West Northamptonshire Council (202529663)

Background

1. The resident lives at the property with her 4 children. She has mental health vulnerabilities which the landlord is aware of. She has raised concerns regarding the windows in her daughter’s bedroom and issues with associated damp and mould since 2022.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property, including damp and mould.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs at the property, including damp and mould.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property, including damp and mould

5. There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the repairs at the property. The landlord did not do enough to put things right during the complaints process. However, it has since completed some temporary repairs and committed to replacing the roof, windows and doors at the property within the current financial year.

The resident’s complaint

6. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was delayed. It did not acknowledge the delay or offer the resident compensation in recognition of this.

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.

7. The resident told us that she has reported window repairs and damp and mould at the property since 2022. It is our practice to limit the scope of our investigations to a reasonable period prior to the formal complaint that is referred to us being made. This is usually 12 months prior to the resident making a formal complaint to the landlord. Therefore, our investigation is focused on the period from July 2024. Earlier communications have provided context to the current complaint, but do not form part of this investigation.
8. The landlord did not provide a copy of a damp and mould or repairs policy. Its website states that it will complete urgent repairs within 7 calendar days and routine repairs within 28 calendar days. However, there was no further information available.
9. We previously ordered the landlord (case reference 202331783) to confirm the current status of its repairs policy and when it intends to publish this. It told us that it aims to finalise its repairs policy by April 2026. For this reason, we have not made a further order in relation to this.
10. The landlord said, in its damp and mould self-assessment dated June 2025, that it is currently developing its damp, mould and condensation policy. We have ordered the landlord to provide us with an update on this.

Damp and mould and associated repairs

11. The resident told us that her daughter’s health had been affected by the damp and mould issues at the property. We acknowledge this has been a difficult time for her and her family. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
12. The resident also told us that she has lost a number of personal items as a result of the damp and mould. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised the loss and damage of her personal possessions in her complaint. Therefore, we have not been able to investigate this issue. However, we have recommended that the landlord responds to her claim.
13. On 11 July 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and reported damp and mould around the windows at the property, particularly her daughter’s bedroom. The landlord said it completed a damp and mould wash on 2 September 2024, but we have not seen direct evidence relating to this. It is unclear how the landlord categorised this repair. However, its response was outside of its published timescales for both urgent and routine repairs. There was no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident regarding the delays. This was a failing which may have led the resident to believe that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously.
14. It is unclear from the landlord’s records how many times the resident contacted it about damp and mould between September 2024 and January 2025. The landlord’s repairs spreadsheet referred to contact from the resident and jobs being “booked in”, but did not always specify what they were in response to. This has made parts of the complaint difficult to assess and is a record keeping failing.
15. On 14 January 2025 the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection at the property. Its inspection notes stated that the property was a “fail” and listed the required remedial works. These included a damp treatment in the bathroom, an “overhaul” of a bedroom window, and gutter repairs. The resident called the landlord on 18 January 2025 to ask when the remedial works would take place. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to this. This was a further failing which may have led the resident to believe that the landlord was not committed to resolving the issues at the property.
16. As mentioned above, the landlord’s repairs log was not sufficiently clear regarding the frequency of the resident’s reports of repairs and damp and mould. Nevertheless, the landlord was aware that the property had failed a damp and mould inspection and that remedial works were required. It should have taken action to resolve the situation and there is no evidence it did this. This was a failing which contributed to the significant delay in resolving the issues for the resident.
17. In its stage 1 complaint response, on 28 July 2025, the landlord said that the follow-up remedial works for damp and mould were “postponed as a result of limited staffing resources and a high volume of outstanding requests”. This was not reasonable. While we acknowledge that landlords may need to consider resources and how best to manage repairs effectively, in this case the landlord had a duty to ensure that the property was in a good state of repair and free from hazards, such as damp and mould. Furthermore, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident during this period. These were failings which caused avoidable delays.
18. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response referred to an inspection of the property which  it carried out on 23 July 2025. The works raised during this inspection did not include the recommended repairs from its previous inspection in January 2025. For example, the resulting recommendations did not mention the bathroom, the guttering or the bedroom window. It was unclear why these were not included. Additionally, we did not see any evidence to confirm whether the works raised during the inspection on 23 July 2025 were completed, and whether the pre and post inspections, which the landlord committed to in its stage 1 complaint response, were carried out. These were further failings because the landlord did not do what it said it would do.
19. The landlord completed some roof and guttering repairs in August 2025. It also said that it completed a damp and mould inspection on 3 September 2025 and identified remedial works, which were completed by 14 October 2025. This was outside of its stated routine repairs timescale of 28 days.
20. On 23 October 2025 the landlord completed a post inspection of the damp and mould works, which stated that the property had “passed”. We have not seen evidence that the resident raised further reports of damp and mould, and it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to assume the issue was resolved at this point.
21. In summary, the resident encountered prolonged and avoidable delays between January 2025 and October 2025. The landlord showed a lack of ownership of the resident’s case and a lack of urgency to resolve her complaint through to completion. Poor communication and record keeping also added to the unreasonable delays that the resident experienced.

