City of Lincoln Council (202527811)

Background

1. The resident reported damp and mould in his property in 2024 and was unhappy with the landlord’s delays in dealing with the issues. He told the landlord the situation was severely affecting his mental and physical health. The landlord knew about the resident’s health vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the related repairs.
   2. Maladministration 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:

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the related repairs

1. The landlord did not carry out damp and mould repairs for 5 months after identifying them.
2. The landlord delayed unreasonably in investigating a leak from the flat above.
3. The landlord did not keep accurate repair records to show what work it completed.
4. The landlord did not take the resident’s health vulnerabilities into account.

The complaint handling

5. The landlord did not offer sufficient redress in its complaint responses.
6. The landlord issued the stage 2 response 7 working days late.

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 are aware the resident has made multiple complaints to the landlord, including a complaint about being asked to use a specific email address when contacting it. These additional complaints do not form part of the original complaint and will not be addressed in this report.
6. The resident has referred to the impact the situation has had on his health, along with damage to personal belongings. We can consider the impact the situation has had 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 personal injury claim, therefore will not be included in this investigation.

What we did investigate

7. The resident told us he had been living with damp and mould issues since April 2024. The landlord acknowledges that it carried out damp and mould inspection surveys in June and November 2024. We will assess the landlord’s actions from the resident’s complaint on 4 March 2025 and the 12 months before that date.
8. The landlord’s repair policy states it will complete priority repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 days and all other repair requests within 100 days, in line with the scheduled repairs programme.
9. The landlord defines priority repairs as any repairs required to remove a possible health and safety risk.
10. The landlord’s current damp and mould policy was not in place at the time of the complaint. The landlord informed us that, although it did not have a specific damp and mould policy at the time, it completed a self-assessment against our spotlight report on damp and mould in October 2021 to ensure it complied with its recommendations. This states that the landlord responds to reports of damp and mould within 24 hours. It schedules all initial repairs to address damp and mould within 20 days, with any follow-up repairs completed within an additional 20 days.
11. The resident told us he first reported damp and mould in April 2024. The landlord inspected the property on 21 June 2024; this was not appropriate as it did not comply with its damp and mould self-assessment. The landlord did not provide us with evidence of this inspection. The resident said he contacted the landlord again on 5 November 2024 about worsening damp and mould, and the landlord inspected the property on 18 November 2024. This was appropriate as it was in line with its damp and mould self-assessment.
12. The inspection made several repair recommendations. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out any of these repairs. This was unreasonable and not compliant with the landlord’s repair policy or damp and mould assessment. It is unclear whether the landlord provided the inspection report to the resident. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 January 2025 to chase the repairs. There is no evidence the landlord took further action, which is not appropriate and again did not comply with its policies.
13. After the resident complained on 4 March 2025, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 March 2025. It apologised for the damp and mould issues and explained that the identified repairs had not appeared in the repairs inbox and therefore had not been raised or actioned. The landlord said it would review why the reports had not been received as expected. We have not seen evidence of this review, so are unable to conclude if the review happened and if the landlord took any learning from it.
14. The landlord also sent the resident a list of repairs and contractor appointments scheduled for 24 March, 1 April, and 7 April 2025. However, these appointments do not appear in the landlord’s works log. It also did not explain why the landlord changed the repair date to 15 April 2025. This indicates a potential record-keeping issue and does not comply with its repairs policy.
15. We are aware that the resident’s support worker contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 27 March 2025 to express concern about the severity of the damp and mould in the resident’s flat. We have seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or responded to this contact.
16. On 19 April 2025 the resident emailed the landlord to report that repairs started on 15 April 2025 were incomplete. And the contractor had not attended on 17 April 2025 to apply the stain block as arranged. The landlord told us that the contractor could not gain access on 16 April 2025 but did not evidence that the appointment had been booked with the resident for this date.
17. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to this email. This was not appropriate because its damp and mould self-assessment stated that it had set up a dedicated team to respond to all damp and mould reports to ensure that it clearly and regularly communicates with residents.
18. In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed that it had completed all repairs identified during the previous inspection, but the post‑inspection on 9 July 2025 identified further repairs. The landlord provided the dates for these additional repairs alongside its stage 2 response.
19. The resident told us that contractors had repeatedly marked jobs as complete when they had not been carried out. The landlord’s repair log did not clearly record what works had taken place and when, with no additional notes, making it difficult to assess whether specific repairs had been completed. This highlights further record-keeping issues and shows why repair logs must accurately reflect the work done.
20. The landlord’s repair log shows that it was notified of a possible leak from the flat above on 19 November 2024 and again on 15 January 2025. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out any investigations. This is not appropriate as it does not comply with its repairs policy.
21. The landlord provided its repair log for the flat above. It shows that on 2 June 2025 the landlord’s contractor was instructed to investigate a possible leak from that flat. Another works request for the same issue was raised on 18 June 2025, reporting a leak running down the walls and causing mould, possibly coming from the bath. On both dates the works log records the job as ‘completed’ but includes no information about what action, if any, was taken.
