South Cambridgeshire District Council (202443247)

Decision
Case ID	202443247
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	South Cambridgeshire District Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	14 January 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom bungalow under an agreement dated January 2022. They raised concerns about damp and mould in the property, which they said had been an issue since the start of their tenancy. They also reported a lack of communication from the landlord in response to their concerns.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about 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. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp and mould

6. We found that the landlord:
   1. unreasonably delayed in raising recommended work following a damp and mould survey in November 2023.
   2. did not maintain oversight of its contractors to ensure that remedial work was completed in a timely manner in line with its repair policy timescales.
   3. failed to acknowledge, apologise or offer redress for the delays in either of its complaint responses.
   4. failed to evidence that it has resolved all the issues the resident complained about.

Complaint handling

7. We found that the landlord:
   1. missed an opportunity to log, acknowledge, investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns at an earlier date.
   2. issued its stage 2 complaint response outside the required timescales.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order   The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 12 February 2026
2	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident £680 made up as follows:   £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures in its handling of their reports of damp and mould. £80 to recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures in its complaint handling.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 12 February 2026
3	Inspection order   The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection should be completed by a qualified surveyor from either the landlord or its chosen contractor.   If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the interior and exterior of the property and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of the ongoing damp and mould. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 12 February 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss the damage to his belongings, including how he can make a claim or whether a claim is already being considered by its insurers.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14 April 2023	A contractor completed a damp and mould survey of the resident’s property. It found damp and mould in several rooms and made recommendations for works in the kitchen, bathroom and bedroom and further investigations to the roof and downpipe.
3 November 2023	The landlord instructed a contractor to complete a second damp and mould survey of the resident’s property. It carried out mould treatment during the visit and said a new radiator was needed in the bedroom and the loft insulation needed to be removed and relayed.
15 April 2024 – 30 April 2024	The resident contacted the landlord on 3 occasions in April 2024. They reported ongoing damp and mould and said they felt that the landlord did not care. They expressed concerns over the impact on their health.
15 May 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about ongoing damp and mould issues. They said contractors had attended their property 3 times in respect of the issue, but it had not been resolved. They also said they had contacted the landlord several times recently but had not received a response.
28 May 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. This said: The recommended work from the April 2023 survey was completed in May 2023. Further reports were made after this so a contractor re-attended to adjust an extractor fan. The landlord could not find a record that the works from the November 2023 inspection went ahead, so had now raised them to a contractor. The landlord would instruct the contractor to complete any follow-on works as required and ensure that all work was followed up.
28 May 2024 – 17 July 2024	The landlord raised multiple works orders related to the damp and mould, including to: Install a larger radiator in the bathroom. Remove and relay the loft insulation. Look at the porch flat roof for any potential link to the damp. Check the cavity wall insulation. Carry out a mould wash to any mould-affected areas.
18 June 2024	The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He explained that he was unhappy that the landlord had failed to act on his reports of damp and mould. The resident stated that it seemed a very slow process to get things done and he was concerned about the ongoing impact on his health.
18 July 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. This said: Work to the loft insulation had been completed, and an appointment to upgrade the bedroom radiator was booked in for 18 July 2024. The landlord had instructed a contractor to carry out a mould wash to any affected areas following a roof leak. It said this work would be booked in as soon as possible. The resident’s cavity walls had been checked and found to be sufficiently insulated. All recommendations following the most recent damp and mould survey had been covered. The landlord’s damp and mould team would be in touch with the resident to discuss the lingering damp smell.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate their complaint. They said they had been dealing with damp and mould for over 3 years, and the landlord had not apologised or compensated them for the delayed resolution. They wanted the landlord to compensate them for belongings that had been damaged by the damp and mould.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

8. The resident has referred to concerns over a cancelled air test in their correspondence with us. As this issue occurred in 2025 and did not form part of the resident’s complaint, we have not investigated any further. The landlord must be given an opportunity to investigate any new issues through its internal complaint processes. The resident can raise this as a new complaint with the landlord if required.

