Lancaster City Council (202452944)

Background

1. The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in her property, saying it had not done enough to resolve the problem. She feels the compensation it has offered is not proportionate to the impact on her and her daughter’s health.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould
   2. no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

5. The landlord acted in line with its repairs policy timescale in response to the resident’s report of damp and mould. It acknowledged a failing in following up with its promise to arrange fogging of the property. It apologised and offered appropriate compensation.

Complaint handling

6.  The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints policy at both stages.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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 have not considered

7. The resident raised complaints to the landlord about damp and mould between 2021 and 2023. We have not seen evidence the landlord formally responded to these. It acknowledged this in its stage 2 response of 29 April 2025. However, we have also not seen evidence the resident pursued these complaints, or the mould issue, with the landlord after December 2023, until she raised a new complaint in February 2025.
8. We would not consider a complaint that a resident has not referred to our Service within a reasonable period of the landlord responding or failing to respond to it. We have considered how much time passed between the resident raising concerns to the landlord in December 2023 and raising a new complaint in February 2025. We have not seen evidence the resident raised any damp and mould repairs or further complaints during this 14-month period.
9. We have also considered that the resident has told us she suffered a bereavement in February 2024. We appreciate this would have been a difficult time and a complaint would not have been her priority. However, if the damp and mould were a persistent issue we would expect to see evidence she had continued to pursue this. We have therefore only considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould from February 2025 onwards. However, we have mentioned previous reports and repairs for contextual background to the current complaint.
10. The resident has told us she and her family have worsening health conditions because of the landlord’s inaction and delays. We cannot say if the landlord’s action or inaction has directly caused a detrimental impact on health. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court where medical experts can look at independent evidence. We can look at whether the landlord considered the resident and her vulnerabilities, and the distress and inconvenience caused by any failings.

Damp and mould

11. The landlord’s records show that the resident raised concerns about mould in her home in November 2021. It conducted an inspection the same month. It subsequently completed repairs and further inspections during 2022 and 2023. This included it moving the resident and her family into temporary accommodation for a period to allow for it to undertake extensive works. The records indicate it fully completed this work in February 2023.
12. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 February 2025 to let it know mould had returned in her bathroom. She asked if it would conduct an inspection. She contacted it again on 15 February 2025 and asked it to raise a complaint. She was unhappy that mould had reappeared less than 2 years after it fitted a new bathroom. She told it she was concerned about cleaning it off as she felt she may release spores into the atmosphere. She said that her daughter had suffered ill health since moving in and her own health was now becoming an issue.
13. In its stage 1 response of 3 March 2025 the landlord said it had inspected the property on 24 February 2025 and found evidence of black mould around the bath. It had raised an appointment for 7 March 2025 to replace the sealant and subsequently completed the work on this date. It completed this work within its policy timescale of 28 days for routine repairs, which was reasonable. We have seen no evidence there was mould present anywhere else in the property, so the landlord took reasonable action to resolve the reported issue.
14. In its stage 1 response the landlord also said it would arrange for the local authority’s Environmental Health team to undertaking fogging to get rid of mould spores. The landlord did not provide any explanation of why it believed this action was needed.
15. In its stage 2 response the landlord explained that it had made changes to improve its policies, including its vulnerability and damp and mould policies. These were positive steps for it to take. It acknowledged that it had not been in touch about fogging, explaining that the Environmental Health team no longer carried this out. It offered £250 compensation for this failing and said it would arrange for an external contractor to do this, which was reasonable.
16. On 2 June 2025, the landlord asked the resident for dates she was available to make an appointment for fogging. She said she was unavailable for this at the time and would let it know when this changed. On 18 August 2025 she said she was concerned about the landlord choosing the contractor, and it said it could explore alternative quotes. She told it she would look at the contractor’s procedures and come back to it with a decision. We have seen no evidence of a hazard that needed immediate action, so it was reasonable to leave it up to the resident to move this forward. On 4 December 2025 she told it she did not think fogging would address the root cause of damp and mould.
17. The landlord conducted a further inspection on 11 December 2025. It found the property to be in sound condition. It noted that all repairs it completed in 2022 and 2023 were still intact and in good order and it did not identify any hazards. It said that it did not need to carry out any remedial work. It said the resident had referred to a gel test she had arranged herself to assess for mould. It noted she had sent this to an unaccredited US based laboratory and explained in detail why this was not reliable.
18. The landlord acted promptly in conducting an inspection when the resident reported the mould in February 2025. It found no evidence of an underlying damp and mould problem and quickly undertook work to replace the sealant around the bath. When the resident continued to raise concerns about the presence of damp and mould it conducted a further detailed inspection which did not identify damp or mould. It acted fairly to ensure the home was hazard free.
19. The resident has recently told us that she remains concerned about mould spores stemming from the historic mould on surfaces and items within the home. We have made a recommendation that the landlord revisits its discussion with her about fogging the home, given that it previously agreed to do this.

20. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord acknowledged the complaint the working day after the resident raised it (15 February to 17 February 2025) – in line with its complaints policy timescale of 5 working days
    2. it sent its stage 1 response 10 working days after the acknowledgement (17 February to 3 March 2025) – in line with its policy timescale of 10 working days
    3. it acknowledged the resident’s escalation request after 3 working days (26 March to 31 March 2025) – in line with its policy timescale of 5 working days
    4. it sent its stage 2 response 20 working days after the acknowledgement (31 March to 29 April 2025) – in line with its policy timescale of 20 working days

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord’s records were adequate for it to make the correct assessment in relation to repairs.

Communication

22. The landlord’s communication in this case was good. It contacted her to try to arrange follow on work but allowed her to control the communication when she told it she needed more time due to personal issues.