22. On 11 November 2025 the repair log for the flat above records ‘an uncontainable leak from the cold-water pipe underneath the bath’. Again, the notes state ‘completed’ but do not explain whether or how the leak was fixed or what action the contractor took.
23. Considering the landlord became aware of a potential leak from the flat above on 19 November 2024 and again on 15 January 2025, its failure to make effective repairs to a leak from the flat above for nearly 12 months was not appropriate. This also did not comply with its repair policy.
24. While the landlord said it would complete the remedial work and carry out a mould wash before and after the repairs, it provided no evidence that it considered the underlying cause of the damp and mould. This is concerning because the landlord had been told about a potential leak from the flat above but did not investigate it promptly.
25. Landlords must address both the cause and consequences of damp and mould, not simply treat the symptoms. Throughout the complaint the resident reported that mould had spread or returned to previously treated areas. This suggests the landlord had not correctly identified the cause of the damp and mould.
26. The resident chased remedial works in November 2024, January 2025, and March 2025. This was not reasonable and caused him time, trouble and inconvenience and would not have given him confidence that the landlord was taking his concerns seriously.
27. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had completed all the repairs identified in the original inspection. It gave further repair dates in September 2025 for additional issues identified during its post-inspection on 9 July 2025. This was appropriate as it aligned with its repair policy, which requires supplementary post inspection repairs to be completed within 12 weeks.
28. The resident told us the landlord was incorrect and that it had not completed all the repairs identified in November 2024. Because the landlord’s repair logs did not clearly record what work had been carried out at each visit, we could not determine whether those repairs remained outstanding.
29. The resident told the landlord on 1 October 2025 that the contractor had been unable to complete stain-block treatment on 3 occasions because damp was still present in the property. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to this.
30. The landlord did not attend to the leak from the flat above until 14 November 2025 and did not repair it until 28 November 2025. The ongoing leak likely caused or contributed to the mould and the damage to the resident’s ceiling, walls, and possessions. Because the leak continued, the landlord did not identify the cause of the damp and mould effectively, the resident could not receive effective repairs. The landlord’s failure to address the leak prolonged the situation for the resident.
31. We are aware the resident made another complaint about the same issues on 25 September 2025 and that the landlord carried out another damp and mould inspection on 3 December 2025. This inspection identified water damage throughout the property, linked to the flat above. The report provided a list of programmed repairs and additional investigations scheduled for December 2025 and January 2026. The resident told us in February 2026 that repairs remain outstanding and said that his living conditions are still very poor.
32. The resident said he keeps all his clothes and possessions in airtight plastic containers because mould continues to spread throughout the property. He also told us he cannot use the kitchen because it is unsanitary and that he prepares food and drink in the lounge, keeping all items sealed in containers when not in use.
33. The resident said the damp and mould has caused him constant stress, severely reduced his quality of life, and increased his isolation. And says the issues have significantly worsened his physical, mental, and chronic health conditions.
34. Our spotlight report on damp and mould published in October 2021 states that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. Treat it as a high priority and ensure they identify complex cases at an early stage. And ensure that their responses are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Despite the landlord self-assessing against our spotlight report, it is disappointing that there were still these failures.
35. The report also highlights that people living in homes with damp and mould may be more likely to have respiratory problems, including asthma. Damp and mould are listed hazards in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), and the landlord has an obligation to take action to minimise or remove identified hazards.
36. The report further states that “landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner”. It continues that “landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to manage resident’s expectations”.
37. In this case, the household was left exposed to damp and mould for a prolonged period because of the landlord’s failure to co-ordinate remedial works promptly. The adverse impact on the resident was likely more significant because he had multiple health vulnerabilities. There is no evidence that the landlord used the information it held about the resident’s health conditions to inform its approach.
38. The landlord did not consider the impact its inaction had on the resident’s living conditions, or the time and effort he spent pursuing the matter. The recommended works remained outstanding for more than18 months after the landlord identified them as necessary.
39. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord considered moving the resident to temporary accommodation while it carried out remedial works. Doing so would have been appropriate and in line with its damp and mould assessment. It states the landlord provides temporary accommodation and ensures that residents are in an appropriate environment while structural works, or any other works which do not allow for the resident to stay in their property are being carried out.
40. Due to the significant delays to works being completed, poor communication and the lack of consideration of alternative temporary accommodation, we have made a finding of severe maladministration. This also considers the vulnerabilities of the household. The landlord did not resolve the matter within its internal complaints process and did not take sufficient steps to investigate and repair the leak from the flat above. This likely contributed to the development and worsening of damp and mould in the resident’s property, first reported in June 2024.
41. The landlord delayed unnecessarily in completing the identified repairs and did not take proper account of the resident’s vulnerabilities, which were likely to be directly affected by the conditions in his home. Although the landlord has taken some steps to address the damp and mould, the resident continues to report persistent issues that he says are affecting his health and quality of life.
42. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £2,164 in compensation. This is £1464 for loss of use of the kitchen from 18 November 2024, when the resident first reported damp, mould, and a suspected leak, minus a 40-day reasonable repair period. And £500 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance where there has been significant adverse effect on the resident, due to failings identified.