What we did investigate

9. It is unclear from the documentary evidence available when the resident first reported damp and mould in their property. The earliest report provided is an email from the resident to the landlord dated 6 February 2023, in which the resident requested an update on damp and mould works. The landlord confirmed internally that works were booked for 8 February 2023, however there is no evidence to confirm what these works entailed or whether they were completed.
10. The landlord raised a works order for a contractor to inspect the resident’s property on 21 March 2023. The contractor attended on 14 April 2023, within the landlord’s 20-day timescale for non-urgent repair issues. Based on the recommendations from the inspection, the landlord raised a works order for mould treatment and installation of 2 new extractor fans on 4 May 2023. It is unclear from the evidence available when this work was completed. We therefore cannot assess whether the landlord acted in a timely manner.
11. The resident reported a reoccurrence of damp and mould on 25 October 2023. They said they felt that the new extractor fans had not been installed properly. The landlord instructed its contractor to return on a recall visit which took place on 3 November 2023. The contractor also completed a second inspection during this visit, from which it recommended remedial works in the bedroom and loft. This was reasonable and timely following the resident’s new reports.
12. There was no further contact between the landlord and the resident until April 2024, during which time the resident reported worsening mould. They chased contact from the landlord on 3 occasions. The landlord requested updates internally but failed to update the resident as requested, which inconvenienced them.
13. The landlord failed to action any of the recommendations made in the November 2023 survey until May 2024, 6 months later. This was an unreasonable and significant delay, the reasons for which were not explained to the resident. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged its failure to raise the works when it was put on notice of the issues and said it had since booked them in. While this showed the landlord tried to put things right for the resident, it failed to acknowledge or apologise for the failing. Given the length of time that had passed and the resident’s concerns over the impact on their health, the landlord’s response did not meaningfully consider the level of distress and inconvenience caused.
14. The landlord’s repair logs show that it raised a job for its contractor to redo the loft insulation and install a new bathroom radiator at the resident’s property on 28 May 2024. The recommendations from the inspection in November 2023 were clear that a new bedroom radiator needed to be installed. It is therefore unclear why the landlord raised a job for the bathroom instead of the bedroom. If the landlord had identified a need for a new bathroom radiator, it would have been reasonable for it to clarify its position as to why.
15. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when the loft insulation work was completed. We are therefore unable to assess whether it acted according to its repair policy timescales.
16. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said its contractor was attending to the bathroom radiator on 18 July 2024. This was 37 working days after the work was raised, which was significantly outside of the landlord’s 20-day timeframe for non-urgent repairs. There is no evidence that the landlord maintained oversight of its contractor’s actions to ensure that the work was booked in a timely manner. Given that there had already been a significant delay in the recommended work being raised, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to take steps to ensure that it was booked in as early as possible.
17. The landlord booked in a mould wash to all affected areas on 17 July 2024. It is unclear when this work was completed. We are therefore unable to assess whether the landlord acted appropriately in line with its repair policy timescales.
18. The landlord has taken some steps to remedy the damp and mould in the resident’s property by arranging inspections and remedial works. However, these have not been actioned in a timely manner throughout the duration of the issue, and the landlord has failed to put things right in a manner proportionate to the impact on the resident.
19. The resident continued to report concerns over damp and mould to the landlord after it provided its stage 2 response. The landlord instructed a contractor to complete a further mould wash to affected areas in April 2025. The resident has since confirmed to this Service that the damp and mould is still ongoing. We have therefore made orders in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles of be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

20. On 15 May 2024, the resident submitted a complaint through the relevant channel on the landlord’s website. The landlord accepted this contact as an official complaint. According to the documentary evidence available, the resident emailed the landlord on 23 April 2024 expressing the same concerns that they later raised in their complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this email. Furthermore, it is unclear why the landlord did not treat this email as a complaint. The landlord’s policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction” and is accepting of email contact where a complaint is clearly intended. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to log, acknowledge, investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns at an earlier date. This is a shortfall in the landlord’s complaint handling.
21. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 28 May 2024, 8 working days after the resident’s formal complaint submission. This was appropriate in line with the landlord’s policy timescales and the Code.
22. The landlord’s stage 2 response was due on 16 July 2024. The landlord issued its response on 18 July 2024. This was 2 days outside the required timescales. This is a minor shortfall in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

23. The landlord’s complaint responses did not meaningfully address the failures identified in this investigation or put things right for the resident. The landlord missed an opportunity to identify learning points to address internally. It would have been in line with our dispute resolution principle for the landlord to set out failures and areas of learning to the resident within its internal complaints procedure.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord has not provided evidence of all completed remedial works. Some of its repair records are unclear and do not detail the outcome of the works completed, or the date of completion. At times, this has impacted our ability to assess its actions.
25. The landlord initially failed to provide a copy of the resident’s complaint escalation request, which impacted our ability to assess the landlord’s stage 2 response. The landlord also failed initially to provide evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s complaints at each stage in line with the Code.

Communication

26. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s requests for updates at several points throughout the duration of the issue. The landlord’s communication was inconsistent and demonstrated a lack of oversight over its contractors.