Nottingham City Council (202526041)

Background

1. The resident reported ongoing damp and mould in her wet room. She said this impacted her ability to use the shower and had an impact on her health due to her respiratory conditions. She was dissatisfied with the time taken for the landlord to address her concerns and believed the landlord should replace the wet room flooring to resolve the issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of damp and mould

4. The landlord did not demonstrate that it responded appropriately to the resident’s earlier reports and there were gaps in its record keeping which created uncertainty about the action taken. Although its inspection in March 2025 and subsequent steps were reasonable, the earlier failings likely caused delays in its handling of the damp and mould.

The complaint

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policies and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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. The landlord’s interim repairs proposal says it aims to attend “priority 2” repairs within 30 working days. These are described as non-urgent repairs which may affect health and safety if left unresolved. The proposal does not give a specific approach to damp and mould.
7. The records provided by the landlord show the resident previously reported damp and mould to her wet room in March 2024. It is unclear what action the landlord took at the time. It raised a repair in relation to “wear and tear” of the wall tiles but we cannot see if or when it completed it. It closed the repair on 6 April 2025, over a year later.
8. A further repair was raised on 10 May 2024 to inspect the wet room flooring for damp and mould. Again, it is unclear from the records if the inspection went ahead and what the findings were. An internal email the following year suggested that no evidence or action was required following the inspection in May 2024. In the absence of an inspection report at the time, we cannot conclude that the landlord responded appropriately to the reports made in 2024.
9. The next report by the resident was on 6 February 2025 describing severe damp and mould under her wet room floor and on the surrounding walls. The landlord raised a repair with its contractor on 18 February 2025. An asbestos survey took place on 10 March 2025, followed by an inspection on 15 March 2025. The landlord attended within 30 working days, as per its policy. However, given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the seriousness of her concerns, it would have been reasonable for it to have raised the works sooner.
10. The inspection noted the resident’s vulnerabilities and included photographs of its findings. It concluded the issue was low priority, stating there were no significant issues with the flooring and no evidence of water penetration. A mould wash then took place on 19 March 2025. That same day, the resident said a different landlord staff member had advised that replacing the wet room flooring would be the best solution. The contractor said it contacted the resident on 20 March 2025 to book further works but she declined them as she wanted a new floor.
11. The landlord appropriately outlined the findings from the inspection in its stage 1 response on 8 April 2025. On the same day, the contractor contacted the resident to book further mould treatment, check underneath the floor covering, and re-grout the edge of the wet room flooring. These were reasonable next steps, although the stage 1 response did not explain that these actions were outstanding.
12. In response to the contractor and outstanding works, the resident said the landlord should replace her flooring as it had done in a neighbouring property. She felt further mould treatment would be ineffective. She did not want to arrange an appointment for the proposed works.
13. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for any offence caused by the reference to a lack of cleaning in its stage 2 response. Landlords should avoid making statements that appear to put the onus on the resident, especially when we can see it had not fully concluded its investigations and where a resident has vulnerabilities. Advice can be a useful tool, but our Spotlight Report on damp and mould highlights the importance of landlords satisfying themselves that they have taken all reasonable steps to support residents too.
14. We do not know what was said during the other staff members visit. But it was also reasonable for the landlord to apologise for any conflicting information provided and acknowledge the impact caused with regard to her expectations. It was appropriate for it to confirm that it could not discuss neighbouring properties and that it assesses each case on its own merit.
15. Social landlords are required to manage budgets tightly and must give priority to the most urgent adaptations and replacements. In this case, the landlord was entitled to rely on its qualified staff members when determining if there were any repairs/replacements required. Based on the evidence provided, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the resident did not require new flooring. It identified proportionate steps it could take to aim to address the concerns in the first instance. Although, it would have been helpful to have reiterated them in its stage 2 response.
16. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said poor ventilation was the likely cause of the mould, suggesting a window or an extractor fan to be used when showering. While such advice is common, this differed to the stage 1 findings and there is no indication it came from the inspection report. The resident also said there was no window in the wet room. The landlord should ensure it is relying on accurate records to inform its decision making. If it does not do so, this could undermine confidence in its decisions.
17. We found the landlord’s actions following the inspection in March 2025 were reasonable and proportionate to the findings. However, the lack of evidence about how it responded to earlier reports amounts to a service failure. Our order of £100 compensation is in line with our remedies guidance. It accounts for failings which likely caused a lack of confidence and delays in getting matters resolved.
18. Both parties have confirmed the resident does not want any works carried out for the damp and mould other than replacing the flooring. As we have not found any failure with the landlord’s decision to not replace the floor, our recommendation aims to provide clarity to the resident regarding the next steps available to her.

19. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will aim to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. This is in line with our Code.
20. The landlord provided its stage 1 response within 20 working days which was not in line with its policy. Although, on 17 March 2025 it contacted the resident to advise her it would be unable to meet its 10 day timeframe. It said this was due to a power outage in its offices which caused severe IT issues across the business. It apologised and said its new target date would be 18 March 2025. It is unclear whether the date provided in the extension request was an error as it did not provide a stage 1 response until 8 April 2025.
21. However, the landlord’s request for an extension was in line with our Code. The Code allows for an additional 10 working days to provide a response in such circumstances and says the reasons must be clearly explained to the resident, which they were. The landlord then provided its stage 1 response within that timeframe.
22. It provided its stage 2 response within 1 working day which was reasonable.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord’s record keeping was poor at times. It is important that landlords keep clear, accurate, and accessible records. This will help avoid any confusion and help the landlord to form clear timelines around when an issue has been raised and what actions it has taken to resolve them. Accurate records can also be relied upon if a dispute arises. They can help the landlord to demonstrate that it has responded appropriately.

Communication

24. As identified in the report, there were instances where the landlord did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations through its communication and complaint responses. Our Spotlight Report on damp and mould says landlords should consider whether they require an overall framework or policy to address damp and mould. This would then help to aid effective communication and expectation management. We understand the landlord is in the process of updating its policies. If it has not already done so, it may be worthwhile considering a specific policy designated to damp and mould.