Basildon Borough Council (202444059)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house with her children. The resident reported issues about the aluminium external doors. She said the doors were full of condensation and were radiating cold into the property. She also said this was causing damp and mould inside her property and believed this affected the health of members of the household.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of reports of issues with external doors.
   2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of issues with external doors.
   2. No maladministration 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 reports of issues with external doors.

4. The landlord’s failure to record the inspection arranged through the stage 2 process resulted in avoidable delay in progressing the issues raised. This contributed to delays in arranging the replacement of doors and windows, and in treating the damp and mould. The landlord did not acknowledge this failure.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

5. The landlord responded to complaints within timescales set out in its policies.

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.

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. Homes must be free from any Category 1 hazard, assessed under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp, mould, and indoor climate hazards, including excess cold and condensation, are part of this assessment. A home must also provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort, which requires effective insulation and efficient heating. It was the landlord’s responsibility to assess whether the condensation indicated a hazard or a failure of thermal comfort. If so, it was required to take action to bring the home up to the required standard.
7. On 13 November 2024, the resident reported issues with the doors and the condensation contributing to mould. It was positive that the landlord inspected the property within 24 hours. This response was in line with its emergency repairs policy. The repair notes said the doors were old aluminium doors with bad condensation and nothing else could be done apart from renewing. It was reasonable that the resident may have believed the doors would be replaced from the notes. Later internal emails showed the landlord said the contractor did not recommend renewal directly to the landlord but said renewal was an option to reduce condensation.
8. The stage 1 response of 25 November 2024 said the doors did not require replacement because they were working and fit for purpose. However, the resident disputed this decision and said the contractor told her on 14 November 2024 that replacement doors were required. She also said there was further mould growth.
9. It was positive that in its stage 2 response, the landlord arranged for further inspections of damp, mould and of the doors on 5 December 2024. It was unreasonable that the resident had to chase a month after this further inspection because nothing had progressed. She said the contractor that completed the December inspection had also recommended replacement doors. However, no findings from this visit on 5 December 2024 were recorded, and internal emails we have seen referred to a lost report. Due to this poor record keeping, we cannot confirm what the inspection found including whether replacement doors had been recommended.
10. The resident reported further mould growth on 25 November 2024. The landlord completed damp and mould treatment on 20 January 2025. This was an unreasonable delay as this was significantly more than 28 days as set out in its policy.
11. A further inspection on 23 January 2025 said the doors had been overhauled previously and that new doors were needed. It did not explicitly note whether the doors contributed to the damp and mould. It did state that all the windows were not effectively insulated, had bad condensation, and upgrading the seals could also reduce condensation and damp. The landlord agreed they would replace them along with the doors. The new doors and windows were fitted in May 2025. This was around a month beyond the 90‑day aim in its policy, which was understandable due to the need for additional authority for the windows.
12. It was positive that the landlord assessed the heating in February 2025 and replaced the radiators to ensure the property could be kept warm. The exact date is unclear, but this work took place after the replacement doors and windows were fitted.
13. The resident told us she was happy once the replacements were completed and said this winter was much more comfortable for the family. We also acknowledge the resident’s account that the winter of 2024/2025 was difficult for her and her children because they were constantly cold in the property. She described how the family went to bed early to get warm and had continuous runny noses and coughs. Also, that her fuel bills increased because the property could not stay warm.
14. To summarise, it was poor that the landlord’s record keeping was limited and that the findings of the 5 December 2024 inspection were lost. It is reasonable to suggest the missing report caused at least a 6‑week delay in starting to arrange the replacement doors and windows. Also, at least a 3-week delay in treating the damp and mould. The avoidable delays, which resulted from the service failure, added to the difficult winter the resident and her family were already experiencing. In line with our remedies guidance for cases with a service failure that adversely affected the resident, we order the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by these delays.

15. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of the timescales.
16. The landlord followed the Code when managing this complaint. It issued both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses within the required timescales.
17. When the resident escalated the complaint, the landlord took the concerns seriously, listened and arranged a further inspection to address the issues raised. We are satisfied that the landlord acted in line with the Code when progressing the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. It is evident that poor record keeping contributed to delays and affected the landlord’s ability to complete a robust investigation. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) explains that without good data management, landlords may struggle to use or analyse information to improve services. The landlord should take steps to improve how it records and uses data, which could include better training, clearer guidance, or additional staff support. The KIM spotlight report provides eLearning and tools that landlords may find useful when strengthening its management information practices.