Planned replacement works

22. The landlord provided notes from its window contractor, which stated that between August 2024 and October 2024 it measured the existing windows in preparation for replacements under its planned investment programme.
23. On 6 June 2025 the resident contacted the landlord to ask about the windows being replaced. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to this enquiry. The landlord had measured the property in August 2024 and the resident had not received any further communication regarding this. The lack of communication was a failing which may have caused the resident to feel that the landlord was not being proactive in its approach to her window replacement.
24. The landlord, in its stage 1 complaint response, said that all external doors and windows at the property were scheduled for upgrade as part of the planned investment programme for the 2025/26 period. This was reasonable as landlords have a limited amount of resources. Planned works ensure that large scale/major works are managed as efficiently as possible. However, the landlord should have committed to providing further updates to the resident regarding timescales. There was no evidence that it did this.
25. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord confirmed that the roof would be included in the planned works. It also stated that it had prioritised the resident’s property and estimated that the works would start in March 2026. This was positive.
26. In March 2026 the landlord provided some evidence that the planned works have started and are progressing well. However the resident told us that she has been provided with limited updates. We have ordered the landlord to contact the resident and provide an update regarding the agreed works.

Floorboards

27. We have not seen any evidence that the resident reported issues with the smell or condition of the floorboards prior to her complaint in July 2025. The landlord cannot be reasonably expected to take action if it is not aware of an issue.
28. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it had inspected the floorboards and it committed to replacing them. This was appropriate. In its stage 2 complaint response it said that the work would be completed by 22 October 2025 in line with its 90-day routine repair timescale. It was not reasonable for the landlord to reference a repairs policy which was not yet available to residents.
29. The resident told us that the floorboards have now been replaced. However, she is not satisfied with the quality of the work. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. However, we have recommended that the landlord contacts the resident regarding this.

Compensation

30. Our remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. It states that compensation of between £100 and £600 is appropriate where a resident has been adversely affected, and the landlord has not acted to fully put things right. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience it caused by its handling of the repairs at the property, including damp and mould.

31. The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints procedure. In line with our statutory Complaint Handling Code, it must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue its stage 1 and stage 2 responses within 10 and 20 working days respectively. Its complaints policy states that if it requires an extension to these timescales, it will notify the resident in writing and provide a reason why.
32. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response one working day outside of its complaints policy timescale. It would have been good practice for it to give the resident advance notice of the delay and apologise in its stage 1 complaint response. However, we recognise this delay would have likely had a minimal impact on the resident.
33. The landlord then issued its stage 2 complaint response 21 working days outside of its complaints policy timescale. We have not seen any evidence that it communicated with the resident during this time. This was a significant delay which would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and may have led her to feel that the landlord was not committed to resolving the issues she had raised.
34. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance, as referenced above, and in recognition of the complaint handling failings identified in this report.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

35. It is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If the information the landlord provides is not clear, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its repairs policy. In this case, the landlord’s records were not clear, which affected its handling of the repairs.

Communication

36. Our spotlight report on repairs identifies effective communication as a “common theme” essential for an effective repairs service. Poor communication often leads to delays, misunderstandings, and a breakdown in trust. The landlord may wish to review this guidance if it has not done so recently.