Stoke on Trent City Council (202447867)

Background

1. The resident lives with her child. She was left without cavity wall insulation for 8 months, after the landlord removed it, which she said caused damp and mould in the property. She was unhappy with the landlord’s compensation offer and the delays in completing effective repairs. The landlord was aware of her child’s vulnerability.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of missing cavity wall insulation and related damp and mould repairs.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of missing cavity wall insulation and related damp and mould repairs.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. In summary, we found that:

In the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of missing cavity wall insulation and related damp and mould repairs

1. The resident was without cavity wall insulation for 9 months.
2. The landlord made an appropriate offer of compensation in its stage 2 response.
3. The landlord identified measures to review and improve its processes.

In the landlord’s complaint handling

d.  The landlord extended its complaint response deadline twice at stage 1 and did not keep the resident regularly informed.

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.

What we did not investigate

5. We do not usually consider events that occurred more than 12 months before the resident made their stage 1 complaint, which in this case was on 13 November 2024. We have assessed the landlord’s actions from the date of the formal complaint and the preceding 12 months.
6. The resident reported that the situation affected her family’s health. We can consider the impact on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, but we cannot determine liability for damage to health or belongings. These are matters better suited to an insurance claim or court therefore will not be included in this investigation. We assess compensation in line with our remedies guidance.
7. The property has undergone internal replastering and damp-zoning works since the landlord completed its internal complaints process. The landlord explained to us, and the resident on 29 April 2025, that those works are unrelated to the missing cavity wall insulation and should be addressed in a separate complaint, if required. Therefore, this investigation will not refer to these matters.

What we did investigate

8. The landlord’s repair policy states it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours. It will investigate significant hazards within 10 days, start repairs within 5 days, and complete routine repairs within 28 days. For complex repairs that cannot wait for planned investment works, such as those requiring specialist materials, the landlord aims to complete them within 90 calendar days.
9. The landlord’s damp and mould policy defines significant hazards as serious damp, mould and condensation issues that are not an emergency. It will investigate these within 10 days, and begin safety works within 5 days of inspection, or as soon as possible and within 12 weeks.
10. The landlord acknowledged several failings in its handling of the missing cavity wall insulation and related damp and mould works. It told us that it replaced the cavity wall insulation on 3 January 2025 and completed damp and mould repairs between November 2024 and March 2025. It told us that the property was free of damp and mould by 28 April 2025.
11. The landlord apologised for the delays, missed appointments, and communication issues and offered £800 compensation. As the landlord has acknowledged these failings, we have considered whether it took reasonable steps to put things right.
12. The resident notified the landlord on 5 November 2024 that the contractor had removed the cavity wall insulation earlier in the year, leaving her without insulation for 6 months and causing damp and mould. The landlord could not identify the exact removal date but believed the contractor removed it between March and April 2024. The landlord has not explained why the insulation was removed.
13. The landlord told us that the original surveyor left the contractor’s employment shortly after the resident’s extraction, resulting in funding issues and a lack of records. These gaps in information highlight poor record keeping and communication between the landlord and its contractor.
14. Once the landlord became aware of the missing insulation, it arranged a re-survey on 25 November 2024, which was reasonable. It asked the contractor to prioritise the work. We have seen evidence that the landlord chased the contractor for an installation date on 28 November, 16,17 and 18 December 2024. The contractor confirmed installation with the resident for 20 December 2024.
15. The contractor could not complete the installation on 20 December 2024 due to faulty equipment and rebooked the appointment for 3 January 2025, when the work was completed. Although the property required a resurvey, it was disappointing that a further 2 months passed before the landlord completed the works.
16. The resident was without cavity wall insulation for 9 months, which was not appropriate and did not meet the landlord’s repair policy requirement for completing complex repairs within 90 calendar days.
17. The landlord investigated and treated mould 3 days after the resident reported damp and mould on 5 November 2024, which was appropriate and aligned with its damp and mould policy. The resident later reported damp and mould in the bathroom ceiling and tiles on 5 December 2024, and the landlord completed these repairs on 18 December 2025, which was appropriate.
18. The landlord identified further works during this appointment and contacted the resident the same day to arrange follow-up works on 8 January 2025. This ensured the resident remained informed and able to agree convenient appointment times, in line with its repairs policy. However, the records do not confirm whether the contractor attended on 8 January 2025 or why it rescheduled to 14 January 2025, which again highlights poor record keeping.
19. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for missed contractor appointments and explained it was introducing new communication measures with its contractor to prevent recurrence, which was reasonable.
20. A damp and mould inspection took place on 29 January 2025, and the report found the issues were unrelated to the missing insulation. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on specialist advice. The landlord inspected the property again on 3 March 2025 as part of its stage 2 investigation and arranged a mould‑wash treatment on 10 March 2025, with window cleaning, reveal cleaning, and bathroom re‑grouting arranged for 17 March 2025. These actions were appropriate and aligned with its damp and mould policy.
21. The landlord set out its actions in its stage 2 response on 24 March 2025, acknowledged the delays and poor service, apologised and offered £800 compensation. It also outlined the steps it was taking to address the issues raised by the resident, including installing a smart thermostat to improve energy efficiency.
22. When the resident disputed the amount of compensation, the landlord took appropriate steps and compared the energy bills submitted by the resident, identifying a £130 increase, which it said had been reflected in its compensation offer. However, it is unclear how the landlord could have known this difference was accurately reflected in its original offer when it had not carried out this comparison before making the stage 2 decision. It would have been preferred for the landlord to complete the energy‑bill comparison before determining the compensation amount. Nevertheless, the amount offered remains appropriate and in line with its compensation policy. The landlord also confirmed that the offer included compensation for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
23. The landlord became aware on13 November 2024 of the resident’s child’s vulnerability, which she reported had worsened due to the damp and mould. The landlord had no known vulnerabilities recorded at that time. It acknowledged this in its stage 2 response and made a referral to the resident’s housing officer for support. This was appropriate and in line with its damp and mould policy.
24. We found that once the landlord became aware of the missing cavity wall insulation, it took resolution-focused action. The landlord made considered attempts to resolve the outstanding work. It prioritised the works, chased the contractor repeatedly, and accepted responsibility for the delays.
25. Its offer of £800 compensation represented a meaningful attempt to acknowledge its failings and reasonably addressed the inconvenience and distress caused, consistent with our remedies guidance.
26. The landlord said it would learn from the complaint and improve its communication with its contractors. We have therefore found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of missing cavity wall insulation and related damp and mould repairs.

27. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
28. The landlord has a published complaint’s policy which complies with the Code in respect of timescales.
29. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on time and requested an extension for its response to 12 December 2024, which the resident agreed to.
30. This complied with the Code, which requires landlords to consider the complexity of a complaint when deciding whether they need an extension, inform the resident of the revised timescale, and ensure any extension does not exceed 10 working days without good reason. The landlord must also clearly explain those reasons to the resident.
31. When an organisation informs a resident about an extension to these timescales, they must be provided with our details. The landlord complied with this requirement which was appropriate.
32. However, the landlord did not respond by its extended deadline of 12 December 2024 and failed to request another extension until 6 January 2025. Although the resident agreed to a new deadline of 20 January 2025, the landlord did not act in line with its complaints policy or the Code.
33. It is disappointing that the landlord did not issue its stage 1 response until 21 January 2025, and only after the resident chased it.
34. In its stage 1 response, the landlord upheld the complaint and offered the resident £50 compensation. This offer did not provide appropriate redress or adequately recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and lack of cavity wall insulation for the resident. Under its compensation policy, the landlord should have made a suitable compensation award.
35. Doing so would have aligned with its compensation policy, which states that it may award compensation where it has failed to meet target response times and where the service failure has caused minor, moderate or severe disruption. The policy also requires the landlord to consider the duration and impact on the resident, including distress, inconvenience, financial loss or vulnerabilities.
36. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on time on 27 January 2025 and requested an extension on 25 February 2025 until 24 March 2025. This complied with the Code, which states that an extension can be made for no more than 20 working days, and the landlord issued its stage 2 response within the extended timescale.
37. Its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that it had previously failed to consider the level of disruption and stress caused by the prolonged lack of cavity wall insulation and the additional costs the resident incurred. It increased its compensation offer accordingly to £800, in line with its compensation and complaints policy.
38. The landlord did not comply with the Code and unreasonably delayed in issuing its stage 1 response, failing to meet the extended deadline and failing to keep the resident regularly informed.
39. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £100. This is in line with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy.

Learning

40. The landlord should request only 1 extension per complaint stage and ensure each request complies with the Code.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

41. The landlord kept insufficient communication records with its contractor, which led to significant delays in completing the re-installation works. The landlord should accurately record and retain all works, communications and developments with contractors for future reference.

Communication

42. The landlord should request any extensions to complaint response times before the response deadline and maintain regular contact with the resident throughout the process.