43. 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.
44. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
45. The resident made his complaint on 4 March 2025. This was acknowledged by the landlord on time, and it issued its response on 11 March 2025 which was compliant with the Code.
46. The stage 1 response did not provide an adequate apology for the 4-month delay in carrying out the repairs identified in the November 2024 damp and mould inspection. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for £100 to £1000 in cases where issues remain unresolved more than 4 weeks after being reported. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation to the resident.
47. The landlord directed the resident to its personal injury claim process for financial compensation, which was appropriate. However, it did not adequately acknowledge the impact that the conditions and delays had on the resident’s existing physical and mental health conditions.
48. The resident escalated his complaint on 21 July 2025, and the landlord acknowledged this on time. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 28 August 2025, which was 7 working days late and not compliant with its complaint policy or the Code.
49. The landlord apologised for the delays and distress the resident experienced, but it did not acknowledge the effect these issues had on his existing health conditions or show that it had considered this.
50. Although the landlord appropriately apologised for the delays and for failing to complete repairs in a timely manner, its complaint responses did not help move the remedy for the damp and mould forward. As a result, the landlord’s apology and lack of compensation did not adequately put things right.
51. We are aware that after the landlord completed its complaints process, the resident continued to report damp and mould issues, resulting in him making another formal complaint on 25 September 2025.
52. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £200 in compensation. This amount reflects the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s inadequate responses during the complaint process. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy.

Learning

53. The landlord should ensure it takes residents’ health vulnerabilities into account and consider whether its failings have adversely affected any existing conditions.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

54. The repair logs lacked sufficient detail, making it difficult to see when the landlord arranged follow up actions or completed repairs. The landlord should ensure its contractor work logs accurately record the work completed at each repair visit and clearly state the reasons for any cancelled or rebooked appointments.

Communication

55. The resident had to chase the landlord repeatedly for updates on planned repairs. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s email on 19 April 2025. In line with its damp and mould policy, the landlord needed to maintain regular contact with the resident.