and her reports of window repairs. The resident has told us she has COPD.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp in the property.
   2. Window repairs.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was mal:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp throughout the property
   2. No maladministration in its handling of the window repairs.
   3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the damp in the property

5. There were notable delays by the landlord in resolving the damp in the property. The resident has said that these repairs have now been completed but the overall length of time taken to complete the repairs was disproportionate. There were further delays from the landlord’s final complaint response until it completed the repairs.

The window repairs

6. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of window repairs. It did not identify any problems with the windows. Its contractor and its own surveyor did not make any recommendations for repairs to the windows. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors.

The landlord’s complaints handling

7. There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord explained this was due to issues relating to a cyber incident. It accepted the delays, apologised, and made a reasonable offer of compensation.

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.

8. We have seen evidence which shows the resident has been experiencing issues relating to damp in various parts of the home since 2010. Whilst these historical issues provide context to the current complaint, we have seen no evidence which shows the resident complained about these issues or was prevented from logging a complaint. This investigation will therefore consider the landlord’s handling of the damp in the property from around February 2023, this was when the resident started to chase the landlord for updates in relation to what action it was taking to resolve the damp. We will consider up to its final complaint response and what it said it was going to do in that response to put things right.
9. The landlord’s damp and mould policy, available on its website, sets out its approach to handling reports of damp and mould in its residential properties. It says, in summary, that it will complete a property inspection where damp and mould is identified and complete repair work, if necessary. It also says it will inspect any repairs upon completion.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy outlines the timescales for completing repairs. It says that most routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days.
11. On 23 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord for an update on actions to resolve damp and mould in her home. The landlord sent internal emails to ascertain when works were due to start. However, between February 2023 and January 2024 (almost a year) the resident did not receive a clear update explaining what actions the landlord was taking to address damp, mould, and her reports of wet walls. This was a disproportionate length of time for the resident to be left without clear information. During this period, the landlord did not demonstrate sufficient ownership of the issue.
12. We note the landlord spoke with the resident in June 2023 to explain that its contractor would be in touch with her but it is unclear whether or not the contractor reached out to her. This was another failure and an example of poor contractor oversight.
13. Following the resident’s contact with this service in February 2024 we wrote to the landlord and asked it to consider the resident’s concerns as a stage 1 complaint. When the landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint it did not provide any clear information or answers relating to the damp and mould. This was poor customer service and would have further added to the resident’s frustrations.
14. The landlord said that it was unable to see some information due to a cyber incident it had experienced in January 2024. However it explained that it had tried to contact her to discuss the issues and said a surveyor would visit her home. Based on the evidence we have seen, it is unclear if this survey took place despite its commitment to do so.
15. When the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, it said it would complete the repairs within 2 months. The resident was understanding of this and agreed to give the landlord the 2 months it had asked for to complete the repairs before we investigated the complaint. We note that the landlord completed a survey shortly after its stage 2 complaint response and identified required works.
16. In February 2025 the resident told us that the damp repairs had been completed. We also note the landlord completed a further survey on 19 September 2025 and did not observe any further damp or mould in the property. It also noted that the kitchen floor was due to be replaced following some damp proof coursing it had completed. The floor was replaced on 25 September 2025.
17. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord accepted that it had failed to promptly complete the repairs and offered £150 for the impact this had on her. Whilst it was positive the landlord recognised the shortcomings in its handlings of the repairs, provided a commitment to put things right, and apologised, the £150 offered was not fully reflective of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, caused to the resident by its delays to complete the repairs.
18. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £200 for the delays to complete the repairs relating to the damp in her home. This amount is also reflective of the further delays from its stage 2 complaint response to complete the damp repairs. This amount is in line with our own remedies guidance, available on our website.
19. As the resident has told us that the damp issues have now been resolved, we have not made any further orders or recommendations in this regard.

20. Part of the resident’s complaint concerned window repairs. She said the windows had blown and repairs were needed to them.
21. The landlord’s evidence shows that it considered these reports as part of its surveys. Its surveyors visited the property and did not identify any repair issues with the windows. This was also documented in the survey reports. In addition to this, we note that its contractor responded to an earlier report of a repair and did not appear to identify any follow-on work to the windows.
22. The landlord is entitled to rely on the findings of its appropriately qualified contractors and staff to identify what, and whether, repairs are needed. It was positive the landlord addressed these concerns and assessed for any issues with the windows. We have seen no other evidence which contradicts the landlord’s own findings relating to the windows.
23. There were no failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of window repairs.
24. However, the resident maintains that the windows still mist up and are drafty. It is unclear if this has been reported to the landlord again.
25. As such, we recommend the landlord contacts the resident to arrange a further inspection of the windows in view of her continued comments.

26. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. It says it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
27. The resident contacted this service on 7 February 2024. She told us she had tried to complain to the landlord but had not received a stage 1 complaint response. We wrote to the landlord on the same day and asked it to handle the resident’s requests as a stage 1 complaint.
28. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 3 May 2024. This was a delay of 41 working days and outside of the timescales specified in its complaints policy. It apologised for the delays in responding to the complaint and explained that it had been affected by a cyber incident which impacted its capacity to respond to complaints.
29. On 4 October 2024 we wrote to the landlord and asked it to handle the resident’s concerns she had raised to us a stage 2 complaint. The resident told us she had tried to escalate her complaint to stage in June 2024 but this was not acknowledge. This was a further failure. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 16 October 2024. Although we have been unable to identify the specific date when the resident asked to escalate her complaint, the delay from her escalation request in June 2024 was around 3 months in total.
30. When the landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint it accepted there were delays and apologised for its failure to escalate the complaint. It offered the resident £100 for the overall delays in its complaints handling.
31. It was positive the landlord recognised the delays and made this offer of compensation. This amount of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances and sufficiently redressed the failures it had identified in its complaints handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. Although the landlord’s records were sufficiently detailed enough for us to complete the investigation, it explained that it did not have full access to the records from a previous contractor. Landlords remain ultimately responsible for the actions of their contractors and should satisfy themselves that they can access data and information relating to any actions taken by its contractors.

Communication

33. The resident told us that she cannot read or write. The landlord said it was unaware of this until we wrote to it about her complaints. When the landlord received this information it told us it had arranged alternative options to communicate with her. It was positive the landlord recognised this adjustment.